PDA

View Full Version : Keep the war in Iraq



WarriorMonk
12-10-2006, 06:02 PM
Alright, before everyone goes all apeshyte on me, this IS NOT something I wrote, nor something I believe in. You might want to read this THOROUGHLY, rather than give the excuse of "omg I saw this here and I liek stopped reading because this guy is a n00b faygit when he said that" etc. (even though with this article it could be a possibility) - before commenting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Important History Lesson
by Raymond S. Kraft


Why we are in IRAQ?

Here is a post from Raymond S. Kraft, a California lawyer, that sheds light on the Big Picture! Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

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

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

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was all ready under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of it's military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our Navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain has been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping losses and the near decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

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

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but more than a million soldiers. More than a million. Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won the war.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one. There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, -destroy Israel, -purge the world of Jews. This is what they say. There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East, for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition or the Reformation.

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

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

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

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

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

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

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

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion (U.S. GDP in 2006 = 13.04 trillion dollars, which means that the IRAQ war has cost the U.S. approximately 1.25% of a full years GDP), which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

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

We have four options.

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

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

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

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then. Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace activists as anti war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

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

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti pacifists kill them. In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40 year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives into the Jihad. It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV. Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. WWII resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

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

But the stakes are at least as high... a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

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

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



Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164496

Mike Keenan
12-10-2006, 06:13 PM
America's allies then were England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was all ready under the Nazi heel.



Great article , I would argee with.
Only one mistake that the guy made was Ireland (or most of it) was in World war 2

kosse
12-10-2006, 06:36 PM
Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow

I stopped reading here.

Niels
12-10-2006, 06:45 PM
Great article , I would argee with.
Only one mistake that the guy made was Ireland (or most of it) was in World war 2
And Scotland, Poland, New Zealand, etc, and just because half of Europe was occupied, didn't mean they weren't allies.



Says enough about the 'author'.

Macs.
12-10-2006, 06:54 PM
To sum it up: Fearmongering mixed with "wrong facts" and a analogy which doesn't fit at all.

sinophile
12-10-2006, 08:56 PM
"Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti pacifists kill them.

If that was true Saddam Hussein wouldn't be in Jail. But there is something to be said for the fact that abandoning the effort and investment in Iraq will do irreperable harm to our ability to use the threat of force as a tool to defend our interests.

He should have said: Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared, feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment..."

Machiavelli said much the opposite in later works, but the key difference is the above is a strategy for survival in a despotic regime. Exactly the kind of regime the author claims we can expect if the East/West conflict isn't resolved with democracy as the winner. On this point I agree.

Bohemoth
12-11-2006, 03:30 AM
Thanks WarriorMonk for posting this thread. I read only about the first half of the article, but there's enough facts pointed out already.

You know many people in the western and industrialized world even if they are not rich live in a quite safe environment after all, in a country with a certain type of democracy with all its benefits, rights and most of all freedom for its citizens. Many post-ww2 generations in the western and industrialized world grew up in such safe and comfortable conditions and have never experienced anything else. They take the environment they always lived in for granted and don't recognize that Democracy and Freedom was faught with blood and didn't come by itself. Routine and continuation make you numb. Many in the western world know oppression and war only by books and tv and think all that is just very sad but long gone history. They think once democracy and freedom is established it's a perpetual self-running system.

They don't see: "Freedom isn't free"

Ivan le Fou
12-11-2006, 04:36 AM
Intersting article. Thanks for posting.

When he said:

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was all ready under the Nazi heel.

He may think about free allies/unoccupied countries. Winning this war would have been a bit more difficult without the inner resistance of those countries.

Anyway.

To me it looks like a "it doesn't matter how many of our soldiers will die in Iraq or fighting terrorism, since we will win if we continue this fight", or a "C&C's Mass-Rush" doctrine...

The past crisis, such as Cuba's one (when Soviet Union installed balistic missiles) or Vietnam, shown that, sometimes, Governments don't pay attention on the lessons coming out.

eugenlitwin
12-11-2006, 05:15 AM
pretty controversial article but one part is for sure
"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."

XShipRider
12-11-2006, 05:28 AM
Stopped reading here...

We had few allies.

Dronetek
12-11-2006, 08:02 AM
"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."


This is a very true statement that seems lost of the anti-war crowd.

Doublethinker
12-11-2006, 09:25 AM
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything?

A-ha, so that's what it is all about ;)

Dasein
12-11-2006, 09:33 AM
This is simply another article that demonstrates the historical myopia of so many Americans. There is more to history than World War II, and one would be wise to realize that. Further, when invoking World War II, remember it can work both ways. To Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq could just as easily be the Sudentenland and Poland, and Iran must decide if they want to go down like France.

The author also makes a number of mistakes of reasoning. First, the whole idea that 'we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over hear' line of reasoning is a total farce. It is not an 'or' situation, but an 'and', as in we fight them here and there, not here or there. Because of that, we are not seeing any reduction in threats against the US or anywhere else, and while most attacks have been foiled, there have still been a few successful ones, and it's only a matter of time before more succede. However, what I suspect we will see are attempts as much simpler and harder to detect attacks. We like to focus on big attacks - bombs on multiple jetliners, chemical and biological weapons or even a nuclear attack on a major city - but we forget about the real possibility of many smaller attacks. For example, a few terorrists get some guns and walk into any where lots of people gather and start shooting. A shopping center, school, sporting even, concert, New Years Eve celebration - the list is endless.

Second, he equivates on terrorism. While Hussein supported some organizations we consider terrorists, he was also very much opposed to other groups, and he himself was a secular Ba'athist. The sort of terrorism we need to worry about - the radical Sunni salafism of al Qaeda - grows out of failed states like Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion, and likely now Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. A failed state is the worst outcome, and having a thug like Hussein in power is better for the interests of the US.

This brings up a third point. We need to make up our mind - are we waging some ideological crusade to brng democracy and political liberalism to the mid-East or are we trying to secure the interests of the United States against foreign threats. We cannot realistically do both, and many times the objectives will conflict. If we want to bring democracy, weneed to realize we will be compromising our security, at least in the short term and perhaps in the long term.

budgie
12-11-2006, 09:35 AM
1) I'm just not that afraid of the 'global Jihad'. Look how hard it is for us to impose democracy on a bunch of ragtag insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine how hard it would be for them to impose Shariah Law on the militarily and institutionally advanced West. All they can do is blow up a few buildings. It's bad and we must fight it, but it'll hardly be the end of us.

2) It is very unlikely that the US can create any kind of successful democracy in Iraq. That's up to Iraqis and they've chosen religious and ethnic factionalism instead.

Therefore preaching that a successful democracy in Iraq would create a platform to reform the middle East is moot: it couldn't be done even if it was essential. This is the same tripe that the Bushies were spouting before the war. It's been proven to be hash already so why are we smoking the old roach still?

Macs.
12-11-2006, 09:55 AM
This is a very true statement that seems lost of the anti-war crowd.

Its a standard "Either you are with us or against us"-Statement.

Either you wash my car, or you stink and support Terrorism, Nazis and King Kong.

LRPV
12-11-2006, 10:19 AM
If that was true Saddam Hussein wouldn't be in Jail. But there is something to be said for the fact that abandoning the effort and investment in Iraq will do irreperable harm to our ability to use the threat of force as a tool to defend our interests.

He should have said: Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared, feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment..."

Machiavelli said much the opposite in later works, but the key difference is the above is a strategy for survival in a despotic regime. Exactly the kind of regime the author claims we can expect if the East/West conflict isn't resolved with democracy as the winner. On this point I agree.


In as much as you know Machiavelli, I agree. Machiavelli's "The Prince" should be mandatory reading for all keyboard commandos.

Dasein
12-11-2006, 10:34 AM
People seem to forget, however, that Machiavelli thought it worst to be hated.

Dronetek
12-11-2006, 10:39 AM
Its a standard "Either you are with us or against us"-Statement.

Either you wash my car, or you stink and support Terrorism, Nazis and King Kong.

Yeah you're right, the threat of global terrorisim is just a myth.

Niels
12-11-2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah you're right, the threat of global terrorisim is just a myth.
The threat of 'global terrorism' has always been there, as is the risk of getting hit by a meteorite. I wouldn't let either influence my daily life though.


"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."
So, not supporting the invasion of Iraq = supporting the Jihadists? Right...

Macs.
12-11-2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah you're right, the threat of global terrorisim is just a myth.

The myth is that you can stop that threat with a war in a certain country.

2Sheds_Jackson
12-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Good article - it's a shame people would rather concentrate on minor technical quibbles than it's overall message, which is unassailable. The Jihadists are at war with us, and will keep coming at us with the best weapons they have access to, whether we decide to fight back or not.

We live in a world that cannot stand up to conflict. That is to say, our economies are so delicate and highly evolved, that we will utterly collapse if the oil rug is pulled out from under. The woman in the next cube over has an 18 year old daughter who is entering college next year, to train to become a "sports psychologist". Let me tell you, it takes a highly evolved economy for people to be able to earn money as a "sports psychologist" - let alone to have sports. Or any number of pretend, city-folk, soft handed metro****** jobs. Those high paying fancy jobs sitting in front of a PC, or designing electronics etc. will be the very first ones in the dumpster when the sh*t hits the fan. You'll still be able to make it as a farmer or truck driver or HVAC repair man, but the "new economy" will be out the window.

Which is fine, if we're prepared to live in a world like that. Personally, I'm not.

foxtrot023
12-11-2006, 11:38 AM
meh,

The article raises some issues, but is full of historical mistakes. Per example, Germany declared war on the US, not the US on Germany. I guess he did that for suspence and to lend weight, but to me it takes away seriousness to his arguements and comes out as amateurish

Hollis
12-11-2006, 12:05 PM
Good article - it's a shame people would rather concentrate on minor technical quibbles than it's overall message, which is unassailable. The Jihadists are at war with us, and will keep coming at us with the best weapons they have access to, whether we decide to fight back or not.



2 X, amazing at the petty nit picking about some minor facts. I don't understand, is there that many Westerners who are so vindictive, petty, narrow minded, or? that have a natural propensity to support the Jihadists. I know the Jihadists are not going to them any favors for their support.

Ivan le Fou
12-11-2006, 02:15 PM
The myth is that you can stop that threat with a war in a certain country.

Right.

We are making a conventional war against an unconventional threat.

Niels
12-11-2006, 03:33 PM
2 X, amazing at the petty nit picking about some minor facts. I don't understand, is there that many Westerners who are so vindictive, petty, narrow minded, or? that have a natural propensity to support the Jihadists. I know the Jihadists are not going to them any favors for their support.
I'd say the narrow minded are the ones who think all of those Jihadists are gathered in Iraq.

Macs.
12-11-2006, 03:38 PM
Good article - it's a shame people would rather concentrate on minor technical quibbles than it's overall message, which is unassailable. The Jihadists are at war with us, and will keep coming at us with the best weapons they have access to, whether we decide to fight back or not.

We live in a world that cannot stand up to conflict. That is to say, our economies are so delicate and highly evolved, that we will utterly collapse if the oil rug is pulled out from under. The woman in the next cube over has an 18 year old daughter who is entering college next year, to train to become a "sports psychologist". Let me tell you, it takes a highly evolved economy for people to be able to earn money as a "sports psychologist" - let alone to have sports. Or any number of pretend, city-folk, soft handed metro****** jobs. Those high paying fancy jobs sitting in front of a PC, or designing electronics etc. will be the very first ones in the dumpster when the sh*t hits the fan. You'll still be able to make it as a farmer or truck driver or HVAC repair man, but the "new economy" will be out the window.


I don't know what you are on about, I thought this was all about Jihadist, Terrorists and OIF ? What has Oil to do with the "Global War on Terror" ?

Bandeirante
12-11-2006, 04:21 PM
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164496

Stop talking in Northern California and go to live and fight in Iraq.

budgie
12-12-2006, 03:23 AM
Let me tell you, it takes a highly evolved economy for people to be able to earn money as a "sports psychologist" - let alone to have sports. Or any number of pretend, city-folk, soft handed metro****** jobs.

Oooh you're so hard and manly. I'm getting excited...

a_very_ex_STAB
12-12-2006, 03:44 AM
Yeah you're right, the threat of global terrorisim is just a myth.

You military fan boy weenies just don't get it. Terrorism is one of the more minor problems facing the world these days.
But keep your little ostrich heads buried in the sand if you like.:)

Jobu
12-12-2006, 04:02 AM
I'm pretty sure those people who were killed in Manhatten didn't think it was a minor problem. Their families certainly don't think so. I doubt the Beslan families think it's a minor problem. Bali, London, Madrid, etc.

I agree with the theme of the original post.

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel. - Robert Frost

pistol
12-12-2006, 05:20 AM
Thankfully the American people rejected this fear-mongering garbage last month at the polls. The glory days of Raymond S. Kraft and his neo-con ilk are, thankfully, a thing of the past. Not only is this article's premise false, but the analogy with WWII is inaccurate. The civil war in Iraq will not follow us back to America, and whatever cells are planning the next sophisticated attack on the west are certainly not fighting in Iraq.

Durandal
12-12-2006, 08:43 AM
To sum it up: Fearmongering mixed with "wrong facts" and a analogy which doesn't fit at all.

Quote for truth...

a_very_ex_STAB
12-12-2006, 08:48 AM
I'm pretty sure those people who were killed in Manhatten didn't think it was a minor problem. Their families certainly don't think so. I doubt the Beslan families think it's a minor problem. Bali, London, Madrid, etc.


That's irrelevant. In the global scheme of things those were 'pinprick' events whether you like it or not.

Durandal
12-12-2006, 08:59 AM
That's irrelevant. In the global scheme of things those were 'pinprick' events whether you like it or not.

Well, while I agree that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with any of these, the events yo mention do involve a moral responsibility of the government to do something about the people responsible for such acts.

Unfortunately we lost sight of the that the moment we decided to invade Iraq. Saddam was, ironically a better "ally" in the war on terror then our buddy down in Pakistan even if we did not have a leash on him. He was far more valuable to us as a dictator than a prisoner.

All Iraq has done is open up another front which is far better suited for terrorists and Islamic fighters (since most of them are not terrorists) than a costly regular fighting force...

I think we might have gone a bridge too far.

VioladorDeLaLey
12-12-2006, 09:05 AM
The real issue is the oil/gasoline, is not more complicated than that.

since the world is world, terrorism exist

And its imposible to fight against an enemy that you canot see, and you cant fight against them with all the world seeing your doble standard and all the lies that you use for invade a country.

How can we forget that saddam was an ally of eeuu? we cant
Where are the quimichal weapons? .....doesnt exist
Where are the coneccion between sadam y alqaeda? ....


Its an illegal an unffair war in hands of people who is not much better than sadam, bin laden, etc...

Regards,
Hernán.

PD: sorry little knowledge of English

Gurdil
12-31-2006, 04:14 AM
I think I already posted it. But here is a video of Utnow explaining the situation in middle east. It's interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLWDY8ZKBTI

n.ignomo
12-31-2006, 09:56 AM
How does he dare to compare Nazism and Japanese empires to Irak ? Hitler wanted to make slaves of Europe, does Irak wanted it ? Never compare Irak to Germany, one wanted to rule the world, the other didn't even attack the USofA.

dangerclose
12-31-2006, 12:22 PM
That's irrelevant. In the global scheme of things those were 'pinprick' events whether you like it or not.


Let's hope you and your family don't get 'pinpricked'.