Sender: 1.0 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <5f7848e2ce5b39f604b07aee9711bd93 &AElig umich.edu>
References: <56e157e80611090727m65a89588w998d3d73470e3f04 &AElig mail.gmail.com> <5f7848e2ce5b39f604b07aee9711bd93 &AElig umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <697DC6A3-7626-4FEA-A51D-EA2E73EE5B12 &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:53:05 -0500
To: Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Robert Felty <robfelty &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Please write a counter-essay
Status: O

My thoughts:

While some of the "facts" mentioned in this essay are mostly true  
according to my knowledge of WWII, I think Dave makes some good  
points about how the two "wars" are different. I would say that if  
one wants to compare the current war (in Iraq) with previous wars,  
the resemblance to Vietnam is much closer. In both cases we invaded a  
country that did not attack us directly, in the name of spreading  
democracy (or containing dictatorships - in Vietnam it was Communism,  
in Iraq it was just a blatant dictatorship). And in both cases, the  
war was a lot more difficult than we thought at the beginning. In the  
case of Vietnam, we withdrew without really "winning", and we likely  
have to do the same thing in Iraq.

If one wants to make comparisons to WWII, I think the war in Iraq  
under Bush Sr. makes a much better comparison. A fairly  
industrialized country with a large army (Iraq -- compare to Germany  
in 1939) attacked a  virtually defenseless country (Kuwait -- compare  
to Poland in 1939). In both cases the defenseless country gave up  
with virtually no fight. But there is one big difference. In 1939, no  
one did anything about it. I think we learned that lesson. In August  
1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United Nations imposed immediate  
sanctions, and by January 1991, a military initiative began [1]. We  
learned the lesson from WWII. Don't let scary people just take over  
countries nilly-willy. It seems that we have not learned a lesson  
from Vietnam though. Here are the lessons I think we should have  
learned from both of these wars:

-- Don't attack countries because they seem to have different ideas  
than us (e.g. maybe a country wants to have a socialist government,  
or maybe they have a different religion than us). 

-- Don't attack countries who might be thinking about doing something  
bad, or building bombs

-- Don't attack countries just because they want to join the nuclear  
club (by the way, was there any talk about invading India or Pakistan  
when they joined the club a few years ago)

-- Do be willing to take a strong stance on countries trying to take  
over other countries, including taking military action (like the Gulf  
war)

-- Do take action swiftly and with the support of many nations (like  
the Gulf war)

And most importantly, when writing an essay with a bunch of "facts",  
cite your sources. (I don't know what happened in 1928 [2], anyone?  
The Beerhall Putsch was in 1923, and Hitler gained power in 1933. The  
"Anschluss" (unification) happend in 1938 [4]. Could the author  
actually be referring to this event, and made a gross typo?)

Rob

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_hall_putsch
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#World_War_II
On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Dave Morris wrote:

> A few knee jerk thoughts:
>
> Japan & Germany were advanced industrialized nations, Al Qaeda  
> operatives live in caves and mud huts. The comparison of the  
> potential spread of the axis to the potential spread of al qaida is  
> ludicrous.
> Axis fought for land and resources. Terrorists fight over ideas  
> using hatred and violence. You can defend the former with military  
> strength. Fighting ideas with your own hatred and violence only  
> makes them stronger.
> Terrorism is criminal act by loosely organized individuals, not a  
> coherent overall enemy. It can only be fought by a) isolating and  
> removing individual criminals, and b) reducing the conditions that  
> cause people to become criminals. This is how we fight crime in  
> this country, and how it is fought around the world. Using our army  
> to invade a sovereign nation does pretty much the opposite of both  
> of these. If we used our army to fight crime here in this country,  
> I predict that you would you see terrorism on a scale that makes  
> Iraq look like child's play.
>
> I don't think the person who wrote this actually read a textbook. I  
> look forward to reading textbooks about this "war" 25 years from  
> now, it'll be interesting to see how actual historians compare them.
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Christine Kapusky wrote:
>
>> I received this from my family and am still trying to figure out  
>> who the author is and where they got their information...it scares  
>> me that this is circulating...
>>
>> THIS IS HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF OUR TEXTBOOKS. MOST OF  
>> YOU ARE
>> >NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA  
>> WAS GROSSLY
>> >AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF  
>> MEAT, SHOES,
>> >GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED  
>> LIMIT OF 35
>> >MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD. NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES.  
>> READ THIS
>> >AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY  
>> FOREIGNERS IN
>> >2007.
>> >
>> >This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented.
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most
>> >Americans wanted nothing to do with the European 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 yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.  
>> France
>> >was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly  
>> aligned itself
>> >with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as  
>> Hitler was
>> >intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was  
>> not an
>> >ally as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of  
>> Asia.
>> >
>> >Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading  
>> Canada and
>> >Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our  
>> northern
>> >and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia  
>> and
>> >Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland,  
>> Scotland, Canada,
>> >Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from  
>> Norway to
>> >Italy, except
>> >Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.
>> >
>> >America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically
>> >downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the
>> >depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were  
>> training with
>> >broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank"  
>> painted on
>> >the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk  
>> of our navy
>> >had just been sunk or 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 actually  
>> the
>> >property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the  
>> war when
>> >Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). 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 just to
>> >prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two  
>> years in the
>> >face of staggering losses 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 first turning his  
>> attention to
>> >Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in  
>> the late
>> >summer of 1940.
>> >
>> >Ironically, Russia saved America's tail 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 alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly  
>> civilians,
>> >but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers. Had Russia surrendered,  
>> Hitler
>> >would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the  
>> Brits, then
>> >America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
>> >
>> >All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are  
>> often dicey
>> >things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key  
>> moments in
>> >history. 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.
>>  >
>> >The Jihads, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in  
>> Kaffiyahs -- they
>> >believe that Islam, a radically conservative 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 their will of thinking should be killed,
>> >enslaved, or
>> >subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel,  
>> and purge
>> >the world of Jews. This is their mantra.
>> >
>> >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, but it is not known yet which will win --the  
>> Inquisitors, or
>> >the Reformationists.
>> >
>> >If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihads, will  
>> control the
>> >Middle East, 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 educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC  
>> dominated
>> >by the Jihads. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil  
>> next winter?
>> >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 and the
>> >Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we  
>> can't do it
>> >everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle  
>> at a time
>> >and place of our choosing........in Iraq. Not in New York, not in  
>> London,
>> >or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two 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 a 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  
>> 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.
>> >
>> >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 $160 billion, which  
>> is roughly
>> >what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American  
>> lives, which
>> >is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on  
>> 9/11.  But the
>> >cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been  
>> unimaginably greater
>> >-- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.
>> >
>> >This is not 60 minute 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.
>> >
>> >The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic  
>> terrorism until
>> >we defeat it, whenever that is. 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
>> >barbaric are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody  
>> prevents them.
>> >
>> >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, of
>> >course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >The history of the world is the history of civilization 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.
>> >
>> >Remember, perspective is every thing, 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. WWII 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
>> >killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in  
>> action on
>> >the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day 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).
>> >
>> >It's difficult to understand why some Americans do not grasp  
>> this. They
>>  >favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but  
>> evidently not
>> >for Iraqis.
>> >
>> >"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America,  
>> where it's
>> >safe. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran,  
>> Syria, Iraq,
>> >Sudan, North Korea, in the places 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> -- 
>> Fortune cookie gems:
>> "Creating is the greatest proof of being alive."
>>
>> "Sometimes the best choice is to choose all options."
>> ~ck~
>>
> David P. Morris, PhD
> Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
> morris &AElig edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235
>
>
>