Saturday, January 06, 2007

American Liberals Just Don't Get It

This is an absolutely awesome essay!!



Here is a post from a California lawyer that seems to present the "Big Picture," in just the right manner. This is something all Americans should read!!

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:

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

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the U.S. 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 invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the U.S. 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, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the U.S. would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and 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 at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi 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, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, 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, and the U.S., 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, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. 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, but 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 a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. 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.

The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the U.S. . And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, 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 need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the U.N. Oil For Food Program (supervised by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

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 U.S. 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 over 2,300 American lives, (Note: was the total when this was originally written) which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] 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, now, conditioned I suppose by 1 hour 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, Libya, for instance. And 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, or Jihad, believes 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, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

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

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it 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 and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis 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, an America that resembles Iran today.

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

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

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

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 Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but 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 and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1 We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the U.S. 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 U.S. 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. (Note: Totals are higher now.) 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.

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

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The U.S. has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. 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 U.S. 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.

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).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The U.S. 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.

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?

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 is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this 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 and truth 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.

HT: My friend Bing via email.


Christinewjc said...

A really important and informative article from the Jerusalem Post:

Decision Time

Christinewjc said...

Ha! I appears that Kraft's article left the liberals speechless?

limpy99 said...

"Ha! I appears that Kraft's article left the liberals speechless?"

Hardly, I just saw it today. As a history major and someone with an abiding interest in history I would implore anyone with a real interest in the subject, especially WWII, to please avoid reading Raymond Kraft.

First of all, Nazi Germany wasn't going to win the European war regardless of what we did. Hitler's biggest mistake, (tactics-wise, his all-around evilness speaks for itself), was invading Russia. Once he did that they had no chance of winning and were doomed to a slow, grinding defeat. By the time the US entered the war, Russia had stopped the Nazi advance and had started to turn the tide. Without the US it would have taken longer, yes, but the Nazis would have lost.

The Russians would have overrun Europe, perhaps, but Kraft's point that the Nazis were ever going to dominate Europe is wrong.

I believe Germany declared war on us first, after we declared war on its ally Japan. A minor point, as we had made our intentions clear years earlier throught the Lend-Lease program to England and Britain.

In his list of allies Kraft leaves out China. Granted, China was badly divided at the time and the Nationalist government poorly led. Read 'Stilwell and the American Experience in China' for an excellent discussion of this subject. But still, the ongoing resistance to Japanese rule in China, (most effectively by the Communists, ironically), tied up thousands of Japanese forces that might otherwise have been used in the Pacific.

The assertion that the Germans and Japan had a long-term plan to take over Mexico, Cananda and the US is simply hogwash. I realize I may be dealing with conspiracy enthusiasts here, but I'm not aware of any evidence showing such an intent, and neither country had the wherewithal to pull it off.

Japan didn't want to conquer the US. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor because they hoped to take out out Pacific Fleet, clearing the way for them to run the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" program they had in mind for East Asia. By co-prosperity I think they meant they got all the resources and everyone else the bayonet. Germany didn't have any designs on the US at all, and there's more than a little evidence that they were appalled at Pearl Harbor because they knew that would cripple isolationist arguments.

I could go on, (and on, and on), but what's the point. Kraft is sloppy and wrong. It's a tired old argument that's been used over and over again. If we don't act now, we'll have WWIII on our hands. It was used to fantastic effect to get us into Vietnam. Despite the outcome of that war, none of those fears were realized.

Christinewjc said...


Are you objecting to some of his opinions or are you claiming to reject what he shared as facts of history?

Plus...don't you have anything to say about the eerie parallels between Nazi Germany's goals and Radical Islams?

Since you are a history major, I would LOVE to hear your opinion about the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. You can catch a 12 minute film clip here, as well as a CNN interview here.

limpy99 said...

I'm objecting to Kraft using what seems to be a pretty sloppy historical basis to justify his opinions. He can have whatever opinions he wants, good, bad or indifferent, but at least get the foundation right.

I don't really see any parallels between radical Islam and Nazi germany frankly. I'm sure we could really stretch and make some. Obviously neither group is all that keen on dissent. The Nazi goal was domination of Europe for political and economic power. There's the whole "super-race" thing in the background as well. Probably other things as well, but your political aspirations tend to get muddled when you're led by a psychopath.

As I understand radical Islam, they want "their" Middle East back. They're motivated by goals of religious purity and I don't think, at least at the lower levels, that they really care, or understand, (rampant illiteracy is a wonderful thing for fanatics), more abstract things like political or economic power. But I'll bet their leaders have a pretty damn good idea of it.

Regarding Kraft's opinion, I take his overall point, (he sort of rambles a bit) to be that either we fight radical Islam now, or we'll regret it later, much like pretty much everyone regretted not telling Hitler he, in fact, could not have the Sudetenland.

My problem with this approach is that radical islam isn't a country or political group with a designated army. It's a religious movement and has adherents in dozens of countries. It is impossible to stamp out with a conventional military approach. As we're seeing, we can invade Afghanistan or Iraq and win in a matter of weeks. But it doesn't follow that we can then establish a democratic government in those areas. Ironically, Iran has one of the better, although by no means true, democracies in the Middle East. Your little buddy over there just took sort of a thumping in the mid-term elections.

I don't agree with Kraft that if we don't fight it out in Iraq that radical Islam will spread unchecked. We can't defeat it wth conventional military forces, butthat doesn't mean we can't fight it with beefed up intelligence and unconventional, smaller miltray operations. Operations not designed to take ground, but to eliminate terrorists. I've made that point here before. I agree that terrorism is a problem, but to the extent that Kraft suggests we should stay in Iraq to fight it out there, I disagree.

On somewhat of a side-note, Kraft mentions that we'll also have a porblem with oil if we don't address this problem. Fair point. here's another one. We'll have a problem with oil within the next 50 years anyway. Oil prediction will, supposedly, peak in 40 years, then start declining. In the meantime, growing economies like China and India will need more and more of it. So in a sort of kill two birds with one stone approach, I'd suggest we start developing alternative energy sources really quickly to a) avoid the future problems of an oil shortage, and b) marginalize terrorists who draw much of their financial support from oil wealth.

And to that end, I am shutting down my computer and going to bed, after first turning down the heat.

Sleep well.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy said, "I don't really see any parallels between radical Islam and Nazi germany frankly."

If you would take the time to see the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West you would absolutely see the parallels between the two.

I just saw the entire documentary last night and they included video proof that the Mufti (can't recall his name)in Israel during the time of Hitler shared his vision of extermination of the Jews! As Walid Shoebat (former PLO terrorist turned born-again Christian) has stated, the fact that radical Islam wants to kill all infidels (not just Jews) and they do so for religious reasons (for "allah") makes them even more dangerous than the Nazis who followed the lead of the Fuhrer.

There is definitely a connection, Limpy. It's just that most of the public doesn't know about it.

This CNN clip shows (among many other things) how the Muslim propaganda is very similar to the Nazi propaganda that duped young men into becoming Nazis. The Muslim youth go further. They are willing to strap bombs on and blow themselves up just to take as many "infidels" as possible in death. They celebrate death for allah there. Christians celebrate life through Jesus Christ here. They hate us because their call in life is to promote Jihad around the world.

You think that if we just pulled out the jihadists would leave Iraq alone? Don't you see that this would show that the U.S. is weak and doesn't keep her promises to the new, fragile Iraqi government there?

I wish that I could find a transcript of the Obsession movie and share it on my blog. It is THE most important documentary of our time and EVERYONE needs to see it!

Here's a Youtube of about 9 minutes of the film.

The entire film is about 1 1/2 hours. It's hard to see the connection between the Nazis and radical Islam in the film clips out there. The movie has the rare footage of the meetings between Hitler and the Mufti back in the 40's.

Wait! Just found a clip about it here:

Hitler and the Mufti

Here's the Obsession website's 12 minute version.

It is true. Americans are losing their will to allow our government to send troops and continue to fight. If our government listens to the naysayers, the results will be a bloodbath in Iraq the likes that the world has never seen before. Iran and Syria will pounce upon that nation and take it over so that it will become a haven to recruit, train and finance radical Islamic terrorists into their hateful ideology. The U.S. Britain, and a few other countries have stood up against this happening for the past 4 years. Leaving now would be the WORST move.

At least I know that President Bush will not do that. But, if a Democratic, liberal left cut-and-run candidate gets elected to president in 2008...God help us!!