War or Peace - not tolstoy

Talk about "WhatEVER !"..
Message
Author
BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

War or Peace - not tolstoy

#1 Post by BillMorrow » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:41 pm

I got this email today..
i feel it is worthy of reading, especially by anyone under the age of 40 and for sure by all under the age of 20..

lets not make this a screaming match but rather look on this article as educational..
SOME 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 i s 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 ed ucated, 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 i n Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


We have four options:

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

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

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


OR


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

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


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


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

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!


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

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

Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking throug h 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.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
Last edited by BillMorrow on Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

goofyGAguy
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Snellville, GA

#2 Post by goofyGAguy » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:52 pm

Great post Bill. Hopefully that message can sink in to the brains of our Socialist friends through the tinfoil.

Turbo Audi
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:40 am
Location: Sudbury, Massachusetts.
Contact:

#3 Post by Turbo Audi » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:00 am

Yes, it was a good read.
ThinkPad user and ThinkPads.com member since summer, 2006. That was a good summer.

T60---> X60s---> X200s

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#4 Post by BillMorrow » Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:37 am

thanks for the positive reactions..
i was afraid that it would start a flame war.. :shock:

the thing is, i remember..

<begin memory dump>
and it was a very close thing..
the germans were smart and the nazi's had germany mostly mesmerized.. what we would call brain washed, these days..
much like the mullahs have the bombers, brain washed, now..

at the time pearl harbor was blamed on roosevelt by a few..
motive..? so the american people would see the danger and react.. i.e. go to war..
whether he knew it was coming or not, it DID get the nation on a war footing..

before that time, many americans were already fighting the germans in europe..
my step father was flying for the RCAF until the US entered the war..
i still have his RCAF wings..

i suppose it will take a couple of hundred thousand deaths in a major city from a suitcase nuke to finally galvanize the people to the danger..

in 1939 curchill was a lone voice and roosevelt was supporting him and the brits as much as he could, with lend lease and so forth..

obviously, the parallels are not nearly the same but the danger is real..

its not for oil, its for survival..

we had our Hanoi Jane in the vietnam war and now we have damascus nancy to deal with..

this is one reason i'm moving out of harms way as much as possible..

life is not a rose garden, as the song goes..
reality is mean..

<sigh>

<end memory dump>
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

Stargate199
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:51 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

#5 Post by Stargate199 » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:14 pm

I love the compairison to WWII to Today's war against terrorism. I am a big WWII history buff. This really shoes the reason why we need to fight this war now and not later. Putting this off may cause the end of this fine country as we know it. If the extremist (fundamentalists, or whatever you want to call them) Muslims win in the middle east, then entire world is in serious jeopardy. If you don't mind, I would like to send this off to a few of my friends.
I have finally rejoined the dark side.
ThinkPad T450s, Core i7 5600u, 12GB RAM, Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD.
Previous ThinkPads: T41, T21, 600E

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#6 Post by BillMorrow » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:35 am

If you don't mind, I would like to send this off to a few of my friends.
go right ahead..

while i am not in the "shoot 'em all, let god sort them out" camp, i AM pretty much in the teddy roosevelt camp..
aka the "walk softly but carry a big stick" philosophy..
Last edited by BillMorrow on Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

anthean
Sophomore Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Sioux Falls, SD

Good article

#7 Post by anthean » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:24 am

Nice article.

If I may add, for many years, it was asked whether the US was still under the "shadow of Vietnam"--that is, was afraid to use military force.

I would argue that in one sense we still are under the shadow of Vietnam: Because the US withdrawal from Vietnam did not result in immediate catastrophe for the US, many Americans fail to realize that, historically, losing a war generally has had very bad consequences for the loser.

I also appreciate the emphasis the article put on Jihadis with nuclear weapons. With both Michael Scheuer and Warren Buffett predicting an inevitable detonation in an American city, this is not a threat to be ignored.

And make no mistake--life will not be the same once a nuke goes off in an American city.
T41 and T410

"Come on in and buy the new squat screen. Squatter is better !"

gator
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:28 am
Location: Gainesville, FL

#8 Post by gator » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:39 pm

Dang, I can't believe I missed reading this yesterday ... great post, Bill!

I have printed this out and put it on my lab's 'Notices' area.
Now: T60 2613-EKU | T23 2647-9NU | 600X 2645-9FU | HP 100LX
Past: X31 2673-Y13 | T41 2374-3HU | T22 2647-AEU


Rules of the road :thumbs-UP:

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

Re: Good article

#9 Post by BillMorrow » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:51 pm

anthean wrote:Nice article.

If I may add, for many years, it was asked whether the US was still under the "shadow of Vietnam"--that is, was afraid to use military force.

I would argue that in one sense we still are under the shadow of Vietnam: Because the US withdrawal from Vietnam did not result in immediate catastrophe for the US, many Americans fail to realize that, historically, losing a war generally has had very bad consequences for the loser.
YES..
the hanoi janes took over and made america a paper tiger..
this fact was not lost on ANYONE..
spill a little american blood and they will beat a hasty retreat..
for which perception, IMO, "we" have paid a heavy price and it might get worse..

osama bin laden said, at one time, that "we" would never stand and fight.. (paraphrase)

one of the positive things (the only, so far?) of the iraq war is aside from being percieved as the bully on the block we have shown that we will stand and fight..

which is why i cringe when harry reid, nancy pelosi, obama, edwards and all the loud pacifists trumpet that we should give up and come home..

not that "terrorists" will follow us when we do, "terrorists" are already planning something..
"terrorists" will come here regardless if we stay or go in iraq..
witness the muslim doctors in the UK blowing up cars..
they don't need a reason if GOD tells them its ok..

is it a coincidence that one of the most popular recent TV series is JEHRICO..?
a TV series that, IMO, is preparing the american mind for something spectacular..
lets hope nothing near the total collapse the jehrico script predicts..

"fortune favors the prepared" is the plan i followed when i lived aboard a big boat..
once out at sea you only have yourself to rely upon..

what surprises ME is the lack of such an attack, to date, here in the USA..

in the war on terror, the victories MUST go unhearalded..
unless you want the bad guys to learn from their failures..
better the bad guys just evaporate.. uhmm, poor choice of words..
better the bad guys just disappear into a black hole, never to emerge for the next century..

make no mistake, this has been going on for centuries, the only change is the flat earth, fewer controls AND nukes..

"fortune favors the prepared"

in business, one must be prepared to take a few losses as long as the gains more than offset the losses..

i suppose having the government listen to my wife chatting with her brother in the UK or me on the telephone with a customer in dubai is a small price to pay for a higher level of security at home..

"fortune favors the prepared mind" Louis Pasteur

to paraphrase, again, there is a time for WAR and a time to sit in the meadow on a nice day with a cool drink and a good book..

the romans did not build what they built by being nice to their enemies..
they learned, eventually, being nice to carthage would not get you peace..

"pax romana" meant then the peace of rome was imposed by great strength..
Last edited by BillMorrow on Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

K. Eng
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 1946
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:10 am
Location: Pennsylvania, United States

#10 Post by K. Eng » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:33 pm

I'm going to dissent. I am opposed to the author's opinion.

The author supports the Iraq war as part of a battle against "Jihadis" because (1) "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." and (2) "We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism i n Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here."

Neither of these are good reasons to continue the Iraq conflict to defeat "Jihadis".

First, Saddam Hussein was a SECULAR dictator who opposed the MULLAHS in Iran. He was AGAINST religious fundamentalists. Second, the fact that he tortured and murdered millions of people is irrelevant to the current battle on terrorism. He didn't kill those people in the name of Islam. He killed them because he was a brutal, bloodthirsty dictator and because he could.

Second, I believe the war in Iraq has created a flashpoint, but one that spawns new terrorists every second the US is there. Religious fundamentalists use Iraq as an example of US Imperialism and the humiliation of the Iraqi people as reason to rise up and fight the US. We are killing bad people, but we are also helping spawn new bad people, like the recent medical doctor bombers in the UK.

I also do not like the idea that the US can "democratize" the Middle East. The author says "platform [Iraq], from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East." The US can't "create" democracy in Iraq. The Iraqis have to collectively decide they want to do it themselves. So far that hasn't happened. Right now the US occupation essentially serves as welfare for the ineffective Iraqi government.

This is what the US should do:

(1) Set performance benchmarks for the Iraqi government. If the Iraqis can't get it together, tough -- no more troops and no more funding. If the US pulls out, the fundies loose their main calling cry to battle.

(2) Finish the job in Afghanistan. We had Al Queda and the Taliban on the run, but they are making a comeback. Finish them once and for all.

(3) Contain North Korea to make sure they don't sell nukes to the wrong people.

(4) Get Iran to discontinue its nuke program -- with force if necessary.

Frankly, the rest of the article is fearmongering. "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," - Not very fracking likely, considering that America is awash in firearms and many Americans seem eager to use them to settle even small disputes. If people in the poor neighborhoods in Philadelphia are willing to shoot each other into swiss cheese because they were dissed by each other, what do you think they will do to "Jiihadis" who step onto their sidewalk?

I agree that violent fundamentalists must be stopped. I believe that the US government is fighting the wrong battles to accomplish this.
Homebuilt PC: AMD Athlon XP (Barton) @ 1.47 GHz; nForce2 Ultra; 1GB RAM; 80GB HDD @ 7200RPM; ATI Radeon 9600; Integrated everything else!

K. Eng
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 1946
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:10 am
Location: Pennsylvania, United States

#11 Post by K. Eng » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:44 pm

Stargate199 wrote:I love the compairison to WWII to Today's war against terrorism. I am a big WWII history buff. This really shoes the reason why we need to fight this war now and not later.
We need to fight this war by attacking the right people. Iraq had nothing to do with fundamentalists, 9/11, or other terrorists who threaten civilization. The resources put towards "democratizing" Iraq would be better spent on securing US borders, improving counterterrorism efforts in the US and allied nations, smashing the terrorists in Afghanistan (the ones who attacked on 9/11), and preventing Iran and N. Korea from building more nukes or nuke materials).
Homebuilt PC: AMD Athlon XP (Barton) @ 1.47 GHz; nForce2 Ultra; 1GB RAM; 80GB HDD @ 7200RPM; ATI Radeon 9600; Integrated everything else!

ryengineer
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 4393
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: L.A. (home town) CA, Toronto ON.

#12 Post by ryengineer » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:03 pm

Interesting points there, K.Eng.
"I've come a long, long way," she said, "and I will go as far,
With the man who takes me from my horse, and leads me to a bar."
The man who took her off her steed, and stood her to a beer,
Were a bleary-eyed Surveyor and a DRUNKEN ENGINEER.

bill bolton
Admin
Admin
Posts: 3848
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Sydney, Australia - Best Address on Earth!

#13 Post by bill bolton » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:45 pm

We have focused the battle.
Unfortunately this is so far from reality it can only be described as a fantasy.

Whatever one might chose to think about the current "Western" military/political situation in Iraq, the one thing it is clearly not doing is having much effect on the overall "war on terror", except to probably fuel it by providing more recruits to the cause of Islamic extremism.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, if terrorist groups (of any belief) acquire them, it is (and was always) unlikely to ever be from Iraq, and furthermore the real potential sources are still there and still doing what they do.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
Maybe, or maybe not.

This prime issue seems to me to be...... what is Iraq now being "liberated" from and is it worth the "total cost of ownership" of persisting in trying to make a Western democracy work in Iraq?

Another pertinant question is can a Western democracy be sustained in what is essentially a culture which based on a very different set of "shared values" to Western culture.

Look at Turkey and Indonesia for examples of the tensions this involves and why it basically doesn't work very well, even if the mechanisms of Western demoncracy are put in place under relatively peaceful conditions.

Australia lives with the world's most populous Islamic nation as a close neighbour. Co-exsting with Islam is not just a relatively recent or abstract question for Australians, its a day to day fact. Both Australia and Indonesia have come to the hard realisation that "confrontation" is not ever going to work in finding a path to sustainable co-existance in our region.

Cheers,

Bill B. (whose country also has troops in Iraq)

mattbiernat
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: War or Peace - not tolstoy

#14 Post by mattbiernat » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:38 am

BillMorrow wrote: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.
hmmm. where did you get these numbers? 24,000,000 is almost the amount of people found in a medium size country. And according to wiki only about 1.5 million people died in the battle of stalingrad.
BillMorrow wrote: Do you want gas in your car?
we have technology to build cars not dependent on gasoline from at least 1960s.[/quote]
BillMorrow wrote: 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!
Unfortuenly there was never any evidence that Saddam actually supported terrorists. If it wasn't for the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people the entire war would have been a major international crime. Now the big question is how come we never invaded Asian and African countries where dictators kill millions of people (modern genocide). I think the answer is very clear to some of us.
BillMorrow wrote: 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.
There is a huge difference between world war II and terrorism. The biggest difference is that Jihad does not have a standing army that could be destroyed on a battlefield. The good thing about it is that with such army they would never be able to take over countries in Europle. The bad thing is that hunting them down will takve a very long time.
Remember that to take over another country you need navy, airforce, huge army and even bigger supply line. Conquering a country of the size of United States, Russia or China is almost impossible. Both Napoleon and Hitler tried their luck with Russia and both failed.
Another lesson from history that we should learn is Vietnam and Afganistan.

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

Re: War or Peace - not tolstoy

#15 Post by BillMorrow » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:58 am

mattbiernat wrote:
BillMorrow wrote: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.
hmmm. where did you get these numbers? 24,000,000 is almost the amount of people found in a medium size country. And according to wiki only about 1.5 million people died in the battle of stalingrad.
BillMorrow wrote: Do you want gas in your car?
we have technology to build cars not dependent on gasoline from at least 1960s.
first, i did not write those numbers..

reread my first post..

its in an email i received..

second, technology does exist to run cars, etc on other than gas or diesel..
but the technology, as i understand, is not quite ready for the mass market..
nor is ethanol the answer..

you really need to consider the infrastructure needed to replace gasoline as a primary fuel for motor vehicles..

and neither will laptop batteries provide an answer..

the war on terror is not a parallel with WW-2..
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

Re: War or Peace - not tolstoy

#16 Post by BillMorrow » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:24 am

mattbiernat wrote:
BillMorrow wrote: 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!
Unfortuenly there was never any evidence that Saddam actually supported terrorists. If it wasn't for the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people the entire war would have been a major international crime. Now the big question is how come we never invaded Asian and African countries where dictators kill millions of people (modern genocide). I think the answer is very clear to some of us.
BillMorrow wrote: 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.
There is a huge difference between world war II and terrorism. The biggest difference is that Jihad does not have a standing army that could be destroyed on a battlefield. The good thing about it is that with such army they would never be able to take over countries in Europle. The bad thing is that hunting them down will takve a very long time.
Remember that to take over another country you need navy, airforce, huge army and even bigger supply line. Conquering a country of the size of United States, Russia or China is almost impossible. Both Napoleon and Hitler tried their luck with Russia and both failed.
Another lesson from history that we should learn is Vietnam and Afganistan.
again, not my words only my post..

my only reply to your comments IRT vietnam, napoleon, armies, navies, et al is the following:

IMO the US lost the vietnam war by default.. by a lack of will..
and the iraq war has been similarly mishandled..
as far as saddam and al queda being partners.. mostly BS..
saddam was a bad guy, but what should we do about it..?
now we're there we must prevail or iran will be the power in the area..

as far as getting taken over by radical muslims or sharia law, it is not an invasion i would worry about but more an infiltration..
not wanting to offend, being politically correct..

i don't really have the time to develop these thoughts so i will sum up by saying if you go to war you better win that war, not give in to the liberal, politically correct, left..
(there IS a parallel to WW 2 here)

and

the current president bush is as much a theocrat as the iranian president..
the USA is not and should not be a theocracy and it seems that this is the case..
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#17 Post by BillMorrow » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:03 am

AND, more thoughts on this subject..
Karsin,

re. Benchmarks,
IMO and on decent authority, GW Bush wants to "democratize" the middle east so when oil runs out we'll have someplace to buy the stuff..

i, personally, don't think you can take a bunch of tribal groups and mash them into a democracy within a few years, let alone a few generations..

GW Bush seems to be leading with his christian faith which i think is plain dumb..

if GW Bush is smarter than i think he is then at least we have boots on the ground where a fair percentage of the balance of the worlds oil is located..

SO, lets stay in iraq for the oil if nothing else..

re. North Korea,
seems bribery might be working on the kim il..

re. Iran,
forget force, let the mullahs stew is their own juices..
lets not become a whipping boy for the iranian government so as to deflect the anger of the iranian people from their government, which is a lousey government and can't even keep gas for the people without rationing..
so, no force for iran.. not good, can't be done, won't work..
the iranian people are the friends of the american people..


Bill B...
my dear friend, please see "Benchmarks" above..


mattbiernat
those quotes you infer to me are really the words of the articles author: Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion..
mattbiernat wrote:we have technology to build cars not dependent on gasoline from at least 1960s
with all due respect to you, BS..!
or, better, baffelgab..!
yeah, so what..
a little lab prototype..?

replace all the existing cars, trucks, etc. with gas/electric hybrid cars and it won't make a dent in oil consumption in the next 10 years..

hydrogen power cars, trucks (and foolish ideas)..
it will take 20 years to START to build what exists now for gasoline and diesel power vehicles.. it took 100 years to get what we have now, you think you can take an expensive to produce fuel (hydrogen) transport it, make fuel cells or however you plan to power all these non-existant hydrogen cars in.. uhmm.. HOW LONG did you say you want to convert to that 1960's era fantasy car..??

get a grip on reality..

the numbers tell the tale..

petroleum packs more energy than anything else so cheaply and (until recently) readily available..
we CAN'T stop using the stuff..

take 6+ billion people world wide all wanting to live exactly like YOU do (or me, or most any american) and the oil that exists will get sucked dry and the few remaining places will become military zones controled by the strongest power..
and i sure hope it is the USA and NOT a bunch of crazy islamists or russian mafia types or [fill in your favorite bad guy, HERE]..

i suggest you check out these web sites:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.dieoff.com/

http://www.peakoil.net/

http://www.oilcrisis.com/

just to name four..

[i now revert to that mild fellow, the real bill morrow]
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

qviri
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

#18 Post by qviri » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:23 am

removed, please delete

ADMIN EDIT:
not needed..

all opinions whether a flame of me (as long as you cann me an a--hole nicely) or in support, are OK..

i don't like censorship on real commentary..


user edit: I don't feel censored, I just realised the point I tried to make sucked a lot and I withdrew it. No worries.
Last edited by qviri on Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mattbiernat
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

#19 Post by mattbiernat » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:35 am

BillMorrow wrote:with all due respect to you, BS..!
or, better, baffelgab..!
yeah, so what..
a little lab prototype..?
you know it does not take that much to build an engine that runs on propane (http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/altftype/lpg.html). let me refrase my previous statement. we had technology to build cars not dependent on gasoline from way before 1960s.
here you can do it all yourself:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternat ... opane.aspx

mattbiernat
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

#20 Post by mattbiernat » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:43 am

Kyocera wrote:
First of all I can't stand people speaking of military issues that A: Have never served and B: Have never served.
i thought he was talking about political issues. im lost.

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#21 Post by BillMorrow » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:06 am

mattbiernat wrote:
BillMorrow wrote:with all due respect to you, BS..!
or, better, baffelgab..!
yeah, so what..
a little lab prototype..?
you know it does not take that much to build an engine that runs on propane (http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/altftype/lpg.html). let me refrase my previous statement. we had technology to build cars not dependent on gasoline from way before 1960s.
here you can do it all yourself:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternat ... opane.aspx
HEY.. :)
neat article..

i am familiar with LP conversions for cars..
and perhaps these days its possible to drive across country using LP rather than gasoline..

my generator here runs on propane (its a ford V6 running a 30KW genset)..
but i have not thought to convert any of my cars..

but the fuel is still (and correct me if i am in error) a petroleum based product..

so how is a propane powered car going to allow me to drive to the social security office when peak oil has been passed and a gallon of gasoline is $20 (in todays dollars) a gallon..

won't the propane (or LP) be similarly expensive and hard to get..?

and natural gas (i learned this when i upgraded the genset in 2005) is not as good as LP.. not the same amount of enegry in a gallon..

but we drift off topic a little..? no..? :)
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

mattbiernat
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

#22 Post by mattbiernat » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:42 am

you are right. the guy in here (http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/altftype/lpg.html) claims that 90% of LPG is made in US with little dependance on foreign oil. now the big question is whether we would be able to manufacture enough LPG to fuel all of the cars in here.
there is some other fuels. they all have their adventages and disadventages. in my opinion over the next few years we are going to see increased number of new vehicles running any of these until someone finds another cheap, easy to produce and relatively safe fuel.

there is a detailed list of adventages and disadventages of each fuel type.
http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/altftype.html
some seem more feasible than others.

bill bolton
Admin
Admin
Posts: 3848
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Sydney, Australia - Best Address on Earth!

#23 Post by bill bolton » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:45 am

Kyocera wrote: speaking of military issues
Since my posting addressed only issues of public policy, your ad hominum response is both misdirected and poorly informed. :shock:

eddy eddy
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:54 pm
Location: SP, Brazil

#24 Post by eddy eddy » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:50 pm

nor is ethanol the answer..

you really need to consider the infrastructure needed to replace gasoline as a primary fuel for motor vehicles..
Why not?

In Brazil, most of the cars produced today can run either gasoline or ethanol (or a mix of them) in the tank.

What we call "gasoline" here already have 22% (or 25%, don't remember) ethanol in the composition.

Ethanol powered cars started being sold in 1980. Do you know what was said in those days? Something like "It won't work. It will destroy your engines?"

It didn't. Later became known who was spreading those words. People related to oil-industry. Know why? Because petroleum is something that only the stated-owned company can extract and gasoline could be distributed by 4 or 5 big companies.

But a sugarcane farm could be made for anyone with a piece of land. So anyone could produce alcohol too.
X21 PIII 700 - 256MB - 40GB
Dell Latitude 110L - Cel M 1.3 - 768MB - 30GB
HP NC4000 - P-M 1.4 - 512 - ???

K. Eng
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 1946
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:10 am
Location: Pennsylvania, United States

#25 Post by K. Eng » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:59 pm

BillMorrow wrote:[i now revert to that mild fellow, the real bill morrow]
:D

I don't mind debate so long as it doesn't get personal, which is why I limit myself to attacking points that the author of the original email made.
Homebuilt PC: AMD Athlon XP (Barton) @ 1.47 GHz; nForce2 Ultra; 1GB RAM; 80GB HDD @ 7200RPM; ATI Radeon 9600; Integrated everything else!

tomh009
Moderator Emeritus
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Kitchener, ON

#26 Post by tomh009 » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:34 pm

eddy eddy wrote:
nor is ethanol the answer.. you really need to consider the infrastructure needed to replace gasoline as a primary fuel for motor vehicles..
Why not? In Brazil, most of the cars produced today can run either gasoline or ethanol (or a mix of them) in the tank.
Bill would have been correct if he had said "nor is US-made ethanol the answer." In Brazil and many other tropical or subtropical countries, sugarcane-based ethanol can indeed be very effective -- and it also largely eliminates the greenhouse gas impact (sugarcane ties up co2 when growing, then releasing it when burning the ethanol).

But in the US it's heavily subsidized corn that's used for ethanol production, and the production process in itself requires heavy use of fossil fuels. It does not have a significant beneficial effect on oil usage, and it's distorting grain prices. But the midwestern corn lobbyists love it.

For the US (and Canada), the only effective ethanol option in the medium term is the new cellulose-based ethanol production. This can be efficient even in temperate climates -- but is still several years from commercial viability.
X220 (4287-2W5, Windows 8 Pro) / X31 (2672-CXU, XP Pro) / X61s (7668-CTO, Windows 8 Pro)

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#27 Post by BillMorrow » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:24 am

i know about the brazilian ethanol operation and that they use no imported petroleum for motor fuel..
but i winder at brazilian chemical business's, farm equipment fuel and so forth..
i admit i'm too lazy to go digging for numbers..

besides, this is all off topic to the original post..

which is the war on islamic extremist terrorists..

and the war in iraq..

and regardless of the excuses given, it is a fiat accompli'..

as a magnet for terrorists, its doing a fair job, IMO..
and if the real reasons are to secure the petro-deposits in northern and southern iraq by either installing a friendly government or just taking the stuff by force of arms THAT won't be known for some time.. but i hope there is some truth, there..

i must admit being some sort of pessemist..
when i bought my SL600 some years ago, i characterized that purchase as sort of a last hurrrah of affordable and available gasoline..
and that mercedes gets 18 to 26 gpm if the instruments can be believed..

if i were in congress and the vote came up as to applying a $1/gal (minimum) gas tax i would vote FOR it and assign the proceeds to converting to hydrogen infrastructure..
which, btw, is only a stop gap until uranium to power nuke power plants runs out..

as the saying goes "there are no athiests in foxholes" similarly, i think there are few pacifists in gas lines..

the parallels to WW-2 are there and imperfect..

and all those who did not live through WW-2 can sit down..!

the war with japan was over oil for the japanese economy..
so this is not something new..

europe was different..

i leave you'all with the thought that when [censored] happens, it is YOUR job NOT to be there when it does..
and to be prepared in case it DOES happen and you ARE there..

i hope i am not being offensive, but if so, c'est laVie.. :)

i am glad for those rough men ready to do battle to help preserve my ability to sleep in peace.. :)
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

bigtiger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:28 am
Location: RI

#28 Post by bigtiger » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:52 am

I like that the essay is well presented and well grounded in that we should fight for fundamentalism.

However, I like the points presented by K.Eng. I do not believe Bush can build a democratic country in Iraq or in any Middle East Country by a war. UNLESS there is a war with all of them. I kind of prefer cultural invasion.
currently own X61S, T42, X31, Macbook Pro Unibody i5

eddy eddy
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:54 pm
Location: SP, Brazil

#29 Post by eddy eddy » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:37 pm

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the ed ucated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
Some people say the same about the Zionists. That they want to "rule the world, the economy, blah, blah, blah...." You see? It seems almost the same story but with other characters.
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.
That seems to be the point IMO. It's not about Freedom or building a democracy in Iraq or fighting terrorism. Just about the oil and sustaining a lifestyle and economy.

Dethrone Saddam was a major priority, I agree with that. But like K.Eng I don't believe that war on terror should be fought on Iraq. It's more like they are trying to make Iraq the 51st state of America while Afghanistan, Iran, Korea and who knows which more countries who can be working on nukes, terror, suicide attacks, etc. are left apart.
X21 PIII 700 - 256MB - 40GB
Dell Latitude 110L - Cel M 1.3 - 768MB - 30GB
HP NC4000 - P-M 1.4 - 512 - ???

BillMorrow
*Senior* Admin
*Senior* Admin
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: San Francisco -> Florida -> Georgia
Contact:

#30 Post by BillMorrow » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:59 pm

bigtiger wrote:I like that the essay is well presented and well grounded in that we should fight for fundamentalism.

However, I like the points presented by K.Eng. I do not believe Bush can build a democratic country in Iraq or in any Middle East Country by a war. UNLESS there is a war with all of them. I kind of prefer cultural invasion.
excellent point, tiger.. :)

bear in mind that i think bush is a fundamentalist of a different but similar stripe..

i sure hope he knows more than he can say about the real situation..
Bill Morrow, kept by parrots :parrot: & cockatoos
Sysop - forum.thinkpads.com

*
She was not what you would call refined,
She was not what you would call unrefined,
She was the type of person who kept a parrot.
~~~Mark Twain~~~

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Off-Topic Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests