PDA

View Full Version : History lesson time...



Nix
01-24-2007, 08:35 AM
*Some of you may be offended after reading this. You have been warned, You know who you are*

This is an EXCELLENT essay, well thought out and presented by Raymond
S. Kraft.

Some of you may not believe it; some may think it to be a
conservative's view on the war, some of you may think it cannot
happen; but think as you may; it is all based on facts in our history.
Something that our education system seems not to teach anymore.

Jerry


THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. MOST OF YOU
ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS
GROSSLY
AFFECTED BY WWII. 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 FOREIGNERS IN
2007.



Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all
of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat,
and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys
between England and America for food and war materials.

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

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

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

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

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600
million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the
property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war
when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually,
Belgium surrendered on one day, 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 air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being
overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking
the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later,

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

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

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad

and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly
civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

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

have won the war.

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

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

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs --
they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam,

should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the
world.
And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed,
enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy
Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part

not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and
its
Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors,

or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control
the
Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an
OPEC
dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC
dominated
by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next
winter?
You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad,
the
Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

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

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the

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

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

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

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

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

it is needed.

Nix
01-24-2007, 08:36 AM
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began
with
a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with
the
Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before
America
joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was
followed
by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those
countries
reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion,which is
roughly
what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives,
which is roughly 100% of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.

But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been
unimaginably
greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

This is not 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything
comes
out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes
bloody
and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

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

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we
have
an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to
help
modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the

clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the
barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another
battle
in this ancient and never ending war. And now, for the first time ever,

the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody
prevents them.

We have four options:

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

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

Iran claims it is)

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle

East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in
America.

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

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

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

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists

always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

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

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

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation,

and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II
resulted
in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million

people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 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 W.W.II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of
the individual battles o f W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire
Iraq war has done so far.

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

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

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's
safe.

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

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California. Please
consider
passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college
and
university as it contains information about the American past that is
very
meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely

unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts
of our
history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning
and
thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for
misinformation
campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are
special
interest agenda driven.

Karps TA
01-24-2007, 08:47 AM
That's been floating around for years. I think Bush keeps a copy of it under his pillow at night.

Nix
01-24-2007, 08:50 AM
Sorry I never saw it before and I'm sure I'm not the only one either.:thumbsup

Karps TA
01-24-2007, 08:55 AM
I used to believe that crap back before the war started. But you really can't go comparing WW2 to today.

We fought WW2 to win that war. Yes lots more soldiers died then. But they died fighting a war. Not died while acting like crossing guards and mall security cops. The outrage over Iraq is that we are not trying to actually win a war. We are trying to put a country under a political system by using our soldiers as shields.

ThatWhiteCivic
01-24-2007, 09:29 AM
Sounds like alarmist crap to me.

Yooformula
01-24-2007, 02:15 PM
war is different now than it was 40 years ago. It is played out in conference rooms and with high tech gadgetry so of course it doesnt look like we are fighting the same way. You also dont drive with a crank start engine or have a horse drawn buggy. What is alarming is how many people fail to see the death toll comparisons of ANY we have fought. If the media was as prevelant back in 1946 as it today, we would have NEVER gone to war with Japan or Germany, too many casualties. Not to mention every liberal right wingest crying that its not our problem.

Heat Seeker WS6
01-24-2007, 02:24 PM
Backing up Yoosef- You'll never see the great mach air or sea battles that WWI & WWII had where you have hundreds of fighters versus each other. Much more tactical as far as A/G & A/A goes.

Nix
01-24-2007, 02:27 PM
To each their own opnions, I persoanlly thought it was a well written and intresting article.:D

Yooformula
01-24-2007, 02:30 PM
To each their own opnions, I persoanlly thought it was a well written and intresting article.:D
agreed!:thumbsup I dont think the people truley understand the level of contempt and hatred that radical islamists have towards us. They smile in your faces and shake your hand but as soon as you turn around, they would stab you and your kids in the back. History has only too often showed their attrocities. Its only a shame that people chose not to see it.

Baddriver01
01-24-2007, 02:44 PM
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2006/subject-historical-significance/


Here's a link to ANOTHER version of these letters from the same author. One of the problems with the internet is that anyone can add/delete or spin an article any way the want and then pass it on as an original. Note the lack of "flavor text" in this version and the responses below. Also note that this is an editorial and not an "essay" or report.

My stances on Iraq are personal, I have 2 cousins who have just returned from 4 years of deployment and many friends in the armed forces - they have their opinions also for and against the situation. I just like to double check my resources before passing on manipulated information. Just my 2 cents. While entertaining, I feel it was misrepresented as fact as opposed to opinion.

Karps TA
01-24-2007, 02:45 PM
You guys didn't seem to be too worried about radical islamists when you unleashed hell on discount mats.com. lol

The names involved in that business had Al Qeida written all over it.

Karps TA
01-24-2007, 03:08 PM
Reading the second link, I can see why the guy thinks the way he does. And I completely agree with us having to go after terrorists. And if that's what our military was actually doing over in Iraq I would be fully behind the Pres. But in truth we aren't actively going after the bad guys. We are doing it so half assed. And it's not the brave soldiers faults. They are just following ridiculous orders.

This "war" has more in common with the "war on drugs" then it does with actual wars like WW2. It's a war only by name and body count.

fireguyrick
01-24-2007, 03:42 PM
Funny, this "accurate" portrait of WWII is flawed. It leaves out the fact that the driving force behind the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor was because of sanctions the US impossed. The goal behind the attack was to cripple the US Navy badly enough so that the US would just let Japan do what it willed throughout Asia and the Pacific.

While I do agree with some things, it is flawed and biased just like every other article I have ever read. To compare WWII to now is not apples to apples (hell no two wars are the same). The fact remains that we are there, and we need to have follow through in this.

Follow through.

That is one of a few words a majority of Americans fear (and lack). What we need to do at this point is get the Iraqi population to FEAR the US troops more then they fear the insurgents. It seems as if the Machiavelli approach is the only way to obtain any kind of stability in the region, so that the Iraqi Gov. can take over.

Rick

SSDude
01-24-2007, 05:36 PM
agreed!:thumbsup I dont think the people truley understand the level of contempt and hatred that radical islamists have towards us. They smile in your faces and shake your hand but as soon as you turn around, they would stab you and your kids in the back. History has only too often showed their attrocities. Its only a shame that people chose not to see it.

Amen.
We are faced with a real and dangerous threat from these terrorists and the worse thing we can do is retreat/redeploy or whatever anyone calls it. We will only embolden our enemy if we do that. Our enemy has learned from history that Americans have become soft and loose there spine with a few casualties. They are counting the day's until we cut and run and they will be able to impose their will upon more countries in the middle east. They will celebrate and their ranks will swell when we turn tail and run.
We are fighting a enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, a enemy that will hide amongst us and will stab you in the back when you aren't expecting it because their quaran teaches it's ok to lie and deceive non believers.
In the end we will have the liberals to thank for the much bigger war we will fight and casualties we will suffer.
Iran and Al queda with nukes will be the beginning of the end.
Some will say this is all doom and gloom and it won't happen but these people are ready to die for Allah.
Remember 9/11
I would agree that we do need to change our tactics and do a better job at drawing these terrorists out for their just reward.

fireguyrick
01-24-2007, 10:14 PM
Though, can we all get one thing straight about the War on Terror? Which is that it is not a war that can really be won, as it is a war against a type of ideal. All we can accomplish is a high level of determent.

Rick

Yooformula
01-24-2007, 10:48 PM
absolutely true! determent is better than nothing at this point. the more we sit by and do nothing, the more we are viewed as being weak. unfortunetly, with so many enemies known and hidden in the middle east, its hard to forge bonds with them in hopes of a diplomatic resolution of peace.