--- In thejohnwilliamsfanclub@yahoogroups.com, mreen@n... wrote:
>
> 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); - eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat)
during
> the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia
(1995)
> and on Iraq (1998).
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 3. 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.
>
> 4. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US
> were carried out by Muslims.
>
> 5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
>
> 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.
>
> 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 whom 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 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. See the attached article on the French
> condition by Tom Segel.
>
> 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 had 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 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 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 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
>
> [a] 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.
>
> [b] 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.
>
> [c] "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 May 13, 2004.
>
> [d] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries
like
> Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.