Subject: Historical Significance By Raymond S. Kraft

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 morethan four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of
Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America’s only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland,
Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, becaus e 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 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 first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

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

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone… 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.

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

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East — for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win — the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC — not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate
and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can’t do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing……..in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where weare doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for
democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 — a 17 year war — and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again … a 27 year war.

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been
unimaginably greater — a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 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 is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an “England” in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the
barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.

We have four options:

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

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in, America.

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

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

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week — for four years. Most of the individual battles of W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high … A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms … or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

It’s difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it’s safe.

Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

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

Technorati Tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,    

Comments

  1. Alan Tibbetts says:

    This article is so full of historical inaccuracies I would be embarrassed to send it to 5th graders, much less college students.

    A few of the many inaccuracies:

    “Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.”

    1. Congress did NOT declare war unanimously on December 7th 1941. On December 8th COngress voted to declare war on Japan and one member of Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, voted against it.

    2. Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11th, the US then (afterwards) declared war on them.

    3. The same day that the US declared war on Japan the following countries did the same: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Free France, the Netherlands, the Netherlands East Indies, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Panama. On Dec 9th China, Cuba and South Africa declared war on Japan (even though China had been fighting Japan for years). December 11th Nicaragua and the Polish government in exile declare war on Japan; Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua declare war on Germany and Italy. December 12th Haiti, Honduras and Panama declared war on Germany and Italy. Let’s not forget Australia, S. Africa, Canada, the Free French, exile governments from Pland, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands among others were already at war with Germany, and India was part of the British Empire. The Soviet Union was at war with Germany but did not declare war on Japan until 1945. The list of American allies grew longer as the war proceeded, countries like Mexico and Brazil contributed forces to fight against Germany.

    “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.”

    Belgium fought Germany from 10 May 1940 until 28 May 1940. The Germans bombed Rotterdam (Netherlands) on 14 May 1940, shortly after the the Dutch government agreed to lay down arms, destroying 20,000 buildings and killing 980 people. The Dutch government fled to Britain rather than surrender. The Germans did not bomb Brussels into rubble.

    “Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone… 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.”

    Er, that was Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Germans never besieged Moscow. The Soviet Union might have lost as many as 24 million – during the entire war, not in two battles. Perhaps 35% were civilians.

    If this is a “history lesson” it is history from an alternate reality. The rest of this article is as wrong as the “known common facts” quoted by Mr Kraft.

  2. stuart myers says:

    Alan Tibbetts is so concerned with the “details” of the history of WW II that the whole gist of the article has been lost by him. It is irrelevant from the point of view of this article whether Germany declared war on the USA a few days later or whether it was Stalingrad or Leningrad instead of Moscow where the Russians made their stand. The purpose of the article is the probable repeat of history and the lessons that could be learned from history. It is not dealing with the irrelevant issues but instead it is seeing the growing monster that is staring us in the face. That is what we have to deal with for if we do not then history will indeed reopeat itself.

  3. Rickfromkc says:

    I must agree with stuart. What is Tibbet’s agenda? Does he want to see the danger we face? It does not seem like it from what he states. If radical Islam takes over the globe, folks like him will be among the first killed, as has happened in Islamic societies throughout history. Hopefull enough of our citizens are waking up to the lies of the appeasers, i.e., cowards. I would bet that Tibbets reads the far left blogs and hates Bush.

  4. Every one of Mr. Kraft’s observations and arguments were being made when the “liberals” were demanding we get out of Viet Nam. We left Viet Nam in 1975 and not one of the calamities that were predicted by so called conservatives, such as Mr. Kraft, occurred concerning communist world domination. In fact, 14 years after we left Viet Nam the cold war was won decisively as the Berlin wall came down.

    If we look past the fear mongering of this article we need to decide how best to address the very real threat of radical islamo fascists and the Wahhabi movement. The writer is correct that the middle east is, culturally, still living in the middle ages. They kill in the name of their god not unlike the Christians of the Inquisition. We were showing great results in Afghanistan when our President was sold on the idea of invading Iraq. Many liberals believe we needed to finish the job in Afghanistan before widening the conflict. Anyone who questioned the President’s strategy had their patriotism attacked, or were referred to as an appeaser, or were told they just don’t get it.

    The reality is we are led by a President who dodged the draft during Viet Nam when he got into the Texas Air National Guard because his father – a congressman at the time- pulled strings to get him in when there were no openings at that time. Our Vice president had several deferments that allowed him to dodge the draft and stay out of Viet Nam. Our secretary of defense Rumfseld had several deferments and like wise sat out the war when his country called. The term for someone who hides when it is his turn to fight for his country and then later in life becomes very bellicose and takes the position that we must fight wars and sustain casualties is a “chicken Hawk”. We unfortunately live in a time when men with very little personal honor are sending men of great courage and honor to their death.

    We have a purely voluntary army so it is composed of predominantly poor people trying to improve their lives. The rich would be the ones to finance this war through taxes. The same coward who sent the boys over there to die, also gave the richest 1 % of our country a massive tax cut. In the face of this glaring reality I must ask myself what are these “friends of our President ” being asked to sacrifice during this “fight for our very survival” as explained so artfully by Mr. Kraft. It would appear to the cynical among us they are being asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing. Not their children, who do not serve in the military, and not their capital, that they shield from taxes.

    When a former ambassador went to Africa and determined that the “nuclear threat” that our President used as a pretext to invade Iraq was not true, and based on forged documents, his CIA wife promptly had her cover blown to the press by the Vice President’s Aide, Scooter Libby. This served as pay backs and as a warning to anyone who would try to oppose the President’s plan. Mr. Libby now faces prison, having been convicted of wrong doing for his part in this sordid affair.

    I write all this, Mr. Kraft, so that you can understand that we liberals may be quite able to see much more than you credit us with. These issues are very complex and do not allow for easy, quick answers. The $500 Billion dollars spent in Iraq was an outrageous waste. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to this administration engaging in “amateur hour” when our fate truly hangs in the balance. We could actually be almost completely off oil if we had a President that was capable of articulating a bold vision and enlisting everyone to follow. $500 billion dollars could have given us the electric car or maybe the hydrogen fuel cell car.

    This lying bunch of hypocritical morons, who presently occupy the positions of power in this country, make the world a dangerous place and increase the likelihood of a nuclear strike in this country, not some wild eyed nut job protesting in the street. Yes we live in dangerous times. Your trying to blame the current problems on liberals or the snide way you claim liberals are in favor of freedom – just not in Iraq- or the way you criticize liberals for protesting in the US and not in North Korea is disingenuous at best. If these people were to protest in those countries they would receive a bullet to the brain.

    This country was founded on the right of assembly and the right to petition the government to address their grievances. They are not wrong to take to the street to be heard. They are true patriots engaged in a proud tradition that this democracy not only allows for, but demands of our citizenry if we are to have a robust debate and an informed electorate. We do have a hard and difficult time in front of us. What we need is a new administration that will fight this war with a united country behind it rather than the current one staying in power using wedge issues to divide us at home, while challenging the patriotism of those who see a different way to approach this problem. Maybe we need to hear more about how to get off of oil, and stop the flow of money to these monsters, and less about gay marriages and flag burning amendments to the Constitution.

    This, sir, is not a rebuttal of the threats you have identified [they are very real] nor your brief summary of the major wars and the death totals that occurred. We agree on those facts. It is your defense of the invasion of Iraq that I find is in error. It is Viet Nam all over again. We are in a civil war that does not serve our interests. Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican, called the invasion of Iraq the greatest blunder of our time. There have been numerous conservatives who have come to the same conclusion. You write about the need for us to fight this clash of civilization, but instead of writing a document that invites us all to close ranks and fight together, you give into that need to scapegoat liberals for our current situation. Shame on you.

  5. I sent the article on “Historical Significance” to a Muslim friend and he wrote back with the following remarks.

    “Thanks for asking for my thoughts on the “Historical Significance” article. The author makes a compelling argument, to those who subscribe to his ideology, not only to support the current wars but to further escalate them. The majority of Americans do not want to follow this path. I include myself in this majority.

    Although I am not an avid student of history, the author’s description of events leading up to World War II and the United States roles before, during and after the war appears to be mostly accurate and defensible. WW-II was strongly supported by the American people as a just war for a worthy cause. The analogy between WW-II and the current situation are somewhat tenuous and much less convincing, to say the least.

    The author is correct in pointing out that “Militant Muslims” represent a minority of Muslims. Regrettably, he and most who subscribe to his ideology do not realize that the overwhelming majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims also believe that this small minority are even more dangerous to Muslim countries than they are to the West. Virtually all Muslim countries, (about 50 countries in the world have a majority Muslim population), and some non-Muslim countries like India, have been engaged in suppressing this minority and their misguided ideology during the past half-century, with varying degrees of success. Even Saddam Hussein, himself a misguided leader in many ways, was adamantly opposed to this radical minority of Muslims.

    The author is also correct in describing the current conflict as a “war of ideas”, but the strategy of fighting it by brute military force is not viable. We need ideas that win the minds and hearts of people. Adventurous military strategies with their great potential for indiscriminate damage have the potential of transforming a manageable conflict into a greater war between civilizations. I am convinced that solutions to “wars of ideas” can only be developed through better education and knowledge, and these can best be attained in peaceful albeit highly guarded environments. The U.S. will find far more peace partners in the world than war partners. Virtually every Muslim and Arab country could be our ally in defeating “Militant Muslims” and eradicating their extreme ideology. These countries have a bigger stake in this “war of ideas” than do the U.S. and Western countries. Helping them achieve their goal will eliminate the need for adventuresome wars. The author notes the value of helping Muslim moderates and reformers win this “war of ideas”, but he fails to realize that adventurous military campaigns are not the right kind of help.”

    Now I would like to add some of my own thoughts. I believe that countries like Iran are rushing to achieve nuclear weapons because of fear. They fear that without these weapons they are vulnerable to attack by countries like the U.S. and Israel. After all, worldwide public opinion polls indicate that Israel/U.S. is considered by most people, to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan. They see Israel as just another example of colonization by armed force. And they know that every bomb destroying an apartment building in Beirut was given to Israel by America, along with the plane dropping it, for the express purpose of blowing up Muslims.

    Further, the United States looks and talks as if it were making war on Islam. At the moment, Americans or Jewish allies are brutalizing Palestine and Lebanon, using Pakistan as a puppet, wrecking Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing Somalia, hunting Muslims in the Philippines, and threatening Syria and Iran.

    Martin Luther King said “I have a dream”, well I too have a dream. My dream is that America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, not be the world bully but instead become a world leader that is looked up to and respected as a country of peace.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want America to be a weakling, on the contrary, I want a strong military and a strong economy but not an economy based on war and weapons. At this time we are spending trillions that we don’t have, on a war that is leaving our military overextended and exhausted. This is not only dangerous for the defense of our country but this is money that could be spent right here for education, health care, etc.

    But I am getting off point. The bottom line is: of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world how many fall into the category of extremists? How many really represent a threat to our country… 50,000…100,000… 500,000?

    What about the other 1.19 billion? Do we want to condemn a billion people for a few? Are we so arrogant that we believe that we are right while so many others are wrong? Do we really want or need a war of religions?

    Since America is considered a Christian country, I have some questions for those of who claim to be Christians: Isn’t it true that the teachings of Jesus Christ are unambiguous about how human beings are to relate to each other, under all circumstances?

    Isn’t it true that most Christians on the “political right” don’t want to hear that unprovoked, aggressive “pre-emptive” wars are immoral and fundamentally incompatible with everything Christ taught?

    Isn’t it true that His-story is a story of God’s enduring love, charity, mercy and grace?

    Isn’t it true that His-story is a story of personal discipline, self-control, integrity, honor and sacrifice?

    Isn’t it true that His-story is a story of humility and forgiveness?

    Isn’t it true that His-story is a story of moral courage?

    Isn’t it true that His story is not a story of bigotry, judgment, self-righteous aggression and violence, but a story of Love and Peace?

    As a nation, and as a planet, we had best soon decide how to live together in peace and harmony and how to best govern ourselves in the service of protecting His unalienable gifts — for all of Mankind.

    The only real solution lies in the people of the world. Our governments are nothing more than a reflection of the people. We must be peace. We must learn to love, to be caring and compassionate. We must recognize all the people of the world as our brothers and sisters. We must understand that we are one and what affects our brother affects us. We must practice the words of Jesus, not just call ourselves Christians. We must practice the words of Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, not just give lip service to their words. How would they feel about our actions…what would they do?

    More importantly…What will you do?

    Peace, Health and Prosperity,
    Lorenzo “Zo” LaMantia
    800-480-2105 ext.22
    http://www.zolamantia.com

    My country is the world and
    my religion is to do good!

  6. Whoever does not think that it is not Islamo-NAZISM the world faces should do a little boning up on history. Start with the history of German activity in the near and middle east before and during WW I.

    Then check up on a gentleman named “Michel Afluk”, allegedly a Christian from “The Lebanon” who was educated, thanks to his family’s merchant wealth, and strong cooperation with the French and the League of Nations Mandate they held after about 1919 or so, not only in “The Lebanon” but in Syria as well, at The Sorbonne in Paris. There he picked up the newly published French translation of “Mein Kampf” by U no Hu. The book became his bible, and he returned to the region and, along with Moslems of a certain bent, helped to found Baathism, both in Syria and Iraq, using as his “bible” “Mein Kampf”.

    Then further check up on a real piece of work, Amin al Husseini, “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem, and Jew Hater to the nth degree. In the late 1930’s he tried to raise an Arab rebellion in Palestine, over which the British held a League of Nations Mandate. The British ran him out of Palestine, and he went to Iraq where, in 1941, he tried, with Hitler’s perfunctory help (a few aircraft from the NAZI Air Force) to raise the Arabs against the British there. Britain also held Iraq under a League of Nations Mandate.

    With air power, the British barely put down the Iraq revolt. And Amin eventually ended up in Berlin, where Hitler took a great liking to him, even making him an SS Major General. Hitler then let him recruit Balkan Moslems to form his own SS Division. With it, it appears that Al Husseini did nothing but go around murdering Balkan Jews on the spot. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the Al Husseini SS Division ever participated in any transports to death camps. If I am correct, they just murdered Balkan Jews on the spot.

    So, all of you do-gooders, would you have taken the same attitude towards the German version of NAZISM you now wish us to take against a far more rotten and corrupt implantation of NAZISM, a cancer that has had since the mid to late 1920’s to grow virtually unopposed? Or would you have done what the world had to do and fight it, along with Japanese Militaristic Imperialism, and the comic opera Fascism of Benito M? Hmmmmmmm? What would you have done?

    Go ahead. Go to the Islamo-NAZIS. Tell them you represent peace and love, and whatever. See if they melt under your sincerity, and proclaim tolerance, and that all are brothers and sisters. Go ahead. I don’t care. But the world is a very dangerous place, far more dangerous now than I can ever remember. And while everyone likes to blame the USA and Israel, we did not exactly stir all this mess up alone. In fact, whether you know it or not, we are in WW III right now. And we HAVE to fight. For it is indeed the most malignant form of NAZISM ever loosed upon the Earth. The results of not fighting are too horrible to contemplate.

    Also read a couple of books (I have titles only at the ready): (1) Desert Queen (re Gertrude Bell) and (2) A Peace to End All Peace. Both these books will make you want to cry. The missed chances. The bungling. The betrayals that caused Ms. Bell to ultimately take her own life.

    I could write more, but I won’t. Just look into the leads I have tried to give you here. They should generate more. If you are not at some point horrified by all of it, then you do NOT know the real history of NAZISM, and how it still infects the world. And I do not speak of “play NAZIS” like “skinheads” nor do I speak even of any surviving German NAZISM. No. I speak of Islamo-NAZISM. It is there. And for the benefit of all mankind, INCLUDING ISLAM, it has to be ERADICATED, or there will BE NO PEACE in the 21st Century either!!!

  7. gapecarasco says:

    I’m going to start my commentary here, because everything before this was just a bunch of hooey anyhow.

    Let me begin by saying that the person who wrote this is a typical fear monger, who subscribes to the typical right-wing system of narcissistic control of people for a one-sided agenda.

    Each Raymond Kraft’s statements are followed by COMMENT:
    ——————————————————————-
    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 a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    This is almost completely false and very misleading. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was supporting terrorists. In fact, he and Al Qaeda were completely at odds. How quickly we forget that the US not only supported Saddam for decades, but we sold him most of the weapons that he had. Yes, he was a terrorist, but only in his own country. And, because he was an arch enemy of Iran, he created a balance in the Gulf region. And, what you’re saying is that now we should be the ones responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis instead of Saddam.

    And he’s using fearful terms from Christianity! Inquisition? Reformation? He’s making this bloody stuff up.
    ——————————————————————-

    (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 .
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    We created a confrontation alright. A confrontation that has turned the majority of the Islamic world against us, regardless of sect. After 9/11 most of the world, including Islamic countries, were sympathetic to our attack on Afghanistan and the search for Osama. But when we attacked Iraq, a country who had not even suggested attacking the US, a country that had no association with Osama, a country that since the first Gulf War had basically been minding its own business – when we attacked Iraq under the false pretense that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, we became a threat to all the Islamic countries. After all, we are the ones with weapons of mass destruction, not Iraq.

    A peaceful Iraq? Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, created by the vacuum of power that exists because we removed Saddam. If you think US presence anywhere near Iraq is going to bring peace to that country, you’re not only an idiot, but a lunatic as well. In fact, you may be as stupid as George W.

    ——————————————————————-

    WW II, the war with the Japanese and German 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 a gain . . . a 27 year war.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Comparing Islamic terrorism to World War II is another example of shallow, emotional thinking. Fear tactics. We are not fighting a country. Islamic terrorists are not centrally located. They are not being led by one man, like Hitler, but by religious doctrine and dogma. And they believe that dying for their cause will get them into heaven. And they exist in pockets around the world, not just in the Mideast.
    ——————————————————————-

    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Do you know that the Jihad strategy that was outlined in the mid-eighties was to get the US embroiled in conflicts around the world and eventually bankrupt us? Our response to 9/11 served to demoralize and discourage terrorists. Then our fool-hardy pre-emptive attack on Iraq revitalized their hope of bankrupting us after all. We played right into their hands. And what have we accomplished?!! We haven’t found Osama! He’s the one we should be looking for, but isn’t it a bit strange that we’ve let him slip away? What have we accomplished in Iraq?? Nothing! We killed countless innocent women and children and have been responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 of our own soldiers. Did the author of this emotional claptrap have a brother, sister, daughter, son, father or mother that died in this war? Perhaps he’d be singing a different tune if he had.
    ——————————————————————-

    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 .
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    The cost of the war to this minute is $420,000,000,000, not $160 billion as the author says. And it is going up by the second, every second. Think about how much money that really is! 420 thousand million dollars! And we have people in this country who are homeless, millions without healthcare, millions who go to bed hungry. Here, in the United States! And we think we can afford to squander $420 Billion to destroy one country that is in no way pivotal to defeating terrorism on a worldwide basis.
    ——————————————————————-

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

    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Yeah, it was nice of us to wait until Russia had lost 20 million people and Britain was nearly completely destroyed and bankrupt. If we had taken action before the invasion of Poland, we could’ve saved millions of lives. And we could’ve done it without dropping a single bomb by simply arresting Hitler and his henchmen for being in violation of the Treaty of Versailles that stated, amongst other things:

    12) limitation of Germany’s army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft and no airships; ??(13) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarines; ?
    But it wouldn’t have been good for business. Same with Japan. We didn’t limit shipments of steel to Japan until after they had conquered China and a huge area of Southeast Asia and Indonesia and were beginning, finally, to look like a threat to the US.
    ——————————————————————-

    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 .
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    This is correct. And will our contribution to the bloodshed and torture help it change?
    ——————————————————————-

    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 .
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    It is not going to go away, period. We are not going to defeat it through conventional means, not with bombs and missiles. It is an ideological battle being fought in the minds of people, for the minds of people. We’re not winning any minds by being the aggressor, by being the world’s largest consumer of natural resources (although China will overtake us soon), by being the world’s largest polluter (again China will soon overtake us), by being a nation of narcissists that exploits the labor of other countries and sells them our discards in return, by being a country where 90% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the people, by being a country of religious fanatics, who like the Muslims, think their illogical system of religion is the only illogical system of religion. Not by being a country that is willing to sacrifice our children and parents on the whim of an avaricious, smirking little deceptive and dishonest president.
    ——————————————————————-

    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.

    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Dream on. Does this person live in a vacuum? “Create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq?” Is this guy completely out of it? It’s like stepping into a pen with lions and hyenas, and we’re going to teach them to get along?
    ——————————————————————-

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

    We have four options:

    1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:

    What’s he mean “now?” Like tomorrow? Next week, two months from today? Bush is planning on fighting this war for years to come–won’t make a commitment to pull out a year from now. Meanwhile, Iran is busy gathering everything it needs to put together atomic weapons. Too late for that option.

    ——————————————————————-

    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).
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Oh, let’s fight it now! Let’s get out of Iraq, quick, and start “profiling” these motherfuckers (excuse my Parsi) instead of checking every little old grandma from Alabama that wants to fly to Dubuque. Let’s check the people that look like they could be Islamic terrorists. Let’s get serious and focus on where these people are throughout the world and watch them. Watch their every move. Take twenty thousand, fifty thousand, however many troops out of Iraq and put them to this task, each one individually. Lets fight them on their own terms and turf, let’s find them and flush them out, and when we see a small group going to the fertilizer store, we step in and say, “No you don’t!” Just put boulders in their paths at every step.

    ——————————————————————-
    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    NOT AN OPTION.
    ——————————————————————-
    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:

    Use your head. We should be bankrupting them instead of letting them bankrupt us. Cut off their funds, cut off the materials they need to fight. Set a better example for the world than one of an aggressive imperialist such as we’ve become. Who, I ask is going to continue to pay for this war??? The rich people here in the US? The Brits? The Saudis? Bush is bankrupting this country and we are becoming more and more vulnerable by the day.

    ——————————————————————-
    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Won’t happen, ever! I know too many rednecks with guns that will never submit to Islamic rule.
    ——————————————————————-
    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    And the winner always loses in the end. No empire has lasted. No religion, no culture, no race has dominated for more than a few centuries. What happened to the threat of Communism? We didn’t defeat it. It defeated itself, just by our leaving it alone and then assimilating it into our capitalist piggy way of life.
    ——————————————————————-

    Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Yeah, let’s all be ruthless killers! And when we get done killing them, we can kill each other!
    ——————————————————————-
    Remember, perspective is every thing, and America ‘s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Right-o! Let’s teach our children how going to war for idealistic reasons never won anything lasting. We fought WWII to free countries from despotism and then supported despots throughout the world. Let’s teach them how we declared our independence from Britain, that all men are created equal, and then spent another ninety years thinking about abolishing slavery, and then, and then we had to have a civil war to finally settle the issue. What if the south had won, eh? Think we’d still have slaves today?
    ——————————————————————-
    The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    So? At least it was cold.
    ——————————————————————-
    Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    So what? What’s the point?
    ——————————————————————-
    World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan . World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

    The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq.. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. Ten years too late.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    I wish I had the time to check his historical facts.

    Well, then, we can sacrifice thousands more if that’s all that have died so far. Hell, I know some neighborhood kids that’ll be old enough soon. They’ve been annoying me bouncing that damn basketball around their driveway, and those damn skateboards! Let’s get ‘em in the program. Ship ‘em out!
    ——————————————————————-

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

    The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law) .

    It’s difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Why don’t we let the Iraqis work it out for themselves? Haven’t we set a good example?
    ——————————————————————-
    “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!
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Oh, so let’s kill peace activists over here! This guy (is it a guy? hard to believe any woman could be this dumb) is a real piece of work, isn’t he?
    ——————————————————————-
    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.
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! Let’s react without thinking any further! Let’s just go all out and nuke ‘em now! What the hell, it’s them or us, right? We’ll save Australia, don’t wanna hurt no Kangaroos.

    ——————————————————————-
    Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
    ——————————————————————-COMMENT:
    Liberation? We already liberated them. They hung Saddam, remember? He’s gone. There never was any weapons of mass destruction. Who are we liberating them from, now? Themselves? Reckon we’ll just have to kill them all. Then we could have the oil. Wait a minute…what happened to the oil?

    Americans who drive BIG gas-guzzling, exhaust belching. diesel stinking SUVs are on the side of our enemies. What kind of a vehicle do you drive?

    This following is not a popular attitude, but I believe the earth would be better off without the lot of us.

    We’re not going to save the Earth. It doesn’t need saving. Geologically speaking we’re nothing more than a momentary annoyance to the Planet. Unfortunately we’ve been a major fucking terror to most of the other life on Earth. How many animals do you think died in all the bombs we dropped during WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam? But that’s the way it goes. Animals become extinct for all sorts of reasons. Daily we tear down huge areas of the rain forest to graze cattle so we can go to MacDonalds, and all the while the cattle farts are contributing to global warming.

    We’re not going to save ourselves. We are doomed. Don’t believe in Global Warming? You will, and then it’s going to get very, very cold, because the end result is the next Ice Age. I look forward to it. We deserve what we’re going to get and Islam is just as wrong as Christianity and Judaism, and they’re going to perish right along with the rest of us who have our heads on straight. And it doesn’t matter.

    The earth will recover from the minor damage we’ve done and in a million years or so on foggy night in a boggy swamp maybe some other creature will crawl out and start this madness all over again.

    History? The only thing we learn from History is we don’t learn from History.

  8. gapecarasco says:

    Let us not forget that 63 years ago it was a gift of G W B ush’s grandfather Prescott Bush who along with his big banking buddies and employers (? who employed who?) like Harriman & Brown that financed the Nazi regime and installed Mr. Hitler into power. The Nazi exterminations were much like the regime of Saddam in that it was equipped for mass death by US interests. Today we have Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney to thank for leading the forefront in installing and manipulating middle east atrocities through CIA, Global banking, Oil and Energy companies and the death of millions in Iraq and neighboring middle east countries. Never a direct threat to mainland US. There is no evidence forthcoming to show Saddam was exporting terrorists when in FACT we are told it was Saudi Arabians the underwriters strongest friends and closest business associates of our current administrataion that supplied the manpower, training and financing for 9/11.

    Mr. Kaft reminds us of Pearl Harbor and how it devastated US Naval strength. Historical facts point out that the US knew of the oncoming attack and that the main Naval strengths had been evacuated from Pearl Harbor and all that remained to be devastated in the attack were ships already on the soon to be mothballed list. Most unfortunately the planners neglected to remove the American sailors out of harm’s way. Very much like the M.O. of 9/11 attacks on the World Trade center. There is an overabundance of evidence that this horrific feat is not at all what it is reported to be. Like every entry into war there is a fuse that lacks credence and points to manipulation i.e. the burning of the German Reichstag blamed on the German liberal left and we now know it was the Nazi’s themselves that lit the fire that unified Germany around the puppet dictator of the Bush legacy. Let’s see… the Lusitania was sunk in great outrage bringing us war and we now have proof that munitions were indeed aboard that civilian ship, The Maine was sunk in Cuba and we now know that she was not attacked but blown up from within….and on and on.

    In the words of Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR, “ALL WAR IS DECEIT”!
    In his well laid assessment of WW II I take strong exception to the weak analogies between WWII and Iraq. The strongest point I agree with in Mr. Kraft’s letter is the observation that Americans made enormous sacrifices of money, time, labor, materials to support the WWII war effort. What bothers me is where does he point out that Americans have sacrificed absolutely nothing for the current war effort with the exception of US security and strength. We all have new SUVs sucking up gas at 80 mph on the highways. Where is our material support of this great Iraq spearhead affront to global terrorism? The wealthy are gloating and gouging at the trough, enjoying insane tax cuts while our treasury in not only plundered but US interests being parsed off to foreign interests. Why are we not outraged that Halliburton will pay a truck driver in Iraq $100,000 a year while American military lives are wasted protecting his route. Must we watch while Bechtel Corp. is paid millions of millions to refurbish schools in Iraq then bring in the military to do the clean up and paint the buildings that must be then torn down because they are too damaged to stand safely. Must the highly profitable and effective use of depleted Uranium in our weaponry be allowed to kill our own troops ever so slowly and as that dust settles into Europe thereby exporting those same health problems?

    WHY IS NO ONE DEMANDING TO KNOW WHERE THE 9 BILLION DOLLARS THAT INITIALLY WENT MISSING IN IRAQ WENT?!?!?!?

    We have watched our BIll of Rights shredded, the US Constitution thrown to the floor and in the literal words of our dear president “It’s only a piece of paper”!
    Mr Kraft if you ever see this response I do want to say that your words sound like those of a WWII vet. If that is true I do honestly salute you with a tear in my eye. If on the other hand you are with the majority of our current government representatives and have enjoyed priviledge and deferment from service then I truly despise you and either way I will remain determined to speak up everytime one of these emotionally packed good sounding but totally off base accounts are presented.

    Just for the record. I am not a liberal. I am not a Democrat. I AM AN AMERICAN and I AM FIGHTING FOR MY COUNTRY WITH WHAT LITTLE I HAVE TO PRESERVE THE GOODNESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE GREATEST NATION!

  9. Why does not “gapecarasco” just get a pistol and blow his own brains out? After reading his “Com’ments” above, it seems that is the only thing that will make him happy.

    “gapecarasco” seems to be a liberal. Or perhaps s/he is just a curmudgeon. I am a curmedgeon myself, but even I do not get this far down, or this far out. Perhaps I am wrong, but “gapecarasco”, I suspect, is a radical liberal, perhaps even a Marxist (or Leninist, as I guess they are called today). One often finds self-loathing in liberals. That is why so many of them are moral busibodies in so many areas that generally would work themselves out if the people involved could just be left alone to do it. Unfortunately, not all issues will resolve themselves like this. But many will. But to hide their self-loathing, they have to do “good” in the world (THEIR definition) and everybody else suffers as a result.

    You all might as well know that I am an Eisenhower Republican, but my party was long ago taken from me. And being a Democrat, today, is just not possible. And the Libertarians? Look at their “platform” on the Web. It appears to me that they want to spread liberty by massive statism. Any Libertarians out there ought to think about this. For if it is true, it is a profound conradiction that you have to resolve, if you are ever to get anywhere with you party.

    And war is a bad thing. Shooting at other people is seldom a good idea, AS MOST MILITARY PROFESSIONALS WILL TELL YOU. Yet I an not a pacifist. There are times when war has to be, unfortunately. I never have understood what the geopolitical significance of Iraq was or why now, except that it is a place to fight Islamo-NAZISM. Whether it is the right place and time, I do not know. But repeating myself, nevertheless, Islamo-NAZISM MUST BE FOUGHT!! If not now, then later, and probably at far greater costs.

    BTW, “gapecarasco” might want to look up Britain’s Channel 4 on the Web. They are taking reservations for DVDs of their blockbusting expose on how humanity is NOT causing global warming, how it is Mother Nature and we will either survive it, we will not, or a different cycle (which we have no clue about) will kick in, and “science” will be yelling about impending doom from another ice age again, or something else they really can’t empirically prove. Edison said: “We don’t know a millionth of a percent about anything.” That still holds true.

    And unfortunately, only the dead have seen the end of war. I don’t like it, but there it is.

    Perhaps Iraq is NOT the place to try to stop Islamo-NAZISM. I do not know. I have not sufficient data to decide one way or the other. But some day, even for Islam itself, it will have to be stopped. The alternative is indeed too horrible to contemplate.

  10. One more note to “gapecarasco”: You may have the same thing I had. Many people all over the world are born with brain chemestry imbalances. I was. Mine was very severe. But without Alzheimers research, there could have been no progress in this side field. I had a common one: norepenepherine-seratonin, but again, very bad.

    To find this out, I had to have a complete blood workup done re my brain chemestry. It was not hard to find my imbalance. It may be hard to find any you have, but they will find it. If you have such an imbalance, it only takes simple medication(s) to fix it. And if you fix whatever the primary imbalance may be, it generally pulls any other imbalances back into their proper windows.

    Bottom line: It will make you the person you were supposed to be IF you have such an imbalance, and they have the medication(s) to fix it (they probably will).

    If you do have such an imbalance, you have no idea what it is like to live WITHOUT IT!! So if you suspect this is possible, move one it. There is no reason to live with it any longer.

  11. Todd777 says:

    Stuart Myers and Rickfromkc say that Mr. Tibbets misses the point because he’s paying too close attn to the history. Well if a man makes his whole case on history and gets the history wrong, it should be pointed out. As for missing the point of the argument, how’s the following for a cogent reply? (I’ll cut out spaces between his paragraphs and add them between his and mine so you can tell who is saying what. I first received this as an email and used fonts/colors to differentiate between us.)

    I agree with the following, and these are important points:

    The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. 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.

    The problem is in the next two points made.

    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 a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians . (2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed

    First, Saddam is not a proven supporter of terrorists. Al Qaeda had no appreciable presence in Iraq until he was deposed. They had a greater presence here… they certainly made it felt greater here. Attacking Iraq was a distraction from the war on our true enemies: Al Qaeda. It was also a strategic mistake to lump all terrorists in the same camp. Not all of them were are enemies before 9/11, but they are now that we have declared them all enemies… they have common cause and it has borne out that they have united against us. We had the worse possible leadership when we were attacked on 9/11… any person with a brain would have consulted people that were informed on Islam and the Middle East before sending us to war. Second, the author above states that we are killing bad people in Iraq. This may be true but we are also killing and causing to be killed many innocent and good people. Our presence there leads to the death of innocents, this in turn leads to righteous indignation on the part of their friends and relatives, which in turn leads to more people doing whatever they feel it takes to get rid of us. (And no, I’m not accusing US soldiers of purposefully killing innocents.)

    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 .

    This is wishful thinking. It is not reality. The person that wrote this diatribe might know his WW II history (although I haven’t read anything about it here I hadn’t learned by high school) but he does NOT know the history of the Middle East, Islam or even our own Reformation. Religion is by definition irrational… it takes faith. People who base their worldview on their faith will never be persuaded by the end of a bayonette. Unless we’re willing to commit genocide, violence is not the answer in defeating our true enemy: Al Qaeda. I propose doing what Jesus would have done. He would not have laid waste to a whole country on the suspicion that it had weapons of mass distruction. He would not have used arms to defend himself. He told Peter to put down his sword. He would have used love and diplomacy. Intellectual and religious movements are never defeated by the sword (short of genocide). Whenever you kill one proponent, you make a martyr of him and many others spring up in his place. What you HAVE to do to defeat such a movement is to take away its raison d’etre, its reason for existing in the first place. Why do they hate us? Why did they attack us? It had NOTHING to do with wanting to take away our freedom! It had everything to do with the fact that they (Al Qaeda) view us as oppressors and sponsors of their oppressors. Why would they think that? Are they smoking crack? No. Actually, they have a good argument against us. We (esp. this administration) have given unconditional support to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, regardless of if/how the oppress their people. Is it hard to understand why these people would associate us with opression and evil when they see Made in the USA written on the weapons their oppressors use against them? It is no coincidence that the 9/11 terrorists all came from these countries. SO, what’s the answer? What would Jesus do if he were President of the U.S.? Certainly he would not have resorted to violence before exhausting all other routes… even if he took office after we were already in Iraq, he’d look for a diplomatic, non-violent solution. Here it is: IMPROVE MIDDLE EASTERNERS’ STANDARD OF LIVING! As it is they feel they have nothing to lose, so let’s give them something to lose! You don’t see Turks strapping on bombs and they’re muslim! Why? Because they have a much higher standard of living! Democracy is not the answer… standard of living is. Increase a country’s standard of living and they’ll become more secular. If they become more secular than the religious nutbars will become more marginalized. If they are perceived as jeapardizing their fellow citizens’ affluence, their fellow citizens will quash them quick. If there is anything even the densest American should have learned by now, it is that we’ll never get control of things in Iraq without the help of the natives. Given that we’ve botched things so in Iraq, we’re not going to get the full cooperation of Iraqis while we’re right in the middle of their civil war. And we are certainly not solving the root problems in Israel, Saudi Arabi and Egypt by concentrating on Iraq to the exclusion of others. The solution is to pull out, start doing what we can to improve the standard of living of the average Middle Easterner, and once the Iraqis finish duking it out amongst themselves, we can do the same for them.

    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.

    Again, this smacks of a high school historian. This is simple to refute with one example from close to home: the US Civil War. The North was far less determined to fight and win this war than the South. The North won because it cut the South off from the rest of the world and overwhelmed the South. We are NOT cutting Al Qaeda off from the world.. we’ve given them a stage and a microphone to preach with… and we’ve given them an audience they did not have before. Had Britain or France intervened, there is no way the North would have won. Shall we give Al Qaeda a podium from which they can recruit countless people? Shall we drive people into their camp because they view the enemy as less harmful to them than we are? I found this remark very interesting:

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

    Nero was so ruthless that he can be given the real credit for converting Rome to Christianity… Constantine did far less. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. As the author stated, this is a war of ideas. Look how effective it was for the Romans to kill the pacifists, to crucify them, to feed them to the lions for all to see. If we keep fighting the war the way we are, can we be looking forward to DC being the future spiritual center of Islam? It’s the way the Romans fought Christianity and it is no small irony that Rome is where we keep the pope!

    By being denied the facts of our history, we are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. We are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting us in liberal causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven. I am not advocating war, just wanting to understand the greater picture and preserving our country’s independence.

    This I find laughable. How many “liberal” emails do YOU see floating around using history to try to convince you of their point of view? I’ve seen MANY diatribes written by Bush supporters that mis-use history to prove their points. TAKE THIS TO HEART: if you see someone quoting history to make an argument, 9 times out of 10 they’ve got it wrong (See Mr. Bennet’s reply above). The well quoted phrase, “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,” truly requires the St.Pé Corollary, to whit: “those who dwell on the past are doomed to dwell in it.” -Todd St. Pé, Historian.

  12. uabstudent says:

    The most erroneous statement Mr. Kraft makes is calling himself a writer. Go back to school and learn something before you start spewing half-truths and opinions as fact

  13. sapperk9 says:

    >
    > A 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 that were carrying food and war materials.

    that means 1944? By then the war had stabilised and the “second front” was awaited. The U boat war was over and, and and….

    > Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and pressing millions more into 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 Harbour 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.

    Notwithstanding the RN attack on Taranto, which any student of the military arts must apply as a preface to Pearl Harbour, especially so as the RN trained the Japanese Navy whom were our allies in WWI.

    > France was not an ally,

    Simplistic, how many were there in the French Resistance? I recall that Nancy Wake “commanded” a force of some 18,000 Marquis just in her region of operation. My own father was taken by the Gestapo in Jersey (occupied isles of the UK) for “distributing enemy propaganda.”

    > the Vichy government of France had aligned itself 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 our north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

    And the Ambassador of the USA (father of JFK) to the UK had stood in public and told the peoples of the British Isles that they were going to lose the war and they should now negotiate a truce with the Nazis! The next am he received a terse missive from Winston Churchill, enclosing tickets for him and his family, one way to the USA!

    >
    > America’s allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it.

    No! In time for afternoon tea, 1942, the UK’s allies now included the United States of America.

    > 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. The US sent millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia,

    On RN convoys, using Lend Lease WWI ships from the USA, referred to by the father of one of my childhood friends as “three funnel bastards.” They were unsafe at any speed, and aside from their antiquity, the only thing going for them was that they were painted battleship grey and therefore attracted the Nazi U boats and aircraft more than the merchant vessels. Read HMS Ulysses, Alistair McLean, he served on one, the book is “factional” but nonetheless valid.

    > 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 those units didn’t have any tanks. A big 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 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 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.

    And similar grants from other Commonwealth countries. Also Britain was compelled by the Congress to conduct a “fire sale” of its US assets, some 70% of the industrial base of the USA, to finance the Lend Lease program
    >

    > Britain had been already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain. It 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. He turned 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 ass by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up so it could begin hammering away at Germany. Russia, however, 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. Think about it – they lost 24 million civilians and more than 1,000,000 soldiers.

    Think about this when Russia adopts its posture that it will never again be under threat.

    > Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America. Very simply, the Nazis would have won the war.
    >
    > Had Hitler not made the mistake of invading Russia and, instead, invaded England in 1940 or 1941, 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. 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, much worse. Today, Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis of the Third Reich. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history! are often dicey things.
    >
    > Today, we are at another one of those turning points.
    >
    > There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver 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. These were 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 form of Wahhabi Islam,

    Wahhabism is home based in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, or Turkey, or wherever else in the Islamic world! Indeed, it can be argued that it is even fostered and nurtured in that nation.

    > 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 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.
    In large part it is the result of post-colonial reaction to the events in Arabia of 1914-19 and the imposed european/USA map scratchings that ensued. Until now there were insufficient fund to react forcibly. Now oil wealth based on our Western dependency on hydrocarbons gives Arabia the tools.

    >
    > If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil. Should that happen, the US, European, Asian economies, and all other 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.

    Of course. Find another power source and you will not even hold a conversation with anyone in Arabia, most importantly the Saudis.

    > 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. Then, a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
    >
    > We have to help the Reformation win. 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 can’t do it everywhere at once. In Iraq, we have created a focal point for the battle at the time and place of our choosing not in New York, not in London, nor Paris, nor Berlin.
    At last I can agree. We have to fight, but intelligently. What we have is Herculean, the many headed Hydra. What we must do is kill the beast and not just the foot soldiers protecting it. Killing the foot soldier just feeds the media’s insatiability for a body count, which, in real terms has nothing to do with winning any event labeled a “war.”

    >
    > In Iraq, 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 had been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam was/is a terrorist. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his enemies (Iran) as well as his OWN people. He was directly responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million of his fellow Iraqis and some two million Iranians.

    Whoopy-doo.

    Tell me about the USA invading Tibet, or Burma, or the Sudan, or, or, or….

    >
    > (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. It can become an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
    >
    > The Euros could have done this, but they didn’t. A! nd, they won’t, just as they couldn’t or wouldn’t stand up to Nazi Germany. 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?
    Sold to them also by the USA and Margaret Thatcher!
    >
    > 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 program was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

    Paid for by the Australian taxpayer!

    > Back, again, to World War II — it did not begin with Pearl Harbor. The war with the German and Japanese Nazis really began with a “whimper” in 1928. 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.
    Wow!

    The UK has only just finished paying the USA for the Lend Lease program of WWII!

    > The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed in just one day on 9/11. Those are definitely not insignificant costs to us, especially in lives, since none lost are insignificant. But, just compare the two wars costs to-date.

    I’m glad he mentions this. Proportionality in all things. The 9/11 represents what percentage of the Russian deaths in WWII? Indeed, even the Blitz on London, about one half a night’s casualties, not to mention the Somme in WWI, another event where the USA arrived in time for afternoon tea.

    The cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater – a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism. The cost of not fighting and not winning this one is just as great.
    Yup.
    >
    > Americans have a short attention span 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.
    >
    > 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 can be there to support it or we can pull back into a shell and ignore it for a while. That Reformation has also begun in some other countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai.

    > And Saudi Arabia.

    No!! Wahhabism is alive and well here.

    > If we draw back or 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 b! y 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 and wherever that is.
    > It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.
    It will not go away if it is not challenged at its home base by law and the world court, of which the USA is NOT a member!
    >
    > 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 clamouring 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.

    Ve haf veys of inflckink demokracy mine frien….

    The will of the people has to come from the people. You’d think an offspring of 1776 might realise this?

    > 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.
    Yup, so target Mecca and Medina with your missiles and not Russia and China.
    >
    > 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).
    Too late.
    >
    > 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.

    Yup.
    >
    > 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.

    Nah.
    >
    > Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you support the idea that your children, or grandchildren may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia. That’s an America that resembles Iran today.

    Here he goes, its a bit like Australia’s invention of the Anglo/Celt. Such a beast does not exist, tell a Scot he’s English? Tell a roman Catholic he’s protestant? No, you cannot group the Shia with the Sunni, its convenient, but its intellectual bullshit.

    > We can be defeatist, peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede or 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 the most determined and stay the course win. The pacifists ALWAYS lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

    The logic here is skewed. A pacifist might argue his violent death is a victory? The most determined alway win, indeed? The wealthiest and most powerful , aided and abetted by intellect mostly win, maybe.

    > 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.

    Yes, but by definition, we had a “WAR.” We had a polity and real estate for the Generals to attack, sans body count. You cannot have a “war” on a common noun – terrorism.

    > 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.

    So get the Plods, the MI6, Mossad etc to be good plods. Find the heads of the Hydra, necessarily amputate some, and front some other to the world court. Read Lord Russell of Liverpool please.

    > Senator John Kerry, in the fairly recent Presidential debates, made 3 scary claims:
    >
    > 1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
    True, you can win a war, but never an occupation, 1776 Mr USA. But why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, most of the 9/11 criminals came from that country NOT Iraq!
    >
    > We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. Our military 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 –

    No, you are trying to win an occupation.

    > we are trying to fight! a minority of the population that is Jihadi,
    Same problem the Brits had in Northern Ireland, they had to arrive at a political accommodation, no?

    > while 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.
    >
    > That is a specious argument. It supposes that if we would’ve just had “the right plan” the war would have been easy, cheap, and quick. You simply can’t have all three at the same time — you can only have two — you choose which two.
    >
    > 3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.
    Again, you’ll never win an occupation, 1776 old Yank Mate?
    >
    > 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. That is happening. Perhaps, more slowly than we would like, but it 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 this year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go without hitches. This is not TV. Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history, especially the perspectives of it.
    >
    > The Cold war lasted from about 1947 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 troo! ps 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 more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq — a very tragic and regrettable loss. But, to put it in perspective, the US had than 4,000 Killed in Action IN JUST ONE MORNING on 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.

    THREE years and a bit.

    > Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has cost so far.
    >
    > But, today, 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).

    See you again identify the Wahhabists, but not their alma mater?
    >
    > I do not understand why many Americans, in general, and the American! Left, in particular, does not grasp this. They say they favour human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom. But, as evidenced by their actions, not for Iraqis. In America, perhaps, but, it seems, nowhere else. They seem to say that 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? Would that, then, be every American’s problem? Would that be any more tragic because it were Americans that it is today because it’s Iraqis?
    >
    > “Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate in America, where it’s safe. Why don’t we see them demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, or other places in the world where peace activism is needed the most? If the Jihadis wins, and wherever they win, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
    >
    > Raymond S. Kraft
    >
    >
    > 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.

    Well, I’ve just added a few more “truth of our history”….

  14. This is some interesting commentary. It is amazing how we have allowed terms or labels to divide us. Unless we can come together as a people we will not long stand.
    The term “liberal” is used by some of the writers as a slur. Liberals are referred to as “cowards” and as somehow non patriotic.
    “Conservatives” claim to base their beliefs in the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers. The founding fathers were radically liberal. The beliefs expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are very liberal.
    I believe we can all agree the founding fathers were patriots even if they were liberals. I dont believe many of us would accuse Jefferson of being a coward because he was a radical liberal.
    In fact, if “conservatives” believe in the basic principles of the country aren’t they by definition liberals?
    Labels divide us. They really serve little useful purpose especially when used as slurs. Liberals surely are capapble of patriotism just as conservatives are at times capable of rational thought.
    Iraq was a mistake I believe. Sadaam was a US ally during the Iraq Iran war. He was our ally when he gassed the Kurds. He only became our enemy when he invaded Kuwait. We supplied him with arms during his war with Iran and he was a moderate at the time.
    We have created a mess in Iraq. If we pull out right now we will leave a bigger one. We are stuck with that which we have broken.
    So, where do we go from here? Better minds than mine will have to say. It does seem permanent bases are not the answer. And I would love for someone to tell me when we know we have won. What is the definition of victory in Iraq?
    I was very much alive in the vietnam era. I was very much against our presence in vietnam. I still believe our involvement there was wrong and was poorly handled. The scene in Iraq sure looks like vietnam to me.
    We will never have peace in the middle east until the Israel/Palestenian problem is resolved and resolved fairly. I love Isreal but they have been a real part of the problem and we have supported them a great deal.
    The answers to the middle east problem are not clearly visible. The problem is complex and has many facets. If we deem national foreign policy and national politics akin to a football game we remain divided as a people. United we will stand. Divided we will fall.

  15. I just happened to notice this during a search for something else entirely. It’s old but it seems to be worth reviewing*.

    The essence appears to be that the author justifies the invasion of Iraq and evaluates the conflict between Islam and the West as being essentially similar to the conflict between the Nazis and Great Britain, or Japan and China. I disagree. Islamic zealotry, a sobering recent example of which is just now posted near the top of my FB wall (http://www.facebook.com/bruce.mchenry) under Millions in Egypt call for Sharia, is indeed a danger but we should side-step it by continuing to demonstrate the universal appeal of science as the best way to discover truth.

    My response remains largely as it has been since I started writing the song Sunni-American Pie in the fall of 2008. The invasion of Iraq got theoretical support from DC brainiacs at the same kinds of institutions that gave us the Vietnam War, McNamara and Ellsberg. Their reasoning was that Saddam was the only Arab state that materially supported Palestine, and that eliminating him would bring about a lasting peace in Israel. Of course, Iraq also threatened the Gulf and maintaining relations with its ruling families was of much greater practical significance for the oil men surrounding our president. While not nearly as profitable as before Saudi Aramco was nationalized, at least a billion in annual profits were at stake.

    The best evidence about the actual plotters, given to Gerald Posner and confirmed to me personally by Tom Ridge when heading Dept of Homeland Security, is that 9/11 was a black op arranged with advice from Kissinger Associates to Saudi princes who OK’d it. Details can be found at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgq8gmpn_37d5nnn6g8 along with the lyrics to S-AP, the parody that I wrote about the whole enchilada. Please email me for a recently completed studio recording of the song.

  16. * The reasoning in this post is very similar to that of David Abshire, my personal bete-noire.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] A few days ago, I was sent a rather interesting email titled, A History Lesson. Although there was no reference to a link, I went and did some research on the writer. Raymond S. Kraft has even took his writings a bit further. Could it be that Raymond S. Kraft is really Nostradamus reincarnated? Or, simply a visionary with known common facts? [...]

  2. [...] Thank you for the article, I enjoy intellectually stimulating conversations. I respectfully submit the link to the original posted article online, and encourage people to take a look at it and all the comments that have been posted below it. They make for good reading as well. The link is http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2006/subject-historical-significance/. [...]

Speak Your Mind