Interesting........

[Patrick]

Interesting read, just curious, what's everyones take on it?

History

A 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 the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much 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 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.

[MACK]

what?

[99BlackR1]

he done lost his mind

[MACK]

what mind?...lol

[Chris24]

i get it.

i think his lack of content is actually a statement on eastern zen philosophy.

wow... that was really deep, bro.











:dontknow:

[MACK]

i get it.

i think his lack of content is actually a statement on eastern zen philosophy.

wow... that was really deep, bro.











:dontknow:

Hurry people It's spreading.....Mind loss is serious!!!:laughing6

[Patrick]

Page 2,

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 21,
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.

[Patrick]

Page 3


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.

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 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.

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 America 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.

[MACK]

what happened to page 1? good readin tho.

[MACK]

my bad I found it.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

He lost credibility at this point, not that he really had any before...but this is where I discontinued to read...

...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.


I offer this as evidence to the contrary...


Conclusion 1: Postwar findings indicate that the Central Intelligence
Agency's (CIA) assessment that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida
resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately
characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar
findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and
viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from
al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key
leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa'ida in particular. Postwar findings indicate that bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. Saddam thought al-Qa'ida was an effective organization and reportedly expressed some willingness to broadcast anti-Saudi speeches at the request of al-Qa'ida, but there is no evidence he did. Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.

[kstrs]

He lost credibility at this point, not that he really had any before...but this is where I discontinued to read...



I offer this as evidence to the contrary...

ansar al islam, al aqsa martyrs brigade, hamas, islamic jihad.... etc. not terrorists?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

ansar al islam, al aqsa martyrs brigade, hamas, islamic jihad.... etc. not terrorists?

They are terrorists, but uh, what is your point? It says plainly:

...Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime...

If he viewed them as a threat to his regime, why would he then decide to support them?

[koskesh]

He lost credibility at this point, not that he really had any before...but this is where I discontinued to read...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
...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.



I offer this as evidence to the contrary...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senate Intel Report for Post War Iraq
Conclusion 1: Postwar findings indicate that the Central Intelligence
Agency's (CIA) assessment that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida
resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately
characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar
findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and
viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from
al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key
leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa'ida in particular. Postwar findings indicate that bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. Saddam thought al-Qa'ida was an effective organization and reportedly expressed some willingness to broadcast anti-Saudi speeches at the request of al-Qa'ida, but there is no evidence he did. Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.

Interesting indeed

[Moody]

Exactly why we should end this door to door war effort while extremestist forces are growing stronger in Southern Iraq. In my opinion at this point we need to shut it all down. End all economic efforts, allow for the civilians to leave and elliminate any of the oppositon that remains. At this point we could turn the place to ashes and completely rebuild it for cheaper then what we are spending on the worthless war effort. Wars on won with force, not politics and at this point they are winning. What do you guys think?

Maybe Bush needs to catch up on some of history lessons before we repeat some of the mistakes we have made in previous wars. IE... Korea and Vietnam

[paniro187]

whole thing sounds like ramblings of some pro war shit kicker trying to tell us why we NEEDED this war. NEXT

[Maverick]

valid points about Iraq
we need 2 bring the boys home and stop tryin 2 be the world police

[Moody]

whole thing sounds like ramblings of some pro war shit kicker trying to tell us why we NEEDED this war. NEXT
Something was bound to happen. We are at a head with a clash of cultures. Although, we are obviously using our resources improperly.

[paniro187]

valid points about Iraq
we need 2 bring the boys home and stop tryin 2 be the world police+1

[kstrs]

Evidently he did not feel that threatened by such, ansar al islam operated freely (with al qaida connections) in Iraq before 2nd Iraq war, his fondness for terrorists was also prominently demonstrated in the millions he awarded to homicide/suicide bombers in Isreal (our ally by treaty btw).

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Exactly why we should end this door to door war effort while extremestist forces are growing stronger in Southern Iraq. In my opinion at this point we need to shut it all down. End all economic efforts, allow for the civilians to leave and elliminate any of the oppositon that remains. At this point we could turn the place to ashes and completely rebuild it for cheaper then what we are spending on the worthless war effort. Wars on won with force, not politics and at this point they are winning. What do you guys think?

Maybe Bush needs to catch up on some of history lessons before we repeat some of the mistakes we have made in previous wars. IE... Korea and Vietnam

Yes indeed, the strategy should definately be changed. I don't think we should leave but Bush isn't optimizing his chances of winning but can we really expect more?

According to Sun Tzu "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.".

Bush never served in an actual war. How about Rumsfeld? Nope :keke:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Evidently he did not feel that threatened by such, ansar al islam operated freely (with al qaida connections) in Iraq before 2nd Iraq war, his fondness for terrorists was also prominently demonstrated in the millions he awarded to homicide/suicide bombers in Isreal (our ally by treaty btw).

Do you have any actual sources to corroborate your claims? I'm quoting direct from a Senate intel report that is in direct contrast to what it is that you are saying.

Just because al Queda was in country doesn't mean he supported them...hell, the al Queda terrorist organization has cells here in the US. Is that to say that we support them? How about NO...

[paniro187]

Do you have any actual sources to corroborate your claims? I'm quoting direct from a Senate intel report that is in direct contrast to what it is that you are saying.

Just because al Queda was in country doesn't mean he supported them...hell, the al Queda terrorist organization has cells here in the US. Is that to say that we support them? How about NO...I'll go with OWND for 2000 please..........DAILY DOUBLE!!!!!

[kstrs]

[QUOTE=CaJuNsOuLjA]Yes indeed, the strategy should definately be changed. I don't think we should leave but Bush isn't optimizing his chances of winning QUOTE]

Well said, you seem quite resourcefull... do your own research. I'm not trying to prove anything & I dont live for this sh*t, just recollecting events of recent years. Alot of discontent that is thrown around is based on nothing more than opinion, context means alot in quotation & facts can be distorted by abbreviation or omission of relevent details. I'm not pro-Bush or pro-war but I get a kick out of those who have the luxury of second guessing from the comfort of their sofa (In air conditioning with a beer in their hand) while having no constructive solution of their own. Meanwhile those tasked with hands-on resolution of this mess are sweating & bleeding for a cause which is undermined when political dissatasfaction runs amuck. Those guys (including dear freinds/ family) are there protecting my family & my country from human garbage with no regard for life, I'll do my second guessing when the jobs done. The Senate btw is the most politically motivated body of pompous distortions in this country.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Well said, you seem quite resourcefull... do your own research.

I actually DO my own research...but thank you on the former statement


I'm not trying to prove anything & I dont live for this sh*t, just recollecting events of recent years. Alot of discontent that is thrown around is based on nothing more than opinion, context means alot in quotation & facts can be distorted by abbreviation or omission of relevent details.

That is an entire paragraph that reiterates it's points throughout the text, but here is a link to the page that contains the file so as to limit contextual fallacies: http://intelligence.senate.gov/



I'm not pro-Bush or pro-war but I get a kick out of those who have the luxury of second guessing from the comfort of their sofa (In air conditioning with a beer in their hand) while having no constructive solution of their own. Meanwhile those tasked with hands-on resolution of this mess are sweating & bleeding for a cause which is undermined when political dissatasfaction runs amuck. Those guys (including dear freinds/ family) are there protecting my family & my country from human garbage with no regard for life, I'll do my second guessing when the jobs done.

The framers meant for the people to question the government. Were that not the case, we would still be under the rule of England.


The Senate btw is the most politically motivated body of pompous distortions in this country.

Which happens to be majorily Republican. The Political argument holds no water.

[kstrs]

The framers meant for the people to question the government. Were that not the case, we would still be under the rule of England.
.

Si, but time & context should be considered... That which is a right is not always the right thing to do.

Politics is everything in DC, loyalty is only as strong as poll #'s dictate.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Si, but time & context should be considered... That which is a right is not always the right thing to do.

Politics is everything in DC, loyalty is only as strong as poll #'s dictate.

Considered yes, but those concepts shall never trump the reality that we have the right, and I feel, responsibility to do so. Those times were no different, before the signing of the Declaration there were plenty of people that thought it foolish to even consider challenging the rule of England but in hindsight, it turned out to be as you put it "...the right thing to do" (from our perspective anyway). One should not subdue his inalienable right to question the actions of this government, to do so would be an injustice to the thousands of lives lost fighting for this republic...

[Patrick]

Glad to see this generated some opinions while I was gone.
What did you guys think of the authors' comparison of the world situation prior to WWII and now?

FWIW, I don't agree with all of the statements made, just thought it made for some interesting reading and that you all might enjoy it.