A very good read..

Status
Not open for further replies.

doubleg

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
1,232
Maybe you can show this to those anti-war people.
Historical Significance

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 materials .

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

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

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on 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 on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.

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

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

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

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

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

The 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 a gain . . . a 27 year war.

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, 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.

OR

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

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

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

Those who are 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!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion
 
Many in America either cannot or will not believe these facts. The media pounds the drum day after day about the "horrible costs" of this war yet will not utter a single word to describe how much worse things will be if we lose this war. Most Americans have ostrich syndrome, they sit at home living the "bread and circuses" life with the big screen tv, the pizza and microwave food that makes life so convenient. The luxuries that also sap the will to
actually risk something to gain and keep freedom. As long as political power is for sale to the highest bidders and those who are in favor with the mainstream media it will be business as usual. Deny we are in a war for survival, call it an illegal act of a dimbulb president, pretend that Islam is actually peaceful and those who shout the warnings are racist. America
has a very good chance of waking up from its drug, alcohol, tv and fast food induced coma to find it is no longer a free country and may very well no longer be a nonmuslim country. And a huge majority of those in DC are willing to sell off this country and the future of our children for a little wealth and power now.
 
The danger of fundamentalist islam is real, but to equate them to WW2 and the Axis powers' near conquest of the entire globe, is seriously delusional stuff.

Kind of like saying the US should have invaded Germany when Hitler just formed his party and wasn't in power. Just because he could gain power and may try and conquer the world. Can't imagine the uproar that would have caused.

America has a very good chance of waking up from its drug, alcohol, tv and fast food induced coma to find it is no longer a free country and may very well no longer be a nonmuslim country.

I woke up and found out the country is less free than it was 6 years ago. And the muslims still haven't gained a foothold on this country.
 
Yeah, that huge army of Afghans and Iraqis is going to march right out of the Hindu Kush and into your backyard if we don't kill them all right now! I bet they'll team up with the Mexican Mafia and the Commie Chinese. And possibly the secret remnants of the Imperial Japanese Army that have been hiding in the Marianas for 60 years just waiting to invade California.
 
My friend, there are millions and millions of people out there shouting, "death to the west". All the original poster said was that he'd like you to acknowledge it, no strings attached, no agreements on plans of action, just admit, "yes I can see, I can hear, those people are real".

And for some reason you refuse. That's the scary part.
 
All the original poster said was that he'd like you to acknowledge it, no strings attached, no agreements on plans of action, just admit, "yes I can see, I can hear, those people are real".

And for some reason you refuse. That's the scary part.

I'm afraid you got three things wrong.

1. The purpose of the author isn't to educate the dangers, it is to exaggerate, scare, strike fear into readers. And to use really bad analogies.

2. I recognize a danger, I don't recognize the danger he is describing in the article.

3. The OP didn't mention why he posted the article other than to show it to anti-war people. Don't assume what he wants us to get out from it.
 
The danger of fundamentalist islam is real, but to equate them to WW2 and the Axis powers' near conquest of the entire globe, is seriously delusional stuff.

Kind of like saying the US should have invaded Germany when Hitler just formed his party and wasn't in power. Just because he could gain power and may try and conquer the world. Can't imagine the uproar that would have caused.

Excellent plan - repeat history vs. actually learn from it. Brilliant. :barf:
 
Excellent plan - repeat history vs. actually learn from it. Brilliant.

Well I guess then the US better invade itself, in case the Ku Klux Klan ever gain power and herd all non-whites into concentration camps... :barf:
 
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, 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 .

Saddam is a terrorist!

WRONG!

That's about where I tuned out.

Saddam was a brutal totalitarian thug, who used Soviet and US weapons to murder both his own populace and Iranians.

He was not, however, a terrorist in the widely accepted use of the word. He was a SECULAR DICTATOR, dedicated to killing anybody and everybody who opposed his power. There was nowhere near 1/100th the Wahhabis or Jihadis in Iraq the day we invaded as are there today.

What we did, or rather what Bush and a stupid, complacent congress did, was destroy a relatively stable, modern, industrialized, SECULAR oil-producing state and replace it with castrated centralized government ruled by a Shiite bloc, dedicated to union with Iran.

Sorry for everybody who missed it, but this is NOT WWII. Deluding yourself into believing that pre-emptive war in Iraq is akin to destroying Nazi Germany before the holocaust is like shooting a schoolyard bully and proclaiming a victory in the "War on Crime."

No matter how you want to spin it... **** still does not = Shinola

:neener:
 
The odd thing about conversations like this is there is, seemingly, an unwillingness on the left, or with progressives, anti war folk or whatever identifier we use, to at least have a notion that the evil that is represented by radical Wahabist Islamic tribalists could actually have some merit. They have only been doing nasty deeds along with making claims and promises for oh, about 40 years now, this time. Words and deeds. They have meaning. What I don't get is why those of you who seem to be against defending ourselves blame our Western civilization for causing the problem. Why don't we ever see any of you demonstrating against the barbarism that these creatures have perpetrated. What value would these people bring to the world if they were in charge? At least you should decry violence generally rather than fixing your anger against your own neighbors.

Rather than writing off the potentialities that have been building as fear mongering, perhaps the left ought to put the intellect that they have to work and get a clue. Radical Wahabist Islam tribalists have shown that their word is their bond. They do not want to co exist. Why? Because they have said so and followed those words up with deeds.

Technology makes the globe a smaller place and it doesn't take a fleet of naval ships or an army of millions to bring down civilization. If America is the bad boy imperialist in this matter, as most of the left proclaims, Iraq would look like Berlin and other cities in Europe after WWII. We certainly have the means to do that, but we haven't.
 
I've got to agree with the premise that Saddam was not a terrorist in the classic definition of terrorism i.e. Al Quade etc. He was a dictator. However
he was not averse to using the tools of terrorism to further his goals. Whether or not history will vindicate America for deposing him is hard to tell.
We may find that the devil we deposed was better left in place than the devil we created by getting rid of him.

What is not, or should not be a matter of question is the goal of fanatic islamics. Their goal is the death, destruction or enslavement of all that are not party to their beliefs. This has been their goal for centuries, what has changed in the last 30 odd years is their ability to wage that jihad. With the
petrodollars they are recieving from the developed world they are building the foundation of a massive effort to enslave the rest of the world. They are using that money to actively seek acquisition of WMD's up to and including
nuclear weapons. If they succeed in procuring these weapons they will attempt to use them. This is not theory, this is fact. They will do whatever
it takes to kill infidels. No price is too high to pay. If they achieve their goals of acquiring and successfully using nuclear devices the theory of MAD that kept Capitalism and Communism from destroying the planet will not apply.

Jihadists welcome death, they seek it for martyrdom. Once they succeed in
using WMD's on a large scale Pandoras box will be open, the Jin will be out of the bottle and the world as we know it will never be even remotely the same.
That is if it does not implode in an orgy of reprisal.

Is Islam the same level of threat to us now that the Axis was in 1940? No.
Should we wait till they reach that level of threat to deal with them? Only
if we are idiotic pacifists. The cost of defeating them now is high, the cost of defeating them if we wait may be beyond measure.

The best ally that radical Islam has is non muslims who refuse to believe they
are a viable threat to our future.
 
If America is the bad boy imperialist in this matter, as most of the left proclaims, Iraq would look like Berlin and other cities in Europe after WWII. We certainly have the means to do that, but we haven't.

Indeed, and like many criminals at the one on one level that only understand violence we may need to make the decision that that is the only language they will listen to. The only question is.....do we turn Tehran etc. into a reminiscence of WWII Germany in response to NY or DC being nuked or do we
do it before they get the chance. I am convinced that given the opportunity they will nuke us at the first chance they get.
 
Radical Islam is by no means a new force in the world. Radicalism and violence in religion is nothing new, and by no means relegated only to Islam. Anybody who is unable to enjoy/practice their own beliefs without forcing them on an uninterested/unwilling group is a threat to stability and democracy.

The Al-Queda and its thugs are very far from toppling this fading republic of ours. They have killed relatively few Americans, in the grand scheme of things.

Should they be rooted out and killed by whatever military force we can muster?
Certainly.

Should we expend enormous financial, political, and human capital to topple secular totalitarian regimes that we don't like and call it "the war on terror" so it can help stupid Mr. and Mrs. Johnny American sleep better at night? No.

Kill Osama bin Laden. Kill Mullah Omar. Kill all the Lts. Kill the Tamil Tigers.

But don't invade countries that pose no threat to us, who aren't supporting islamic fundamentalists, and expect me to stand up and take it un-answered.
 
^ Uh, terrorists use guns, and we gotta use guns to kill em! :D

In reality, it has nothing to do with RTKABA, but neither do half the open threads on this board.

And it's fun.
 
The odd thing about conversations like this is there is, seemingly, an unwillingness on the left, or with progressives, anti war folk or whatever identifier we use, to at least have a notion that the evil that is represented by radical Wahabist Islamic tribalists could actually have some merit.

Big difference between recognizing the evil, and invading some country controlled by a secular dictator. Why does opposing the war mean not recognizing the dangers of fundamentalist islam?

Who said they don't have a notion the evil has merit. What does that have to do with exaggerating the danger and stating they will take over the world in a few decades if we don't destroy them now.

The odd thing about conversations like this is there is, seemingly, an unwillingness on the right, or with non-progressives, pro war folk or whatever identifier they like to be called, to at least have a notion that the iraq war had nothing to do with Islamic extremists. Of course, now it does..

Rather than writing off the potentialities that have been building as fear mongering, perhaps the left ought to put the intellect that they have to work and get a clue.

Who is writing off the potentialities? Its the right that has been writing them off by presenting only one view of how things will turn out.

Technology makes the globe a smaller place and it doesn't take a fleet of naval ships or an army of millions to bring down civilization.

Even China doesn't have the capability of taking down the USA. Nuclear weapons aren't magic bullets. You need enough to take out the USA. With the number China has they aren't even close. Only Russia has that capability. Some islamic terrorists with one nuclear bomb is not going to come close to bringing down America. Keep on exaggerating.

And it's fun.

That is true. :neener:

What is not, or should not be a matter of question is the goal of fanatic islamics.

Nobody in this thread has questioned this.

Should we wait till they reach that level of threat to deal with them? Only
if we are idiotic pacifists. The cost of defeating them now is high, the cost of defeating them if we wait may be beyond measure.

Nobody in this thread has said to wait until they reach the level of threat the Nazis posed. There's quite a long way to go before they reach the capabilities of the Nazis. The disagreement is how to defeat them.

I am convinced that given the opportunity they will nuke us at the first chance they get.

Convinced terrorists will do that, or Tehran will (you mentioned blowing up Tehran)?

I agree terrorists would if given a chance, but Iran would not. The same reason why the Soviet Union and China have never lobbed any nuclear weapons over.
 
Big difference between recognizing the evil, and invading some country controlled by a secular dictator. Why does opposing the war means not recognizing the dangers of fundamentalist islam?

Who said they don't have a notion the evil has merit. What does that have to do with them being able to take over the world in a few decades.

Does the right, or non-progressives, pro war folk or whatever identifier they like to be called, at least have a notion that the iraq war had nothing to do with Islamic extremists. Of course, now it does.. heh.

Thank YOU! If we had REALLY wanted to get rid of the the greatest number of crazy, fundamentalist...and dare I say, TERRORIST Muslims, we should have blanketed our allies in Saudi Arabia with all those aging Hydrogen bombs we have sitting about waiting to be dis-mantled.

Hating a war does not mean you don't support the troops. Talk about a magic bullet theory.

September 2002: "Iraq has dangerous weapons of mass destruction, poses a direct threat to the United States, and the Saddam regime must be removed."

March 2003: "Saddam has dangerous WMDs, AND he's a brutal dictator who has killed his own people AND he had a meeting in Prague with Al Queda members.

Summer 2003: Mission Accomplished!

Summer 2004: Iraq had NO dangerous WMDs, Saddam's people NEVER had a meeting with ANYBODY in Prague, but the Iraqis are better off now that he's gone.

Summer 2005: Uh, Saddam's gone, we caught him, we've had him in our custody for some time now, and the Iraqis Might be a LITTLE better off.

Summer 2006: There's a civil war in Iraq, uh, no, the Iraqis AREN'T better off, but "we're fighting em over there so we don't have to fight em over here." Oh, yeah, we're working on Saddam!

2007: Yay! Saddam's dead. Terrorists rule much of Iraq. But we're fighting a GLOBAL CULTURE WAR against Jihad and secular progressives, and we need to kill Bin Laden...er, no, I mean we need to kill the "terrorists" or World War II will happen again, or something.

If it looks like crap, and smells like crap...well, you know the rest.
 
I agree that there was not justification to invade Iraq.

But Saddam was actually a terrorist. Is Bin Laden a terrorist? He hasn't actually strapped a bomb to himself or fired a weapon at Americans. But yet he's considered a terrorist?

Saddam was documented funding suicide bombers ($25k each) in Palestine. He was actually a terrorist. It doesn't mean anything, or change anything, but we might as well be honest and accurate. No point in being ignorant.



The odd thing about conversations like this is there is, seemingly, an unwillingness on the right, or with non-progressives, pro war folk or whatever identifier they like to be called, to at least have a notion that the iraq war had nothing to do with Islamic extremists. Of course, now it does..

I think that's the opposite of the truth. Those concerned with the implications of rapidly spreading radical Islam are those least likely to support the Iraqi debacle.

The two issues are seperate, but unfortunately as this thread as proven, those who seek to ignore the possible danger cloud the issue by obfuscating it with the Iraq invasion. Maybe youre President shoulder's some responsibility for that:) but we're all intelligent adults here, and we can differentiate.:

Iraq was not a threat, Radical Islam was and is.

Perhaps what causes the confusion is that Radical Islam has now invaded Iraq (beacause America weakened it) and thus now radical Islam in Iraq is a threat.
 
Yes, and if the "Doctrine of Preemption" extended to the concealed weapon I carry daily, then I would have been completely justified in shooting literally hundreds of people who I BELIEVED, may, at some point, POSED some sort of THREAT to me and POSSIBLY had the capability to ACT on it. And after the police hosed the gray matter off the pavement, I'd get off with a slap on the wrist because that bulge in the guy's pocket, actually a whiskey flask, looked like a flamethrower, and I got bad intel from the dirty rear-view mirror of my truck.

Shooting someone before they shoot or stab you is one thing, but shooting an undesirable in the back because you think he might do something to you is murder. Pure and simple.
 
I don't think anybody is debating that radical islam is bad. Or evil.

I only started posting in this thread because I disagree that radical islam is right now at the same level of danger as the Nazis in world war two. Or that the US is facing imminent collapse like the British in world war two.

There is no need to exaggerate the danger to make people recognize that radical islam is bad and needs to be dealt with.

It is funny that the author talks about how radical muslims are the same as the Nazis, then mentions that we lost 2000 a week in WWII, and only 3000 in the years in Iraq. Seriously, the iraq war does not equal WWII. The dangers are not the same. The Nazis (axis powers) nearly conquered the world, the radical muslims can't even tie their shoe laces.
 
Hmmm..... ok- forget the right wrong left right shoulda woulda coulda crap for a moment. IF the terrorist thugs get a few nukes, we are in serious trouble. Lets say the first one goes off in Elliott Bay, wipes out down town liberal ville. We don't know where it came from. We don't know who did it. We see eight jillion guys on tv screaming death to america. Who ya gonna nuke? Where did it come from? This is not the cold war. This is not MAD. This is a whole new game. The next thing are the demands- US out of Israel. Us release all prisoners. US yadda yadda yadda. Our response."We will never negotiate with terro__BOOM. That was San Diego.
OK- we are so great at detecting them they can never get a weapon on our soil- Oil facilities the middle east, anyone? Cut our oil and we are in the deep doo doo.
The essence of this problem is we are dealing with a type of fanaticism that has never before in the history of the world been combined with the force multiplier of NBC weapons.
And we have a population that has no experience of war on our soil, and no real knowledge of what it could mean. Do not get me wrong, I do not think there are going to be invading armies of muj in oklahoma- Too bad it won't be so simple. But the consequences of ignoring the threat are grim- American cities gone. Economic collapse. Martial law. Trading partners gone. Famine. 4th gen war thru out the country- With multiple factions involved- think Columbia.
 
What does ignoring the threat mean? Who is advocating ignoring the threat? Was not invading Iraq ignoring the threat? Is repealing the Patriot Act ignoring the threat? Is being against warrantless wiretaps ignoring the threat? Is allowing legal access to Guantanamo detainees ignoring the threat? Is protesting the indefinite detention of a US citizen arrested on US soil ignoring the threat? Is leveling Iran with nuclear bombs not ignoring the threat?
 
But that's just it, Tokugawa , San Diego and "Liberal-ville" haven't been nuked.

Do you solve the problem of international Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism/violence by preemptively nuking Riyadh, Tehran, and Damascus?

Would the fact that the nukes were delivered by a plane or an ICBM somehow make us any less terroristic?

Or do you simply topple these governments, institute a shoddy, half-assed occupation, and then scream about the various factions (most of which are are jihadists) that pop up in the power vacuum?

I want to know how the destruction of Saddam's regime has made me any safer. Or gotten us any closer to getting rid of Bin Laden or Al-Queda? Or done anything to prevent those suitcase nukes from making their way into the US?

Nobody has been able to convincingly articulate how the Iraq war has made any of us safer, and being as how all of its original goals proved to be BS, it therefore was a largely useless conflict.

And if we're there for the oil, and to protect our petroleum addicted butts, when why is the price of gas much higher now than in March of 2003??
 
foob said:
I disagree that radical islam is right now at the same level of danger as the Nazis in world war two. Or that the US is facing imminent collapse like the British in world war two.


Ahh I do understand better now. I agree buy also disagree. The Radical Islamists are using the exact same play book as Hitler. Their objectives are exactly the same. Hell, Jihad and Mein Kampf mean the same thing, and the founder of radical Islam the Mufti of Jerusalem was best buddies with Hitler.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top