Historical Significance

[Mimi]

SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II.  MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR.  NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES.  READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER.

Historical Significance

Sixty-eight years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat.  The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials.

At that time the US was in an isolationist, 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 , who had not yet attacked us.  It was a dicey thing.  We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers.  Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on set ting 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.

The US was certainly not prepared for war.  The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with 'tank' painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks.  A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor .

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later.

Hitler first turned his attention to Russia , in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.

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 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone .... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

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

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things.  Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

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

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

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

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements.  We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once.  We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing ... in Iraq .  Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq , where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein.  Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam had been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam was 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, and a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq .  We have focused the battle.  We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here.  We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

WW II, the war with the Japanese and 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.

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about 160 billion dollars, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York .  It has also cost about 4,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

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

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay.  The real world is not like that.  It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly.  It always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is.  It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East .  The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

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

We have four options:

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

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which it may have by now, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

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

OR

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

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or 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 civilization clashes, cultural clashes.  All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are the most fearless, the most determined, and, yes, prepared to be the most ruthless if necessary, always win.  The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

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

The Cold War lasted from about 1947, until at least the time 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 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has had more than 4,000 of its military killed in action in Iraq .  The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years.  Most of the individual battles of WW II lost many 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.

'Peace Activists' always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.  Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most?  I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!

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 many of 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.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California who has long been a student of Middle Eastern culture and religion.

[kitkatz]

Harry Turtledove has written several books about America losing WWII and what happens.

[BigSky]

Very good post Mimi.

[Bill Peckham]

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.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California who has long been a student of Middle Eastern culture and religion.

This is insane. Iran is not the forth Reich. Iran spends 1% of the US on its military. It has never invaded another country. This is just absolutely nuts. Israel has its own nuclear deterrent, one would have to credit them with having sub based launch capabilities. This idea that Iran is one nuke away from imposing sharia law in the US is just NUTS!

But it isn't just some writer in Northern California, our President Bush told the Israeli Knesset last Thursday that those who would talk with Iran or Syria were guilty of "appeasement" pointing back to 1938 and Neville Chamberlain. Diplomacy is not appeasement, talking to people is not appeasement. The problem wasn't talking to Hitler, the problem was Chamberlain was seen to have traded Czechoslovakia for a promise of peace - he appeased Hitler for a promise of peace. Daniel Larison put it well when he wrote "What concerns me is that idea that Mr. Bush’s style of foreign policy can still be presented as self-evidently right and competent in the face of a mountain of evidence that it is neither." http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/15/negotiation/

[BigSky]

This is insane. Iran is not the forth Reich. Iran spends 1% of the US on its military. It has never invaded another country. This is just absolutely nuts. Israel has its own nuclear deterrent, one would have to credit them with having sub based launch capabilities. This idea that Iran is one nuke away from imposing sharia law in the US is just NUTS!

Hmm yet I bet in that number Iran spends on its military doesnt include the amount they spend funding and committing terrorist acts does it?  Nor probably the amount of weapons they give to terrorists. 

Time and time again Iran has committed terrorist attacks or funded terrorist attacks.  So claims of them not invading another country mean nothing.

Israel is a responsible nation.  Iran is not.  History has shown us if Iran was to get a nuke they most likely would give it to terrorists or commit a terrorist act with it themselves.

[Bill Peckham]

This is insane. Iran is not the forth Reich. Iran spends 1% of the US on its military. It has never invaded another country. This is just absolutely nuts. Israel has its own nuclear deterrent, one would have to credit them with having sub based launch capabilities. This idea that Iran is one nuke away from imposing sharia law in the US is just NUTS!

Hmm yet I bet in that number Iran spends on its military doesnt include the amount they spend funding and committing terrorist acts does it?  Nor probably the amount of weapons they give to terrorists. 

Time and time again Iran has committed terrorist attacks or funded terrorist attacks.  So claims of them not invading another country mean nothing.

Israel is a responsible nation.  Iran is not.  History has shown us if Iran was to get a nuke they most likely would give it to terrorists or commit a terrorist act with it themselves.

So they're what, spending 2% of the US defense budget? The number for the US didn't include the supplemental budget request to fund the wars.

Iran has shown it is open to international pressure. They value stable markets because that's the best environment for them to sell their oil - there is no evidence that that giving out nukes is the direction they want to go because it would not be in their interests to do that. But even if they gave a terrorist organization a nuke and god forbid they somehow managed to detonate it in the  US, how does that get you to the imposition of Sharia law in the US?? That is insane. That fear is nuts.

And how does Iran messing around in proxy fights equate to the third Reich? There is no, none, nada, zilch resemblance  between Germany circa 1938 and Iran circa 2008. Talking to Iran, unconditionally, is not appeasement and talking/diplomacy with Iran/Syria/N. Korea  shares no, none, nada, zilch resemblance per se to Munich 1938.

[BigSky]

So they're what, spending 2% of the US defense budget? The number for the US didn't include the supplemental budget request to fund the wars.

Its foolish to even try to compare what we spend on defense with what Iran spends.   

1.  The mission of the US military is far different than that of Iran.
2.   We have a modern military that uses some of the latest technology.
3.  Our military does far more around the world than just defense of the US. 
4.  Considering the vast amount of stuff our military does, we only spend 1.5% more of GDP than Iran spends vs their GDP.

Iran has shown it is open to international pressure. They value stable markets because that's the best environment for them to sell their oil - there is no evidence that that giving out nukes is the direction they want to go because it would not be in their interests to do that. But even if they gave a terrorist organization a nuke and god forbid they somehow managed to detonate it in the  US, how does that get you to the imposition of Sharia law in the US?? That is insane. That fear is nuts.

And how does Iran messing around in proxy fights equate to the third Reich? There is no, none, nada, zilch resemblance  between Germany circa 1938 and Iran circa 2008. Talking to Iran, unconditionally, is not appeasement and talking/diplomacy with Iran/Syria/N. Korea  shares no, none, nada, zilch resemblance per se to Munich 1938.

Time and time again Iran has given weapons to terrorists, committed terrorism and funded terrorism.  So that past history  DOES suffice as  evidence.  Also it goes past far more than nukes.  They can easily give radioactive material from making of nukes to terrorists to make dirty bombs.

No one has ever said that sharia law would occur in the US over one nuke,  well except you again.  However its called a path.  Hitler started out small and damn near took over the world and wiped out an entire race of people, all because no one wanted to get involved and because everyone displayed your attitude and said it wouldn't happen in their country.

[Bill Peckham]

Hitler did not start out small - he had the largest most powerful military the world had ever seen.

The author you applaud said "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."

What is he (you) imagining? How could that under any circumstance come to pass?

The great flaw with this argument is the total lack of belief in the superiority of our system of government (at least pre 2002), this concept of an Islamic America is really no different than the fears of a Red America in the '50s. How real was that threat? Was America ever on the verge of adopting a communist world view? Maybe if Vietnam didn't go well ... oh wait.

[BigSky]

Hitler did not start out small - he had the largest most powerful military the world had ever seen.

The author you applaud said "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."

What is he (you) imagining? How could that under any circumstance come to pass?

The great flaw with this argument is the total lack of belief in the superiority of our system of government (at least pre 2002), this concept of an Islamic America is really no different than the fears of a Red America in the '50s. How real was that threat? Was America ever on the verge of adopting a communist world view? Maybe if Vietnam didn't go well ... oh wait.

Germany did have a small military and it was limited by treaty after WWI.  In 35 Hitler renewed the practice of conscription which dramatically increased his military.

The key point of his statement is the word  "MAY".  Seems you ignored that little word and took it that it will happen for sure.

It doesnt take an imagination to understand how this could come to pass.  Especially in our system of government.  Our system is open to everyone and anyone and as such it leaves a hole open to those that could and can use the process to their benefit.

At one time communism was a threat.  It was democracy that won out in the end. 

Time and time again history has shown that all that needs to have a nation conquered is for the nation to do nothing or wait to do something at a point it is too late for it too matter.

[monrein]

For someone intent on reminding America's youth of the significance of history, Raymond S. Kraft's treatise contains quite a few errors of fact in addition to his leaps of analytical faith.  It is an interesting exercise to Google his name and read some of the rebuttals to what some consider a fanciful flight of fear-mongering.  Although I personally do not agree with his conclusions,  it is his citing of historical inaccuracies and his apparently conscious omission (or ignorance?) of other aspects of US history (that the US was actively supporting Saddam H. and even supplying him with arms at the very time he was busy killing his own countrymen, and the fact that SH was a secularist and hostile to Al Qaeda, to name but a couple of examples) that cause me to wonder about what Kraft does present in the way of facts. 
Kraft's view that the US has a good shot at creating a democratic peaceful Iraq seems very much like wishful thinking to me and flies in the face of the US's current treatment of those Iraqis who assisted them as translators etc but who have been pretty much abandoned by their former bosses and many of whom are now refugees or have been killed by fellow Iraqis who consider them traitors.  Sixty Minutes had a segment on this that I saw last night and it was pretty disturbing.  According to a young American who worked alongside some of these brave Iraqis and who is trying to gain access to the US for as many as he can, the US has accepted only 5000 while Sweden has accepted some 40,000 Iraqi refugees.  Seems disgraceful to put them in harm's way then turn a blind eye to their plight.  Democracy in Iraq may not seem so fabulous to those in this situation.  I of course live in socialist Canada so I am clearly not nearly clever enough to understand how any particularly valid parallel can be drawn between fighting specific enemies in WWII and fighting an amorphous space-shifting entity like Al Qaeda which seems to have moved into Iraq after the US invasion and has seen rising recruitment  among Sunnis there as a response to the American presence.

[Bill Peckham]

For someone intent on reminding America's youth of the significance of history, Raymond S. Kraft's treatise contains quite a few errors of fact in addition to his leaps of analytical faith.  It is an interesting exercise to Google his name and read some of the rebuttals to what some consider a fanciful flight of fear-mongering.  Although I personally do not agree with his conclusions,  it is his citing of historical inaccuracies and his apparently conscious omission (or ignorance?) of other aspects of US history (that the US was actively supporting Saddam H. and even supplying him with arms at the very time he was busy killing his own countrymen, and the fact that SH was a secularist and hostile to Al Qaeda, to name but a couple of examples) that cause me to wonder about what Kraft does present in the way of facts. 
Kraft's view that the US has a good shot at creating a democratic peaceful Iraq seems very much like wishful thinking to me and flies in the face of the US's current treatment of those Iraqis who assisted them as translators etc but who have been pretty much abandoned by their former bosses and many of whom are now refugees or have been killed by fellow Iraqis who consider them traitors.  Sixty Minutes had a segment on this that I saw last night and it was pretty disturbing.  According to a young American who worked alongside some of these brave Iraqis and who is trying to gain access to the US for as many as he can, the US has accepted only 5000 while Sweden has accepted some 40,000 Iraqi refugees.  Seems disgraceful to put them in harm's way then turn a blind eye to their plight.  Democracy in Iraq may not seem so fabulous to those in this situation.  I of course live in socialist Canada so I am clearly not nearly clever enough to understand how any particularly valid parallel can be drawn between fighting specific enemies in WWII and fighting an amorphous space-shifting entity like Al Qaeda which seems to have moved into Iraq after the US invasion and has seen rising recruitment  among Sunnis there as a response to the American presence.

If you wanted to you could be bitter - I'd understand since while we've been distracted by Bush's Iraqi snipe hunt, Canada has been carrying our water in Afghanistan.

[BigSky]

For someone intent on reminding America's youth of the significance of history, Raymond S. Kraft's treatise contains quite a few errors of fact in addition to his leaps of analytical faith.  It is an interesting exercise to Google his name and read some of the rebuttals to what some consider a fanciful flight of fear-mongering.  Although I personally do not agree with his conclusions,  it is his citing of historical inaccuracies and his apparently conscious omission (or ignorance?) of other aspects of US history (that the US was actively supporting Saddam H. and even supplying him with arms at the very time he was busy killing his own countrymen, and the fact that SH was a secularist and hostile to Al Qaeda, to name but a couple of examples) that cause me to wonder about what Kraft does present in the way of facts. 

Saddam was not as hostile to Osama and liberals try to make it.  Al-qaeda and saddam had a stated relationship with each other.  So much so Saddam own son touted it in his paper the "Babel".

We did supply Saddam with some conventional weapons but so did a host of other countries around the world.


BTW bill.  THe US currently has roughly 28,000 troops in Afghanistan which makes up the bulk of all troops there.

[Bill Peckham]

Like your GNP analysis looking at raw numbers is misleading. Canada is a much smaller country than the US - roughly one tenth the size.

From Matt at the Atlantic http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/iraqafghanistan_linkages.php Robert Farley summarizes Samantha Power on Canada http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/05/canadas-contribution.html:

It's in this context that articles like Samantha Power's recent Time magazine piece http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731892,00.html are particularly important. Canada has borne a disproportionate share of the fighting in Afghanistan, and has suffered dreadful casualties. Eighty-two [now 83] Canadians have thus far been killed in Afghanistan, as compared with ninety-five from the much larger UK contingent. The death rate has taken its toll on Canadian public opinion, but one lesson of the Power article is that Iraq continues to poison everything; to the extent that the Afghan operation is conceived of as part of greater US foreign policy, it becomes less popular.

[migaguiar]

I tend to be a little towards the left naturally but i listen to Republican radio so i can get a well rounded view.
It could be confusing sometimes though because i will hear the exact opposite from both groups speaking on the same subject.
Like this war, global warming, embryonic research.....etc.....
The papers are controlled. the tv is controlled.
Plus the info out there is immense.

I do know this however from my travels in Europe and South America, the US is seen as a big bully that is in everyone's business.
You get a completely different feel when you watch the news from another country about the US.

[BigSky]

Like your GNP analysis looking at raw numbers is misleading. Canada is a much smaller country than the US - roughly one tenth the size.

BS bill.  Time you quit with the spin.  In terms of military its goes by the numbers, not percentage of what one country is to another in terms of people or military strength.  The fact is the US has the vast majority of troops in Afghanistan.


Of course if you had served you would know that bill.

[monrein]

BigSky, could you please explain how the Liberal Moron poster advances your point of view or contributes anything to the discussion?  And here I always thought that freedom involved the freedom to hold differing views, to exchange them and debate them.  It would seem that from your perspective that freedom is limited to the freedom to agree with you and with everything you say.  Falling back on a position of saying that if one criticizes US foreign policy that one is therefore dissing the troops is specious and a bit weird.  I hold an American passport but view your country with interest from an outside position.  My father fought valiantly in WWII in the Air Force and was shot down and wounded and I have nothing but respect for soldiers in general.  I would point out that the very term freedom fighter is used by many who firmly believe that that is what THEY are fighting for.
PS I still think that Kraft's article is not particularly accurate and his conclusions a bit odd.  I also understand that you think it is terrific and right on the money.  I can live with that, no problem.

[BigSky]

BigSky, could you please explain how the Liberal Moron poster advances your point of view or contributes anything to the discussion?

Because it speaks to the truth in the matter in how bill loves to spin utter and clear bs just as he did with troops relating to percentages of population.

 

And here I always thought that freedom involved the freedom to hold differing views, to exchange them and debate them.  It would seem that from your perspective that freedom is limited to the freedom to agree with you and with everything you say.

You can "can" it with the tired liberal claim about perspective and having to agree with me.  Typical liberal banter how others should roll over to their view and if we dont its us and our limited perspective.

 

Falling back on a position of saying that if one criticizes US foreign policy that one is therefore dissing the troops is specious and a bit weird.

Not when those critizing it are basing it on half truths and falsehoods.

 

  I would point out that the very term freedom fighter is used by many who firmly believe that that is what THEY are fighting for.

 

Not even.   Freedom fighters do not fight to oppress people.  That is EXACTLY what Al-Qaeda and others are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan!

You do not see the US  in Iraq or Afghanistan as matter of policy going around and killing innocent civilians on purpose.  Yet time and time again Al-Qaeda and "your" freedom fighters are doing just that!!!


 

PS I still think that Kraft's article is not particularly accurate and his conclusions a bit odd. 

I suggest that you look to history to see how it has happened time and time again in human civilization.

[monrein]

Way to go BigSky.  You have misinterpreted much of what I was trying to say and I do not plan on discussing this further with you.  I plan rather to "can" it as you suggest as it would appear that your idea of discussion is to denigrate and throw around silly labels.  I will point out however that I did not say that your perspective was limited.  I said that from your perspective FREEDOM is limited etc. I try to understand the perspectives of others because we all see things differently depending on our experiences. You are perhaps projecting here since clearly you feel that  my view is limited, that you have the bead on history and truth while I don't.  Fair enough.  I do try to take a look at history as I believe it to  be very important but even historical events are interpreted differently and I do read a range of newspapers and listen to the opinions of people from all points on the political spectrum.   Just trying to understand the issues and form my own opinion.  I claim no expertise as a historian.  Mr. Kraft on the other hand does present himself as very knowledgeable about historical facts and yet there are errors of fact in his article.  That was the point of my post, not to engage in personal mud-slinging.  I also certainly do not expect you to agree with me, as I said at the end of my last post, I can live with that, no problem.
Good luck with your agenda.

[UNIBALLER]

As a soldier that has seen and experienced the effects of topics discussed in this thread, I feel obligated to post a comment. The facts stated by Mimi on WW2 are what they are facts, but the speculations in her post and the speculations made by other members on the future of the world are exactly that speculations. Until all of the facts have been observed without prejudice it is impossible to take action against any person or group of persons. In my personal opinion this has not been done enough and that is why there is so much termoil and unrest in the world right now, I do agree with certain actions that are in motion at the moment because they are based on facts and past actions and not on future speculation, and obviously disagree with other actions for the obvious reason. Unlike a lot of fellow soldiers/airmen/sailors from my country and most other countries I try to keep myself informed and educated as to what is going on in the world and how it is affecting world and domestic affairs and the public opinion since depending on what decisions and actions are made I will have been prepared and will not be blindly following others.

Reading this post and the subsequent replies made to it I would like to let you know that this is the freedom that I defend in Canada and what I believe is the same freedom for other countries. Being able to speak your mind and voice your opinions and beliefs in the open via public forum or by press without the fear of persecution and it makes me happy and proud to do what I do and to see the effects of my calling in life.

Also reading this these quotes have come to mind as very appropriate for mention as to how true they are, and I believe they are good way to sign off on this posting.

"Only the dead have seen the end of the war."    Plato

"If you want peace, prepare for war."    Roman general Flavius Vegetius Renatus

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."   Edmund Burke

[Bill Peckham]

Way to go BigSky. 

As his world view comes crashing down around his ears he'll probably be lashing out a lot for the next few months/years; getting all bitter. Don't take it personally.

[BigSky]

Way to go BigSky.  You have misinterpreted much of what I was trying to say and I do not plan on discussing this further with you.  I plan rather to "can" it as you suggest as it would appear that your idea of discussion is to denigrate and throw around silly labels.  I will point out however that I did not say that your perspective was limited.

No, I interpreted it right. 

You didn't need to come right out and say those words of perspective was limited because that is exactly what you meant when you used the line.
"It would seem that from your perspective that freedom is limited to the freedom to agree with you and with everything you say."

That is fully supported by your statements.

First how you go on to say how people like you say it is ok to have different views, but Lord forbid if we speak back out against you on the issue poking holes in your claims then it is us by your false claim  in essence saying we have limited perspective. 

Its laughable how you claim people can have different views and then act that you get to have them but the rest of us should roll over and not say anything in response to those views. 

As his world view comes crashing down around his ears he'll probably be lashing out a lot for the next few months/years; getting all bitter. Don't take it personally.

 

Seems you need UA's bill.  Because you are definitely on something illegal to think that.

[Bill Peckham]

The idea that I could do a UA makes about as much sense as your world view.

[BigSky]

Hmm  yet it took you days to respond.

[Bill Peckham]

Hmm  yet it took you days to respond.

You really must be trying to make people who hold your world view look bad - it is so complete that I am beginning to wonder if your whole schtiick is a put on.

[BigSky]

Hmm  yet it took you days to respond.

You really must be trying to make people who hold your world view look bad - it is so complete that I am beginning to wonder if your whole schtiick is a put on.

Tsk tsk bill.   Is that all you got?