[CS-FSLUG] An apolitical reasoned argument.

[Fred Miller]

What I don't agree is with his assessment of after the elections this Nov. If 
Kerry should win, we'll be in the position of being under the thumb of 
globalist gov't. Other than that, he's RIGHT ON!

Fred
___________________

Subject: An apolitical reasoned argument.

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.

4.  Who were the attackers?
      In each case of attacks on US they were Muslims.

5.  What is the Muslim population of the World?
  25%

6..  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 the 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 our 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]  By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is
really not possible to discuss it.  However, I think President Kennedy was
correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North 
Vietnam to take over that whole area.  Also remember that we were in a 'cold 
war' with Russia.  I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total
communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now.  It just isn't
politically correct to say so.  Historians will answer this after cool headed
research, when the people closest to it are all gone.

[2] 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.

[3]  Source for statistics in Par. 1 is
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html .

[4]  The Institute of Islamic Information and Education.
http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html

[5]  Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in Foot Note 6
infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France  (The
note was not attached to the e-mail I received.)

[6]  I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban
Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either.  I also then e-mailed Mr. 
Segel and he confirmed the article was his.

[7]  "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of
war any more.  It's done by senators and congressmen.  There are too many
civilians involved."  Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees
as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May13th, 2004.

[8]  There are 64 Muslim countries.  This does not count countries like
Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

-- 
"Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion 
than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."