[TomasUSMC]

The last battle of WWII, Okinawa, lasted 83 days. In that battle the US deployed more forces, and suffered many more deaths than we have thus far in WWIII. Look at these tables:

---

You know, I would have to say imo, the last battle of WWII was Nagasaki, it lasted about 83 seconds. We suffered no casualties and the enemy surrendered. If we would have had the A bomb earlier, we would have nuked Okinawa.


The war on terror is being fought with the same rules and mindset as Vietnam and not WW2.

We continue to allow the enemy terrorists that kill our troops in Iraq to have sanctuaries in Iran and Syria, just like Laos and Cambodia, except in Nam, at least our Presidents then had the cojones to bomb them, but for some god foresaken reason, not President Bush.

It took us less than 4 years to beat tens of millions of professional German and Japanese troops, and thousands of their planes and tanks and ships, and their economies which were mobilized for war, and we did it with draftees(Which by the way did an outstanding job and I think they'd do well in the future too). Yet, in almost the same amount of time, almost 4 years, President Bush hasn't even been able to defeat a bunch of punks with RPGs.


I have to say, we are taking things way to slowly. All this talk of bringing freedom to Iraqis and Afghanis, to me, is not relevant. We brought freedom to the Germans and the Japanese too. We did it against a much more powerful foe and at a time when we were unprepared for war and the Japanese had hurt us significantly at Pearl Harbor. We brought freedom to them quicker because we fought them harder.

It seems, though, that nowadays, we are being led to believe that only by being kinder gentler and compassionate will the muslim world grasp and accept the concept of democracy and individual freedom. Yet the intolerant religion of Islam is still going to be the STATE RELIGION of Iraq.

I say, that the Japanese population and many Germans were as fanatical as muslims are today. We convinced them then, not by being nice and slow, but by being brutal and quick. I suggest the same approach today before its too late and we wake up one morning and Syria and Iran have atomic weapons too.

[EGPWS]

We suffered no casualties and the enemy surrendered.

Tell that to a Democrat congress critter, and see how many HOURS it takes them to respond to you with a mantra of subtle anti USA rhetoric.

Filibuster is a word that comes to mind....

[AZGunSlinger]

I couldn't agree with you more. I have been arguing with my liberal acquaintances (difficult to say friends)...my argument is usually as follows:

The difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is love vs power. Liberals believe that Love is the universal language. If we spend enough time trying to understand our fellow man, they'll do the right thing. I think this is not realistic enough. No honest person can tell me they aren't (due to human nature) competitive. Who wants to be equals? Everyone wants to be #1. Therefore, power - usually in the form of violence unfortunately is the one true universal language.

The power-centric approach is in line with the "speak softly and carry a big stick", "trust but verify", and now the Bush Doctrine. We have to, in the same line as being cordial, constantly remind them we mean business and are prepared to unleash devastating violence if we are crossed.

In WW2, the Germans literally believed they were the master race, DNA in their every cell deserved world domination. How do you negotiate with that? Same thing in Japan - they were convinced they were racially superior. How do you negotiate with that deep seeded position? How do you 'reset' that way of thinking to something more workable? And aren't these religious fanatics similar in their conviction?

The only way you "argue" with that is by letting these depraved people know the sheer futility and inevitable failure of that way of thinking. That behavior will lead to but one end, their painful and total destruction. Unfortunately, we can't be as clear as a nuclear bomb in terms of absolute, irrefutable power resetting misguided ideals in this conflict (although Iran introduces new possibilities for that kind of display). Can you imagine how quickly these theocratic leaders would lose their so-called popular support if the choice was between actively supporting the party line and being vaporized as a result OR actively rising up and removing those deviants from power? I would give them 30 seconds before we saw their population turn on their leaders.

Its all well and good when they're just talking about the great Satan, etc, but if one single action should be taken to act on their misguided view of the world as a state government, our response should be swift, result in their utter and complete defeat - and irrefutably demonstrate the futility of a terrorist course of action.

I think the time for speaking softly is over. We mean business. Bring on our 'big stick'!

[Robert_Paulson2]

dittos.
glass their a$$.

end of story.

[hineybona]

I'm thinking like you more and more these days ..

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thomas,.....patience....we have a problem at home......

See this:

************************************************

Unholy Alliance
by David Horowitz
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526076X
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 2004)

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the “Great Satan” with America’s radical Islamic enemies. This Left, which once made common cause with Communists, has now joined forces with radical Islam in attacking America’s defenses at home and its policies abroad. From their positions of influence in the university and media culture, leftists have defined America as the “root cause” of the attacks against it. In a remarkable exploration of the “Mind of the Left,” Horowitz traces the evolution of American radicalism from its Communist past to its “anti-war” present. He then shows how this Left was able to turn the Democratic Party presidential campaign around and reshape its views on the War on Terror.

Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, writes John Haynes, the noted historian of American Communism, “is an insightful, brilliant examination of the mental world of the radical left. Horowitz shows how today’s radicals, unwilling to reflect on the internal flaws that destroyed Marxism-Leninism from within, have embraced an all-consuming nihilism in its place. This has led them to a hatred of American institutions and a solidarity with Islamic terrorists that makes the radical left more properly regarded as dangerous than loony.”

Unholy Alliance is an eye-opening book that should unsettle conventional assumptions and reveals why intellectuals and political leaders who applaud Michael Moore are no laughing matter. As Harvey Klehr, author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, writes, “The world Communist movement may be moribund, but its habits of mind and ideological fantasies have not disappeared. This is a fascinating and depressing account.”

Price: $19.01 - Click here to order:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thomas here's is support for your viewpoint....

Koran predicts "Blazing Hell Fire" for its own demise - (eloquent ex-Muslim; Islam must be crushed!)

[truth_seeker]

"The war on terror is being fought with the same rules and mindset as Vietnam and not WW2."

Watching cspan convinces me that our top generals and admirals spend most of their time before congressional committees, instead of plotting quick and decisive military victories.

I agree with bin Laden; that we are now in WWIII. Credit Bush for mentioning that, for I think we'll hear it again.

Inspite of all his detractors, FDR seemed aware it would come to all out war for the US, and he moved with that in mind.

But the public didn't favor our involvement until Pearl Harbor. Why we fail to recognize 9/11/2001 as the exact equivalent escapes me.

In our conduct of WWII we held to minimizing civilian deaths, EXCEPT where it held strategic value.

We firebombed Dresden and nuked Japan for "shock and awe." It worked in the latter; failed in the former.

Islam needs whackin pretty soon. Don't know the time or place, but they keep beggin and the time and place will make itself clear, imo.

It is a target rich environment. Our efforts to date should be read by reasonable foes that we will respond.

Another 9/11/2001 type attack might be the catalyst.

[oh8eleven]

I say, that the Japanese population and many Germans were as fanatical as muslims are today. We convinced them then, not by being nice and slow, but by being brutal and quick.
And in Japan, we had to drop not one, but TWO A-bombs before they surrendered.
Semper Fi...

[sam_paine]

I say, that the Japanese population and many Germans were as fanatical as muslims are today.

Thoughtful analysis, but your analogy does injustice to the Germans and the Japs. They were (are) a cultured, civilized people. When the occupiers enforced order, the occupied rebuilt roads, infrastructure. The industrious locals took over reconstruction (sure the Marshall plan injected resources, but there were still German engineers, builders, etc).

These idiots have no skills, have no civilization. As occupiers today we have to protect them from each other -and- wipe their butts for them. They are no more than violent children and I keep falling back into a despair that maybe a tyrant like Hussein is all they deserve or understand.

Axis civilization was about at "Atlas Shrugged" Page 30ish.....Muslim civilization is like page 300ish if you get my drift.

[quantfive]

I saw your post and agree about how we beat the Germans and Japs in WWII. Nam was a different war then this one is. The enemy is not contained to a 400 square mile radius, they are global and mobile. One of the real issues we do not impose our military strength on Iran is that we rely on their oil imports, they are either the 5th or 6th biggest importer of oil.

I like Bush's strategy on pushing biofuels. Hell, the technology has been around almost 100 years, it's been greed that has kept us on Middle East but now I think we are slowly waking up to the fact of how truly dangerous and stupid this policy was. When we stop relying on the arabs for oil then we can be as harsh in war as we should be. Until then, our hands are going to remain somewhat tied.

[mississippi red-neck]

Very, very well said.

[Revenge of Sith]

The US military in World War II weren't all draftees. Many able bodied men actually lied about their age (both boys too young and men too old) and physical condition TO GET INTO THE WAR.