More important than Party Politics!!!!!!!

[CalHunter]

I received this from a relative and thought there was a lot of truth in this. What does everyone else think?

Subject: More important than Party Politics!!!!!!!

From a trusted member of the Assn of Former Intelligence Officers.... who thinks clearly beyond politics to forthright appraisals of situations. This is important reading because it gives us a valid overview... from a one astute person's view ... that enables us to better understand what many in the media and politicians on both sides seem to ignore or neglect.
************************************************** *******************

THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.


Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and
even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001, there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [6]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,

Dad

[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a "œcold war"� with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.

[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.

[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html

[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)

[6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.

[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.

[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

~<>~

[strut]

WOW, as always CalHunter, another great post.

[JagMagMan]

Well thought out, and completely true!
This is why I strongly believe that we should stay the course with President Bush! Heinz will not be strong on terrorism and if he is able, he is going to give our soverenty to the UN!
As this article said, they want us dead! Not just quiet!
If GWB or Heinz gives in to the terrorists, we may get a few months, or a year, or so of quiet, then after we roll over and go back to sleep they will attack us hard!

[akbound]

CalHunter,

Thanks for the article. It's a shame how few will take the time to read it and how fewer still will give it a critical evaluation or consideration. I only hope that we are starting to reverse the decades long trend of apathy and ignorance in this society. (But don't ask me to hold my breath!)

Dave

[CalHunter]

I was extremely impressed with the article and unknown author's insight, wisdom and analysis. I was reading the NY Times headline articles this morning and came across an article about Kerry, Edwards and the Iraqi war. As I read the article, I couldn't help but note the difference between Edwards and the attorney who wrote the original article I posted in this topic (see below article from the NYT). I also noticed that neither Kerry nor Edwards were willing to say what they would have done different instead of Bush and that neither has any apparent plan on how to resolve the Iraqi situation, other than Kerry wants to apparently turn it over to the UN.

I have a problem with Kerry's fondness or predisposition to turn over America's sovereighnty and warmaking decisions to the UN. 1st, I don't think we should allow a corrupt world organization to dictate American politics and how we manage or handle threats to the U.S. or our citizens. 2nd, what has the UN done in its' entire history that is so wonderful or well done?? Yes, they helped create Israel and then they seemed to be overcome by corruption after that and have gone downhill ever since.

ThUN's record on human rights abuses is atrocious and they have the audacity to put the worst offending nations in charge of those very committees. The UN cobbles together disparate and dysfunctional forces and appears incapable of providing peace in any region it sends troops to. Its' "weapons inspectors" are an absolute joke and serve little purpose other than as a facade or disingenuous illusion of accomplishing something. In short, the UN is nothing more than a political animal which is far more concerned about politics than in accomplishing anything worhtwhile and is led by corrupt and incompetent people who accomplish little to nothing important or worthwhile. Anybody who seriously suggests the Un be responsible for resolving any conflict is either ignorant of their incompetence, just plain stupid or some of both.

The presumptive Democratic candidates for president and vice president, in a 30-minute joint interview given after the release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report challenging the prewar Iraq intelligence, said Mr. Bush's policies abroad had probably increased, rather than decreased, the prospects of domestic terrorist attacks.

And they said the discrediting of much of Mr. Bush's case for going to war had fed cynicism toward government by young Americans, reminiscent of the mistrust of authority that swept the country when Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry came of age during the Vietnam War.

"They were wrong and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong," Mr. Kerry said as Mr. Edwards, in an adjacent seat in the front of their chartered Boeing 757 jet, nodded in agreement. "And America's paying billions of dollars because they were wrong. And allies are not with us because they were wrong."

Mr. Edwards said, "My view is that what George Bush has done in Iraq, both in the lead-up to the war and more importantly his planning for winning the peace, has cost America dearly, and cost the possibility of success dearly."

The interview was one of several the two candidates granted on Friday, under strict time limitations.

While the two men said they had discussed the crisis in Iraq in their frequent talks leading to Mr. Kerry's decision this week to choose Mr. Edwards, they did not offer any ideas about what the United States should do to end the war beyond what they had previously called for: enlisting the help of allies and the United Nations.

Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry voted for the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war. In the interview, they declined to say whether they agreed with other pro-war Democratic senators who said on Friday that they would have voted against the resolution had they known then what was contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

"I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this," Mr. Edwards said.

Mr. Kerry said: "The vote is not today and that's it. I completely agree with John Edwards."

Mr. Bush's campaign spokesman, Steve Schmidt, dismissed the criticism, noting that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards had both been early supporters of the war.

"Senator Kerry's position on the war has changed on an almost weekly basis," Mr. Schmidt said. "He voted for the war citing connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. Less than a year later he was an antiwar candidate.

"Senator Kerry has displayed a stunning lack of conviction and a stunning lack of decisiveness at turn regarding the war on terror," Mr. Schmidt continued. "It says a lot about John Kerry's priorities that he doesn't have time to receive his intelligence briefing about threats facing America but does have time to attend a Hollywood fund-raiser."

Mr. Kerry's aides said that he was returning to Boston on Sunday a day ahead of schedule to receive the national security briefing.

The interview was part of a meticulously orchestrated news media rollout of the Democratic ticket. It was one of at least nine joint interviews Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards have conducted in the past few days with newspapers, news services and magazines, all embargoed for a Sunday release that would coincide with the pair's appearance on the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Mr. Edwards said, "My view is that what George Bush has done in Iraq, both in the lead-up to the war and more importantly his planning for winning the peace, has cost America dearly, and cost the possibility of success dearly."

While not perfect nor nearly done, President Bush has made huge strides in making our country safer and in upgrading our country's security. There is still a lot of work to be done but we do live in a safer world compared to clinton's presidency. While many nations may be opposed to us (and they always were), we are not viewed as a paper tiger anymore and other rogue nations have decided to lower their profiles and exposure towards the U.S. Edwards' comments just illustrate how little he knows and understands about foreign policy and war.

While the two men said they had discussed the crisis in Iraq in their frequent talks leading to Mr. Kerry's decision this week to choose Mr. Edwards, they did not offer any ideas about what the United States should do to end the war beyond what they had previously called for: enlisting the help of allies and the United Nations.

Why should anybody vote for either man if they have no plans or solutions to what they say are problems???

Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry voted for the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war. In the interview, they declined to say whether they agreed with other pro-war Democratic senators who said on Friday that they would have voted against the resolution had they known then what was contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

"I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this," Mr. Edwards said.

Mr. Kerry said: "The vote is not today and that's it. I completely agree with John Edwards."

More fence sitting and waiting to do the finger in the wind trick to see which way they should go. Kerry doesn't have a poll so he doesn't know what to say. Same for Edwards. Neither of these guys has shown me any reason whatsoever to vote for them or conclude that they would be effective as President and Vice-President of our country.

[Dave590]

I almost feel guilty posting such a short reply behind such well thought out posts. But I am convinced that folks either "get it" or they don't. And at this point in the game, they have either already "gotten it" or they never will.

[CalHunter]

Don't feel guilty at all Dave. There are many people on this board who have loved ones who served or are serving in Iraq. I figured they would appreciate this article. There are many others on here who also would appreciate the article. I posted these articles for people to read, think about and comment on if they felt like doing so. You make a lot of very good, well thought out posts on here so don't feel guilty at all for posting a short "Amen" type of post. Your thoughts are always welcome and appreciated.
Cal

[1eyedfish]

Real good post there Cal/ many good points in it!!

Now if we could convince about half of America its not just a poltical game of blame& name calling.But a deadly serious situation for us all.......

Sad to say but i think at least some will think it nothing more then a distant problem- even when it is there closest next door nabors being murdered.

I know too there are many good ppl here& elsewhere in America who will be not so easy to dupe into hiding there heads & into rolling over& playing dead....this problem is not going away& it dosnt care what party you belong too.

But I do have to say this whole thing really gets to me at times. ....Prehapes i need to talk to my son more & my oldest grandchild more too , in less then 5 yrs he to can go to distant lands& fight for them too - freedom has never been free- but there are those who will do nothing- but critize those that do something!!!

They are my flesh& blood& those who i love dearly - Not just someone with the job to protect there sorry as...........& there freedoms& lives.While they sit back& do nothing but critize them!
As you can see i get a bit ......Maybe sometimes it would be better if i dont post with things on my mind.

THIS is a war on America!AND all its ppls !!! Its past time some started acting like it& not bystanders watching some dam football game!

They are not there for the oil or the poltics or poltical partys- They are there because America asked them to do a job - they are still doing it& risking there lives dayly.

As for the goverment check.....They pay none of them nearly enough for what they do& give!!!
But we will give a man millions to play with balls.
I could go on forever ...but i wont.

Screw those that dont belive in them& what they do, They fight for America.

[CalHunter]

Great post 1eyedfish and oh so true!!

[1eyedfish]

Thnks Cal& for posting the letter.

I also noticed that neither Kerry nor Edwards were willing to say what they would have done different instead of Bush and that neither has any apparent plan on how to resolve the Iraqi situation, other than Kerry wants to apparently turn it over to the UN.

I noticed them doing exactly that kerry/edwards- yesterday the day before& tommarrow im sure.

Telling us how bush is& was wrong blah ,blah blah& how THEY would have done it better- but it is all talk of the poltical kind- meaningless words- it come easy to them.

The billionaire& the millionaire would do nothing& smile thephonysmile& play it safe & think it a good choice.
A good choice for them yes - US no.
Self serving public servents- what a joke.