Best comments I've read on the War,,

Best comments I've read on the War,,

PostBy: LsFarm On: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:28 pm

It's a long read, but worth it.

LONG READ But WOW
>
> If you can cast aside your political beliefs, this is an interesting read. It
> is not something you want to hear but considering the impacts of not facing up
> to the terrorist threat leaves even more threat to our future generations..
>
>
> This is the most powerful and at the same time frightening article
> about our future world situation. Whether a Republican, Democrat or
> Independent, you need to considered this man's premise of things to come.
> Please read the entire article.
> An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting. The
> writer of this narrative is Dr.Vernon Chong, MajorGeneral, USAF, Retired.
> "For what it's worth ... This is the most cogent and powerful
> essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong
> is, without a doubt, the most articulate and convincing writer I have read
> regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to h
> isessay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other
> current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on
> American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the
> source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as
> well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and
> found him to be a retired
> Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in
> San Antonio ."
>
> If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air
> Force web site and look him up:
>
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.
000>" Then read below.
>
>
> Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
> A different spin on the war in Iraq : This WAR is REAL by Dr.
> Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
>
> To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. 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 11, 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;
> * Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
> * Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
> * New York World Trade Center 2001;
> * Pentagon 2001.
> (Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581
> terrorist attacks worldwide.)
>
> 2. Why were we attacked?
> Envy of our position, our su ccess, 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
> predecessor, President Ford.
>
> 3. Who were the attackers?
> In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by
> Muslims.
>
> 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
>
> 5. 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).
> (see
> http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm m>
> Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the
> Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom
> hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the
> world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the
> way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
> Christian, or any others.
> Same with the Muslim terr orists. They focus the world on the
> US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French
> or anyone else. 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 to remain silent or be
> killed?
>
> 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,
> for terrorists to 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. I t
> 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 with 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.
>
>
>
>
> Without our support, Great Britain will go also. Recently, I read
> that there are more mosques in England than churches.
>
> 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 Muslim
> terrorists, how could anyone else?
>
> The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and
> therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd 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 failing to dig in and lend 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 to which we have become accus tomed. 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 that time.
>
> 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 think some actually do. 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 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 of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their
> charred corpses through the streets of Iraq, and still more recently, the same
> type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources
> internationally of the beheading of American prisoners 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 they 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 are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in
> and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
>
> These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war
> effort. We must take note of who they
> are and get them out of office. 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. 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.
>
> Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over,
> they then start brutally killing each
> other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
>
> What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop
> hearing from the politically correct
> about the "peaceful Muslims?"
>
> I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If
> we are united, there is no way that we
> can lose. I hope now, 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. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
>
> After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for
> ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
> Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ...
> and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free
> world.
>
> Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it.
> Our "leaders" in Congress ought to
> read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it
> is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
>
> Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think
> that anyone who rejects this as just
> another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or
> just deletes it without sending it
>
LsFarm
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Self-built 'Big Bertha' SS Boiler
Baseburners & Antiques: Keystone 11, Art Garland

Re: Best comments I've read on the War,,

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:46 am

Although I agree with most of that article it should be noted the stated author is not who wrote it. Anytime I get anything in a email like that I check it. usually the title in quotes and the word hoax works.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp

Looks like that one has been floating around since 2005, it was originally written by an Attorney to his three sons.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Best comments I've read on the War,,

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:47 am

Richard S. wrote:Although I agree with most of that article it should be noted the stated author is not who wrote it. Anytime I get anything in a email like that I check it. usually the title in quotes and the word hoax works.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp

Looks like that one has been floating around since 2005, it was originally written by an Attorney to his three sons.



Thanks Richard. That's why I am always skeptical about anything a I see on the net. Trust but Verify
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000


Re: Best comments I've read on the War,,

PostBy: Scottscoaled On: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:46 pm

It's still a pretty thought provoking read. Thanks :) Scott
Scottscoaled
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520x3, 700 Van Wert 800
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: EFM 150, Keystoker 150
Coal Size/Type: Lots of buck