1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

A read worth your time

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by hycamguy07, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    3
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    If you are an advocate or opponent of the war in IRAQ you should read, not skim over, this very well written perspective.

    Most people these days know very little about history. This may help in understanding what we're up against.

    ****************************************************************************
    California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:

    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.

    Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

    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. 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, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

    All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

    America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its 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 had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

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

    Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also 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 that war. Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in
    1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. 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.

    France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food"
    program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

    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 Jihadis, 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 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.

    The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't.
    The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

    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 $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 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 1 hour 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

    If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

    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.

    The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. 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.

    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 in to the Jihad.

    Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

    1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

    (We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected. The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.)

    2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

    (This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean.
    This is not TV (or a two hr movie-Troy).

    3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

    (This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over
    100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than
    200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. (Also, thousands of Iranians, Jordanians, Saudi's, Syrians have came to Iraq to kill the infidels and loyal Iraq citizens - better Iraq than the U.S.-Troy)

    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. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

    The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. 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 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? (extremely good point -Troy)

    "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.(good point -Troy)

    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.
     
  2. Schmika

    Schmika New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    1,617
    2
    0
    Location:
    Xenia, OH
    Simple.......He gets it!
     
  3. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    13
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Wery well illustrating the overall principal of what the world now faces, and many are unwilling to accept, or worse believe we should be destroyed as punishment for creating those that now threaten us!
     
  4. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    18
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    But, inquiring minds want to know . . .

    who the heck is Troy? :huh:
     
  5. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Why do I get the feeling that the writer of that letter would never, ever feel that this war was important enough to actually sign up himself or any of his kids to go to Iraq?
     
  6. davidf

    davidf New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    41
    0
    0
    Sorry, but this is the biggest load of crap I've seen in a long time.

    I'm not going to try to refute your arguments. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. But I will share a few points for "on the fencers' to think about.

    The war with Iraq was not about terrorism or 9/11. It's been shown that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda -- who wanted to set up training camps -- was turned away by Saddam. As a matter of fact, until the first gulf war, Saddam was an ally, and many of his weapons came from us. He had issues with Kuwait, which we refused to help him solve, so he tried to solve it without our help (not that I approve of his methods). Iraq was on its knees from sactions by the time we invaded in the current war. There were no terrorists (as we define them today) in Iraq before we invaded. The only reason terrorists they are there now is because we removed protection on the borders and let them in waltz right in.

    We have a history in the middle east of being friends one moment, then turning on these friends and trying to destroy them -- for example Saddam, and the Taliban. Our problem in the Middle East stems from this "support then attack" history. We do this because of our need for a stable source of oil. This is self interest, not altruistic. And we are short sighted enough to not try and take the long-term approach, but settle for quick fixes (like the Iraq war). The Iraq war will not solve anything having to do with oil or terrorism. It may (or may not) add some stability to oil supplies for a short time, but probably not.

    Because of our attitude and history with the middle east, they don't trust us (and I don't blame them, we aren't trust-worthy). Most Iraqis -- radicals and average citizens -- want us to go home.

    As soon as we recognize that the core problem in the middle east is that we, as a country, are not trusted and are rather disliked (i.e. hated), the sooner we can solve that problem, become allies with their governments and people, and all work together. Terrorist acts will only cease when we are no longer seen as an enemy, but as allies. This is the only way to defeat terrorism.

    Your analogy is off-base. WWII was about returning people's lives to them. The Iraq war is about the US establishing a presence in the middle east to safeguard its oil.
     
  7. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    3
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(davidf @ Jul 31 2006, 03:32 AM) [snapback]294951[/snapback]</div>
    Dude~
    Its statments like this: "Terrorist acts will only cease when we are no longer seen as an enemy, but as allies. This is the only way to defeat terrorism.[/b]"

    That make the rest of us just shake our heads in disbelief. Its obvious you don't get it.. Also getting Sadam had nothing to do with Oil.... Whos in charge of the Oil? OPEC / The Saudis thats who, The USA is in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to oil..
     
  8. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Okay. Let's say we "win" Iraq and a moderate, democratic stable government is established and continues.

    In what way does this change the "inquisitional" government of Iran?

    Or should we go after Iran next?

    What did democratic elections gain Palestine? The establishment of an "inquistional" government, elected by a democratic majority vote.

    And Osama is still at large.
     
  9. jimmyrose

    jimmyrose Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    646
    3
    0
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 30 2006, 08:18 PM) [snapback]294813[/snapback]</div>
    Perhaps I misinterpreted your topic title & opening statement, but my perception from your introduction was that the "perspective" I was about to read was neither pro- nor anti- war. I was wrong, it's decidedly pro-war. Whether I misjudged or was misled is debatable. But I believe if your topic stated "A read worth your time if you're pro-war", I wouldn't feel the need to comment.
    Edited: I deleted my last several paragraphs commenting on the article itself; I've never seen anyone's religious or political perspectives be changed or even significantly challenged online...
     
  10. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    ex post facto justification for actions taken for completely different reasons.
     
  11. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 31 2006, 06:33 AM) [snapback]294986[/snapback]</div>
    You are just starting to see the light. Yes Iran should NEVER be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - like the Nazi's should never have been able to develop them. We learned (most of us I should say) from Clintons mistake in North Korea - you want to repeat it in Iran???? You must think about this one carefully.

    The Palestinians did vote for their government - and that is a good thing - it will hasten the process towards freeing them from oppression. The Germans voted for Hitler too. And the Cubans voted for Castro and the Soviets voted for Stalin. It is best that the world sees them for who they currently are.

    This is an amazing analysis of the current situation. I would hope the NY Times prints it in its editorial page - doubt it given the fact they were pro Nazi in the 1930's and early 1940's.

    Take Iran out and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas die on the vine. Simple. Done Unless of course you can name who would support them if Iran could not...?
     
  12. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    A long, boring piece of text, full of false, misleading comparisons and factual errors. My favorite:
    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
    Where did they get that piece of information from? On what planet did this happen? Actually Belgium withstood the Germans longer than France did. And Brussels was never "bombed to rubble".

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 31 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]295046[/snapback]</div>
    Relax, it already happened. Pakistan has the Bomb. All you need is a regime change over there to bring muslim fundamentalists in power (will happen in the next few years). And Dubya did nothing to avoid it, because Pakistan is currently a "friend". Just like Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were once friends of the U.S.
     
  13. nerfer

    nerfer A young senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    2,505
    233
    28
    Location:
    Chicagoland, IL, USA, Earth
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 31 2006, 04:57 AM) [snapback]294981[/snapback]</div>
    You think you can defeat terrorism by door-to-door shakedowns in Iraq? There is no good solution, but the path we're on is definitely not the best. Let's bring in enough troops so that we can rebuild their infrastructure and give them a sense of safety, then support for the insurgents will die down when their quality of life goes up.

    Saudi's have a lot of oil, but so does Iraq. We can't invade Saudi Arabia because they're our "friends" even though most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudis. Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad, evil man and it's good to get rid of him, but let's call a spade a spade. Taking him out for crimes against humanity, even crimes against nature (such as damming the Euphrates to take away the livelihood of the Marsh Arabs, also affecting a vast watershed). But to attack because he "might" have weapons (never proven) that he "might" use against us somehow, and "might" have talked to Osama at some point, was a clear misuse of our superpower status. We went after him because he had oil and because he had dissed Dubya's old man.

    The view in Europe about the American role in WWII is very different than what we're taught. Russia suffered tremendous losses against the Nazis, then fought them back across their land, across Poland and eastern Europe, and pushing them back to Germany when the U.S. finally came entered the scene. Britain would have fought forever, it's not like you declare bankruptcy and turn in your assets at the local bank and walk away, we were already providing them with supplies. I'm not putting down the American effort, there's no doubt our support was key to finishing the war (there would've been no West Germany otherwise), and who know what would've happened in the Pacific Theater. We did a major valiant effort, and lost many brave soldiers, but partly because we were relatively untouched early on and could bring in our resources after everybody else was exhausted.

    What was just as important was the Monroe doctrine to rebuild Europe afterwards. Hungry people and hopeless people are desparate people, much like Germany after WWI, so they were ready to start another war when Hitler showed up. Now we're friends with Germany and Japan because we didn't punish the citizens after the government was overthrown. We can be friends with Iraq, but not on the path we're taking of overthrow the country and try to rebuild on minimal effort. It's costing us in the long run.

    I think we agree that we shouldn't abandon Iraq at this point, but you're buying the official Republican line about why we entered and what we're doing there. And going into Iran is very dangerous. For one, we'd have to impose the draft or seriously rearrange our forces, secondly the price of oil would skyrocket, measured in hundreds of dollars per barrel because then all of OPEC would be destabilized. Iran is a sticky wicket, but we need to be very careful about what we do.
     
  14. wstander

    wstander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    982
    1
    0
  15. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 31 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]295158[/snapback]</div>
    U b splitting hairs - yuor choice. you should try refuting his points.

    YOu can thank clinton for letting the genie out of the bottle. and you can thank carter for the current iranian situation - ding dong had to do the Shah.

    And you gotta get off stuck on .... The world is a dynamic series of actions and interactions - get used to it. Imagine if we pre-empted hitler - by your standards what happened would have happened anyhow.
     
  16. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 31 2006, 09:09 AM) [snapback]295046[/snapback]</div>
    So, the fact that Palestine voted for an "inquisitional" government is a minor abberation and they'll "see the light" on their own?

    And after we 'take care of' Iraq we should expand the "War on Terrorism" to Iran and take them over too. And then Syria right after we subdue Iran.

    And how long do you propose we keep pouring our GNP into the Middle East? And after we're conquered all of the non-believers...how long do you propose we police the area?

    I see we *can* equate patterns in history to other countries. Too bad that log gets in the way of seeing close up.

    What next? A two front war? Iran and North Korea? Are we going to take over every country with nuclear capabilities that we don't like?

    Funny how no one bothered to comment on my adjustment of the squid's tirade.

    "Let me play devil's advocate here:

    Change Lebanon to Iraq.

    1. I think the Americans are going to create a helluva lot more terrorists.

    2. With crap like this, they're quickly losing sympathy/face across the globe.

    3. It's 2006, and the Americans have, arguably, one of the best military and intelligence infrastructures on the planet, and they made a "mistake" like this?(WMD and 911&Iraq. Where's Osama?)

    Counterpoint:

    Ok, let's assume for a moment Al Queda was using this particular country as cover. Even so, is there no better way? Is XXX acceptable "collateral" damage?

    Personally, I don't think they give a hoot, or at least, more accurately, they care as much about civilians as Al Queda does. I do not know, if America keeps this sort of thing up, they risk a real Arab coalition rising against them.

    Interesting spin...no?"


    All I did was take Squid's tirade and change Israel to the U.S. and Hezbollah to Al Queda.

    But apparently the sauce is restricted to the U.S. goose. Ganders need not apply.

    Israel bombs building.
     
  17. jimmyrose

    jimmyrose Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    646
    3
    0
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 31 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]295158[/snapback]</div>
    They're our history books and we'll write 'em any way we want to (as long as they reflect positively on us). :(
     
  18. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM) [snapback]295196[/snapback]</div>
    "My choice" - I agree
    "I should" - Nope.

    Actually, I am not refuting his points because I don't see any. To put it simply: that whole text is a useless piece of $hit, full of factual errors. It only contains misleading and demagogic rhetoric.

    Just one example: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with fundamentalistic islam. He was a criminal like so many other people in power. In fact, he was also a big advocate of a modern, religion-neutral goverment. That's why he was a champion for the U.S. for such a long time. Women had the right to study at the university at that time. Now, all the war in Iraq has done is bring the risk of yet another muslim-fundamentalistic government in Iraq. And it breeded a whole new generation of terrorists.

    The war in Iraq is a war that is waiting for a justification. To say that the war in Iraq has to be seen in the context of war against terrorism was wrong. Most people have abandoned this path, becaus it was impossible to keep defending it. To say that the war in Iraq has to be seen in the light of the struggle against fundamentalism is equally wrong. Chances are that it will turn yet another country to fundamentalism.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM) [snapback]295196[/snapback]</div>
    This starts to be gibberish to me. Maybe it's because my limited knowledge of English, or maybe it's because you were typing too fast. I know as much as anyone else that the world is a dynamic series of actions and interactions - in fact, I seem to know this better than quite a few members of this forum.

    Right now, it's futile to start to point fingers to who was at the origin of the Pakistan problem. It's one of the disasters of the U.S. geopolitics. The fact is that it should be high on the agenda of Dubya right now. Higher than Iran, and higher than North Korea.

    Your last sentence about Hilter: sorry, I can't make anything meaningful out of that. Perhaps you can clarify?
     
  19. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 31 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]295158[/snapback]</div>
    IMHO, Pakistan was a bit too eager to ally with the US because of their situation with India. India would never make a move against a "friend" of the US would they? If they were true allies, we'd have bin laden's head by now...
     
  20. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 31 2006, 10:07 PM) [snapback]295273[/snapback]</div>
    Exactly. That, and the fact that they were developing a nuclear weapon. This was their once-in-a-lifetime chance to be able to develop it and get away with that. They are the good guys now! Yeah right...