Skip to comments.Why Are We In Iraq?
Posted on 05/17/2006 6:49:36 PM PDT by FARS
A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:
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.
France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, 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, New Zealand, 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 or 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 WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and 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 in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels 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 butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24 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 US 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 US 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 and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.
France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.
The Jihadis, 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, 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, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the 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, 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 undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, 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 European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. 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 UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN 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 US 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, WWII 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 US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII 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 1 hour TV 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. 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 Inquisition, or Jihad, believes 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 US 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 peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, 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, 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 (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), 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 3 scary claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels 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 minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. 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 amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.
2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.
This is a specious argument. 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 TV.
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 US 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 with no hitches. This is not TV.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3-years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII 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, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.
300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US 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 hope for another country to help liberate America?
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
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.
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.
If the stakes for world peace weren't so high I'd genuinely love to throw the whole thing to the EU with a "Negotiate this, guys, and call us when Tehran can hit New York." With sad regards to my friends in Europe, yes, that's what decades of incessant anti-Americanism have brought, and yes, a lot of Americans and not all of them conservatives, really do feel that way.
By then Iran will also be able to hit Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the Ukraine. I mention those countries in particular because they've all lost people supporting us in Iraq. So, for that matter, has Spain, its pullout and its current government of backstabbing Socialist twits despite. And others who have sent people include the Czech Republic, Armenia, Macedonia, Estonia, and Norway. So before we go through the "Europeans hate us" mantra we'd better remember that it's only the ones with the biggest mouths.
In the meantime, too, we would be dealing with the blows and buffets of the Iran oil weapon - their Oil Exchange - which is coming on line in July.
Very well laid out case IMO.
If you're trying to make a point with an extended comparison to WWII, it helps your credibility if the historical narrative is not riddled with errors.
I agree with the sentiment of the article. One glaring error was that Ireland remained neutral in World War II. De Valera, of course like the rest of the IRA, had no use for the British and believed their defeat would gain the Irish the North.
He may be a Writer and Lawyer but he's a pretty lousy WW2 historian.
"if the historical narrative is not riddled with errors."
I don't see much of an analogy.
Put it this way, it would be less time consuming to point out the facts he stated correctly than those stated incorrectly.
Another glaring error that comes to mind is the assertion that none of America's allies could produce enough matériel for themselves. Canada bought arms from the USA but we exported far more than we imported, and Canada was Britain's lifeline in 1940-41.
Germany declared war on us first. Do not even have to read any more of this article if the author gets that fact wrong.
Please point out errors.
"I ran with Hitler!"
Is that what happened?
Pretty good article for family and friends who don't get it.
Troop supporters FYI ping.
Um no. Leningrad was indeed beseiged, for 2 years. A million dead in that. Stalingrad was not beseiged but assaulted and taken, but almost a year after US entry. Mocsow wasn't beseiged at all, unless you count large battles named after it 50 to 200 miles shy of it. And it was soldiers who bore the brunt in both of those.
The Russians lost 7 million men from the military, and 2 to 3 times that from civilians. But no it wasn't the cold. It was Germans, especially in the occupied areas. Ukraine was systematically starved as agricultural production was forcably taken and used for the occupiers or shipped to Germany.
It is true Russian domestic product fell 40% because so much of the country was occupied, and much of what remained had to go into armaments. That killed off some of the old and frail, because it reduced civilian rations to about 1200 calories a day. Try it, it is an effective diet if you can stick to it, you will lose 3-4 pounds a week. If you aren't overweight you will find it a trifle uncomfortable after a bit. Now try it for 2-4 years.
Just for starters. The article is a silly comparison based on half digested, incomplete history.
Um, the wars of the French revolution and Napoleonic wars combined, to take it in the broadest sense, indeed lasted a generation, but ended in 1815. 15 is not 50.
This guy better pick up a history book, Ireland was a neutral contry throughout WW II.
World War II began in 1928
No, it began on September 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Most of the figures and dates in this thing are wrong.
Do you really not see the errors?
I don't think it's Catholic bashing. I think it's history.
The Roman Catholic church was pretty corrupt at that time in history, and it has since then reformed itself.
That's human nature. We are sinful by nature and the institutions we run can be corrupted by our sin.
Just like the pedophilia and homosexual scandals lately in the Roman Catholic church, corruption does creep in to all institutions, and they all have to be swept clean from time to time.
I would also appreciate your pointing out the errors. I've read more about WWII than most Americans and would appreciate accuracy if you can supply it.
Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
That always makes me pissed off to hear that.
Thanks for the help in fighting your naighbor Japan Russia. You helped save America butt by declaring war on Japan AUG 8th 1945.
That is not even a joke.
Iran is now completely encircled.
The Persian people need to act.
I am coping this out and carring it with me, whenever some idiot says something...I will give it to them!!!!!!
The reformation was not a garden tea party. It killed 30% of the population of central Europe. Every leader involved, including the so-called "reformers", can be found in print urging that his opponents be exterminated in the name of God.
Germany could not have successfully invaded Britain. They had no means to do it. They didn't have a Navy, despite Britain's loss of ships to stop them. They did not have sufficient landing craft. Hitler was not a Navy man. He was an Army man. And in the end, he did not invade Britain because he simply did not have the resources to pull it off. Also, Churchill said, in his memoirs, that Britain would have used gas to stop an amphibious attack by Germany. It would have worked. So, we can rewrite the history books, but things happened as they were planned to happen. The Allies won,and Germany lost..primarily because it lacked balanced military might.
This article reads like something I'd find in a high school newspaper.
If you were to go and get one of those books you've read, would it say that Japan invaded Manchuria in 1928?
Would it say that the U.S. declared war on Germany the day after declaring war on Japan?
Would it say that Ireland was one of our allies?
Would it say that Japan & Germany had plans to invade the continental United States?
Is that what happened?
We didn't declare war on Germany until after they declared war on us, on December 11, 1941. That would have been 3 days later.
Thanks for the article. I took it to be very interesting and the comparisons with WWII was especially good. I am not a Historian, but still enjoyed the article, even though he may have been off on some of the facts. If, in fact he was.
Um, that's the point I was trying to make.
It is ungrateful not to mention the losses that Russia suffered in WWII. Granted they were fighting for their own rear ends, but their sacrifices did buy us time, because they bought England time.
It was dicey enough landing in Normandy, France, with England as the staging area. Without England, I can't imagine what we would have done. Where would we have flown bombing missions from if we didn't have England?
And buying time for us, the Russians gave us time to build The Bomb. It was originally intended for Hilter, but became very useful in ending WWII in the Pacific Theatre and probably saved hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives and probably over a million Japanese lives.
Yes, we all know about Russia declaring war on Japan after The Bomb was dropped. And about a lot else, which is why we fought a "cold" war with for half a century after WWII.
And now we face a kind of return of Napoleon from Elba in Putin's hand in glove alliances with all our enemies in the Middle East and Asia.
So, I have no blinkers on about Russia. But they did buy England and thus the U.S. time.
Um, then you should make your points as statements, instead of questions.
I'm not even sure it rises to that level. If a high school student turned this in, he would get it back covered in red ink.
I'm not even sure it rises to that level. If a high school student turned this in, he would get it back covered in red ink.
Here's the other reason posted ealier today on FR for why we are there.
Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi Talks of America's Annihilation and the Muslim World Conquest
Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi Talks of America's Annihilation and the Muslim Conquest of the World; Declares Support for Nuclear Bombs for Muslim and Arab Countries
"The Mujahid Iraqi People... Has Shattered the American Plan, Not Only in the Region, but Throughout the World"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "Jihad in Islam, from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence, is of two types: jihad initiated by the Muslims, which means raiding the world in order to spread the word that 'there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah' throughout the world. But this raid will not materialize in our era - the era of barbaric American capitalistic globalism - unless the Infallible, peace be upon him, is present.
"But there are jurisprudents, both Sunnis and Twelver Shi'ites, who have said that the presence of the Infallible is not a prerequisite. If the objective and subjective circumstances materialize, and there are soldiers, weapons, and money - even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons - we will conquer the world, so that 'There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah' will be triumphant over the domes of Moscow, Washington, and Paris."
"But as for defensive Jihad - it is not conditional upon turning to a Sunni or Shi'ite jurisprudent, to a source of authority, to any Islamic school of thought, or to Islamic party, because this type of Jihad is an individual duty. Everyone must fight - children, women, the elderly, the youth - in order to liberate man, to liberate mankind, in order to liberate Palestine in its entirety, in order to liberate Iraq from the American-Zionist-British presence.
"Wielding the guns of battle is the only way to liberate this nation. By Allah, if not for the resolute stand and the resistance of our people in Iraq, the entire region would have fallen, and would have turned into warring and feuding cantons and mini-states, ravaged by wars between different ethnic groups and religious schools of thought. But the mujahid Iraqi people of the resistance has shattered the American plan, not only in the region but throughout the world, because Europe and the Russian federation were humiliated. They are afraid of America. But we stand firm, and we unite, and if we begin to believe in the diverse Arab Islamic Islam, we will annihilate America."
"The Coming Year Will Witness the Defeat of the Americans, Their Lackeys, and Those Who Rolled in on the American Tanks"
Interviewer: "How do you view Iraq's future, both in the short and long term?"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "I say that the coming year will witness the defeat of the Americans, their lackeys, and those who rolled in on the American tanks, because the operations are escalating. There are some dubious TV channels that broadcast an item or two about them, whereas other operations are not reported at all."
"The Americans have fallen into the Iraqi quagmire. The Americans are extremely conceited. They do not give the Palestinians or the Iraqis their rights. He who came by force must be removed by force, and by armed struggle. That is the only way to liberate the Iraqi and Palestinian land and people. The solutions of submission and peace are not permitted from the Islamic perspective, or even from the perspective of international law."
"It is in the best interest of America to get out of Iraq, in a transparent and objective manner. But now, they are defeated, and the number of American casualties is much greater than the figures reported on TV.
"Let me tell you a secret. When an American tank blows up, they come straight away, clean up the blood, and haul away the tank quickly, in order to cover it up, so that no TV channel will arrive and film the tragic pictures."
"Car Bomb Attacks are Carried Out by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, in Purely Shi'ite Areas as Well as in Purely Sunni Areas"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "Car bomb attacks are carried out by the Israeli Mossad and by the CIA in purely Shi'ite areas, as well as in purely Sunni areas. Hence, this is not a sectarian issue, as has been claimed in order to distort the image of the resistance. These car bombs and explosives belts, in Shi'ite religious centers, in mosques, and in churches, are all a game, planned by the Americans, in order to distort the image of the national and Islamic resistance.
"The Americans should know that the resistance will continue as long as the occupation continues. The Americans themselves are the terrorists, and not the resistance, as claimed by the Americans and their collaborators."
The American Administration "Has No Love at All for the American People, Let Alone Other, Oppressed, Peoples"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "When the former U.S.S.R. fell, the Americans became conceited, believing that they had become the only world power that rules in the region. Thus, the American destruction continues, not only against the Arab and Islamic people, but also against Europe, and even against the American people itself. The American administration is 100 percent pro-Zionist. It has no love at all for the American people, let alone the other, oppressed, peoples.
"As for the nuclear bomb, it has caused the Americans some contradictions. They are one big contradiction. Didn't they annihilate... They claim that democracy, liberty, and reform are a historical necessity for backward societies, and so on.
"But in America itself, if you ask the current president to list the states - he doesn't know them. In America, there is hunger, poverty, and disease in certain states, but not in others. That is one thing.
"In America, they annihilated millions of Indians. What democracy? In their own country there is no democracy. There is a rule of two main parties, which are assigned roles by global Zionism. So how can the so-called developing countries, Third World countries, or the poor countries, produce a nuclear bomb? They find themselves in terrible contradictions."
"This Arab Islamic Nation Must Obtain a Nuclear Bomb"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "How can they face Iran? How come Israel has 50 nuclear bombs? Why are they selective? Why shouldn't an Islamic or Arab country have a nuclear bomb? I am not referring to the Iranian program, which the Iranians say is for peaceful purposes. I am talking about a nuclear bomb.
"This Arab Islamic nation must obtain a nuclear bomb. Without a nuclear bomb, we will continue to be oppressed, and the American destruction... The American donkeyness... The American donkey itself will always continue to attack us, because the Americans are very conceited."
"The American soldier is haunted by anxiety and fear. Some have been afflicted with mental illness. This is in addition to the wounded and the dead - beyond the figures issued by the American Department of Defense. The opposite is true.
"The Americans can be divided into two. One part includes people of various nationalities, who are not American. When they are killed, they are not included in the list of casualties. Only when it is someone with American citizenship and of American origin do they include him, out of fear of his family. But those foundlings brought by the Americans from Eastern and Western Europe - they joined the American army, but are not true Americans."
"It is inconceivable that the Arab mujahideen or the Iraqi resistance would kill children, women, and men. The resistance targets American tanks and bases. Those operations are carried out by the American CIA and fifth column.
"Let me tell you a secret. According to the notorious Iraqi Liberation Act, which was enacted in 1998, 12,000 Iraqis were conscripted from among the expatriates. They joined [the American army] for two years, receiving fantastic salaries. After two years, they were given courses in spying and sabotage, and then they rolled in on the American tanks. Today, next to every minister, prime minister, or deputy prime minister, there is a spy. Some of those officials are collaborators themselves, yet they are assigned a spy, because the Americans do not trust the Iraqis."
"The Americans are the Ones Doing the Killing in the So-Called Sunni Triangle"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "When a car goes from Al-Hila to Al-Latifiya, for example, in the so-called Sunni Triangle, an American convoy shows up and directs them to a side route, and then some masked people arrive and kill them. Why do they kill them? Because they curse Ali. In the car there are Shi'ites and Sunnis... I have reservations about the terms 'Shi'ite' and 'Sunni,' but forgive me this time..."
Interviewer: "Yes, but that's the reality."
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "There is no choice but to say that. They order them to curse Ali. The Shi'ites are allowed to curse Ali, who said: 'Curse me, but do not abandon me.' Therefore, a Shi'ite may curse the Imam Ali, but a Sunni will never curse Ali, because he is one of the righteous Caliphs... So they kill the Sunni, who refuses to curse Ali, because they think he is a Shi'ite.
"After this indiscriminate shooting on the car, while the people are hovering between life and death - the masks are removed, and it turns out that it was a female American soldier, conducting the interrogation with the help of an interpreter.
"The Americans are the ones who are doing the killing in the so-called Sunni Triangle, or in Al-Latifiya."
"These collaborators and America should know that I support the resistance. I will fight the American tanks alongside the resistance, because the Iraqi people is an Arab Islamic people that will not accept the rule of an infidel over a Muslim. Never."
"In the black constitution, it is stated that the religion of the state is Islam, and that all the legislative principles are derived from the original Islamic legislation. It is written in the constitution. That's the first clause."
"Whoever Marries Someone of the Same Sex Must Be Killed"
Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi: "The second clause says no law may contradict the principles of democracy. Can you imagine millions demonstrating in Iraq, calling for same-sex marriage, like in Sweden, America, and Britain? Same-sex marriages means a marriage of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman. This is a terrible catastrophe, totally forbidden by Islam. Whoever marries someone of the same sex must be killed. Both must be killed as soon as possible and must be burned as well."
Secondly, the declaration of war was nothing more than a formal acknowledgement of something that had been going on for quite some time already. The U.S. was effectively at war with Germany long before December of 1941.
I also think the author's musings about the grand plans of Japan and Germany for North American conquest are pretty silly. Neither of those countries was remotely capable of even launching a single airstrike against targets in the U.S. at the time, let alone massing and transporting enough troops to occupy a country that was basically ungovernable at the time.
I thought anyone that had bothered to read the post to which I was responding would realize it was a rhetorical question.
Evidently, I was wrong.
Thanks for the input though, I appreciate the advice.
It is ungrateful to bash the US for taking two years fighting in the Pacific before we could start another front. If it was so easy why didn't Russia fight on two fronts?
"Iran is now completely encircled. The Persian people need to act."
And now with much of America's industrial might being shipped overseas and offshore in the name of corporate profits, can we as a nation sustain the intensity necessary to produce the defensive and offensive weapons necessary to rescue other nations from being overrun by islam?
We should look very closely into our ability to wage a full scale war, starting with our oil imports. Inadequate oil supply is what caused Hitler to expand his occupation to the mid east and north Africa. Inadequate oil supply led to the defeat of Hitler because of the long supply line. We are in deep doo doo if we lose even a small percentage of our oil imports. Not just our ability to wage war, but our economy that pays the taxes to support a war.
In economic terms, victory in Iraq is small change compared to a continental conflict. The writer may have a few errors in his historical fact. But the general overview and comparisons of then and now are very realistic.
There was a peasant revolt against the Church of Rome (as the peasants felt the Church was part of the establishment keeping them in poverty) and there was a political revolt by people in power in countries outside Italy against domination of their governments and monarchies by the Church of Rome.
These are the underpinnings of the "Reformation." There probably wouldn't have been a Reformation if the Roman Catholic church at that time hadn't wanted political domination and not wanted to repress dissenting views. It is in many ways similar to the problems Islam is having today.
Yes, there was a slaughter. I believe Martin Luther condemned taking arms against established authority, and thus ruling authorities in Germany felt free to put down their peasant revolt. And for this reason his reformation was rejected in those parts of Germany-Austria where the slaughter occurred.
If you have writings of Martin Luther urging physical extermination (death) for his opponents, I'd be interested in a citation. There was a supposed proponent of Luther's who was very blood thirsty, but he was renounced by Luther, IIRC.
I cannot edit other people's writing. The point here is not whether WWII started in 1939 or not but the parallel of how we are dealing with Iran and how we dealt with HItler. Exact dates or details are irrlevant. This was not a history lesson, it was a philisophical presentation that points to how we once again embrace a dangerous maniac without fully understanding the depth of th threat.
Exact dates or the tiny role of Ireland are nit-picking details good for academic argument not an insight into the similarities of then and now.
Rushing to criticize details ends in you not seeing the forest for the trees or perhaps the other way round in this instance.
Evidently not, but at least you don't pass up a chance to be snotty.
Don't forget The CBI (China-Burma-India) theater as well.
That was well under way before we even thought about europe.
I'm not being snotty. Its just what I thought. I'm admitting that I was wrong.
Again, thanks for the advice. I'll be more cafeful next time.
No problem. I honestly thought I was answering your question. No harm intended.
If the author can't be bothered to use accurate facts when discussing WWII, why should I believe he's being accurate when he discusses Iran?