PDA

View Full Version : So a McCainite friend of mind sends me this "essay"..




evadmurd
02-13-2008, 01:08 PM
Would like to get your viewpoints. I know it's long and essentially garbage, but I am not a history buff and really would like some succinct points to rebut it. Thanks all..


Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking 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, who 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 .

The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of 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 . 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 after 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 losses and the near decimation of its Royal 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. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.

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 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

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

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. 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 an d control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, 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 yet known which side 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. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had 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, 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. 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. 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 the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 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.


WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pear l Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US 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 a gain . . a 27-year war.

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism .

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It 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 ally, like 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 to conquer the world.


The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting 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.


OR


4 . 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 possibly 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 civilization 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 everything, 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 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 3,000 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 WW II, the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

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 average American 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? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

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!

apropos
02-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians .

Saddam killed the Iranians at our request. We wanted to get back at Iran for the overthrow of our puppet government in the Shah and also for the hostage crisis in 1979. We sold him weapons and gave him money to do this.

Saddam was not part of 9/11. Bush has said so numerous times. However, we did fund several of the mujahadeen in the Russia/Afghanistan conflict. Like Saddam, yesterday's friend became tomorrow's enemy. Are we seeing a pattern emerge?

Saddam had earlier spurned advances from Bin Laden and AQ due to religious differences. Saddam's presence also created a deadlock in that region - a balance of power between Shiite and Sunni. We removed that balance, and the resulting chaos is because of that power vacuum.



(2) We created a battle

Eisenhower said preemptive war was an invention of Hitler and that he would not take seriously anyone who proposed such a thing. Basically, yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but was he the biggest threat to us? We hear Iran is 'the head of the snake' and that 'Iran has always been funding these attacks on us'. If Iran is so much more dangerous than Iraq, then why didn't we attack Iran instead? Iraq was pretty well locked down by U.N. sanctions in the 90s in any case.


wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

I'm not sure that things like multiculturalism and government-mandated "diversity" are really things I would want to fight for in the first place. How far the republican party has come if they are justifying their military actions as a struggle for diversity?


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.

There is a huge difference between the enemy we faced in World War II and the ones we face post-9/11. One was a conventional army with tanks, manpower, navies, and armies numbering in the thousands to hundreds of thousands. The modern enemy numbers in the tens and hundreds. In WWII and the Cold War, we at least faced an enemy capable of invading, conquering, and occupying our nation. That enemy had in its power the ability to remove our government by force.

Modern-day terrorists have no such capability. Ultimately they can only disrupt daily life. They cannot occupy the country. They might be able to disrupt daily life badly in some scenarios (such as with a nuclear weapon), but the reality is that America, the Bill of Rights, and other facets of America persevere. If you are worried about Europe's "Islam Problem" (which is a reality) happening here, then refer to the talking point of why we shouldn't be fighting for diversity and multiculturalism.


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.

OPEC isn't going to stop selling us oil because then the Arab World loses its livelihood. The only reason terrorist even have the funding for their madrassas is because we buy gas. By buying less gas, we defund the jihadists. And, even if we were cut off of gas tomorrow, the free market will reveal a solution. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

LASTLY:

The whole stated plan of Bin Laden from the beginning was to drive us into bankruptcy. The strategy works. The Russia-Afghanistan conflict ultimately broke Russia's economy and ended the Cold War earlier than it would have otherwise ended. We have also isolated ourselves from the rest of our traditional allies in the West and caused our nation to become rife with dissent on what to do. These were also bin Laden's goals. We took the bait originally set for us, so that could very well be why there haven't 't been any major attacks on U.S. soil for the past few years.

Another question is: if we want to help defend Israel, why do we give billions in aid to the Arab countries every year?

Fyretrohl
02-13-2008, 02:33 PM
LASTLY:

The whole stated plan of Bin Laden from the beginning was to drive us into bankruptcy. The strategy works. The Russia-Afghanistan conflict ultimately broke Russia's economy and ended the Cold War earlier than it would have otherwise ended. We have also isolated ourselves from the rest of our traditional allies in the West and caused our nation to become rife with dissent on what to do. These were also bin Laden's goals. We took the bait originally set for us, so that could very well be why there haven't 't been any major attacks on U.S. soil for the past few years.


Osama learned the lessons we taught him well, huh? Blowback...When you train someone evil to do bad against your enemy and he wins. Then, he turns the same tactics against you. Meanwhile, Russia pulled into its shell to recover and is now growing in power again.

DirtMcGirt
02-13-2008, 02:35 PM
Can you tell ur friend to use the term United States instead of "America"... America means north, central, and south... Other countries can't stand it when we use that term to describe ourselves...

spudea
02-13-2008, 02:45 PM
I agree we are in a war against Islamic extremeism. BUT our present actions in the middle east IS STRENGHTHENING our enemy!

Yes we are killing bad guys, but dozens rise up in their place.

This is not a conventional war. Invading nations does not defeat them. Even if we conquered Iran. They are not defeated, because they are decentralized. No, this war will cost 100 times more than WWII or WWI, because it requires the extermination of the enemy, AS WELL AS, innocents that would rise up after them, across the entire globe. We have absolutely no right to wage such a war on this globe.

The alternative to isolationism is to impose slavery across the globe in the name of "peace".

evadmurd
02-13-2008, 03:00 PM
All excellent comments. Thanks for taking the time to go through it. Any more are welcome.

New York For Paul
02-13-2008, 04:01 PM
The letter seems flawed in many areas. The Wahabis seem to be in charge in Saudi Arabia. The Shia Iran hate the Saudis. I don't think they work together at this time.

The US has a hard time getting its facts straight and the government seems to be at war with itself. How can the Iranians be developing nuclear weapons for years according to the government and then the government now says they stopped working on weapons four or five years ago right after we invaded Iraq?

Whether on or not one side is true, it makes us look like idiots when our government agencies reverse themselves like that.

You would be wise to keep reading more about the area, learn about the different groups and their psychology.

I believe we have a major problem and possible clash of civilizations. I am open to all ideas, but we need to understand the situation we face first before we decide on appropriate policy.

liberteebell
02-13-2008, 04:03 PM
Heh, that same letter was forwarded to me by a friend. I guess they need to stir up more fear for mc100war's 100 years of war.