A new December 7th....if we let it happen...

[Sgt Leprechaun]

This....should scare the livin hell out of ALL of us....it did me.... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm <br />
December 7, 2008 <br />
Terrorism <br />
by Raymond S. Kraft. October 24, 2006 <br />
...

[drumcorpssnare]

Sgt Leprechaun- Seems as though the "cut and run" Democrats have forgotten the lesson of Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in Our Time." Also, the lesson of Gen. Billy Mitchell's warnings of a Japanese sneak-attack, by air, on a Sunday morning, somewhere in the Pacific. He was told by the higher-ups to keep his mouth shut because he didn't know what he was talking about. Yeah, right!
There's a lot of Americans who need to pull their heads out of the sand. The Islamic Jihad is NOT going to just quietly go away, once America's troops are out of Iraq.

drumcorpssnare

[6yrforMar]

The majority of Americans do not have a clue of what we are facing.We also have many in our society who are self defeating [CNN,L.A.Times,New York Times,Ultra left wing of the Dem.party etc.]People who play politics with our national security.People who do not want GOD in the text books,schools,public institutions etc.They all should not be surprised if God turns his back on us on our next Sept.11th or Dec.7th.We pulled out of WW2,we may not be so lucky next time around.

[SuNmAN]

We shouldn't get complacent about our national security...BUT

that article is BLATANT right wing propoganda and I'm sure all of you can recognize it as such.

Hillary Clinton will likely never get elected as President. This is not a sexist comment but a lot of WOMEN that I know would not feel comfortable with a woman president, let alone men.

A democratic candidate I WOULD vote for is Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), casting party lines and such aside, I feel like he is a extremely charismatic, a patriot and a born leader.

I don't know how you think Iraq is preventing a terrorist from attacking the United States. The "fight them there so we don't have to fight them on the west coast" rhetoric is the BIGGEST LINE OF BS I've heard in my life.

We're fighting a terrorist network, NOT a conventional or even a guerilla army. In a network organization, do you HONESTLY THINK that just because they have devoted heavy resources to combat in Iraq they can't spare an extra terrorist attack on say, Los Angeles?

As for getting rid of Saddam. That was a good thing, he was a ruthless dictator and a villain. Too bad Iraq is now in turmoil and the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Saddam. This is not to blame Bush or anyone though. Noone foresaw this, not you, not me, and not anyone in the US government.

We can't base our actions on something that might happen but probably never will.

Anyway, before someone calls me a stupid liberal (like thats even supposed to be an insult) or left wing, just let it be known that I consider myself a moderate and I don't identify with either party. I'm liberal on some things and conservative on others.

[jinelson]

GERMAN EDITORIAL

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. When I have tried to get liberals to undertand my point I have used the "A" Word. The mere mention of the word appeasement sends them into a diatribe tirage. It's fascinating to me that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

Jim

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family's name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they
noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually
believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's
Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have pro! ven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weak ness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on m! oral co nviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental! coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

[SuNmAN]

Sgt Leprechaun- Seems as though the "cut and run" Democrats have forgotten the lesson of Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in Our Time." Also, the lesson of Gen. Billy Mitchell's warnings of a Japanese sneak-attack, by air, on a Sunday morning, somewhere in the Pacific. He was told by the higher-ups to keep his mouth shut because he didn't know what he was talking about. Yeah, right!
There's a lot of Americans who need to pull their heads out of the sand. The Islamic Jihad is NOT going to just quietly go away, once America's troops are out of Iraq.

drumcorpssnare

1. The situation in Iraq is not 1936 Europe. It is COMPLETELY different so I don't see how its even a valid analogy.

2. How can you fault Neville Chamberlain?

a) The British just got out of World War I less than 20 years ago and suffered damage and casualties to the degree America has NEVER seen in her history, and the British people did NOT want another war.
b) The British were not powerful enough to take on Germany alone, or even with France's help. Any attempted "pre-emptive" invasion of Germany would have led to DISASTER and World War II would have occured much earlier, only this time Britain would be seen as aggressors and would have far less allies.

I was gonna continue but I think I'll make an entire new thread based on my personal research on al qaeda's way of war...lol

[10thzodiac]

Originally Posted by jinelson


GERMAN EDITORIAL




If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. When I have tried to get liberals to undertand my point I have used the "A" Word. The mere mention of the word appeasement sends them into a diatribe tirage. It's fascinating to me that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

Jim


Ah, I bet he's just worried that the European women just dig those Arabian 'nights' to much.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/17.gif

I worked in a factory here in Chicago for 10 years and the Anglo/Hispanic women just couldn't get enough of those Palestine's and Persians. Besides Germans think they are more Aryans and jealous of them.

Been around the block

SF
10th

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Interesting. So be it, and here goes: <br />
<br />
&quot;that article is BLATANT right wing propoganda and I'm sure all of you can recognize it as such&quot; <br />
<br />
Really? How would &quot;all of us&quot; recognize it as such? ...

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Continuing..... :)

"1. The situation in Iraq is not 1936 Europe. It is COMPLETELY different so I don't see how its even a valid analogy."

No, it's not. It's more like Germany, 1946, if the "werwolf" plan had actually come to fruition. We won the war, we are just having issues with the occupation and rebuilding. The Marshall plan could never have been implemented if the Germans had 'took to the mountains' as they had originally planned.

"2. How can you fault Neville Chamberlain? "

a) The British just got out of World War I less than 20 years ago and suffered damage and casualties to the degree America has NEVER seen in her history, and the British people did NOT want another war.
b) The British were not powerful enough to take on Germany alone, or even with France's help. Any attempted "pre-emptive" invasion of Germany would have led to DISASTER and World War II would have occured much earlier, only this time Britain would be seen as aggressors and would have far less allies.

No, I can fault him plenty. Yes, it had only been 20 years, and the brits sufferred horrendous casualties in WWI; however, there is absolutely no excuse for NOT protecting the people you are entrusted to protect, (your own). The "peace in our time" document was obtained at the expense of people in neighboring Czechoslavakia, if you'll recall; a country basically 'invented' by the allied powers after WWI, in an attempt to break up the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Czechs had no choice after Hitler invaded the country. Chamberlain sold them down the river. He had Intell that said, in so many words, the German Wehrmacht consisted of maybe 7 divisions, and very little armor. Nonetheless, instead of showing steel to Hitler, he showed butter....and led his nation right into WWII. The idea that Britain would have been seen as 'aggressors' is a relatively new one, invented mostly by folks trying to 'rehabilitate' Chamberlain. That having been said, he was basically a decent sort, but Hitler outsmarted him at every turn.

I was gonna continue but I think I'll make an entire new thread based on my personal research on al qaeda's way of war...lol

I look foward to it!

<!-- / message -->

[DWG]

Damn Leprechaun, I like the way you think-you busy in '08? We need somebody to run for prez, cause we sure don't have anyone now, in either party!:marine:

[SkilletsUSMC]

a) b) The British were not powerful enough to take on Germany alone, or even with France's help.


The Germans Could NEVER have pulled off a successful invasion of the British mainland if not for terrain alone. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. The British are the most patriotic of the europeans. Any invader would be fought to the bitter end. And trust me, by then the US would be right there with the brits. Your point holds no water, Britain should have stood defiant, not appeased Hitler.

[SkilletsUSMC]

a) b) The British were not powerful enough to take on Germany alone, or even with France's help.


The Germans Could NEVER have pulled off a successful invasion of the British mainland if not for terrain alone. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. The British are the most patriotic of the europeans. Any invader would be fought to the bitter end. And trust me, by then the US would be right there with the brits. Your point holds no water, Britain should have stood defiant, not appeased Hitler.

[6yrforMar]

[quote=SuNmAN]1. The situation in Iraq is not 1936 Europe. It is ELY different so I don't see how its even a valid analogy.

Listening to the Savage Nation the other night,the Jewish people living in Europe are moving out and especially France after so many attacks on them by their muslim neighbors,they are moving to a much safer Israel .At least they are not going to repeat the mistake of waiting around to see what Hitler will do.The Muslim community is a minority in France and they have the French Gov.scared ****less.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Thanks DW, but I'll pass.... :)

I have a letter someplace, email type, sent out by a Jewish person in France basically saying that very thing; they are scared, and they are leaving, becuase it's obvious the French 'gummint', what there is of it, won't protect them.


I believe the Germans would have made a successful landing, had Goering lived up to his promise to destroy the RAF; just didn't happen.

I also believe the Brits were of stronger stock then, than now, and would really have, in fact, fought house to house and yard to yard, making the Germans pay for every single inch of territory.


Europe will become the Caliphate...soon...

[DWG]

1. they have the French Gov.scared ****less.
Can you give me an example of something that doesn't scare the
french s**tless?

[drumcorpssnare]

Reminds me of the British Sgt./Maj. who was discussing the history of the English uniforms, etc. When asked why scarlet red tunics were so prevelant, the Sgt./Maj. said it was for reasons of morale. When a soldier or officer was wounded, the blood stains would not be as noticeable, with a red jacket. The exact same reason the French military wears brown trousers!:banana:

[SkilletsUSMC]

Thanks DW, but I'll pass.... :)

I have a letter someplace, email type, sent out by a Jewish person in France basically saying that very thing; they are scared, and they are leaving, becuase it's obvious the French 'gummint', what there is of it, won't protect them.


I believe the Germans would have made a successful landing, had Goering lived up to his promise to destroy the RAF; just didn't happen.

I also believe the Brits were of stronger stock then, than now, and would really have, in fact, fought house to house and yard to yard, making the Germans pay for every single inch of territory.


Europe will become the Caliphate...soon...

Scalling the 100+ cliffs with enough ass to actually gain a foot hold would have been VERY problematic. Add to that the fact that the royal navy was totally dominant over anything the germans had, and I would say the chance of a SUCCESSFUL invasion is slim to none.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

hahahaahahahahaha....