PDA

View Full Version : How Would You Answer




Fyretrohl
11-26-2007, 05:13 PM
I am looking for intelligent, thoughtful, and clean answers to the following message from a member of my family.

================================================== ================================================== =============

SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . 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 2007.

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 . 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, pacifi st 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 Europ e
.

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 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 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 Engl and was on the verge of collapse.

Ironically, Russia saved America 's behind 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 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 mi litant 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. 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 . (goal)

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 is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than 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 Ge rman 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 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 again . . . 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 equivilant 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 an cient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless some body 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 grandch ildren, 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 res ulted 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 d ominated 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!

billjarrett
11-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Ok, Honestly, I didn't read ALL of it, but I skimmed through and got the just of it. It's easily debatable because its not a strong arguement at all. The main point of it that I could figure out has to do with we either X or Y, with Y being an obvious bad choice. That's what is called a False Dilemma and is a logical fallacy, because there are obviously more choices than what he has listed here.

For example, what if you get rid of the antagonist that is what the radical muslims are rallying around? This war isn't all about religion, and if we were doing nothing to make them angry, their numbers could potentially drop. What wasn't that listed as an option?

There were also several slipperly slopes in there. And probably many more fallacies if I read it more carefully.

I would say a good place to start is reading something like http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ , once you learn that stuff you can tear through "arguments" like the one you posted without thinking about it much.

brianbb98
11-26-2007, 05:43 PM
I see the point.. and although i cant give you a great answer to it like I know many others can, I will say one thing. I would rather die in a terrorist attack and have my life cut short than to live a life in fear and total government control. I know many dont agree with me but thats just how I feel.

Anyone can be a terrorist as we saw with a couple men with boxknives, we can never stop that kind of threat so why should we cut our liberties trying? Really... how hard is it to do an act of terrorism? There were even words of terrorism from the California wildfires(even if it was faux news) and how hard could something like that be if someone really tried? I mean.. throw a couple road flares along the highway on a dry windy day and you got a couple million acres burning. So what, they make us register to buy anything flameable?

Yeah stand up and fight if its right there. If we see that people are about to hit us with something of course we defend. I think we need to focus on guarding our borders, our ports and getting that missile defence system up and running. But all we have right now is some people that are mad at us, and MAY do something to the country. Do you think thats anything new? Columbine? Son of Sam? Oklahoma City? Give me some diesel, ferilizer and 45 minutes online and that could be replicated. We cant stop those kind of attacks unless we give up so many rights..


Ok I'm babbling... told you I couldnt give a good answer...

madRazor
11-26-2007, 05:49 PM
Ok I'm babbling... told you I couldnt give a good answer...

That was a great answer.

Kregener
11-26-2007, 05:49 PM
Extreme alarmism.

We got WWII as a DIRECT result of WWI.

Perpetual War and the War Economy.

JordanL
11-26-2007, 05:56 PM
This would be my response:

"To go over a cherry picked history allagory and claim that our actions in any given part of the world can be correlated to 'learning from mistakes' of previous wars is both false and simplistic, though not stupid. It's not difficult to see how someone would jump to that particular conclusion, especially considering that these are exactly the talking points that people have been parroting for years now.

The reality however is far different. In WW II we were not facing an ideology, we were facing a military complex. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity claim, fascism and modern day Islamic extremism are similar only in their submission to authority. Where that authority is derived from, and how it is retained is nothing like how fascism came to be in our past, or how fascism waged war on the rest of the world.

If Islamic extremists would set up a standing army and try to occupy Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we would have an easy time 'learning from our mistakes' and taking the initiative to protect our interests and those of everyone around us.

But despite how much you may want to believe there is a concerted world wide effort to undermine western culture, there is only a perception of such an effort. This is not to say that undermining does not happen, but rather that it, in large part, does not happen in an organized way.

The problem is that there are millions of people who believe in the ideology of Islamic extremism, or at least believe in the flaws of American ideology. We are in the middle of a political war with apolitical consequences. This means that the causes, reasons and effects are all political in nature, and thus looking at them as a good vs. evil meme a la Nazi Germany actually deprives you of a clear view of the reality we live in.

However, even though it is a political problem, people, particularly extremists, express it in an apolitical way. Bombs, guns, threats, etc. This creates an easy, albeit flawed comparison to the Nazis.

It is especially telling that the end of your message talks about liberalism when the story began talking about history and virtuous truth. Ask yourself this: if such a virtuous truth is really as self-evident as you claim, how is it that you feel compelled to assault the political ramifications of your assertions as opposed to the real ones.

The war has cost closer to $3 trillion, (though not all of that cost comes in the form of taxes). if you want to talk about REAL cost, there is no comparison. We have gained so little for such a high cost in Iraq that I cannot think of an engangement that in hindsight is less attractive.

But no one should be faulted for hindsight per say. This is not to say that anyone is 'guilty' because they did or didn't 'support the war'. We are where we are and all we can do is decide where to go from here.

The reality is that, as you somewhat accurately described near the middle, Islam is in the middle of a war of ideas. To quote the Wakowski brothers, "ideas are bulletproof". No amount of money, or soldiers lost, or battles won, or dicatators deposed, will win a war of ideas.

Here's another historical allagory for you. During the cold war, we had many short, "hot" engagements around the world... some more costly than others. But none of these engagements were the war of ideas itself, and to wit, it was an economic war that caused the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. The war of ideas was won from within, not without, and our troops served more as the soft word than the sharp stick.

In Nazi Germany we were fighting a war of survival in the most literal sense. Fascism, it is true, wages a war on ideas; but fascism as an idea only knows how to wage war by waging war, and that is one of it's greatest flaws.

What we are experiencing now with islam is an idea war, not a survival war, and just like the cold war, it will have real consequences and ramifications, such as terrorist attacks. That does not mean we sit and take them, but netiher does it mean we lose sight of the only way we can win this war: by creating a stronger country from within that cannot be cracked by rhetoric, oil prices and currecies.

Right now the war is a race between spending on Iraq and the loss of the dollar. It's how fast we can become energy independent (and not just by pumping our own oil... by looking for alternative sources as well). It's how fast we can repair our import/export market. It's how well we can restore secure borders. It's how much money we can save by forgoing the ultimately fruitless efforts of keeping troops in many other locations abroad.

Does it seem fair that much of Europe gets to sit back and let America foot the bill for their defense? That's what happens when we sit hundreds of thousands of troops over there.

You see, in a war of ideas, it is the group that can make their ideas work that will win out. I think we can both agree that the ideas of Islamic extremism don't "work", but they can have a fascade of working as long as we continue to support their efforts by refusing to make our own ideas work.

America is a strong country, and in a battle of wits between who can support themselves first, we have proven in WWII and the cold war that we are most capable. Getting out of Iraq is not isolationism, it's a tactically sound maneuver to play our strengths. Yes, we do have one of the most capable militaries in the world, but our greatest strength comes from the strategic threat of its use, not from its carelessly common use anywhere that we decide to.

Besides, if you look at the overarching goals for Iraq, we have either discounted or accomplished every single one of them. Saddam is gone, and the people there now have a chance at democracy. It doesn't matter whether or not we were morally justified in going in, because what we are discussing is how we are tactically justified in getting out.

Be careful not to confuse the two... if you were to ask yourself "should I get a new house", you would scarcely give any thought to why you moved into the location you were currently at. Instead you would weigh the pros and cons of staying versus leaving.

Similarly, the simple fact that the pros vastly outweigh the cons for getting out of Iraq says nothing about the reasons we went there or whether or not going there was a good or bad decision. It is only giving a verdict on whether leaving is a good or bad decision, and historically, economically and realistically speaking, it is a very good decision."

-----------

You might want to spell check that.

schmeisser
11-26-2007, 06:00 PM
It's all emotion and little logic. As an earlier poster said, it sets up logical fallacies. You will never convince the writer of anything - he is obviously of the "nuke them all, let God sort them out" camp.

You could ask him that if the stakes are so high, why won't congress declare the war properly as they did in WW2.

You could be a smart aleck and tell him to call you after they take France and are on the way to Germany.

I am no pacifist and was willing to suspend disbelief long enough to support the Iraq war, but I think the evidence is in that isn't moving along the track as we'd like. I'm willing, and confident enough in American military might, to give something else a try for a while (i.e Ron Paul's strong but humble foreign policy). We can always obliterate the middle east and liberate France later on. Those Islamo-Fascist folks are always so busy killing each other, I think they would forget all about us after a year or two.

Smiley Gladhands
11-26-2007, 06:02 PM
Wow, there are a LOT of assumptions in that piece. I'll address a couple.

Rather than fighting a military force representing a strong, complex industrialized nation...we are currently fighting against an idea. Our invasions of muslim countries, whether in good faith or not, radicalize more people and instill more hatred, thus strengthening the enemy. UNlike WW2 where the enemy can be overwhelmed only by greater forces and superor military strategy, this war must be fought in a different way. There's too much comparing this situation to WW2, and certain people to hitler...the muslim extremists are NOT taking over the world, I don't care how many nukes they get.

Actually, that's all I'm gonna say. I could probably point out errors in that piece all day long but I have better things to do.

JordanL
11-26-2007, 06:11 PM
It's all emotion and little logic. As an earlier poster said, it sets up logical fallacies. You will never convince the writer of anything - he is obviously of the "nuke them all, let God sort them out" camp.

You could ask him that if the stakes are so high, why won't congress declare the war properly as they did in WW2.

You could be a smart aleck and tell him to call you after they take France and are on the way to Germany.

I am no pacifist and was willing to suspend disbelief long enough to support the Iraq war, but I think the evidence is in that isn't moving along the track as we'd like. I'm willing, and confident enough in American military might, to give something else a try for a while (i.e Ron Paul's strong but humble foreign policy). We can always obliterate the middle east and liberate France later on. Those Islamo-Fascist folks are always so busy killing each other, I think they would forget all about us after a year or two.

Read my response. The key to converting these types is to play to what they really care about, (which I can understand because I used to be one). Here's the steps:

1. Reitterate that nobody likes Islamic extremism. Realistically, no one really likes any kind of extremism, but this is the "-ism" that seems most pressing, so it's the one you should re-emphasize. There is no reason to try and convert a voter AND educate them on culture at the same time. One battle at once please.

2. Draw allagories to points in our history in which we fought and won and idea war. The cold war is a GREAT example because we DID win it through economic and strategic might, not sheer force.

3. Emphasize that the point about who was wrong or right going in is moot, and that you are not saying one way or the other who was 'guilty'. Both sides ignore this one... debating the reason we got here is no way to argue about what we should do NOW, and telling someone that the mess we're in is their fault is a sure way to make sure they won't agree.

4. Draw on several aspects of American culture that also hit home with this crowd. Particularly American pride and inginuity. The goal is not to convince them that America has failed, but rather that we are misdirecting our efforts on a war instead of on our economy and our internal affairs.

5. Finally, concede that terrorism must be fought, but point out that the best way of stopping terroism, since it is an idea, is by choking it dry like we did the Soviet Union, which we can only do by being energy independent and having a strong economy, (which requires a strong currency and a balanced budget, which incidentally also requires us to come home).




The goal is not to convince them to change their mind. The goal is to show them how they simply misunderstand how their mind is made up. You turn all of their reasons for staying into reasons for going not by arguing against them, but by using them instead.

brianbb98
11-26-2007, 06:11 PM
Wow, there are a LOT of assumptions in that piece. I'll address a couple.

Rather than fighting a military force representing a strong, complex industrialized nation...we are currently fighting against an idea. Our invasions of muslim countries, whether in good faith or not, radicalize more people and instill more hatred, thus strengthening the enemy. UNlike WW2 where the enemy can be overwhelmed only by greater forces and superor military strategy, this war must be fought in a different way. There's too much comparing this situation to WW2, and certain people to hitler...the muslim extremists are NOT taking over the world, I don't care how many nukes they get.

Actually, that's all I'm gonna say. I could probably point out errors in that piece all day long but I have better things to do.


yes. if it was a unified indentifiable country then MAYBE i could understand it.. but its not, so who do we attack? we cant attack...

bbachtung
11-26-2007, 06:13 PM
There are a lot of historical inaccuracies in that piece. I didn't get all the way through it, but for starters:

(1) Ireland was not an ally in WWII (they remained neutral);

(2) America was not sitting around doing nothing before actually entering the war (tell your friend to look up the Lend-Lease Act, in which our "neutral" country was selling arms and leasing bases exclusively to Britain -- hardly what one would call neutral, therefore, our shipping was fair game);

(3) Nazi Germany declared war (because the U.S. declared war on Japan) on the U.S. before we declared war on them.

In response to this:



America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia.


I give you the list of countries allied with the U.S. during WWII:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
India
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Panama
Poland
Republic of China
South Africa
United Kingdom
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Yugoslavia

Your friend equating the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan with our battle against the Axis Powers only serves to strengthen the nerve of the terrorists. They have no tanks, no air force, no navy, no missiles, no massive armies, no central leadership, and absolutely no chance of taking over Delaware, let alone the world.

FreeTraveler
11-26-2007, 06:14 PM
Hand the guy who makes this argument a 30-06, a box of ammo, a plane ticket to Iraq, and wish him all the best.

Stealing from me to finanace killing his boogie-man is not what I call Liberty.

lucius
11-26-2007, 06:23 PM
Extreme alarmism.

We got WWII as a DIRECT result of WWI.

Perpetual War and the War Economy.

Bingo!

Read 'Geneva versus Peace' by Comte de Saint-Aulaire: http://www.amazon.com/Geneva-versus-Peace-Comte-Saint-Aulaire/dp/B000870AN2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196122788&sr=1-1

Attorneys for the Central Banking Families drafted the insane specifics of the Treaty of Versailles.

Goldwater Conservative
11-26-2007, 06:34 PM
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

Japan didn't attack us for no reason. We had been clearly favoring the Allies, just not fighting with them. I'm not saying the attack was justified or even wise on their part, but it was certainly not the unprovoked action our educational system has made it out to be.


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 Europ e

What's the basis for believing this?


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.

Ron Paul wants a military strong enough to defend ourselves and respond to imminent threats. What it takes to do that nowadays, when we're the only true military superpower and our primary enemies are not countries but private organizations, is vastly different than what it took in the 1940s.


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

And we have to understand why they're as militant as they are before drumming for war. Part of the reason is unintended consequences of American foreign policy during the Cold War, the effects of which we really didn't understand until 9/11 (and many still don't understand). Then we have to weigh that threat against all other threats, including that of our own government shredding our Constitution and economy in the name of safety.


(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 is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians

If supporting or harboring terrorists makes one a terrorist worth deposing and can justify the occupation of a country, as can "being a weapon of mass destruction" responsible for countless deaths and human rights violations, what of our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? The former provided bin Laden, is responsible for most of the 9/11 hijackers, and continues to churn out radicals. The latter has nuclear weapons and is run by a military dictator. Shall we invade or occupy them as well?


(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 .

Iraq was a secular and relatively stable country prior to our invasion and occupation. Now fundamentalist Shiites have gained great political power and religious terrorists are flocking to Iraq in the name of jihad. We sure chose the battlefield all right... and how is doing so supposed to give it a "good shot" at being peaceful and democratic anyway? And what if the choice is between democracy that benefits popular support for Islamic radicalism and autocracy that benefits us? And how is military presence in the holy land and homeland of these people supposed to make them less likely to be a threat to us?


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 equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .

Outdated information, obviously, not to mention overlooking that the war was supposed to be relatively cheap and quick... not a probably decade-long occupation with a price tag hundreds of time greater than promised.


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 .

This is not a football game in which there are two clear-cut teams and we can win simply by pushing very hard. The real world is not like that.


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 .

And it will not go away if we try to police it away from the world. We first have to look at the root causes on our part.


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.

They don't want to conquer the world. They want to conquer the Great Satan who occupies their land. I might buy this argument if we hadn't been policing the world for so many years.


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

With each passing day, that becomes increasingly impossible. It's logistically impossible for us to police the world to such an extent, and if we try we're only going to collapse our economy, which will in turn shatter our military dominance anyway, all while uniting the world against us and making more enemies than we had before. Basically, what happened to the Soviets.


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

Given the definition of "jihad" being used here, it already has nukes: Pakistan.


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).

Rattling our saber at Iran has united them, a country which is 2/3 under the age of 30, against us and behind their lunatic figurehead of a president. We should have been doing the opposite, given the pro-Western sentiments of the youth culture there.


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


We should first get our own house in order and not give the terrorists what they want, which is abandoning our principles of freedom and limited government. In our panic to fight this jihad, we're more likely to do all their dirty work for them. When we become a police state and warfare state, they win.


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

And the people who mistake empire for strength, or who let fear and misunderstanding of their enemies drive them to destroy themselves from the inside out, don't fare much better. See Rome.


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.

If rights and freedom for other countries is the name of the game, why stop at Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, China... the list goes on and on.


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

And "War Supporters" never seem to go to war or send their children to war, to say nothing of not understanding the enemy's actual motivations.

JimDude
11-26-2007, 06:40 PM
I'd like to call into question the legitmacy of this thread. I saw this exact thing on yahoo answers a couple weeks ago, possibly a couple of months of ago. And I wouldn't give it too much time or effort. It sounds like a bunch bs to me.

scottabing
11-26-2007, 07:00 PM
Seems like a great thing to be discussing, the more that we can understand differing points of view the better prepared we can be to deal with them when they are presented to us.

Thanks

hasan
11-26-2007, 07:16 PM
there are so many inaccuracies in the essay that id have to write a thesis to address them all. one thing struck me a lot and I'll answer that now.

quote: (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 is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians

who the hell armed saddam hussein in the first place and gave the go ahead to attack iran in the first place i ask??!!! the US government!!!! they armed saddam with all sorts of weapons. dick cheney was filmed shaking hands with him for God's sakes. The US wanted to neutralize Iran's Shiaa government through Saddam. I think that's another instance where foreign intervention by the US government has proved to be costly and inhumane.

im so incensed by the essay that il have to cool down a little bit before i answer the rest of the inaccuracies. hes talking abt the jihadist's who want to take out Europe and USA. who are these ppl?? im a muslim and im not privy to such information. and il tell you why im not. ITS CUZ IT ISNT TRUE. Ron Paul is absolutely right when he says that we provoked the jihadists and now we have to deal with them even more than before and we certainly aren't dealing with them in a productive manner. And the bit about moving on from the 10th century. well as george galloway said please have a memory duration of greater than 2 weeks. the 'jihadists' motivation is the centuries of injustice foreign intervention has done as perceived by them.

lasenorita
11-26-2007, 09:33 PM
The essay is fairly well-written in terms of providing the usual, uninformed reasons why some think an interventionist US foreign policy is best. Predictably, it fails to convince the reader why human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom cannot be obtained by the Iraqis themselves. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, it is in Iraq where civilization first flourished. Are we Americans so superior and so great that it is only through our use of force and our tax dollars that Iraqis can gain human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.?

There are also several historical inaccuracies in the essay. For example, the author's assumption that America had a totally isolationistic and pacifistic foreign policy before entering the WWII conflict is incorrect. American citizens may have wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe or Asia, but that didn't stop the officials in our government from doing what they wanted to do.

The Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor for no good reason, or, to borrow from the rhetoric of today, because 'we were rich and free'. They attacked because they were angry at US intervention in Asia. Japan had (has) limited natural resources, and the militaristic clique that was in power at that time coveted the abundant resources of the mainland countries. When the Japanese invaded Manchuria, our government (as well as Britain's and the Netherlands') began an embargo of raw materials against Japan, made loans to China, and even provided covert military help.

Our embargo would have collapsed the already vulnerable Japanese economy and since we were blocking their access to oil, they could not continue their military conquest. Instead of withdrawing, the Japanese chose to pursue an even larger plot of an imperial takeover of Asia and to conquer the valuable oil resources of the Dutch East Indies. This led to their strategic (horrific!) attack on Pearl Harbor and gave President Roosevelt the reason he needed to enter World War II.

On a side note, I'd also like to point out that our Congress of yesteryear performed their Constitutional duty and actually declared war on Japan (and Germany). WWII was the last time our Congress has ever done so. The war in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq --- all are undeclared, unConstitutional wars.

I wasn't around when the Great Depression occurred or when World War II began. So, no, I'm afraid I don't remember the time when food and supplies were rationed. But I've read the books of and talked to various people who do remember the Depression and WWII. It affected not only Americans, but every human being living in every country in the world.

Elliot
11-26-2007, 10:17 PM
The person who wrote that has obviously taken the neocon bait. Hook, line, and sinker. I don't think any amount reasoning telling them that you can no more lump the people in the middle east into two separate and distinct groups than you can Americans is likely to get through. I think that the weakest point is where they give you the options.



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.


Obviously, the choice they want you to make is number 1. You have to force them to fully explore how one can actually defeat a Jihad. First tell them that the a jihad is not specific people, it is an idealogy and a frame of mind. So, to defeat a Jihad, we have to end a certain way of thinking.

Point out how Israel has complete military dominance over Palestine, yet they are completely unable to end violence against their citizens. Ask them if they think that a nation occupying America would be able to stamp out Christianity through martial law, or if that would strengthens peoples resolve.

The essential point that you have to make is that their options don't actually make sense, because a Jihad cannot be defeated through military action, it can only be defeated through education. It is probably a lost cause, but if you consistantly attack the basic assumptions that they are making, perhaps they will start seeing things a little clearer.

joshdvm
11-26-2007, 11:48 PM
Britain could have easily defended herself against Nazi Germany had she simply ended the empire and used the resources for defensive purpose. Instead, Churchill wanted US involvement. Ending her empire should have been a pre-condition to the US's involvement in the war on the side of Britain.

Fyretrohl
11-28-2007, 09:03 AM
Here is the reply I put up finally.

======================

Well, I have spoken with XXX before on this issue, so he probably knows where my answer will come from. This article misses on a number of facts. It tries to compare a governmental ideology with a standing army and a GDP to a religious ideology with no 'borders'. Iraq was not a strong hold for Al Qaeda or other terrorists. Saddam's actions in his own nation WERE deplorable. The Christian in me rails against what he did. However, he was not supporting Al Qaeda. Our own CIA figured this out. We were sold a war on lies and half truths at worst, known unreliable information at best.

So, the 'War' on terror and the conflict in Iraq are two different things. That is the first issue that breaks down this comparison. The conflict in Iraq would be closer to the WWII suggestion, but, was NOT about terrorism. I am not one who will go way out there and say it was ONLY about oil. So, what is the right answer. My faith teaches me that the Constitution is a God inspired document. As such, it is to be respected in its inspiration. Now, is it scripture? No. But, if our Heavenly Father took the time to help guide its formation for this nation, then, I believe as a Christian, I have a responsibility to make sure it is followed. And, our government, as a whole, has failed us miserably. So, do we continue to insist our government continue in its 'sin', or, do we call the sin what it is, take the painful actions necessary to work towards political repentance, and return this nation back to its righteously guided path?

It is a DIFFICULT pill to swallow. Do we have a 'morale' obligation to fix the mess we created? Possibly. But, not by continuing the same failed treatment. Would a doctor continued a known failure of a treatment for a patient that was doing more harm, simply because they had already started on the course of treatment? Our government has created more of the problems we face today than other nations have. Musharref, the Taliban, OSama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. These names all share something in common. These are individuals our government propped up and supported in the past. Now, those actions are coming back to haunt us.

So, what do we do? I believe it is not just a question about Iraq, but about our foreign policy. We get our nose out of other countries business. We bring our troops home from over seas so we can actually guard our own borders. We return to the Law of the Constitution. We demand our leaders do the same. For Iraq, we stop telling them what type of government to create. We tell them they have X period of time to get their house in order, then we leave. We forget the 14 bases we are starting to build there. We admit we made a mistake and we ask for forgiveness from those we have wronged. This is the teaching of the bible and it holds true at the government level as well. Anything less is unChristian and unAmerican.

Fyretrohl
11-28-2007, 10:53 AM
Received the first response. There are multiple people on the email chain, so there may be multiple responses. Funny thing, this guy just made my point, without realizing it.

=============================

I appreciate the passion and eloquence of your very well written comments.
I will try to respond succinctly later.

You will not change your beliefs because of any responses you receive in
this forum, or from me.

You probably will not understand the responses of those who disagree with
you until you are able to separate the U.S. decision to remove Saddam
Hessein, and our presence in Iraq today, from the far larger and completely
different question about the extremist movement to take over Islam, which
was active in the 80's and 90's, and will NOT abate if we leave Iraq
tomorrow. We were not involved in the Iraq war when the extremists brought
down the World Trade Center or bombed the battleship Cole, or bombed our
embassies in Africa.

The argument over Iraq is relevant, and IS a recruiting tool for Islamic
extremists (no question), but the struggle would be ongoing if we had never
gone into Iraq.


God Bless You. I will try to respond more later.