The use of the term "narrow-minded" was probably poor word choice on my behalf, for which I apologize. Let me try and distill this down to its essence:

 

Radical Muslims want to kill you. They want you dead. They will do anything in their power to make you dead. They want your daughter dead, too. They will try and make you dead here, or they will try and make you dead somewhere else.

 

That's it, no more, no less. You either believe that, or you don't. I do. You may not, and that's O.K. with me, too. I still love you, just the same. I really do. I know what a nice lady you are just from reading your posts and from some private PM's, and I think you are an admirable person. And I truly respect your earnest and heartfelt disagreement with me on this War.

 

But I do think you are wrong. As are many others, both "liberal" and "conservative," and Pepper is right, the label doesn't matter. What matters is whether you believe the above, or don't.

 

You will never, ever, find me disputing your right to rail at the top of your lungs about how the War is wrong, that we were lied to, etc., nor will I ever speak out against your vote to pull us out of there, to spend your money on interest groups that advocate that, and I won't really even say anything when folks in the Democratic Party turn on the "spin" machine that inevitably starts with some comparison that begins "well what about the evangelical Christians . . ." I will never label you as being "against the troops" because you are against the War. I know better. I might agree with those who say that, tactically, American public opposition to our presence in Iraq strengthens the resolve of those fighting against our troops, and I can also agree with your statement that our presence there creates hatred of us by them and by other countries around the world. Like you and many, many others, I don't like the Patriot Act, because I would rather that I and my children die than to have our liberties incrementally taken from us because of the actions and cowardice of terrorists. I didn't like the wiretapping. I haven't like most of the decisions made by this Presidency that have been collateral to the military effort. I also happen to agree with Trinity Alum (in this instance:thumb: ), that we could probably fight a more EFFECTIVE war if we were not oil dependent. But I am not willing to wait for weaning ourselves off of that while radical Muslims exterminate Western culture.

 

But all of those, and all of the other arguments (There were no WMD's; Iraq has never been connected with Al Quaeda; We're really over there for oil, etc.) really do not change the primary fact that there are people who want me dead. So I will advocate for, vote for, spend money on, and generally support the use of our government's military, and the young soldiers who are dying, to kill or suppress as many radical Muslims as they can find. Might be Iraq, might be Iran, might be Syria, might be southeast Asia. I probably would not support a draft for that purpose, but only because I don't think drafted soldiers make very effective soldiers. And when the time comes, if my 3 little boys tell their daddy that they want to serve, fight, and are ready to die, I will cry, shake hands with them, and send them on. If I were 18 or 22, I feel certain that I would probably take a turn also.

 

My father, an old Naval fighter pilot, while we sharing a drink last night on a warm, breezy summer evening, was talking about the Naval battles of WWII. He gradually shifted into a discussion of Europe. He said something to me that really struck me. He told me that the continental Europeans aren't having children anymore. They have over-regulated themselves so badly, their population is simply dying out. He theorized that within a generation or two, that there would be no such thing as a traditional Italian, or as a traditional Spaniard. Those two countries will simply become Muslim.

 

Its us or them. I hate it that its like that, but that is the way that it is.

:thumb: Thank you... I could never say it better than you did or will even attempt to...

Ok...then what other terrorists have entered our country through the Mexican border? Those terrorists were here legally. They didn't have to go through the trouble of coming through Mexico.

 

Maybe they didn't come through Mexico but 3 of the Fort Dix 6 were here illegally.

The name Zarqawi doesn't ring a bell?

 

Ummm ... I think he's Jordanian, if I'm not mistaken.

I keep telling you guys, the only real solution -- and a relatively cheap one at that -- is the G-Bomb ... The only way to beat the crazies is to out-crazy them ...

Ummm ... I think he's Jordanian, if I'm not mistaken.

 

 

Correct. A Jordanian who was in Iraq the day the US invaded having fled there from Afghanistan after the US overthrew the Taliban.

 

Here's another name for you: Abu Abbas.

But all of those, and all of the other arguments (There were no WMD's; Iraq has never been connected with Al Quaeda; We're really over there for oil, etc.) really do not change the primary fact that there are people who want me dead.

 

 

There are people who want you and me dead in probably 20 countries, maybe 50 countries. Shall we invade them all? This reminds me of the 2004 Presidential debate when, in response to a question about Iraq, Bush said "the enemy attacked us." A gross oversimplification of an extremely complex situation. And now we have started a conflict where a loose and fragmented organization like Al Qaeda can stir up enough trouble to hold the most powerful military machine in the history of the world at a virtual stalemate for four and a half years. We can't react to the world like it's an old cowboy movie, with good guys in white hats and bad guys in black. The bad guys in the real world don't dress in black so we can know who to shoot at.

 

We have to be a whole lot smarter about fighting this kind of war than we have been, rushing into a completely unrelated country with guns blazing, and then trying to make up reasons for the whole thing after the original reasons were found to be baseless.

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

 

Besides being 2 1/2 years out of date with current events, this article relies on the generous use of philosophical fallacy to make its "point" that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was precisely the right way to fight an Islamic terrorist movement that will literally take over the entire world if left unabated. Please. The author implies, through the repeated use of false choices, that if we don't fight the radical Islamists in Iraq right now, then we will have no gas for our cars, no heating oil for our homes, no jobs, the dollar will become worthless, the Jews will be annhilated, and ultimately, the entire world will be overrun by radical Islam.

 

He even comes up with the consoling thought that, although we found no WMDs in Iraq, Saddam Hussein himself was a WMD. I feel better now. (I guess by that definition so was Josef Stalin and Idi Amin, yet we didn't invade their countries, but I digress.) In his strained justification of Saddam as a WMD, he even blames Saddam for the deaths of 2 million Iranians. Oh really? I think we were somewhat complicit in that number. Does that mean the U.S. is a kind of WMD too?

 

I won't even go into all of the historical inaccuracies the author has included in his World War II discussion, but his factual errors are numerous. If he gets easily-researched facts wrong in his justifying arguments, how can one take the numerous logical leaps required to support his conclusions regarding the not-so-simple subject of radical Islam?

 

Without the benefit of being able to see the bleak 2007 outcome back in 2004 when this was written, the author makes the naively hopeful statements, "If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail." and "If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East." Well, through sheer incompetence and a shocking ignorance of the sectarian cultures, the Bush Administration has led us to a point where neither one of those glittering outcomes is remotely possible in Iraq.

 

False choices, that's all this piece represents. And the choices are even more false now, in 2007, than when it was written in 2004.

I must admit his comments concerning WWI amuse me. I think he could have made his point more effectively had he researched things a little more and came off from a more academic perspective.

 

His descriptions of Germany from the founding of the Second German Empire in teh 1870's are also not well supported. He labels and derides its imperialsim and yet clearly ignores our own imperialism in the latter part of the 19th century. "Fighting" Germany from 1870-1945? Clearly he does not fully grasp the history.

 

He also seems to be labelling the most progressive leader that continental Europe had known up to that point in the early 1800's as somehow bad. How Napoleon got that reputation is beyond me. The man was a better leader and reformer than most Americans want to admit.

 

Had he researched his information better I would have had much more respect for the article and his perspective.

 

To some extent I can understand the point he is trying to get across, but he didnt state it very clearly. In fact it seemed to me that he was trying to wrap up the reader in the sort of emotional sentiment that tends to grab hold of Americans when we talk about WWII. The whole idea of "It was the last war where there were cleary good guys and bad guys!" Sorry good guys and bad guys don't exist in a war. In a war ALL guys are the bad guys, some just worse than others.

 

Bear in mind these are not the words of a peace activist, liberal, anti-war person or anything of the sort. If anything I am more militaristic(in a sense) than most; I just don't sugar coat it in trumped up morality for the sake of appearances.

I must admit his comments concerning WWI amuse me. I think he could have made his point more effectively had he researched things a little more and came off from a more academic perspective.

 

His descriptions of Germany from the founding of the Second German Empire in teh 1870's are also not well supported. He labels and derides its imperialsim and yet clearly ignores our own imperialism in the latter part of the 19th century. "Fighting" Germany from 1870-1945? Clearly he does not fully grasp the history.

 

He also seems to be labelling the most progressive leader that continental Europe had known up to that point in the early 1800's as somehow bad. How Napoleon got that reputation is beyond me. The man was a better leader and reformer than most Americans want to admit.

 

Had he researched his information better I would have had much more respect for the article and his perspective.

 

To some extent I can understand the point he is trying to get across, but he didnt state it very clearly. In fact it seemed to me that he was trying to wrap up the reader in the sort of emotional sentiment that tends to grab hold of Americans when we talk about WWII. The whole idea of "It was the last war where there were cleary good guys and bad guys!" Sorry good guys and bad guys don't exist in a war. In a war ALL guys are the bad guys, some just worse than others.

Bear in mind these are not the words of a peace activist, liberal, anti-war person or anything of the sort. If anything I am more militaristic(in a sense) than most; I just don't sugar coat it in trumped up morality for the sake of appearances.

 

 

The bolded sentence is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read on this site since I joined. It could have only been made worse had you posted it on Memorial Day, D-Day or Pearl Harbor Day.

The bolded sentence is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read on this site since I joined. It could have only been made worse had you posted it on Memorial Day, D-Day or Pearl Harbor Day.

 

I can't really speak for PR, but I read it not necessarily as an idealogical thing, but that war forces people do awful things they would not normally be predisposed to doing under normal circumstances. Like taking another human being's life, for instance.

The bolded sentence is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read on this site since I joined. It could have only been made worse had you posted it on Memorial Day, D-Day or Pearl Harbor Day.

 

I think you're taking PepRock's comment in a way he didn't intend. I'm assuming he's referring to the fact that it is the kings, presidents, chieftains and politicians all across the world that make these wars that are consistently guilty of wickedness in one way or the other.

 

Orders come from the top, that's where the blame always lies... not on soldiers in the field. Was World War II a just cause? Absolutely. Does it fully pardon everyone for the deaths of thousands upon thousands during the bombing of Dresden or at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. Maybe I'm being too bold in interpreting PepRock's comments, but I would say that I am in awe of the men who have to make such difficult choices in order to save countless other lives, but the tragedy of a life filled with such difficult decisions is that you may just end up losing your own soul.

If you read all of the posts you will see that I said that as long as you have Islam you will have radical islamists, same with Christianity, so unless you can destroy Islam you will not be able to destroy the radicals.

I took a while to read this post several times before I responded to it, with the genuine hope that I might have just read it wrong and drawn an inaccurate conclusion. Having reached the same conclusion after reading it multiple times, I still hold the hope that with a bit of further explanation, you can tell me how I am misunderstanding your actual intent, because it seems that you are placing Christianinty on the same level as Islam in terms of generating radicals/terrorists.

 

As sad as it was to hear her words, I was able to forgive Rosie O’Donnell for making a similar comparison because her ignorance and agenda are overwhelmingly evident, whenever she opens her mouth. Whether knowingly or ignorantly, she is merely spewing propaganda that sounds plausible to an audience with no depth of knowledge, but to anyone with a clue, her words are horribly inaccurate.

 

The Koran/Q’ran is filled with numerous teachings advocating violence toward infidels. These teachings do not have to be taken out of context and amplified beyond reason to justify violence. Islam can be advocated as a religion of peace only if we are all Muslims. There is little room or tolerance for those who do not accept the teachings of the prophet. If anything, it is the peaceful Muslims willing to coexist with their non-Muslim neighbors who should be considered “radicals.”

 

There is on the other hand, nowhere in the Bible in which the teachings of Jesus explicitly instruct nor remotely imply the use of violence as a means of propagating the Gospel… ever.

 

The fact that kooks will twist virtually any message to justify their wicked deeds is well established. To say however, that “as long as you have Islam you will have radical islamists, same with Christianity,” is a misdirection at best. One faith clearly teaches that violence is acceptable, the other does not. The fact that violent radicals have claimed justification for their actions based upon both faiths is true. To suggest that both faiths spawn violent “radicals” is not true. There is nothing in true, Biblically accurate Christianity to justify radical terrorism… anytime… anywhere. The group who claims such authority is grossly (180 degrees) out of line with the teachings of Jesus.

 

The balance of your sentence reads, “so unless you can destroy Islam you will not be able to destroy the radicals.” Since this is the same sentence in which you draw a direct parallel between Christianity and Islam, it therefore seems reasonable to assume that you might also be implying, “so unless you can destroy Christianity you will not be able to destroy the radicals.” There are so many directions I could go here, but I will adhere to my original premise which is, “There is nothing in genuine Christianity that endorses nor encourages violent extremism. There is plenty in Islam to justify violence against non-believers”

 

If true Christianity is preached and followed, peace (except perhaps violence against Christians) is the result. If true Islam is followed, the only way peace may result is if everyone becomes Muslim.

 

They are not the same in any way.

I think you're taking PepRock's comment in a way he didn't intend. I'm assuming he's referring to the fact that it is the kings, presidents, chieftains and politicians all across the world that make these wars that are consistently guilty of wickedness in one way or the other.

 

Orders come from the top, that's where the blame always lies... not on soldiers in the field. Was World War II a just cause? Absolutely. Does it fully pardon everyone for the deaths of thousands upon thousands during the bombing of Dresden or at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. Maybe I'm being too bold in interpreting PepRock's comments, but I would say that I am in awe of the men who have to make such difficult choices in order to save countless other lives, but the tragedy of a life filled with such difficult decisions is that you may just end up losing your own soul.

 

It would have been immoral not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It would have been immoral not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree. Absolutely no pardon necessary.