Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

WAR is for REAL ! (by Major General Vernon Chong, USAF, ret.)

(This is definitely worthy of your immediate attention. Read every word, and pass it on to everyone you know. We all need to know the truth about this war against "terrorism" and "lies". Please stand up for truth and do what is right. This has been a "free" country, and this is God's world. ) This is for everyone to read regardless of your political affiliation.

I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts ... so when I received them, I almost deleted them -- as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts.

This WAR is for REAL !

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. 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 11, 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;
* Dares 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. 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.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

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


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 American prisoners 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.



This was sent to me and though this was interesting

I get humiliated daily each time I walk out into the world (okay, get your jabs in ). Guess it's better than being blown up.

"2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. "

thats where i knew this was a load of shit,

and ommitting every non-muslem attack from that list just to reflect and say "they were all muslems" is racist and i find it disgusting.

and humiliation? talk about being a slave to the media. taking a weak irrelivent point from last year and running with it. never mind all the murders taking place in prison, never mind the torture which the administration has OPENLY ADMITTED to using as a tactic and even trying to get congress to aprove it.

nothing more than a "lets all get together, love our brother, and be racist scum...together" pros
congratulations for posting this load of horseshit

Originally posted by PVS
"2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. "

thats where i knew this was a load of shit,

and ommitting every non-muslem attack from that list just to reflect and say "they were all muslems" is racist and i find it disgusting.

and humiliation? talk about being a slave to the media. taking a weak irrelivent point from last year and running with it. never mind all the murders taking place in prison, never mind the torture which the administration has OPENLY ADMITTED to using as a tactic and even trying to get congress to aprove it.

nothing more than a "lets all get together, love our brother, and be racist scum...together" pros
congratulations for posting this load of horseshit

He didn't illustrate every attack because obviously the man was pointing out the current state of affairs in the middle east.

Anyway the attacks really started with the creation of Israel and things along those lines.

At the end of the day the conflict is more then just a physical battle but also a battle of beliefs systems (I am talking economic not religious)

Cont.Originally posted by debbiejo
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 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. For some perhaps those are the reasons. But I'd presume that to a high ranking fundamentalist terrorist in one of these groups Western culture would be anathema. Other plausible causes, foreign policy - the support of the House of Saud, the handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the aforementioned interferences in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations. For the low-ranking "foot-soldier" types religious fanaticism? Societal disaffection? Who knows?
Originally posted by debbiejo
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. Which is to imply?
Originally posted by debbiejo
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

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. Again who is the "enemy" to which this man is referring, terrorism or Islam, because the tone implies the latter.
Originally posted by debbiejo
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. Those are some rather large assumptions and generalisations. Is this man privy to the individual histories of each of these prisoners?
Originally posted by debbiejo
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.... see above on chemical weapons...
Originally posted by debbiejo
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners 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.I'm wondering... I don't think anyone considers the "humiliating" of prisoners the same magnitude of atrocious as the acts committed by terrorists and terrorist organisations - however does that mean that one does not hold to a certain standard a nation's, be it one's own or not, military personnel and does not hold those serving within it's forces accountable under conventions of warfare to which a nation is signatory to? "They did it why can't we...?" Seems a bit juvenile.

I'm not debating this....I am not knowledgeable in this area....But it's being circulated around since it was sent to me........ I thought you'd all enjoy it, and I was right!!!


Whoooo doesn't this stir the pot....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


Originally posted by xmarksthespot Again who is the "enemy" to which this man is referring, terrorism or Islam, because the tone implies the latter.

It is rather infered that the terrorists are muslim and the muslims are using religion to stir their terror pot

Originally posted by xmarksthespot Those are some rather large assumptions and generalisations. Is this man privy to the individual histories of each of these prisoners?

If he was privy to that information would the outcry against it be any less? I don't believe it would be.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot I'm wondering... I don't think anyone considers the "humiliating" of prisoners the same magnitude of atrocious as the acts committed by terrorists and terrorist organisations - however does that mean that one does not hold to a certain standard a nation's, be it one's own or not, military personnel and does not hold those serving within it's forces accountable under conventions of warfare to which a nation is signatory to? "They did it why can't we...?" Seems a bit juvenile.

That brings up a good question about rules of conflict. Why are rules and conduct to war in place if those other nations don't follow them? Set a level of rules and accountability measures in place. However when there is a tyrant and they don't have "free press" in place to check and balance them those rules are impossible to enforce effectively. So the real question should be what should the rules say and if new rules are put in place who is going to follow them?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm not debating this....Just to be clear my responses were directed at the former General...Originally posted by debbiejo
I am not knowledgeable in this area....But it's being circulated around since it was sent to me........ I thought you'd all enjoy it, and I was right!!!

Whoooo doesn't this stir the pot.... Bad debbie.
I know how you like pictures...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38957000/jpg/_38957921_030314saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
December 1983.

Originally posted by soleran30
It is rather infered that the terrorists are muslim and the muslims are using religion to stir their terror pot.Taking into account the entirety of the comments it's not exactly difficult to extrapolate that this man believes Islam and Muslims, not just radical Islamic terrorist organisations, to be a threat and an enemy, however that's just imo of the connotation.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Taking into account the entirety of the comments it's not exactly difficult to extrapolate that this man believes Islam and Muslims, not just radical Islamic terrorist organisations, to be a threat and an enemy, however that's just imo of the connotation.

To be be fair perhaps he is also looking at how religion is so much a part of their culture over there that the gov't is using religion to get people to partake in military actions..........I did hate how the military guy prefaced his entire point with "this is God's world" then feels justified to take military action to "god's" children the hypocrasy of religion even puts World Gov't to shame

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Just to be clear my responses were directed at the former General...Bad debbie.
I know how you like pictures...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38957000/jpg/_38957921_030314saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
December 1983. Yes I do.....You know me sooo well xmark....LOL

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes I do..... That can't have helped his electoral chances...

He kind of looks like a cleaner shaven Grigori Rasputin.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That can't have helped his electoral chances...

He kind of looks like a cleaner shaven Grigori Rasputin. I think he was desperate...

funny though.

Originally posted by PVS
"2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. "

thats where i knew this was a load of shit,

and ommitting every non-muslem attack from that list just to reflect and say "they were all muslems" is racist and i find it disgusting.

and humiliation? talk about being a slave to the media. taking a weak irrelivent point from last year and running with it. never mind all the murders taking place in prison, never mind the torture which the administration has OPENLY ADMITTED to using as a tactic and even trying to get congress to aprove it.

nothing more than a "lets all get together, love our brother, and be racist scum...together" pros
congratulations for posting this load of horseshit
I completely agree.

Originally posted by PVS
"2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. "

thats where i knew this was a load of shit,

and ommitting every non-muslem attack from that list just to reflect and say "they were all muslems" is racist and i find it disgusting.

and humiliation? talk about being a slave to the media. taking a weak irrelivent point from last year and running with it. never mind all the murders taking place in prison, never mind the torture which the administration has OPENLY ADMITTED to using as a tactic and even trying to get congress to aprove it.

nothing more than a "lets all get together, love our brother, and be racist scum...together" pros
congratulations for posting this load of horseshit

still makes a better argument than resorting to "racist scum" insults though

insult? forgive me if i offended major general vernon chong

should i call him 'tolerantly challenged fabricator of truth and fixer of figures'? would that suit your pallet?

great post PVS you saved me and a lot of ppl a bit of typing

Originally posted by PVS
insult? forgive me if i offended major general vernon chong

should i call him 'tolerantly challenged fabricator of truth and fixer of figures'? would that suit your pallet?


Well you could call him that and most other presidents of the USA in the past 50 years.......

Originally posted by Fire
great post PVS you saved me and a lot of ppl a bit of typing

well i'm all for keyboard conservation. glad to be of service

The problems began shortly after WWII, with Lawrence of Arabia.

What do you know?

In defence of Major General Vernon Chong, who has taken quite a bashing here...

... he didn't write this. This is another one of those spammed e-mails that some idiot has changed the attribution of, for no good reason (rumour has it that Chong forwarded it and so became known as the author, but someone still removed the original attribution).

It was in fact written last year by some attorney writing to his kids. At least, that's what it said when this was last circulated in '04; who knows who really wrote it?

Technically, the beginning of the war dates back to the first split in homo sapien colonies. Differences that seperate people cannot always be tolerated, for the base reaction of all living beings is to stay with things that are familiar.

War is not started in most cases by one side. To slaughter another without resistance is not considered a battle, it's called genocide. To retaliate in hope for survival is to fight.

If all life is equally precious, to fight for survival is never wrong.

war and rumors or war have been a part of our world for quite some time. We should be working towards peace, but since that won't happen for a very long itme, waring for peace is better than sitting on your hands doing nothing

Isn't fighting for peace a self-defeating concept? That's essentially forcing your idea of morals and peace upon the other side if you win, which (unless you propose a Big Brother system) creates dissension in the nation, which could erupt in a civil war that could harm even more innocents.

I see what you're saying but "peace" is an ideal that can never truly be achieved....

...and that's severly depressing.