Historical Review Of Iraq Situation by Raymond S. Kraft

The following is a must read for every American and free people across the globe. If you do not believe that our way of life is threatened by radical Islam, or even if you do believe, you must read this:

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.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

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

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

France was not an ally. (Not even now. General Patton once said, "I'd rather have a battalion of Germans in front of me, than a battalion of French behind me!") The Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

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

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could.

Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain. They were 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, so he turned his attention to Russia. This when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million! Had Russia surrendered then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and instead invaded England in 1940 or 1941, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe. England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich. Isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name. The world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. AND we are at another one.

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

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the impotent UN with the complicity of Koki Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

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

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

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century 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. To do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it everywhere at once ,so we have created a focal point for the battle. Now. At the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin. In Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, 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 guys there. The ones we kill there we won't have to kill here, or somewhere else. We 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.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for much of these French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education for Iraqi children.

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

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

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost approximately 2,100 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihadist snuffed on 9/11. What will the next hit cost in dollars and lives if we wait until the Jihads have nuclear weapons?]

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

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, e. g. Libya, Dubai and Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, the Jihadist, believe they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It WILL NOT go away if we ignore it.

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

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options:

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

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

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

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

Yes, the Jihadist say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law as dictated by the Qur'an), an America that resembles Iran today.

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

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. The most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German imperialism (WWI), Nazi imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam War, itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance through Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, almost daily, makes three scary claims:

(1) We went to Iraq without enough troops. Actually, we went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight a minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

(2) We went to Iraq with too little planning. This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had the right plan the war would have been easy, cheap, quick and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

(3) We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security. This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening.

The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind. Did you know that some American schools start teaching U.S. history commencing with the Civil War? Many young Americans are not learning about the Pilgrims, Colonial America, the Revolution, the Constitution. They think America started with the freeing of the slaves.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 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 whose estimates you accept.

The US has lost about 2,100 KIA 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 WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

Today, in Iraq, 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 the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. Don't they know that the Sharia considers women as property, that the whim of the Mullah is the law, that there is absolutely NO freedom of choice? The American left seems to favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

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

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe - in America. For this privilege, they should thank US veterans. Why don't we see peace activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most? Why? Just look at what happened to the four peace activists from the Christian Peace Maker Teams recently taken captive by the Muslim "insurgents" near Baghdad.

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

If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism.

Sadly, American Liberals just don't get it.

The author, Raymond S. Kraft, is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

See other articles by Kraft:

Why We Are In Iraq Part II, By Raymond S. Kraft

Weaponizing Civilization: The New Way of War, by Raymond Kraft

Comments

[mike from dolan springs]

incorrect,.,. Ireland was neutral during WW2- South Africa was alied with the U S
and ,, to state that a "liberal" is for peace is also incorrect,.
The invasion of Iraq was based on lies,. all of the info regards to these lies are now coming out,.
Bush/ Cheney should be tried as war criminals,.
"peace demonstrators are demonstraing world wide,."
according to declassified CIA doc,.,. Iran is 10 years from going nuclear,.
anything from the whitehouse should be examined with skepticism,.
I am not a "liberal" this is no longer a dem vs. repub. issiue,.
they, those that are mouthpiecing for Bush and the neo cons,. use this liberal label,. and try to use it against any whom quetion this government,. this is un fortunate,.
1964 "Gulf of Tonkin" where North vietnam patrol boats fired on an American Destroyer,.
this was the pretext for expanding the war in Vietnam,.,.,.but,.,.,. it never happened,. it was a lie,. that war was based on a lie,. all of this now declassified,
but,.,.,. maybe 18 percent that read this article , by Mr Kraft, will believe what he says,.
the same 18 percent that think Bush is doing a great job

[Chuck Calvano]

While I generally agree with the points Mr. Kraft is trying to make in this article, he really would be more convincing if he had his facts straight.

The US Congress did not unanimously declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor -- there was one "no" vote. The US did not declare war on German the next day -- Germany declared war on the US after we had declared war on Japan. Our declaration of war on Germany was in response to their declaration of war on us and took place about a week after Pearl Harbor.

I think many people who find clear errors of fact in an essay are likely to give the whole point of the essay less weight. Since I agree with Mr. Kraft's intent to wake up America, I don't want to see his impact being lessened by his being sloppy with "facts".

[joan]

There are a number of historical inaccuracies in this essay. Some are minor errors on dates, but some are more substantial. The author's main point is that Islamic radicals aren't going to go away and we better get serious about dealing with them over the long haul. I think he's right, but he should have done his homework on the details. Just for example, Brussels wasn't bombed after it surrendered, as he says, and Russia didn't lose 24 million lives in just two battles. They didn't lose that many lives in the entire war. Also, WWII didn't begin in 1928 with Japan's invasion of China because Japan didn't invade China until 1937. These errors may not undermine his main point, but they do hurt his credibility with readers who know something about history.

[CW Pressley]

"Raymond S.Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion."

These are really pretty weak credentials.. After all, I am a writer who has studied Middle Eastern culture and religion.

But seriously. The argument does not stand. Without going into the many errors of fact, and assumption presented as fact, the entire comparison is flawed. To begin with, we are not fighting a state. There really is no comparison.

What is clearer is that these islamists are convinced of the singularity of their position [that there is only their way of life]. This is identical to the position of the religious right of this country. This is in large part the source of this conflict. We have in a large measure created the conflict with the "Jesus is the only way" message of those fundamentalists. Coupled with the "Capitalism is the only way," coupled with a demand that they open their markets to us, which is the same as saying we demand you accept our culture [which you gotta admit is pretty shallow].

Unfortunately, a simplistic and narcissistic world-view creates conflict. But it cannot resolve conflict. And that is what Raymond is proposing. Resolving conflict is tremendously more complex and cannot easily be crammed into simplistic jingo soundbites [Mission Accomplished]. We will not shoot [or nuke] our way through this. The conflict between Islamists and the X-ian Fundies is a classic, tragic example of "what you resist, persists."

There is a way out of the tragic muddle. But it requires a long process filled with vulnerability in the face of lack of trust. And it is a process whose rewards are in a distant, unforeseeable future. But these are 2 things that we have no tolerance for.

The irony of it is that those 2 things are precisely what Jesus admonished us to. But we'll make all sorts of rationalizations about how "this" is not what He was talking about.

Please share these thoughts with the other people you sent Ray's thing to. And to the person who sent it to you.

Thanks

CW

[Debbie]

Carey: Thanks for that link. I can't remember on this one, I believe Mr. Kraft emailed this directly to me, so I never had the original link. Can't remember, that was over a year ago.

If you do a Google search for Mr. Kraft you will get a search result with many of his articles here at Right Truth. Mr. Kraft has given me permission to post his articles in their entirety. Otherwise, I would never do such a thing. I would only post a small paragraph or so with a link back to the original.

[Carey]

I tracked down the actual original article posted Oct 11 2004. The KIA numbers in the two articles reflect a little editorial activity to make the newer article appear to be accurate as of 2006, but I thought people should know the real source:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/terrorism/death_of_liberalism.htm

[Todd777]

(I'll cut out spaces between his paragraphs and add them between his and mine so you can tell who is saying what. I first received this as an email and used fonts/colors to differentiate between us.)

I agree with the following, and these are important points:

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.

The problem is in the next two points made.

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

First, Saddam is not a proven supporter of terrorists. Al Qaeda had no appreciable presence in Iraq until he was deposed. They had a greater presence here... they certainly made it felt greater here. Attacking Iraq was a distraction from the war on our true enemies: Al Qaeda. It was also a strategic mistake to lump all terrorists in the same camp. Not all of them were are enemies before 9/11, but they are now that we have declared them all enemies... they have common cause and it has borne out that they have united against us. We had the worse possible leadership when we were attacked on 9/11... any person with a brain would have consulted people that were informed on Islam and the Middle East before sending us to war. Second, the author above states that we are killing bad people in Iraq. This may be true but we are also killing and causing to be killed many innocent and good people. Our presence there leads to the death of innocents, this in turn leads to righteous indignation on the part of their friends and relatives, which in turn leads to more people doing whatever they feel it takes to get rid of us. (And no, I'm not accusing US soldiers of purposefully killing innocents.)

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 .

This is wishful thinking. It is not reality. The person that wrote this diatribe might know his WW II history (although I haven't read anything about it here I hadn't learned by high school) but he does NOT know the history of the Middle East, Islam or even our own Reformation. Religion is by definition irrational... it takes faith. People who base their worldview on their faith will never be persuaded by the end of a bayonette. Unless we're willing to commit genocide, violence is not the answer in defeating our true enemy: Al Qaeda. I propose doing what Jesus would have done. He would not have laid waste to a whole country on the suspicion that it had weapons of mass distruction. He would not have used arms to defend himself. He told Peter to put down his sword. He would have used love and diplomacy. Intellectual and religious movements are never defeated by the sword (short of genocide). Whenever you kill one proponent, you make a martyr of him and many others spring up in his place. What you HAVE to do to defeat such a movement is to take away its raison d'etre, its reason for existing in the first place. Why do they hate us? Why did they attack us? It had NOTHING to do with wanting to take away our freedom! It had everything to do with the fact that they (Al Qaeda) view us as oppressors and sponsors of their oppressors. Why would they think that? Are they smoking crack? No. Actually, they have a good argument against us. We (esp. this administration) have given unconditional support to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, regardless of if/how the oppress their people. Is it hard to understand why these people would associate us with opression and evil when they see Made in the USA written on the weapons their oppressors use against them? It is no coincidence that the 9/11 terrorists all came from these countries. SO, what's the answer? What would Jesus do if he were President of the U.S.? Certainly he would not have resorted to violence before exhausting all other routes... even if he took office after we were already in Iraq, he'd look for a diplomatic, non-violent solution. Here it is: IMPROVE MIDDLE EASTERNERS' STANDARD OF LIVING! As it is they feel they have nothing to lose, so let's give them something to lose! You don't see Turks strapping on bombs and they're muslim! Why? Because they have a much higher standard of living! Democracy is not the answer... standard of living is. Increase a country's standard of living and they'll become more secular. If they become more secular than the religious nutbars will become more marginalized. If they are perceived as jeapardizing their fellow citizens' affluence, their fellow citizens will quash them quick. If there is anything even the densest American should have learned by now, it is that we'll never get control of things in Iraq without the help of the natives. Given that we've botched things so in Iraq, we're not going to get the full cooperation of Iraqis while we're right in the middle of their civil war. And we are certainly not solving the root problems in Israel, Saudi Arabi and Egypt by concentrating on Iraq to the exclusion of others. The solution is to pull out, start doing what we can to improve the standard of living of the average Middle Easterner, and once the Iraqis finish duking it out amongst themselves, we can do the same for them.

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.

Again, this smacks of a high school historian. This is simple to refute with one example from close to home: the US Civil War. The North was far less determined to fight and win this war than the South. The North won because it cut the South off from the rest of the world and overwhelmed the South. We are NOT cutting Al Qaeda off from the world.. we've given them a stage and a microphone to preach with... and we've given them an audience they did not have before. Had Britain or France intervened, there is no way the North would have won. Shall we give Al Qaeda a podium from which they can recruit countless people? Shall we drive people into their camp because they view the enemy as less harmful to them than we are? I found this remark very interesting:

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .

Nero was so ruthless that he can be given the real credit for converting Rome to Christianity... Constantine did far less. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. As the author stated, this is a war of ideas. Look how effective it was for the Romans to kill the pacifists, to crucify them, to feed them to the lions for all to see. If we keep fighting the war the way we are, can we be looking forward to DC being the future spiritual center of Islam? It's the way the Romans fought Christianity and it is no small irony that Rome is where we keep the pope!

By being denied the facts of our history, we are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. We are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting us in liberal causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven. I am not advocating war, just wanting to understand the greater picture and preserving our country's independence.

This I find laughable. How many "liberal" emails do YOU see floating around using history to try to convince you of their point of view? I've seen MANY diatribes written by Bush supporters that mis-use history to prove their points. TAKE THIS TO HEART: if you see someone quoting history to make an argument, 9 times out of 10 they've got it wrong. The well quoted phrase, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," truly requires the St.Pé Corollary, to whit: "those who dwell on the past are doomed to dwell in it." -Todd St. Pé, Historian.

[Charles Cristofini]

Dear MR, Kraft.
I have read your essay on the Islamic militants, and found it very intersting indeed.
I have also studied the Mid. East History,Politic,Culture, and Religion. And have to disagree with the way you feel the west should fight the Islamic Mujahadeens.
The Wahabi, have existed since the time of Muhamad, and have been called the Brothers. History has proven that the more you fight the Wahabi, the more martyrs you have, the more martyrs you have the fanatic they become. The Wahabi and Mujahadeen could only be dealt by Muslims themselves. See the history of Ibn Saoud, and the take over of the Hijaz. Iben Saoud was a very shrewd person. Thus he took over the Hijaz by negosiation with the Wahabies.
What the west must do in my opinion is through the Arabs themselves, educate the young ones, give them something to live for rather than something to die for. Encourage the more moderate clerics to be more vocals, and the reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shiite could only be done by the Muslims them selves. Muslim have a history of not liking non Muslim to interfere with their own affairs.
Finnally I could say in all confidance that in this case war will not solve any problem. Ideology could only be fought by Ideology, specialy amoung the Musilims.
Charles Cristofini

[jamie]

Are you a serious tweaker or what? Do you actually believe that invading a country to control their oil resources will weaken their fundamentalist, nationalistic resistence?

[d]

Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around...
The Belgians held out for almost three weeks, not one day, despite suffering terrible civilians massacres throughout.
"educated, rational Saudis of today"? The Saudis ARE the Wahhabis. 13 of the 17 hijackers were Saudis. (none were Iraqis).
The cost of the Iraq war is $400 billion and counting, not $160 billion. Most economists predict it will cost $1 - $2 trillion. WW2 cost $2 trillion inflation adjusted, not $12trillion.

Given he doesn't have a grasp of basic historical facts, perhaps Raymond Kraft's efforts would be better served signing up for the military himself? He probably has a sore back.

[Alan]

This article is so full of historical inaccuracies I would be embarrassed to send it to 5th graders, much less college students.

A few of the many inaccuracies:

"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."

1. Congress did NOT declare war unanimously on December 7th 1941. On December 8th Congress voted to declare war on Japan and one member of Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, voted against it.

2. Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11th, the US then (afterwards) declared war on them.

3. The same day that the US declared war on Japan the following countries did the same: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Free France, the Netherlands, the Netherlands East Indies, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Panama. On Dec 9th China, Cuba and South Africa declared war on Japan (even though China had been fighting Japan for years). December 11th Nicaragua and the Polish government in exile declare war on Japan; Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua declare war on Germany and Italy. December 12th Haiti, Honduras and Panama declared war on Germany and Italy. Let's not forget Australia, S. Africa, Canada, the Free French, exile governments from Pland, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands among others were already at war with Germany, and India was part of the British Empire. The Soviet Union was at war with Germany but did not declare war on Japan until 1945. The list of American allies grew longer as the war proceeded, countries like Mexico and Brazil contributed forces to fight against Germany.

"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."

Belgium fought Germany from 10 May 1940 until 28 May 1940. The Germans bombed Rotterdam (Netherlands) on 14 May 1940, shortly after the the Dutch government agreed to lay down arms, destroying 20,000 buildings and killing 980 people. The Dutch government fled to Britain rather than surrender. The Germans did not bomb Brussels into rubble.

"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 MILLION soldiers."

Er, that was Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Germans never besieged Moscow. The Soviet Union might have lost as many as 24 million - during the entire war, not in two battles. Perhaps 35% were civilians.

If this is a "history lesson" it is history from an alternate reality. The rest of this article is as wrong as the "historical facts" presented by Mr Kraft.

[Dave On The Lake]

I find it interesting. We have one person with a criminal law degree that does not understand that the 19th century was from 1800 to 1899 and we also have a boat load of people that do not realize that the absence of war is not peace. The absence of war is time to rearm and refit.

I do not agree with Mr. Bush on most things, after all I am a libertarian and he is a liberal. I do agree with him on this. Could it have been planned better? Of course it could have but it is important to fight an enemy on the ground of your choosing. Lee could have won the American Civil War if he had chosen to wait for Stuart and retreated to more favorable ground, even then if Gen. Pickett had dispatched sappers to dismantle the fence that lay between the Union and Confederate armies at Pickett’s charge.

Our Military fights in Iraq. Our Military are not the ones killing Iraqis though there were many civilian casualties. The killing is done by terrorists and supported by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to foment a civil war. These countries cannot afford to have a democratic republic on its borders. Who supports Iran and Syria? Well you should look at history to determine that little fact. In 1683 the Ottoman Empire invaded Europe and lay siege to the city of Vienna. It was French sappers that were undermining the walls of the city for Kara Mustafa, the commander of the Sultans armies. If King Sobieski with the combined armies had not swept down from the heights the rest of the charges would have been detonated, the city lost and we would have a Muslim Hungary and Romania today. It might be noted that the French, while the armies of Germany and Austria were occupied with the war seized Luxembourg, Alsace with Strasbourg, etc.

France is a country that uses proxies to do the dirty work for them. France has made a major miscalculation. I have read some data that indicates that Europe in twenty years will cease to be a free continent. You might google these article if the links do not work. They are interesting.

The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe; http://www.meforum.org/article/687

And this one from Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1796

What concerns me the most is this absolute rabid hatred for America and the ideal of freedom. The left and their allies in the media almost created a religion out of this. I am no longer sure that the news is the news. The spin is in everything. I feel that this confusion has been created by our enemies. The big issue is to identify the enemy.

In the mean time I will pick up a few more boxes of ammo.

Dave,

On a lake in central Texas

[jerry januszewski]

Ignorant, jingoistic, unChristian garbage.

[Mark Allard]

I have one question. You state the Saddam supported terrorism. Yes he supported the PLO but I ask you how and when did he ever support any terrorist activity against the USA? In fact no American was ever killed by an act of Saddam ouside the borders of Iraq. I support the war but I believe that portion of your article is in error.

[Stevan D Clark Sr]

I read your paper on
http://usawakeup.org/ifdemocratswin.htm

Consider the Predictable Consequences
Now that Democrats Are In Power

Move over Tom Clancy
do not take me wrong I feel Tom Clancy is a closet prophet also ;)

Ever Read Red Storm Rising

Thank you for taking the time to tell the truth to True Americans who do care about their country and are aware of what might take place to us soon.

[ed]

"Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon?"
The battle of Waterloo was in 1815. Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, where he died in 1821.
"...and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germnany?"
The Franco-Prussian war ended in 1870. Peace existed until WWI broke out in 1914. That war ended in 1918, and Germany formed a democratic govenrment (the Weimar Republic) which held power until Hitler's accession in 1933.
I also have history and law degrees, but this guys' should be revoked!

[Ellen]

I had this piece of ignorant garbage sent to me twice today. I embedded my comments. Which I'm probably not allowed to do here. But I think we can tell this guy has absolutely no respect for the brown people in Iraq a/k/a the Cradle of Civilzation. Iraqis are not stupid people. Their only problem is that they sit on top of the oil we think we should have and Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy. This has been nothing more than a personal vendetta by a spoiled college cheerleader. That's it. And he's also trying to outshine his much more competent father.

[William Eberwein]

He is right, but too hopeful. The Left never admitted the dangers of Communism, and to this day think it was an act of avuncular kindness on the part of Gorbechev. That the Communists were on record to want to line up journalists, actors, academics, homosexuals, and other typical-leftist-types and exterminate them seems to have missed them. The Islamos are cut from the same cloth. There is precious little reformation possible in Islam. Or it will be a long time coming. There is no tradtion of exegesis, koranic scholarship, and good old fashioned Jewish "wrestling with God" that is the hallmark of Christianity and Judaism.

I think we may look back with gratitude and surprise at what Bush has done for us - if the Dems don't do a Vietnam on us and cut and run. A few months back we had 80% of the Iraqi population risking their lives to vote. That we have some messes is pretty on-target for fighting a war. The Dems just have no backbone, and the people hate anything that interupts their pursuit of the latest cheap gadget from China, or watching crap from Hollywood.

The screw up we committed is not actually FIGHTING the war. We want pictures of handsome soldiers giving kids a piggyback ride. I want ruined cities, dead enemy soldiers, and a humiliated and chastened enemy who will be eager to sign a peace treaty and KEEP IT.

[Robert Dennis]

Comments on some fantasies of Raymond S. Kraft’s
“THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS.”

(In his preface Raymond Kraft wrote, —“By being denied the facts of our history, [today’s students] 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.”

“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 [not unanimous, Jeannette Rankin, Montana Member of Congress voted “no” as she also did against World War I) 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.”

(This timeline is incorrect: Hitler specifically forbade the German Navy from attacking American convoys prior to Dec 7, 1941 because he remembered how sinking US ships helped provoke our decision to enter WW I. He had already launched Barbarossa, his surprise attack on the Soviet Union, and wanted to finish war on that front before taking on the United States. The great loss of shipping occurred in 1942 [after the US had declared war on both Japan and Germany] when German U boats sank 6,250,000 tons of Allied shipping. “But by the beginning of 1943 the allies gained the upper hand over the U-boats, thanks to an improved technique of using long-range aircraft and aircraft carriers and, above all, of equipping surface vessels with radar which spotted the enemy submarines before the latter could site them.” William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 1007)

(Kraft goes on to declare that the US had few allies naming England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, ignoring all of Central and South America, India and other English colonies, China, and colonies of conquered European nations.)

* * *

“Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses [No, see comment above) 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.”
>
(In the first four weeks of hostilities between Britain and Germany in 1939, Britain lost in the first week 64,595 tons of ships, 53,561 tons the second week, 12,750 the third and 4,646 the fourth week for a total of 26 ships of 135,532 tons sunk by U-boats plus 3 ships by mines totaling 16,488 tons. Hitler thereafter decided to show restraint while he proposed peace to France and Britain. Hitler’s April 1940 surprise German invasion of Norway was a success but one with a cost. While casualties were relatively light—about five thousand killed on each side—naval losses were not light: “The British lost one aircraft carrier, one cruiser and seven destroyers and the Poles and French one destroyer each. German naval losses were comparably much heavier: ten out of twenty destroyers, three of eight cruisers, while the battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenai and the pocket battleship Luetzow were damaged so severely that they were out of action for several months. Hitler had no fleet worthy of mention for the coming events of the summer. When the time to invade Britain came, as it did so shortly, this proved an insurmountable handicap.” Shirer, p. 711

(The phrase “[Britain 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. . .” is just plain wrong. Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Air Chief, persuaded Hitler to let him soften up Britain through bombing with Germany’s massive air force which set in place the historic Battle of Britain. It pitted RAF fighter planes against waves of German attack bombers and fighters. From August 24 to September 6, 1940 the Luftwaffe sent an average of 1,000 planes a day against British defenses, and were met by much smaller forces of English Spitfires and Hurricanes manned by pilots in their early twenties who inflicted heavy losses on the attacking planes. After German planes mistakenly bombed civilians in the center of London, the RAF responded the next night by attacking Berlin, beginning a tit-for-tat slaughter of civilians of both sides. For fifty-seven consecutive nights, beginning September 7th and ending November 3rd, the Luftwaffe sent an average of 200 bombers to pound London even though Hitler had called off his “Sea Lion” invasion of England on September 17.

As Shirer wrote, “Hitler’s bomber losses over England had been so severe that they could never be made up, and in fact the Luftwaffe, as the German confidential records make clear, never fully recovered from the blow it received in the skies over Britain that late summer and fall.

“The German Navy, crippled by the losses off Norway in the early spring, was unable, as its chiefs admitted all along, to provide the sea power for an invasion of Britain. Without this, and without air supremacy, the German Army was helpless to move across the narrow Channel waters. For the first time in the war Hitler had been stopped. . .” (Shirer, p. 781)

* * *
(Kraft moves from his fantasy that Hitler could have defeated Britain when he finished with the Soviet Union to the assertion that “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. . . 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.”
Maybe in 1918, but not in 1941. The English and American fleets controlled the seas and therefore Germany’s access to oil. American industrial might was far out-producing Germany’s and was not in danger of regular bombing. Nor were the American people being demoralized by scarce food, disrupted and destroyed utilities, shortages of all consumer goods and frightening, deadly nightly bombing.
The first few months after Hitler’s June 1941 attack on the Soviet Union were indeed calamitous for the Kremlin including an estimated 1 million military and civilian dead. By September Leningrad was under siege and would be blockaded until 1943 causing an estimated million starvation deaths. Moscow was threatened, also. After driving 500 miles across Russia in little more than five months, the German army established a 200 mile semi-circular front around Moscow in late November with the largest tank force seen up to that time, but Russian resistance had stiffened. Hitler’s half-starved and freezing soldiers attacked in minus 30 degree temperatures the first days of December and were repulsed. On the 6th, 100 Russian divisions trained and equipped to fight in the bitter cold and deep snow counter-attacked destroying the myth of the invincibility of the German Army.
A year later Russian forces inflicted a greater loss on the German Army at Stalingrad, again in sub-zero temperatures imposing a psychological defeat on the German people themselves. That January 1943 defeat was followed by the battle of Kursk in July the same year. Hitler arrayed a powerful force for the purpose of trapping a large Russian force while Russian generals deduced this was the point where an attack would come. Both sides brought in vast armaments, and the Russians particularly built massive defenses against tanks and infantry. In mid July Hitler ordered the attack which heavily cost both sides, but by the fourth day Russian lines had held forcing German withdrawal and prompting an overwhelming Russian counter-attack and victory. “The legend that in summer the Germans always advanced had been dispelled once and for all. The German losses were put at 70,000 killed, 2,900 tanks, 195 mobile guns, 844 field guns, 1,392 planes and over 5,000 motor vehicles. . .
“The Russian command knew that by winning the Battle of Kursk, Russia had, in effect, won the war.” (Alexander Werth, Russia At War, 1941-45, p. 683, 685)
While the Russians suffered many losses at the hands of the German Army, there was no reason ever to assume that Russia and Stalin would surrender to Germany and Hitler.
(The reader can relax. Kraft created this straw man as a rhetorical transition to his real message.)
“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.”
If Kraft wanted to show that mistakes in battle or strategy or effects of weather, accidents, exhaustion, or equipment malfunction changed the course of Hitler’s campaign against Britain, he could have found plenty from after-battle reports. That isn’t what he wants the reader to understand because he immediately launches a tirade about how dangerous Jihadis are and that we must keep them from sweeping across Europe and into the U.S.
. . .
‘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.”
(Forget the truth. Scare the reader. Remember our history—how we demonized witches at Salem, American Indians, black slaves, Chinese hordes, anarchists, communists, labor leaders, those who “lost” China, gays, pacifists, and now not just Muslims, but “Jihadis.” They want to take over our world!)

Didn’t Tony Blair tell us Saddam Hussein could strike London with a nuclear weapon in forty-five minutes? Undoubtedly, Mr. Kraft is better informed than the British Prime Minister, but he fails to provide us readers with any documentation of this nuclear peril.
. . .
“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.”
While Kraft said the opposite, Wahhabi Islam is actually a branch of Islam, and it is centered in Saudi Arabia and uses government funds to support its schools to teach hostility toward infidels. Not surprisingly perhaps, nineteen of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attackers came from Saudi Arabia. And we mustn’t forget its native son, Osama bin Laden, born in Jeddah.
. . .
(After explaining that Islam is now going through an “Inquisition vs. Reformation” struggle—the Inquisitionists being the bad guys—we are guided about how to help the Reformists who accept people of other religions.)
“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.”
Finally! Kraft has dragged us through his fantasy of Hitler’s World War II and an equally fanciful explanation of Islam as if its billion followers were more unified than Christians, and he’s decided we must fight Wahhabism—not where Wahhabism is practiced, but in one of the most secular Middle Eastern states, at least it was before we invaded. He’ll have to plant Wahhabism in Iraq before it can be defeated there.
Now we understand. All this half-baked history and religion is his predicate for what God-fearing people must do. We must win in Iraq to keep the Jihadists from getting nuclear weapons, and in the process make Iraq a democracy.
. . .
“We … 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.”
Even the President has quit talking about making Iraq a democracy. Now all he seems to want is an Iraq with a stable government.
. . .
“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.”
After World War I, Britain tried to make an “England” there as the European Allies were carving up the Ottoman Empire. Britain got a League of Nations Mandate over Iraq in the divvying up, supported Sunni leadership, and intervened militarily on occasions until World War II, but it never created an “England” in Iraq during that 20-year period.
But that really isn’t his point. His attack is aimed at “peace activists” and “liberals” those bugaboos that seem to haunt American conservatives. If his audience is losing its enthusiasm for a war that John Hopkins University researchers calculate has cost 600,000 Iraqi lives, then maybe he can whip them up by saying that they are sounding like peaceniks or worse, “liberals.”
. . .
“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. . .”
In the fifties this kind of doggerel threatened a disbeliever with a life under communism. It’s always phrased so that if you don’t do what you’re told, your children will be punished. So we all must fight and denounce the witches at Salem, American Indians, black slaves, Chinese hordes, anarchists, communists, labor leaders, those who “lost” China, gays, pacifists, and “Jihadis.”
. . .
“Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. . .”
That is not true. Kraft again spits in the face of history. In our own lifetimes we have seen dictators brought down through peaceful protest in Portugal and Greece in 1974, Ecuador in 1979, Peru 1980, Argentina and Spain 1982, Brazil 1985, Philippines 1986, South Korea 1987, Chile, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, 1989, Hungary, East Germany and Namibia 1990, Taiwan 1991, South Africa 1994. And notably Britain allowed its many former colonies like India, South Africa, Kenya, Burma, Malaya, Egypt and Hong Kong to become self-governing democratic states after World War II.
. . .
“Remember, perspective is every thing, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.”
No, perspective is not everything. It may be everything to those with too little knowledge, to those who substitute opinions for facts, to those who rush to judgment without reflection, to those who have made a judgment based on emotion, fear, hatred or stupidity.
Perspective is but one element of a wise decision. Wisdom relies on good information, the counsel of thoughtful people, the evaluation of conflicting points of view and perspective.
Kraft proves that some schools do a poor job of teaching history. He also proves that just because he is a lawyer, he is not a good student. He does not dig out the correct facts nor cite recognized authorities for his assertions.
At a minimum, he owes his readers an apology for his numerous factual errors.
As a rhetorician he also gets failing marks because his predicates, even when he invents the facts, do not support his conclusions. For example,
“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.”
Where does this come from? “If you disagree with me, I consign your children to become Muslims.”
or
“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.”
Contrary to the Biblical injunction “Thou shall not kill” there is here an implicit assertion that we possess the right to kill others, that those we kill are “bad people” and that it is okay for teenage soldiers to do so without a trial or judgment, without giving the victims an opportunity to defend themselves or to hear evidence against them. Can this be so for all 600,000 Iraqis who have died so far in this war?
(To assure that readers arrive at the conclusions he believes are right, he offers four “alternatives”, the last three of which are progressively less acceptable.)
“We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in, America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.”
This is a set of false choices designed to make people think we must continue the killing in Iraq. Must we concede that we do not know how to settle differences with other nations by negotiation? Are we unwilling to hear the arguments of people who disagree with us? To search for solutions to their complaints as we tell them ours? What if we lived in communities where we shot first based only on our fears?
Yes, the world including the United States, is full of “peace activists” who want leaders dedicated to making this a peaceful world, and who reject a “safety through war” philosophy that tramples the rights of other people.
Robert B. Dennis

[Robert Dennis]

Comments on some fantasies of Raymond S. Kraft’s
“THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS.”

(In his preface Raymond Kraft wrote, —“By being denied the facts of our history, [today’s students] 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.”

“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 [not unanimous, Jeannette Rankin, Montana Member of Congress voted “no” as she also did against World War I) 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.”

(This timeline is incorrect: Hitler specifically forbade the German Navy from attacking American convoys prior to Dec 7, 1941 because he remembered how sinking US ships helped provoke our decision to enter WW I. He had already launched Barbarossa, his surprise attack on the Soviet Union, and wanted to finish war on that front before taking on the United States. The great loss of shipping occurred in 1942 [after the US had declared war on both Japan and Germany] when German U boats sank 6,250,000 tons of Allied shipping. “But by the beginning of 1943 the allies gained the upper hand over the U-boats, thanks to an improved technique of using long-range aircraft and aircraft carriers and, above all, of equipping surface vessels with radar which spotted the enemy submarines before the latter could site them.” William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 1007)

(Kraft goes on to declare that the US had few allies naming England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, ignoring all of Central and South America, India and other English colonies, China, and colonies of conquered European nations.)

* * *

“Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses [No, see comment above) 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.”
>
(In the first four weeks of hostilities between Britain and Germany in 1939, Britain lost in the first week 64,595 tons of ships, 53,561 tons the second week, 12,750 the third and 4,646 the fourth week for a total of 26 ships of 135,532 tons sunk by U-boats plus 3 ships by mines totaling 16,488 tons. Hitler thereafter decided to show restraint while he proposed peace to France and Britain. Hitler’s April 1940 surprise German invasion of Norway was a success but one with a cost. While casualties were relatively light—about five thousand killed on each side—naval losses were not light: “The British lost one aircraft carrier, one cruiser and seven destroyers and the Poles and French one destroyer each. German naval losses were comparably much heavier: ten out of twenty destroyers, three of eight cruisers, while the battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenai and the pocket battleship Luetzow were damaged so severely that they were out of action for several months. Hitler had no fleet worthy of mention for the coming events of the summer. When the time to invade Britain came, as it did so shortly, this proved an insurmountable handicap.” Shirer, p. 711

(The phrase “[Britain 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. . .” is just plain wrong. Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Air Chief, persuaded Hitler to let him soften up Britain through bombing with Germany’s massive air force which set in place the historic Battle of Britain. It pitted RAF fighter planes against waves of German attack bombers and fighters. From August 24 to September 6, 1940 the Luftwaffe sent an average of 1,000 planes a day against British defenses, and were met by much smaller forces of English Spitfires and Hurricanes manned by pilots in their early twenties who inflicted heavy losses on the attacking planes. After German planes mistakenly bombed civilians in the center of London, the RAF responded the next night by attacking Berlin, beginning a tit-for-tat slaughter of civilians of both sides. For fifty-seven consecutive nights, beginning September 7th and ending November 3rd, the Luftwaffe sent an average of 200 bombers to pound London even though Hitler had called off his “Sea Lion” invasion of England on September 17.

As Shirer wrote, “Hitler’s bomber losses over England had been so severe that they could never be made up, and in fact the Luftwaffe, as the German confidential records make clear, never fully recovered from the blow it received in the skies over Britain that late summer and fall.

“The German Navy, crippled by the losses off Norway in the early spring, was unable, as its chiefs admitted all along, to provide the sea power for an invasion of Britain. Without this, and without air supremacy, the German Army was helpless to move across the narrow Channel waters. For the first time in the war Hitler had been stopped. . .” (Shirer, p. 781)

* * *
(Kraft moves from his fantasy that Hitler could have defeated Britain when he finished with the Soviet Union to the assertion that “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. . . 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.”
Maybe in 1918, but not in 1941. The English and American fleets controlled the seas and therefore Germany’s access to oil. American industrial might was far out-producing Germany’s and was not in danger of regular bombing. Nor were the American people being demoralized by scarce food, disrupted and destroyed utilities, shortages of all consumer goods and frightening, deadly nightly bombing.
The first few months after Hitler’s June 1941 attack on the Soviet Union were indeed calamitous for the Kremlin including an estimated 1 million military and civilian dead. By September Leningrad was under siege and would be blockaded until 1943 causing an estimated million starvation deaths. Moscow was threatened, also. After driving 500 miles across Russia in little more than five months, the German army established a 200 mile semi-circular front around Moscow in late November with the largest tank force seen up to that time, but Russian resistance had stiffened. Hitler’s half-starved and freezing soldiers attacked in minus 30 degree temperatures the first days of December and were repulsed. On the 6th, 100 Russian divisions trained and equipped to fight in the bitter cold and deep snow counter-attacked destroying the myth of the invincibility of the German Army.
A year later Russian forces inflicted a greater loss on the German Army at Stalingrad, again in sub-zero temperatures imposing a psychological defeat on the German people themselves. That January 1943 defeat was followed by the battle of Kursk in July the same year. Hitler arrayed a powerful force for the purpose of trapping a large Russian force while Russian generals deduced this was the point where an attack would come. Both sides brought in vast armaments, and the Russians particularly built massive defenses against tanks and infantry. In mid July Hitler ordered the attack which heavily cost both sides, but by the fourth day Russian lines had held forcing German withdrawal and prompting an overwhelming Russian counter-attack and victory. “The legend that in summer the Germans always advanced had been dispelled once and for all. The German losses were put at 70,000 killed, 2,900 tanks, 195 mobile guns, 844 field guns, 1,392 planes and over 5,000 motor vehicles. . .
“The Russian command knew that by winning the Battle of Kursk, Russia had, in effect, won the war.” (Alexander Werth, Russia At War, 1941-45, p. 683, 685)
While the Russians suffered many losses at the hands of the German Army, there was no reason ever to assume that Russia and Stalin would surrender to Germany and Hitler.
(The reader can relax. Kraft created this straw man as a rhetorical transition to his real message.)
“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.”
If Kraft wanted to show that mistakes in battle or strategy or effects of weather, accidents, exhaustion, or equipment malfunction changed the course of Hitler’s campaign against Britain, he could have found plenty from after-battle reports. That isn’t what he wants the reader to understand because he immediately launches a tirade about how dangerous Jihadis are and that we must keep them from sweeping across Europe and into the U.S.
. . .
‘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.”
(Forget the truth. Scare the reader. Remember our history—how we demonized witches at Salem, American Indians, black slaves, Chinese hordes, anarchists, communists, labor leaders, those who “lost” China, gays, pacifists, and now not just Muslims, but “Jihadis.” They want to take over our world!)

Didn’t Tony Blair tell us Saddam Hussein could strike London with a nuclear weapon in forty-five minutes? Undoubtedly, Mr. Kraft is better informed than the British Prime Minister, but he fails to provide us readers with any documentation of this nuclear peril.
. . .
“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.”
While Kraft said the opposite, Wahhabi Islam is actually a branch of Islam, and it is centered in Saudi Arabia and uses government funds to support its schools to teach hostility toward infidels. Not surprisingly perhaps, nineteen of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attackers came from Saudi Arabia. And we mustn’t forget its native son, Osama bin Laden, born in Jeddah.
. . .
(After explaining that Islam is now going through an “Inquisition vs. Reformation” struggle—the Inquisitionists being the bad guys—we are guided about how to help the Reformists who accept people of other religions.)
“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.”
Finally! Kraft has dragged us through his fantasy of Hitler’s World War II and an equally fanciful explanation of Islam as if its billion followers were more unified than Christians, and he’s decided we must fight Wahhabism—not where Wahhabism is practiced, but in one of the most secular Middle Eastern states, at least it was before we invaded. He’ll have to plant Wahhabism in Iraq before it can be defeated there.
Now we understand. All this half-baked history and religion is his predicate for what God-fearing people must do. We must win in Iraq to keep the Jihadists from getting nuclear weapons, and in the process make Iraq a democracy.
. . .
“We … 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.”
Even the President has quit talking about making Iraq a democracy. Now all he seems to want is an Iraq with a stable government.
. . .
“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.”
After World War I, Britain tried to make an “England” there as the European Allies were carving up the Ottoman Empire. Britain got a League of Nations Mandate over Iraq in the divvying up, supported Sunni leadership, and intervened militarily on occasions until World War II, but it never created an “England” in Iraq during that 20-year period.
But that really isn’t his point. His attack is aimed at “peace activists” and “liberals” those bugaboos that seem to haunt American conservatives. If his audience is losing its enthusiasm for a war that John Hopkins University researchers calculate has cost 600,000 Iraqi lives, then maybe he can whip them up by saying that they are sounding like peaceniks or worse, “liberals.”
. . .
“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. . .”
In the fifties this kind of doggerel threatened a disbeliever with a life under communism. It’s always phrased so that if you don’t do what you’re told, your children will be punished. So we all must fight and denounce the witches at Salem, American Indians, black slaves, Chinese hordes, anarchists, communists, labor leaders, those who “lost” China, gays, pacifists, and “Jihadis.”
. . .
“Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. . .”
That is not true. Kraft again spits in the face of history. In our own lifetimes we have seen dictators brought down through peaceful protest in Portugal and Greece in 1974, Ecuador in 1979, Peru 1980, Argentina and Spain 1982, Brazil 1985, Philippines 1986, South Korea 1987, Chile, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, 1989, Hungary, East Germany and Namibia 1990, Taiwan 1991, South Africa 1994. And notably Britain allowed its many former colonies like India, South Africa, Kenya, Burma, Malaya, Egypt and Hong Kong to become self-governing democratic states after World War II.
. . .
“Remember, perspective is every thing, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.”
No, perspective is not everything. It may be everything to those with too little knowledge, to those who substitute opinions for facts, to those who rush to judgment without reflection, to those who have made a judgment based on emotion, fear, hatred or stupidity.
Perspective is but one element of a wise decision. Wisdom relies on good information, the counsel of thoughtful people, the evaluation of conflicting points of view and perspective.
Kraft proves that some schools do a poor job of teaching history. He also proves that just because he is a lawyer, he is not a good student. He does not dig out the correct facts nor cite recognized authorities for his assertions.
At a minimum, he owes his readers an apology for his numerous factual errors.
As a rhetorician he also gets failing marks because his predicates, even when he invents the facts, do not support his conclusions. For example,
“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.”
Where does this come from? “If you disagree with me, I consign your children to become Muslims.”
or
“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.”
Contrary to the Biblical injunction “Thou shall not kill” there is here an implicit assertion that we possess the right to kill others, that those we kill are “bad people” and that it is okay for teenage soldiers to do so without a trial or judgment, without giving the victims an opportunity to defend themselves or to hear evidence against them. Can this be so for all 600,000 Iraqis who have died so far in this war?
(To assure that readers arrive at the conclusions he believes are right, he offers four “alternatives”, the last three of which are progressively less acceptable.)
“We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in, America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.”
This is a set of false choices designed to make people think we must continue the killing in Iraq. Must we concede that we do not know how to settle differences with other nations by negotiation? Are we unwilling to hear the arguments of people who disagree with us? To search for solutions to their complaints as we tell them ours? What if we lived in communities where we shot first based only on our fears?
Yes, the world including the United States, is full of “peace activists” who want leaders dedicated to making this a peaceful world, and who reject a “safety through war” philosophy that tramples the rights of other people.
Robert B. Dennis

[Hal]

It is unbelievable how many ignorant, left wing, wildeyed liberals there are in this world. I just hope that all you're doing is posting your vitrolic hate for George Bush on blogs and aren't out voting.

Raymond Kraft is right on.

Hal

[Stewart R. Gable]

Ray;
I have the same vision as you and know how Billy Mitchell must have felt.
I am Stewart R. Gable, Colonel USAF [Ret'd]
BA Industrial Psychology & Marketing Distribution
MA MIS Management
SOS in Residence
Air Command & Staff College, in Residence
Naval War College, in Residence [Stan Turner]
Vietnam 1968; Pilot 107 Missions over the North
10,000 Pilot hours in the USAF
While assigned to the FAA in DC, I started the Acts of Violence & Hi-Jacking Task Force Against U S Air Carriers, 1970-71.
While at the NWC in 1971 predicted the USSR would implode from the inside
and the money saved should go to the CIA for tracking all CBR weapons in
the future.
Obviously, no one listened to me.
The following web site is my latest contribution, but few listen.

WWW.USAWakeUp.Org

Stewart R. Gable
520-299-1234

[Gary DeVaney]

Gary DeVaney: This “saber-rattling” war-game by a Mr. Raymond S. Kraft made me so critical of his perspectives that I spent a couple of hours breaking down his points.

What is Past is Prologue This is history that has been left out of our textbooks.

Gary: This propaganda piece amounts to another pentagon-type war-game scenario. There are thousands of them. The “007” films and “24” TV programs are similar projects. This scenario is no more feasible than they are.

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.

Gary: Well, Mr. Raymond S. Kraft, that statement certainly should subordinate any immature, amateur and ignorant input on our part. It appears we should just shut our mouths, read and fearfully believe this saber-rattling scenario.

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 this is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented.

Gary: That's a matter of opinion. President George W. Bush certainly has some of us programmed by his lies. Some are afraid of what he might do next to further ruin The United States of America.

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.

Gary: Na. Churchill and Roosevelt were figuring ways to get the US involved. They knew about and somewhat orchestrated Pearl Harbor. Ignorant denial is automatic.

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.

Gary: All according to plan. Germany, about the size of Texas, and Japan, about the size of California, were the enemy. The International-Bankers were preparing for themselves a financial banquet.

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,

Gary: Whoa! Outside of fictional books, by what official paper-trail evidence did Japan and Germany have long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico? Another, of many, fictitious war-Games sold as fact.

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.

Gary: To live in fear is the Bush-Gang's never-ending order of the day. You can’t have war without it.

America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after W.W.I and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WWII, 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.

Gary: We all played army and did that as kids. I personally killed a billion trees that were "bad and evil" enemy soldiers.

And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Gary: Let's se now - on Sunday December 7th all the aircraft carriers were out at sea from Pearl Harbor for the first time. Why so on that date? Roosevelt couldn't sacrifice his carriers? Were the rest left in port to be the sacrificial lambs so to get every American redneck to feel and shout: "Let's git some" - "Let's kick-butt" - "Let's kill and die for honor" - "Wanted dead or alive" - "Bring it on"? Bush's cheerleading 91 IQ luvs that stuff!

Britain had already gone bankrupt,

Gary: Sure. England had over-extended itself by imperialzing many less powerful countries by occupying and exploiting their resources. We, the USA, had to learn to do it from someone.

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).

Gary: So you say.

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 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.

Gary: What? LOL. Had OCEAN WATER not separated England from Europe, England would have fallen to Germany right after Belgium.

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.

Gary: Yes. Russia, not the US and England, mostly beat Germany. The US sacrificed 406,000 troops and created the US empire with our best “sacrificial lambs”. Russia was too weak to stop the US from spreading our empire. Eventually, our CIA created wars bankrupted Russia and it collapsed.

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

Gary: Russia’s loses were horrendous as compared to the US costs and causalities – weren’t they?

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.

Gary: A country roughly the size of Texas with technology only about 20% better than other affluent nations could win a World War? What are you smoking? By the end of this piece, you are going to pick an enemy for us to want to go kill – aren’t you Mr. Raymond S. Kraft ?

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.

Gary: Yes. President George W. Bush is our Adolph Hitler with 10 times more country than Germany and 1000 times more weaponry then the rest of the World combined and he is inventing scenarios to excuse himself and his handlers from imposing US World domination through financial, democratic, media, religious and military means. There – the mask is off.

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.

Gary: OOOOH! Here comes the fear imposition. Let’s all get ready to kick butt! Pick my enemy and "let me at em". "Bring em on!" In reality "There is a very dangerous minority" and it is the Bush-Gang. You want to validate his errors at all costs - don't you Mr. Raymond S. Kraft

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.

Gary: Come on! You could sell a much better war-game by using the Chinese as the big evil Satan. With over 4 times our US population - with nuclear weapons and all that land-mass, a real thinker could have picked a better potential enemy than the Islamic people - who are decades behind in weaponary.

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 Reformations.

Gary: The US handlers luv a civil-war raging in the Middle East for it weakens the enemy AND it allows us to step in whenever we choose to – because we have annointed ourselves to be the World’s righteous cops. We will continue to sacrifice our best people and US family money to prove our cause. We are on a mission from God - according to our leader. "If you are not with us - you’re a-gin us." Statistically, the enemy is more expendable than our people - but be assured, our President is willing to expend all he can use for his war and his handler's cause.

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.

Gary: The dollar? Bush has raised the US national debt more than all the other US Presidents combined. Do you care? The Inquisition! Great choice of trigger words - as it reminds us that it is righteous for the torture and legal for the slaughter of the enemies of religion. Let me git saved, baptized again, sign up and kill all those low-life, Allah-loving Inquisitors and support those good Allah-type Reformists. After a billion more troops and civilians die on all sides, the US handlers can occupy more countries, secure more resources like oil and take over the World - fulfilling the One World Government agenda. Praise God / Allah as they are both the warlike God of Abraham. Doesn’t a Christian - Islamic war sound feasible? Promote enough fear to dupe the US sheeple because God told you to and it will happen again and again.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions,

Gary: You’re smoking that funny stuff, right? Don’t you really view that: “If they ain’t Christian – they ain’t nothin’.” When it comes to religion, Christianity is as dumb as Islam. They will both fight to the death for a ideology that some imperialistic, authoritative, power-crazy group programmed into their head.

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.

Gary: Right! Under the US imposed democratic World Bank control. Who do you think you are fooling? We’ll control the money and resources, buy our politicians and put them in place. The World is ours!!! Praise God!

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 Quad and the Islamic terrorist movements.

Gary: Let me write my will and sign up for this noble cause. This is the most motivating cause I’ve got to go die for since lunchtime.

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.

Gary: Just train me how to press those nuclear buttons. I’ll sacrifice my going to Hell and “nuke em all” or at least the billions necessary to accomplish the US mission of World domination. Let me at em!!!

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.

Gary: Beautiful! What a perfect validation for what our King George II has done. If you want another possible war-game, Bush is not beyond nuking a US city so to become the US Emperor for life. The believing US sheeple have proven to be ready to support that. Sure. The US took out Saddam Hussein, the only one man who proved he could control the Iraqi people. The whole US Government has proven that they cannot do what that one man did. We supported Saddam's war with Iran. We supplied Saddam with the gas that he killed the Kurds and Iranians with. We initially okayed Saddam’s going into Kuwait to reclaim land imperialists and taken from Iraq - and then the US opportunistically turned on him. The US pre-empted a first strike attack on a country that COULD NOT harm us. Spin all the war-games you want. That’s a fact. The USA feels abused and violated when it is not OBEYED. Hello! Those independent nations don't need to obey us or conform to our interests.

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.

Gary: The US condoned it and provided weapons for Saddam to accomplish those deaths. We, the US, never complained until Saddam didn't conform to our corporate, financial and political interests.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq.

Gary: What? There was no terrorism that Saddam didn't handle. You’re nutz. We, the US, created terrorism in Iraq. We are the terrorists who occupy Iraq - a land that is NOT ours.

We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people,

Gary: Our King George II lied, then attacked Iraq and then he used the international corporate-owned media to call them, the victims, bad. We, the US, were the “might-makes-right” BAD Guys. If you don’t understand that, you will keep the Bush Gang in power and it will get much worse for your kids and their free World. The superior money from the International Corporations just might keep the Bush-Gang members in power.

And the ones we get there we won't have to get here.

Gary: Couldn’t you state that about any enemy? If so, EVERY country would fall to us eventually. Who is going to stop us? China maybe - some day. We’ll deserve it because of what we are currently doing. Deep down, do we support World domination? If so, we too deserve the fate of Hitler's Germany, Napoleon and the fate of Rome.

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.

Gary: Why didn’t you complete your sentence? “We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Christian Iraq . . .” You obviously feel that the US should interfere with the politics of other nations - don’t you? Does Saudi Arabia know that the US is going to insist its King give his country up to American orchestrated politics? If not - what ideological hypocrisy! We want our political clones controlling every land on Earth.

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 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably Greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Gary: The Iraqis and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 but you will kill Iraqis to satisfy US revenge? Are you insane? You must be a true Christian. The Biblical God didn't care about civilian casualties either.

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

G: It appears that if it were up to you, Sir Raymond, dumb decisions would continue to be made and things would get worse for the World. Let’s you and I debate your statements in a public forum. You decisions are as bad as your insane leader, George W's. You are welcome to have King George join your side of the debate.

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

Gary: Especially when your country’s leader lies or makes horrendous mistakes and preempts a war on a country that cannot defend itself and who is responsible for a few hundred thousand deaths and injuries. If you support that - you are an accomplice and you should share your leader’s trial - and his cell?

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.

Gary: And then we fight Chinese terrorism, right? Who after them? Fighting the Islamic people is by comparison like the US military today fighting an army with civil war weapons. You obviously support and condone mass slaughter as you are simply reading from the Bush-Gang's dogmatic script.

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.

Gary: Close but no. We will have another puppet US state in the Middle East. Whose region are we spreading occupation and imperialism over? Once we are in absolute control we would flush England out with the rest of the “they are not us” bath water.

The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the Gates.

Gary: Concerning Iraq, we, the United States, prove to be the barbarians, the terrorists, the murderers.

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.

G: Well if they weren’t - they certainly are motivated now to modernize for the defense of their country. Their country is the country we attacked and that we want to take over. We want to impose our control and will over them to fulfill our ideological, political, financial and corporate interests. Some nutcases would probably insist that we impose our imperialistic Christian religion on Islam too - or kill them for not conforming. Both sides see the other as the infidel. We are as bad as they are. I’m Glad I’m an Atheist - free of either religious mind-set.

We have four options:

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

Gary: Then let’s defeat Finland and Greenland before they get nuclear weapons. Let's continue to build up our nuclear arsenal while denying theirs so we can take all of "them thar" countries over. Then, we can tell them how to live, make our laws for them to obey and burn the infidels and the witches who disobey. Great plan! Might DOES make right!

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)

Gary: Boy! You’re scaring me and I’m ready to kill and die again! Where do I sign up!

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.

Gary: Let’s go dominate the Middle-East while we think we can - right? I think we are learning that we already can’t dominate it. But, we can all die trying. Gotta die sometime - right? It might as well be in a “to the death” crusade to imperialize the World. And, besides, it’s God’s will - right?

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.

Gary: Yes. Brilliant! Let’s sacrifice our young men and women and bankrupt our country now so another REAL World power like China can take us over later. You see, I can play fearful, fantasy war-games too. As a retired Army officer, I’ve been trained.

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.

Gary: Ooooh! I can really visualize that? After the Mexicans take us over first - then the Canadians and oops, the Cubans of course. The Mullahs and the Sharia will just have to take a ticket and wait. What concerns me is some timid Americans may believe you and your President’s nonsense and some more testosterone-driven athletes may want to go “GIT SUM” due to your continued reckless propaganda.

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.

Gary: War is: If you don’t yield, serve and obey me - I will kill you. That’s what’s Going on and this war is no different. God started it with all the wars He wades in the Bible to steal people’s lands to give to His “chosen”. He ordered them to kill the occupants of their land so to steal it for themselves. Christians like George W. Bush talks to God and God tells him to attack “those” people. George W. Bush said so, himself. Christians have faith and believe so they follow and obey God through George W. Bush. The world has proven to be in deep trouble with this President in power.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Gary: So far, we have been the most ruthless against a passive people who did not deserve our mistaken and lie induced war. To stubbornly argue the virtues of this war proves that mind-set believers just can NOT be wrong. Those kinds of mistakes - everybody pays for.

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

Gary: Sir Raymond, the perspective that our President lied to wage an unjust war on the innocent citizens of Iraq is a perspective that could slap your face for a month and you still wouldn’t see it. That’s sad - but it’s truly the state of things. One day, sir, one of us is going to be embarrassed for our views in 2006.

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.

Gary: Each case showed that the imperialistic war-wagers lost. Now we, the USA, are wrong for what we have done and like Viet-Nam, we will lose this war too.

The US has taken more than 2,000 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 of W.W.II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

Gary: Raymond, you obviously share Bush's insanity: We have about 3.000 troops who were killed in Iraq and so that they did not die in vain, we are going to send a few million more to die, if necessary. Bush wants political, financial, religious and corporate control of the Middle East. He doesn’t want the people who live there to be in control of their countries or their lives. They are to buy into the lives the US designs for them. They are to live their lives on US terms - or we really don’t have any use for them. They must conform or they must die. That’s pretty much a broad perspective of what’s going on with the George W. Bush Gang.

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).

Gary: That’s their World, Sir Raymond - not ours. If a nation like China, for example, attacked the US and took us over and then insisted that we become like them - chances are, we wouldn’t like it either. Those nations who would occupy the USA would consider me to be a top terrorist - the killing machine I was trained to be.

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.

Gary: Can you perceive allowing the Iraqis to live their lives the way they choose? If you came to my door and demanded I change my life to serve you on your terms, you would receive knuckle sandwiches until you quit demanding of me. That’s fighting for freedom - if you didn't perceive it.

"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?

Gary: LOL! Where have you been? Free-speech and Link TV show protests all over the World against the war that the US has deceptively waged in Iraq. Corporate-owned US media do not show the Peace Activist demonstrating because those corporations want the resources and markets in those semi-virgin markets. You need Dish or Direct TV satellite systems to get those World-Wide news programs instead of what the filtered US systems put out. The corporate owned US media keeps Americans in the dark on World opinion. We make the rules - so, we don’t have to listen to what they think of us - right?

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.

Thank you, Raymond S. Kraft, for exposing your imperialistic war-promoting perspectives for they clearly outline your dogmatic mind-set. You indeed are a true follower of the insane Bush-Gang. George W. Bush is an insane, mind-set socio-path who does not know right from wrong. It appears to be contageous as his power-crazy, obedient, cheer-leading believers are deeply infected by his "assumed authority". He sees America's enemy when he looks in the mirror.

Regards,

Gary DeVaney

garydevaney@earthlink.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

PS: Misinformation campaign! Special interest agenda driven! LOL! I need an Excedrin. GWD

[Sean]

Totally agree with Raymond ...what people today do not realize is that the freedom we love in America was earned at the cost of millions of dollars and many many many lives both innocent and not. This is the only country in the world where we can live a life of true freedom. The recent generations do not have the knowledge of what America went through to win the freedom and protect the freedom we have today. Innocent people will die.. And there is NO WAY around it. This is not a chest game or a game of monopoly. It is reality and war. That is what it takes to protect what is so dear to us. I wonder how many protestors of war and of us being in the Middle East would feel about leaving America to go live in Japan, North Korea, Russia, Iraq, or any where else. No one wants there family to die at war… but it happens. And I thank every single one of the soldiers who fought and who died for our freedom and will never ever forget them.

[Kyle Wilson]

FIGHTING FOR PEACE IS EQUIVALENT TO FUCKING AKA HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE FOR VIRGINITY. What do you think? if they bomb us with what will eventually be nuclear arms powerfull enough to blow up the entire world than what will we just move to Mars??? Yes it is possible but we probably will be far from having the technology to live on another planet for a longggg time. I've tried to see through your perspective. It's just evil and the devil's working. War belongs in hell not on earth.

[Keep It Real]

If Ray Kraft(and the like)and all of you bloggers spent all of your energy focused on one common solution(or action although it might not be perfect-nothing in this world is perfect)instead of your own WAR Of Words and directed that energy (goal)on influencing our congress,something positive might happen for future generations of US citizens.

[from_the_old_right]

A few observations...

Attacking "isolationism" is akin to calling George Washington an idiot. Hitler was the product of U.S. intervention in the First World War leading to a humiliating and unjust peace which inflamed the German people and built the fires of fanatism and a war of revenge.

President Wilson pulled the U.S. into the "Great War" with lies and gross misrepresentations. Following on his footsteps, FDR betrayed the alleged cause of freedom for which thousands of Americans perished with his sell-outs to Joseph Stalin, a man morally indistinguishable from Adolf Hitler.

As for the war with Islam, Iraq is a side-show. We are busy losing the war with Islam every day with the massive influx of muslim immigration to the U.S. and Europe. Islam cannot coexist with either Christians, Jews or secularism in western democracy. Islam, not some made up group of "jihadists" is at war with western-style democracy.

Yet, George Bush and his allies, like the liberal Democrats and the emasculated secular socialists of Europe, seeks to conceal or ignore this fact. Islam is incompatible with the West. Like Europe, we harbor a nest of vipers with the growth of muslim communities in the U.S. Anyone professing to be a Christian and accepting the lordship of Christ cannot tolerate the claims of Islam. Anyone who understands the history of the West cannot help but recoil from the surrender of both Christendom and western democracy to hordes of alien invaders.

[zubair]

Jihad and islam is thr real solution of words problem

[zubair]

I am seeking mujahideens for exchnce to idea of jiha all mujahideen can e-mail me
aboozubairulansari@yahoo.com
wa salam

[mahadave]

Yes, it's pretty sad when smart people can't believe their own eyes or the laws of physics regarding the real "rabbit out of the hat" on 9/11, or understand the history of the CIA and its creation of Islamist extremism in the mujahedeen in Afghanistan or the role of the CIA and it's massive drug running in the 80s and 90s. The War on Terror is a creation of the military industrial complex and anyone with an open mind and who is willing to read something outside their own media formed and simplistic world view can begin to see the truth. It fits much better in the current events than what I used to believe (like you). Bush is not incompetent or an idiot, he is doing exactly as he is told..and the USA has already been sold out. Look up the North American Union and Nafta superhighway for starters, and then maybe you will see why Bush will never close the borders...at least not until Americans want to leave, then they will close down in a hurry.

[ann t]

I have read this article with great interest. I am British and can categorially state that this is such utter nonesense. First of all the amount of historical inaccuracies are breathtaking as has been pointed out. However, I want to focus on this so called war on terror. I have great sympathy with the American people after 9/11 but instead of having a measured approach to this situation you went to war with all guns blazing as if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld where sheriffs in a cowboy movie. They attacked Afghanistan without a thought for the civilian population - you have to ask why it is so vital to get rid of the Taleban now instead of when they were killing their own people for the last twenty years. We were then fed a lie about Iraq and Saddam. They didn't have any WMD. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor has he anything to do with Al Queda in fact they are sworn enemies. Again you have to ask why didn't we attack Iraq when Saddam was killing the Kurds and again his own peopl? I may have the answer could it be that oil has something to do with this. I would have more respect if they told the truth instead of lying.
One last point Mr Kraft if Wahhabi is such a bad section of Islam why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia this is the type of Islam they practice also, most of the terrorists on those planes on 9/11 (14 I think) where from Saudi Arabia. Again I ask why not attack Saudi Arabia? Could it be that the Bush family have to much to lose if they attacked them.
In case you think that I am some kind of mad left wing liberal I would like to point out that I am a committed Christian and would like nothing more than the whole world to have freedom and democracy howevere America will always be seen as the enemy if they only take issues with dictators who they think they can get something from. If we really want to rid the world of terrorism we should have equal foreign policies in all countries instead of picking and choosing who we support. By the way I don't have much time for Tony Blair and our governement either - they lied too.

[Debbie]

Mike and Sharlene, thank you for your comments on Mr. Kraft's article. Thank you also, Mike, for the suggestions on the website. I could change the template, but I hate change. ha I have gotten used to this one. I hate the technical side of blogging. I might get brave and try something new.

I hope the template will not keep folks away.

[Sharleen Wilkens]

I think your article was very good, it's to bad that we have 2 parties that are playing on both sides of these facts and issues, we are a spoiled nation and we sometimes think we are so different and nobody anywhere can touch us, well if we hide ourselves in the sand, they will seek, for how can we see if our heads are in the sand. My father was in war the 2nd war, he was on the Philippine Islands, he never talked to much about the war when I was a child or in my grown up years, only did I hear him one time say something. It was after a neighbor friend blew his head off with a shot gun. We were close to these neighbors and it was a shock to us, my father got up and went to there house with towells mops rags and other cleaners and proceeded to clean up the blood and fleshly pieces. When he came home as he was sitting in his chair I could see that he had cried a lot, his face was flush and eyes red and swollen and when I asked him why did you go and do that. His reply was, Sharleen, when I was in the service there were many men who had there heads blown apart and I had to see it and clean up messes just like this one. As in the war we were trying our best to keep out a invader and for the most part we succeeded, but here at home in our own nation, we have a invader and he is stealing our minds away, his name is Satan, and if we let him he will steal our rights and freedoms from us, he did from my friend. That's all he said. These people who are against us are not for us and they want to distroy us, so if the so called right people want to come into agreement with these people, why don't you just move over there, let's see how far your freedoms you're used to will go. This is a International war, not just one nation, but many, and we are all in it. Let's get our head out of the sand, and not be a buttass target.

[Mike Holler]

Mr. Kraft, I enjoyed your article and your web site. Two suggestions: one is two drop the white on black style. It is very hard on the eyes. The second is to show readers comments in one type face, and your response (or the response of others) in another type face so that we can readily follow the arguments. Thanks for your analysis. I have sent it to many friends and relatives. Mike

[Debbie]

Bill, you can reach Mr. Kraft via email at

rskraft@vfr.net

I don't feel competent to argue the facts for Mr. Kraft. This article has been very controversial. Either people love it or hate it. You seem to be the first who hasn't decided yet.

Thanks for visiting, and feel free to go to the main page or read some of the more recent articles listed on the right sidebar.

[Bill Watkins]

I'm not a historian, but when I sent this letter on a Historical review of the Iraq situation to a good female friend of mine, she came back and indicated that it is a WELL KNOWN fact that Germany over-ran Belgium in one day, and that France was NOT on the side of Germany. She said that this letter was rather frightening to read because of the mistakes? What is the truth? How do I respond?

[beer]

Let's hope Ray Kraft and other neoconservatives rediscover conservatism soon and stop killing America with their high spending, big government, scion of 70s liberalism. Bush has ceased to be a voice of reason and his onservative audience is now just as miffed by his "stay the course" mantra. Comparing a bunch of old Iraqi accountants training with broomsticks to take on the best military in the world, to a highly militarized technically advanced and already mobilized Nazi Germany is disingenuous. Ray, you're simply wrong.

[Dan]

Pardon me Debbie, but this posting to your blog just screams for a response.

Dear Joey:

1.)How can ww2 start in 1928 if hitler did not come to power till 1933, espicially since the start of ww2 was widely known with hitlers invasion of poland in 1939?At earliest the pacific was started in 1937, not 1928...

Wars don’t start with a gun shot, they start with an idea. Here is Hitler’s. He was planning to go to war in 1923. All he needed was power and he got it.

------------------
Hitler thereupon tried to regain control of the movement by his Beer Hall Putsch of Nov. 8-9, 1923. The putsch was aimed at capturing, first, the government of Bavaria, and then the nation's, but the Bavarian authorities were able to suppress it.
The failure of the putsch destroyed the party organization, severed its army ties, and resulted in prison terms for Hitler and other leaders. Hitler used his trial to gain nationwide attention for his cause. He served nine months of his 5-year sentence in the fortress of Landsberg, where he wrote Mein Kampf in an effort to demonstrate that his leadership was based on intellectual as well as political superiority
Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf is crude and disorganized, and his ideas are not original, but the book is still an important document. The most persistent theme is social Darwinism: the struggle for life governs the relationships of both individuals and nations. He argued that the German people, supposedly racially superior, were threatened by liberalism, Marxism, humanism, and bolshevism, which were directed from behind the scenes by the Jews. Relief would come from a plebiscital dictatorship that would fight a relentless war against internal and external foes, in the process conquering Lebensraum (living space) that would make Germany militarily and economically unassailable. Hitler was much more effective when writing about the techniques of power and demagoguery. He appears in the book as a man determined, and to some degree able, to implement even the maddest schemes.
When Hitler left prison and tried to rebuild the party, he met with great difficulties. He was challenged in northern Germany by the "socialist” Nazi left leader Gregor Strasser, who aimed his appeal at the workers. To meet the challenge, Hitler wooed certain extremist military groups, the leftovers from World War I. While the workers ignored Strasser's program, the military outcasts eagerly followed Hitler. At a party conference in May 1926, Hitler outflanked Strasser and won back the dictatorial chairmanship, which he subsequently reinforced by declaring the party program unalterable, thus undercutting any attempt to revive the controversy over socialism.
Social conditions still prevented the party from growing, however. Interest in extremist solutions had waned as Germany had regained economic and political stability. In addition, Hitler was prohibited from speaking, which deprived him of his most powerful weapon. His breakthrough came in 1929, when the German Nationalist party made him politically respectable by soliciting his help in its vicious campaign against the Young Plan's arrangements for German reparations
And now the Pacific. As can plainly be seen, Japanese expansion into Asia occurred long before Pearl Harbor. In fact, Pearl Harbor was simply a continuation of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere strategy of Imperial Japan.
-----------------------
During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government. Many political enemies were assassinated, and communists persecuted. Indoctrination and censorship in education and media were further intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the prime minister.
Already earlier, Japan followed the example of Western nations and forced China into unequal economical and political treaties. Furthermore, Japan's influence over Manchuria had been steadily growing since the end of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. When the Chinese Nationalists began to seriously challenge Japan's position in Manchuria in 1931, the Kwantung Army (Japanese armed forces in Manchuria) occupied Manchuria. In the following year, "Manchukuo" was declared an independent state, controlled by the Kwantung Army through a puppet government. In the same year, the Japanese air force bombarded Shanghai in order to protect Japanese residents from anti Japanese movements.
In 1940, Japan occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) upon agreement with the French Vichy government, and joined the Axis powers Germany and Italy. These actions intensified Japan's conflict with the United States and Great Britain which reacted with an oil boycott. The resulting oil shortage and failures to solve the conflict diplomatically made Japan decide to capture the oil rich Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and to start a war with the US and Great Britain.

2.)Vichy France was a nazi puppet government where they centralized there power in france.Leaders like frances famous charles de gaulle met with eisenhower and churchill before d-day. They were called the french resistance and did provide vital intelligence, forged papers and undercover for us agents.
---------
Breaking news. Vichy France was the legitimate government of France. Puppet or not! The “other” government surrendered to Hitler in the same rail car that Germany signed the Armistice in for WWI. And that government sided with the Nazis in Europe, Africa and Indonesia.

------------
3.)Britian, while low on cash reserves due had still a vast empire throughout Asia and Africa with much land even though parts of africa had been taken (land can equate to resources which can be sold for capital)Britian also gave us most of their carribean naval bases for exchange of essesntially the a blank check for weapons through the lend lease act.

------------------------
So lets see if I understand this, the UK could have won all by its self. And sold its overseas territories to whom? Germany? Japan? And last time I checked, my history, the UK was starving due to the U-boat blockade, then the Battle of Brittan, and let’s not forget defeats at Dunkirk, Singapore, and the near destruction of its fleet by Japanese naval air forces. The vaunted British Navy was kept tethered to the Isle in order to defend its approaches from German naval attacks…something it never did well. It was not until Lend Lease began that they actually acquired the necessary armaments and logistics to begin to rearm and prepare for the trans-channel crossing.
----------------

4.)Roosevelt, the best president in history and the exact historical opposite to George W the jackass powered 5 years of industrial buildup . The us supplied weapons to most the allies including the russians until they got their industry moved back to the ural mountains and profited hugely off of allied loans after ww2. Industries at the time, such as airlines and the whole car industry resources such as alluminum , motors and engines were taken over by the governement (many ww2 civilian aircraft in america were made from wood due to war shortages-see twa and howard hughes old planes.) Food was also rationed and most people worked towards the war effort.Nothing is sacraficed for the iraq war.
--------------------

Now lets see, you stated that Roosevelt knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming so he sent the aircraft carriers out to sea and yet he is the best president in history? Interesting that he let 2300 people die just to get us in the war so another 400,000 could die. Oh, and the fleet was not evacuated. The three carrier battle groups were on maneuvers, planned for months, South East of the Hawaiian Islands…that’s why they were not in harbor on Dec 7. Oh, another piece of breaking news, when your country is threatened with total destruction, the niceties of life tend to be put to one side. Civilian airliners and personal automobile manufacturing was all but ZERO! It had nothing to do with shortages. It had to do with priorities. Do we make pretty cars or tanks? Airliners or fighters? Gee, tuff decision.

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

5.)The perrvading view of arabs in this article is quite frankly sickening and shows the lack of depth and understanding of any conservative and how confused your right wing radio and tv has gotten you (it litterally reminds me of geobbels on radio berlin talking to his nazis, just chugged full of vitreal and lies and you mindless lemmings belive it...sad).

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

Lets see, I believe there were two very distinct views of Muslims, of which Arabs where the predominate group discussed. Those who want to wipe Israeli as a country from the map, kill all the Jews, and subject all the infidels, and those who want to just get along and be left to their lives. Of the two groups, his predominate focus was on the first group. When you can listen to them on the radio, the TV, read their writings and pronouncements, whether from the religious leaders, self appointed leaders of organizations, or actual state goverments, they very clearly state those goals. That is not virtual, it’s the statement of facts.

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

6.)There are very roughly 323 million people in Arab lands and according to all of you, they are all jihadis who want weapons of mass desctruction and chemical and nuclear death. Places such as egypt, the uae etcetera are good friends of ours want a civilized western life and hate terror.They have been lving peacefully for the last 40 years. Not every arab is a terrorist and to suggest so is ignorant and insulting to the millions of good arabs that live amongst us in america today .
-------------------
See my previous comment. It would appear you have great difficulty reading and comprehending the English language in written from. So go very, very slow this time.

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

7.)Saddam Hussein is a horrible guy, there is not a person on earth who does not beleive that the world is better without him in power. However, the evidence has shown that the only terror saddamn used was that against the iraquis.Saddamn hussein was not responsible for 9-11 and there has been no known linkages shown between the two. To suggest saddamn is a terrorist neglects the basic ideologicl tennants that the batth party which idea was a secular arab state that would unite all peoples and become strong under a strong leader. Not to become an islamic dictatorship under sharia law like Al Quada.??
----------------------
To quote an old Arab axiom, “The enemy of my enemies is my friend”.

The point is not “did he have connections to 911?”. The point is, can we continue to let him press forward supporting terrorist organizations, providing safe haven, and financing them? We are rapidly approaching that question with Iran right now.

Oh, and there are lots of people who love Saddam. They are called Batthists, and they are still fighting to this day. They even had a parade in his home town on his birthday after he fell.
-------------------

7.)Japanesse Nazism??????Hilarious and again, shows how stupid mr kraft is. While the governments did have high level connections and envoys between each other the japanesse did not care about nazis or their racial theory. The japanesse cared about their emporer and their empire which at that time stretched throughout asia and he wanted expanded for power and resources. There is no evidence of japan enacting racial theory, running concentration camps (bad pow camps yes, concentration camps no). To say so is an outright lie.
----------------------
Now lets see, the Japanese didn’t not adopt the Nazi Party. That’s true. Other than that nothing you stated is correct. The Japanese believed in their own racial superiority, they taught it in schools, and considered all other races inferior. Americans were referred to mongrels. Concentration camps? Didn’t have them? You need to go talk the Chinese, and the Koreans, and the Malaysians, and the Filipinos. Forced labor camps were a norm throughout all of Japanese occupied Asia.

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

8.)Mainly and what you concervative asses cant grip is the fact that we are not fighting terrorists in iraq. We are in the middle of a sunni/shia civil war power struggle which 100 people a week on average die and have given iran and hezbollah a base of governemnt right next door to iran.They also hate us since we waged an agressive war in a part of the world where white colonialists have waged war since the 1900's (post wwi formation of iraq).We have in essence created the opposite of the point of invading iraq, we have created a base for terrorism to thrive there and ohh it right next door to an enemy who hates us historically iran.
You people are really spun and spun hard, turn off rush and billo and open your eyes to the real world and raeal news .Mr. Craft, the assenine writer, you are insulting to those who have passed basic high school history and know history for what it is.Not your disgusting right wing lawyered spin on it.

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

The only “civil war” that I am aware of, is occurring between Sunni and Shia Islamic Mullahs who are power hungry. Religion is the cover story for them. They are thugs and their like have always shrouded themselves in the cloak of the piety as thousands died to satisfy their own personal lust for power. As to “white colonists” waging war against them, my readings have shown me that they have been waging war amongst them selves since recorded time. They certainly don’t need “white colonists” as an excuse to go and slaughter themselves. In fact, the only time there was even a modicum of quiet over there was when the British Army occupied it. As soon as they left, all hell broke out again.

OK, Debbie, I’m done. I would have made it shorter, but I didn’t have the time.

[Debbie]

Dan, thanks for stopping by. You make some very good points. I have posted two more of Mr. Kraft's more recent articles. I think you would enjoy reading them also.

Weaponizing Civilization: The New Way of War, by Raymond Kraft

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/08/weaponizing_civ.html

Why We Are In Iraq Part II, By Raymond S. Kraft

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/08/why_we_are_in_i.html

[Dan]

Greetings all. I found this BLOG in my search for the original posting of Mr. Kraft’s article. It has made a very interesting morning read.

I received Mr. Kraft’s article from a coworker this morning and forwarded it to the rest of our small company (about 85 people). Several of them are from the Middle East and are Muslim. Here is one response from one of the more “faithful” here:

“Please do not send me these emails filled with insults, bias and hatred.”

I will leave it to you the readers of this note and Mr. Kraft’s article to locate the “insults, bias, and hatred” in his article.

Now, while the debate in this forum has uncovered several factual errors of Mr. Kraft (24 million versus 2.4 million…might he have simply mistyped and not hit the period key?) and the installation of Hitler by a few years (could he have been talking about Hitler’s philosophical development instead of the actual Nazi party?), and certain allies in WWII and their purpose (which I think was universally to stay alive), his basic premise still is one worth rational consideration.

I have spent time in the region, and in fact made numerous friends there, but having said that, the specter of multiple theocracies based on Sharia law still looms large in that region. Someone mentioned that 20% of the population manipulates the other 80%, who by the way believe almost all the same thing as the 20%. In my experiences in the region, that is just about right. Until you have the seen the “religious police” beat women with their cans in the streets of Damon Saudi Arabia or watched the chopping off of a hand on Saudi TV for theft (I have seen both, and more!), you don’t have a real sense of the vast chasm that exists between their culture and ours. It is in fact a conflict between cultures, civilizations, and ideologies. This conflict pre-dates the Crusades and has continued with various rates of success ever since. As to inquisitionists and reformationists, I think Mr. Kraft was attempting to use those terms as metaphors for those who would follow the ways of the Wahhabi Islam versus those who would prefer to live and let live in a more modern, peaceful version of Islam (of course, as we saw in the Taliban Afghanistan if one tries to live this way, public floggings, or hanging were usually the outcome for the practitioner.). Here again I received this from one of my more intellectual colleagues this morning:

“I found this e-mail offensive, as well, especially in its inaccurate reference to the Inquisition. The way it holds up the "Reformation" as an end worth fighting for is merely Lockean political ideology speaking through an unwitting American puppet. The Reformation did not bring toleration; it brought the 60 Years War.””

Once again, as can be seen, Mr. Kraft’s comment about its not fast, easy, cheap, or clean comes to mind. In fact, I think he makes that statement about six times, but I’m not going to count. The fact that the 60 years war ensued simply makes his point!

So I would ask, that you all simply listen to what that 20% I previously referenced is saying. They are telegraphing their intent and making no bones about it. And so long as you look at this rising tide of radical Islam thru the lenses of a Judeo-Christian philosophy of life, you will be wrong in your understanding of what you are dealing with. We call them terrorists…they view themselves as soldiers of Allah…and so should we if we are going to understand how to defeat them.

As an old coach once told my, the first rule of any contest is to understand the rules. Well breaking news sports fans, this bunch has no rules. They only have goals and methods of achieving those goals…period!

[Bob Bailey]

With the harsh comments above I would hope that those same writers would observe the current news, re-read this piece and then apologize for their ignorance. Bob Bailey, August 22, 2006

[JOSEPH F HOWARD]

DID YOE EVER HEAR OF THE GERMAN-RUSSIAN NON-AGGRESSION PACT??? SO RUSSIA SAVED US????? COULD IT BE THAT WE SAVED THEM AND CONFRONTED THEM FOR 40 YEARS.....JUST MAYBE HUH?

[Sara W.]

Tell me how this war will work. How do you point a laser-guided missile at an IDEA? How do you fight a war against people who believe it's the highest honor to die for their religion and kill non-believers while they're at it?

I don't question that there is an evil to fight, but I don't think weaponry will win the day. In fact, every newscast on Al Jazeera of USbombs falling on an Iraqi city serves as a recruitment video for once moderate but pious young Muslims to become mujahideens.

Our situation now is hardly comparable to previous wars. The Germans and Japanese didn't want to die as much as we didn't want to. Even the Kamikaze bombers were killing themselves in order to protect their family and homeland. An Islamic radical only hopes that their family is martyred in the fight. They are protecting nothing but their real homeland: their skewed idea of their religion that is above all else. And they will use their family and countrymen to do it, thinking they're doing them a holy favor.

The German and Japanese soldiers' orders came from a single government-dictated idea. The radical Islam we're fighting today is bred in the hearts of men from many countries who mix and match words from the Koran in order to justify their hatred for a Western system that they perceive as a threat to their own. It is not a centrally mandated cause, and these people do not adhere to any borders (noteven Iraq's) and do not play by any rules.

Bombing Iraq to fight terrorism is like trying to use a Phillips head on a single-slit screw. We'll just keep slipping off, never really digging into the real issue.

Our fighting cannot be from the outside in. Bullets won't do anything but grow this radical hate. Something needs to be done from the inside out.

War will not get to the core of this problem.

[Debbie]

Derek, thank you for your comments and suggestions. I will forward them on to Mr. Kraft.

You might want to read Part II of this article, which can be found here:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/08/why_we_are_in_i.html

[Derek Yates]

Dear Debbie,
Just to correct a few errors in your mid-east article re allies in WW II. First, just call it UK and simplifies it rather than England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Also you missed a number of other key allies such as New Zealand, China, South Africa, India, and Nepal amongst other allies. I think you will find more if you do a Google.

[Debbie]

Ken, thank you for visiting Right Truth. I posted this article myself and I do not know Mr. Kraft. However, I plan to post his most recent article this afternoon. I hope you will come back to read it.

Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in Northern California. He can be reached at rskraft @ vfr.net.

[K Watkins]

Dear Attorney Kraft, before I send this article on, did you write it and post to the web?
Thanks!
Ken

[Debbie]

I agree with all you said, Chuck. You need to read some of the other posts on this site and you would see my views.

[Chuck]

Raymond S. Kraft is obviously a well-informed and alert attorney who does understand the importance of waging the current war; but the war against who and what ? According to Walid Shoebat the war is not against simple terrorism (not on terrorism, not on those few thousand of radical muslims that your prez g.b. proposes, but essentially on ALL islam. Walid Shoebat - the author of " WHY I LEFT JIHAD: the ROOT of TERRORISM and the RETURN of RADICAL ISLAM ".) He has been interviewed several times, most recently on Larry Elder's talkshow on www.kabc.com .
A poll of a great cross-section of middle-easterners (over 100,000) shouts volumes !! The poll suggested that 3/4 of muslims believe that infidels should be eliminated. Now go look in the mirror.....that is what an infidel looks like.
Some would say that islam is not even a religion, and no more than a cult as was the Waco, TX fanatic group which janet reno had eliminated. The common description of a religion is that it provides some benefit to its members and the community it serves. It promotes forgiveness and love of all; not just to its members, but to all peoples....that is until we climb into our cars and jump on the freeway after Sunday Mass.
Whether we should have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia is almost a mute point. They are all muslim and according to Walid, all muslims attending mosques are exposed to recruitment as jihadists/terrorists !! All Imams are recuiters of death and destruction. It is how we have waged the war after we claimed the overthrow of Sadaam. We have have adhered to the policy of "respond in kind"... Guaranteed to lose our soldiers lives and prolong any conflict which will cause more deaths on the enemy's side as well.

We have been fed pablum as a society and required to stand down when it comes to the American Citizens' concerns and what is good for us. The aclu and united nations as well as cair and all the other anti-American organizations - mecha, la raza, aztlan, maldef, chirlac and lulac - thrive in our extremely-compassionate, over-tolerant society while Americans go wanting. The enemy adheres to NONE of the Geneva convention guidelines, but we are not only DICTATED to provide them every right that the Geneva Convention rules allow for, our very own supreme court DEMANDS that congress ramp up more humane rules of engagement, so we can avoid being called compassionateless and thus sleep better at night !!!! We prosecute our own soldiers for violations that have been magnified and blown out of proportion for the most part, but we are hard-pressed to take prisoners of war and keep them off the battle-field because of your aclu.

If we are not able to bring out ALL our heavy guns and use ANY and EVERY tool in our arsenal to COMPLETELY DEFEAT AND DESTROY their ability to conduct terrorist acts against us and all other infidel civilized nations, then we should all break out our prayer rugs now and bring on sharia law. It may save you ladies thousands of dollars each year... You will no longer have to use cosmetics or take care of your hair; just throw on your hijab.
You might consider going to a mosque to inquire becoming muslim someday; you will most certainly be given the white-washed, the abridged version of islam, both in literature, tapes, and sermons. As you are accepted more and more as a firm believer of islam, you will then be introduced to the more virulent, the more mainstream version of islam. And islam does not mean 'peace' as your prez g.b. would have you believe; it means submission !! You will submit to the ONE god allah or else ... !!!
If we cannot bring cataclysmic destruction to their doorstep, as they will certainly do to us when they enter the 20th century, then why combat them ? Why struggle economically as you climb into your 30 gallon tank suv and donate to the arabs day after day to their coffers ?

You want to end the war on 'terrorism' which is really just an euphemism for islam ?!!!!
Then look to Harry Truman and how he ended the war in the Pacific theatre. Look to how Israel is preparing to take care of business in their 60 year strife by prepping 3 nuclear-capable attack submarines which are heading to iran.
Profile ? If you examine your daily life, you will realize you are profiling everything including your children. But when it comes to deterring crime and enforcing our own laws for the survival of our nation, including our very own survival we thrash ourselves for the inhumane act of scrutinizing and analyzing those criminals and terrorists !! We even go to the self-destruction point of putting concerns of those who will destroy us before OUR NEEDS and WELFARE !! Special Order # 40 protects illegal invaders to our country by preventing law enforcement to perform their jobs and determine if suspects are here legally in our country. Now that more infidel nations are becoming aware of there being a few more hundreds of millions of muslims wanting only muslims to inhabit this globe, and immediately after the foiling of the muslims' latest architecture of death and destruction over the Atlantic, we (England's and the USA's law enforcement agencies) are now asking each other, how can we protect our muslim bretheren from any violent retaliation to the islam attempts to destroy all infidels ??!?!!? Huh !!???

Are you angry enough to dissolve and eliminate the aclu and the truly terrorist organization - united nations ?
www.grassfire.org We need to profile with impunity... It a tool all of America employs in business and relationships; but our law enforcement has been prevented in doing so by the aclu. Who is running America ?!?!?!?

Promote alternative energies to wean ourselves off of middle-eastern oil.
http://www.energybulletin.net/192.html write NASA and ask them when are they going to put their flights to good use ?!?
http://www.ovonic.com/
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/home.html
http://www.theplancollection.com/tps/blueprints/passive_solar.asp?ID=0&BID=1&BID=1
http://www.hydrogenvehiclesystems.com/hydrogenproducts.php

If Catholicism had any association with death and destruction as does islam, I can tell you without a doubt that I would dissassociate myself from Catholicism and their belief system. I would look for a more loving and benign religion or I would go without and be categorized as non-denominational or even agnostic. You see, I was also indoctrinated and inculcated with a belief system that was abnormal and difficult to grasp, but I also have a friggin' mind !!! I am able to choose and have the courage to decide between good and evil !!!

From the age of two, muslim children are inculcated with the belief that all the ills in the world are due to the Israelis, the Jews, and all infidels. All infidels must convert and submit to allah or be killed. So if the 'innocent' have joined the 'Borg' before the age of reason, is there ever any hope for wholesale reformation ? I think by nuclear blast only. To destroy an entrenched philosophy (it is not a true religion), there must be no influence from the already infected parent AND the schools and mosques need to be cleansed and rid of all hate and talk of anti-infidelism. How does one destroy a culture which loves death and the destruction of 'outsiders' MORE THAN than it loves its own children and family. Even allowing for oil exports, most islam countries will have a negative GNP, if they were to ever get to that level of gauging their own productivity. Negative, simply by virtue of the wanton destruction of their very own communities in which they live. If they turned their conniving and ruthless intelligence into good, then maybe the world could see some benefit of their existence. But as long as they get their form of education and 'religion' fed to them on a daily basis, and we do not interrupt that pipleline of evil, just put a fork in all infidels.

This is a test whether we even have a chance to win a war against a 600 AD culture. So tomorrow morning, you announce that America will pay no more than $50 a barrel oil to OPEC for the next 5 years. We (America) will need to form a 3 year Manhattan Project, which will deliver two or three alterntve fuel solutions for our nation, have it in place and running through our nation's network of fuel providers by the 4th year and by the end of the 4th year, we will no longer be importing oil. For those American oil companies that still elect to export oil outside our country, we simply exercise eminent domain and confiscate ALL their assets (deport its oil executives to saudi arabia)and sell it to the remaining patriotic oil corps. You will be given a device in your left hand; a trigger to 6 plutonium nuclear bombs - one each for damascus, baghdad, kabul, tehran, riyadh, peshawar, and jakarta. Those countries willing to accept our terms, will be removed from the trigger in your hand. In your right hand you will carry a pen that will be for signing a world-wide 'peace treaty' with our muslim bretheren. This 'treaty' will have been authorized by and incorporate a dozen of the united nations' most rigid resolutions safeguarding the entire world from any future terrorist acts by islam. America is required to pull out of all foreign countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Philippines, Japan and Korea. The islam mosques have even conceded the inter-faith practice of inviting Christian pastors to preach in their dens of destruction.
Those countries not willing to comply with our non-negotiable terms, will be given a chance to approach and implore you.

Now Choose !!:
1) You gently place the nuclear trigger on the floor and step away; you then proudly and happily sign the 'peace treaty'.
2) You deliberate heavily and long (actual elapsed time = 1/32nd of a second) and pull the trigger in your left hand.

Did you save the world ? Do we have a chance ?

[anon]

Whenever one thing turns out the way the folks who wanted the war in Iraq turns out the way they said it would, please let me know. Until then, I will assume you/they have no ability to assimilate facts and form sound judgements. In short: you are wrong and not to be taken seriously.