Iraq, Jihad, the Plan, and Such Nonsense

drex · #1 12-14-2005, 03:46 PM

Found on email. Interesting reading...

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 (Are they ever? 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, Aussie's, 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, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brit's 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 ass 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 (24 MILLION) 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 Brit's, 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 US and the Brit's 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 Brit's), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name 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 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 Jihadi's, 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 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 Jihadi's, will control the Middle East, and 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 well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadi's.

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, 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, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

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.

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 somewhere 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 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 need 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. (What will the next hit cost in $ & lives if we wait until the Jahadist have nuclear weapons???) It has also cost over 2,000 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihadist 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, 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 civilizational clashes -cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like (usually dominated by religious dogma), and 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.

Some say we went to Iraq without the needed troop numbers. Indeed, one senior general was forcibly retired because he claimed we needed more troops. 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.

That we went to Iraq with too little planning 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.

That we proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security is also 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 Brit's 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. Again, 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 US has taken a little more than 2,000 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.

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

I do not understand why America 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 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?

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, most Americans just don't get it.

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

Sponsored Links

JV · #2 12-14-2005, 04:49 PM

Good look back on the facts surrounding WWII. America had less than half its current population in the WWII era, yet had more than 16 MILLION men and women in the military for WWII service. Today, we have around 3 million military members.

I am the only one of my peers from the old neighborhood who ever joined the military. I left active duty almost ten years ago, but I held my brother's AR-15 about a month ago, which is basically the civilian version of the M-16, and it all came back to me. There are several generations of Americans who will never know what it feels like to be ready should the s*#t hit the fan.

JV

Juanted · #3 12-14-2005, 05:07 PM

drex,

I love you man. You're a wonderful guy, but your friend Mr. Kraft's argument has some holes big enough to drive an M1 Abrams tank through them.

1. The saudis are not "rational." They sit on the fence and commit to... nothing. They are our "allies" (though 10 or the 11 9/11 hijackers were Saudi), but they support the jihad movement as well.

2. Japan and Germany had one thing, well a couple of things, the current jihadist movement does not have: Armies, money, organization. To compare the current jihadist movement to the Japanese and German armies of WWII gives the word "reaching" a new meaning. The jihads do not have the means to invade or "take over" ANYONE!

3. Show me ONE ounce of evidence that states that they are "about to" or "close to" being able to deliver a small nuclear, or biological weapon. This takes TONS of money (of which they have very little), and even more knowledge. Even if they DID somehow, against all odds, develop a weapon, they'd need a delivery system -- missile of some sort. Ask Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, all of whom have tried or are currently trying -- WITH money and knowledge, by the way -- to develope a nuclear and/or biological weapon.

4. Yes, Hussein is/was a bastard bully who has killed thousands. Since when, though, did we become the World's police? If that's the argument we are going to use, then we must go after Iran, Syria -- hell, most of the middle east, North Korea, half of South America... I can go on. Mr. Kraft talks about how this is "Not TV." Well, that means that a GREAT majority of the countries in this world are run by a dictator, a crook, a family of shieks, or all of the above! Stating that getting rid of Hussein was a necessity is a convenient excuse. If that is our reasoning, let's keep going then until we get rid of EVERY madman running a country.

5. Define "good shot" at making Iraq a democracy. How is that measured when, on the eve of the "historical" vote, we (yes, we -- see below) have to shut down the borders, impose a curfew, and prohibit traveling? Mr. Kraft pretends to know history, but he conveniently forgets to mention how them "Brits" tried (earlier this century) exactly what WE are doing now; they failed. Why? This is not, never has been, and never will be, a "democratic" society. Not democracy as we know it. The MINUTE we leave, some other Hussein will take over. This time, with new roads and cell phones.

6. It was never our "intention to govern and provide security" in Iraq? Well, that's what you had better intend to do when INVADE a country.

I am not a "softie." I am not some radical, left-wing, pacifist. I believe in a strong military (served in ours and was in the first Gulf War).

I also believe that we do not attack. We defend ourselves. We are better than that. We should have (and, obviously did) attack Afghanistan. We took action to defend ourselves. America does not, should not, invade -- unless attacked. Hussein, for ALL the fucked up things he did (and he did TONS), never attacked us. Not ONE crappy piece of paper has been found to prove that he had ANY contact with the current jihadi movement or a weapon of mass destruction.

Over and out.

Juan

drex · #4 12-14-2005, 05:31 PM

Juan-- I love you too! But I must point out several things:

Quote:

1. The saudis are not "rational." They sit on the fence and commit to... nothing. They are our "allies" (though 10 or the 11 9/11 hijackers were Saudi), but they support the jihad movement as well.

-- They are rational. That is why they walk both lines. They are trying to figure out who is going to come out on top, and take that side. Their main goal -- who will provide the ruling family (and its associates) the most $$$$ in the long run.

Quote:

2. Japan and Germany had one thing, well a couple of things, the current jihadist movement does not have: Armies, money, organization. To compare the current jihadist movement to the Japanese and German armies of WWII gives the word "reaching" a new meaning. The jihads do not have the means to invade or "take over" ANYONE!

The Islamic movement does have an army. Specifically, islamic jihad is "Army of God". I beg to differ in this one. They are more organized than we give them credit for: sleeper cells, money laundering and distribution systems that rival that of the MAFIA

. They are pros at this. They have indirect means of doing so which makes them more dangerous than any army simply because they can't be seen.....

Quote:

3. Show me ONE ounce of evidence that states that they are "about to" or "close to" being able to deliver a small nuclear, or biological weapon. This takes TONS of money (of which they have very little), and even more knowledge. Even if they DID somehow, against all odds, develop a weapon, they'd need a delivery system -- missile of some sort. Ask Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, all of whom have tried or are currently trying -- WITH money and knowledge, by the way -- to develope a nuclear and/or biological weapon.

Yes, they don't have their own weapons program. However, you do recall the "Sum of All Fears" scenario? Weapon = suitcase/dirty bomb. Delivery system = Ryder truck/Ford Festiva/BMW X5/moped/back pack/etc. The Soviet Union is very specifically non-specific about several supposed prototype suitcase bombs that may or may not be AWOL if they were or were not actually created (and possibly or not possibly sold to the highest bidder after the fall).

Quote:

4. Yes, Hussein is/was a bastard bully who has killed thousands. Since when, though, did we become the World's police? If that's the argument we are going to use, then we must go after Iran, Syria -- hell, most of the middle east, North Korea, half of South America... I can go on. Mr. Kraft talks about how this is "Not TV." Well, that means that a GREAT majority of the countries in this world are run by a dictator, a crook, a family of shieks, or all of the above! Stating that getting rid of Hussein was a necessity is a convenient excuse. If that is our reasoning, let's keep going then until we get rid of EVERY madman running a country.

i think that's a great idea. but it will take time.

Quote:

5. Define "good shot" at making Iraq a democracy. How is that measured when, on the eve of the "historical" vote, we (yes, we -- see below) have to shut down the borders, impose a curfew, and prohibit traveling? Mr. Kraft pretends to know history, but he conveniently forgets to mention how them "Brits" tried (earlier this century) exactly what WE are doing now; they failed. Why? This is not, never has been, and never will be, a "democratic" society. Not democracy as we know it. The MINUTE we leave, some other Hussein will take over. This time, with new roads and cell phones.

Well, we can insure the success of democracy with the introduction of Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Be Be and many car dealerships to replace the camels.

No, you point is well taken. The people must WANT (ie desire) to be free. But hey, if they don't, wouldn't it be better that they weren't, but under our 'guidance' anyway?

Quote:

6. It was never our "intention to govern and provide security" in Iraq? Well, that's what you had better intend to do when INVADE a country.

I think that was in reference to a long term situation (or plan); but of course, we only have 50 (er 1?) states (depends on the economic plans of Puerto Rico and whether or not they are getting enough federal aid this week whether or not they want to join).... It would be nice to add Cuba (although the welfare cost would be staggering) as well as France to the list of states. hell, we could have annexed Canada a long time ago (but we would have to deport Celine, eh?)...

Quote:

I am not a "softie." I am not some radical, left-wing, pacifist. I believe in a strong military (served in ours and was in the first Gulf War).

I know, and I thank you for your sacrifice(s).

Quote:

I also believe that we do not attack. We defend ourselves. We are better than that. We should have (and, obviously did) attack Afghanistan. We took action to defend ourselves. America does not, should not, invade -- unless attacked. Hussein, for ALL the fucked up things he did (and he did TONS), never attacked us. Not ONE crappy piece of paper has been found to prove that he had ANY contact with the current jihadi movement or a weapon of mass destruction.

I know. He was the EXAMPLE. He was the Guadacanal. He was the first warmup swing of the 'Big Stick' to announce that we will not be ignored.

Quote:

Over and out.

Thats not military. That's trucker. See what you get for spending all that time in SC? :p

motordavid · #5 12-14-2005, 08:50 PM

Pretty damn interesting back & forth from DrDrex and JK, imo.

Kraft's monotype is not really orig or dramatically diff from the several similar articles that I jes'happen to peruse each week, or I suspect, the thousands pounded out in all kinds of publications and/or blogs per week.

My beef with Kraft and most of that kind of diatribe is the utter emptyness of "the fix", other than
-"support our troops", (hell, who doesn't?!)
-"support Dubya" (does it really matter how the hell is acting in the WH?)
-"stay the course and stay in Iraq" (what is the Projected real outcome vis a vis the rest of Western Asia? [A better term, imo, than the Middle East.]

That article, like so many similar, uses a lead in and dramatics and taking points and debate soft balls that are easily done by anyone not stuck in a cave the past few years. The really hard part of the equation and seldom seen proposal(s) is what are some viable outcomes in terms of time, money, LIVES, politics and real benefits for us? And, for The US, for allies, and so forth, in Iraq specifically and, in the struggle with the Islamic zealots, (maybe redundant).

A quasi-parlimentary puppet gov't in Iraq is not going to have a lick of short-medium term affect on the A/I zealots around the fooking world that want Israel off the map and the US Debbils right behind them. Next is Iran with nuclear capabilities of some kind, and on, and on. Oh, and the Saudi gov't is in the catbird seat, oil and money and "association"-wise, imo.

NEway, I'll climb off Speakers' Corner, for the time being.
Pretty damn good thread though...I realize it's politics and most of us couldn't agree completely on the political time of day, but for those of you wondering "what the frig does that have to do with me", you are either naive or not paying attention.

Good jump ball, DRDrex and JK!
BR,md

hang'[email protected]

alpac · #6 12-14-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drex

Juan-- I love you too! But I must point out several things: ...

... Juan, Drex I love both of you guys

but please let me add my own comments.

Although this article is interesting there are some facts which are not accurate or more exactly some important facts which have been omitted:

As a French I have to react on the following comments:
"...the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers."
This is a true statement but what is not said here is that the Vichy government was put in place and held by the German occupant. An overwelming majority of the French people of that time were against this mascarade government. The French resistance, who my 2 grand fathers and a lot of others actively participated to, in spite of its small means was an army that German had to fight everyday single. American and English pilots knew very well that if they fell somewhere in the occupied France and there were going to be rescued and hidden by the population until recoved by the French resistance and send back to England by any means available.

"France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002..." another true statement but what is not said here is that, as much as I love America, it unfortunatly does not have a much cleaner ass than other western powers as regards selling weapons to dictatorship governments

jwalsh22 · #7 12-14-2005, 09:29 PM

I'd have to go with Jaun on this one. It seems like everyone is getting worked up into an insane frenzy which looks to be exasterbating the problem. Calm down, look at the actual facts, and make calculated, rational decisions. Take Iraq, for example, I would venture to guess that before our invasion many Iraqis did not have a certain opinion on the US, whether for or against. What have we done? We've invaded crying WMD and Alquida, and look, now there is an Alquida in Iraq, along with many other new terroist groups supported by many iraqis and other muslims who before would not have considered placing a surface to air missle on their shoulder and firing at a helicopter. One thing is clear, NOTHING IS GETTING BETTER UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY. We need to change something.

JV · #8 12-15-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT.Santiago

DREW .... I DIDNT LIKE THAT COMMENT ABOUT PUERTO RICO OR CUBA.AS A 1ST INFANTRY DIVISION COMBAT VETERAN MOST OF THE INFANTRYMAN ARE EITHER PR,CUBANS OR MEXICANS FIGHTING THE FRONT LINES...

That's an ignorant thing to say, Sarge. You might want to recognize the black, white and asian 11 Bravos and Mikes. Someone might take that comment of yours to mean that ONLY the Boricuas, Cubanos and Mexicanos are on the front lines, which you know ain't true.

JV

drex · #9 12-15-2005, 01:05 AM

mi amigo, y hermano, sgt. santiago....

yo tengo de decirte que yo tambien soy latino, hijo de latina, y residente de miami para 26 anos (no tengo tilde - disculpe)... yo entiendo mucho de la mentalidad de muchos de nuestros hermanos latinos tambien.

sabes adonde trabajo? soy cirujano para la Administracion de los Veteranos. yo se todo de nuestros soldados, pasados y presentes.

y gracias para las senales (no n tampoco) en su mensaje..

y gracias a usted para dar su vida para proteger neustra gran nacion..

Bavarian · #10 12-15-2005, 02:17 AM

When converting drex's statement in Spanish using Babelfish, I got the following:

"my friend, and brother, sgt. Santiago.... I have of decirte that I also am Latin, son of Latin, and resident of miami for 26 anuses (I do not have tilde - she excuses)... I also understand much of the mentality of many of our Latin brothers. you know where work? I am surgeon for the Administration of the Veterans. I everything of our soldiers, passed and present. and thanks for the senales (nonn either) in its message."

Sponsored Links