Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Good post I wanted to forward to keep this going. It is a long read but worth your time, if you feel it's not worth your time to read this, bill me! The check is in the mail.

Ti.


This WAR Is For REAL!
by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired:


Tuesday, July 12, 2005

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 that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581
terrorist attacks worldwide).

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 cannot 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, 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 )

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 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 the US, but
kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, 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 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, 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. 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!

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves,
but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that
include the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Consider forwarding this to any you feel may want,
or NEED to read it.

Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those
that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who
truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,099 Posts
I wish I could argue with it...but I cant.

Between that and the current immigration issues, we are screwed.




Put your seatbelts on and get ready for the ride..:ahhhhh:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,535 Posts
I have to admit this is one of the best and most balanced pieces I've read. Good post!

Ti Carry said:
Good post I wanted to forward to keep this going. It is a long read but worth your time,


This WAR Is For REAL!
by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired:
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;
I'll bet we can identify earlier incidents if we try. 1979 seems a little late.

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 cannot fault either the Republicans
or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents
or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
One point that no one ever seems to point out is that we have continually supported "their" traditional enemies, thus making ourselves enemies almost be default.

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.
Great point it's unfortunate and one often missed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Pretty darned good treatise on how things are and were and why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,674 Posts
The beginings of this war in my opinion can be traced back to 1947 when Israel was founded. The United States rightfully backing the Jewish State alienated most of the Muslim world.

Guys, this isn't the first time Western and Middle Eastern cultures have clashed. The bad blood has been brewing for over a thousand years almost. If you want to go further back go to the 1000's-1100's and study the Crusades. Then look at how European countries invaded in the 1800's and 1900's and turned these Middle Eastern countries into colonies. Look at how that links us to modern times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I've read that before... So much truth to it all...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,431 Posts
Very good post. We, the people, need this kind of information and determination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Very good post. Thanks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,703 Posts
YUP! What all them other fellers said! :rofl:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,535 Posts
Doc Holliday said:
The beginings of this war in my opinion can be traced back to 1947 when Israel was founded.
That could be a valid assumption, although historically I think it goes back a lot further.

The United States rightfully backing the Jewish State alienated most of the Muslim world.
However, I do question "rightfully". :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
Dr. Chong certainly says some good things, but also curiously contradicts himself.

He decries the erosion of rights for political correctness, but also states how foolish we are for being overly concerned with civil rights. It comes down to the old questions of "Who's ox is being gored?" If it's a right that you consider essential, then you'll shout to the heavens how your rights are being abused. On the other hand, if I'm the one being affected, then I have to learn to live with it, for the greater good. [BTW, I'm using a rhetorical "you" - not directed at any individual.]

Majority rule -- as long as you're in the majority.

Freedom of speech -- except for that group that says stuff you don't like.

Religious freedom -- unless it's for the "wrong" religion.

Freedom of the press -- except for those media outlets who publish antithetical ideas.

Right to privacy -- except for people who "might" be a threat or have different lifestyles.

Right to keep and bear arms -- except for those that frighten you and therefore must be unnecessary for anyone.

Dr. Chong says, and I agree, "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."

It happened during WWII with internment camps, it happened during the McCarthy era with blacklists, it happened when a large segment of our population was convinced that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, that we don't need it any more anyway.

Can we lose? Absolutely. If we, like the Weimar Republic, give away those inconvenient rights which stand in the way of our "security". We lose, if we lose our nerve. If we become so frightened that we're willing to give away the essential core of our republic: the rule of constitutional law, founded upon the rights of the individual. No external enemy can take those from us.

Edwar R. Murrow said eloquently:
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,674 Posts
rstickle said:
That could be a valid assumption, although historically I think it goes back a lot further.

Well if you read my post you'll see that I mention the Crusades and European Imperialism which has fueled the fire for over a thousand years between East and West. However, I see 1947 as the begining of the present war of the West vs. Jihad.

However, I do question "rightfully". :confused:

Well this belief stems from my religious viewpoint. You are free to disagree but I will support Israel to the fullest. (No, I'm not Jewish, I'm a Protestant Christian):

Anyway just my .02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
rodc13 said:
Majority rule -- as long as you're in the majority.

Freedom of speech -- except for that group that says stuff you don't like.

Religious freedom -- unless it's for the "wrong" religion.

Freedom of the press -- except for those media outlets who publish antithetical ideas.

Right to privacy -- except for people who "might" be a threat or have different lifestyles.

Right to keep and bear arms -- except for those that frighten you and therefore must be unnecessary for anyone.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but the take on the above seems to be a "relativistic" one. There can be no unified Constitutional Republic unless the concept of Absolute Right and Wrong are recognized and acknowledged.(Granted, as humans, we won't always live up to the ideal, but....)

Constitutionally, we can squash the hell out of churches/congregations that preach violence- we simply cannot say that we are establishing the Church of the United States. Again, the socialists are not able to legally (with validity)or morally challenge the Constitution, so they circumvent it with socialist-reformist judicial appointments. There must be some limits on freedom, or it will be used to destroy itself (as CAIR and the Mexican Reconquistas are doing).

Re the internment camps: we should have them today. Since we do not, and since we've all agreed that Catholic Nuns are the terror suspects we should be observing, we will have another "event". Probably severe enough to have a declaration of martial law.

McCarthy couldn't spot a Communist across the room, however it is generally recognized that the "Reds" were extremely active in a majority of the 60s movements, and seriously penetrated our Mil/Int. This, from KGB documents released +/- 8 years ago. The Red threat was real- we experienced a taste of it under Mr. Clinton, an indirect recipient of the USSR's love and affection; a direct recipient of China's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
"Well met..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
Rob72 said:
Maybe I'm misreading you, but the take on the above seems to be a "relativistic" one. There can be no unified Constitutional Republic unless the concept of Absolute Right and Wrong are recognized and acknowledged.(Granted, as humans, we won't always live up to the ideal, but....)
Hi, Rob. I don't quite follow you here. Could you expand? Thanks.

Rob72 said:
Constitutionally, we can squash the hell out of churches/congregations that preach violence- we simply cannot say that we are establishing the Church of the United States.
Actually, we can't. In 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. Brandenberg is still the standard.

And, there's a lot more to the establishment clause than "Church of the United States", but I don't want to go too far afield here. There are lots of forums for debating separation of church and state.

Rob72 said:
Again, the socialists are not able to legally (with validity)or morally challenge the Constitution, so they circumvent it with socialist-reformist judicial appointments. There must be some limits on freedom, or it will be used to destroy itself (as CAIR and the Mexican Reconquistas are doing).
Sorry, I'm not following you here again. Any group, right or left, can legally challenge the constitution through the process of amendment. Specific laws can be challenged via our legal system, but the Constitution itself cannot be altered by the judiciary. Courts are there to interpret the application to specific laws.

Absolutely, there are limits to freedom, generally where one person or group's exercise impacts on others, and in what a society can reasonably require of its members in order to function. Thus the Constitution grants that authority as well. It's hardly perfect. In fact, ours is probably the worst system in place today -- except for all the others!

Morally is a different issue altogether, although our Declaration of Independence enumerates conditions under which a government can justifiably be set aside. Of course, the Brits had a rather different opinion on the validity of that document.

Rob72 said:
Re the internment camps: we should have them today. Since we do not, and since we've all agreed that Catholic Nuns are the terror suspects we should be observing, we will have another "event". Probably severe enough to have a declaration of martial law.
Interesting concept. Who decides who goes in the camps (get those nuns off the street!)? Do we hold an election?

Haven't seen a situation even remotely close to requirement for national declaration of martial law -- ever.

At the federal level, martial law is severely limited anyway. In 1866, the Supreme Court establisheld that martial law couldn't be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. Then there's the Posse Comitatus Act which requires congressional approval for military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The National Guard is under the control of state governors, unless they're federalized.

Certainly, we've had a few localized instances that could possibly qualify, Katrina, for example. Although, in that case, it's questionable, because the state of Louisiana has no legal reference to "martial law". There are extraordinary powers granted during a "state of emergency", so you could argue that it looks like a duck. 9/11 wasn't one, since civil authority was never in any danger of breaking down.

Hawaii was under martial law during WWII (although not a state at the time). Andy Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans during the war of 1812. I don't know if he'd approve of his home state's current constitution specifically forbids martial law within the state.

Rob72 said:
McCarthy couldn't spot a Communist across the room, however it is generally recognized that the "Reds" were extremely active in a majority of the 60s movements, and seriously penetrated our Mil/Int. This, from KGB documents released +/- 8 years ago. The Red threat was real- we experienced a taste of it under Mr. Clinton, an indirect recipient of the USSR's love and affection; a direct recipient of China's.
No argument on Tailgunner Joe. Of course, the "Reds" also proved to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight. "Generally recognized" is also very problematic, as is "majority of '60s movements", which, if you laid them end to end, would point in all directions. There was hardly a monolithic movement. And, you know, I just never ran into many "Reds" when I was in the military.

That being said, all the hysteria got in the way of actual counter-espionage work. Looking for demons under the bed took resources away from the real fight.

BTW, the USSR was no more when President Clinton was in office.

Let's not be so fearful that we turn on ourselves, instead of taking appropriate action against real threats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
By the way, the essay which started this thread was not written by USAF Major General Vernon Chong , although he did pass on a version of it to an acquaintence via email. Here's the scoop:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
Nothing wrong, of course, with discussing the ideas and concepts, which can stand or fall on their own.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top