Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IT WILL BE THE DEATH OF LIBERALISM
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | OCTOBER 10, 2004 | RAYMOND S. KRAFT

Posted on 10/09/2004 9:03:45 PM PDT by CHARLITE

It Will Be the Death of Liberalism Written by Raymond Kraft Sunday, October 10, 2004

It Will Be the Death of Liberalism

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 United States was in an isolationist and 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.

France was not an ally, for the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, for it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, for it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much of anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after World War I and throughout the depression. At the outbreak of World War II there were army soldiers training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and using cars with ''tank'' painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and 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 the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussells into rubble the next day anyway, just to prove they could.

Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its 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 and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's rear by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the United States got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million! Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the United States and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe. England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits). The United States would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

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

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling these Islamics nations weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan--paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the United Nations with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, or the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

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 today, but it is not yet known which will win--the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, or the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the United States, European, and Asian economies--the techno-industrial economies--will be at the mercy of OPEC. This is not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You 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, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th Century into the 21st Century, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and 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, the Islamic terrorist movements.

We have to do it somewhere.

We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once.

We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things:

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

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. 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.

The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms. We have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the United Nations Oil For Food Program (supervised by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese 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 America joined it. It officially ended in 1945--a 17-year war--and was followed by another decade of United States occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again--a 27-year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP--adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. World War II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $120 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,000 American lives, which is roughly 1/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.]

But the cost of not fighting and winning World War II would have been unimaginably greater: a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 30-minute television shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the people of the Inquisition, or Jihad, believe that they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

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

If the United States 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. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. 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.

4. Or 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 maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. 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.

We can be defeatist, as many Democrats and liberals, peace-activists, and anti-war types seem to be, and concede or surrender to the Jihad--or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, or 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.

In the 20th Century, it was western democracy vs. communism, and before that western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (World War I), Nazi Imperialism (World War II), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes three specious claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the United States military wanted. We went with the troop levels that General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice; we are trying to fight the 1% of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the 99% of the population that is not a threat. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile--but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not cut off the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument too, for it supposes that if we had just had ''the right plan'' the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not television!

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This, too, is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The United States and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go without hitches. This is not television.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history. The Cold War lasted from about 1947 to 1989--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 United States still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The United States has taken a little more than 1,000 Killed-in-Action (KIA) in Iraq. The United States took more than 4,000 KIA on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In World War II the United States averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of World War II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But 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, and by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

I do not understand why the American left does not grasp this. Too much television, I guess.

The liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, liberty, freedom, and all that. But not for Iraqis, I guess. In America, but nowhere else. The 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq, not our problem. The United States population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you want another country to help liberate America?

''Peace Activists'' always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so: in America. Why don't we see liberal peace activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberals are supposed to be in favor of 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. American liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

And American liberals just don't get it.

About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@vfr.net.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: allies; battleofbritain; casualties; churchill; collaborators; communist; enemies; england; fdr; french; fundamentalists; germany; imperialism; iran; iraq; islam; japan; jihadis; kia; liberalism; liberals; moscow; nazi; nuclearwar; oil; opec; pearlharbor; production; reformation; saudiarabia; stalin; stalingrad; terror; un; vichygovt; vietnamwar; wahhabism; warinpacific; wwii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2004 9:03:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us.

Not entirely accurate. US declared war on Japan on the 8th, but not on Germany till the 11th, in response to Hitler's Declaration of War on the US earlier that day.

This was solely Hitler's decision, and the US might not have gone to war with Germany without his doing so, at least not right then. After all, the Soviet Union fought Germany without fighting Japan.

2 posted on 10/09/2004 9:11:19 PM PDT by Restorer (Europe is heavily armed, but only with envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
> America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

FDR should have given more time, to bring our allies to the table. Those countries mentioned were a coalition of the coerced and bribed.

3 posted on 10/09/2004 9:11:46 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Great piece


4 posted on 10/09/2004 9:12:54 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Liberalism IS a mental disease, thanks to Gramsci, Marcuse and others from the Frankfurt School.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Good article, but I wish he had gotten this right:

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

Ireland was neutral. (England and Scotland weren't allies, the UK was.)
5 posted on 10/09/2004 9:15:33 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko (Read my flips: no new taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

As much as I agree with this premise, how do we avoid the left saying this was not the primary reason given for going to Iraq and thus this is just rationalizing?


6 posted on 10/09/2004 9:15:35 PM PDT by AJS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

"After all, the Soviet Union fought Germany without fighting Japan."

Just think, about 2 years earlier the Soviets and Germans invaded Poland together.


7 posted on 10/09/2004 9:17:23 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Liberalism IS a mental disease, thanks to Gramsci, Marcuse and others from the Frankfurt School.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Wish I could buy a full page in the NYT and WP for this.
Nice job, author.


8 posted on 10/09/2004 9:22:24 PM PDT by dasboot (<img src="XXX">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
''Peace Activists'' always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so: in America. Why don't we see liberal peace activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most? And they missed marching in the Soviet Union and have never been seen in China. Coincidence?
9 posted on 10/09/2004 9:23:32 PM PDT by L`enn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Bump-a-roo


10 posted on 10/09/2004 9:23:40 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

great article.
some minor errors, but overall a great piece.


11 posted on 10/09/2004 9:25:44 PM PDT by King Prout (yo! sKerry: "Live by the flip, die by the flop." - Frank_Discussion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

ping


12 posted on 10/09/2004 9:27:11 PM PDT by chaosagent (It's all right to be crazy. Just don't let it drive you nuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

BTTT!


13 posted on 10/09/2004 9:27:14 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

It wasn't quite that bleak. England included India (which included Pakistan) and most of Africa. And China is glaringly left out.

Most of the world was on our side.

14 posted on 10/09/2004 9:27:14 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

Not to mention the fact that Russia was still allied with Germany at that time. Also, although it may have taken longer, I think that the eventual result would have been the same. That was because the Allies controlled the seas. The author is forgetting the atom bomb. I doubt that we would have hesitated to use it on Germany to make our point.


15 posted on 10/09/2004 9:27:51 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I have heard that US combat deaths in Iraq are around 750 and the others are accidents, disease, etc., for a total of ~1,000 Also, IIRC, Germany had been part of the Tripartite (war pact treaty) and was obligated to declare war on any country that declared war on another treaty member. So in declaring war on Japan we knew that war would soon be declared on us by Germany and Italy.


16 posted on 10/09/2004 9:34:44 PM PDT by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five [my grandkids are way more important than any liberal's feelings!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
If the liberals can just get an opportunity to explain to the Jihadis that they mean them no harm. The Jihadis will leave them alone, and the liberals can pursue their American dream of free, easy access to abortions, the celebration of diversity that demands conformity, and the practice of tolerance that is intolerant of anyone not like them.

I'm sure the Jihadis will understand--don't you?

17 posted on 10/09/2004 9:36:14 PM PDT by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
FDR should have given more time, to bring our allies to the table. Those countries mentioned were a coalition of the coerced and bribed.

And Britain should not have rushed to war. Everyone should have given Hitler just one more chance. After all, we're all reasonable men but alienating Hitler might turn him into some sort of extremist. I know! Let's all sign a treaty! A really nice treaty that will have really nice promises in it! It would say really nice things about us if we were to sign such a nifty treaty. Why, we could wave this treaty around and declare "Peace in our time!" And we could feel really nice about ourselve because we signed a really nice treaty with really nice promises. Oops, been there, done that -- it didn' work. Never mind!

18 posted on 10/09/2004 9:36:28 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zip

ping


19 posted on 10/09/2004 9:37:44 PM PDT by Mrs Zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Not to mention the fact that Russia was still allied with Germany at that time.

Germany invaded Russia on June 22, 1941. On December 11, 1941, Hitler declared war on the US, which responded in kind.

The amazing thing is that a rational person would have assumed that Hitler already had his hands full. Why did he choose to take on the US while still fighting Russia?

20 posted on 10/09/2004 9:38:18 PM PDT by Restorer (Europe is heavily armed, but only with envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

BTTT


21 posted on 10/09/2004 9:39:15 PM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lainde

And again......


22 posted on 10/09/2004 9:40:27 PM PDT by Gabz (Hurricanes and Kerry/Edwards have 2 things in common - hot air and destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AJS

"As much as I agree with this premise, how do we avoid the left saying this was not the primary reason given for going to Iraq and thus this is just rationalizing?"

Not sure what "this" is, but the primary reason we went into Iraq was plain and compelling: to deny the terrorists access to WMD's believed to be available or under construction; to deny them safe haven; and to eliminate state sponsorship of terrorism in that state once and for all. GW has said this since his SOTU in January 2002.

The case for the presence of WMD's, specifically, was uniquely important in the UN, where resolutions offering international support were focussed on Saddam disarming.
The UN, remember, had no interest in fighting the WOT per se and would not have passed any resolutions based the other goals suggested. For purely domestic reasons it was thought that a full press for security council support was important, although the Bush doctine spelled out that it was not essential. The twist is that if GW were as "unilateral" as all the cowards maintain, he never would have bothered with the UN at all.

The case for instituting democracy was an outgrowth of the desire to prevent state sponsorship for terrorism in the future, to crater the rotten core of the Axis of Evil in the MidEast, and to create the conditions for peace and security for Israel.

None of this is new, and none of it is post-hoc--it has all been on the record in plain sight.


23 posted on 10/09/2004 9:41:54 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Most of the world was on our side.

Almost all of Latin America eventually joined up, although for most their actual contribution to the war effort was pretty nominal, and many of their dictators had a lot of fellow feeling for Hitler.

24 posted on 10/09/2004 9:42:10 PM PDT by Restorer (Europe is heavily armed, but only with envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Bump for later.


25 posted on 10/09/2004 9:47:09 PM PDT by jamaly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

True, also I should have noted in the earlier post that Ireland was neutral.


26 posted on 10/09/2004 9:47:20 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
After all, the Soviet Union fought Germany without fighting Japan.

Not entirely accurate.
If memory serves me right, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan before the end of hostilities in WWII.

27 posted on 10/09/2004 9:50:44 PM PDT by Publius6961 (I, also, don't do diplomacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Thanks. The key is "state sponsored". Although Democrats' spin promotes that the only issue is that we did not find the WMDs.


28 posted on 10/09/2004 9:50:47 PM PDT by AJS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
After all, the Soviet Union fought Germany without fighting Japan.

That's not entirely accurate either. Stalin declared war against Japan a week before the peace treaty was signed (between the U.S. A-bomb attacks) so he could seize the Kuriles and Sakhalin. That's when the Soviets began their big territory grab and the Cold War actually began.

29 posted on 10/09/2004 9:51:50 PM PDT by Bernard Marx (I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AJS
As much as I agree with this premise, how do we avoid the left saying this was not the primary reason given for going to Iraq and thus this is just rationalizing?

One irrelevancy at a time, please.

30 posted on 10/09/2004 9:52:25 PM PDT by Publius6961 (I, also, don't do diplomacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

August 6 - First atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

August 8 - The Soviet Union declare war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

August 9 - Second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

August 14 - Japan agrees to unconditional surrender with the understanding that the emperor Hirohito will stay.

Frankly, I don't think the USSR was a great deal of help in the war. LOL


31 posted on 10/09/2004 9:54:28 PM PDT by Restorer (Europe is heavily armed, but only with envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AJS

"Democrats' spin promotes that the only issue is that we did not find the WMDs."

That's because it's the only issue they can even dsipute. I wish the GOP and GW would lay out the evidence for Iraqi sponsorship more plainly and assertively, because it goes back to the first Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Former Clinton Mideast specialist Laurie Mylroie has a whole book on Saddam and terror, including WTC I and Bojinka, published in --1999--.


32 posted on 10/09/2004 9:56:22 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

Make that the war against Japan. The USST did more than their share against Germany.


33 posted on 10/09/2004 9:56:34 PM PDT by Restorer (Europe is heavily armed, but only with envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JellyJam

major ping for you and Mrs. JellyJam


34 posted on 10/09/2004 9:57:24 PM PDT by hemogoblin (John Kerry yearns for defeat. Let's rub his face in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
The main quality of nits and picks is that they have a qualitative value, but zero quantitatively.

Just illustrating the point...

35 posted on 10/09/2004 9:57:27 PM PDT by Publius6961 (I, also, don't do diplomacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

bump for later read.


36 posted on 10/09/2004 10:00:20 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Very good article!

There are a couple of points, however, (besides the historical errors already pointed out) which need to be brought to light:

The Jihadis cannot use the MidEast oil as their trump card.

In the first place, the MidEast is not floating on a sea of oil as most people believe. The reserve estimates are contantly being downgraded, and some countries, such as Kuwait, can see a finite end to their oil production in just a few years.

Secondly, there has never been an oil producing area in the world which could maintain production without assistance and/or technology imported from the United States. We are the world leaders in drilling and producing innovations.
The Jihadis can shut down our oil, but we can shut down the production of that oil from which they derive revenue to pursue their dreams of world conquest. It's a two edged sword.

37 posted on 10/09/2004 10:04:05 PM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
The authors ambition exceeds his grasp, and his enthusiasm exceeds the facts. This piece has several points that are in error or of dubious likelihood.

Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

Those must have been really long term plans, considering the fact that the Nazis couldn't manage to get across the English channel.

Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

More likely a cold war would have developed between the U.S. and Germany.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

While a large number of Irishmen joined the British army, Ireland itself was a neutral noncombatant.

400,000 killed in action

About 295,000 (if memory serves) were killed in action, the rest died from disease and other causes.

The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates.

For hearth, home, and relative civility! History (certainly present day Western history) is also about barbarians within the gates.

Western democracy vs. German Imperialism.

Well, yes, if you don't count British, French and Russian imperialism (and Russian monarchism). I won't mention the minor role of the Japanese.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. 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. . . 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.

And how, dear boy, will they accomplish that? With truck bombs? How will the war on terrorists stop Europe from going Muslim? The only way either Europe or America will ever go Muslim is by immigration preceded by cultural self-destruction. Immigration policy into the West isn't set by militant jihadists. But it takes guts to risk being called a racist for opposing multiculturalism and multiracialism. As I said on another post "colonization is final and fatal. That's why I prefer Muslim terrorists in the West to Muslim immigrants, they're far less deadly."

More generally, there is no clash of civilizations here, the Arabs don't have the power to be a threat and this constant comparison between the present unpleasantness in the Middle-East and WW2 or the cold war is absurd. This longing for a foreign enemy stems from domestic cultural and political failure.

38 posted on 10/09/2004 10:16:40 PM PDT by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Good points buzzard boy!
seems we got a knot of thinkers around akron after all!


39 posted on 10/09/2004 10:20:54 PM PDT by Edgerunner (If kerry gets elected, he will be impeached within a year...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
I do not understand why the American left does not grasp this.

I hate to say that Kerry and Kennedy will need to take a seat with Kofi Annan.I think they know what is going on.

Furthermore the Elite Media is complicit in the charade either willingly or not.

40 posted on 10/09/2004 10:29:46 PM PDT by Helms (nu-ance : [ from KERRY French, from nuer, to Shade the Truth via Language and Subvert Reality])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Great Read Bump.


41 posted on 10/09/2004 10:47:27 PM PDT by Joe_October (Saddam supported Terrorists. Al Qaeda are Terrorists. I can't find the link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

Bump


42 posted on 10/09/2004 11:44:15 PM PDT by VNam68 (Proud Vietnam Vet AGAINST John Kerry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jordan8

Excellent critique. I might add: Where are all of the Islamic "reformers" the author refers to? He mentions Saudi Arabia as one. That's crazy. I wonder if Mr. Kraft can tell us how many Christian churches exist in the Magic Kingdom he lists as an example of the new, tolerant Islam (where Sharia is the law). Hmmmm, I belive that anwer would be ...ZERO. The Wahabis ARE (in a strict sense) the reformers - the ones who are most truthful to the original Muslim scriptures. While some Muslims are liberal (in the sense that they don't take the Sharia and Jihad commandments seriously), a very significant number - perhaps even the majority - are in essential agreement with the Wahabis, who operate out of the oh-so-moderate Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and control 80% of the Mosques in the USA alone.

Though the Islamists are a grave threat indeed, the leftists who run every major institution in the West are a far graver threat. They are the ones importing millions of "religion of peace" types into Europe. They are the ones who promote the poison of multiculturalism, feminism and all the rest - making sure the new religion is pounded into the heads of every child in the government school gulag. The West is rotting from the inside, even here in the USA. Most Western nations are populated by brainwashed, stupefied Kool-Aid drinkers who dutifully vote as instructed by the Quislings in charge and their media shills. Just take a look at Europe and Canada to see it all inaction. If Jean Francois and his criminal friends steal the election here, we will follow suit.


43 posted on 10/09/2004 11:53:56 PM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Good read. It reinforces President Bush's point that terrorist have to have state sponsors to pose an international threat.

If we can keep the Islamofacists from dominating even one nation we have kept them from dominating the world.

Eventually their failures will demonstrate the falsity of their radical beliefs even to their devotees. This war can be won.

44 posted on 10/09/2004 11:54:34 PM PDT by bayourod (Even security moms should now know that you can't lead while waffling and calling Iraq the wrong war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

Hmmmm? I don't think it was called the UK at the time. Britain and Scotland were called just that .. Britain and Scotland. IIRC the title UK came about sometime after the war .. maybe in the 50's ..??

WOW! Only 5 allies .. how would we dare face Japan AND Germany with only 5 allies .. amazing .. FDR should have brought more allies to the table ..! [sarcasm]


45 posted on 10/10/2004 12:51:29 AM PDT by CyberAnt (Sen.Miller said, "Bush is a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Overall, quite good. Contains several interesting talking points


46 posted on 10/10/2004 12:58:41 AM PDT by tarawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Good article.


47 posted on 10/10/2004 1:04:57 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Good article.


48 posted on 10/10/2004 1:04:59 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Excellent.


49 posted on 10/10/2004 1:20:08 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
American liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

No schumer, Sherlock. They're too stupid to realize that their granddaughters (if we're unlucky enough that they manage to breed some) will end up female slaves of Islam.

Reminds me of Jews who support gun control - if they ever had any brains, they checked them at the door...

50 posted on 10/10/2004 1:22:31 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson