poulson sent me an essay that was preceded by this comment.
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGN POWERS IN 2008.
The essay follows. It is a long read, but well worth it.
Historical Significance for today's world:Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and
hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had
sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and
America taking food and war materialsAt that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most
Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian warThen 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
alliesFrance 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.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 in 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 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. 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.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 again. a 27
year war.WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full
year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion
dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action,
and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000,
which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has
also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to
lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11
terrorist attack.The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably
greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything
comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy,
uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and
probably always will be.The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until
we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we
have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which
we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history
of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and
civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the
world.The Iraq War is merely another battle in this 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.
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. (This is one option of the Dimocrat Party. ... GOC)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. (This
is the other option of the Dimocrat Party. ... GOC)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 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 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000
people, depending on which estimates you accept.The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took
more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the
first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the
individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war
has done so far.The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative
governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms, or
a world 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! (Except to Dimocrats,
where Bush and the Republicans are their worst enemy! ... GOC)
This essay was written by Raymond S.Kraft, a writer living in Northern California who has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
Posted by denny at June 6, 2007 01:14 PMI have been preaching this scenario to anyone who listens. Just like the Soviet Union, the islamists are using the useful idiots to further their cause. In this case they are the same as then; the American left. Most universities in the US and Europe are teaching students and anyone else who will listen that we have to be tolorent and understanding and the jihadist will leave us alone. (Keep feeding the aligator and they will eat us last) mentality. They seem to think that America is the problem and blame us for all the worlds problems.
The Muslims in America are playing us like a fiddle. They are using our courts and our judicial system to cause havoc and twist everything in their favor. The UCLA, Cair and other organizations are treating them as if they are victims. Again, we are at fault.
I read this morning at "Front Page.com" that our Universities are now building facilities to accomodate them to prepare for prayer. Just try that for a Christian group or persons and see how long it would take the ACLU or People For THe American Way to have a court order stopping it. We are our own worst enemies when it comes to turning our heads and ignoring things such as this.
In Britain they are trying to make public schools conform to their religion by disallowing the teaching about the holocaust. They want separate rooms for the sexes and everbody has to abide by the Muslim law that one has to fast during Ramadan.
LOOK OUT FOLKS, IT'S COMING TO YOUR COUNTRY SURE AS SHIT STINKS!
Gene Hall.......
I agree with you but have you asked Socialist Sally & Trixie Teresa what their take is ?......maybe we could just send some milk & cookies & everything will be all right.
Posted by: dudley1 on June 6, 2007 03:15 PMWorld War II started in 1939, not 1928. I already knew everything in the essay. So do the libs. The difference? They could care less. Apathy rules.
Posted by: vetfromhell on June 6, 2007 03:29 PMVet:
Nah, they don't, as Sally demonstrates so very well.
They don't know about the reasons and buildup to war, they don't know about the aftermath.
They've memorized Dec 7, 1941, August 6, 1945, August 9, 1945, and that's it. Maybe something here or there. Saw a movie about Putton or Patterico or something like that. Some rogue general who goes around slapping people. Anyway, that's not important! What's important is that it's, like, totally, like, different!
Why?
How dare you ask me! Because.. Because.. it is!. And you're a moron for asking!
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 6, 2007 03:43 PMWhat a bitchen read! I tilt my glass to Raymond S. Kraft for his brilliance.
I especially liked this line:
"Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists
always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them."
Yup, that pretty much sums it up...
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 6, 2007 04:11 PMMy dad was at Normandy in 1944. Corporal James M. Sharp, 29th Division, Forward Artillery Observer. Carried a piece of German shrapnel in his shoulder from 1945 until his death in 1994. He was a very good man, and I miss him every day.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
this is an extraordinary essay. I especially liked the part about why do peace activists not protest in North Korea ..etal. brilliant.
The sad truth I think is that if we do wait to long and Iran gets the bomb then regardless of who is president at the time we are going to almost certain ly use tactical nukes against Iran. Boots on the ground won't do it and neither will bunker busters. When that happens, hide the women and children.
Posted by: patrick on June 6, 2007 04:30 PMI agree with the essay except that I am not so sure that there really is such a thing as moderate Mohammedans.
A careful reading of their books would cause you to understand that true believers push conversion to their cult by the sword if necessary--provided they have the physical strength to accomplish their goals.
Where the essay is spot on is in its comparison of what was required to vanquish our enemies in WWII and the lack of will on the part of our left wing elected representatives to recognize the enemy and deal with them while the cost is relatively low. It is politically incorrect for them to do so, and it may well cost our country and countrymen dearly.
This statement:
"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"
is wrong. Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, but not on Germany or Italy. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Posted by: DJ on June 6, 2007 06:04 PM?!?! While I like the sentiment, this guy certainly didn't do his research very well. As DJ pointed out, Germany declared war on the US. Also, the Belgian army didn't surrender until 28.May.1940, which was 18 days after the Germans invaded. He may be confusing Denmark with Belgium.
As for WWII beginning in 1928, he may also be thinking of when Japan attacked China, but that was 1931!
Like I said, I agree with the sentiment, but inserting such sloppily researched "facts" only puts everything else he claims into question. If I were grading this piece, I'd give it a "D".
Posted by: Dar on June 6, 2007 08:12 PM"I read this morning at 'Front Page.com' that our Universities are now building facilities to accomodate them to prepare for prayer. Just try that for a Christian group or persons and see how long it would take the ACLU or People For THe American Way to have a court order stopping it. We are our own worst enemies when it comes to turning our heads and ignoring things such as this."
Too late. When King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was still alive he gave millions to my university for a Middle Eastern Studies program, so we built a mosque for them. No churches on this campus, just a mosque.
I wish we didn't need their fuckin' oil. I fuckin' hate fuckin' ragheads. If their worthless countries weren't sitting atop an ocean of oil, the Middle East would be just like Africa, a desolate and worthless land.
Posted by: Marksman2000 on June 6, 2007 08:44 PMMr. Raymond Kraft sure does get a lot of his 'history' wrong!
Mr. Kraft starts with a stirring account of the events leading up to and surrounding World War II, telling of the rise of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism and the all-too-sad reluctance of "Americans" to engage these threats in their infancy.
What this "conservative" fails to address, however, is that there was, in fact, a major group of Americans who did want to get into the war sooner, who did want America to become involved militarily. And who were these people? Were they right-wing war hawks, ever watchful of the need for America to protect freedom around the globe? Nope, not at all. The Americans who protested Nazi and Japanese imperialism and called for American intervention were none other than the most liberal and Leftist of Americans. They were members of the American Anti-Fascist League, members of the Abe Lincoln Brigade (a Communist and Anarchist organization that fought in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco), members of the Communist Party USA, and members of student organizations.
Then Mr. Kraft simply gets his facts wrong when he states: "Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million."
It's pretty easy to look up these statistics, and if he had done so, perhaps he would have found the accurate numbers. The Soviet Union did not lose 24 million people during these sieges. The Soviet Union is not recognized to have lost more that 8 million civilians in the entire war, much less over 20 million people in two sieges; his numbers are just plain incorrect.
I could go on ....
DanS is correct on several statistical points but seems to forget the pro Nazi stance that the Communist Party USA adopted upon the signing of the Ribbentrop Molotov pact in the spring of 1939. They sang a different tune after the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Posted by: ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on June 6, 2007 10:24 PMAhh, the "Pact of Steel"!
Savor those words and that concept.
And never forget what came about as consequence of it.
It sounded so STRONG! So .... well, ..."Steely"!
Wasn't there something called "sitzkrieg" as a result? The "Phony War"?
Seems there was some sort of "betrayal" involved there, yes?
Posted by: DanS on June 6, 2007 11:52 PMJust Wow! You people are seriously just diving off the high board with no idea where the bottom is. History should not have to repeat itself. Dubya should have known better but had his own agenda's.
Posted by: Teresa on June 7, 2007 12:03 AMDanS check the Jinan incident of May 3rd 1928 which is often cited as when Japan officially bagan its anexation of China. For everyones information, the Japanese were deeply involved in China affairs long before that. I believe as far back as 1909 or 1910, and involved in the infighting, often creating incidents to give reasons to attack.
Posted by: Jeremy on June 7, 2007 12:25 AMTeresa-
Nice blanket statement...
Yeah yeah yeah, the same "end of our way of life" propoganda was used during Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and WWI. Except then we actually had nations about to invade us. Now it's scattered pockets of insurgents who could never seriously expect to take over the US. Really now, there's over 300 million Americans. Do you honestly think terrorists could ever take us over, nuke or not?
Posted by: Jon on June 7, 2007 12:43 AMNo, Jon-
They have no chance because there will be a rifle 'behind every blade of grass' once again...
Do you honestly think it can't happen?
Some of us actually give a shit about the future of this great Nation...
Do you?
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 7, 2007 01:07 AMI sent Denny an email-excerpt from 2004 that, I think, addresses all of these issues. It was almost as long as the original post and I did not deem it fair to you to post it.
OT: Jeremy: How does May 3rd 1928 factor in? You are not saying that 'someone' created 'incidents' in order to 'give reasons to attack', are you?
BOT: My sole & entire point is simply that Mr. Kraft is playing fast & loose with his 'facts' in order to possibly-persuade you over to his point-of-view. I find that reprehensible and more than a little dishonest.
D-Day, June 6, 1944, is about American men, Canadian men and various others assaulting a hostile beach in France.
And winning. They secured a foothold.
Frankly, I have to wonder why Denny posted about the lawyer, Mr. Raymond S. Kraft, and his easily-rebutted (whatever it is). It doesn't speak to my understanding of what happened on Omaha Beach 63 years ago.
Posted by: DanS on June 7, 2007 01:09 AMDanS-
You are the only one that can deem it fair to post it?
Are you you taking PolySci too?
"BOT: My sole & entire point is simply that Mr. Kraft is playing fast & loose with his 'facts' in order to possibly-persuade you over to his point-of-view. I find that reprehensible and more than a little dishonest."
Your sole & entire point is dust in the wind, and the fact that you pick apart Mr. Kraft and his thesis proves that your mind is not only closed, it's deranged. I find it reprehensible and dishonest that you choose to ignore the obvious fact that your way of thinking is the death of the United States, and not much else...
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 7, 2007 01:36 AMI know my 15-post foul is still in effect, but I'm an 'Insurgent' like that...
If I was you, I would send a HellFire at me!
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 7, 2007 01:47 AM(DanS pats Charlie Delta softly on his head)...
The topic is "D-Day Essay."
Elizabeth Imperial Keeper, in her post, said more about D-Day & it's impact than all of us combined (including Denny).
I would like your permission to post an email to you (the same mail I sent to Denny) so that I might lower your blood-pressure about 'deem' & 'fair' and posts.
No, I don't 'take' PolySci.
It's a measure of the merits of my understanding of APPLIED PolySci that merits you this response during your 15-post suspension.
Posted by: DanS on June 7, 2007 01:52 AMMy daughter attends a High School that has been trying to teach the kids that we should not be there. After reading this post I printed about 50 copies of it and had my daughters read it then I told them to take and personally hand a copy to each of their friends (hope you don't mind.) This is one of the best articals iv'e read that makes very clear just what we are up against, the history of similar behaivor, and what we WILL get if defeat becomes an option.
Posted by: Bernard Wilmes on June 7, 2007 02:04 AMA lot of good sentiment, marred by a few mistakes and incorrect assumptions.
The second-biggest problem I have with his assumptions is with the notion that there are moderate Moslems. A recent poll showed that about 2/3 of all Moslems, even in "moderate" countries like Indonesia, want to live under sharia law. Since sharia is utterly incompatible with everything we believe in, I just don't see the moderates here. Besides, where are the moderates decrying all the violence committed by "extremists"? I've never heard any moderate Islamic voices denouncing their more active and violent brethren. I just don't see the evidence for their existence.
However, the biggest problem with his essay is that he puts our safety and security in their hands. He says that we have to hope--just hope!--that the reformers will win the battle. What if they don't?
We cannot be safe if we rely on others for our safety. Our security rests in our hands. The most sensible thing to do is separate them from us. That means we must do the following:
1. Stop all Moslem immigration.
2. Implement policies that cause Moslems to return to their countries of origin.
3. Deport non-citizen Moslems who are guilty of sedition.
4. Strip the citizenship from Moslems who are guilty of sedition and deport them, too.
5. Close all mosques and madrassas that preach anti-Western sentiment.
6. Prevent Islamic countries from threatening us by keeping them contained and weak.
If we implement sensible policies like these--things we can do to protect ourselves--then we can be secure, regardless of what the Moslems do in their countries.
Posted by: Squidley on June 7, 2007 02:07 AMSquidley-
#5 shouldn't even be in question. In fact, 1-6 shouldn't be in question...
The blood boils...
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 7, 2007 02:12 AMTrixie Teresa I presume?.......
Bush had his own Agendas? ...He should have known better?......History should not have to repeat itself? A whole lot of leftwing lies & liberal agenda in this brief statement.
Since you allude to Bushs agendas with such fervor, perhaps you might enlighten us as to what they are & in what Bush planning session you participated to have obtained such private information?
Bush should have known better.....like did he really think having Osama & AlQueda commit 9/11 would fool the most patriotic dimocrats? Or did he really think that just because we have not yet found the Haliburton oil tankers that they are not there?
History should not have to repeat itself....This one you got right...Like maybe you & the rest of the leftwing dimocrats will get your heads out of your ass & see what is really going on & act in the best interest of this country & quit playing Traitors & Fools that ever popular dimocratic pastime.
You & people like you are why history repeats itself because you refuse to accept reality until others emboldened by your reluctant ignorance push you into a corner & you have no choice. I guess we will just have to wait until that corner is reached & the liberal left finally develops patriotic courage to act. Just how big of a bomb must be set off? what kind of horrific catastrophy must take place? How many innocent Americans must die before you wakeup?
Posted by: dudley1 on June 7, 2007 06:55 AMDanS liberal Spin Doctor......
On one side of the debate we hace Raymond F. Craft a professinal writer & historical researcher who has studied Middle Eastern culture & Religion.To a liberal these credentials are very suspect.
On the other side we have DanS who reads his medicine bottle labels & rinses his dentures in Bong Water.As to a liberal.... they would say "Now thats what I`m talking about" with regard for credentials.
How sad!...How pathetic! ....How real!
Posted by: Dudley1 on June 7, 2007 07:14 AMTeresa, what is the Bush Agenda? Please could you educate us so that we may know and understand where your goofy assumptions come from? I'd love to be able to dive from your springboard of intellectualism. Pahlease...
I enjoyed the essay, I didn't go date checking, I also know the dicey yet delicate balancing act that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin had going on. Sir Winston was right on the money as are the usual suspects that comment here. (minus Trixie, silly and Dan S.)
Dan S. may I advise you not to condescend to CD by gently patting him anywhere on his person. Not only are you inviting scorn, but ventilation.
I'm going to shock everybody and almost-agree-with-Dan here. :)
Kraft does seem to ... have drawn some conclusions that at least now are arguable, at best.
Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Collapse, perhaps. But Germany had no way to invade. To people who are positive that Hitler was almost ready to launch Operation Sealion I merely ask: "Who was in charge of Sealion"? The Army kept saying the Navy was in charge, the Navy kept insisting the Army was in charge. End result: There was no substantative plan, Operational Staff, logistics started, or anything that would have allowed Germany to attempt to invade England.
More importantly, the Germans attacked the Soviets - as the Soviets had prepped the invasion armies to attack Germany. One reason the Germans were able to smash through - the front line, best troops and equipment the Russians had was smashed far behind the Germans. This was glossed over, hell, outright hidden from the world for the most part by the US and USSR, because the US wouldn't have likely been as enamored to support the USSR without the "Sneak Attack".
(It's not so much a case of sneak-attack as self-defense if you find out that the Russians were massed on the border, a week or less away from launching their own attack, and the Germans had their best armor, airplanes, and men captured/destroyed...)
I'm not sure where Dan is getting his casualty figures from - the Russians now confess to about 28 million total casualties that are "war-related". (And there are about another 5 or 10 million that are "Stalin-related" - some of those are counted as war-related, others aren't. )
The Americans who protested Nazi and Japanese imperialism and called for American intervention were none other than the most liberal and Leftist of Americans.
As others noted.. until the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Then they became fervent opponents of assisting England. Until Germany and the USSR started fighting, and then they were back into the "pro-war" fray.
There were about as many American Nazi party members, you might want to note, Dan, who had almost the same belief system, other than we should be supporting and allying with Germany as the "progressive" thing to do.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 09:02 AMI was looking forward to reading this piece but Mr. Kraft got so many basic facts about World War Two wrong that I gave up. In forums, chat rooms and in person I have encountered many people (young and old) who assume or have been told that the US declared war on Germany after the Pearl Harbor attack. One idiot teenager claimed that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy "because he founded the Audubon Society!" That's public education for you.
And remember folks, it was Mussolini -- not Hitler -- who "made the trains run on time." Herr Hitler "made the panzers run on time . . ."
Posted by: formerlib on June 7, 2007 09:16 AMFighting for freedom should be as easy as it is on the TV show 24 but is harder than that.How bad will a Muslim world take-over be?
Your wife will have to wear a burka, OK so there are some good points.
But really, they will kill or maim for just a free thought, or reading a non-muslim book, or wearing the wrong clothes, eating the wrong food, the death toll will be more than a billion even if we surrender.
How many died in Russia is a Russian state secret, they did not want to appear weak and easy after WWII, so the Russians lied about their remaining population. They are only now recovering, after three generations.
But hey, Paris Hilton is getting out of jail early, wow!!!
Posted by: Jim Macklin on June 7, 2007 09:51 AMFormerlib.......
Nice point "Audubon society"... Who else but an environmentalist would build so many highways "Autobahn network" just so the birdwatchers could get out to the country faster to observe & count birds.
Dan,
I mis read. It was Dar, in a comment above you, as well as vetfrom hell who stated the war did not start in 1928. Although some historians opt for 1939, as does vet, and others pick 1931, the begining of continuous Japanese military actions dates to 1928, and that number is correct.
You had commented about the casualty figures. Given the Soviet reluctance to cooperate in many historical inquests, and the variance of figures provided at various times by them, its hard to guess. Mr. Kraft has researched this far more than I am going to. There were entire regions of The USSR that were decimated by the Germans, and leter more by Stalin as punishment for them not resisting to his satisfaction. How do we count the people that Stalin Killed?
Wikipedia in their description of Stalingrad give it as the bloodiest battle in human history, yet they ascribe fewer casualties to it than to the battle of Moscow where 1.2 Million soviet military may have died.
If you go here there is a list of casualties, including 16 to 18 MILLION civilian dead at the hands of Stalin, a figure not released until the fall of the soviet empire.
Therefore, I would contend that he may be correct on his figures.
If he is wrong, what does it matter? If he is off by 10 million, that does not mean that 10 million people are coming back from the grave.
BTW I disagree with him about the end of the occupation. We were taking casualites as late as the 1980's among our troops in Germany.
Posted by: Jeremy on June 7, 2007 10:01 AMNazi Germany had a massive army and the means to take over all of Europe and more if not stopped by Allied forces. Muslim extremists have the ability to make isolated terrorist attacks here and there. Doesn't look like the same kind of threat to me. Sounds like extremism and alarmism. "All of those evil Muslims want to kill us and they'll soon be able to!!!" Yeah...except that it is a relatively small proportion of Muslims that hate us and they don't have the means to be a serious threat.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 10:22 AMBTW I disagree with him about the end of the occupation. We were taking casualites as late as the 1980's among our troops in Germany.
BTW, comparing the occupation of Germany with the occupation of Iraq is like comparing a firecracker with an H-bomb. Compare the number of dead and particularly the number of dead per year. Massive differences of degree matter.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 10:30 AMI don't see China and Japan fighting as a world war, but at least now I understand his dates. I consider Hitler annexing the Sudetenland in 1939 as the start. My father flew Corsairs off of the Intrepid in the war, My Grandfather was in the Great White Fleet and WWI. I had a great-uncle on my maternal side who parachuted into Dakar, Senegal as a weather observer and forward air controller in the Army Air Corps. He went all the way to El Alimein, got some leave, and came home to Atlanta. He always said he had the pick of the ladies with his snappy Air Corps uniform. He went through OCS, got some more training, and then rode an LST into Omaha Beach as a second lt. He fought all the way to Bastogne, where he was shot twice in the shoulder by a german sniper. They had to strap him on the jeep to get him out of there, he did not want to leave his men. He had his jaw removed in 1985 due to a fungus he contacted in North Africa. I was very close to him up until when he died in 2003. When we were cleaning out his house we found that he was given a whopping 10% disability for the fungal infection that eventually killed him. This was all he would tell me of the war. One of the last things we did together was watch a dvd of Saving Private Ryan that I bought for him. After we watched it we both sobbed for at least a half hour. He told me it was much worse than the movie.
My father went in the Navy as a e-3 plane captain in 1941. He was in VF1, the squadron that later became VF111 on the USS Carl Vinson, where I served. He was discharged a LCDR. He always said it had nothing to do with his skill, his advancement was due to the simple fact that he lived.
I am so glad that not only did I know these men, but they were my family. To me that generation was amazing. In every way. And I will always have the utmost respect for not only them, but the way they did it. I have all three of their medals along with mine in a shadow box on the wall in my house. When I am having a bad day, or feel like my life is tough, I look at those medals and I think of them. They were some tough sons of bitches. My service pales in comparison. All I can do is try to honor them by instilling their values into my sons and now my grandson. Some people in this country understand. Others do not. There are a million men and women who have fought bravely in the mideast. The cycle begins again. I hate war and everything associated with it. But we have to protect this country. Like it or not.
That is todays manifesto.
vetfromhell
Posted by: vetfromhell on June 7, 2007 10:55 AMSally you vastly underestimate the will, means, and aims of states such as Iran and Syria to wipe out us and our way of life. You also understate the reach and means of Al-Qaeda (and other Islamofascist organizations) in their purposes. You are taught that the US is the source of the problem through its "petro-imperialism," when in fact if we had just wanted oil we could have taken it when we invaded Iraq.
The only evidence you need is Iran-Ahmadenijad states that the only reason they are seeking nuclear technology is for power-generating purposes. Really? Are they not sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves?
Reference http://zombietime.com/hitchens-hedges_debate/ for an extremely cogent and well-put explanation.
Posted by: KentuckyJoe on June 7, 2007 10:57 AMStupid sally says
"Yeah...except that it is a relatively small proportion of Muslims that hate us and they don't have the means to be a serious threat."
That is a flat out moronic statement if there ever was one. A lawyer? Did she miss 911? Is her IP address in Damascus or Beirut? What do they have to do stupid sally, wipe out an entire state? Do you realize that stupid statements like that disrespect all the lives we have lost? I say the above statement should get her banned. With a statement like that, she sure as hell will not know how to run a proxy.
Posted by: vetfromhell on June 7, 2007 11:06 AMSally:
Massive differences of degree matter.
How would you know?
You've demonstrated that you don't have a good grounding in history, political science, or current affairs, how can you make that assertation?
You should tell us who you're quoting (as that's all you've done so far), and then we can address their opinion.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 11:23 AMSally:
Compare the number of dead and particularly the number of dead per year.
Oh, don't forget, you already lost one bet proving you didn't know anything about the German resistance. You might want to be less atagonistic to Jeremy. He knows some stuff your "well-rounded" education didn't tell you about.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 11:25 AMNazi Germany had a massive army and the means to take over all of Europe and more if not stopped by Allied forces.
Sorry for the continued posts, but I missed this as being from Sally when I scrolled down. (Lack of bold fooled me).
Sally? Um, you know, when I keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about? Uh, well, listen.
The German Army in 1939 was smaller than the French Army, alone. 1.5 million men under arms. By the invasion of France, that had been raised to 2.5 million.
The French sported on paper a 5 million man military. They also had a almost 3-to-1 advantage in armor, and 2-to-1 in aircraft.
Having an army 1/2 the size of the country you're attacking (ignoring all the other militaries around), is hardly "massive".
Furthermore, means to take over all of Europe and more, which they did. Despite being numerically inferior.
It wasn't the threat of the conquest that drew note, it was the conquest itself.
if not stopped by Allied forces.
They weren't stopped. They were barely hindered "by Allied forces". The lands they conquered were retaken at great expense (Did you not notice the topic of this was about the Invasion of Normandy?) This isn't nit-picking. This is demonstrating that your "conclusions" are drawn from bumper-stickers and you don't understand what you're parrotting.
You keep harping on our education, yet you post utter dribble like that, showing that you couldn't answer a high-school-level question about how the war progressed? Please tell me you're trying out for "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?".
Muslim extremists have the ability to make isolated terrorist attacks here and there. Doesn't look like the same kind of threat to me.
No, it isn't, and doesn't. But any further discussion is hampered by your historical illiteracy, and gross utter ignorance of the goals of "Muslim extremists".
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 11:35 AMSocialist Sally......You are taking a lot of heat with regard for your understanding of the danger we are in & rightfully so. This is just the attitude of so many prior to WW2 & you are proving that History will repeat itself....Teresa, I hope you now get it.
Anyway though you do infuriate many people, I for one do not wish to see you banned.......You by now must have concluded converts to the liberal left are in short supply, so your continued interest in this website must be for another reason. Since I seriously doubt it is for more of the coarser commentary it must be for educational purpose.....I hope you do well with your studies, you might even go on to post-graduate work at the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Conservative Study.
Posted by: dudley1 on June 7, 2007 11:36 AMNo love for Limbaugh here. A pill-popping addict that ridicules drug abusers. Pass.
Posted by: vetfromhell on June 7, 2007 12:14 PMSally - Two things.
1. Who would have thought the Moo-slimes could hijack 4 aircraft and use them as weapons of mass destruction? Just think. The country was united for about four days and then the libs started with their "Why do they hate us?" mantra. You libs will be saying that there cannot be a nuke set off in theis country right up until the time it happens. Four days after that, the libs will start their "Why do they hate us?" bullshit once again.
2. When did the Iraq war all of a sudden become an "occupation" in your eyes? Oh! I know. So you could use German and Japan occupation statistics against Iraq statistics. So it's not a war anymore? It's an occupation? Make up your mind.
Posted by: Denny on June 7, 2007 01:26 PM"Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon".
Waterloo, 1815.
19th century was the shortest century ever!
;-)
Posted by: Prosper on June 7, 2007 02:50 PMSally,lets see by most accounts there are about 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world. If only 2% of those are radical extremist that is 2.4 million people and that is being conservative. Tell me that is not a significant fighting force. If they can get their shit in one sock they could dominate the middle east. But they don't have the fighting forces to do that huh! Tell that to Iran, Syria, Abu Sayyaf ,Aden-Abyan Islamic Army,Adolat,Akromiya,Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyya ,Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades,Ansar Al-Islam ,Al-Qaeda ,Asbat Al-Ansar ,Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda In Iraq,Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement,Egyptian Islamic Jihad Egypt,Fatah Al-Islam,Nahr Al-Bared,Hamas,Harakat Ul-Mujahidin,Hizb-An-Nusra,Hizb Ut-Tahrir,Hezbollah,Hizbul Mujahideen,Hofstad Network,Islamic Front For The Liberation Of Bahrain,Islamic Movement Of Central Asia,Islamic Movement Of Tajikistan,Islamic Movement Of Uzbekistan,Jaish-Mohammed,Jaish Ansar Al-Sunna,Jama'at Al-Jihad Al-Islami,Jemaah Islamiyah,Jihad Rite,Lashkar-E-Jhangvi,Lashkar-E-Toiba,Maktab Al-Khadamat,Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group,Moro Islamic Liberation Front,Palestinian Islamic Jihad,People Against Gangsterism And Drugs,Salafist Group For Preaching And Combat,Sipah-E-Sahaba Pakistan,Students Islamic Movement Of India,Takfir Wal-Hijra,Tehreek-E-Nafaz-E-Shariat-E-Mohammadi,Turkish Hezbolla and Turkish Islamic Jihad. I think they would disagree with you.
Posted by: kerrcarto on June 7, 2007 03:28 PMThe German Army in 1939 was smaller than the French Army, alone. 1.5 million men under arms. By the invasion of France, that had been raised to 2.5 million.
It was an army with the men and munitions capable of taking over Europe. Compare that army to the "armies" of the radical Muslims who hate us. They don't have nearly as many men or munitions. Nowhere near. The size of the threat is much, much smaller. This whole "we have to go to war with them everywhere or they'll wipe out America" nonsense is pure fear mongering. And it is more than a little unreasonable.
1. Who would have thought the Moo-slimes could hijack 4 aircraft and use them as weapons of mass destruction?
It hasn't been a surprise when terrorist hijack planes since the 70's. That is what they do. Isolated acts of terrorism is what they do. Isolated acts of terrorism do not put the American state in jeopardy. They do not put our way of life in jeopardy. We should use intell and special ops to knock out terror cells and terrorist camps, not going to war with entire countries and creating quagmires.
2. When did the Iraq war all of a sudden become an "occupation" in your eyes? Oh! I know. So you could use German and Japan occupation statistics against Iraq statistics. So it's not a war anymore? It's an occupation? Make up your mind.
It is a war and an occupation. When you take over a country and you have to fight on a daily basis to hold it, attempt to create stability and simply keep your troops alive, you are occupying a country during an active war.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 03:30 PMSally,lets see by most accounts there are about 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world. If only 2% of those are radical extremist that is 2.4 million people and that is being conservative. Tell me that is not a significant fighting force.
That is hardly a "fighting force". Are 2.4 million willing to take up arms and fight and die? Probably not. And even if that is the number, they are spread all over the world. They are not organized, not led by any central authority and the vast majority are completely unarmed. They don't all communicate with each other and are not organized in any way. A disorganized "fighting force" that is largely unarmed and doesn't even know that it is a "fighting force" isn't much of a threat.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 03:37 PMThe German Army in 1939 was smaller than the French Army, alone. 1.5 million men under arms. By the invasion of France, that had been raised to 2.5 million.
It was an army with the men and munitions capable of taking over Europe. Compare that army to the "armies" of the radical Muslims who hate us.
*SHHHWWWWWWTTTTT*
YELLOW FLAG!
"Illegal shift in discussion without admitting that prior illustrative comparison was totally incorrect! 15 Incandesent bulbs replaced with CFLs, loss of comment!"
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 03:51 PMAnyone who has lived through events later reported on, knows that history is fraught with error. Instead of focusing on details like numbers and whys which are too often unknowable, we should be focusing on the idea being presented. Is it basically sound? I find Mr. Kraft’s analysis basically sound.
If the Japanese had not screwed up by attacking Pearl Harbor, we would be speaking German or Japanese now. The anti war sentiments were even stronger in the 1940s than the anti war sentiments now. The German and Japanese war technology and military were so advanced that (if the U.S. had not entered the war in response to Pearl Harbor) the Germans would have marched across Russia, the Japanese would have marched across China, England would have been next permitting the Axis to mass their forces in preparation to conquer the western hemisphere.
During WWII, there was much concern at home over what was referred to as a fifth column (a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.) a movement that was ancillary and a distraction to the war. This war is being fought by the fifth column. Iraq, Al Qaeda, suicide bombers, etc. are the distraction. The real war will be fought by the increasing Muslim populations in the liberal democracies of the West.
The belief that peace will come from understanding our enemy will result in our submission or death.
Illegal shift in discussion without admitting that prior illustrative comparison was totally incorrect!
I made the shift? YOU made the shift. I said that the threat of Nazi Germany was nothing like the threat of radical Islam because the radical Islamists don't have the military capability in organized men or munitions that the Germans had. Then you responded by saying that the Germans had a smaller army than the French? So what? If one compares the German army and its threat to the "forces" of radical Islam, you'll see that they are nothing alike and that the threat is not even close to similar.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 05:19 PMI made the shift? YOU made the shift.
*sigh*
Sally, yesterday you told me I was uneducated and ill-informed. (Then proceeded to be uninformed and uneducated.)
Today, you post something factually incorrect. (That I've previously corrected you on - and it's not like it's not easily looked up if you were interested in knowing what in the hell you were talking about)
That failure of your education and knowledge is critical here, because you then use it to make/judge an analysis that you cannot because you don't know the history.
In 1939, Hitler was not a threat. That was, the army was too small. 1.5 million men. Navy was woefully short on surface ships, and barely any U-boats. Very few tanks.
A laughable military force, in short. (Not that I agree with what you're trying to get at with the lack of "Military might, but trying to explain that to you would be damn near impossible, shit, I can't get you to go read basic World War Two history).
Just as your postulated "Moslem force" that you laugh at was militarily inept - so was the German in 1939. Until the German army crashed over the Polish border, and suddenly "Blitzkrieg" was the new word. It was a small army, and under doctrine of the day, should have been easily repulsed by the Polish.
Somewhat annoyingly, the Germans didn't believe in the doctrine of the day.
Invading France, the Germans should have again, bled out on the Maginot Line. When they went around, with the smaller, more mobile army, the French fight was doomed - there was no provision/plan for that to happen. They didn't consider the Germans to be a credible threat.
In short, the Germans weren't some hulking, fearsome army busting at the seams as you portray as a "obvious" conclusion. (Making your conclusion utterly incorrect).
Sally, in 1939/40, it wasn't obvious.
The Germans were able to conquer Europe - because they had been appeased when they could have been stopped. By the time the strength of the German military was obvious - it was too late for anything to be done that would not lead to a total war, and the German military was strong enough to make it unpolitically palatable.
Now, would you care to take your analogy (corrected again), and rethink what some of the other people are trying to get you to see?
German army - small and vocal
Militant Moslems - small and vocal.....
And appeasing the Moslem terrorists has, just like 1936, 1937, 1938, emboldened them.
That's why your WWII analogies fall utterly apart - you don't know the history. (As it turns out, I actually (somewhat) agree with your final conclusion (in this case and context alone)! But I can't agree with you, because the reason you and I are mostly at the same place is utter luck on your behalf!)
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 06:34 PMUnix, so you're argument is that the German army wasn't thought to be particuarly strong before it showed itself to be strong. Therefore, if another "force" is thought to be not strong, then it probably will eventually show itself to be strong. Just because the Germans were inappropriate underrated doesn't mean that every disparaged "force" is also being underrated.
At least the Germans had an army. Radical Muslims have a bunch of disorganized people who are mostly unarmed. Occasionally enough of them get together to make isolated terrorist attacks, the vast majority of which are limited to the Middle East.
Tell me why you think the Muslim "force" is underrated. Saying that the Germans were underrated isn't enough. Do they have an army? Are they organized? How many of them are organized? How many guns to they have? How many bombs? How much plastic explosives do they have? How much in the way of chemical or biological weapons do they have?
We don't know. All we know is that there are some Muslims who hate us and want us to die. Is that enough to think that they are a serious threat to this country? Is there any reason to believe that they have the capability to do any more than just isolated terrorist attacks?
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 06:45 PMJust because the Germans were inappropriate underrated doesn't mean that every disparaged "force" is also being underrated.
That's correct.
Notice that that statement is at odds with your prior one. Which is good! We're making progress!
It does not mean that because a force/danger might seem to be a low threat it is a high threat.
But it shows that there is plenty of precedent for appeasing a force to avoid a small conflict, and the end result is a much bigger conflict later on.
Had 1 platoon of the British or French opposed the German Army crossing into Czech territory - the German Army had orders to halt, and the German High Command had a plan to remove and imprision Hitler.
If 20 guys had been sent to stand in the road.
That's what you're ignoring that the rest of us know - that Hitler was stoppable at just about any point short of 1940. Had the French gone over the border when he invaded Poland, even, it's a fair bet that Germany would have lost.
After Poland was divided, Europe was systematically conquered/divided up among Hitler and his allies - and it wasn't until the industrial might of the USA could shove enough steel onto the beach, and Americans died in droves, could that conquest be reversed.
But this is a big jump for you. Very good, and I'm not being dismissive.
Now you can start to see why your argument was wrong.
The next step toward epiphany.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 7, 2007 06:59 PMUnix, now your argument appears to be "don't underestimate your enemy." Ok, that's sound. We shouldn't underestimate them. But we do need to estimate their threat as accurately as we can. We have reason to believe that radical Muslims hate us. Some of them want to destroy us. How many? How many are willing to take up arms or explosives? How many are organized? What do they have in the way of arms and munitions?
All they have been able to do far is isolated terrorist attacks, the vast majority of which have been limited to the Middle East. What evidence is there that can and will do significantly more than that? Without such information, I find it hard to believe that radical Muslims are this huge threat to our way of life. Again, wanting to destroy us does not necessarily mean that they have the means to make this happen.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 07:25 PMSo Sally
I generally try to stay out of these arguments and leave them to those who have studied military history. But your post @ 06:45 suggests that we should make the same mistakes in 2007 that were made in the late 1930's.
Are you suggesting that we should wait until the moose slim terrorist groups are a strong, cohesive, fully armed military before we kill them.
I call bullshit on that. Kill them now. Keep bombing. Keep shooting.
It is just like killing rats and moles. Start killing them when they first show up or you will be overrun by um.
Are you suggesting that we should wait until the moose slim terrorist groups are a strong, cohesive, fully armed military before we kill them.
I call bullshit on that. Kill them now. Keep bombing. Keep shooting.
Chuck, when you say "Kell them now," who is "them"? Should everyone we identify as a radical Muslim everywhere? And how do we identify who is radical? Should we just kill every Muslim? Or should we just identify which countries have radical Muslims and bomb the hell out of each of those countries?
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 07:47 PMI am pretty liberal on the "them". Afghanistan and Iraq were good starts. Iran and Syria will be fine for the next phase. After that, we can evaluate our successes and failures. Africa seems to be attracting and breeding undesirable rodents and may need attention as well.
I am open minded. I am sorry to say, but we may just have to be as indiscriminate as our enemy in targeting. I am more than willing to sacrifice the entire population of Iran to save the entire population of Blythe.
I am more than willing to sacrifice the entire population of Iran to save the entire population of Blythe.
I second that!
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 7, 2007 08:55 PMSally, Out of all those named, YES they are willing to have their kids/grandkids/sons/daughters and anyone they can bend to their will blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Remember they have 42 virgins waiting for them on the other side after suicide. As compared to Christianity where you go to hell for the same deed.
Posted by: kerrcarto on June 7, 2007 09:13 PMHow about you, Unix? And you Denny? Are you in favor of exterminating everyone in Syria and Iran as well? Just curious. You might as go on record too.
Posted by: Sally on June 7, 2007 11:04 PMSally, and kerrcarto, recheck the math. 2% of 1.2 billion is 24 million, not 2.4 million, A significant ARMY. when you consider the tactics they are so willing to use, its a supreme danger even at 2.4 Million since they don't wear uniforms unless of course, the bomb vest IS their uniform.
The Germans were able to beat, not only the French who had arguably the best equipped Army in Europe, but the British contingent and the troops of the BeNeLux as well. How? Proper prior planning. they used speed, Maneuver, and concentration of force. The Allied powers had to spread out and be prepared for attack in all places. The Germans concentrated power and by doing so ruled the day.
Sally, how do you want to count the dead? The instability left from the wars allowed for the conflicts in SEA, namely Korea and Vietnam. Do you want to include those in the totals? After all, it was WW2 that weakened the French hold on Vietnam that led to the eventual over throw of the puppet governments and the massive loss of life there.
WW2 also catapulted the USSR into super power status. In the 1930 they were IMPORTING labor from the USA. Read Alexander Dulguns Story to learn about that. We were laying off skilled blue collar workers, and the Soviets imported them. The influx of capital and equipment during WW2 enabled them to build an industrial base that could have brought American industry to its knees. Their shoddy Socialist system is what prevented that.
Its the familiar the enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario that created the cold war.
True, our direct casualties from attacks were small, but the opposition lacked the technology that the isamofascists have today. Their supporters were the Soviets and their satellites, and none of them were willing to risk world devastation by giving them a Nuke. The islamhicks have that capacity nearing completion in Iran. Fact is we don't know how soon the Iranians will have a nuke. Kim Jong Il is also a wild card. Who knows? he might give them a nuke for reason mentioned above just so they can use it on US.
The Muslim world view is far different from our own. How well do you understand someone who is willing to die in a possibly futile attempt to kill us? We could not, prior to 9-11-01, rationalize someone who was willing to fly an aircraft into buildings. Intellectuals still fail to grasp it. Their mentality is similar to that of Bushido. Think about the Banzi charges our troops endured on many of the islands in the Pacific. Our troops could not grasp how some one would charge fortified positions using bamboo spears and willingly die, or slash open his guts and bleed out rather than surrender. Our mentality is best summed up by Patton, No SOB ever did a darn thing by dying for his country. Rather, you do it by making the other dumb SOB die for his.
Pointing at numbers means nothing when you consider that the Red Army Faction was willing to continue attacks through 1985 in Europe. that they were willing to kidnap, torture and kill military officers. And you think The islamofascists are going to roll over and be nice puppies as soon as we leave Iraq? ROFLMAO@U! They will press the attack home just like the Japanese army did in 1930's China.
People like you often assume that our military is suddenly evil because Bush is the CIC. These guys are our neighbors, children, friends... They don't go bad if they have a good base. Have there been atrocities in Iraq? darn tootin there have been, and 99.99% were done by the Armies you support, radical islam.
Sally, I'm in favor of killing every one who raises a hand against our nation, any one who supports them, gives them aid, shelter, or anonymity. How do you want to classify that?
God told Abraham that he would spare Soddom for 100 good people, and again for 99, etc. Yet he instructed Israel to totally wipe out the peoples that lived in the land he had given to Abraham.
Normally I don't do this but since Sally once took me to task for using "sumpin'", which I happen to use on purpose, just as I use "gonna" and other affectations of the American vernacular (I am a great admirer of Mark Twain.), I have to point out sumpin' (There's that word again.) that Sally posted in a previous comment.
Unix, so you're argument is that the German army wasn't thought to be particuarly strong before it showed itself to be strong.
It should be "your" argument. Sumpin' must have gone wrong in that "broad based" education. When I make grammatical errors, they are on purpose.
Sally, now we're even on grammatical snarks.
Posted by: Denny on June 7, 2007 11:55 PMWell done Denny. But you have to know that it makes you sound not particularly intelligent to use "words" like "sumpin" and "figger". The problem is that they aren't words at all. You're smarter than that. But you can't be surprised when someone makes fun of you for writing like a hick talks.
Posted by: Sally on June 8, 2007 01:17 AM...like a hick talks.
I thought libs were supposed to be all about 'peace' and 'can't we all just get along?', and not name-calling and assumptions?
Silly-
You contradict yourself every time your fingers hit the keyboard.
Unix, now your argument appears to be "don't underestimate your enemy."
Only if you're not paying attention. Yes, that's what I'm telling you. But you're refusing to examine your position, taking it only as a debate between positions. (It's not, you state something as a parallel, and I point out you're totally wrong). What I'm pointing out is you've made up your mind, now you're trying to justify it through selective readings/parallels. (Which as it turns out are almost always completely wrong).
But we do need to estimate their threat as accurately as we can.
A job that perhaps you're not the best suited for. Not that it will stop you.
We have reason to believe that radical Muslims hate us.
I'm glad you've gotten this far. Why do you believe that? What's led you to suspect that?
Some of them want to destroy us.
Any who take their religion seriously, anyway.
All they have been able to do far is isolated terrorist attacks, the vast majority of which have been limited to the Middle East.
In other words, Sally, your stance is as long as people like Denny and Lumpy and Charlie Delta are there to shield them from you, you don't care what they do, or the likely outcome of their efforts.
That wasn't a question. That was an analysis of your position. It's a damn selfish position, it requires other people to not be as selfish as yourself, and it requires them to sacrifice so you can stand in relative safety and belittle them. If it gets too prevalent, it becomes a case of the tragedy of the commons.
I find it hard to believe that radical Muslims are this huge threat to our way of life.
Obviously. And yes, statistically, currently, they're not a huge threat to your life. Your way of life is dramatically changed from even 5 years ago, much less 10, 15, 20.
Again, wanting to destroy us does not necessarily mean that they have the means to make this happen.
Let's all sing Kumbya around the fire and drum circle.
Ok, I'll give. I just can't keep pointing out how wrong you are and watch your bogon field deflect the truth.
But, something to consider for you: You do realise based upon your statements this week, that you consider Bush to be a greater "threat" than Islamic "radicals".
You might want to take some time, and ponder that. Don't talk to your echo-chamber friends, or read the bumper stickers around your college... Just think about what that means for your worldview.
Are you in favor of exterminating everyone in Syria and Iran as well?
For the record, as you reqested: No.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 8, 2007 04:19 AMFor the record UJ, I haven't sacrificed like Denny and Lumpy have, but I can't help but respect and appreciate it to the maximum...
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 8, 2007 05:04 AMProposal for a really interesting sociology experiment. Take Sally, lock her in a room with the surviving family members of 9/11 and let her make her comments about how she don't see how the primitive animal that is "Muslim" (notice I didn't say radical mooslimb because that would differentiate them from moderate mooslimb, which as we all know does not exist) poses any grave risk to our way of life. Sally, the United States, as the recognized "policeman" of the world (not by our choosing either), has a duty and an obligation to "exterminate" the canker that threatens all that live on this planet. That disease is the Muslim religion. The development of WMD's and the acessability of these items makes it imperative that we cut the head of the beast now and not wait until we get nuked by one of their crazy groups. I am in medicine.....an ounce of prevention (kill them now) is worth more than a pound of cure (kill many more of them later).
Posted by: Ray on June 8, 2007 07:18 AMMilitary power & performance......
Sally makes the statement for Germany having a massive army to conquer Europe with which was not true at the onset of WW2 & is countered by many who correctly point out the French armed forces on paper were superior to the Germans.
So how did germany do so well..... First they had superior tactics, second they had superior planning & three they co-ordinated their forces in defined battle objectives. The size alone of an army does not assure victory,in the face of a detertimed numerically but more brilliantly led enemy, bravado often gives way to panic & defeat.
In those instances where French forces matched the quality for leadership & planning of the germans ,they did remarkably well but were far to few & not co-ordinated to sustain any momentum thus the Germans either outlasted them or went around them leaving a stunned,humiliated, demoralized & defeated French army to be mopped up like spilled milk.
You also cannot minimize the value of the indoctrination or fundamental belief`s of the men who comprise your armed forces, the Germans were conditioned by the rhetoric of the Aryan supremacy, the 10 or so years of indoctrination by the Nazi propagandists & the day to day emphasis for Germanic pride by Hitlers regime. This clever blending of propaganda, nationalist pride & apparent resurrection of German pre-eminance from the aftermath of WW1 convinced a large segment of the German youth, Hitler was the salvation of Germany & National Socialism was the future.
Fast forward to today in Iraq , we defeated a numerically superior army armed with advanced Soviet weapontry but lacking the ability to co-ordinate their efforts or to adjust to battlefield events. Our relentless airwar, superior tactics, weapons,command & training provided for an inevitable conclusion. Today we are attempting to build a cohesive force & goverment in Iraq to allow for our exit, this is far from complete as the Iraqi people lack the confidance & will to stand alone . On one hand they do want us to leave & rightfully so but on the other they are afraid of the consequence if we do leave & as yet have not developed the nationalistic mindset to do for themselves what we are providing, things are improving slowly but much more time is needed & that in & of itself is the problem.
Today in this country there is a constant barrage of criticism from the liberal left against our efforts, they forget though what the consequences are if we do not triumph. They follow that unique American propensity to think in short term rather then long term time frames. Just set a timetable & leave? This is a blueprint for catastrophy & if is implemented will surely bring the war to the heartland of America. Long term is very frustrating, our enemy is counting on this fact to destroy the will of the American people. In this regard the American media & the liberal dimocrats "Sally, dimo instead of demo is for emphasis not a spelling error" are assisting the muslim fundamentalists ... some may be inspired by good intention but none the less are aiding & abetting the enemy who has sworn to destroy us regardless of how long it takes to do so.
Most American`s have an aversion to war, this is one of the defining principles for our country.....However this principle must at times be compromised in favor of National interests & defense, this is one such time,it is essential we emerge victorious from this conflict. The consequence for anything less will be to encourage the muslims to greater & more horrific efforts all round the world with the probability of future more violent confrontation.
To my way of thinking it is far better to fight an inevitable war on a playing field of our choosing in a timeframe which is to our benefit while we have the upperhand from a military standpoint which will cost the least amount of American lives........ A time like right now before the enemy gains the power to inflict serious destruction & the means to deliver it here. I would think any American Liberal or Conservative,Dimocrat or Republican, formally educated or merely technically would find agreement with this conclusion as to do otherwise will result in proportionally much higher loss of life, war to the American heartland & at a staggering financial cost.
Posted by: dudley1 on June 8, 2007 09:01 AMSally, obviously you're not in the South. We like the way we talk. Denny is an extremely intelligent man and just enjoys talking like that. Just as I suspect George W. knows full well how to pronounce nuclear but pronounces nukular just to piss off all the eggheads.
Also, you are missing the point wildly in this discussion. Just because the Islamofascists do not have armies of millions does not in any shape, form, or fashion diminish them as a force to be reckoned with. Remember, you're dealing with a mind that seeks to maximize death and destruction, but they are also smart enough to realize that they have to use hit and run and terrorist tactics using weapons capable of doing large amounts of damage for the size weapon used. Hence, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also, just because we never found any massive "smoking gun" in Iraq, does not mean it was never there, or hidden. Scud parts of Scud missiles with traces of Sarin have been found in junkyards in Europe, nerve gas canisters have been found in the bottom of the Euphrates, and remember the Joos took out Osirak nukular reactor in 1981, othewise they would have had that by now.
In short, big bang for a small buck. And like cockroaches, they are everywhere. Just look at the Minneapolis airport cabbie news stories if you don't believe me. And make no mistake-they (Islamofascists) want to kill me, you, and all of us.
Posted by: KentuckyJoe on June 8, 2007 09:28 AMDenny, Lumpy, (And DanS! Sorry I forgot you, bud!), and anybody else who served: Sorry about lumping CD in there with you. :)
Thanks for the correction, CD.
Sally:
Unix, now your argument appears to be "don't underestimate your enemy."
Actually, Sally, my argument is that we're facing a threat from a disparate number of sources that are roughly from a identifiable group of allies.
Al Queda/Taliban actually struck us directly that you noticed (they've hit us repeatedly, but usually managed to kill hundreds of non-white locals, so you didn't notice that).
Iraq was a very dangerous threat - both overtly and covertly. Iraq was in flagrant violation of it's cease-fire, was refusing compliance with UN Weapons Inspectors, and even if you don't want to believe it, actively pursuing very dangerous non-conventional weapons.
You want to harp on one item or another. Well, that's the overall view. Iran and Iraq hate hate hate each other. Have for thousands of years.
But they were willing to work together against us. Why? Because both saw a future where they'd be dominant, and able to dictate terms to us.
Iran and the Taliban hate each other. Guess who's been supplying the Afghanistani Taliban? Iran.
Guess who's supplying the vast bulk of the money, weapons, fighters into Iraq now? Iran and Syria. Not friends. (This is also why calling it a "civil war" is mostly wrong, unless you want to change the entire maps of the Middle East, as some do.)
That is what we're facing, Sally. Hell, most of the most serious threat is from nihlists.
Yassir Arafat? Wasn't religious. Killed a bunch of Americans and other "westerners". He was in it for the money and power. Assad? Money and power.
I disagree with many of my "fellow" posters here that a widespread pogram would have any good. But Sally, you've done far more to encourage that than discourage that. You've shown that only "simple" questions can be reliably answered. Most of these posters realise that it is far more complex - but dealing with blame-America-firsters like yourself has taught them that any action has to be fast, decisive, and irrevocable.
(Just like this Sham Amnesty bullshit.) It took us 15 years to rebuild Germany to a functioning state. Over 20 for Japan. But your simple-minded bumper-sticker ilk are a large part of why we pushed for immediate elections, causing the sheik/tribal tradition to be cemented into the government, and the future.
That's why it's so tiring trying to discuss this with you. You use analogies that are wrong, argue about them, then run away, ignoring that your analogies actually undermine your conclusion, and that you didn't change said conclusion.
Now you're trying to get me cornered into a simple yes/no set of facts. (And again, using a badly-chosed WWII analogy that yet again shows you not only don't know WWII history, but that you don't know how to search for Wikipedia, and that you don't know to argue with me about it.)
It's not that simple - as you would know if you'd had a rounded "technical" education at a decent institution of higher learning.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 8, 2007 12:34 PMUnix, you are trying to convince me that radical Islam is a huge threat to this country, to our way of life and to our very existence. What evidence do you have of this? That some Muslims have said that they want to kill us and that there have been some isolated terrorist attacks? That's it. That's all there is. I've asked for you to give me their troop strength, arms and munitions numbers. But you haven't because you don't know.
So all we know is that they (radical Muslims) hate us, they make occasional isolated terrorist attacks mostly in the Middle East, and that's it. That information alone doesn't make them a dire threat. We need more information than that to come to logical, informed decisions. But I don't get that from you. I just get "don't underestimate!," etc. from you.
Sally - I admit it. I'm a Missouri hick raised in Webster Groves (a suburb of St. Louis) who is now a Georgia redneck. I actually use the word "figger" for "figure" (Start listening closely and see how many other people pronounce "figure" that way. English is evolving. Listen to how many people say "gonna".) although I have gone against the Midwestern pronunciation of "warsh" for "wash". I say "wash". I talk like a lot of Southerners and I write like I talk. If it makes me sound less intelligent, so be it. If I want to, I can write formally. In college, once I figgered out what the teacher was looking for, which usually took two written assignments, I would get A's from then on. Thus, in Bonehead English, I got A's. Piece of cake. Write for the audience. On this blog, I write for myself.
I'm curious what you will say about the next 9/11? There will be one. What will you say if an American city gets nuked? You will blame the gummint for not doing enough to protect us. Those would be the protections that those of you on the left are screaming about. Aw forget it. It's just a rhetorical question anyway.
Posted by: Denny on June 8, 2007 02:17 PMyou are trying to convince me that radical Islam is a huge threat to this country, to our way of life and to our very existence.
No, Sally, I'm actually no longer trying to convince you of anything.
You've proven yourself unable to read basic history.
You've proven yourself unable to do more than repeat what someone else told you.
You've proven yourself unable to follow a conversation beyond the most superficial of levels.
I've asked for you to give me their troop strength, arms and munitions numbers. But you haven't because you don't know.
You're supposing again. And you do that horribly.
But what good would it do to answer you? You don't know what any of what you asked for means!
Much less the whole concept of asymmetrical warfare.
Jebus Krispy Kreme, if you can't even grasp basic, easily researched facts and concepts about the Second World War, how in the everlasting mother-loving hades do you expect to stay in a current, cutting edge discussion?!?
Simply. You don't. You don't expect to, you just want to mouth more bumper-sticker platitudes, safe behind those of us with those derided "technical educations" (and real-world jobs).
You're willing to just willingly dismiss and disrefard all sacrifice all that our ancestors bled out in an attempt to make the world a better place. Because! What's the point! You're safe! Hee! Like Paris Hilton! Teehee!
Ask Denny about the Romans. Don't try and lecture him, but why don't you look at how cultural empires fail. It's not because of lack of military might - it's when the citizens refuse to take anything other than a "me! me! me!" stance.
No, I can't convince you of something I never advocated. But I can see that your brand of liberal thinking does make a mockery of D-Day. Had you been around there, your exact same analog would be "Why should we be attacking the Germans? They don't threaten us in the slightest!"
I can certainly make some arguments for Fortress America, Sally - but I'll never make that argument and expect anybody who went ashore on D-Day to not consider my plan to be a bloody travesty to his memory.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi on June 8, 2007 03:05 PMThis guy is a warmonger. Maybe he had taken hallucinogens before writing this essay. Americans are the greatest threat to world peace. All that piled up weapons. The so-called jihadis do not represent the Muslim community in general. It was very sad to have read such negative sentiments against Islam and Muslims. Looks like another crusade has just begun, only this time the Muslim world are not aware of it yet.
Posted by: trix on June 9, 2007 07:43 AMSally, ticket for one? You will get on zee train! I hope that you will find the gasses to your liking you dopey fucking liberal infidel. GRR!
trix - And you are a fucking idiot. The United States is the greatest threat to world peace? The Moo-slimes don't know about the "crusade"? WTF is the color of the sky in your world? Is your tinfoil cap on a little too tight? Who blew up our embassies in Africa? Who blew up the Khobar Towers? Who blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon? Who blew up the USS Cole? Who flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentaqon? Hint: They were all members of the Religon of Peace. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. We didn't start this war. I just hope that we have the will to end it.
Posted by: Denny on June 9, 2007 12:28 PMHe's some asshole in Carrollton Georgia who's pretending to be Michael Vick.
Posted by: Denny on June 9, 2007 11:06 PMHis shit got old before it even started...
Posted by: CharlieDelta on June 9, 2007 11:27 PM