PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone want to take a stab at this?




LRitz
11-20-2007, 12:48 AM
I'm not very good with the written word and I have a friend that wrote me the following note:

"No doubt he is a good man and after watching him in the debates I am also tempted to support him. Just let the US go back to basics of the Constitution and that's ok with me, but his idea of getting out of Irak and out of the Middle East completely and hope for the best, as appealing as it may be -even to me- is actually very risky for the future of the western world as we know and like it. That's why I am sending you the following email which I hope you read and think about. It's very real, and I don't think that just because "we mind our own business" and stay away from the Islamic extremists, they will leave us alone. I guess it would be tempting to try it out for 4 years and see what happens, but at what risk?

So here I am: do I vote for Ron or Rudy??? Right now, I really don't know. Of course the way it looks right now Hillary is probably going to win the game anyway..."

This is the article she sent me to read .... So this is a person who really isn't a war-monger...i think with a good rebuttal I could win her over and her husband....

An Important History Lesson*

Why we are in IRAQ.



Here is a post from Raymond S. Kraft, a California lawyer, that sheds

light on the Big Picture!



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.



The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and

Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, 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 attacked us but who did declare war on us. It

was a dicey thing. We had few allies.



France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its

German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler

intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an

ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and

Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the

United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled

control of Asia and Europe.



America's allies then were England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and

Russia, and that was about it.



All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was all

ready under the Nazi heel.



America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of it's

military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of

WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their

shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on

the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our Navy

had just been sunk and 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 the property of

Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when

Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered in one

day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the

Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove

they could. Britain has been holding out for two years already in the

face of staggering shipping 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 turning

his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of

collapse in the late summer of 1940.



Russia helped save 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, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly

civilians, but more than a million soldiers. More than a million.



Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his

entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would

have won the war.



I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey

things. And we are at another one.



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, unless they are

prevented from doing so.



The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in

Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative

(definitely not liberal!) 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 Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want

to finish the Holocaust, - destroy Israel, - purge the world of Jews.

This is what they say.



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 today, but it is not yet known which will win - the

Inquisition or the Reformation.



If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihads, will control the

Middle East, and 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 well educated and 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

jobs? 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 and

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, the

Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot

do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have

created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our

choosing, in Iraq.



Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where

we did and are doing two very 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

guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or

anywhere else. 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, WWII 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 (U.S. GDP in

2006 = 13.04 trillion dollars, which means that the IRAQ war has cost

the U.S. approximately 12.5% of a full years GDP), 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 WWII would have been unimaginably

greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.



Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 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 here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism

until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own.

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 we prevent them. Or somebody does.



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 be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.



Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. 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.



We can be defeatist peace activists as anti war types seem to be, and

concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win

this war against them.



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.



In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before

that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs.

German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't

cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German

Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism

(the 40 year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called

the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered

almost the entire century.



The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo

Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more

years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch

of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global

dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives into the Jihad.



It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.



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. WWII 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 a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took

more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6th, 1944, the

first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the

individual battles of WWII 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).



I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They

favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not

for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.



300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The US

population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000

by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies

in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for

another country to help liberate America?



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



Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq,

Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world 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.



If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad

wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't

get it.



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

Please consider passing along copies of this 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 and truth 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.

Chibioz
11-20-2007, 12:54 AM
Your friend kinda glosses over the whole American imperialism thing and if only we had such pure motivations for our foreign policy.

nexalacer
11-20-2007, 01:08 AM
Well, ignoring all of the problems with the WWII recount (i.e. the world did not begin in 1938, what happened before? The fact of the American embargo on Japan by Roosevelt that prompted Pearl Harbor because Roosevelt wanted in the European war and knew Congress wouldn't declare. The questionable decision to support one side of the European conflict when we were supposed to be neutral. The fact that socialism doesn't work, the nazi's would have fallen anyway, likely to the Russian invasion talked about in this letter; he didn't mention the German casualties... how convenient.), I'd say the biggest problem with this sort of point of view is that it misses one of the key problems with this supposed fight between the "reformation" and the "inquisition": The American government is funding the fucking inquisition.

The thugs on Capitol Hill funded Saddam for years... they fund the House of Saud now. They created Al Qaeda (if there really is such a thing... I think it's a CIA hoax, but that's just speculation!) and they are continuing to encourage the inquisition by supporting Israel. The whole mess was CREATED by the US and is going to get worse if it continues.

Look at Iran. There is a large young population (larger than the old population because the previous American-installed dictator murdered millions of his own people) who love American culture and are trying to oppose their fundamentalist, inquisition-type government with what little democracy is available to them. So instead of funding these people, helping them peacefully overthrow the Ayatollah, the American government starts talking about war. What's the biggest motivation for increased nationalism at any cost? That's right, a threat from a foreign power. So by threatening Iran, King George is actually DAMAGING the cause of liberty in that region.

Don't believe the hype. The jihadists would be dead broke without support if not for foreign meddling in their affairs. It's time to get the fuck out for good.

Primbs
11-20-2007, 01:10 AM
By having a large visible presence in Iraq, we may serve as a recruiting tool for Jihad where such a potent tool for recruiting had not existed before. We could wage war through less obvious direct means if we need to.

This is also a cultural and political battle. Are we able to get the Saudis to reform their education curriculum that teaches radical Islam? That may be the most important battle of all.

nayjevin
11-20-2007, 02:20 AM
Are we able to get the Saudis to reform their education curriculum that teaches radical Islam?

I'd work on our shitty textbooks here, first.

nexus7
11-20-2007, 03:37 AM
You stated it so perfectly that I hearby nominate you to congress with the same powers that handed president bush the election.



Well, ignoring all of the problems with the WWII recount (i.e. the world did not begin in 1938, what happened before? The fact of the American embargo on Japan by Roosevelt that prompted Pearl Harbor because Roosevelt wanted in the European war and knew Congress wouldn't declare. The questionable decision to support one side of the European conflict when we were supposed to be neutral. The fact that socialism doesn't work, the nazi's would have fallen anyway, likely to the Russian invasion talked about in this letter; he didn't mention the German casualties... how convenient.), I'd say the biggest problem with this sort of point of view is that it misses one of the key problems with this supposed fight between the "reformation" and the "inquisition": The American government is funding the fucking inquisition.

The thugs on Capitol Hill funded Saddam for years... they fund the House of Saud now. They created Al Qaeda (if there really is such a thing... I think it's a CIA hoax, but that's just speculation!) and they are continuing to encourage the inquisition by supporting Israel. The whole mess was CREATED by the US and is going to get worse if it continues.

Look at Iran. There is a large young population (larger than the old population because the previous American-installed dictator murdered millions of his own people) who love American culture and are trying to oppose their fundamentalist, inquisition-type government with what little democracy is available to them. So instead of funding these people, helping them peacefully overthrow the Ayatollah, the American government starts talking about war. What's the biggest motivation for increased nationalism at any cost? That's right, a threat from a foreign power. So by threatening Iran, King George is actually DAMAGING the cause of liberty in that region.

Don't believe the hype. The jihadists would be dead broke without support if not for foreign meddling in their affairs. It's time to get the fuck out for good.

Dary
11-20-2007, 08:42 AM
The poster reveals their hand and their true intentions with this blurb: “...or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.”

I can only assume that “whatever it takes” means igniting nuclear explosives in the Muslim world and killing millions of people who want nothing to do with war and just want to be left alone.

Talk about extremism.

Corydoras
11-20-2007, 10:43 PM
the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. 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

Good luck getting Americans to take religion so seriously they'd convert to Islam en masse or allow a theocracy to take over. Even the Christian Right hasn't succeeded here.
:rolleyes:

A huge flaw in what this person says is that Saudi Arabia is THE hotbed of Wahhabi Islam, and until we cut off aid to Saudi Arabia, nothing else we do can make much of a difference, and he doesn't seem to care at all about Saudi Arabia.

Another flaw is that this writer does not define what constitutes "winning" in Iraq. A stable Iraq is never going to happen so long as part of Iraq is Kurd, because Turkey will continue to have conficts with Kurdish militants. So what does beating the jihadis really mean? How will he know when we have won?

Another flaw is that this writer can't decide whether the jihadis are another civilization in a grand clash of civilizations, or a bunch of barbarians at the gates. This shows that he has no coherent overall theory of what is going on; he's just using rhetoric to fire up people who aren't paying attention closely.

Another flaw is that this guy talks as if extremism is rife throughout the Muslim world. It simply is not. Look at Bosnia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Egypt. Even Lebanon. Turkey is so moderate, it's applying to the E.U.! There is no need to establish a friendly "island" within the Muslim world.

chipvogel
11-20-2007, 11:12 PM
This article just sounds like more war propaganda

The article has a false delima...it lists only 4 possible outcomes without mentioning other possibilities; but its still a false dilemma.

"dangerous minority in Islam" the key point being minority.
Islam doesn't support terrorism....there are several million Muslims in America; if they supported terrorism there would be daily attacks here.
Or
One point that doesn't get brought up is that Iran isn't blood thirsty. I don't advocate Iran taking hostages, but it should be mentioned that none of the hostages were killed. Another important part about Iran is there condemned the 9/11 attacks and were a strong force in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan.

shortna
11-20-2007, 11:16 PM
You can't convince Pro War republicans to pull out based upon normal logic. You have to tell them it is not fiscally feasible. Please see this great thread for converting neo-cons: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=20856

Bryan
11-20-2007, 11:18 PM
An interesting point, that article say "we" about 30 times (plus two more in your friends statement). To me, that is the problem right there- "we" is a collective mindset that promotes coercion and leads to a loss of freedom. My typically tongue-in-cheek but serious response to this is "Who is this 'we' and how to I make sure I'm not included in that?" This will often result in a rebuttal of "You need to pay your fair share" or the link at which point I note that that is a Communist principle and no part of the US Constitution or a part of freedom.

The bottom line is that under a Paul Administration people will have more freedom and money to take care of the issues that are important to them- if that means traveling to far off lands to fight an enemy or fund someone else to do it for them they are free to do so. Others have more pressing issue at home.

OptionsTrader
11-21-2007, 12:05 AM
just feeling silly...

I, an individual, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to myself and my posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

beobeli
11-22-2007, 03:45 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=452971&postcount=101

Elliot
11-26-2007, 06:19 PM
I think that the essential point that you need to make is that it is impossible to win an idealogical war through force of arms.

You can start by pointing out that by examining the very name of what we are fighting: "The War on Terror", we cannot use traditional tactics. Why? Because we are fighting a war on an idea, rather than a physical enemy. You cannot shoot or blow up an idea. Furthermore, the most essential component of the "freedom" that we are trying to spread is the right to hold any idea that you want. The only way to fight a war on an idea is through education.

Another tactic is to appeal to ones personal experience. Everyone knows about rebellion against authoritarian figures. They remember that the people that we hold in most contempt are those who preach one thing and do another. By keeping an army in Iraq while extolling the virtues of freedom, we are acting like collosal hypocrits, and it ruins any legitamacy that we may have with the great peaceful majority in the Middle East.

USMC_IZZY
11-26-2007, 11:10 PM
Your friend must first understand that there is a significant difference between being an anti-war pacifist and having the belief that invading Iraq was in fact a counter-productive strategy. The argument heres is not pro-WOT vs anti-WOT, the debate here is 'what is the best strategy'.

Your friend is right, there are a group of islamic fundamentalists who want to establish a caliphate. The problem is those are not the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq. The insurgency in Iraq is divided roughly into foreign fighters/Sunnis/Shiites. The sunnis were in power under Saddam and we displaced them. The shiites are divided into the Mahdi and Behdi armies and they while they hate us ostensibly because they view us as occupiers, the reality is they fight mostly for the political benefit of their respective Shiite leaders. The fighting in Iraq isn't based on some struggle to spread Islam, its just an old-fashioned power struggle with religion used as the mechanism to control people. Its the same way European countries used Christianity as justification for their own conquests.


The sunnis allied themselves with Al Qaeda out of convenience, however, their goals were completely different than Al Qaeda's and that much is evident by the fact that the Sunnis have now turned agaisnt them. While many are pointing to this as evidence that the surge is working the reality is that Al Qaeda was never the primary threat to US troops. The vast majority of attacks against US troops was coming from Sunni and Shiite insurgents. The sunnis are working with us now because it is in their short term interests. I want to point out an irony here, just six months ago these very same sunnis were actively killing US troops and now we fight with them. The irony is that many conservatives criticize diplomatic efforts with Iran because 'they're killing americans in Iraq.' And yet, here we are working with the sunnis when we know for a fact that these same people have in fact killed americans not too long ago.

Now to Iran. We have Iran surrounded; we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. Any cornered animal bares its teeth. The fact is Iran right now is scared, Iran's president talks tough but he does so out of fear, not confidence. There is simply no way any meaningful negotiation can occur with Iran as long as we have it surrounded. Islam has nothing to do with it. It is simply human nature that any responsible government is not going to show weakness when an enemy has it surrounded. Sanctions against Iran can in fact work. If you research Iran's internal economic policy you can see that they have a heavy dependence on imported gasoline. The president has promised too many subsidies to the poor and the divide between the rich and the poor is getting larger and larger. Iran also has a moderate wing to its politics. Young iranians are open to dialog and healthier relationship with the United States. There is in Iran a market for democracy, but Iranians are first and foremost Iranians. The same way conservatives in the United States question someones patriotism when you advocate pulling out of Iraq, so do the hardliners in Iran respond to calls for moderation. The fact that we have them surrounded and keep talking about WW3 and bombing Iran, the hard-liners in Iran will always have the upper hand in that discussion. Bombing Iran ends that discussion. The minute we bomb Iran, for any reason, Iranians band together and we become the enemy.

Terrorism is not a belief system, it is a tactic. Using blanket terms like islamo-fascism and jihadis is an attempt to take an incredibly complex issue and make it simpler to understand. The fact is that most of these groups fight for various reasons. For the majority of them, religion is just a banner to join people together under, but the aim is political. Al Qaeda's goal is in fact to establish a caliphate. What the sunni cooperation in Iraq does show us though is that Al Qaeda cannot be successful without local support. Al Qaeda is strongest when it can establish a base of operations from which it trains and as long as their are feelings of animosity towards the US they will be able to find these bases of popular support. In order to deny them this support, we have to understand and address why people in the middle east may choose to support Al Qaeda.

sharedvoice
11-27-2007, 04:17 AM
Here is my take on the situation,

The term Anti-war pacifist is a term frequently used to ostracize the few having the courage to speak out and question the irrationality of our foreign policy. One that has not only bankrupted our nation, but also left 5,000 Americans troops killed, countless civilians dead, and many others wounded, based on some preconceived notion that we should be the "policemen" of the world!! Horseshit!

Generally, those who support disastrous "stay the course" foriegn policy lack the basic understanding and knowledge of what war is really like, why it occurs, and how it feels to have other people angry enough to kill you.

It has been almost 7 years now since my first combat deployment, which was to Afghanistan with the 15th MEU (SOC) 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, and 4 years now since my last second visit to Iraq. Since then nothing has changed, things continue to get progressively worse because of our “unwelcomed” military involvement in the region.

For years now we have been meddling in the affairs of other nations, propping up puppet dictatorships, getting into the business of nation-building, and promoting welfare dependency around the world.

We need to stop playing welfare Santa Claus with the entire world!

There are plenty of reasons, more than ever, as to why we should be minding our own business here at home. -- economy, health care, crime, illegal immigration, poverty, even homeless war veterans out on the streets. This is an OUTRAGE!

In theory, "National Security" should address every one of these important issues, yet, we continue to fight a so-called “War on Terror” and continue to pay the consequences here at home...

A price so great, that has even undermined our Constitution and compromised individual freedom and liberty.

If you do not think what I am saying is true, I suggest you take a close look at this.


A) Corrupt the young: get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.

B) Get control of all means of publicity. thereby:

Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
Destroy the people’s faith in their leaders by holding them up to contempt,ridicule and obliquity.
Always preach true democracy, but, seize’ power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit,“produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster lenient and soft attitudes on the part of the government towards such disorders.
By specious argument, cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues of honesty,sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word.


C) Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.

Sound familiar??? Google "Communist Rules for Revolution"

You may want to share the following links with your friends.

Why We Fight
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3405669348838274375

Zeitgeist: Part Three (Men Behind the Curtain)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YFnUfYXZk

s/f

USMC_IZZY
11-27-2007, 04:46 AM
Sharedvoice -

you have any idea what we're allowed to do politically as active duty? I'm about to call base legal once my watch is over and ask..

sharedvoice
11-27-2007, 05:02 AM
Sharedvoice -

you have any idea what we're allowed to do politically as active duty? I'm about to call base legal once my watch is over and ask..

What do you need to know?

USMC_IZZY
11-27-2007, 05:12 AM
Well I'm trying to find out how political we can get on base? Can we organize meetups etc..

sharedvoice
11-27-2007, 05:21 AM
Sure, it would really depend on your command. Take a peek at MCO 5370.7B it will clear up any questions you may have about any directives pertaining to Political Activities while on Active Duty.

Marine Corps Order 5370.7B - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
http://www.usmc.mil/directiv.nsf/bc9ae2674a92558d852569140064e9d8/e8462bacd361c6638525649700656aeb/$FILE/MCO%205370.7B.pdf

Now, when you read this do not be overwhelmed. Just open the .PDF and search for 1344.10 (Encl 3)

You should be ok with starting up your meetup group, as long as it does not conflict with active duty reqirements and you are not in uniform.

Let me know if you have any questions.


P.S. Those rules no longer apply to me since I am no longer active duty. :D

Here's my video at the Ron Paul Veterans Day weekend Rally on November 10th (Marine Corps Birthday)
I got to meet Ron Paul and he signed my Marine Corps colors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhGbH5s39MM OOOORRRAH!

Semper Fi!

Kingfisher
11-27-2007, 05:50 AM
Wonder about WAR? Check out who pays and who profits!