A history lesson from then for now.

Although its likely that everyone was effected by the second world war, it obviously was influential on some lives more than others, when asked by a reporter how the war had effected her, a Detroit woman responded "well I had to give up nylons." [damn it to hell I can't find the source.] But anyway, I'm just gonna ramble along, refuting points here and there in the essay, we'll see if what I say is more sensible than what you've said. Well first, Congress declared war upon Japan only on December 8th. If you read FDR's "Infamy Speech" he makes no mention of Germany of Italy. Germany and Italy declared war upon America on the 11th, and Congress reciprocated the declarations. The person who wrote this essay must have overlooked the fact that the main objective of that Japanese was to sink our 3 carriers stationed there. The problem was, all 3 of those carriers were out for maintenance. Something that was also forgotten was the fact that the Americans had the greatest production capacity out of any country at the time. The person who MASTERMINDED THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, Isoruku Yamamoto said "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve." It wasn't as dicey as the author would like to make us think back then, it was pretty much either attack Japan and Germany, or be owned later on. We picked the first one. Anyway, on to the good stuff.. First and foremost, I find it rather odd that the author makes no mention at all in the essay of the actual HOT WAR between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects of Islam, a battle that has been going on for about a millenia or so. This is very important to note because it makes the threat of "Islamofascism" less severe, because the two sides are also working against each other, just as it makes the potential for "Reformed" Islam less likely, for the previously stated reason. Think Catholics and Protestants (only times 1000), their battle isn't over yet, just look and Ireland and North Ireland; in recent memory there has been violence between the different Christian groups. Also, I'd like to contend that the "rational Saudi of today" is probably more entrenched in fundementalist Islam than an "educated" Muslim of any other country. Their Constitution IS the dreadfully feared Sharia law. They don't take a woman's testimony in court, they don't let women drive, they have no sense of due process what so ever, they can arrest you for being a member of a political party, they don't give a Flying F**k about slavery and human trafficking (State Department-Country whose government does not fully comply with the minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so), and if you aren't a Sunni Muslim who adheres to Wahabi teachings, you can expect to never be treated fair by the government on any matter. The Economist Magazine's Democracy Index, which rates nations' on a scale of 1 to 10 on how democratic they are, places Saudi Arabia at 159th, which is 9 places before dead last, North Korea. For comparative purposes, Iran is 139th, Russia is 102nd, Israel is 47th, the UK is 23, the US is 17th, and Sweden is first. The point of all that I've said is that "Jihad" is already in Saudi Arabia. This all brings me to my biggest point, which is that Iraq is the wrong place for "western society to defend itself." I'd like to start that Iraq had no connection with Al-queda, and needs to be recognized, as that was used as a selling point to get us into the current conflict. All of the attackers were born in, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia. Yes, Saddam was a despot, but is that the only justification to take him out? I hope not, because then we're being terribly unfair to that other 30 or so dictators of various nations, as they're killing off his own citizens just as good, and just can't wait to be owned by the United States. I take serious issue with bringing up the Iran-Iraq war casualties as a justification to go into Iraq for the United States because WE FUNDED IRAN AND IRAQ AT THE SAME MOTHER F*CKING TIME. We wanted them to kill eachother, so we'd give some intel to the Iraqis, and then some American artillery to the Iranians. I agree, taking out high level targets is important in destabilizing terrorist movements, however, we have to look at what cost it is. Over a million Iraqi civilians have died so far since we have gone into that country. I believe that is not only a humanitarian problem, but also a security issue. Every Iraqi father, uncle, mother, brother, aunt, sister, and cousin who dies because of violence will leave someone behind. And when the people who are left behind think of their loved one's death, they'll think of the violence that caused it, and when they think of that, they'll remember what got all of the violence started, the United States invasion. By going into Iraq, we may have given millions of young boys and even girls reason to dislike the US from the start. Al-Queda recruiters are great at getting people who are disenchanted with the US to join their organization, and so I fear greatly the long term repercussions of such a careless war. Going on.. The author then immideately compares Iraq war costs to 9/11 costs using fuzzy math. IRAQ AND AL-QUEDA WERE NOT CONNECTED, GIVING THE IRAQ WAR NO JUSTIFICATION. As I stated before, in 15 to 20 years, Iraq will become hostile to the United States, no matter what, because of what we are doing today. If by Barbarians, the author means Iranians, the author is making a brave assumption that they are trying to get a nuke, (despite all US intel saying otherwise) and that they'd be dumb enough to use it against Israel, which has Nukes, and a vastly superior armed forces or the United States, which has even more nukes, and an even better force. If the author is implying that the Iranians will give a nuke to Al-queda, obviously he has forgotten again about the major split between Sunnis and Shi'ite groups, Iran is Shi'ite, Al-queda is Sunni. They don't get along at all, not even for a common cause. I find it odd that the author implies that Iran is the most oppressed nation on earth, while it certainly is bad, at least women can drive, at least women can testify in court, at least other religions are permitted to exist, at least they allow politics, in fact, they are a theocratic republic, where people are voted for to national assembly, and a president is voted for as well. On to the finale, The author acts like Iraq is the only country that had a bad human rights record. If we're going to invade Iraq because of their domestic actions, then we must invade every country, otherwise we're being hypocrites. This brings me to my final point, and that is that the Iraq war was fought for oil. If we wanted Al-queda so bad, we would have doubled up in Afganistan, or attacked Saudi Arabia [Which would never, ever, happen, because they give us so much oil its not even funny.] Oil, aka. money, makes the world go round, and so oil is why we have gone into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia. It is detestable to call out some countries for being terrible, when their neighbors are just as terrible, only they provide us with oil. Although it sure would be a lot less bad if the goverment just said it like it is. "We need oil, Saudi Arabia gives us lots of oil, Iraq doesn't, let's get 'em." Thank you sadolite for giving me a chance to express my opinions.