This sums it up...

 

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

 

 

Link to full story

Awesome... Comparing the "war" in Iraq to World War II.... Stretch much?

I don't see your point...

Awesome... Comparing the "war" in Iraq to World War II.... Stretch much?

 

 

I too think its a great article, and echoes my feelings to a "T". And to answer your question, I don't think its a stretch. The big difference between WWII and Iraq is that America was not in a position, militarily or economically, to do anything to stop early on the plans of Germany and Japan, and as a result when we finally absolutely had to take action, both of those countries had already killed millions of people, overran many countries and had a fully developed war machine. Whereas, with Iraq and radical Islamism, we had the ability to take action before those things had happened. I'm glad we did. I'm glad we removed Hussein before he developed WMDs (if he did not have them). Actually I wish we had the guts to do it after we removed him from Kuwait.

 

Make no doubt about it; the radical Islamists want to change the world to their philosopy. These are not rationale people that can tolerate different religions and ways of life; rationale people do not beheld people; they do not shoot innocent women and children; they do not use women and children as suicide bombers. These folks are nuts. They will not respond to us being nice. Not now, not ever. And if any person alive thinks that if the radical Islamists, after they develop the ability to destroy America, whether its through control of oil or through the use of nukes, won't use that power to destroy America, that person is living in a dream world.

 

We either do something about it now and deal with the costs in dollars and lives, or we do something about it later when it will cost many more dollars and many, many more lives, both in the military and civilian.

The article provides me with some reason for not becoming too angry at liberals, at least yet. The Iraq War is about battling an ideology, or an idea. It is a very difficult concept to grasp. The fact that the battle takes place in Iraq is only a sidelight, and only the beginning. Because it is such a difficult concept to grasp, many liberals just don't see, and many won't ever see, the larger concept. They are too narrow-minded. This was the way it was when the Nazis threatened world domination, and most Americans had not even grasped that for about 8 years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If we don't study history, we are doomed to repeat it.

The article provides me with some reason for not becoming too angry at liberals, at least yet. The Iraq War is about battling an ideology, or an idea. It is a very difficult concept to grasp. The fact that the battle takes place in Iraq is only a sidelight, and only the beginning. Because it is such a difficult concept to grasp, many liberals just don't see, and many won't ever see, the larger concept. They are too narrow-minded. This was the way it was when the Nazis threatened world domination, and most Americans had not even grasped that for about 8 years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If we don't study history, we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Wow....I don't even know how to respond.

Wow....I don't even know how to respond.

You just did.

You just did.

 

 

Just HAVE to give me a hard time, don't you!

OK...after careful thought and harsh editing:

 

 

"Liberals" aren't the only Americans who are opposed to the action in Iraq.

 

Aside from the truths/exaggerations of the original article, which should be debated for their merit or lack of merit separately, the author of the linked article and some of the ensuing replys intentionally attempt to misconstrue the issue of opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

My problem with the article referenced and the replies alluded to above is that the authors of all paint those opposed as deficient in some way. The fact is that many highly intelligent people are opposed to the War in Iraq. The issue isn't as black and white as many would like to paint it.

 

The fact of the matter is even the facts stated in the original article above can be debated, and the validity of our (America's) actions during the course of the era leading up to WWII, as well as our actions in WWII can be debated. The situations are not as equally comparable as many would like us to believe.

The fact is that many highly intelligent people are opposed to the War in Iraq.

The older I become, the more I am convinced that "intelligence" albeit a wonderful tool to possess is virtually useless apart from wisdom and/or motivation. There's no doubt that many individuals with very high I.Q.s support or oppose what's going on in Iraq. The difference, at least in my mind, is the wisdom to do what is right, even if doing what is right amounts to a ragged collection of the least wrong choices regardless of their popularity.

 

The issue isn't as black and white as many would like to paint it.

In context with my above statement I agree, however, the very core issues are much less gray than the PC police will allow us to paint them.

 

The situations are not as equally comparable as many would like us to believe.

I agree. There are far more Muslim fundamentalists motivated to fight the Western Culture than there were committed Nazis at the beginning of WWII. Many of the German soldiers actually shared a common spiritual heritage and morality to the Allies they were fighting. They were not motivated to strap bombs on their children in the name of God.

 

We face a larger and more committed enemy than we did in 1940.

The older I become, the more I am convinced that "intelligence" albeit a wonderful tool to possess is virtually useless apart from wisdom and/or motivation. There's no doubt that many individuals with very high I.Q.s support or oppose what's going on in Iraq. The difference, at least in my mind, is the wisdom to do what is right, even if doing what is right amounts to a ragged collection of the least wrong choices regardless of their popularity.

 

Hopefully you are also wise enough to know that "conservatives" do not hold the lock and keys to the "wisdom" supply. No one does.

 

In context with my above statement I agree, however, the very core issues are much less gray than the PC police will allow us to paint them.

Then let's debate those issues without painting the issue with lables like "liberal views" or "conservative views".

I agree. There are far more Muslim fundamentalists motivated to fight the Western Culture than there were committed Nazis at the beginning of WWII. Many of the German soldiers actually shared a common spiritual heritage and morality to the Allies they were fighting. They were not motivated to strap bombs on their children in the name of God.

 

We face a larger and more committed enemy than we did in 1940.

 

Again, something worthy of debate, but let's debate the issue and not paint each other's point of view as "liberal" or "conservative". Doing so merely serves to effectively cut off worthwhile dialogue by baiting one side or the other into feeling attacked, then defensive. Such feelings have no place in debate.

I too think its a great article, and echoes my feelings to a "T". And to answer your question, I don't think its a stretch. The big difference between WWII and Iraq is that America was not in a position, militarily or economically, to do anything to stop early on the plans of Germany and Japan, and as a result when we finally absolutely had to take action, both of those countries had already killed millions of people, overran many countries and had a fully developed war machine. Whereas, with Iraq and radical Islamism, we had the ability to take action before those things had happened. I'm glad we did. I'm glad we removed Hussein before he developed WMDs (if he did not have them). Actually I wish we had the guts to do it after we removed him from Kuwait.

 

Make no doubt about it; the radical Islamists want to change the world to their philosopy. These are not rationale people that can tolerate different religions and ways of life; rationale people do not beheld people; they do not shoot innocent women and children; they do not use women and children as suicide bombers. These folks are nuts. They will not respond to us being nice. Not now, not ever. And if any person alive thinks that if the radical Islamists, after they develop the ability to destroy America, whether its through control of oil or through the use of nukes, won't use that power to destroy America, that person is living in a dream world.

 

We either do something about it now and deal with the costs in dollars and lives, or we do something about it later when it will cost many more dollars and many, many more lives, both in the military and civilian.

Before we put too much faith in Mr. Kraft's analysis of history, we should question his qualifications. At least three glaring errors jump off the page in his article. First the Japanese invaded China in 1931, not 1928. Second, the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, not Germany. The United States did not declare war on Germany until December 11, AFTER Germany declared war on the US. Third, Ireland was not one of the Allies in WWII. Ireland was neutral.

 

I do agree that fighting radical Islam is the great fight of the first half of the 21st century. I believe very strongly that the war in Iraq is the wrong strategy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time and using the wrong tactics. The west funds both sides in the war on terrorism. Even worse, we can't use our full military might because to do so we would cripple our own economies by disrupting oil supplies. Oil is the key. They know they can hit us and our response will be tempered and moderated by the need to keep the oil flowing. Do you want to really combat radical Islam? Get us off middle eastern oil. Without oil revenue they can't fund war and we have a full range of retaliatory responses available to us should any country be so foolish as to attack us or allow those within their borders to attack us. We can't win the war against terrorists until we free ourselves from middle eastern oil. A Manhattan style program toward energy independence would do more to protect the United States than a complete victory in Iraq (whatever that means) ever could.

Awesome... Comparing the "war" in Iraq to World War II.... Stretch much?

 

I think what the article is trying to say is had we not gone into Iraq as early as we did, it could have developed into a WWII (meaning like WWII, by the time we entered, millions would already have died).

 

Now of course that prediction isn't a reason to enter a war, but it's a plausible connection and can be a part of the reason of why we went in.

Rockmom, I would like to see this discussion continue on a productive course. Toward that end and to get past the the initial disagreement, what would you suggest we label the two sides? Would pro-war, anti-war be appropriate?

 

I do agree that fighting radical Islam is the great fight of the first half of the 21st century. I believe very strongly that the war in Iraq is the wrong strategy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time and using the wrong tactics. The west funds both sides in the war on terrorism. Even worse, we can't use our full military might because to do so we would cripple our own economies by disrupting oil supplies. Oil is the key. They know they can hit us and our response will be tempered and moderated by the need to keep the oil flowing. Do you want to really combat radical Islam? Get us off middle eastern oil. Without oil revenue they can't fund war and we have a full range of retaliatory responses available to us should any country be so foolish as to attack us or allow those within their borders to attack us. We can't win the war against terrorists until we free ourselves from middle eastern oil. A Manhattan style program toward energy independence would do more to protect the United States than a complete victory in Iraq (whatever that means) ever could.

 

Very good. That is the type of response I've been looking for. Forget casting blame and provide solutions.