An Article

[Pete Vecchi]

I will make no comment on the article now, but here is the link to it:

http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/222128.php

[Ryan Scott]

I will make no comment on the article now, but here is the link to it:

http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/222128.php



Wow. I don't really feel like commenting on this because of how much in there I'd have to comment on. It's certainly not a Christian perspective, but probably one that is more rampant than I'd like.

[Bruce Carriker]

I see little point in posting a response.

[Billy Cox]

I will make no comment on the article now, but here is the link to it:

http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/222128.php

I decided some time ago that only a demagogue with an agenda would try to leverage WWII to rationalize the war in Iraq. It's like comparing apples and aircraft carriers.

I have a feeling that the same kind of arguments were made during the Vietnam War, except that the boogieman of the day was Communism.

[Pete Vecchi]

I decided some time ago that only a demagogue with an agenda would try to leverage WWII to rationalize the war in Iraq. It's like comparing apples and aircraft carriers.

I have a feeling that the same kind of arguments were made during the Vietnam War, except that the boogieman of the day was Communism.

I am not claiming to be on one side or another, but just thought that the article might be of interest.

My question is this: are there statements in the article that are untrue?

[Billy Cox]

Some of the content seemed to be lifted from another piece that was posted here as 'fact'.

The piece contains a number of falsehoods, seemingly with the goal of presenting the idea that the USA was the only nation able to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII.

Example: "Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies"

Hmmm... Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. If the article is wrong about something so easily researched, how can any aspect of it be believed?

Also, the article fudges alot of the dates and numbers:

"Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone"

The numbers, while high were maybe 1/6th of that, although much is lost in war.

"WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928."

It is certainly arguable that the prelude to WWII happened long before 1939 (German invasion of Poland), but by the same logic, one could argue that WWII started with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

The piece contains more lies than I care to refute at the moment.

[Joel Merrill]

His point seems to be that sooner or later we are going to have to go to war with these Islamic terrorist countries whether we want to or not and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I am in complete agreement with that. However, history really does repeat it's self and I don't see us going to war until we have no other choice. Then it may be too late.

After 9-11, there were signs all over the US saying, "United We Stand". That is not true. We are united on almost nothing. The sign should say, "United We Sit."

Joel

[Billy Cox]

I don't think that an eventual large scale war with Islam is inevitable.

Radical Islam is not the first ideology or power with world domination on their mind. These ambitions always fail because when push comes to shove, the free world will stand together long enough to put down such a threat.

I think we give radical Islam too much credit. The Sunni and Shiite Muslims hate each other almost as much as they hate the Great Satan. Sure, there are a few rat-hole countries in which Sharia law is the law of the land...but that's a far cry from Western Europe or Great Britain becoming an Islamist theocracy...let alone the USA.

I would even go so far as to suggest that an Islamist group with a nuclear weapon would more likely attack a secular Muslim country than to go after a harder target like the USA or Great Britain.

[Ryan Scott]

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack 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, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 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 people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. 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.

These were his given assumptions for the article. If one were to hold them true, the argument might make sense. I can't agree with either one, so it returns to an issue of debate, one that rarely results (in this case) of people changing their minds, thus making it less than fruitful in most instances.

[David Pettigrew]

Who will prevail in the Middle East? The "Inquisitionists" or the "Reformationists"?

Well, our war there has certainly boosted the "Inquisitionists" in the eyes of the common people. Their recruitment is way up. Our mishandling of the operation in Iraq has justified the fundamentalists claims about the West, as far as many Muslims over there are concerned.

Terrorism has increased several times over since the Iraq war began.

I hate the arguement that "at least we're keeping all the violence, bombings, and slaughter of innocent children over THERE." Tell that to Iraqi parents who are burying their babies. I'm sure they're happy to bear that sacrifice so our kids can run, play, and pray.

One big difference between WWII and our current conflict - ALL of the American people actually sacrificed in order to win in 1941. Sure, we could bring back rations, convert the auto factories in Detroit to turn out weapons of war, and reinstitute the draft. We'd have no problem finishing what we started over there very successfully if we did that for three to four years.

And any politician who promises as much has 0% chance of election. We're simply too comfortable to do anything but armchair quarterback or backseat drive this war.

[Bruce Carriker]

I am in complete agreement with that. However, history really does repeat it's self and I don't see us going to war until we have no other choice. Then it may be too late.

Joel

I must be getting feeble-minded in my old age. I thought we were already at war.
Or, as Dave Pettigrew correctly points out, maybe not. On a Marine bulletin board somewhere in Iraq, a Marine wrote these words:

"America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall."


In another discussion forum (link here) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=204367), that comment drew this response:

"That's not entirely true. Some Americans put yellow ribbon stickers on their SUVs and the rich/middle class are accepting grueling tax cuts."