good read - IMO

arroyobuck

Member
Messages
93
For those who have not already read this I thought it is worth posting.


This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented.
Historical Significance

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 WW I and throughout the
depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II 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, for 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 sipping loses 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 destruction, 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.


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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California . Please
consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school,
college and university as it contains information about the American past
that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is
completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied
the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes
to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime
targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and
beliefs that are special interest agenda driven
 
interesting perspective.

"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."

Seems to me that this administraion has already taken a huge cut out of what it use to mean to be the United States of America. By this guys logic, Bush could be considerd a terrorist and must be on the side of the Jihad, as he's done more to infringe on our rights than than Jihad, at least in this country . . .

Take for example Bush's drackonian and parternalistic approach to western public lands managment. He's the king, there's no "local" out here any more. Local is big oil, and big corperate business. Local aint the rancher or the farmer any more under this administraion. This administraion is doing a very good job tuning over what it once ment to be an american.

If you disagree please give me ONE good example of how Bush has enhanced our nations constituion or its bill or rights. . .
 
"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."

My favorite part of this essay.

T, your responce is lame. You can not possibly compare the President of the United States with terrorist. It makes you look like an imbisal and (Iknow you dislike this term)a hater. The President, any President of the U.S. for that matter can not be put on the same level as a terrorist. You become discredited once you make statements like that T. Get a grip. Come correct.
 
Argue all you want about it the fact is even by our own government sources we are making more terrorist than we're killing. yesterday British military leaders were calling Blair and Bush's plan in Iraq a " Nieve failure" and want their troops out of Iraq by years end. puff it up all you want what we're doing is not working plain and simple. many say it's making matters worse, I agree.
 
You guys T, dude, can argue all you want about side issues. But try to focus for a few moments. The jist of this essay is that we can fight the jihadists over there or over here, but make no mistake, fight them we will. You guys always throw up red herrings to avoid the logic of what is being said.

Example T, your talking about western lands and Bush being a terrorist? Where did that come from? This essay is about the eventual world domination of Islam if The Jihadists get their way.

Dude, How do you feel about the fact that your kids will be worshiping allah if they win? Are you so focused on your narrow agenda that your willing to sacrafice your kids freedom to prove Bush wrong?

You guys are hopeless. Take off your blinders and re-read the article.

Oh well it takes all kinds.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-06 AT 03:10PM (MST)[p]
Oh no, the sky if falling the sky is falling. . . O no, jihad is going to take over the world and I might have to sell my atv.

Moreover,

"T, your responce is lame. You can not possibly compare the President of the United States with terrorist. It makes you look like an imbisal and (Iknow you dislike this term)a hater. The President, any President of the U.S. for that matter can not be put on the same level as a terrorist. You become discredited once you make statements like that T. Get a grip. Come correct."


BUT ITS OKAY FOR BUSH TO CALL THE DEMOCRATS TERRORISTS! In addition, I'm not saying I think Bush is a terrorist, i'm using the summary to come to a different conclusion. Can you really say that based on the conclusion, I'm wrong? I dont think so. I may be wrong, but not based on the guys conclusion.

Good grief, you guys would let Eddy Haskell date your daughters and likely even pay for dinner . . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-06 AT 03:07PM (MST)[p]T,

Take a deep breath. :) When did GWB call the democrats terrorists?

Take a little read of this article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

You will have to cut and past the URL into your browser. MM won't let the whole address be displayed.

I think the Islamic extremist are a threat to us and our way of life. I have no problem with saying the strategy is dumb or that we need a new direction in Iraq.

Nemont
 
So even though we're losing over there and around the world ( North Korea and Iran ring a bell? ) we press on dispite all indications we're making matters worse? because we don't know what else to do? even monkeys and rats will learn if you shock them hard enough, the far right takes more voltage I guess. the dems will turn up the juice next month, I hope anyway.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-06 AT 03:24PM (MST)[p]ahhh, about a dozen times over the last few weeks. Have you been watching the news? He's associating the dems with the terrorist during his public campaigns. There's no mistaking his intent.

I think they are a threat too, but I do not think its fair to say that we need to freekout as if the sky if falling. The sky is falling has always been reserved for liberals, I hate to see the doomes dayers using the liberal sky is falling platform..

I think that we will be in some kind of battle with islamic extreemest for a very very long time - but, wheres OBL?
 
If you call killing 50 jihadists for every one coalition troop losing, then you must practice the same fuzzy math as John Kerry.
Nanner, nanner, nanner.
 
I still say that U.S. citizens that think like Tfinalshot, huntindude, and zigga will be the downfall of this great country in the near future, if allowed to implement their feelings into the policy of this goverment.
For some unknown reason they have crawled into a hole and hidden their heads and refuse to use their God given common sense and face reality. I for one feel that it is personal greed that drives them and all others of the "Give Me" part of our society.
NO !!!!! I will not debate you three, for you are past the point of being intelligent enought to debate on this issue.

RELH
 
T,
Been gone hunting so couldn't respond. I have searched high and low and cannot find a quote where GWB called the dems terrorists. He has said repeatedly that the are soft of terror.

As much as the Iraq picture is not good and I believe we need a new direction as well I just don't trust Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Clinton, Schumer etc. to do any thing different.

I wish there were a third party, independent of either Dems or Republicans.

Do you know any pro hunting, pro public lands, fiscal conservative, forward thinking, non beholden to a left or right bias candidates running?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-06 AT 04:05PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-06 AT 04:02?PM (MST)

"Seems to me that this administraion has already taken a huge cut out of what it use to mean to be the United States of America."

Oh yeah. I remember. Americans used to be the cut/run/surrender types vis a vis Clintons decision to run from Somalia, Kobar towers, USS Cole, the first WTC attack. Oh and BTW, you want waste? Clinton sent a few of our boys over to Croatia/Bosnia-Herzegovina, in what? '94 because it was found out that genocide was going on. Not nearly at the level Hussien was exterminating his own people. But thats ok, because Bush haters NEED something.... Now that area is under UN control and, yup, we still have troops over there. Wow, why don't we pull these guys home? They are just engaged in a police action now...oh wait! I guess that is what we are doing in Iraq now as well.

"By this guys logic, Bush could be considerd a terrorist and must be on the side of the Jihad, as he's done more to infringe on our rights than than Jihad, at least in this country . . ."

What rights of yours has he infringed on, TF? Did he tap your phones? Is he spying on you? Did he take away your right to free speech? 2nd amendment? Does he force you to worship a certain way? Seriously. If he has infringed on your rights, then hey, we should be hearing about it.

"Take for example Bush's drackonian and parternalistic approach to western public lands managment. He's the king, there's no "local" out here any more. Local is big oil, and big corperate business."

Really? Tell us some examples. I'm curious how Bush has closed off any public lands to you. You can pretty much rest assured that under Clinton, with all the puling, handwringing liberal whack jobs he had in his cabinet inre to the administration of public lands, the threat to you for losing the right to hunt public lands was probably much, much closer.

"Local aint the rancher or the farmer any more under this administraion. This administraion is doing a very good job tuning over what it once ment to be an american."

BS. I've got people that ranch some huge properties here in Nevada and they much prefer the Bush presidency to the Clinton one. Do you think that this "public land" you want to go to individual states, and the difficulties therein, happened on Bush's watch? Do you really think that the monies garnered from public lands swaps, per Harry Reid, are actually going to be a boon to you? Do you seriously think the Dems, who love social programs with tax support, will so easily turn these lands over to your state?

"If you disagree please give me ONE good example of how Bush has enhanced our nations constituion or its bill or rights. . ."

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/bush-administration.pdf#search='Bushsecond%20amendment'

Unless you are wife-beater, you should be pleased with this administrations 2nd amendment policies.

There, thats one! Now, we need to know what Bush has done to your rights.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom