Log in

View Full Version : politics.......I like this......


BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 10:41 PM
MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR . NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES . READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2007 .

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

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .

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

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

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe . Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia .

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .

America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia . That was about it . All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel .

The US was certainly not prepared for war . The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks . A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor .

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact) .

Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world . To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra . (goal)

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

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies

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

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

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i . e . , the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements . We have to do it somewhere . We can't do it everywhere at once . We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq , where we are doing two important things .

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein . Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians .

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

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

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

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism .

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that . It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly It always has been, and probably always will be .

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

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world .

BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 10:43 PM
The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war . Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons . Unless some body prevents them from getting them .

We have four options:

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 . Forty-two years .

Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan . World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept .

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

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

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

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

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!

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

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

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

DRTYFN
04-24-2007, 10:43 PM
The Sean Penn will be knocking on your door tonight.

BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 10:45 PM
The Sean Penn will be knocking on your door tonight.

And I'll open my door and stick my foot up their ass........:D

DRTYFN
04-24-2007, 10:55 PM
And I'll open my door and stick my foot up their ass........:D
:jump:

DennisAJC
04-24-2007, 11:02 PM
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese and the Germans .





A world of Sushi, Beer and cool looking, reliable vehicles. What's wrong with that?:popcorn: :jump:

BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 11:04 PM
A world of Sushi, Beer and cool looking, reliable vehicles. What's wrong with that?:popcorn: :jump:

:jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:

DRTYFN
04-24-2007, 11:07 PM
A world of Sushi, Beer and cool looking, reliable vehicles. What's wrong with that?:popcorn: :jump:
And forced prostitution, savage torture and a whole bunch of short weened genetics flooding the gene pool. Yeah, that'd be great.:OWNED::fdance:

DennisAJC
04-24-2007, 11:11 PM
And forced prostitution, savage torture

That's if you're American. My wife gives me immunity.:clapping: :jump:


I could have beheaded Adam with my Samurai sword for being such a chitty spotting slave.

BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 11:12 PM
And forced prostitution, savage torture and a whole bunch of short weened genetics flooding the gene pool. Yeah, that'd be great.:OWNED::fdance:


:jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:
:jump:

BlueTJCO
04-24-2007, 11:13 PM
That's if you're American. My wife gives me immunity.:clapping: :jump:


I could have beheaded Adam with my Samurai sword for being such a chitty spotting slave.

there is not a Samurai Sword big enough to cut Adam's head off.......;)

DennisAJC
04-24-2007, 11:14 PM
there is not a Samurai Sword big enough to cut Adam's head off.......;)

LMAO!!!!!:jump:

KenP
04-24-2007, 11:45 PM
More people need to read that. It gives some perspective.

f5fstop
04-24-2007, 11:57 PM
More people need to read that. It gives some perspective.

Only if they can comprehend what it says

NEOCON1
04-25-2007, 12:19 AM
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!


:perfect10s:

h2co-pilot
04-25-2007, 01:24 AM
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!


:perfect10s:

So true. The peace activists here don't understand what were up against. It is jejunity to the fullest.

You don't see the activists over there because they don't GAF. They aren't worried about anyone but themselves. Most don't even have access to world affairs due to oppression, but I don't think that would make a difference.

Our government is so dead on those loons have nothing to do but bitch and moan for others- that would tear them apart if they could. Damn KOOL-AID drinkers!:rant:

Alalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal a!

And historically speaking, the past few decades have shown that our wars have become politcally correct. That's why nothing gets done anymore.

Again- the politically correct notion is fawking us.

MarineHawk
04-25-2007, 03:39 AM
This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented.

I really, really agree with you. Do you know who wrote it? My only concern with it is that it needs to be corected in some respects before I would forward it to others because, while the points are very well made and most of the facts about which I have knowledge seem correct, there are many obvious factual errors that the liberal detractors would seize on to unfairly criticize the conclusions (i.e., see and attack the trees not the forest).

* Ireland was not an ally, but remained neutral throughout WWII.

* China was a very important ally. It tied down much of Japan's ground forces.

* Stalinist Russia, while an ally, was responsible for more human death than even Hitler's Germany was.

* If the comment that "Belgium surrendered on one day means that it surrender in one day, not true. The Germans invaded Belgium (along with Lux, Fr, and Neth) on May 10th. The Krauts enterted Brussels on May 17, and King Leoppold surrendered unconditionally on May 28.

* Russia did not lose "something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone." Russia lost about that many people in the entire war period from 1941-45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties ), most due to the Nazis, but many due to Stalin's own purges and pograms. About 1M troops on both sides died in the siege of Stalingrad, which had a population of about 300K. If everyone in Stalingrad died (they didn't), that would still equal only 1.3M, and there's no way 22.7M people died in the siege of Moscow. Trust me.

* "WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action." Pretty sure that the MIAs have been included in the 407K dead number by now.

etc ...

I thought the logic of the essay was very good, but, unless the author corrects these kinds of obvious errors, the piece's credibility will suffer - people will think why trust the logic if you can't trust the facts?

usetosellhummer
04-25-2007, 03:47 AM
I don't belive the two are alike and the history of our dealings in the region has been left out. We put the sha in, proped up Osama to fight the USSR. backed Hussian against Iran, the list goes on. Our politics has caused this and I voted for Bush and support the war but it was done all wrong and in this day and age we cannot afford to pull these wars off. I think Reagan was the best and Bush got bad info, bad PR, bad advice and now there is no way out. My father came back from WWII messed up and noone talked about it back then. the VA is a joke, and we can't borrow money we don't have to pull this stuff off. No effort to become self reliant with energy. It is a bigger problem brewing and I don't know if I will live to see it but it will be bad if we don't start working togeter. God bless our vets and I hope we can find a way out that makes sense, i don't know what it is.

MarineHawk
04-25-2007, 04:00 AM
I don't belive the two are alike and the history of our dealings in the region has been left out. We put the sha in, proped up Osama to fight the USSR. backed Hussian against Iran, the list goes on. Our politics has caused this and I voted for Bush and support the war but it was done all wrong and in this day and age we cannot afford to pull these wars off. I think Reagan was the best and Bush got bad info, bad PR, bad advice and now there is no way out. My father came back from WWII messed up and noone talked about it back then. the VA is a joke, and we can't borrow money we don't have to pull this stuff off. No effort to become self reliant with energy. It is a bigger problem brewing and I don't know if I will live to see it but it will be bad if we don't start working togeter. God bless our vets and I hope we can find a way out that makes sense, i don't know what it is.

So what if we "We put the sha in, proped up Osama to fight the USSR. backed Hussian against Iran, [and] the list goes on ..."???

(1) It's a highly complex and unanswerable question as to whether things would be even worse if we had not done those things.

(2) Even if these were really, really, really bad things, are you recommending that we just let the world fall apart because we made mistakes in the past? Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia. What were the Brits supposed to do when the bombs started falling on London? Say: “Well we can’t fight Hitler under Churchill now because we ‘propped up’ Hitler in the past with old senile Neville”?????

No. You fight the bastards. Just like we should fight our enemies now. Our enemies would be absolutely terrified right now if we were united. As the piece Mooncricket posted reveals, we terrified the Nazis when we had far less of a capability of world-wide military dominance than we have now (we have appx 52% of all the world’s effective naval combat capability in our Navy alone; we are the only nation with a serious nuclear arsenal; greatest leadership; technology-Raptor-no other nation can dream of). It all means nothing if we are divided by a political party that wants to change the party in the White House more than it wants to win the war.

NEOCON1
04-25-2007, 06:26 AM
It all means nothing if we are divided by a political party that wants to change the party in the White House more than it wants to win the war.


X :perfect10s: :perfect10s: :perfect10s:

frenzy1
04-25-2007, 06:33 AM
Very interesting !!!

BlueTJCO
04-25-2007, 05:29 PM
Do you know who wrote it?

Raymond S. Kraft

http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2006/subject-historical-significance/

usetosellhummer
04-25-2007, 06:36 PM
Can't afford to be the worlds police man. We started off strong then fizzed out. No warsince WWII has ended in total victory, Nam, Korea, whattt???? NO I am not backing a pull out as the left is pushing but this ain't working. Can we win??? or leave another country divided by walls,fences. Reagan did it the right way in this time, MONEY will tear any goverment, country, or dictator down. The USSR was starved out, we can do the same to the middle east by taking the money away. We become the worlds largest oil producer! Russia is cutting back door deals with China on energy and we keep giving money to the sultans to ship us oil.
We buy more natural gas now then we pump? What? I don't know the answer but what is going on now will not stop a people who will fight a cowards war (middle east) They have been fighing since the dawn of time.
How do you win against a people who will strap thier kids with bombs and throw them in 24/7

bparker
04-25-2007, 07:56 PM
Good post... :beerchug:

MarineHawk
04-25-2007, 09:54 PM
Can't afford to be the worlds police man. We started off strong then fizzed out. No warsince WWII has ended in total victory, Nam, Korea, whattt???? NO I am not backing a pull out as the left is pushing but this ain't working. Can we win??? or leave another country divided by walls,fences. Reagan did it the right way in this time, MONEY will tear any goverment, country, or dictator down. The USSR was starved out, we can do the same to the middle east by taking the money away. We become the worlds largest oil producer! Russia is cutting back door deals with China on energy and we keep giving money to the sultans to ship us oil.
We buy more natural gas now then we pump? What? I don't know the answer but what is going on now will not stop a people who will fight a cowards war (middle east) They have been fighing since the dawn of time.
How do you win against a people who will strap thier kids with bombs and throw them in 24/7

We can afford to police the terrorists who are being funded by the guys want to kill us and are trying to build nukes. It's like the popular anti-war slogan in France in 1939-40 when Germany had invaded Poland, but had not yet attacked France: "Let not one Frenchman die for Danzig!" Of course, no Frenchman did die for Danzig, but about eight months later, the Germans marched into Paris. They were able to do this because the anti-war french did not see the need to fight in another land. This permited Germany to fight two winable one-front campaigns, whereas it would probably have been crushed if France had invaded from the west while most of the then fairly-small German army was tied down in Poland.

As far as "winning," this war had, I believe, several important goals--some have been accomplished, and some have not.

One of the most important to me was to reduce the tide of increasingly powerful crazy foreign dictators who felt bold enough to aggressively threaten the U.S., its allies, and its interests. The best way: take the craziest one*; destroy his military; and dig him out of a spider hole. You see, until we did something like that, we could chase terrorist orgs around, even successfully, all day, and the foreign heads of state (the ones with the real ability to hurt us) wouldn?t really care. Bin laden supposedly had/has millions of dollars to fund actions against the U.S.; Kim Jong Ill; the Iranians Mullahs; Khadafy (he got scared and went away); etc.. had hundreds of billions of dollars. They are the ones who need to be scared of us. And they were very scared for a while. The only reason this awesome use of deterrence has faded somewhat is because the Democrats (with about ? the political power of the country) want to throw in the towel so that they can declare the war a failure rather than help win it, which might help Bush and the Republicans politically. Shameless.

The war would probably be much closer to a successful conclusion if the enemy did not have the inspiring hope radiating from the Democrats? deep desire to lose this war.

That's what scares me; not suicide bombers. The Japanese too used suicide missions (not just Kamikaze ones) against us during WWII and the Nazis troops and political operatives were possibly the most fanatical of their kind in world history. For those and other reasons, our military prepared for a decade long Vietnam-style guerrilla war in both countries to last well into the 1950s at the end of WWII. Why didn?t it happen? Because the Germans and Japanese knew it would be hopeless. The Germans knew that Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, their militaries, and their populations would crush such insurgencies brutally if necessary. That could be true here and now, but, regrettably it?s not. The insurgents know that they just have to work hard enough long enough for the Democrats? failure message to carry the day. Instead of being united, which would easily carry the day, we have the opposition party hoping for failure and possessing just enough power to cause that result.

* Saddam launched numerous unsuccessful wars; was trying to build a nuke (was two years away from one in 1990); and is the only person to use chemical weapons on a large scale against civilian or military targets since 1918. He?s the first one you go after-easy.

As a former adviser to Margaret thatcher states better:

John[/COLOR] O'Sullivan]

Defeatism Is No Winning Strategy
Dems and Iraq.

By John O'Sullivan

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared last week that the war in Iraq was ??lost.?? Alas, the leader of the Senate Democrats lacked the courage of his defeatism. When he came under attack, he promptly corrected himself: The war, he said, was going to be lost if President Bush?s current policies were not changed.

But this was a backflip, too.

Back in 2005, as historian Arthur Herman points out in the April issue of Commentary, Reid was among those senators who wanted to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to carry out exactly the kind of counter-insurgency warfare that Gen. David Petraeus is now waging in the ??surge.??

Reid is representing his Senate colleagues and the wider Democratic party in his confusions. They genuinely believe the war is lost.

They argue that the U.S. ??occupation?? both causes and prolongs the Iraqi ??civil war.?? They want to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as possible. But they don?t want to get the blame for an American defeat and for what might follow.

Many ordinary Americans seem to share these hesitant opinions, according to the opinion polls. But are they correct?

Since the ??surge?? got under way, several distinguished and cold-eyed observers have visited Iraq. Almost all of them ? reflecting also a change in media reporting of the conflict ? admit that the surge seems to be producing results.

For instance, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former drug czar, after a survey that was sharply critical of past failures, civil and military, nonetheless reached this broad conclusion: ??In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction and fully committed to a law-based government.??

That would constitute a clear-cut victory. It is far from certain that the United States will attain such a victory. What is plain, however, is that we can hold off indefinitely the defeat that some Democrats think we have already sustained. The United States is the dominant power in Iraq. In conjunction with our allies in the Iraqi government, we can remain in Iraq and control its government for as long as we wish. No combination of insurgent forces can possibly drive us out. We have not ??lost.??

As Arthur Herman points out, however, in his Commentary essay, the French were in an equally strong position in the Algerian war. Indeed, it was a French strategic thinker who first devised the successful counter-insurgency strategy that Petraeus is now using with success in the surge. What defeated France was French public opinion ? persuaded by its left-wing parties ? that the war had been lost and so no more French soldiers should die in pointless struggle. The French duly left, and those Algerians who had supported them were massacred. Some were forced to swallow their medals before being shot or buried alive.

But won?t Iraqis settle their differences peacefully after a U.S. departure, as for instance presidential contender John Edwards maintains? Listen to the testimony of John Agresto, an American academic, who from pure idealism went out to Iraq to help reform its educational system. In his superb new book, Mugged by Reality, Agresto is scathing about the failure of America?s good intentions in Iraq. He points out that establishing a stable government in a broken society is a task that requires intimate knowledge of the society ? and many years of dedicated effort. He is scornful of the quick-fix-to-democracy approach of too many Americans and of the neoconservatives in particular.

But he is much more scathing about those who think that an American ??scuttle?? would make matters better: ?? . . . the truth is that our leaving would not give peace a chance but would give anarchy, mayhem and full-scale civil war its best chance.??

Will we give Iraq the time it needs, however?

On that the most interesting testimony comes from the distinguished British military historian and commentator Sir Max Hastings, also just returned from Iraq. Hastings is a longstanding critic of the Iraq war, of Bush, of Prime Minister Tony Blair, and of the neoconservatives. But he recognizes two new realities ? that defeat would be a strategic disaster for both the West and ordinary Iraqis, and that the surge, brilliantly conceived and led by Petraeus, is producing real if partial victories. He remains pessimistic, however, simply because he thinks that the surge will not be given time to work. That may, alas, be right.

If it is right, who will have refused that precious commodity to America?s men at arms?

RuggedH2
04-26-2007, 07:44 AM
X2!

Outstanding Post!

Better than I could have written it, but I agree 100%!

usetosellhummer
04-26-2007, 08:21 PM
It's people like you that need to run for office someday! Great post.

ZigsRig
04-27-2007, 04:42 AM
I for one am with DRTY on this one.... HILLARY in 08 :giggling: