Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Conservative Lawyer

I know this is long... but it is awesome!

A California Lawyer's Perspective on the 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 United States was in an isolationist, pacifist mood and most of the Americans 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 and 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, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will or ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Germany and/or Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. 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 because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. A big 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 the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Belgium surrendered 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 been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain. It was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a minor threat that could be dealt with later and he turned 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 bacon 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. 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 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. Today Europe would be run by the Third Reich. Isolated and without allies, 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.
I say all this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things and we are at another one.

There is a 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.

It is now an indisputable fact that 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 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 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 one will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, the Wahhabis (Jihadis) will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil. The United States, European, and Asian economies and the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of a new 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 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, 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 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 Paris, London, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we have done 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 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 Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. 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?

We also now know that Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II 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
one full year's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 missing in action. The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what the 9/11 attack 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 now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.


Americans have a short attention span conditioned, I suppose, by 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, 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 already begun in some countries, like Libya, Dubai and Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for 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 somebody prevents them. T

he Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have 4 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 they claim 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. 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 likely most of the rest of Europe. It will then be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.


The Jihadis say 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 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 presidential debates and almost daily since, continues to make 3 scary claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

Truth: 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 a small minority of the population that is Jihadi, while 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 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.
Truth: 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.
Truth: 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 a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. 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.

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. 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 3.6 million American bodies in mass graves in America? 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. 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.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Immigration

I know that I have been away for awhile, I am just tired of blogging quite honestly. I am probably going to post mostly non-political threads for a while unless something like this catches my eye. Anyways, I doubt anyone will even read my blog since I have been gone for so long... so if you do, leave a comment!!

*************************

Seriously people... have you seen anything on the protests?

We don't have anything against immigrants it is the word ILLEGAL that we are concerned about.

Those people are out of control... if you surveyed them probably 2/3 of them have NO IDEA what in the world they are even fighting for.


I am SO annoyed with the American idiots right now!

Saturday, December 03, 2005

New Democratic Seal

demoseal

Monday, November 28, 2005

Seriously, Did Anyone Show Up to This???

loser

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving

bushturkey


I hope all of you have a Happy Turkey Day!! I will be sitting home alone studying for finals.... so eat and drink some for me!! Please travel safe over the holidays!

Friday, November 18, 2005

Abortion Questions For Both Libs and Conservatives

Libs: are you against a woman using drugs during her pregnancy? If so, then why is it okay for a woman to have an abortion because it is her own body and her own choice, but not use drugs?

Conservatives: (that believe that abortion is okay) Why is it that most conservatives who believe that Roe v. Wade should stand as it is, LOVE Scalia? They love Scalia so much so that they would LOVE to have all 9 Justices share his philosophy. I find it strange every time a non-social conservative expresses love for Scalia because now adays, most of the issues before the court are social issues. If you want Roe v. Wade to stand, or don't care about homosexuals marrying then why would you LOVE Scalia? And why would you want more of him on the Supreme Court? This doesn't make sense to me.

Roe v. Wade is the case everyone is fighting for. If there were more Scalia's on the court it might be in jeopardy. Is this really such a bad thing though? Even if you are pro-abortion.... just because the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade that doesn't make abortion illegal. I don't think people understand this. It just means that the legislature - the people that should have been in charge of this in the first place - will have to make rules. OH NO! The court SHOULD NEVER have made a decision like this, this is a political question, and it should have been in the hands of the legislature from day 1.

That is my Constitutional thought of the day- Thanks!

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Affirmative Action

I am sorry for the recent posts on minorities... but we are discussing this topic in Constitutional Law, so it has me thinking...

What good does affirmative action do?

The way I see it, the government/world should be colorblind. You shouldn't get a job/into college because you are black, white, hispanic, or asian. Affirmative action forces us to look at color and make distinctions between races. And minorities are for this? I thought they want to be equal? It is impossible to say that you want "equality" yet you are for affirmative action... at least the way I see it.

Why do you want to get a position that you are not qualified for? In our discussion yesterday, my professor made a point that poor blacks don't get as good of an education as whites and this is why affirmative action is necessary - because their test scores are not as high as whites and therefore they won't get into graduate schools such as law school/medical school. Well, it seems obvious to me that the remedy should not take place at the college, job, or graduate school level. I understand that our education system needs a mega face lift.. but people that are not qualified to get into these schools or hold certain jobs are getting in because of their skin color. Some say: they might not be qualified but it adds diversity. I am sorry... but I have not experienced ONE benefit of having a "diverse" school. Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and Whites don't contribute enough to my classroom for a "diverse" education. The professors spend the majority of the time lecturing and if a student is being called on they are discussing a case from our assigned reading... not some life changing experience that is going to benefit us all.

Sorry to make this short... but I have to get to class!
Hit Counter
Hit Counter