Got this e-mail from a co-worker -- my reply included (long)

[Liberal in Ohio]

Email from co-worker:

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 can not fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case of attacks on US they were 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). 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 he 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 can not 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 of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our 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 fuelled 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> 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.



My Reply:
I am pretty busy today so I can't do a full blown analysis of this latest propaganda piece but let me hit you with a couple thoughts I had when I skimmed over it...

"2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms."
In my opinion -- this is a very narrow minded and simplistic idea that has been re-enforced repeatedly by those who depend on the premise that we are the good guys and the bad guys are whomever our current political enemy happens to be. Canada, Japan, and the UK are all "succesful" and "free" countries who don't seem to be as much at risk from random terrorist attacks. Maybe it has something to do with our foreign policy? Maybe if we didn't train and arm terrorists around the world to fight our political enemies -- only to later denounce them as "evildoers" when it becomes politically advantagious for us to do so -- they wouldn't hate us. Maybe some of these third world countries don't appreciate us exploiting them for cheap labor or they are not comfortable with us stripping their land of its natural resources. We treat the planet like it is our personal toilet/landfill and we then have the arrogance to claim that "they hate us for our freedom"

This part almost made me laugh and I think it is the most revealing statement in the whole piece:

"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."

Maybe that is because it was the Christians who were killing everybody who didn't agree with them. The Jews were killed - men, women, and children - for no reason other than the fact that they were of Jewish ethnicity. It didn't matter that they did not fight back or speak out against the Nazis -- they were slaughtered on a massive scale because they were born to Jewish parents -- it didn't even matter if they were religious. The authors attempt to compare the number of "Christian" deaths in WWII with the number of Jews killed in the holocost is the most blatant example of his racism and is an attempt to portray Christianity as a persecuted religion. I say send in the lions...

Another point the author is wrong about is this:
"If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win."
(talking about the war on terror)
This is just another way of trying to demonize those who oppose or disagree with the President. It is bullshit.
And I don't agree that we should have to give up any of our Civil Rights to win the war -- if we do -- then they have already won.

If we sell our soul for a quick victory have we really won the war?

[info being]

1. If we are not divided, we are the same as North Korea

Anyone else notice how conservatives are writing longer and longer justifications for their opinions? No matter, though, as they are still based on simple and fundamentally flawed assumptions. We have to keep zoning in on and questioning those assumptions, exactly as illustrated here.

[eaprez]

2. "Dads" letter is very racist.....

..nothing but an essay justifying his racist views.

[sangh0]

3. Sounds like a "sensible" conservative

.

[alarimer]

4. If someone sent me something like that at work

Using work equipment, I'd call the IT people and get them in trouble for using work equipment/time inappropriately. Where I work it is a big no-no.

[HFishbine]

5. Extremely Naive

to say that the "war" against us started in 1979 with the Iranian hostage taking and ignore prior US support of the deposed Shah.

Typical though. The only context that matters is that which supports their predetermined conclusions.

[progressivebydesign]

6. Sounds like "DAD" has waay too much time on his hands!

What a blowhard. It's nice, though, that your co-worker will support President Kerry.

[trof]

7. Got the e-mail 2 weeks ago. My reply:

BTW, turns out Mr. Larson didn't write the letter, although it appeared so from what I got. This is yet another of those damnable 'anonymous' bullshit e-mails.

It was interesting to read what Mr. Larson has to say, but I believe much of his argument is based on false (or misunderstood) premises.

"Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms."
Every time I hear the phrase "they hate us for our freedom" my gorge rises. It's a bit too simplistic.
Because of our present circumstances, I guess I've become a fledgling (very) student of middle eastern history. The following timeline is, I think, worth the read. I've highlighted some of the more important developments in bold.

Late 1800s -- British control Middle East in order to have a land route to India
1904 -- British Navy shifted from coal to oil

1916 - British/French in Sykes-Picot agreement arbitrarily draw national borders in Middle East; southern Mesopotamia including Baghdad was to be administered by Great Britain. Arabs were needless to say upset by this secret agreement when it was published by the Russian government in 1917.

1917 - British forces invaded Mesopotamia and occupied Baghdad; Iraq became British Mandate

1918-Great Britain uses systematic aerial bombardment for first time in history to put down rebellions in Iraq.

1921 - British Colonial Office draws line across Southern Iraq creating Kuwait to prevent Iraq access to Persian Gulf1932 - Iraq joins League of Nations and recognized as sovereign state

Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

1951 - Mossadigh takes power in Iran and declares that they will control their own oil

1953 -After 2 years of U.S. sponsored sanctions, CIA supports plot to overthrow Mossadigh and place Shah in power. American Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf Sr. helps Shah develop SAVAK secret police.

1958 - popular revolution led by Abd al-Kassem Quassim overthrows British-installed king of Iraq

1959-Saddam Hussein was one of assassins who wounded Quassim

1963 -coup aided by CIA overthrows Kassem. Baathist party briefly in power. Hussein runs torture center

1968 - Baathist Party comes to power for good in Iraq

1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqi Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism

1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".

1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.

1980-"Carter Doctrine" states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.

1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list

1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.

1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein

1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq

1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.

1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.

1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.

January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that "Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace".

February 1990-Schwartzkopf tells congress of need to increase U.S. military presence in Gulf region

May 1990 - At Arab summit Saddam accuses Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq. The Iraq economy has been devastated by the war. Iraq had borrowed billions to wage war against Iran. Price of oil was down because Gulf states were dumping oil on world market. Kuwait was slant drilling with American equipment into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at behest of U.S. demanded immediate repayment of loans to Iraq.

July 1990 -- Saddam accuses Kuwait of conspiring to destroy Iraq economy. Iraq troops mass on Iraq border

July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait):Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

August 2, 1990 -Iraq invades Kuwait.

August 3, 1990 -U.N. passes Resolution 660 condemning Iraq

August 6, 1990 - U.N. passes Resolution 661 levying sanctions against Iraq. At this time Iraq imports 70% of it's food.

August 7, 1990 - U.S. tells Saudi Arabia that Iraq troops are massed on their border and convinces reluctant King Faud to accept U.S.troop deployment. Satellite photos show no troops massing on Iraq side of border.

August 8, 1990 -U.S.dispatches 40,000 troops to "protect" Saudi Arabia. Iraq announces it is annexing Kuwait.

August 12, 1990 - Iraq suggests withdrawal of it's troops from Kuwait be linked to Israel withdrawal from occupied territories. U.S. rejects. Later proposal to withdraw troops not linked to Israel rejected by U.S.

September 2, 1990 -Iraq begins rationing food.

November 8, 1990 - with no significant change in crisis U.S. doubles number of troops in area to 400,000

November 29, 1990 - U.N. authorizes use of force if Iraq doesn't voluntarily leave Kuwait by January 15, 1991.

December 22, 1990 - Infant mortality has doubled due to sanctions

January 9, 1991-U.S threatens destruction of Iraq if not out of Kuwait by January 15.

January 12, 1991 - Congress authorizes use of force if Iraq not withdrawn by January 15.

January 17, 1991 - U.S. begins air assault. 42 days of 2,000 sorties a day throughout Iraq and Kuwait.

February 13, 1991 - U.S kills 1,500 civilians at Al-Amariyah shelter

February 15, 1991 - Pres. Bush urges Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam.

February 21, 1991 - Russia announces that Iraq has agreed to full and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. U.S rejects plan and says that if Iraq not out of Kuwait by noon February 23 a ground attack will proceed.

February 23, 1991 - ground assault begins

February 26, 1991 -- Iraq announces it's troops are withdrawing from Kuwait. U.S bombs road that would be used to retreat and kills thousands from air including civilians in "turkey shoot".

February 28, 1991-Iraq and U.S. agree to cease-fire

March 2, 1991 - 24th Mechanized Infantry slaughters thousands of Iraqi soldiers in post cease fire battle. No Americans die.

March 1991 - U.S-encouraged rebellions against Saddam are put down. Schwartzkopf allows Saddam helicopters to fly through U.S. lines to kill Shiites in south and Kurds in North. He refused to allow rebelling members of the Republican Guard in the South get weapons from their storehouses.

9/11/2001 - Al Queda terrorists, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, hijack aircraft and fly them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

Ever Since - No link has been established between this group and Iraq/Hussein.

March 20, 2003 - American missiles hit targets in Baghdad, marking the start of a US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. In the following days US and British ground troops enter Iraq from the south.

So...I don't think they hate us because of "Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms". I submit that if invading and occupying forces had done to us what we, Great Britain, and France did to the middle east, over decades, we'd be a little P.O.'d too. In no way do I condone terrorism of any sort, but I can sure understand why.

"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".

Although no one has yet been physically "eliminated" (that I know about), the current administration has certainly sent the message, loud and clear, "You're either with us or against us." According to many spokesmen for Bush et al, disagreement or criticism of the president and his policies is tantamount to treason. There is no room for debate or questions. The lowest kind of character assassination and vilification is used against those who speak out against him. The "outing" of Richard Clark's wife, CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, is one of the most egregious examples. A grand jury investigation is expected to hand down indictments within the next few days.


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.

Former Spanish Premier Jose Marya Aznar became very unpopular when he went against the wishes of the vast majority of his constituents in sending troops to Iraq. His defeat in the coming elections was a foregone conclusion. Al Qaeda terrorists took advantage of this situation to try and claim credit for his defeat.

Sorry this has been so lengthy, but the situation in the middle east is much more complicated than many of us understand or are being told. For almost one hundred years western powers have controlled, or attempted to control, the land, resources, and politics/government of people that we don't begin to understand, or apparently even want to understand.

[Jokinomx]

11. Trof... I salute you... I copied and pasted your response and will use it

whenever I feel the need to set someone straight. I generally start my educating others about the Middle East with the assination of Mossadigh. You have given those that care, a very quick and easy timetable of WHY "they" hate the U.S.

You have educated me and many others.... Thank you.

I would love to sit down and have a brewski with you some day...:toast: :beer:

[trof]

16. Thanks for the salute and the toast.

If you're ever down Alabama way...
:toast:
Welcome to DU.
:hi:

[DemonFighterLives]

17. I have a question/comment

The history totally overlooks the October Surprise. I believe Ronnie and the gang were dealing weapons sooner that 1984. The whole hostage deal that undermined Carter involved B*sh Sr and William Casey.
I see someone else pointed out that it should be Joseph Wilson in place of Richard Clarke.

[BiggJawn]

8. What Civil Rights did we "give up" during WWII?

I can't recall. The only people I can recall who lost their rights during WWII were people of Japanese extraction who looked Japanese or had Japanese names.

What a bunch of racist bullshit. so what does "Dad" propose? rounding up everyone named Ali and then what? Must be expensive to keep 6,000,000 muslims locked up in a camp, right? Need a Final Solution, right?(sarcasm)

Another fine example of why Religion is a blight on the planet.

[gratuitous]

13. Just because someone cloaks their bigotry in religious language

Doesn't make religion the blight on the planet. Unless you'd say the same thing about the U.S. flag, seeing as how it's used to cover a multitude of wrongdoing.

Religion is religion; the flag is the flag; bigots, haters, murderers and fascists who try to make their bullshit palatable by cloaking it with religion or a flag are still bigots, haters, murderers and fascists. Their reprehensible actions ought not tarnish the objects they use to mask them.

[BiggJawn]

14. Instead of busting my chops for calling Religion a "blight"...

Perhaps a few more words about those "...bigots, haters, murderers and fascists who try to make their bullshit palatable by cloaking it with religion..." would be in order?

Or are you so sensitized to any who would "bash Religion" that you lose the rest of the message.

For your information,I do not display the Stars and Stripes, nor will I as long as it's being used by the GOP to hide under while they steal our Rights. And if the US flag had as long and as bloody a history as Religion, I'd probably not even allow one in the house.

I wonder how you feel about guns? Sure, people use them to murder, depose governments, rob people, but, "...Their reprehensible actions ought not tarnish the objects they use..." Right?

But to take another tack, aren't you confusing "Spirituality" with Religion? One's personal, the other's organized and centralized (with a father figure at the head getting rich off the peasants)in case you forgot.

[Lyagushka]

9. Good Reply

The 'Dad' letter is nothing but sentimental bullsh*t. It is written in a tone that suggests he is trying to be 'reasonable' even understanding, but as soon as you get to the 'guts' of the letter, it is nothing but a set of inaccurate racial prejudices.

Dressing up your xenophobia does not change it into something 'reasonable' it just shows you have mastered a better way of clouding the real issues that underpin the letter.

There is something rather indulgent and sentimental about the whole tone and content of the letter- a sort of 'poor me, what have I done to deserve this ?'. That there is a complete absence of any introspection or self criticism shows just how shallow and superficial this attempt to appear reasonable really is.

[DS1]

10. Cheesus

This guy writes like Rummy talks, asking himself questions and answering them, but sounds like Stacy Keach in American History X.

Chump bought it all.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

12. One correction: It wasn't Richard Clarke's wife who was outed; it was

the wife of retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

[WLKjr]

15. Send this back to him, and tell him it's from OHIO!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2172523&mesg_id=2172523