News-Record.com

Blog regulars have been down this path many times … I'm not going on this one, except to restate in 1941 we clearly knew the major enemy players: Hitler and Tojo (Hirohito was just a patsy, some say), and for a while, Mussolini.

In 1935 "Easy Oil" (my term) was discovered in the Middle East

Saudi Arabia, with 60% of the "Easy Oil" was already tightly allied with the UK, so it was never a threat for going to the dark Axis side.

The British had installed the Hashemite family as monarchy over what is now Iraq, and similarly it was never a threat for going to the dark side. In 1958, that fell apart in a coup as Iraq joined-up with the new dark side, the USSR. Ahhh, the cold war days.

In 1968, the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party - the radical, left-wing, secular nationalist party started in Syria and headed by Saddam’s cousin Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr - took over and as far as I can tell, followed the same general path as the Shah of Iran, i.e., provide the West with Easy Oil in exchange for non-interference in heavy handed “local” politics. In 1979, Saddam killed a bunch of folks and took over until fairly recently. He is now on trial for being a bad person, as we all acknowledge.

In what is now called Iran, and fearing the Axis countries would grab that supply, the UK and USSR - our on-again, off-again, on-again buddies, ya know (depending, apparently on the soul-evident in the eye of the leader de jour) - moved into Iran to assure the daddy of the Shah of Iran would remained friendly to the Allies. The background is after decades of heavy handed UK pressure from India, Old Man Shah was starting to lean away from the Allies, his only alternative being Hitler.

Putting Iran under the thumb of the Allies was, in my humble opinion, a key reason you and I don't speak Germany and goose-step-walk down the street, since the lack of oil was a key cause of Axis failure in their zeal for global power.

In 1951, the daddy of the Shah of Iran was regime changed for the infamous Shah of Iran (another one of those infamous covert activities that Jeffersonian Republicans, aka modern day "Liberals", whine about but doesn't always turn out the way the Hamilton's Federalists, aka modern day "Conservatives", envision).

I digress.

For 28 years, the Shah of Iran provided the West with Easy Oil in exchange for non-interference in his re-definition of the word "Dictator": a modern Iran at the expense of civil liberties. By the mid 70's the good folks of Iran had enough and replaced him with your friend and mine, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

===

Well back to the main topic: I agree the American casualties in Iraq are relatively light, but what-ever we're fighting for is not as simple as Axis vs. Allies, a fact complicated by the 80% of the worlds "easy Oil" issue in the same area as spiritual ground zero for three major religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Also - The letter writer should read the New Consitution before he gets too excited about the possibilities for womans rights - or anything that even approaches what he would call a US style Iraqi

==

again with thanks to Wilkipedia for the chance to refresh old memory cell and fill up new ones, I'm off to do some charitable work.

I agree with JDR on most of what was stated in his post. What bothers me is that comparing what the US has done/is doing in Iraq are in no way whatsoever similiar to World War II. Yet, far too many people want to compare these.

Furthermore, battle casualties in World War II resulted from the absence of many protections that modern-day soldiers have. Also, the medical care that can be received on the battlefield is MUCH greater than that of the early 20th Century! That alone has been accounted for the lesser loss of life thus far, read the reports that have been made on this. Also, a wounded soldier in Iraq can be stabalized at a field hospital, then flown to Reinmein Air Force Base in Germany (US Post) and receive even greater care. Many of the maimed from this conflict have been this route.

So, where is the logic & reason in Francis Perkins' letter?

Shalom

But our men and women that are dying in Iraq aren't dying for Americans freedoms. That is fact. Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they weren't a threat to us, our freedoms were never in danger of being lost. We have lost more freedoms from Bush than Iraq could have ever accomplished.

Comparing this war to WWII is like comparing apples and oranges.

Brian Harper, you summarized my statement in just a few lines. Thanks, sometimes I can be quite verbose.

Shalom

Well thanks for "agreeing" Daryl - mostly it was a gathering of historicla fact - not much to dis-agree with!

Francis: Some wars have helped retain our freedom. Some have not. The war in Iraq, rather than protecting our freedom has done the opposite. A country that was in no way connected to al queda was illegally attacked by our country and now fluourishes and a haven for terrorists. Our misadventure in Iraq has jeopardized our freedom, has created enemies we never had before and has damned near bankrupted the country. Are you aware that China, not the most stable of non-democracies, in indirectly keeping our country afloat and is now our greatest creditor? That, too, hardly, protects our freedom. What does protect our freedom is a government that is honest with its citizens...one that does not take away the freedoms provided in our consitution..the same freedoms fought for by those brave soldiers in previous wars like World War II. What takes our freedoms away are a corrupt government in Washington that, come hell or high water, will do what they intended to do before they even came into power and if they can't find justification for it, they simply invent it. If someone crosses them, there is payback...remember the outting of Valerie Plame. I am not a religious person, but I think we need to pray for our country and what it has become.