PDA

View Full Version : World War II vs. Today



Hook Dem
08-25-2006, 12:14 PM
THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD. NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2006.



This is an EXCELLENT essay. well thought out and presented.



Historical Significance


Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California.


Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.



At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.



Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.



France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.



America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.



Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering slipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.



Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.



Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.



Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.



All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.



There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.



The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.



There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.



If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.



If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.



We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.



Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.



(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.



Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass detruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.



(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.



World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.



World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.



The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion,which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.



60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.



The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.



The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.



If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.



We have four options:



1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.



2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).



3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.



4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.



If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.



The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.



Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.



Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.



The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany



World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.



The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than
4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.



But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).



It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.



"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.



Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?



The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 12:21 PM
THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD. NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2006.



This is an EXCELLENT essay. well thought out and presented.



Historical Significance


Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California.


Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.



At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.



Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.



France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.



America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.



Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering slipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.



Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.



Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.



Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.



All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.



There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.



The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.



There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.



If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.



If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.



We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.



Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.



(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.



Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass detruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.



(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.



World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.



World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.



The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion,which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.



60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.



The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.



The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.



If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.



We have four options:



1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.



2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).



3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.



4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.



If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.



The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.



Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.



Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.



The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany



World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.



The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than
4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.



But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).



It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.



"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.



Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?



The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~


I oppose Iraq war and not the war on terror. Since we can't kill 100 million people military action alone won't sove the problem. Why is this so hard to grasp? I enjoy the American left generalization...usually when you need to generailize you have lost the argument.. by the way there are manby conservatives who oppose the Iraq war so I guess I could take the liberty that the conservatives in the country need to be included with the 'left'.

This notion that Iraq is now a front line.. If the insurgency is primarily elements of Iraqi civilians then how has it become a front line in the war on terror? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Iraq has become the front line for insurgency?

101A
08-25-2006, 12:33 PM
I oppose Iraq war and not the war on terror. Since we can't kill 100 million people military action alone won't sove the problem. Why is this so hard to grasp? I enjoy the American left generalization...usually when you need to generailize you have lost the argument.. by the way there are manby conservatives who oppose the Iraq war so I guess I could take the liberty that the conservatives in the country need to be included with the 'left'.

This notion that Iraq is now a front line.. If the insurgency is primarily elements of Iraqi civilians then how has it become a front line in the war on terror? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Iraq has become the front line for insurgency?


How would you have us fight the war on terror?

You don't believe the stories about insurgents streaming into Iraq from Syria & Iran?

101A
08-25-2006, 12:35 PM
The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Pretty pragmatic, that.

ShackO
08-25-2006, 12:43 PM
I oppose Iraq war and not the war on terror. Since we can't kill 100 million people military action alone won't sove the problem. Why is this so hard to grasp? I enjoy the American left generalization...usually when you need to generailize you have lost the argument.. by the way there are manby conservatives who oppose the Iraq war so I guess I could take the liberty that the conservatives in the country need to be included with the 'left'.

This notion that Iraq is now a front line.. If the insurgency is primarily elements of Iraqi civilians then how has it become a front line in the war on terror? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Iraq has become the front line for insurgency?

Exactly…………

You have the likes of Pat Buchanan going off about the stupid war before it began….

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 12:46 PM
How would you have us fight the war on terror?

You don't believe the stories about insurgents streaming into Iraq from Syria & Iran?


I agree with everything Bush has done except the Iraq war. I would attacked al-qaeda in afghanistan and made sure I caught Osama. Secondly I would have sat with Saddam and explained something to him. The rules have changed since 9/11 and you have not been cooperating. I need to make sure you do not give wmds to terrorists. If I get one rumor that you are copperating with ANY terrorist organization in the world I will annihalate you. In the meantime I start to build my forces in Afghanistan and set up base to let Iraq know that you can be there overnight if need be. I would have gotten together with every player in the region and give them an ultimatum 'y'er either with us or against us'. Without invading Iraq you do not bring the muslims who were on the fence after to 9/11 into the fight. You can disagree with me if you want but since we invaded Iraq there are more people who have joined the fight. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? All along building up my forces in Afghanistan and in the mean time create your islamic democracy. I ensure that that my domestic agencies are working together and track anyone in the States who could be here because of terrorism.

I tell Iran that I will not allow you to have a WMD. End of story. I will use military action to replace you without a moments notice. This is not possible now because of our liberation experiment in Iraq..

Yonivore
08-25-2006, 01:03 PM
I agree with everything Bush has done except the Iraq war. I would attacked al-qaeda in afghanistan and made sure I caught Osama.
And when al Qaeda starts pouring in to Iraq -- prior to our invasion, mind you -- what would have done?

And when you discovered al Qaeda was using bases in Iraq to train terrorists -- what would you have done?

Just because we have a separate history with Iraq, dating back to their invasion of Kuwait, doesn't mean they are immune to the global war on terror if they start harboring and aiding terrorists.


Secondly I would have sat with Saddam and explained something to him. The rules have changed since 9/11 and you have not been cooperating.
I believe there were at least two UNSC resolutions between 9/11 and March '03 telling him he'd better start cooperating or face severe consequences.


I need to make sure you do not give wmds to terrorists. If I get one rumor that you are copperating with ANY terrorist organization in the world I will annihalate you.
That's what was done. In 21 days.


In the meantime I start to build my forces in Afghanistan and set up base to let Iraq know that you can be there overnight if need be.
I actually believe that's what we're doing with Iran. But, that's another thread.


I would have gotten together with every player in the region and give them an ultimatum 'y'er either with us or against us'. Without invading Iraq you do not bring the muslims who were on the fence after to 9/11 into the fight. You can disagree with me if you want but since we invaded Iraq there are more people who have joined the fight. Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
Like who? Iran? We've been fighting Iranian proxies for a few decades now. Iraq has forced them to expose themselves as the puppeteer behind most of the Jihadis of the world. And, that's costing Iran.

Look at recent statements from Egypt about Syria (an Iranian proxy).


All along building up my forces in Afghanistan and in the mean time create your islamic democracy.
Being done.


I ensure that that my domestic agencies are working together and track anyone in the States who could be here because of terrorism.
Good luck with the New York Times exposing every method you try to use in this pursuit.


I tell Iran that I will not allow you to have a WMD. End of story. I will use military action to replace you without a moments notice. This is not possible now because of our liberation experiment in Iraq..
I think it is more possible because of our presence in Iraq. And, I believe this is the position of the Bush Administration -- Iran will not be allowed to become a nuclear power. End of Story.

See you're closer to the administration than you believe.

101A
08-25-2006, 01:04 PM
If I get one rumor that you are copperating with ANY terrorist organization in the world I will annihalate you.

One Rumor?

There was more than one "rumor" - and now a couple of verified meetings with AlQueda (not that Saddam was a MAJOR player in world terrorism); but it seems he DID meet your limited threshold for tolerance of such behavior.

Regardless, had the WH progressed with your plan, don't you figure Saddam would have crossed the line (again), meaning we would be in EXACTLY the same spot now (a couple of months removed)?


This is not possible now because of our liberation experiment in Iraq..

Not possible how? Because Americans have no tolerance for war, much less tolerance for things like the draft, rationing, etc.... The simililarities between now & the 30's then seem much more significant, our country able to do no more than take on a couple of small (relatively) ME nations, and at that are TOOO extended.

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 01:11 PM
One Rumor?

There was more than one "rumor" - and now a couple of verified meetings with AlQueda (not that Saddam was a MAJOR player in world terrorism); but it seems he DID meet your limited threshold for tolerance of such behavior.

Regardless, had the WH progressed with your plan, don't you figure Saddam would have crossed the line (again), meaning we would be in EXACTLY the same spot now (a couple of months removed)?



Not possible how? Because Americans have no tolerance for war, much less tolerance for things like the draft, rationing, etc.... The simililarities between now & the 30's then seem much more significant, our country able to do no more than take on a couple of small (relatively) ME nations, and at that are TOOO extended.


Well apparently the difference between poeple like you and me is that War is my absolute last resort. Yours seems to be lets start wars with no real exit plan and then demonize people who don't follow your plan.

101A
08-25-2006, 01:22 PM
Well apparently the difference between poeple like you and me is that War is my absolute last resort. Yours seems to be lets start wars with no real exit plan and then demonize people who don't follow your plan.


What was the exit strategy in WWII - do you think Roosevelt, Truman & Eisenhauer sat around wringing there hands about what they would do AFTER they defeated the Fascists?

What should we exit? The Middle East? NOW!!???

The authors whole point is THAT is where the battle is being fought - it is modern-day Britain. And you want to surrender?

Re-read the line about what happens to pacifists.

Yonivore
08-25-2006, 01:33 PM
Well apparently the difference between poeple like you and me is that War is my absolute last resort. Yours seems to be lets start wars with no real exit plan and then demonize people who don't follow your plan.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif
If, after this happened, I got a whiff of a rumor that some prick dictator halfway around the globe was even thinking of helping facilitate another such event; I'd take him out.

With Saddam Hussein, who had defied 17 UNSC resolutions over 12 years; who had committed human and environmental atrocities in his own country during that time; who had repeatedly fired on coalition military personnel flying the AGREED-TO no-fly zone; who was making a mockery of the Oil-for-food program and, in doing so, diverted funds to weapons programs; who was SEEKING uranium from whatever source; who retained the scientists and equipment necessary to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program; who stockpiled chemical precursors (desguised as way more fertilizer than he needed); who shut his country down in 1998 so he could go about whatever he was going about; it was a no-brainer.

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=101A]What was the exit strategy in WWII - do you think Roosevelt, Truman & Eisenhauer sat around wringing there hands about what they would do AFTER they defeated the Fascists?

We defeated Germany and Japan came home. The exit plan was to debilitate their militaries and ensure they never become a threat again.

By the way neither of those states had these groups of folks going after eachother for 1,000 years and to assume that we could ride in and be greeted as liberators was woefully wrong and simply stupid.

I know you are one of the 'stay the course' crowd but can you give me any idea how many dead GIs is enough? With Vietnam we stopped a 58,000 and we decided that was enough. We broke Iraq and now we are going to pay the price in blood and money for what? I find it hilarious to hear it from the bush followers that we fight for our freedom in Iraq and the freedom isn't free.. yet no one has been able to correlate fighting in Iraq to our freedom. So other than keeping our fingers crossed that at some point the Iraqis will be able to stand on their own but with my guess we will be lucky to beging to get out of there within 10 yrs...

What should we exit? The Middle East? NOW!!???

What's your plan? Kill 200 million people?

The authors whole point is THAT is where the battle is being fought - it is modern-day Britain. And you want to surrender?

Re-read the line about what happens to pacifists.[/
There is a difference between using military force when it is necessary and using it just becuase you can..

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 01:55 PM
One Rumor?

There was more than one "rumor" - and now a couple of verified meetings with AlQueda (not that Saddam was a MAJOR player in world terrorism); but it seems he DID meet your limited threshold for tolerance of such behavior.

Regardless, had the WH progressed with your plan, don't you figure Saddam would have crossed the line (again), meaning we would be in EXACTLY the same spot now (a couple of months removed)?



Not possible how? Because Americans have no tolerance for war, much less tolerance for things like the draft, rationing, etc.... The simililarities between now & the 30's then seem much more significant, our country able to do no more than take on a couple of small (relatively) ME nations, and at that are TOOO extended.


This has to be my favorite...maybe, just maybe Americans see the need for war.. but a necessary one.

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 01:59 PM
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif
If, after this happened, I got a whiff of a rumor that some prick dictator halfway around the globe was even thinking of helping facilitate another such event; I'd take him out.

With Saddam Hussein, who had defied 17 UNSC resolutions over 12 years; who had committed human and environmental atrocities in his own country during that time; who had repeatedly fired on coalition military personnel flying the AGREED-TO no-fly zone; who was making a mockery of the Oil-for-food program and, in doing so, diverted funds to weapons programs; who was SEEKING uranium from whatever source; who retained the scientists and equipment necessary to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program; who stockpiled chemical precursors (desguised as way more fertilizer than he needed); who shut his country down in 1998 so he could go about whatever he was going about; it was a no-brainer.



was saddam a direct threat or not? did he have the capability to strike his neighbors or any of our allies? If your justification for war is simply someone's intentions to harm us? then we will eventually have to go to war with almost every country on earth..

101A
08-25-2006, 02:06 PM
GGA:

You haven't defined what YOU believe is a necessary war; although Afghanistan is, and Iraq would have been had Saddam just done ONE MORE THING wrong.

I don't know how many people in the ME are going to have to die; but I'm betting it's alot, based on the numbers that dance in the street when planes fly into our buildings (and that was BEFORE we actually started fighting the war).

I refuse to buy into the notion that we ought to wait until the radical Islamists have ahold of enough of the planet that they are an IMMEDIATE threat to World domination in order for us to be justified in starting (and attempting to finish) a war with them; but that seems to be your desire.

George Gervin's Afro
08-25-2006, 02:14 PM
GGA:

You haven't defined what YOU believe is a necessary war; although Afghanistan is, and Iraq would have been had Saddam just done ONE MORE THING wrong.

I don't know how many people in the ME are going to have to die; but I'm betting it's alot, based on the numbers that dance in the street when planes fly into our buildings (and that was BEFORE we actually started fighting the war).

I refuse to buy into the notion that we ought to wait until the radical Islamists have ahold of enough of the planet that they are an IMMEDIATE threat to World domination in order for us to be justified in starting (and attempting to finish) a war with them; but that seems to be your desire.


We cannot kill everyone and creating more of these people seem to be defeating the purpose. Whether you agree or not the Iraq war has inflamed many folks who were on the sidelines and now wnat to wage jihad on us. Bush rushed to war and along the way arrogantly brushed aside anyone who questioned his rationale for getting into Iraq so quickly. Now that many of the reasons why we told the world the necessity for war was false ,or inaccurate ,has left us more vulnerable. We can't do this alone and will need help but thumbing our nose and publicly dissing those who don't agree with us would not have been the way to go in my opinion. I will fight for my country and sacrifice my life for her however I refuse die for nothing.

Yonivore
08-25-2006, 02:21 PM
We defeated Germany and Japan came home. The exit plan was to debilitate their militaries and ensure they never become a threat again.
Okay, you do realize we've been in Germany, non-stop, since the fall of Berlin, right? And, that there was approximately 5 to 7 years of Nazi insurgency following the formal cessation of hostilities, right?

Japan, on the other hand, was blown into submission and given a plan for how we wanted them to govern themselves. But, even at that, we stuck around for a bit to make sure they didn't change the rules.


By the way neither of those states had these groups of folks going after each other for 1,000 years...
How much Japanese and Germanic history do you know?


...and to assume that we could ride in and be greeted as liberators was woefully wrong and simply stupid.
Sometimes, it just beats the alternative.


I know you are one of the 'stay the course' crowd but can you give me any idea how many dead GIs is enough? With Vietnam we stopped a 58,000 and we decided that was enough. We broke Iraq and now we are going to pay the price in blood and money for what? I find it hilarious to hear it from the bush followers that we fight for our freedom in Iraq and the freedom isn't free.. yet no one has been able to correlate fighting in Iraq to our freedom. So other than keeping our fingers crossed that at some point the Iraqis will be able to stand on their own but with my guess we will be lucky to beging to get out of there within 10 yrs...
That would still be sooner than we got out of Europe after WWII. And, how did defeating Nazism ensure our freedom? Did you disagree with our involvement in WWII?


What's your plan? Kill 200 million people?
I think the plan is to pacify the region. What's your plan?


There is a difference between using military force when it is necessary and using it just becuase you can..
Yes, there is. Now, defining when it is necessary seems to be your problem.

Yonivore
08-25-2006, 02:24 PM
was saddam a direct threat or not? did he have the capability to strike his neighbors or any of our allies? If your justification for war is simply someone's intentions to harm us? then we will eventually have to go to war with almost every country on earth..
I believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of a direct threat than any other country on the planet with the possible exception of Iran. That made it the most likely next front in the war on terror.

RandomGuy
08-25-2006, 04:31 PM
There you go again...

Set up a false set of choices based on a flawed understanding, and then blame liberals somehow.

Yawn. :sleep

Where have I seen THAT one...?

Oh yeah, in the marching orders given to the faithful by the whitehouse.

Regurgitate talking point A, lather, rinse, repeat.

RandomGuy
08-25-2006, 04:43 PM
Let's start by taking a whack at the false premises.

Not all Al Qaeda members are wahabbists. It is even very possible for many who aren't muslim at all to hate the US.

The "war" on terror will not be won by military action. It will be won by improving the lives of the billions in the developing world. The prize will not be won by killing, it will will be won by the very liberal ideals that made the US the great nation that it is today.

Iraq isn't sucking al Qaeda types into a killing zone. It is creating them by allowing the al Qaeda ideology a world-wide audience for its propaganda, and the administration's bungling has only fueled that.

For every al Qaeda type that is killed in Iraq, the pictures of abu gharaib, the shameful Gitmo situation, and a host of other stupid things this administration has caused create new ones.

Pfft. Gotta go. This well-worn and threadbare attempt at villifying the left is easily seen for what it is: unfounded and anti-thetical to actually fighting terror.

ChumpDumper
08-25-2006, 04:45 PM
We actually used to declare war back then.

Nbadan
08-26-2006, 03:20 AM
I believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of a direct threat than any other country on the planet with the possible exception of Iran. That made it the most likely next front in the war on terror.

A bigger threat than Pakistan? The nation that Osama fled too and the nation which the 911 commission back-traced financing for the perpetrators of the attack?

:rolleyes