Dechristo Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 A client emailed this to me. I'm posting this to see what, if any, reaction it promulgates in this environ. ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Vernon Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues such as Iran's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc.. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them I almost deleted them, as well- written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio . If you would like to see who this fellow is, go to this Air Force web site and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA : A different spin on Iraq war. This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * A! den, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001;* Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford. 3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%. 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian (?)), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ) Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions: We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! Without our support Great Britain will go too. Recently I read that there are more mosques in England than churches. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else? The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do, I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. ! And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can they be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over whom will be the few who control the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. We all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp Quote
billcoe Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Tommy Chong? No wonder he's so pissed, he got arrested for selling bongs. Quote
Dechristo Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Could Snopes be wrong on this? From the official website of The United Sates Air Force: MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) VERNON CHONG Bio Tools Printable bio Related Stories • Commanders lead in challenging times - 3/9/2007 Retired Nov. 1, 1994. Major General (Dr.) Vernon Chong is the command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany. He advises the commander in chief on all medical matters and health issues that may affect the readiness of military forces in the command. He is responsible for establishing policies for the employment of theater medical resources during crisis, contingency and humanitarian relief operations. Also, he coordinates and integrates medical support activities and develops theater medical plans. The general entered the Air Force in October 1963 following the completion of a residency in general surgery. He was certified by the American Board of Surgery in April 1964. He has commanded three Air Force medical centers, served as command surgeon of two major air commands, and was commander of the Joint Military Medical Command, San Antonio. The general is a chief flight surgeon, and was a surgeon/flight surgeon member of the DOD launch site recovery team for 15 space launches during the Apollo, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz programs. EDUCATION 1955 Bachelor of arts degree in basic medical sciences, Stanford University 1958 Doctor of medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine 1963 Board qualification in general surgery, General Hospital of Fresno County ASSIGNMENTS 1 October 1963 - June 1965, staff general surgeon and chief of general surgery service, USAF Hospital Scott, Scott Air Force Base, Ill. 2. June 1965 - June 1968, staff general surgeon, later director of intern and resident education, USAF Hospital Tachikawa, Tachikawa Air Base, Japan 3. June 1968 - June 1970, staff general surgeon and instructor in general surgery residency, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif. 4. June 1970 - June 1974, staff general surgeon, chairman department of surgery, and director of hospital services, USAF Academy Hospital, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 5. June 1974 - August 1976, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, USAF Regional Hospital March, March Air Force Base, Calif. 6. September 1976 - October 1978, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif. 7. October 1978 - November 1981, commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif. 8. November 1981 - March 1985, commander, Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, Md. 9. March 1985 - February 1987, command surgeon, Headquarters Military Airlift Command, Scott Air Force Base, Ill. 10. February 1987 - May 1990, commander, Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 11. May 1990 - August 1991, command surgeon, Headquarters Air Training Command, and commander, Joint Military Medical Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 12. August 1991 - present, command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany FLIGHT INFORMATION Rating: Chief flight surgeon Flight hours: More than 1,600 Aircraft flown: C-141, KC-135, C-130, T-29, C-5, T-39, C-21, C-12, C-9A, T-33, T-38, H-53, H-3, UH-1 MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS Distinguished Service Medal Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster Meritorious Service Medal Air Force Commendation Medal National Defense Service Medal Vietnam Service Medal Order of Merit-Brazil Gold Cross of Honor-Germany OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS Order of the Sword - bestowed by enlisted personnel of Air Training Command Clinical professor of surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio Ira C. Eaker fellow - Air Force Association, Aerospace Education Foundation Board of Governors, American College of Surgeons Board of Regents, National Library of Medicine Board of Regents, adviser, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Board of Trustees, Air Force Village Foundation Board of Directors, Alamo Chapter, American Red Cross, San Antonio EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION Captain Oct 14, 1963 Major Dec 15, 1966 Lieutenant Colonel Aug 8, 1968 Colonel Jun 15, 1973 Brigadier General Oct 1, 1982 Major General Apr 15, 1987 Quote
Mal_Con Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Not likely the article says he is a real general he just did not write the letter. Quote
Dechristo Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Right. I, finally, scrolled down to the bottom of the page to find their contention that he received the email ("written by an attorney" whose name is not divulged), and Maj. Gen. Chong forwarded the email, thereby attaching his name to the piece. Still, a tome of current import. Quote
archenemy Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 The author is not important; the thoughts are. Quote
underworld Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 interesting how this is so quickly debunked because there is dispute over who wrote exactly wrote it... i remember not to long ago, some news agencies ADMITTED that they were reporting fake documents - but were convinced and trying to convince others that they were at least accurate in what they said. ...and all the bush-haters jumped on it and were easily convinced that it was "fake, but accurate" Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I'd say the purported author is important when it is a retired Air Force general. Quote
Jim Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 A client emailed this to me. I'm posting this to see what, if any, reaction it promulgates in this environ. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * A! den, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001;* Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide Great start - using the analogy of 9/11, which has nothing to do with Iraq. Based on this false foundation everything that follows uses the same purporsely muddy construct. 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford They hate our freedom. I would venture it's quite a bit more complicated than that and the west's history of propping up undemocratic governments in trade for oil has had some lasting effcts. Certainly most folks would agree that terrorism is not the answer. But again, nothing related to Iraq. 3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims Though he softens this a bit later he's tarring a religious group for the acts of a minority. 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%. 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian (?)), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ) Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others This is good. There's more than an undertone of antisemitism brewing here. Read on, now we'll make the leap from linking Christians to Nazis to Muslims. It's a simpleton's analogy. He must be a bright guy to be a doctor - buy his lack of any historical perspective of the middle east is apparant. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting Most folks would not take issue with this premise. It's the one floating around in the background that is the proble. Hello - the 911 hijackers came mostly from Saudia Arabia - none from Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with it. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions: We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get What the Bushies should have been asking from the start is what are the risks and what are the benefits from taking such a provocative step in the middle east. Will this bring our allies together? Will it help solidify our enemies and help flame the passions of terrorism? Any clear-eyed analysis would have (and did) highlight the complications of going into Iraq for no justified reasons. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! Without our support Great Britain will go too. Recently I read that there are more mosques in England than churches. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else? The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win Buddy, get a clue. The war in Iraq was lost soon after the invasion. Go over the ticklist of blunders. Disbanning the army, marginalizing all Bath Party members despite no matter their involvement, picking necon loyalists and good christians to run the show instead of seasoned middle east and reconstruction experts, having too little troops to ensure security, not quashing the Madi Army when we had the opportunity. And much more. It's not the editorial writers of America that lost the war in Iraq. It was an ill-concieved war based on hubiris, an false necon vision pushed by a Washington elite, and executed by the three stooges. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then Bullshit. What we are most at risk of losing is our the foundations the country was built upon, rule of law, right of privacy, due process, and democracy. The Bushies have played the fear card often and with effeciency for political gain. Our image in the world is quite tarnished. How can we say we're bring democracy to the world when we have a gulag in Cuba? I have more faith in our system than that. I trust that our hard working law enforcement and justice department staff can put on trials that are fair and lock the nutjobs up. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Oh this is good. Geneva Conventions - down the toilet, right to privacy - how outdated. Certainly we should not expect that some things to change - but are we so much safer with the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) putting on a good show at airports? Has the Iraq invasion somehow diluted the terrorists ambitions? If we withdraw will they be falling over themselves to get over the Brooklyn Bridge. Please. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do, I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. Actually a number of them have been released because we determined they were innocent. And the vast majorty are in limbo because we are refusing to even make a determination on their innocence or guilt. When we are instramental in having someone kidnapped from Italy, flown to Jordon, tortured, flown to Cuba, and then - oops - nevermind - how does that reflect on our values. We have overstepped and stepped into a mess. The systematic torture of prisoners, the lack of any semblence of fair trials, forced renditions, secret CIA prisons - oh, where a shinning star on the world democratic stage these days. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. Conviently missing from this observation is any historical perspective. He's refering to the gassing of the Kurds during the Iran - Iraq war. At that time Iraq was our ally, percieved as a buffer to the fundamentalism in Iran and their growing power. Oh yea- and where did they get the constituients for the gas - from US manufacters. We were pretty chummy with Iraq back then. Oh - did he manage to forget that it was the CIA that assisted Sadamn's party into power way back. Minor details I suppose. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. When they start talking about dragging dead bodies around and mutilitation you know the argument is stretching. Didn't this start out as a justification for winning the war in Iraq? Iraq is going to be divied into 3 sections, it already is. When Iraq was created by the UK and the US by fat men leaning over the maps it was contrived. It stayed together only with the crushing brutality of a dictator. Now the violence is even more dispursed, electricty, water, food - all are in much shorter supply now than before we invaded. Remember that the oil was going to pay for this all? Can they be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over whom will be the few who control the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. We all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! What a bunch of drivel. The war in Iraq has the US at more risk. We have sunk so many resources, huge sums of money, political capital, former goodwill of other nations, and chipping away at our democratic values. Can anyone really claim that something good has come, or will come of this folly? Bush is watching one thing, the clock. He will leave the mess for the next executive and the next Congress. The folks I most sympathize with are the army and guard troops, and their families, that are left to endure death, severe wounds, and continual rotations beyond what should be expected. The troops are at war, the rest of America is out shopping. Quote
fig8 Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. [/b] I stopped reading here, because the author's ignorance demonstrates that he really doesn't understand. We were not attacked because of our freedoms. We were attacked because we support a Zionist/near-apartheid regime in Israel, we supported a dictator (Shah) in Iran whom we helped put into power by CIA efforts to overthrow the democratically elected leader prior to him, and we support a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In other words, we were attacked due to our foreign policy. If the author can't understand this, then I'm not interested in his views on the rest if the issue(s). Quote
AlpineK Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I'd say the purported author is important when it is a retired Air Force general. I'd agree with that. If he believes what he said, or quoted, then he should be willing to stand up publicly and say that. There are some interesting thoughts in the piece no matter who wrote it. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 The article makes some good points and criticisms of our press and people (myopic, self-defeatist, short attention-span, ignorant). However, I don't buy the gloom and doom scenario of "what if we lose". Yes, there will likely be deep, negative consequences, but the claims made in the letter presume way too much. Spain is "done"? France is "next"? If we pull out of Iraq and there are more and more escalating attacks, as is claimed, we will not capitulate. We'll realize our mistake, change tactics, do whatever it takes. Quote
AlpineK Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I imagine if somebody wanted to the problems could all be tied back to the crusades. Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I have seen quite a few of these bogus "letters" -- supposedly written by Robin Williams ("The US will apologize to the world for our interference in their affairs, past and present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest of those good old boys."), Andy Rooney ("I am sick of Political Correctness and all the suck ups that go along with it."), George Carlin ("I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor."), and many others: Paul Harvey, Dennis Miller, Jay leno - along with military leaders. They're all of a conservative bent, and they're all supposedly given more gravitas because of the unexpected author. Its no coincidence that the only ones who actually believe them are the sort of people who think the fox network is a legitimate news source. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I imagine if somebody wanted to the problems could all be tied back to the crusades. the Crusades didn't materialize out of nowhere... you have to go back a bit farther if you want to bring them up. I never cease to be amazed how revisionist history dupes so many people, who immediately jump on the self-hate bandwagon. History is never so simple and clear-cut. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 (edited) Not the only erroneous supposition in this letter, to be sure, but, ah, the war is already lost (some folks just haven't gotten the memo)...which pretty much makes the rest of the treatise moot. By lost, I mean that the foreign policy objectives for the war, stated or implied, have all backfired. Attacks by extremists around the world, particularly US interests, have increased, so the 'enemy' has been emboldened, not cowed. Stability and reconstruction in Iraq are a joke. The Taliban is back. Oil supplies are not secure. Iran is not intimidated. Freedom and democracy have not spread like wildflowers throughtout the Middle East; instead, the region has embraced fundamentalist extremism. Frankly, the author of this letter is either a moron or just woke up from a several year long coma. Edited August 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Crux Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 (edited) Why We Must Shred The Constitution, by Thomas Jefferson. Edited August 14, 2007 by Crux Quote
JayB Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I don't have the time necessary to read or comment on the entire letter, but after doing a bit of skimming the following questions came to mind: What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of? Does the case of say - Iran - support the claim that active or tacit US support is either necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a repressive regime? Have any of you considered non-political forces that promote the development and maintenance of repressive political models? If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent. My contention here is that no matter what the US or other western powers did in the region, there'd be very strong tendencies towards autocracy there, and that these tendencies will continue to present an obstacle towards democratic reform in the region for as long as oil provides sufficient revenues for the regimes that are currently in charge there. Quote
JayB Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 One more - would you be more favorably disposed towards a regime that while undemocratic, preserved certain rights and freedoms, or one that transmitted the unfettered will of the majority into law no matter what the nature of those laws might be? Turkey - where the Army has intervened to preserve the secular constitution established undemocratically by Attaturk - provides a reasonably good approximation of this scenario in the real world. Have the Army's undemocratic interventions there been beneficial or detrimental to population's well-being and our interests there? Quote
mattp Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I think you are probably right in arguing that "states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception," Jay, but I'm not sure what that says about the current discussion as to whether or not we should assume we are in a death match that requires us to fight Moslems all around the world, ramp up the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fear their presence in countries like Spain and France (or impliedly here at home). What is the best way to deal with countries we don't like? That probably varies on a case by case business. Presently, it is not looking like unilateral invasion is the best approach. Quote
JayB Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression. I am curious what the consensus is amongst people who hold this view concerning what would transpire if the US were to immediately disavow anything that could be construed as support for, and abandon all regimes in the Middle East which are undemocratic and/or repressive. Would the repression end? Stay the same? Get worse? And what implications would this have with respect to the frequency and intensity of attacks carried out against the US by citizens of these states? Does the fact that a significant number of the terrorist attacks carried out against the US and other Western powers were conducted by persons who had either lived in Europe for a number of years, or were born there, and who thus never experienced or had escaped from the type of repression in question have any bearing on your thinking about the role of US-fostered political repression in bringing about attacks of this nature? Quote
JayB Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I think you are probably right in arguing that "states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception," Jay, but I'm not sure what that says about the current discussion as to whether or not we should assume we are in a death match that requires us to fight Moslems all around the world, ramp up the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fear their presence in countries like Spain and France (or impliedly here at home). What is the best way to deal with countries we don't like? That probably varies on a case by case business. Presently, it is not looking like unilateral invasion is the best approach. Do you really feel like categorizing our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a fight against Muslims is accurate? Do you think that the British Governments actions against the IRA could be best described as a non-specific fight against Catholics? Were US actions in the first Gulf War, and in Kosovo also best described as part of a fight against Muslims? Have the US attacks in Iraq and Afhghanistan - in which the overwhelming majority of the citizens are Muslims - been indiscriminately targeting all Muslims, their holy sites and shrines, etc - or is there a subset of the populations in each majority Muslim country that has been targetted, rather than the entire population? If this is a fight against Muslims that we're waging, why have there been no attacks on Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.