The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
What Happens When a Few Volunteer and the Rest Just Watch
The American Military System Dissected
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_716498572

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The purpose of all wars, is peace. So observed St. Augustine early in the first millennium A.D. Far be it from me to disagree with the esteemed Bishop of Hippo, but his crisply formulated aphorism just might require a bit of updating.

I’m not a saint or even a bishop, merely an interested observer of this nation’s ongoing military misadventures early in the third millennium A.D. From my vantage point, I might suggest the following amendment to Augustine’s dictum: Any war failing to yield peace is purposeless and, if purposeless, both wrong and stupid.

War is evil. Large-scale, state-sanctioned violence is justified only when all other means of achieving genuinely essential objectives have been exhausted or are otherwise unavailable. A nation should go to war only when it has to — and even then, ending the conflict as expeditiously as possible should be an imperative.

Some might take issue with these propositions, President Trump’s latest national security adviser doubtless among them. Yet most observers — even, I’m guessing, most high-ranking U.S. military officers — would endorse them. How is it then that peace has essentially vanished as a U.S. policy objective? Why has war joined death and taxes in that select category of things that Americans have come to accept as unavoidable?

The United States has taken Thucydides’s famed Melian Dialogue and turned it inside out. Centuries before Augustine, the great Athenian historian wrote, “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”Strength confers choice; weakness restricts it. That’s the way the world works, so at least Thucydides believed. Yet the inverted Melian Dialogue that prevails in present-day Washington seemingly goes like this: strength imposes obligations and limits choice. In other words, we gotta keep doing what we’ve been doing, no matter what.

Making such a situation all the more puzzling is the might and majesty of America’s armed forces. By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history. It’s certainly the most expensive and hardest working on the planet.

Yet in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.

We send the troops off to war, but they don’t achieve peace. Instead, America’s wars and skirmishes simply drag on, seemingly without end. We just keep doing what we’ve been doing, a circumstance that both Augustine and Thucydides would undoubtedly have found baffling.

Prosecuting War, Averting Peace

How to explain this paradox of a superb military that never gets the job done? Let me suggest that the problem lies with the present-day American military system, the principles to which the nation adheres in raising, organizing, supporting, and employing its armed forces. By its very existence, a military system expresses an implicit contract between the state, the people, and the military itself.

Here, as I see it, are the principles — seven in all — that define the prevailing military system of the United States.

First, we define military service as entirely voluntary. In the U.S., there is no link between citizenship and military service. It’s up to you as an individual to decide if you want to take up arms in the service of your country.

If you choose to do so, that’s okay. If you choose otherwise, that’s okay, too. Either way, your decision is of no more significance than whether you root for the Yankees or the Mets.

Second, while non-serving citizens are encouraged to “support the troops,” we avoid stipulating how this civic function is to be performed.

In practice, there are many ways of doing so, some substantive, others merely symbolic. Most citizens opt for the latter. This means that they cheer when invited to do so. Cheering is easy and painless. It can even make you feel good about yourself.

Third, when it comes to providing the troops with actual support, we expect Congress to do the heavy lifting. Our elected representatives fulfill that role by routinely ponying up vast sums of money for what is misleadingly called a defense budget. In some instances, Congress appropriates even more money than the Pentagon asks for, as was the case this year.

Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty. Only rarely does the Congress insert itself forcefully into matters relating to what U.S. forces scattered around the world are actually doing.

Yes, there are periodic hearings, with questions posed and testimony offered. But unless there is some partisan advantage to be gained, oversight tends to be, at best, pro forma. As a result, those charged with implementing national security policy — another Orwellian phrase — enjoy very considerable latitude.

Fourth, under the terms of our military system, this latitude applies in spades to the chief executive. The commander-in-chief occupies the apex of our military system. The president may bring to office very little expertise pertinent to war or the art of statecraft, yet his authority regarding such matters is essentially unlimited.

Consider, if you will, the sobering fact that our military system empowers the president to order a nuclear attack, should he see the need — or feel the impulse — to do so. He need not obtain congressional consent. He certainly doesn’t need to check with the American people.

Since Harry Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, presidents have not exercised this option, for which we should all be grateful. Yet on more occasions than you can count, they have ordered military actions, large and small, on their own authority or after only the most perfunctory consultation with Congress. When Donald Trump, for instance, threatened North Korea’s Kim Jong-un with “fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen,” he gave no hint that he would even consider asking for prior congressional authorization to do so. Trump’s words were certainly inflammatory. Yet were he to act on those words, he would merely be exercising a prerogative enjoyed by his predecessors going back to Truman himself.

The Constitution invests in Congress the authority to declare war. The relevant language is unambiguous. In practice, as countless commentators have noted, that provision has long been a dead letter. This, too, forms an essential part of our present military system.

Fifth, under the terms of that system, there’s no need to defray the costs of military actions undertaken in our name. Supporting the troops does not require citizens to pay anything extra for what the U.S. military is doing out there wherever it may be. The troops are asked to sacrifice; for the rest of us, sacrifice is anathema.

Indeed, in recent years, presidents who take the nation to war or perpetuate wars they inherit never even consider pressing Congress to increase our taxes accordingly. On the contrary, they advocate tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest among us, which lead directly to massive deficits.

Sixth, pursuant to the terms of our military system, the armed services have been designed not to defend the country but to project military power on a global basis. For the Department of Defense actually defending the United States qualifies as an afterthought, trailing well behind other priorities such as trying to pacify Afghanistan’s Kandahar Province or jousting with militant groups in Somalia. The United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are all designed to fight elsewhere, relying on a constellation of perhaps 800 bases around the world to facilitate the conduct of military campaigns “out there,” wherever “there” may happen to be. They are, in other words, expeditionary forces.

Reflect for a moment on the way the Pentagon divvies the world up into gigantic swathes of territory and then assigns a military command to exercise jurisdiction over each of them: European Command, Africa Command, Central Command, Southern Command, Northern Command, and Pacific Command. With the polar icecap continuing to melt, a U.S. Arctic Command is almost surely next on the docket. Nor is the Pentagon’s mania for creating new headquarters confined to terra firma. We already have U.S. Cyber Command. Can U.S. Galactic Command be far behind?

No other nation adheres to this practice. Nor would the United States permit any nation to do so. Imagine the outcry in Washington if President Xi Jinping had the temerity to create a “PRC Latin America Command,” headed by a four-star Chinese general charged with maintaining order and stability from Mexico to Argentina.

Seventh (and last), our military system invests great confidence in something called the military profession.

The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice. The medical profession exists to repair our bodily ailments. We hope that health and longevity will result. The military profession exists to master war. With military professionals in charge, it’s our hope that America’s wars will conclude quickly and successfully with peace the result.

To put it another way, we look to the military profession to avert the danger of long, costly, and inconclusive wars. History suggests that these sap the collective strength of a nation and can bring about its premature decline. We count on military professionals to forestall that prospect.

Our military system assigns the immediate direction of war to our most senior professionals, individuals who have ascended step by step to the very top of the military hierarchy. We expect three- and four-star generals and admirals to possess the skills needed to make war politically purposeful. This expectation provides the rationale for the status they enjoy and the many entitlementsthey are accorded.

America, the (Formerly) Indispensable

Now, the nation that has created this military system is not some “shithole country,” to use a phrase made famous by President Trump. We are, or at least claim to be, a democratic republic in which all power ultimately derives from the people. We believe in — indeed, are certain that we exemplify — freedom, even as we continually modify the meaning of that term.

In the aggregate, we are very rich. Since the latter part of the nineteenth century we have taken it for granted that the United States ought to be the richest country on the planet, notwithstanding the fact that large numbers of ordinary Americans are themselves anything but rich. Indeed, as a corollary to our military system, we count on these less affluent Americans to volunteer for military service in disproportionate numbers. Offered sufficient incentives, they do so.

Finally, since 1945 the United States has occupied the preeminent place in the global order, a position affirmed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991. Indeed, we have come to believe that American primacy reflects the will of God or of some cosmic authority.

From the early years of the Cold War, we have come to believe that the freedom, material abundance, and primacy we cherish all depend upon the exercise of “global leadership.” In practice, that seemingly benign term has been a euphemism for unquestioned military superiority and the self-assigned right to put our military to work as we please wherever we please. Back in the 1990s, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it best: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

Other countries might design their military establishments to protect certain vital interests. As Albright’s remark suggests, American designs have been far more ambitious.

Here, then, is a question: How do the principles and attitudes that undergird our military system actually suit twenty-first-century America? And if they don’t, what are the implications of clinging to such a system? Finally, what alternative principles might form a more reasonable basis for raising, organizing, supporting, and employing our armed forces?

Spoiler alert: Let me acknowledge right now that I consider our present-day military system irredeemably flawed and deeply harmful. For proof we need look no further than the conduct of our post-9/11 wars, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

These myriad undertakings of the last nearly 17 years have subjected our military system to a comprehensive real-world examination. Collectively, they have rendered a judgment on that system. And the judgment is negative. Put to the test, the American military system has failed.

And the cost so far? Trillions of dollars expended (with trillions more to come), thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans grievously damaged, and even greater numbers of non-Americans killed, injured, and displaced.

One thing is certain: our wars have not brought about peace by even the loosest definition of the word.

A Military Report Card

There are many possible explanations for why our recent military record has been so dismal. One crucial explanation — perhaps the most important of all — relates to those seven principles that undergird our military system.

Let me review them in reverse order.

Principle 7, the military profession: Tally up the number of three- and four-star generals who have commanded the Afghan War since 2001. It’s roughly a dozen. None of them has succeeded in bringing it to a successful conclusion. Nor does any such happy ending seem likely to be in the offing anytime soon. The senior officers we expect to master war have demonstrated no such mastery.

The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men, but they have not accomplished the job for which they were hired. Imagine if you contracted with a dozen different plumbers — each highly regarded — to fix a leaking sink in your kitchen and you ended up with a flooded basement. You might begin to think that there’s something amiss in the way that plumbers are trained and licensed. Similarly, perhaps it’s time to reexamine our approach to identifying and developing very senior military officers.

Or alternatively, consider this possibility: Perhaps our theory of war as an enterprise where superior generalship determines the outcome is flawed. Perhaps war cannot be fully mastered, by generals or anyone else.

It might just be that war is inherently unmanageable. Take it from Winston Churchill, America’s favorite confronter of evil. “The statesman who yields to war fever,” Churchill wrote, “must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”

If Churchill is right, perhaps our expectations that senior military professionals will tame war — control the uncontrollable — are misplaced. Perhaps our military system should put greater emphasis on avoiding war altogether or at least classifying it as an option to be exercised with great trepidation, rather than as the political equivalent of a handy-dandy, multi-functional Swiss Army knife.

Principle 6, organizing our forces to emphasize global power projection: Reflect for a moment on the emerging security issues of our time. The rise of China is one example. A petulant and over-armed Russia offers a second. Throw in climate change and mushrooming cyber-threats and you have a daunting set of problems. It’s by no means impertinent to wonder about the relevance of the current military establishment to these challenges.

Every year the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain and enhance the lethality of a force configured for conventional power projection and to sustain the global network of bases that goes with it. For almost two decades, that force has been engaged in a futile war of attrition with radical Islamists that has now spread across much of the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa.

I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up. Bluntly put, our existing military system finds us focused on the wrong problem set.

We need a military system that accurately prioritizes actual and emerging threats. The existing system does not. This suggests the need for radically reconfigured armed services, with the hallowed traditions of George Patton, John Paul Jones, Billy Mitchell, and Chesty Puller honorably but permanently retired.

Principle 5, paying — or not paying — for America’s wars: If you want it, you should be willing to pay for it. That hoary axiom ought to guide our military system as much as it should our personal lives. Saddling Millennials or members of Generation Z with the cost of paying for wars mostly conceived and mismanaged by my fellow Baby Boomers strikes me as downright unseemly.

One might expect the young to raise quite a ruckus over such an obvious injustice. In recent weeks, we’ve witnessed their righteous anger over the absence of effective gun controls in this country. That they aren’t comparably incensed about the misuse of guns by their own contemporaries deployed to distant lands represents a real puzzle, especially since they’re the ones who will ultimately be stuck with the bill.

Principles 4 and 3, the role of Congress and the authority of the commander-in-chief: Whatever rationale may once have existed for allowing the commander-in-chief to circumvent the Constitution’s plainly specified allocation of war powers to Congress should long since have lapsed. Well before Donald Trump became president, a responsible Congress would have reasserted its authority to declare war. That Trump sits in the Oval Office and now takes advice from the likes of John Bolton invests this matter with great urgency.

Surely President Trump’s bellicose volatility drives home the point that it’s past time for Congress to assert itself in providing responsible oversight regarding all aspects of U.S. military policy. Were it to do so, the chances of fixing the defects permeating our present military system would improve appreciably.

Of course, the likelihood of that happening is nil until the money changers are expelled from the temple. And that won’t occur until Americans who are not beholden to the military-industrial complex and its various subsidiaries rise up, purge the Congress of its own set of complexes, and install in office people willing to do their duty. And that brings us back to…

Principles 2 and 1, the existing relationship between the American people and their military and our reliance on a so-called all-volunteer force: Here we come to the heart of the matter.

I submit that the relationship between the American people and their military is shot through with hypocrisy. It is, in fact, nothing short of fraudulent. Worse still, most of us know it, even if we are loath to fess up. In practice, the informal mandate to “support the troops” has produced an elaborate charade. It’s theater, as phony as Donald Trump’s professed love for DACA recipients.

If Americans were genuinely committed to supporting the troops, they would pay a great deal more attention to what President Trump and his twenty-first-century predecessors have tasked those troops to accomplish — with what results and at what cost. Of course, that would imply doing more than cheering and waving the flag on cue. Ultimately, the existence of the all-volunteer force obviates any need for such an effort. It provides Americans with an ample excuse for ignoring our endless wars and allowing our flawed military system to escape serious scrutiny.

Having outsourced responsibility for defending the country to people few of us actually know, we’ve ended up with a military system that is unfair, undemocratic, hugely expensive, and largely ineffective, not to mention increasingly irrelevant to the threats coming our way. The perpetuation of that system finds us mired in precisely the sort of long, costly, inconclusive wars that sap the collective strength of a nation and may bring about its premature decline.

The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force. Only when we ordinary citizens conclude that we have an obligation to contribute to the country’s defense will it become possible to devise a set of principles for raising, organizing, supporting, and employing U.S. forces that align with our professed values and our actual security requirements.

If Stormy Daniels can figure out when an existing contract has outlived its purpose, so can the rest of us.

In between his contributions to TomDispatch, Andrew J. Bacevich is trying to write a book about how we got Trump. He is the author, most recently, of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 
Hide 261 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.

    But this is false. US has militarily succeeded around the world in invasions and winning wars.
    But the military cannot build new systems. Its purpose is to destroy. Military can invade, military can bomb, military can kill. But it was not designed to heal and build. Sure, there are military engineers that are into logistics and etc. but military isn’t meant to build anything permanent.

    So, US military fulfills its missions all over the world. It drops bombs, invades, kills people, and etc.
    It is very successful at all that. Now, if the US were to return after the battles or wars, no problem.
    But the US plan is to STAY,and that’s where the problem comes in. The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.

    Consider a doctor. A doctor can cut flesh and do stuff inside the body, BUT he cannot heal the patient. He can only set things right(like broken bones) or remove organs. Once he stitches the patient and removes his invasive presence from the organs of the patient, the healing must happen internally by the body itself. A doctor can only set bones together. For the bones to heal, an organic process must take place independent of the doctor. A doctor an remove an object from the body. But the healing has to be happen by natural processes of the body. So, a doctor can cut open a patient and invasively do stuff inside the body. But once his job is finished, he must stitch up the flesh and let the body heal itself.

    US military is the same way. It can invade and take out ‘bad guys’, but then, it must move out and allow the nation to heal and reorder itself by its own accord. But the US keeps the wound open. The surgery never ends. So, the body cannot heal by its own accord.

    Worse, US targets the wrong ‘patients’ for sickness. US relies on the Zionist quack to decide which nations are sick and need to be operated on. Obviously, the quack Zionist never says anything is wrong with Israel. Oh no. The sick puppies are Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc. or any nation hated by Jews.
    But, as the saying goes, “don’t fix what isn’t broken”. It was US foreign policy and war-making that made those nations even worse. Also, the US intervention can make things much worse by removing the regulator. Assad’s regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose. It’s like cutting upon a body and messing with the functioning of the heart or liver. The whole system begins to fall apart. US strategists and big thinkers are quacks or third-rate medical scientists. What they often identify as the disease turns out to be the crucial organ holding the nation together. Gaddafi’s regime looked gross and sick(and it was), but despite its grotesqueness, it was the key organ/regulator that held the nation together. Imagine a doctor cutting open someone and taking out intestines as being ‘full of shit’. So, will the patient be better since the shit-filled organ has been removed from the body? Of course not. As ugly as intestines are, they are crucial. And Gaddafi’s regime was crucial in a desert nation of so many clans. And Assad is the necessary organ of Syria. Of course, the evil Zionist doctor knows this. But it calls for removal of or harm done to the organ because it wants to see a permanently crippled and sick Syria.

    Another thing. Bacevitch is wrong to focus on the military. I can understand why because he’s a military historian.

    But the real power is not with the military. After all, if the US were all about military power and ambitions, then war with ANY nation will do for US aggression and foreign ventures. US could make a case that Israel is a rogue state that occupies West Bank, stole Golan Heights, kills Gazans, and spies on the US.
    Or US can cook up any excuse to go to war with Venezuela, Bolivia, black Africa, and etc. There are plenty of cruddy nations.
    But notice that the US military only barks and bites at nations hated by Jews.

    So, Jews have the power over the military because military is under civilian authority that has been bought up by or manned with Jewish power.

    There was some human rights fuss about something in Burma… Why isn’t the US military moving over there?
    Mexico has tons of drug lords who commit murder and sell drugs to the US. Why isn’t US waging on Mexico?

    All the US wars and aggressions are against nations hated by Jews.

    So, while the Military Industrial Complex may enjoy saber-rattling and wars, it has no agency and autonomy. Its enemies must be chosen by The Power. It’s like dogs like to hunt, but the master gets to choose what animal shall be hunted: rabbits, foxes, pigs, deer, etc.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, Druid
    • Replies: @Mike P

    The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.
     
    The failure to rebuild functioning nation states and the "need" for continuous occupation are not bugs but features. The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy and freedom" - it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to make its own decisions in this matter, so it must endure the occupation.
    , @Che Guava
    Hello Priss.

    I don't know about the win rate. Sure, there were the invasions of Grenada and Panama.

    Maybe Nicaragua, but that was not a war, just massive malicious interference. They even had Russell Means, famous as an American Indian activist in the NAM, among other things, workimg there as an agent. Wonder how effective he was?

    Gulf War I, sure killed many Iraqi soldiers and destroyed much materiel, Also 'liberated' that strange construct, Kuwait, back to despotism under its so-called royal family. Sure, liberated the exploitation of oil in Kuwait's EEZ.

    Cold War? Indeed a victory, but only through the placement and manipulation of traitors in the USSR (many from your fave ethnicity), not a military victory. The true and full story of that is yet to be told, and I am doubting that it ever will.

    As one of your several fans on this site, I am curious about why you always are posting as Anonymous now, even when, as in this post of yours, the content is not very controversial.
    , @chris
    Excellent points, Anon !

    To this one:


    Assad’s regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose.
     
    I would add the following: this is true if you assume that the de-stabilization was inadvertent. It seems much more likely that we're only at the beginning of the greater Israel project, which will be built on the mountain of corpses we're right now engaged in creating for them.

    We will destroy all their neighbors, while the US and Europe are being flooded by waves of migrants to keep everyone's attention close to home. We will keep provoking Russia and later China to keep the world attention focused on the risk of its own demise.

    And then, Israel will make its moves, massacring and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, securing from its neighbors all the resources of oil, gas, and water in order to amass all the necessary accouterments of a major regional power.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. It’s a business, the biggest business. It will continue as long as it is profitable and right now it’s more profitable than any other. The 1 per cent aren’t called the one per cent for nothing. Like the militarists in Japan in 1937, they see no downside to themselves from the expansion of empire and more war fighting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. One fiendish way to neutralize the good counsel of those against these wars, is to state all the many obvious and provable negative motives, properties and consequences of war – but then, sum up by blaming it on “The Joos.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Are the conniving jooies and their kept goy boys pushing the ongoing destruction of the ME? If so, why not finger the vile jooies for being the bloodthirsty warmongers they are?
    , @Mulegino1
    Adding up the events of recent history, it would appear that that sum is the correct one.
    , @Rurik

    war – but then, sum up by blaming it on “The Joos.”
     
    exactly!

    if anything, the "Joos" are trying to stop all these wars!

    who came out strongest against the wars on Iraq, and then Libya and then Syria, if not the ((NYT))?!

    who has condemned the recent bombing of Syria, (over obvious lies about chemical attacks) if not Sheldon Adelson and bb Netanyahu!

    I mean come on, right?

    AIPAC has little to no influence in DC, but still that plucky little voice has been adamant that all of these wars are illegal, misguided and wrong.

    The Kagan 'cabal' (as some anti-Semites refer to them) have been demanding investigations into the contrived putsch (Yatz is our guy') in Ukraine, and all the lies about MH17!

    The entire Jewish media, from CNN to all the rest have been exposing the lies about these wars like no other! Look how they railed at Clinton for her role in Libya!

    But these tiresome anti-Semites will always look for an excuse for their own failures and failings, and it's not like we haven't seen this kind of scapegoat blaming before! When you're having difficulties, there's the temptation to always find some group to blame and spread blood libels, just as a certain mustached demagogue from history showed us all how it's done.

    It reminds me of those terrorists in Israel that never lose an opportunity to try to blame "The Joos" for all of their problems, so they attack Israel (on Passover!), and threaten to push her into the sea, demanding Hitlerian calls for genocide, like "The right of Return"!

    They may as well be building gas chambers and ovens with talk like that, and what does the world do?!

    they act all crybaby because a few terrorists got shot. Well what does these modern day Adolf Hitlers think the Jews are going to do when they demand The Right of Return / genocide?

    The Jews suffered the world to walk into those "showers" in the last century. You'll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again' this time around.

    From Palestinian terrorists, to neo-white supremacists like Ron Paul and PCR, pooh-poohing these wars, there's always someone looking for a group to blame for their own mediocrity and incompetence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing . . . I get it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. we count on these less affluent Americans to volunteer for military service

    Mondoweiss had an interesting piece recently stating that Baptists, Catholics, LDS contribute the highest personnel numbers –percentage wise– to the Armed Services. While Methodists, Congregationalists, Jews the fewest. Even Muslims have a greater percentage than Jews (surprising…no).

    The point is that in as long as educational benefits, medical care (for life) and a notion of service as a noble calling continue to be valued by a significant portion of the poor/lower middle class, the wealthiest among us will have numbers to project militarily. And it won’t be from their families.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Deep State/ziocons were very smart to create a deification of the military in the past decades. So the American public would cheer on wars and occupations and endless global military expansion. We went from the grass-roots anti-war invective “Baby killers!” to the Fox News slogan, “Thank you for your service!”
    , @Almost Missouri
    It was over ten years ago, and it said Buddhists were more represented than Jews, not Muslims. Muslims are as underrepresented as other overclass religions.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2006/08/the_true_defini/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. nsa says:
    @Fran Macadam
    One fiendish way to neutralize the good counsel of those against these wars, is to state all the many obvious and provable negative motives, properties and consequences of war - but then, sum up by blaming it on "The Joos."

    Are the conniving jooies and their kept goy boys pushing the ongoing destruction of the ME? If so, why not finger the vile jooies for being the bloodthirsty warmongers they are?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. WHAT says:

    >muh military hubris
    >”Russian misbehavior”

    Ahahahaha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Antonio says:

    “I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior”

    I stopped reading here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    If you stop reading something then you are a case of arrested development. Which is what the Deep State wants.
    , @Anon
    It’s an arrogant comment. What the author wants is to reinstate the draft.

    Let those who want college tuition and free medical care enlist and get it. Let those who want to stay out of the military stays out.
    , @follyofwar
    Yes, that weird comment made Bacevich sound like your typical, knuckle-dragging neocon, which I know he is not. If he is truly against America's Full Spectrum Dominance, then he should applaud the rise of China and Russia to counter US hegemony.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. “Thucydides’s famed .. “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.””

    Well, colonel, in case of Thucydides, I’d go with “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy” pointing to human nature hasn’t changed one bit, bringing up the more apropos:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty

    Just come out and say “Criminal.” Or, look at whose books THE PENTAGON is auditing:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice

    Colonel, we haven’t had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947. What we have is called “color of law.” You might wish to study up on that:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up

    That’s just oymoronish stupid (typo?) because it’s our military and intelligence agencies combined behavior, inclusive of radicalizing Islam and setting it loose in Western China and Russia’s Caucus, is no small reason for those rising giants looking at us like we’re rabid dogs. BTW if you’re really worried about the grid going down, well, you might have a look at EMP:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/10/14/devolution-part-1/

    As for:

    “The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men…”

    The colonel is just flat out wrong; and I don’t give a rat’s a** if I was a mere sergeant and Bacevich was a colonel, because I went on to work in the trenches investigating corruption and the colonel went to the la-la-land of the ivory tower. Here’s the real score:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/

    All in all, the colonel’s article is a fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    There of course is no USA terrorism, those in Virginia that fire Hellfire from Predators go to church, and do not blow themselves up when murdering.
    Those with explosive belts are the terrorists.
    The problem just is that at the explosive belt side they have the opposite view about who the terrorists are.
    , @jacques sheete

    Colonel, we haven’t had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947...
     
    Some would peg that almost a century prior or even earlier. The war of Northern bankers against Southern planters proved that the anti-federalists were correct in many ways.

    The constitution was a huge link in the chain around our necks.

    Rule of law? When did that ever happen?
    , @Zumbuddi
    Pat Lang should've glanced at the comments to Bacevich's writings before he posted on Unz,

    The Unz commentariat refuses to be censored or to self-censor (thank you Ron Unz, 1000 X).

    UFers call BS when they smell it.

    Lang scurried back to his gated spiderhole & winged about "delusional" commenters at Unz.

    Don't let the door hit ya.

    , @Iris
    Colonel Bacevich is only playing the devil's advocate, and, in a diplomatic manner, showing the contradictions between the "official" military agenda and the reality of today's world.

    If the US was ruled with the interests of its people and servicemen in mind, it would not be engaged in endless and unwinnable wars. But the NeoCons imperial elite don't care, as they don't have skin in the game, unlike the military (Colonel Bacevich lost his only son in Iraq).

    The fate of an Empire is demise, because it is ruled by the few, who don't care about reality, until this reality engulfs them.
    Patriots try to stop such demise by the modest , realistic means available to them: enlightening people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. padre says:

    So,the purpose of killing is life?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    The definition of being alive is consuming.
    It is easier to steal than to produce
    So, the purpose of life is stealing; the concomitant killing is unavoidable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Kafka says:

    Great article. This piece by a guest author on the Saker blog makes a good addition to this piece. It puts the issue in a moral context:

    http://thesaker.is/ask-yourselves-are-we-the-bad-guys/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
    It is an excellent article, but please, don't sully it with The Saker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. gjack says:

    A “petulant, overarmed Russia” is a “security issue” for the U.S.? It would kind of seem to be the other way around. Colonel, you’re well outside the mainstream media here. No need for even a courtesy bow to political correctness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    A “petulant, overarmed Russia” is a “security issue” for the U.S.? It would kind of seem to be the other way around.
     
    That's a real gagger. Glad I didn't waste time reading the article and instead jumped right to the comments.

    It's an old trick to blame others for what you're doing. E.g., the Reds, who openly advocated and agitated for permanent worldwide revolution, blamed the Nazis for wanting to take over the world.

    A couple of other examples,


    "Blame others for your own sins."
    J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907

     


    Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. The essay starts out on the wrong path and never finds its way: men and women in today’s military do not “volunteer” and “serve,” they make application and are employed; their status as employees is no different from a Walmart clerk but of less benefit to the common good than the men and women who collect the garbage or run the town’s water-treatment system.

    They are not employed to wage war, i.e. to defend the nation against attack, they are employed to carry out exactly what Fran Macadam stated in #4: to take what belongs to somebody else.

    While I agree with most of Anon (425)’s analysis and apt analogy to a physician/surgeon cutting into a human body; and contrary to Fran Macadam’s demur in #3, I also agree that civilian authorities are pulling the strings to set that physician/military to work on the wrong patient; I disagree that “the Military Industrial Complex . . . has no agency and autonomy” and vehemently object to equating employees in the MIC to “dogs who like to hunt.”

    No human being surrenders his moral agency either before “voluntarily” becoming an employee of any organization or in carrying out the tasks as an employee.
    Men and women who apply for employment in MIC are not dogs, they have moral agency: they know beforehand that the tasks they will carry out are to kill people and destroy things that belong to other people.

    The first moral injunction of the physician is, Do No Harm.
    Just War concepts that St. Augustine (among others) made a part of western civilization impose a similar constraint.

    That is why the US Constitution requires that the representatives of the people Declare War: sending members of the community off to kill other people and destroy their homes is such a serious — “evil,” as Bacevich notes — act that the people must consider the act long and hard before taking that decision. An Authorization to Use Military Force is NOT a declaration of war, it is a sophist’s abrogation of his responsibility in order to achieve a nefarious purpose.

    The man or woman who kills, destroys, or plunders in a military action that is not the object of a properly declared war is just as guilty of murder, theft, and crimes against humanity as the civilian authorities who set those acts in motion.

    That this is so is proved by actions such as this:

    94-year-old man charged with serving in Auschwitz death camp

    https://nypost.com/2015/02/23/94-year-old-man-charged-with-serving-in-auschwitz/

    and

    94-Year-Old Auschwitz Guard Charged as “Juvenile” © Sputnik / Valeriy Melnikov
    16.04.2018(updated 18:43 16.04.2018)

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804161063619620-nazi-germany-auschwitz-trial/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Dr. X says:

    What Happens When a Few Volunteer and the Rest Just Watch?

    …the volunteers become mercenaries for Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patricus
    If Jews direct our military forces for their nefarious ends these Jews must be incompetent halfwits. How did making Iraq an Iranian client benefit Israel? Did the Libyan failure benefit Israel? Is the Syrian/Russian/Iranian state a boon to Israel? Maybe Israel should try something else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. The main thing in this world that frightens me is USA militarism.
    De Gaulle already said ‘the USA thinks that force is the solution to any problem’.
    About the best army, in NATO excercises comparing armies the Dutch most of the time won.
    USA commanders never understood how without orders a problem was solved, while USA soldiers were waiting for orders.
    With regard to discipline, the Dutch were the worst.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    The reason that US militarism is so frightening is that like its parent English imperialism it is insatiable and the very definition of self-righteous and features a world class ability to lie and deceive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. “By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history.”

    Maybe for today, but for recorded history, the nod goes clearly to the Romans, who knew how to fight and conquer like Romans. We’re just getting to our end-game via cheap imported labour and general societal decadence a bit faster than they.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    Most expensive does not equal best.
    , @Mike P

    [Bacevich: ... best military evah ... ] Maybe for today, but for recorded history, the nod goes clearly to the Romans, who knew how to fight and conquer like Romans.
     
    The Roman armies are a good example, as are Ramses' Egyptians, Cambyses' Persians, Pausanias' and Lysander's Spartans, Epaminondas' Thebans, Alexander's Macedonians, Genghis' Mongols, Peter the Great Russians, Napoleon's French, Frederick's and von Moltke's Prussians ... I could go on all day. Sure the US forces are the strongest right now, but within history, they are nothing special. In terms of bang for the buck, they are utterly pathetic, one reason being of course that the arms development and procurement agenda has been totally hijacked by corporate interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Ronald Thomas West

    "Thucydides’s famed .. “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”"
     
    Well, colonel, in case of Thucydides, I'd go with “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy” pointing to human nature hasn't changed one bit, bringing up the more apropos:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty
     
    Just come out and say "Criminal." Or, look at whose books THE PENTAGON is auditing:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice
     
    Colonel, we haven't had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947. What we have is called "color of law." You might wish to study up on that:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up
     
    That's just oymoronish stupid (typo?) because it's our military and intelligence agencies combined behavior, inclusive of radicalizing Islam and setting it loose in Western China and Russia's Caucus, is no small reason for those rising giants looking at us like we're rabid dogs. BTW if you're really worried about the grid going down, well, you might have a look at EMP:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/10/14/devolution-part-1/

    As for:

    "The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men..."
     
    The colonel is just flat out wrong; and I don't give a rat's a** if I was a mere sergeant and Bacevich was a colonel, because I went on to work in the trenches investigating corruption and the colonel went to the la-la-land of the ivory tower. Here's the real score:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/

    All in all, the colonel's article is a fail.

    There of course is no USA terrorism, those in Virginia that fire Hellfire from Predators go to church, and do not blow themselves up when murdering.
    Those with explosive belts are the terrorists.
    The problem just is that at the explosive belt side they have the opposite view about who the terrorists are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Ronald Thomas West

    "Thucydides’s famed .. “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”"
     
    Well, colonel, in case of Thucydides, I'd go with “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy” pointing to human nature hasn't changed one bit, bringing up the more apropos:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty
     
    Just come out and say "Criminal." Or, look at whose books THE PENTAGON is auditing:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice
     
    Colonel, we haven't had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947. What we have is called "color of law." You might wish to study up on that:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up
     
    That's just oymoronish stupid (typo?) because it's our military and intelligence agencies combined behavior, inclusive of radicalizing Islam and setting it loose in Western China and Russia's Caucus, is no small reason for those rising giants looking at us like we're rabid dogs. BTW if you're really worried about the grid going down, well, you might have a look at EMP:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/10/14/devolution-part-1/

    As for:

    "The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men..."
     
    The colonel is just flat out wrong; and I don't give a rat's a** if I was a mere sergeant and Bacevich was a colonel, because I went on to work in the trenches investigating corruption and the colonel went to the la-la-land of the ivory tower. Here's the real score:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/

    All in all, the colonel's article is a fail.

    Colonel, we haven’t had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947…

    Some would peg that almost a century prior or even earlier. The war of Northern bankers against Southern planters proved that the anti-federalists were correct in many ways.

    The constitution was a huge link in the chain around our necks.

    Rule of law? When did that ever happen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Catiline
    Partisan divisions over the military reflect much deeper cultural factors. “From the quasi-war with France [1798-1800] to the Vietnam war,” writes historian David Hackett Fischer, “the two southern cultures strongly supported every American war no matter what it was about or who it was against. Southern ideas of honour and the warrior ethic combined to create regional war fevers of great intensity in 1798, 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1941, 1950 and 1965.” At the same time, the greater New England region has been home to the most intense opposition to American foreign wars-including the second world war. For 50 years, liberal American historians have spoken of “right-wing isolationists” but the fact is that most isolationists in the 1930s were liberals or leftists. Ironically, Roosevelt found the strongest supporters for his anti-Hitler foreign policy among racist Southern conservatives, who hated New Deal liberalism but were eager to save Britain and defeat Germany. The isolationist America First committee was a miserable failure in the south.

    As the southern states have gone Republican in recent years, so has America’s military, in which southern whites have always been over-represented. In November 2000, during the electoral college crisis, Democratic party operatives in the contested state of Florida tried to disqualify, on technical grounds, as many overseas ballots from US military personnel as they could, on the correct assumption that American soldiers are overwhelmingly Republican.

    What explains the deeply-ingrained military ethic of southerners-and the equally intense anti-military sentiments of greater New Englanders? Again, culture is the answer. The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts. The southern cavalier code, however, endorsed violence when personal or national honour was being “disrespected” or “dissed.” According to the sociologists Richard E Nisbet and Dov Cohen, although white southerners are no more likely than northern whites to kill strangers for money, they are much more likely to kill spouses, lovers, friends, and acquaintances who have insulted them. These differences explain why southern states have higher rates of homicide-and more executions. Most black Americans share southern culture (and the Latin American culture of honour is very similar). When murders committed by blacks and Latinos are not counted, the anthropologist Marvin Harris has observed, “America’s rates of violent crime are much closer to the rates found in Japan.” If southern whites were then subtracted from the murder figures, the US murder rate would be lower still.

    All of this means that the talk in recent years about a supposed “resurgence of right-wing isolationism” is misleading. Many commentators have found themselves confused by the ambitious liberal interventionism of Clinton and Gore and the right-wing isolationism of Patrick Buchanan. But neither Clinton nor Buchanan are typical of their parties. Buchanan has little influence on the Republican right, which has repudiated his isolationism as well as his protectionism. Clinton, like Gore, emerged from the shrinking southern conservative wing of the Democratic party. His southern-style interventionism was supported by many Jewish liberals who want a US forward military presence capable of protecting Israel and who viewed Serbia’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as a replay of the Holocaust. But the interventionist sentiments of Jewish liberals are not shared by other groups in the Democratic electoral base, like Yankees, Germanic Americans and blacks.

    This is why Europeans and Asians who believe that the Democrats will be more “internationalist” than the Republicans are mistaken. True, liberal Yankees are more in favour of constructive engagement with international institutions and norms than their southern rivals: compare the support of Clinton and Gore for the Kyoto treaty with George W Bush’s hostility to UN peacekeeping missions. But when the US uses military power-unilaterally or as part of an alliance like Nato-the fiercest opposition always comes from left-wing Democrats. Republicans may not like open-ended peace-keeping operations in the Balkans, but where US and allied security interests are clearly at stake, as in the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Strait, they are hawks. By contrast, much of the Democratic left denounced Clinton as a war criminal during the Kosovo war. If a Republican president had led the Nato effort in the Balkans, most Democrats in Congress would probably have opposed it, just as most congressional Democrats voted against the Gulf war. Tony Blair may not like their thinking on domestic politics, but if he wants a strong Anglo-American alliance then his natural allies will be found among Anglophile Virginia Republicans, not among pacifist Democrats in Massachusetts or Oregon.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/americastribes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Fran Macadam
    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    "The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else."

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom."

    Seamus, buddy, I can't disagree . . . I can't disagree.
    , @jacques sheete

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.
     
    I doubt we prols and peasants will ever know the "purpose" of wars. From my perch, the vast majority of them are waged by simple-minded nutcases to satisfy some entirely unfathomable ( to us semi- "normies", anyway) lust for domination or who knows what. They seem to be the biological adult behavior equivalents for kids torturing cats.

    It seems to me utterly crackpot behavior that can never be satisfactorily understood by mere mortals.

    I could be wrong, however.

    , @Chris Mallory

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.
     
    In other words "To take their stuff". Why else have a "puppet regime"?
    , @myself
    I peg it as collective American, and by extension collective Western, insanity.

    We're not going to cure ourselves - we should be in the civilization equivalent of a straight-jacket, barring that, maybe we should be put out of our misery.

    And BTW, the older generations to whom I've spoken mostly know what's what. They know in their gut that their societies and their children have no future, and most are banking on being dead when the predictable collapse occurs.

    Yup, the Boomers do not give a shit, and just want to live comfortably and then die. We are now at the end game.

    Give it 20 years, maximum. 20 years - a blink of an eye in historical terms.
    , @The Scalpel
    The biological purpose of war is to kill off ignorant, violent people and those who value themselves so little that they willing to risk their lives follow orders from literally anyone with a dollar in their pocket.
    , @Carroll Price

    We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.
     
    No, the trillions weren't spent (as in wasted) they were simply diverted from the public to the private sector.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @gjack
    A "petulant, overarmed Russia" is a "security issue" for the U.S.? It would kind of seem to be the other way around. Colonel, you're well outside the mainstream media here. No need for even a courtesy bow to political correctness.

    A “petulant, overarmed Russia” is a “security issue” for the U.S.? It would kind of seem to be the other way around.

    That’s a real gagger. Glad I didn’t waste time reading the article and instead jumped right to the comments.

    It’s an old trick to blame others for what you’re doing. E.g., the Reds, who openly advocated and agitated for permanent worldwide revolution, blamed the Nazis for wanting to take over the world.

    A couple of other examples,

    “Blame others for your own sins.”
    J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907

    Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's interesting that the Soviets had a universal political ideology pretty much requiring world conquest/revolution, while the Nazis did not, yet the Nazis were successfully manipulated (or manipulated themselves, I don't know which) into invading most of their neighbors. The Soviets did that too but got away with it* by hiding behind the Nazi conquests at the same time.

    *The Russian nation paid very heavily, though.

    Note: This comment form was autofilled with "Ron Unz" as commenter handle. That's a mistake, I think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Everything that I’ve read here sourced to TomDispatch sounds like something one might hear on NPR. If “Andrew J. Bacevich is trying to write a book about how we got Trump,” then he might do well to look in the mirror.

    My best guess after reading this column is that he wants Uncle Sam to conscript my kids to

    - keep China from “rising”

    - be stationed in eastern Poland to glare across the border at “petulant and over-armed Russia”

    - wage a Great War On Climate Change

    But why? Notice the pronoun propaganda worthy of Pat Buchanan:

    “The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force. Only when we ordinary citizens conclude that we have an obligation to contribute to the country’s defense will it become possible to devise a set of principles for raising, organizing, supporting, and employing U.S. forces that align with our professed values and our actual security requirements.”

    Of course, the author would entrust these purported reforms to the Congress, which is going to rein in the Commander-In-Chief like it did back in [******].

    Many of “we ordinary citizens” have come to realize that nothing run from Washington — especially military forces deployed outside “our” country — has much to do “with our professed values and our actual security requirements.” And it never, ever will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    The idea is that an army of conscripts, that is, of citizens, may be a little more responsible than an army of unemployed robots. Before there was general conscription the military were a collection of psychopaths. General conscription diluted their preponderance in the armed forces. The use of a lottery to conscript during Vietnam was a device to stop protests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Jake says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The main thing in this world that frightens me is USA militarism.
    De Gaulle already said 'the USA thinks that force is the solution to any problem'.
    About the best army, in NATO excercises comparing armies the Dutch most of the time won.
    USA commanders never understood how without orders a problem was solved, while USA soldiers were waiting for orders.
    With regard to discipline, the Dutch were the worst.

    The reason that US militarism is so frightening is that like its parent English imperialism it is insatiable and the very definition of self-righteous and features a world class ability to lie and deceive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    British imperialism was not so frightening.
    Britain was and is a small country, that never had the resources the USA has.
    British colonial wars were small, and not costly in money, except before WWI the Boer War.
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud
    Even the Boers, with a few cannon, and just rifles, were a formidable opponent.
    The natives were no match at all for repeater rifles, shrapnel cannon, or battleships.
    The British empire could exist through bluff, manipulation, bribes, diplomacy.
    WWI changed all that.
    Germany was not a bunch of natives with spears and muskets.
    WWII was the end of the British empire, thanks to Churchill:
    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005
    As far as I know the book just was published as german translation, I suppose no British publisher dared to publish the original by British historian Charmley.
    That Churchill was not a hero, but an undertaker, it cannot be true.
    , @Sane Left Libertarian
    You would think that at some point it will devour itself when the rest of us have nothing left to give. We can't pay them with borrowed money forever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark James

    we count on these less affluent Americans to volunteer for military service

     

    Mondoweiss had an interesting piece recently stating that Baptists, Catholics, LDS contribute the highest personnel numbers --percentage wise-- to the Armed Services. While Methodists, Congregationalists, Jews the fewest. Even Muslims have a greater percentage than Jews (surprising...no).

    The point is that in as long as educational benefits, medical care (for life) and a notion of service as a noble calling continue to be valued by a significant portion of the poor/lower middle class, the wealthiest among us will have numbers to project militarily. And it won't be from their families.

    The Deep State/ziocons were very smart to create a deification of the military in the past decades. So the American public would cheer on wars and occupations and endless global military expansion. We went from the grass-roots anti-war invective “Baby killers!” to the Fox News slogan, “Thank you for your service!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Out of its 239 years of existence the US has been at war for 222 years ( 93 % if its existence ) .

    https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473

    The USA does 50% of the military expenses of the world , the USA has some 800-1000 military bases out of the country . USA population 310 million , rest of the world 7,200 million

    What else ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. The USA has inherited the pirate genes of England , plus the brutal genes of militaristic germans , thats all for ” diversity ” .

    USA ” diversity ” never made room for the native americans , for the hispanic roots of half of the country ……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Can't tell if this a bad troll or you're just very, very out of your depth at this website?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. JackOH says:
    @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    “The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.”

    Seamus, buddy, I can’t disagree . . . I can’t disagree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Mike P says:
    @Anon
    in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.

    But this is false. US has militarily succeeded around the world in invasions and winning wars.
    But the military cannot build new systems. Its purpose is to destroy. Military can invade, military can bomb, military can kill. But it was not designed to heal and build. Sure, there are military engineers that are into logistics and etc. but military isn't meant to build anything permanent.

    So, US military fulfills its missions all over the world. It drops bombs, invades, kills people, and etc.
    It is very successful at all that. Now, if the US were to return after the battles or wars, no problem.
    But the US plan is to STAY,and that's where the problem comes in. The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It's not the military that is deciding to stay forever.

    Consider a doctor. A doctor can cut flesh and do stuff inside the body, BUT he cannot heal the patient. He can only set things right(like broken bones) or remove organs. Once he stitches the patient and removes his invasive presence from the organs of the patient, the healing must happen internally by the body itself. A doctor can only set bones together. For the bones to heal, an organic process must take place independent of the doctor. A doctor an remove an object from the body. But the healing has to be happen by natural processes of the body. So, a doctor can cut open a patient and invasively do stuff inside the body. But once his job is finished, he must stitch up the flesh and let the body heal itself.

    US military is the same way. It can invade and take out 'bad guys', but then, it must move out and allow the nation to heal and reorder itself by its own accord. But the US keeps the wound open. The surgery never ends. So, the body cannot heal by its own accord.

    Worse, US targets the wrong 'patients' for sickness. US relies on the Zionist quack to decide which nations are sick and need to be operated on. Obviously, the quack Zionist never says anything is wrong with Israel. Oh no. The sick puppies are Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc. or any nation hated by Jews.
    But, as the saying goes, "don't fix what isn't broken". It was US foreign policy and war-making that made those nations even worse. Also, the US intervention can make things much worse by removing the regulator. Assad's regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose. It's like cutting upon a body and messing with the functioning of the heart or liver. The whole system begins to fall apart. US strategists and big thinkers are quacks or third-rate medical scientists. What they often identify as the disease turns out to be the crucial organ holding the nation together. Gaddafi's regime looked gross and sick(and it was), but despite its grotesqueness, it was the key organ/regulator that held the nation together. Imagine a doctor cutting open someone and taking out intestines as being 'full of shit'. So, will the patient be better since the shit-filled organ has been removed from the body? Of course not. As ugly as intestines are, they are crucial. And Gaddafi's regime was crucial in a desert nation of so many clans. And Assad is the necessary organ of Syria. Of course, the evil Zionist doctor knows this. But it calls for removal of or harm done to the organ because it wants to see a permanently crippled and sick Syria.

    Another thing. Bacevitch is wrong to focus on the military. I can understand why because he's a military historian.

    But the real power is not with the military. After all, if the US were all about military power and ambitions, then war with ANY nation will do for US aggression and foreign ventures. US could make a case that Israel is a rogue state that occupies West Bank, stole Golan Heights, kills Gazans, and spies on the US.
    Or US can cook up any excuse to go to war with Venezuela, Bolivia, black Africa, and etc. There are plenty of cruddy nations.
    But notice that the US military only barks and bites at nations hated by Jews.

    So, Jews have the power over the military because military is under civilian authority that has been bought up by or manned with Jewish power.

    There was some human rights fuss about something in Burma... Why isn't the US military moving over there?
    Mexico has tons of drug lords who commit murder and sell drugs to the US. Why isn't US waging on Mexico?

    All the US wars and aggressions are against nations hated by Jews.

    So, while the Military Industrial Complex may enjoy saber-rattling and wars, it has no agency and autonomy. Its enemies must be chosen by The Power. It's like dogs like to hunt, but the master gets to choose what animal shall be hunted: rabbits, foxes, pigs, deer, etc.

    The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.

    The failure to rebuild functioning nation states and the “need” for continuous occupation are not bugs but features. The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with “fighting terror” or “spreading democracy and freedom” – it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to make its own decisions in this matter, so it must endure the occupation.

    Read More
    • Agree: Zumbuddi, L.K
    • Replies: @Seamus Day

    Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/ex-afghan-leader-karzai-sees-russia-as-key-to-peace-with-taliban

     

    With talk like this I’m sure the Western “intel” agencies are plotting to take Karzai out and replace him with another puppet.
    , @chris
    Excellent point, Mike!

    It's all about keeping every country in check and scared so no one here or there ever starts to ask: 'what the hell are we doing ?' and 'what have we done ?'
    , @Wally
    "it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China."

    Yet Iran is linking up with China, big time.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/iran-china-sign-military-cooperation-agreement/

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran-and-china-are-strengthening-their-military-ties

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/economy-domestic-economy/69312/iran-china-h1-trade-up-31-to-18-billion
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Errata:

    “War is evil/wrong/stupid/.” No, war is criminal. See Rome Statute Articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter, which restate universal jurisdiction law for an independent jurisdiction. Use of force in manifest breach of the UN Charter is the gravest crime.

    “Now, the nation that has created this military system is not some ‘shithole country.’” Yes it is. For your convenience OHCHR has compiled a handy comparative shithole map that clearly shows that your country is the biggest, most bouyant turd in the underdevelopment shithole, bobbing and reeking with Myanmar, Arab headchoppers, and a few atavistic African presidents-for-life. The big picture is apt to trigger indoctrinated reactions of dismissal, but you can drill down and examine the exhaustive supporting documentation compiled by independent experts and domestic civil society.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

    “We need a military system that accurately prioritizes actual and emerging threats.” No we don’t. The US government’s fixation on threats is how the military metastasizes. Furthermore, we don’t need a military system at all. Costa Rica does just fine without one, and they’re a softer target than the US.

    “The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force.” So, you’re going to fix our criminal-aggression ‘predicament’ by forcing every adult to fight with criminal penalties for non-compliance? This is how cognitive dissidence causes rational people to stop following their logical nose and veer off into idiocy.

    So now that we’ve cleared away the cruft of residual state indoctrination with which Bacevich is valiantly struggling, we can talk turkey. The solution is simple. We need a law ‘n order president. The law and order the president enforces is to include UN Charter articles 2(4) and 51, ICCPR Article 20, and A/RES/25/2625. We had a president like that, JFK, but CIA shot him. Our next law ‘n order president must first do what Jack Kennedy wanted to do, until CIA murdered him: break CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. That is a regime change. So any future law ‘n order president will by necessity be appointed by the victors of the last war our fatass loser military loses. The victors will impose command responsibility for US aggression (that in itself will decimate CIA and the flag ranks.) The victors will end CIA’s COG state-of-emergency regime and replace this obsolete dead-letter constitution with the UN Charter, the core human rights instruments, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    LOL this guy wants us to treat the OHCHR seriously. I bet he thinks the Canadian CHRC is also a legitimate body we should all defer to.

    "we can talk turkey." OK let's. Your irrelevant and (frankly insulting to our intelligence) commentary spoken as some UN plutocrat treating the US and Haiti as equal with equal standards is about as dumb as the gentleman above who wants us to think "half the US population has hispanic roots" or that we never "USA diversity never made room for the native americans".

    Your slimy globalism is showing, Pooftareader, no matter how many times you try to use expressions like "Arab headchoppers" to try, in your wormy manner, to fit in with how you think dissident nationalists talk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. CK says:
    @padre
    So,the purpose of killing is life?

    The definition of being alive is consuming.
    It is easier to steal than to produce
    So, the purpose of life is stealing; the concomitant killing is unavoidable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. CK says:
    @The Alarmist

    "By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history."
     
    Maybe for today, but for recorded history, the nod goes clearly to the Romans, who knew how to fight and conquer like Romans. We're just getting to our end-game via cheap imported labour and general societal decadence a bit faster than they.

    Most expensive does not equal best.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    I doubt we prols and peasants will ever know the “purpose” of wars. From my perch, the vast majority of them are waged by simple-minded nutcases to satisfy some entirely unfathomable ( to us semi- “normies”, anyway) lust for domination or who knows what. They seem to be the biological adult behavior equivalents for kids torturing cats.

    It seems to me utterly crackpot behavior that can never be satisfactorily understood by mere mortals.

    I could be wrong, however.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Che Guava says:
    @Anon
    in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.

    But this is false. US has militarily succeeded around the world in invasions and winning wars.
    But the military cannot build new systems. Its purpose is to destroy. Military can invade, military can bomb, military can kill. But it was not designed to heal and build. Sure, there are military engineers that are into logistics and etc. but military isn't meant to build anything permanent.

    So, US military fulfills its missions all over the world. It drops bombs, invades, kills people, and etc.
    It is very successful at all that. Now, if the US were to return after the battles or wars, no problem.
    But the US plan is to STAY,and that's where the problem comes in. The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It's not the military that is deciding to stay forever.

    Consider a doctor. A doctor can cut flesh and do stuff inside the body, BUT he cannot heal the patient. He can only set things right(like broken bones) or remove organs. Once he stitches the patient and removes his invasive presence from the organs of the patient, the healing must happen internally by the body itself. A doctor can only set bones together. For the bones to heal, an organic process must take place independent of the doctor. A doctor an remove an object from the body. But the healing has to be happen by natural processes of the body. So, a doctor can cut open a patient and invasively do stuff inside the body. But once his job is finished, he must stitch up the flesh and let the body heal itself.

    US military is the same way. It can invade and take out 'bad guys', but then, it must move out and allow the nation to heal and reorder itself by its own accord. But the US keeps the wound open. The surgery never ends. So, the body cannot heal by its own accord.

    Worse, US targets the wrong 'patients' for sickness. US relies on the Zionist quack to decide which nations are sick and need to be operated on. Obviously, the quack Zionist never says anything is wrong with Israel. Oh no. The sick puppies are Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc. or any nation hated by Jews.
    But, as the saying goes, "don't fix what isn't broken". It was US foreign policy and war-making that made those nations even worse. Also, the US intervention can make things much worse by removing the regulator. Assad's regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose. It's like cutting upon a body and messing with the functioning of the heart or liver. The whole system begins to fall apart. US strategists and big thinkers are quacks or third-rate medical scientists. What they often identify as the disease turns out to be the crucial organ holding the nation together. Gaddafi's regime looked gross and sick(and it was), but despite its grotesqueness, it was the key organ/regulator that held the nation together. Imagine a doctor cutting open someone and taking out intestines as being 'full of shit'. So, will the patient be better since the shit-filled organ has been removed from the body? Of course not. As ugly as intestines are, they are crucial. And Gaddafi's regime was crucial in a desert nation of so many clans. And Assad is the necessary organ of Syria. Of course, the evil Zionist doctor knows this. But it calls for removal of or harm done to the organ because it wants to see a permanently crippled and sick Syria.

    Another thing. Bacevitch is wrong to focus on the military. I can understand why because he's a military historian.

    But the real power is not with the military. After all, if the US were all about military power and ambitions, then war with ANY nation will do for US aggression and foreign ventures. US could make a case that Israel is a rogue state that occupies West Bank, stole Golan Heights, kills Gazans, and spies on the US.
    Or US can cook up any excuse to go to war with Venezuela, Bolivia, black Africa, and etc. There are plenty of cruddy nations.
    But notice that the US military only barks and bites at nations hated by Jews.

    So, Jews have the power over the military because military is under civilian authority that has been bought up by or manned with Jewish power.

    There was some human rights fuss about something in Burma... Why isn't the US military moving over there?
    Mexico has tons of drug lords who commit murder and sell drugs to the US. Why isn't US waging on Mexico?

    All the US wars and aggressions are against nations hated by Jews.

    So, while the Military Industrial Complex may enjoy saber-rattling and wars, it has no agency and autonomy. Its enemies must be chosen by The Power. It's like dogs like to hunt, but the master gets to choose what animal shall be hunted: rabbits, foxes, pigs, deer, etc.

    Hello Priss.

    I don’t know about the win rate. Sure, there were the invasions of Grenada and Panama.

    Maybe Nicaragua, but that was not a war, just massive malicious interference. They even had Russell Means, famous as an American Indian activist in the NAM, among other things, workimg there as an agent. Wonder how effective he was?

    Gulf War I, sure killed many Iraqi soldiers and destroyed much materiel, Also ‘liberated’ that strange construct, Kuwait, back to despotism under its so-called royal family. Sure, liberated the exploitation of oil in Kuwait’s EEZ.

    Cold War? Indeed a victory, but only through the placement and manipulation of traitors in the USSR (many from your fave ethnicity), not a military victory. The true and full story of that is yet to be told, and I am doubting that it ever will.

    As one of your several fans on this site, I am curious about why you always are posting as Anonymous now, even when, as in this post of yours, the content is not very controversial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Mike P says:
    @The Alarmist

    "By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history."
     
    Maybe for today, but for recorded history, the nod goes clearly to the Romans, who knew how to fight and conquer like Romans. We're just getting to our end-game via cheap imported labour and general societal decadence a bit faster than they.

    [Bacevich: ... best military evah ... ] Maybe for today, but for recorded history, the nod goes clearly to the Romans, who knew how to fight and conquer like Romans.

    The Roman armies are a good example, as are Ramses’ Egyptians, Cambyses’ Persians, Pausanias’ and Lysander’s Spartans, Epaminondas’ Thebans, Alexander’s Macedonians, Genghis’ Mongols, Peter the Great Russians, Napoleon’s French, Frederick’s and von Moltke’s Prussians … I could go on all day. Sure the US forces are the strongest right now, but within history, they are nothing special. In terms of bang for the buck, they are utterly pathetic, one reason being of course that the arms development and procurement agenda has been totally hijacked by corporate interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. The military is being misused on Israels wars in the ME and elsewhere in the close to 800 bases around the world and Afghanistan where its job is to protect the CIA and MOSSAD and MI6 poppy fields.

    The military should be brought home and placed on the southern border and stop the national suicide by illegal and unlimted immigration and end this zionist NWO bullshit that is destroying America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Antonio
    "I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior"

    I stopped reading here.

    If you stop reading something then you are a case of arrested development. Which is what the Deep State wants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antonio
    Huh??? I highly doubt the deep state wants me to stop reading their propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Mike P

    The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.
     
    The failure to rebuild functioning nation states and the "need" for continuous occupation are not bugs but features. The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy and freedom" - it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to make its own decisions in this matter, so it must endure the occupation.

    Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/ex-afghan-leader-karzai-sees-russia-as-key-to-peace-with-taliban

    With talk like this I’m sure the Western “intel” agencies are plotting to take Karzai out and replace him with another puppet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Zumbuddi says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    "Thucydides’s famed .. “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”"
     
    Well, colonel, in case of Thucydides, I'd go with “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy” pointing to human nature hasn't changed one bit, bringing up the more apropos:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty
     
    Just come out and say "Criminal." Or, look at whose books THE PENTAGON is auditing:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice
     
    Colonel, we haven't had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947. What we have is called "color of law." You might wish to study up on that:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up
     
    That's just oymoronish stupid (typo?) because it's our military and intelligence agencies combined behavior, inclusive of radicalizing Islam and setting it loose in Western China and Russia's Caucus, is no small reason for those rising giants looking at us like we're rabid dogs. BTW if you're really worried about the grid going down, well, you might have a look at EMP:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/10/14/devolution-part-1/

    As for:

    "The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men..."
     
    The colonel is just flat out wrong; and I don't give a rat's a** if I was a mere sergeant and Bacevich was a colonel, because I went on to work in the trenches investigating corruption and the colonel went to the la-la-land of the ivory tower. Here's the real score:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/

    All in all, the colonel's article is a fail.

    Pat Lang should’ve glanced at the comments to Bacevich’s writings before he posted on Unz,

    The Unz commentariat refuses to be censored or to self-censor (thank you Ron Unz, 1000 X).

    UFers call BS when they smell it.

    Lang scurried back to his gated spiderhole & winged about “delusional” commenters at Unz.

    Don’t let the door hit ya.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    The way I see it, they're [both colonels] shaped by environment and recall Franz Fannon:

    “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief”

    This can be expected of non-professionals and even professionals that are 'bought in.' But when said parties are claiming to be dissident, stepping 1/2 way out of the perception bubble doesn't cut it, either yourself open to what's actually going on, get at least a little bit humble and stay with the learning curve, or your stuff can get stepped on.

    I did see Lang's whining at 'SST' and he lost a lot of respect from your's truly
    , @JerseyJeffersonian
    Col. Lang did not say that all comments here at UR were bad, only some, and having read all of the way through the comments appended to his recent post, he has a point. Some of the comments were off the mark, spiteful, and not nearly as insightful as you seem to be saying.

    He has been fighting the toxic influence of the NeoCons for years, and from the inside. He used to appear as a regular commentator on the McNeill/Lehrer Newshour, and sometimes on other media programs, trying to inculcate some basic understanding of the distortions introduced by US foreign and military policies in the world at large, and the substantial blowback that these policies engender. That is until the disapproval of the NeoCons who exerted an outsized and pernicious influence over what views could be expressed on these broadcasts reached such a pitch that he was no longer asked to appear on these programs. So before heaving too many brickbats, simple modesty might suggest to you to ask yourself, and perhaps you too Ronald Thomas West, what you have done in the war against these forces, in what venues, for how long, and to what effect?

    He seems an honorable man to me; a bit crusty, but that often flows from an encounter with those who have not done the work to understand history and its lessons, and who fall back onto simplistic cant as if it were a substitute for multi-faceted assessments of causes and the observed effects. He is a stern teacher - he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive - who does not hesitate to administer a rebuff to the lazy-minded and ill-grounded. I have seen him be pretty harsh in a reply, and then, if he thinks that either he has gone past the mark, or that the individual roughly handled now understands how they went off half-cocked, he will soften his tone, and more explicitly reveal the lesson he was seeking to impart, which was more often than not an attempt to jar the individual out of his overly-simplistic explanatory framework. But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that's your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    In other words “To take their stuff”. Why else have a “puppet regime”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The purposes of America's fake wars are not complex. Its the desire of adolescents to be war heroes, ie the American version of the medieval saint, plus a lot of cowboy excitement from shooting off lots of guns and missiles. Add in the vast amounts of money and prestige the military engenders in adolescent or pubescent American society, and you end up with a gigantic bureaucracy desperate with the need for war, and the ability to create as many wars as it wants via its ownership of the media and political system. What happens to the invaded and regime changed victim country is largely irrelevant, as by that time the American war machine, grossly obese like everything else in America, has moved on to its next theater of excitement and thrills.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @anonymous
    Everything that I've read here sourced to TomDispatch sounds like something one might hear on NPR. If "Andrew J. Bacevich is trying to write a book about how we got Trump," then he might do well to look in the mirror.

    My best guess after reading this column is that he wants Uncle Sam to conscript my kids to

    - keep China from "rising"

    - be stationed in eastern Poland to glare across the border at "petulant and over-armed Russia"

    - wage a Great War On Climate Change

    But why? Notice the pronoun propaganda worthy of Pat Buchanan:

    "The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force. Only when we ordinary citizens conclude that we have an obligation to contribute to the country’s defense will it become possible to devise a set of principles for raising, organizing, supporting, and employing U.S. forces that align with our professed values and our actual security requirements."

    Of course, the author would entrust these purported reforms to the Congress, which is going to rein in the Commander-In-Chief like it did back in [******].

    Many of "we ordinary citizens" have come to realize that nothing run from Washington -- especially military forces deployed outside "our" country -- has much to do "with our professed values and our actual security requirements." And it never, ever will.

    The idea is that an army of conscripts, that is, of citizens, may be a little more responsible than an army of unemployed robots. Before there was general conscription the military were a collection of psychopaths. General conscription diluted their preponderance in the armed forces. The use of a lottery to conscript during Vietnam was a device to stop protests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Mark James

    we count on these less affluent Americans to volunteer for military service

     

    Mondoweiss had an interesting piece recently stating that Baptists, Catholics, LDS contribute the highest personnel numbers --percentage wise-- to the Armed Services. While Methodists, Congregationalists, Jews the fewest. Even Muslims have a greater percentage than Jews (surprising...no).

    The point is that in as long as educational benefits, medical care (for life) and a notion of service as a noble calling continue to be valued by a significant portion of the poor/lower middle class, the wealthiest among us will have numbers to project militarily. And it won't be from their families.

    It was over ten years ago, and it said Buddhists were more represented than Jews, not Muslims. Muslims are as underrepresented as other overclass religions.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2006/08/the_true_defini/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. TG says:

    An interesting post. Agreed. Some other points.

    1. Despite massive propaganda to the contrary, the last presidential election the American people clearly voted against wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless wars of choice, and for spending that money on ourselves. As usual, however, there is no true Democracy in the United States, and we continue to pursue the status quo, the people be damned. But while it gets virtually zero news coverage, yes, Americans in general do NOT like what is going on.

    2. One is reminded that massive citizen armies are a modern aberration. For most of recorded history, for better or worse, wars were fought by relatively few professional troops. It’s not new.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. myself says:
    @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    I peg it as collective American, and by extension collective Western, insanity.

    We’re not going to cure ourselves – we should be in the civilization equivalent of a straight-jacket, barring that, maybe we should be put out of our misery.

    And BTW, the older generations to whom I’ve spoken mostly know what’s what. They know in their gut that their societies and their children have no future, and most are banking on being dead when the predictable collapse occurs.

    Yup, the Boomers do not give a shit, and just want to live comfortably and then die. We are now at the end game.

    Give it 20 years, maximum. 20 years – a blink of an eye in historical terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    I suspect that the government's fear of societal collapse - brought on by the impending collapse of the petrodollar, which the Empire is in vain trying to ward off by its perpetual wars in the Middle East and its feeble attempts at economic war on China - is behind the recent push for disarming the public. The prospect of a fully armed populace rioting in the streets is indeed a scary one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Catiline says:
    @jacques sheete

    Colonel, we haven’t had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947...
     
    Some would peg that almost a century prior or even earlier. The war of Northern bankers against Southern planters proved that the anti-federalists were correct in many ways.

    The constitution was a huge link in the chain around our necks.

    Rule of law? When did that ever happen?

    Partisan divisions over the military reflect much deeper cultural factors. “From the quasi-war with France [1798-1800] to the Vietnam war,” writes historian David Hackett Fischer, “the two southern cultures strongly supported every American war no matter what it was about or who it was against. Southern ideas of honour and the warrior ethic combined to create regional war fevers of great intensity in 1798, 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1941, 1950 and 1965.” At the same time, the greater New England region has been home to the most intense opposition to American foreign wars-including the second world war. For 50 years, liberal American historians have spoken of “right-wing isolationists” but the fact is that most isolationists in the 1930s were liberals or leftists. Ironically, Roosevelt found the strongest supporters for his anti-Hitler foreign policy among racist Southern conservatives, who hated New Deal liberalism but were eager to save Britain and defeat Germany. The isolationist America First committee was a miserable failure in the south.

    As the southern states have gone Republican in recent years, so has America’s military, in which southern whites have always been over-represented. In November 2000, during the electoral college crisis, Democratic party operatives in the contested state of Florida tried to disqualify, on technical grounds, as many overseas ballots from US military personnel as they could, on the correct assumption that American soldiers are overwhelmingly Republican.

    What explains the deeply-ingrained military ethic of southerners-and the equally intense anti-military sentiments of greater New Englanders? Again, culture is the answer. The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts. The southern cavalier code, however, endorsed violence when personal or national honour was being “disrespected” or “dissed.” According to the sociologists Richard E Nisbet and Dov Cohen, although white southerners are no more likely than northern whites to kill strangers for money, they are much more likely to kill spouses, lovers, friends, and acquaintances who have insulted them. These differences explain why southern states have higher rates of homicide-and more executions. Most black Americans share southern culture (and the Latin American culture of honour is very similar). When murders committed by blacks and Latinos are not counted, the anthropologist Marvin Harris has observed, “America’s rates of violent crime are much closer to the rates found in Japan.” If southern whites were then subtracted from the murder figures, the US murder rate would be lower still.

    All of this means that the talk in recent years about a supposed “resurgence of right-wing isolationism” is misleading. Many commentators have found themselves confused by the ambitious liberal interventionism of Clinton and Gore and the right-wing isolationism of Patrick Buchanan. But neither Clinton nor Buchanan are typical of their parties. Buchanan has little influence on the Republican right, which has repudiated his isolationism as well as his protectionism. Clinton, like Gore, emerged from the shrinking southern conservative wing of the Democratic party. His southern-style interventionism was supported by many Jewish liberals who want a US forward military presence capable of protecting Israel and who viewed Serbia’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as a replay of the Holocaust. But the interventionist sentiments of Jewish liberals are not shared by other groups in the Democratic electoral base, like Yankees, Germanic Americans and blacks.

    This is why Europeans and Asians who believe that the Democrats will be more “internationalist” than the Republicans are mistaken. True, liberal Yankees are more in favour of constructive engagement with international institutions and norms than their southern rivals: compare the support of Clinton and Gore for the Kyoto treaty with George W Bush’s hostility to UN peacekeeping missions. But when the US uses military power-unilaterally or as part of an alliance like Nato-the fiercest opposition always comes from left-wing Democrats. Republicans may not like open-ended peace-keeping operations in the Balkans, but where US and allied security interests are clearly at stake, as in the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Strait, they are hawks. By contrast, much of the Democratic left denounced Clinton as a war criminal during the Kosovo war. If a Republican president had led the Nato effort in the Balkans, most Democrats in Congress would probably have opposed it, just as most congressional Democrats voted against the Gulf war. Tony Blair may not like their thinking on domestic politics, but if he wants a strong Anglo-American alliance then his natural allies will be found among Anglophile Virginia Republicans, not among pacifist Democrats in Massachusetts or Oregon.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/americastribes

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts.
     
    ha

    Ask Hester Prynne.

    Puritans had a keen sense of psychological violence.
    It's still violence.
    The mouthpieces of god who mandated that violence still operated on the proposition, "Damn it, I am in charge."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Joe Hide says:

    Syrian, Iraqi, and other terrorist groups have been de-funded, crushed, and no longer receive massive amounts of weapons from deceptive agencies. Sophisticated high tech information gathering is no longer routed to them. North Korea is no longer sending ICBMs over Japan, and hasn’t tested a nuke in some time. 1000′s of human traffickers have been arrested. The mainstream media is losing its viewer base. Alternative media is overcoming The Deep State’s efforts to censor it and is instead, continuing to grow rapidly. Solid, logical, scientific evidence is ever more being released to support the existence of a personal, benevolent, and vastly powerful Supreme Being. The ability to influence events by our perception and observation of Reality is being expanded by the Double Slit Experiments, Relativity’s basic dependency on the priority of the observer/ perceiver, and other evidence/ mathematically based science.
    I would say that the above and MUCH MUCH MORE gives belief to the idea that things are getting better and the Truth is ever more coming into our existence.
    It’s a great time to be alive!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    A “petulant, overarmed Russia” is a “security issue” for the U.S.? It would kind of seem to be the other way around.
     
    That's a real gagger. Glad I didn't waste time reading the article and instead jumped right to the comments.

    It's an old trick to blame others for what you're doing. E.g., the Reds, who openly advocated and agitated for permanent worldwide revolution, blamed the Nazis for wanting to take over the world.

    A couple of other examples,


    "Blame others for your own sins."
    J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907

     


    Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

     

    It’s interesting that the Soviets had a universal political ideology pretty much requiring world conquest/revolution, while the Nazis did not, yet the Nazis were successfully manipulated (or manipulated themselves, I don’t know which) into invading most of their neighbors. The Soviets did that too but got away with it* by hiding behind the Nazi conquests at the same time.

    *The Russian nation paid very heavily, though.

    Note: This comment form was autofilled with “Ron Unz” as commenter handle. That’s a mistake, I think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Zumbuddi
    Pat Lang should've glanced at the comments to Bacevich's writings before he posted on Unz,

    The Unz commentariat refuses to be censored or to self-censor (thank you Ron Unz, 1000 X).

    UFers call BS when they smell it.

    Lang scurried back to his gated spiderhole & winged about "delusional" commenters at Unz.

    Don't let the door hit ya.

    The way I see it, they’re [both colonels] shaped by environment and recall Franz Fannon:

    “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief”

    This can be expected of non-professionals and even professionals that are ‘bought in.’ But when said parties are claiming to be dissident, stepping 1/2 way out of the perception bubble doesn’t cut it, either yourself open to what’s actually going on, get at least a little bit humble and stay with the learning curve, or your stuff can get stepped on.

    I did see Lang’s whining at ‘SST’ and he lost a lot of respect from your’s truly

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. I was one of the first to sign up for the “All Volunteer Army”. It was only a two year commitment but the recruiters tried very hard to get me to enlist for three years.Two years is plenty of time to get to know what the army is like.
    The people in my Company (roughly two hundred) were mostly from the mid to lower socioeconomic orders. About half did not have high school degrees. Some were there because a judge gave them a deal too good to pass up. Some were there because a politician interceded on their behalf due to serious criminal records. Most were there for action and adventure to counteract boredom.
    The officers tried to scare us about the Russian menace even back then. So they sent us overseas to guard the German border in case the Russkies attacked.
    The food was good and I venture to say that most of these young people never had it so good in terms of food, clothing and comfort. But the understanding was that we would risk our lives for the cause of world peace, love and understanding.
    I always wondered why they never sent us to guard our own borders but always other borders. Our propaganda ministers were some of the best. These days the “Propaganda Matrix” we live in is all encompassing.
    Long live the “military Industrial Complex”. Hail Caesar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Catiline
    Partisan divisions over the military reflect much deeper cultural factors. “From the quasi-war with France [1798-1800] to the Vietnam war,” writes historian David Hackett Fischer, “the two southern cultures strongly supported every American war no matter what it was about or who it was against. Southern ideas of honour and the warrior ethic combined to create regional war fevers of great intensity in 1798, 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1941, 1950 and 1965.” At the same time, the greater New England region has been home to the most intense opposition to American foreign wars-including the second world war. For 50 years, liberal American historians have spoken of “right-wing isolationists” but the fact is that most isolationists in the 1930s were liberals or leftists. Ironically, Roosevelt found the strongest supporters for his anti-Hitler foreign policy among racist Southern conservatives, who hated New Deal liberalism but were eager to save Britain and defeat Germany. The isolationist America First committee was a miserable failure in the south.

    As the southern states have gone Republican in recent years, so has America’s military, in which southern whites have always been over-represented. In November 2000, during the electoral college crisis, Democratic party operatives in the contested state of Florida tried to disqualify, on technical grounds, as many overseas ballots from US military personnel as they could, on the correct assumption that American soldiers are overwhelmingly Republican.

    What explains the deeply-ingrained military ethic of southerners-and the equally intense anti-military sentiments of greater New Englanders? Again, culture is the answer. The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts. The southern cavalier code, however, endorsed violence when personal or national honour was being “disrespected” or “dissed.” According to the sociologists Richard E Nisbet and Dov Cohen, although white southerners are no more likely than northern whites to kill strangers for money, they are much more likely to kill spouses, lovers, friends, and acquaintances who have insulted them. These differences explain why southern states have higher rates of homicide-and more executions. Most black Americans share southern culture (and the Latin American culture of honour is very similar). When murders committed by blacks and Latinos are not counted, the anthropologist Marvin Harris has observed, “America’s rates of violent crime are much closer to the rates found in Japan.” If southern whites were then subtracted from the murder figures, the US murder rate would be lower still.

    All of this means that the talk in recent years about a supposed “resurgence of right-wing isolationism” is misleading. Many commentators have found themselves confused by the ambitious liberal interventionism of Clinton and Gore and the right-wing isolationism of Patrick Buchanan. But neither Clinton nor Buchanan are typical of their parties. Buchanan has little influence on the Republican right, which has repudiated his isolationism as well as his protectionism. Clinton, like Gore, emerged from the shrinking southern conservative wing of the Democratic party. His southern-style interventionism was supported by many Jewish liberals who want a US forward military presence capable of protecting Israel and who viewed Serbia’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as a replay of the Holocaust. But the interventionist sentiments of Jewish liberals are not shared by other groups in the Democratic electoral base, like Yankees, Germanic Americans and blacks.

    This is why Europeans and Asians who believe that the Democrats will be more “internationalist” than the Republicans are mistaken. True, liberal Yankees are more in favour of constructive engagement with international institutions and norms than their southern rivals: compare the support of Clinton and Gore for the Kyoto treaty with George W Bush’s hostility to UN peacekeeping missions. But when the US uses military power-unilaterally or as part of an alliance like Nato-the fiercest opposition always comes from left-wing Democrats. Republicans may not like open-ended peace-keeping operations in the Balkans, but where US and allied security interests are clearly at stake, as in the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Strait, they are hawks. By contrast, much of the Democratic left denounced Clinton as a war criminal during the Kosovo war. If a Republican president had led the Nato effort in the Balkans, most Democrats in Congress would probably have opposed it, just as most congressional Democrats voted against the Gulf war. Tony Blair may not like their thinking on domestic politics, but if he wants a strong Anglo-American alliance then his natural allies will be found among Anglophile Virginia Republicans, not among pacifist Democrats in Massachusetts or Oregon.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/americastribes

    The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts.

    ha

    Ask Hester Prynne.

    Puritans had a keen sense of psychological violence.
    It’s still violence.
    The mouthpieces of god who mandated that violence still operated on the proposition, “Damn it, I am in charge.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @fariseos
    Puritans are basically antisocials , they are against human beings ( and thus against God )
    , @jacques sheete
    Interesting that quote is what stood out to me as well. The Puritans could be some sadistic SOBs by what I understand of their history. Their treatment of their fellow "Christians" including Quakers was a bit creative and not exactly gentle.

    Here's someone commenting on their furious nuttiness.:

    The Puritans are almost always portrayed as a peaceful and persecuted bunch, but they were a very revolutionary, seditious, and violent people.:

    England was plunged into an environment of Puritan blood rage and unreasonable fundamentalism. In the words of Hume, “fanaticism had its own language, it was a new jargon invented by the fury and hypocrisy of the times.” The Puritans wanted “No king, no nobility,” and like every leftists or progressive, the Puritans wanted “universal equality.” To use the words of Hume, “it was, in short, necessary to fanaticize the people with notions of perfect equality, to assure the obedience of the masses, and gradually to form a coalition against the monarchy.”
    http://shoebat.com/2014/11/03/puritans-just-violent-muslims/
     
    Another source wrote this. (Sorry no link)

    The Puritans wanted to be free to establish a “Christian” theocracy. (A perverted one complete with Indian extermination, communist principles, a police state...)

     

    , @Catiline
    Whatever the nature of the Puritans the subject under examination is US foreign relations. The quote I linked to above remains valid despite any quibbles readers may have with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Antonio says:
    @ploni almoni
    If you stop reading something then you are a case of arrested development. Which is what the Deep State wants.

    Huh??? I highly doubt the deep state wants me to stop reading their propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. gwynedd1 says:

    I recall another crisply formulated aphorism that came from a German I had briefly come to know when I was rather young. I remember a few things like his preference Silvaner over Riesling. The most memorable thing was a German explaining to me a method that prevents tyranny which is drafted armies.

    The Vietnam war can be know for three things at least. One is it was the last draft we had during war; it was remarkable in the freedom of the press; and it was hence a very unpopular war that was actually being won on the battle field. Well, they were not going to make those mistakes again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Interestingly, the German mandatory military service, which used to be treated like a sacred cow by much of the public and by all parties represented in parliament, was very suddenly and unceremoniously terminated by Merkel and defence minister Guttenberg in 2011. Both have shown pretty clear signs of being US deep state assets. To her credit, however, Merkel has allowed the German forces to sink into abject decrepitude, to that they really are of no use whatsoever to the U.S. military adventurists.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Laugh ---- and

    laughing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Anon
    I must be stupid, because I don’t understand what you mean.
    , @Carroll Price
    Indeed, it would cure the primary dynamic in question practically over-night.
    , @SteveM

    I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.
     
    The best way to "ameliorate the primary dynamic in question" is to mandate that the arrogant DC nitwits read the foreign policy sections of George Washington's Farewell Address first thing every day. Have C-SPAN televise the reading every day that Congress is in session.

    Then maybe those militarist clowns will eventually put 2 and 2 together without the need to draft American citizens into militarized slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Tom Dispatch left gatekeeping is like confirmation. A bunch of horny adolescents straggle into church holding prayer books in front of their out-of-control erumpent boners and say ridiculous nonsense in public. But Tom Dispatch goes beyond ordinary ridiculous nonsense like the holy spirit’s gonna get me, or I’m gonna commit cannibalism on christ:

    “By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military”

    Where to begin? Back before the first Iraq war, this former death merchant modeled the industrial base for modern munitions. Long story short, it was pitifully inadequate. Any real mobilization would grind to a halt to retool extensive civilian assets, diverting resources at the cost, if you’re lucky, of a severe recession (if you’re outa luck inflation spikes too.) Static analysis with Leontief models show this. The dynamics are worse.

    When the US regime went to war anyway, the inevitable happened. We all watched rusty national guard artillery get towed, not to the scrapyard where it belonged, but to the nearest airbase to blow up and get dumped in Iraq. No one was surprised when Saddam annihilated the 3/7 Cav and fought the 3rd Infantry to a standstill in Baghdad (That’s partly because no one was allowed to know about it. Massive OPSEC saved the day by hiding the rout from the US public until the US could drop a NWC-illegal neutron bomb.) Then the recession hit and our DCI head of state got canned. Then came a decade-long genocidal blockade, then the troops took a mulligan and the USA lost again – this time to Iran, who wasn’t even fighting.

    The defense industrial base is now hollower and crookeder than ever. Institutionalized graft keeps it going as productivity decays. Russia just put it out of its misery.

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/23/proven-americas-f35-junk-against-russia-syria/

    Common consent. I got your common consent here in my pants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    No one was surprised when Saddam annihilated the 3/7 Cav and fought the 3rd Infantry to a standstill in Baghdad ... until the US could drop a NWC-illegal neutron bomb
     
    That's the first time I hear about this. Are there some good sources to confirm/learn more about it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:

    Any war failing to yield peace is purposeless and, if purposeless, both wrong and stupid.

    What about the most common example of war for the purpose of plunder and material gain? The morality of “wrong” doesn’t enter into it and ultimate peace may or may not be a goal.
    It’s not the fault of the military that Afghans haven’t all cooperated with their occupation. They’ve done the job assigned to them but impossible jobs are, after all, impossible. It’s a military-political pipe-dream that was created by the incompetents of the Bush years and the political part is unattainable.

    Madeleine Albright said it best: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America

    I like this “we” part. That evil witch certainly never risked herself but sent other people’s children into the cauldron. There’s no “we” in all this. The upper echelon sacrifices the small fry and their lives mean nothing to them.

    Having outsourced responsibility for defending the country

    They’re not defending the country, that’s mind-boggling propaganda. There’s so much delusion here that one could go through this article line-by-line and dissect it. I’m off this “support our troops” wagon. It’s just a fiction; you sign up, you know the risks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    They’re not defending the country, that’s mind-boggling propaganda.
     
    Indeed. The last Americans to die defending their country were the Confederate soldiers who died defending theirs. All others died for the US empire, including Union forces who died while making the South it's first victim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Dutch Boy says:

    A small volunteer force is perfectly adequate for defending the USA (its constitutional role) and worked fine until our overlords decided to create an American Empire. By doing so they have wasted our great geographical blessing of being “surrounded by oceans and weaklings” (per Bismarck).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Mike P says:
    @myself
    I peg it as collective American, and by extension collective Western, insanity.

    We're not going to cure ourselves - we should be in the civilization equivalent of a straight-jacket, barring that, maybe we should be put out of our misery.

    And BTW, the older generations to whom I've spoken mostly know what's what. They know in their gut that their societies and their children have no future, and most are banking on being dead when the predictable collapse occurs.

    Yup, the Boomers do not give a shit, and just want to live comfortably and then die. We are now at the end game.

    Give it 20 years, maximum. 20 years - a blink of an eye in historical terms.

    I suspect that the government’s fear of societal collapse – brought on by the impending collapse of the petrodollar, which the Empire is in vain trying to ward off by its perpetual wars in the Middle East and its feeble attempts at economic war on China – is behind the recent push for disarming the public. The prospect of a fully armed populace rioting in the streets is indeed a scary one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Mulegino1 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    One fiendish way to neutralize the good counsel of those against these wars, is to state all the many obvious and provable negative motives, properties and consequences of war - but then, sum up by blaming it on "The Joos."

    Adding up the events of recent history, it would appear that that sum is the correct one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Mike P says:
    @gwynedd1
    I recall another crisply formulated aphorism that came from a German I had briefly come to know when I was rather young. I remember a few things like his preference Silvaner over Riesling. The most memorable thing was a German explaining to me a method that prevents tyranny which is drafted armies.

    The Vietnam war can be know for three things at least. One is it was the last draft we had during war; it was remarkable in the freedom of the press; and it was hence a very unpopular war that was actually being won on the battle field. Well, they were not going to make those mistakes again.

    Interestingly, the German mandatory military service, which used to be treated like a sacred cow by much of the public and by all parties represented in parliament, was very suddenly and unceremoniously terminated by Merkel and defence minister Guttenberg in 2011. Both have shown pretty clear signs of being US deep state assets. To her credit, however, Merkel has allowed the German forces to sink into abject decrepitude, to that they really are of no use whatsoever to the U.S. military adventurists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Mulegino1 says:

    At one time, the US Military’s purpose and mission was thought to involve the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America as defined by its borders and the Constitution.

    Over time, the mission was perceived to be that of policing the world for the cause of democracy and the very democratic profits of transnational corporations and international finance.

    Now, it is self-evident that the primary mission of the US military, the greatest and most invincible in all of history, has always been to defend the right to commit sodomy and those of men who want to be women and women who want to be men. Nothing else matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. fariseos says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts.
     
    ha

    Ask Hester Prynne.

    Puritans had a keen sense of psychological violence.
    It's still violence.
    The mouthpieces of god who mandated that violence still operated on the proposition, "Damn it, I am in charge."

    Puritans are basically antisocials , they are against human beings ( and thus against God )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Mike P says:
    @Washington Wobert
    Tom Dispatch left gatekeeping is like confirmation. A bunch of horny adolescents straggle into church holding prayer books in front of their out-of-control erumpent boners and say ridiculous nonsense in public. But Tom Dispatch goes beyond ordinary ridiculous nonsense like the holy spirit's gonna get me, or I'm gonna commit cannibalism on christ:

    "By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military"

    Where to begin? Back before the first Iraq war, this former death merchant modeled the industrial base for modern munitions. Long story short, it was pitifully inadequate. Any real mobilization would grind to a halt to retool extensive civilian assets, diverting resources at the cost, if you're lucky, of a severe recession (if you're outa luck inflation spikes too.) Static analysis with Leontief models show this. The dynamics are worse.

    When the US regime went to war anyway, the inevitable happened. We all watched rusty national guard artillery get towed, not to the scrapyard where it belonged, but to the nearest airbase to blow up and get dumped in Iraq. No one was surprised when Saddam annihilated the 3/7 Cav and fought the 3rd Infantry to a standstill in Baghdad (That's partly because no one was allowed to know about it. Massive OPSEC saved the day by hiding the rout from the US public until the US could drop a NWC-illegal neutron bomb.) Then the recession hit and our DCI head of state got canned. Then came a decade-long genocidal blockade, then the troops took a mulligan and the USA lost again - this time to Iran, who wasn't even fighting.

    The defense industrial base is now hollower and crookeder than ever. Institutionalized graft keeps it going as productivity decays. Russia just put it out of its misery.

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/23/proven-americas-f35-junk-against-russia-syria/

    Common consent. I got your common consent here in my pants.

    No one was surprised when Saddam annihilated the 3/7 Cav and fought the 3rd Infantry to a standstill in Baghdad … until the US could drop a NWC-illegal neutron bomb

    That’s the first time I hear about this. Are there some good sources to confirm/learn more about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Washington Wobert
    Detailed contemporary accounts by mid-level military seem to have been scrubbed off the web. Here's a start:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/04/09/baghdads-neutron-bomb-and-americas-nuclear-obama/

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/15/vt-nuclear-education-nukes-in-iraq-confirmation/

    Looking at it, Comment 52 is not clear about the sequence. The Battle of Baghdad was during the second US war of aggression against Iraq.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. The Scalpel says: • Website

    “The troops are asked to sacrifice;….”

    Really? What sacrifice? The troops are welfare queens living a socialist lifestyle. Everything paid for, everything taken care of by the taxpayer. The taxpayers serve the troops if anything. If the troops sacrifice anything, they sacrifice their conscience, that is, if they had one to begin with, which quite likely they did not or they never would have volunteered.

    Here is the deal:

    Mr. Troop, you do whatever we tell you and don’t ask any questions and we will pay for everything – food, housing, travel to exotic places, adventure, people constantly kissing your a**. The job is a little dangerous, but no more dangerous than many other jobs you might take for less money, no free health care, no special shopping centers, no free travel, no one kissing your a**, but you having to kiss others’.

    The problem with the armed forces is that members get far more benefits and respect than they deserve. Take that away, and hardly anyone would join up for those somewhat dangerous ridiculous endeavors. The other problems would then solve themselves. Good ole supply and demand.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Antonio
    "I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior"

    I stopped reading here.

    It’s an arrogant comment. What the author wants is to reinstate the draft.

    Let those who want college tuition and free medical care enlist and get it. Let those who want to stay out of the military stays out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antonio
    What the author wants I don't know, but a great part of what he wrote is Empire's propaganda or outright nonsense, as other commentators also pointed out. The rest is more or less OK. For example, all the part about the "petulant, overarmed, misbehaved Russia" and Murica's best-in-world-history military are BS propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dogs of war
    The USA has inherited the pirate genes of England , plus the brutal genes of militaristic germans , thats all for " diversity " .

    USA " diversity " never made room for the native americans , for the hispanic roots of half of the country ........

    Can’t tell if this a bad troll or you’re just very, very out of your depth at this website?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. George says:

    “The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force.”

    Just before WWI various reforms were made that made entering into and maintaining a war easier. Most notably direct election of senators and the federal reserve bank. If you are looking to root causes, start with those. While the direct election of senators did not stop the US from getting into wars, it does seem to have made maintaining the war difficult or even impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The sinking of the Liuisitiannia to start WW1 was just an obvious replay of blowing up the US boat in Havana Harbor to set off the Spanish American war.


    The elites gonna do what the elites do.
    Doesn’t matter which way the proles vote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anon[648] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.

    I must be stupid, because I don’t understand what you mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Your Proofreader
    Errata:

    "War is evil/wrong/stupid/." No, war is criminal. See Rome Statute Articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter, which restate universal jurisdiction law for an independent jurisdiction. Use of force in manifest breach of the UN Charter is the gravest crime.

    "Now, the nation that has created this military system is not some 'shithole country.'" Yes it is. For your convenience OHCHR has compiled a handy comparative shithole map that clearly shows that your country is the biggest, most bouyant turd in the underdevelopment shithole, bobbing and reeking with Myanmar, Arab headchoppers, and a few atavistic African presidents-for-life. The big picture is apt to trigger indoctrinated reactions of dismissal, but you can drill down and examine the exhaustive supporting documentation compiled by independent experts and domestic civil society.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

    "We need a military system that accurately prioritizes actual and emerging threats." No we don't. The US government's fixation on threats is how the military metastasizes. Furthermore, we don't need a military system at all. Costa Rica does just fine without one, and they're a softer target than the US.

    "The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force." So, you're going to fix our criminal-aggression 'predicament' by forcing every adult to fight with criminal penalties for non-compliance? This is how cognitive dissidence causes rational people to stop following their logical nose and veer off into idiocy.

    So now that we've cleared away the cruft of residual state indoctrination with which Bacevich is valiantly struggling, we can talk turkey. The solution is simple. We need a law 'n order president. The law and order the president enforces is to include UN Charter articles 2(4) and 51, ICCPR Article 20, and A/RES/25/2625. We had a president like that, JFK, but CIA shot him. Our next law 'n order president must first do what Jack Kennedy wanted to do, until CIA murdered him: break CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. That is a regime change. So any future law 'n order president will by necessity be appointed by the victors of the last war our fatass loser military loses. The victors will impose command responsibility for US aggression (that in itself will decimate CIA and the flag ranks.) The victors will end CIA's COG state-of-emergency regime and replace this obsolete dead-letter constitution with the UN Charter, the core human rights instruments, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute.

    LOL this guy wants us to treat the OHCHR seriously. I bet he thinks the Canadian CHRC is also a legitimate body we should all defer to.

    “we can talk turkey.” OK let’s. Your irrelevant and (frankly insulting to our intelligence) commentary spoken as some UN plutocrat treating the US and Haiti as equal with equal standards is about as dumb as the gentleman above who wants us to think “half the US population has hispanic roots” or that we never “USA diversity never made room for the native americans”.

    Your slimy globalism is showing, Pooftareader, no matter how many times you try to use expressions like “Arab headchoppers” to try, in your wormy manner, to fit in with how you think dissident nationalists talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Your Proofreader
    So. The fact that the USA fails to meet the standards applied to Haiti and every other country means... What, that the USA deserves special eeeasy American self-esteeeem standards? "Here's your gold sticker, Jimmy, everybody's a winner in the the Special Yooman Rights Olympics!!" Face it, your police state stuffed your helpless masses down a shithole.

    Globalism...? Get it straight, globalism is different than the old-school Eastern seaboard internationalism you just encountered, which upsets you so.

    What exactly is your hardon for the OHCHR? They put your government on the spot in a way that your media doesn't dare do, that your legislature doesn't dare do, that your civil society doesn't dare do. They've got more balls than your entire subject population. You obviously need their help, since you can't escape your patriotic icecreamhole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Mike P

    No one was surprised when Saddam annihilated the 3/7 Cav and fought the 3rd Infantry to a standstill in Baghdad ... until the US could drop a NWC-illegal neutron bomb
     
    That's the first time I hear about this. Are there some good sources to confirm/learn more about it?

    Detailed contemporary accounts by mid-level military seem to have been scrubbed off the web. Here’s a start:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/04/09/baghdads-neutron-bomb-and-americas-nuclear-obama/

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/15/vt-nuclear-education-nukes-in-iraq-confirmation/

    Looking at it, Comment 52 is not clear about the sequence. The Battle of Baghdad was during the second US war of aggression against Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Thank you, Wobert.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. gsjackson says:
    @The Scalpel
    "The troops are asked to sacrifice;...."

    Really? What sacrifice? The troops are welfare queens living a socialist lifestyle. Everything paid for, everything taken care of by the taxpayer. The taxpayers serve the troops if anything. If the troops sacrifice anything, they sacrifice their conscience, that is, if they had one to begin with, which quite likely they did not or they never would have volunteered.

    Here is the deal:

    Mr. Troop, you do whatever we tell you and don't ask any questions and we will pay for everything - food, housing, travel to exotic places, adventure, people constantly kissing your a**. The job is a little dangerous, but no more dangerous than many other jobs you might take for less money, no free health care, no special shopping centers, no free travel, no one kissing your a**, but you having to kiss others'.

    The problem with the armed forces is that members get far more benefits and respect than they deserve. Take that away, and hardly anyone would join up for those somewhat dangerous ridiculous endeavors. The other problems would then solve themselves. Good ole supply and demand.

    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.
     
    My dad, who is a WWII veteran in his 90’s, saw heavy combat and received a Purple Heart and still has shrapnel in him from a Japanese grenade. He hates to be thanked for his service and never stands in church on Veterans Day weekend when they ask for veterans to stand. He thinks this glorification of people who “served” is total ludicrous and they should not get any benefits or preference for it. He said no one ever mentioned being in the war, and especially not simply being in the military, when he was younger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @gwynedd1
    I recall another crisply formulated aphorism that came from a German I had briefly come to know when I was rather young. I remember a few things like his preference Silvaner over Riesling. The most memorable thing was a German explaining to me a method that prevents tyranny which is drafted armies.

    The Vietnam war can be know for three things at least. One is it was the last draft we had during war; it was remarkable in the freedom of the press; and it was hence a very unpopular war that was actually being won on the battle field. Well, they were not going to make those mistakes again.

    Laugh —- and

    laughing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Jake
    The reason that US militarism is so frightening is that like its parent English imperialism it is insatiable and the very definition of self-righteous and features a world class ability to lie and deceive.

    British imperialism was not so frightening.
    Britain was and is a small country, that never had the resources the USA has.
    British colonial wars were small, and not costly in money, except before WWI the Boer War.
    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud
    Even the Boers, with a few cannon, and just rifles, were a formidable opponent.
    The natives were no match at all for repeater rifles, shrapnel cannon, or battleships.
    The British empire could exist through bluff, manipulation, bribes, diplomacy.
    WWI changed all that.
    Germany was not a bunch of natives with spears and muskets.
    WWII was the end of the British empire, thanks to Churchill:
    John Charmley, ‘Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht’, Graz 2005
    As far as I know the book just was published as german translation, I suppose no British publisher dared to publish the original by British historian Charmley.
    That Churchill was not a hero, but an undertaker, it cannot be true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Well-written article, but Andrew Bacevich avoids (as usual) examining–or even mentioning–(1) the massive money, (2) entrenched political machinery, and (3) intellectual sleight-of-hand which funds, formulates, and justifies Washington’s lopsided and murderous Mideast ‘foreign policies’.

    Shall we count the bodies together, Andrew?

    Iraq, for instance, was a functioning and rising society before Zio-American forces went in there and annihilated it. Millions died or were wounded. Millions more have been displaced. Chaos came next.

    Shouldn’t the perpetrators be identified and punished, Mr. Bacevich?

    Any thoughts on crime and punishment?

    In the meantime, let’s see if we can detect a pattern in all this.

    Here’s the hit list:

    Anti-Zionist Iraq: Crushed and neutralized. Anti-Zionist Syria: In ruins. Anti-Zionist Palestine: Under siege and in permanent lockdown. Anti-Zionist Libya: Dismembered and neutralized. And (coming soon): Death, misery and mayhem delivered to pro-Palestinian (and anti-Zionist) Lebanon and pro-Palestinian (anti-Zionist) Iran.

    Is there a pattern here?–(one that Mr. Bacevich failed to notice)

    Perhaps.

    Are there pro-Zionist fingerprints in this crime scene?

    Oh, maybe.

    With entire nations destroyed, does this massive destruction not have the appearance of a criminal enterprise?

    Possibly.

    But support our troops!

    Bibi was right when he (privately) whispered to a concerned Israeli: “Don’t worry about America. America can be moved.”

    So true.

    America has certainly been ‘moved’.

    We are headed over a cliff!

    But Bacevich barely notices. His ‘scholarship’ is typical of the Zionist-friendly, PC drivel that emanates from ‘TomDispatch’.

    Fact: Zio-Washington is on a prolonged, blood-soaked, trillion-dollar killing spree.

    Can we talk about it?

    Death, discord and destruction (of Israel’s foes) is the objective.

    So from an Israeli perspective, things are going very well in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

    Israel is rising. Her foes are sinking.

    America’s ‘military disasters’ are just what the Jewish doctor ordered. Mission accomplished!

    Yet all Bacevich can finally say is that America’s all-volunteer army is “the root cause of our predicament”.

    Are we to take this man seriously?

    What about Israel’s de facto ownership of the US Congress, Andrew?

    Any thoughts about ‘patterns’ of ownership of American mass media, Mr. Bacevich?

    Maybe next article, eh?

    Bacevich as presented his readers a huge puzzle which he is determined not to solve. Perhaps that’s his objective.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P, renfro, Miro23
    • Replies: @Anon
    Great post, just what I think.
    , @Rurik

    Fact: Zio-Washington is on a prolonged, blood-soaked, trillion-dollar killing spree.
     
    multi-trillion dollar killing spree

    What about Israel’s de facto ownership of the US Congress, Andrew?

    Any thoughts about ‘patterns’ of ownership of American mass media, Mr. Bacevich?
     
    Bacevich is a rank whore

    an unctuous, gaping gash, undulating in yawning anticipation for copious and well-earned wampum.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHn6tDG1Vfc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. chris says:
    @Mike P

    The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.
     
    The failure to rebuild functioning nation states and the "need" for continuous occupation are not bugs but features. The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy and freedom" - it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to make its own decisions in this matter, so it must endure the occupation.

    Excellent point, Mike!

    It’s all about keeping every country in check and scared so no one here or there ever starts to ask: ‘what the hell are we doing ?’ and ‘what have we done ?’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Jeff77450 says:

    Mr. Bacevich, thank you for a great article that has given me much food for thought. One quibble: We should’ve used the atom bomb in Korea. Eastern cultures perceive restraint as weakness. We set a very bad precedent by not using the bomb, one which contributed to our losing Vietnam (where we shouldn’t have been).

    We failed, to varying degrees, to achieve our objectives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because the enemy engaged in fourth-generation warfare. In all three cases they knew that we’d leave eventually and that they emphatically weren’t leaving. They just had to wait us out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Antonio says:
    @Anon
    It’s an arrogant comment. What the author wants is to reinstate the draft.

    Let those who want college tuition and free medical care enlist and get it. Let those who want to stay out of the military stays out.

    What the author wants I don’t know, but a great part of what he wrote is Empire’s propaganda or outright nonsense, as other commentators also pointed out. The rest is more or less OK. For example, all the part about the “petulant, overarmed, misbehaved Russia” and Murica’s best-in-world-history military are BS propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Mike P says:
    @Washington Wobert
    Detailed contemporary accounts by mid-level military seem to have been scrubbed off the web. Here's a start:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/04/09/baghdads-neutron-bomb-and-americas-nuclear-obama/

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/15/vt-nuclear-education-nukes-in-iraq-confirmation/

    Looking at it, Comment 52 is not clear about the sequence. The Battle of Baghdad was during the second US war of aggression against Iraq.

    Thank you, Wobert.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Be careful with Veterans Today... lots of disinfo over there.

    P.S. the duo who run the operation, Gordon Duff and Jim Dean, both fervently supported the NATO war of aggression against Libya, to the disgust of many of the readership and other authors, some of whom were attacked by Duffy/Dean for not going along with their propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. chris says:
    @Anon
    in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.

    But this is false. US has militarily succeeded around the world in invasions and winning wars.
    But the military cannot build new systems. Its purpose is to destroy. Military can invade, military can bomb, military can kill. But it was not designed to heal and build. Sure, there are military engineers that are into logistics and etc. but military isn't meant to build anything permanent.

    So, US military fulfills its missions all over the world. It drops bombs, invades, kills people, and etc.
    It is very successful at all that. Now, if the US were to return after the battles or wars, no problem.
    But the US plan is to STAY,and that's where the problem comes in. The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It's not the military that is deciding to stay forever.

    Consider a doctor. A doctor can cut flesh and do stuff inside the body, BUT he cannot heal the patient. He can only set things right(like broken bones) or remove organs. Once he stitches the patient and removes his invasive presence from the organs of the patient, the healing must happen internally by the body itself. A doctor can only set bones together. For the bones to heal, an organic process must take place independent of the doctor. A doctor an remove an object from the body. But the healing has to be happen by natural processes of the body. So, a doctor can cut open a patient and invasively do stuff inside the body. But once his job is finished, he must stitch up the flesh and let the body heal itself.

    US military is the same way. It can invade and take out 'bad guys', but then, it must move out and allow the nation to heal and reorder itself by its own accord. But the US keeps the wound open. The surgery never ends. So, the body cannot heal by its own accord.

    Worse, US targets the wrong 'patients' for sickness. US relies on the Zionist quack to decide which nations are sick and need to be operated on. Obviously, the quack Zionist never says anything is wrong with Israel. Oh no. The sick puppies are Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc. or any nation hated by Jews.
    But, as the saying goes, "don't fix what isn't broken". It was US foreign policy and war-making that made those nations even worse. Also, the US intervention can make things much worse by removing the regulator. Assad's regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose. It's like cutting upon a body and messing with the functioning of the heart or liver. The whole system begins to fall apart. US strategists and big thinkers are quacks or third-rate medical scientists. What they often identify as the disease turns out to be the crucial organ holding the nation together. Gaddafi's regime looked gross and sick(and it was), but despite its grotesqueness, it was the key organ/regulator that held the nation together. Imagine a doctor cutting open someone and taking out intestines as being 'full of shit'. So, will the patient be better since the shit-filled organ has been removed from the body? Of course not. As ugly as intestines are, they are crucial. And Gaddafi's regime was crucial in a desert nation of so many clans. And Assad is the necessary organ of Syria. Of course, the evil Zionist doctor knows this. But it calls for removal of or harm done to the organ because it wants to see a permanently crippled and sick Syria.

    Another thing. Bacevitch is wrong to focus on the military. I can understand why because he's a military historian.

    But the real power is not with the military. After all, if the US were all about military power and ambitions, then war with ANY nation will do for US aggression and foreign ventures. US could make a case that Israel is a rogue state that occupies West Bank, stole Golan Heights, kills Gazans, and spies on the US.
    Or US can cook up any excuse to go to war with Venezuela, Bolivia, black Africa, and etc. There are plenty of cruddy nations.
    But notice that the US military only barks and bites at nations hated by Jews.

    So, Jews have the power over the military because military is under civilian authority that has been bought up by or manned with Jewish power.

    There was some human rights fuss about something in Burma... Why isn't the US military moving over there?
    Mexico has tons of drug lords who commit murder and sell drugs to the US. Why isn't US waging on Mexico?

    All the US wars and aggressions are against nations hated by Jews.

    So, while the Military Industrial Complex may enjoy saber-rattling and wars, it has no agency and autonomy. Its enemies must be chosen by The Power. It's like dogs like to hunt, but the master gets to choose what animal shall be hunted: rabbits, foxes, pigs, deer, etc.

    Excellent points, Anon !

    To this one:

    Assad’s regime was the regulator that kept the balance of power and order in Syria. But US interferes and undermines the regulator and all hell breaks loose.

    I would add the following: this is true if you assume that the de-stabilization was inadvertent. It seems much more likely that we’re only at the beginning of the greater Israel project, which will be built on the mountain of corpses we’re right now engaged in creating for them.

    We will destroy all their neighbors, while the US and Europe are being flooded by waves of migrants to keep everyone’s attention close to home. We will keep provoking Russia and later China to keep the world attention focused on the risk of its own demise.

    And then, Israel will make its moves, massacring and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, securing from its neighbors all the resources of oil, gas, and water in order to amass all the necessary accouterments of a major regional power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. peterAUS says:

    The purpose of all wars, is peace.

    No.
    “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”

    War is evil. Large-scale, state-sanctioned violence is justified only when all other means of achieving genuinely essential objectives have been exhausted or are otherwise unavailable. A nation should go to war only when it has to — and even then, ending the conflict as expeditiously as possible should be an imperative.

    Shallow and superficial.

    With the basics so wrong the rest is pointless.
    Feels good, though. A good starting point for online therapy.I”ll pass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    No.
    “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
     
    You and the author simplify a bit; here is some context; you can find more context if you care.

    As, then, there may be life without pain, while there cannot be pain without some kind of life, so there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace, because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.
     
    I've noticed you absent from Revusky's last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anon
    LOL this guy wants us to treat the OHCHR seriously. I bet he thinks the Canadian CHRC is also a legitimate body we should all defer to.

    "we can talk turkey." OK let's. Your irrelevant and (frankly insulting to our intelligence) commentary spoken as some UN plutocrat treating the US and Haiti as equal with equal standards is about as dumb as the gentleman above who wants us to think "half the US population has hispanic roots" or that we never "USA diversity never made room for the native americans".

    Your slimy globalism is showing, Pooftareader, no matter how many times you try to use expressions like "Arab headchoppers" to try, in your wormy manner, to fit in with how you think dissident nationalists talk.

    So. The fact that the USA fails to meet the standards applied to Haiti and every other country means… What, that the USA deserves special eeeasy American self-esteeeem standards? “Here’s your gold sticker, Jimmy, everybody’s a winner in the the Special Yooman Rights Olympics!!” Face it, your police state stuffed your helpless masses down a shithole.

    Globalism…? Get it straight, globalism is different than the old-school Eastern seaboard internationalism you just encountered, which upsets you so.

    What exactly is your hardon for the OHCHR? They put your government on the spot in a way that your media doesn’t dare do, that your legislature doesn’t dare do, that your civil society doesn’t dare do. They’ve got more balls than your entire subject population. You obviously need their help, since you can’t escape your patriotic icecreamhole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Kafka
    Great article. This piece by a guest author on the Saker blog makes a good addition to this piece. It puts the issue in a moral context:

    http://thesaker.is/ask-yourselves-are-we-the-bad-guys/

    It is an excellent article, but please, don’t sully it with The Saker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    The purpose of all wars, is peace.
     
    No.
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

    War is evil. Large-scale, state-sanctioned violence is justified only when all other means of achieving genuinely essential objectives have been exhausted or are otherwise unavailable. A nation should go to war only when it has to — and even then, ending the conflict as expeditiously as possible should be an imperative.
     
    Shallow and superficial.

    With the basics so wrong the rest is pointless.
    Feels good, though. A good starting point for online therapy.I"ll pass.

    No.
    “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”

    You and the author simplify a bit; here is some context; you can find more context if you care.

    As, then, there may be life without pain, while there cannot be pain without some kind of life, so there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace, because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.

    I’ve noticed you absent from Revusky’s last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Nice.
    Agree, of course.
    Didn't want to go that path on this site. Tried a couple of times and, let's say that the level of misunderstanding was staggering.
    Getting phylosophical, or even deep into human very makeup, well, this isn't the place.

    ...because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.
     
    I'll say just one thing.
    I had my own war. Apparently, it was really a very bad one, by everybody's account.
    I just know one thing: I never felt so alive then and there. Nothing compares. Nothing......
    All elements of life itself were on the level I've never felt after that. The scent of air, intensity of sounds, taste of food and drinks, sleep, rest, comradeship, well...everything was 100 %. Nothing in civilian life compares. Nothing. Well, one thing only, actually.Won't say what.
    Crazy a?
    Or....hehe.....poor civilians, "chattering class" in particular.

    If we want to get analytical now, the same applies to groups. A couple of mates, together, in war. A small community...larger community.....etc....etc.
    Anyway.


    I’ve noticed you absent from Revusky’s last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).
     
    Read some of the article, skimmed through some parts. Read some comments; got surprised by, say, "internal workings" of this site. Too much personal bullshit and politics if you ask me.
    As for the topic itself, well, got that video about Pentagon plane, so here I am:
    Before reading some stuff on this site (thank you guys, a couple only, of course) I thought one thing.
    Now I am inclined to think otherwise.
    Two things:
    I buy, 70/30 that the buildings, all of three of them, did collapse due to a peculiar combination of how they were built with how and with what they were hit, plus the rest. So, no demolitions.
    Second, Pentagon plane. That video, well....so, again, I believe that a plane (the plane) hit Pentagon.

    Now, did the government know that hijacking was going to happen, I am sure some parts of the intelligence community/security apparatus did. Was it intentionally not prevented, don't think so. I go with incompetence and organizational culture there.

    That the event was manipulated and used for the Deep State goals, of course.
    I am sure that as soon some of them knew what was happening they started calculating and acting.
    Having said all this, I really don't want to get into debate about that. I mean...done around zillion times already.

    One more thing.
    Mentioned my little war. So, can't get emotionally involved into 9/11. What Americans see as a terrible thing re loss of life, limb and property, guys like me see "and.....?".
    I am widely known as Russia hater here. So.. this
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege
    is, in my book, worse than 9/11.
    Much worse.
    And, to add insult to the injury, only this


    2004

    In September 2004, following bombing attacks on two aircraft and the downtown Moscow Metro, Chechen terrorists seized over 1,000 hostages at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia.
     

    is on the Wikipedia site re "Terrorism in Russia". Not even a fucking link.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @gsjackson
    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.

    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.

    My dad, who is a WWII veteran in his 90’s, saw heavy combat and received a Purple Heart and still has shrapnel in him from a Japanese grenade. He hates to be thanked for his service and never stands in church on Veterans Day weekend when they ask for veterans to stand. He thinks this glorification of people who “served” is total ludicrous and they should not get any benefits or preference for it. He said no one ever mentioned being in the war, and especially not simply being in the military, when he was younger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    Same with my dad, who saw what a dirty business war is in the Pacific. He became career military (as a lawyer), but spoke contemptuously of the "professional vets" who wanted to bask in adulation.

    I know from the military -- between my father, mother and me we served in all four branches -- and it boggles the mind to see this adulation/virtue signalling directed at the same old shitbird prives we all remember. Now cast as "our heroes," no doubt on direction from Zio-central casting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    The biological purpose of war is to kill off ignorant, violent people and those who value themselves so little that they willing to risk their lives follow orders from literally anyone with a dollar in their pocket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. As a Vietnam War vet, I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    How do they know what kind of service I rendered? Was it honorable or dishonorable? Did I perform my duties or just drink booze and chase the native women? Most of us serving did a little bit of all of the foregoing.

    But methinks the Col. doesn’t understand Trump and his followers. The worldwide transition of values and forces will hasten immanent events that will rock the post-war foundations is ongoing, but not elevated up to the public consciousness yet. Stay tuned. April showers bring May flowers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service. I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf. We generally assume that you served honorably, if not that is a matter for you to rest with your conscience.


    I want to encourage you to embrace whatever blessings citizens can and are willing to bestow -- even if in the main said bequeathed is obtuse and annoying. No one wants to insult vets, well few anymore and no one can immediately heal the wounds of an ungrateful and vastly misinformed citizenry on the issue of Vietnam. But I like to encourage you to let them try and embrace it the same -----


    excuse or not my well intentioned comments. I tell me father repeatedly, "Appreciate your service" he too served in Vietnam and elsewhere.


    so great a sacrifice none can repay . . .
    , @Steve Gittelson

    April showers bring May flowers.
     
    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green
    Well-written article, but Andrew Bacevich avoids (as usual) examining--or even mentioning--(1) the massive money, (2) entrenched political machinery, and (3) intellectual sleight-of-hand which funds, formulates, and justifies Washington's lopsided and murderous Mideast 'foreign policies'.

    Shall we count the bodies together, Andrew?

    Iraq, for instance, was a functioning and rising society before Zio-American forces went in there and annihilated it. Millions died or were wounded. Millions more have been displaced. Chaos came next.

    Shouldn't the perpetrators be identified and punished, Mr. Bacevich?

    Any thoughts on crime and punishment?

    In the meantime, let's see if we can detect a pattern in all this.

    Here's the hit list:

    Anti-Zionist Iraq: Crushed and neutralized. Anti-Zionist Syria: In ruins. Anti-Zionist Palestine: Under siege and in permanent lockdown. Anti-Zionist Libya: Dismembered and neutralized. And (coming soon): Death, misery and mayhem delivered to pro-Palestinian (and anti-Zionist) Lebanon and pro-Palestinian (anti-Zionist) Iran.

    Is there a pattern here?--(one that Mr. Bacevich failed to notice)

    Perhaps.

    Are there pro-Zionist fingerprints in this crime scene?

    Oh, maybe.

    With entire nations destroyed, does this massive destruction not have the appearance of a criminal enterprise?

    Possibly.

    But support our troops!

    Bibi was right when he (privately) whispered to a concerned Israeli: "Don't worry about America. America can be moved."

    So true.

    America has certainly been 'moved'.

    We are headed over a cliff!

    But Bacevich barely notices. His 'scholarship' is typical of the Zionist-friendly, PC drivel that emanates from 'TomDispatch'.

    Fact: Zio-Washington is on a prolonged, blood-soaked, trillion-dollar killing spree.

    Can we talk about it?

    Death, discord and destruction (of Israel's foes) is the objective.

    So from an Israeli perspective, things are going very well in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

    Israel is rising. Her foes are sinking.

    America's 'military disasters' are just what the Jewish doctor ordered. Mission accomplished!

    Yet all Bacevich can finally say is that America's all-volunteer army is "the root cause of our predicament".

    Are we to take this man seriously?

    What about Israel's de facto ownership of the US Congress, Andrew?

    Any thoughts about 'patterns' of ownership of American mass media, Mr. Bacevich?

    Maybe next article, eh?

    Bacevich as presented his readers a huge puzzle which he is determined not to solve. Perhaps that's his objective.

    Great post, just what I think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    One fiendish way to neutralize the good counsel of those against these wars, is to state all the many obvious and provable negative motives, properties and consequences of war - but then, sum up by blaming it on "The Joos."

    war – but then, sum up by blaming it on “The Joos.”

    exactly!

    if anything, the “Joos” are trying to stop all these wars!

    who came out strongest against the wars on Iraq, and then Libya and then Syria, if not the ((NYT))?!

    who has condemned the recent bombing of Syria, (over obvious lies about chemical attacks) if not Sheldon Adelson and bb Netanyahu!

    I mean come on, right?

    AIPAC has little to no influence in DC, but still that plucky little voice has been adamant that all of these wars are illegal, misguided and wrong.

    The Kagan ‘cabal’ (as some anti-Semites refer to them) have been demanding investigations into the contrived putsch (Yatz is our guy’) in Ukraine, and all the lies about MH17!

    The entire Jewish media, from CNN to all the rest have been exposing the lies about these wars like no other! Look how they railed at Clinton for her role in Libya!

    But these tiresome anti-Semites will always look for an excuse for their own failures and failings, and it’s not like we haven’t seen this kind of scapegoat blaming before! When you’re having difficulties, there’s the temptation to always find some group to blame and spread blood libels, just as a certain mustached demagogue from history showed us all how it’s done.

    It reminds me of those terrorists in Israel that never lose an opportunity to try to blame “The Joos” for all of their problems, so they attack Israel (on Passover!), and threaten to push her into the sea, demanding Hitlerian calls for genocide, like “The right of Return”!

    They may as well be building gas chambers and ovens with talk like that, and what does the world do?!

    they act all crybaby because a few terrorists got shot. Well what does these modern day Adolf Hitlers think the Jews are going to do when they demand The Right of Return / genocide?

    The Jews suffered the world to walk into those “showers” in the last century. You’ll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again’ this time around.

    From Palestinian terrorists, to neo-white supremacists like Ron Paul and PCR, pooh-poohing these wars, there’s always someone looking for a group to blame for their own mediocrity and incompetence.

    Read More
    • LOL: mark green
    • Replies: @Wally
    You laughably stated:

    "The Jews suffered the world to walk into those “showers” in the last century. You’ll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again’ this time around."

    Problem is that Jews were not 'holocausted' as they allege. There was no 'millions of Jews murdered', there were no 'gas chambers'. Absurdly impossible. Proof is utterly lacking.

    It's all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.

    The facts are that the 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth?
    Only lies require censorship.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/img/HHSl.jpg

    , @jacques sheete
    You forgot that we goyim are all motivated by jealousy, too! ;)

    Ya wanna hear something utterly depressing? I was talking to a young lady who's been working on some degree in nursing and she said that they were required to take an "ethics" class. Guess what the big issue was? Yup, "The" Holycaust!!!!

    Cheezus, the holycaust fanatics are everywhere. I mean everywhere and the layers of irony are piled on thick. You can bet your sore emerods that they weren't discussing the "ethics" of making stuff like that up and brainwashing people with it 75 years after it was supposed to have occurred.

    The holocaust conspiracy theorists just never give up. They are obsessed; nutzo! Good grief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. I had the chance to speak with many american veterans of the Vietnam war in the 70`s . There was the draft ot the time .

    Many of them came back very sick , abuse of alcohol , drugs , postraumatic stress disorder , they committed genocides against civilians , they felt guilty , they ” fragged ” , they were demoralized , they felt their country had betrayed them …

    Many of them told me that the worse was that after a time in Vietnam they did nor see the meaning of the war , some of them told me : well if those f…. gooks want to be communists , let them be communists , I do not understand them , who am I or my country to tell them what to do , after all if communism is a shitty system let them eat shit , and at the end if it is a good system we will copy them , but what the hell are we doing there ….

    The war of Vietnam was a big defeat fot the USA in the peak of its power at the hands ot a little
    backwarded country , a military defeat , a moral defeat , a human defeat , an economical defeat ( except for the vultures who got rich with the war )

    If Bacevich ( nice Russian name tovarich , privet ) defends the draft , or the arab wars , he has not learned anything fron the Vietnam war , and I am affraid from none of the arab wars , habibi .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    except for the vultures who got rich with the war
     
    when I read post 83, where he said " I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    I was tempted to suggest that some of them, may have wondered if he hadn't 'fragged' an ambitious lieutenant or two, and wanted to thank him for the effort.

    If a war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, 'based on lies, conducted against civilians for the fun and profit of evil men and women, (as all of our recent wars have clearly been)

    then there's few things in this world that would bolster my disposition more than news that one or two particularly vile war pigs might catch a bit of their own medicine.

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/madeleine-albright-6.jpg
    , @anarchyst
    SHAME ON YOU..."lack of meaning"
    YOU and your ilk are responsible for perpetuating the "Vietnam Veteran" stereotype in which YOU paint all of us with a very broad brush. For your information, almost ALL of us Vietnam veterans came back with sound minds to an ungrateful country and quietly resumed our lives without incident or fanfare. The promised government jobs that were mandated into law for returning Vietnam veterans never materialized. YOU are of the same ilk as traitor "Hanoi" Jane Fonda who gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy while our POWS were (and are) still in captivity. Very few returning Vietnam veterans had problems...the stereotype that YOU claim...is totally false.
    I notice that you have swallowed the standard "loss of Vietnam" lies hook line and sinker. Americans and South Vietnamese prevailed in every battle...bar none. In fact, TET 1968 was a decisive victory for the South s the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were decimated. Of course, the American "mainstream media" claimed it was a victory for the communists.
    For your information, the American Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese, who wanted control of the whole country. The INVASION was allowed to continue when American troops left and South Vietnamese troops were not resupplied.
    YOU must have watched the Ken Burns' "schlockumentary" on Vietnam, in which he built up the North Vietnamese while exacting harsh criticism (lies) on the American and South Vietnamese troops. Of course, to his credit, Burns "let it slip" that the "re-education camps" contrary to communist claims (actually prisons) would be in operation for approximately six months after the war was over--it turns out that many former South Vietnamese were "detained" for as long as twenty years.
    Post-war Vietnam was so wonderful, tens of thousands of "boat people risked life and limb to escape that "communist paradise" [silence].
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Rurik says:
    @mark green
    Well-written article, but Andrew Bacevich avoids (as usual) examining--or even mentioning--(1) the massive money, (2) entrenched political machinery, and (3) intellectual sleight-of-hand which funds, formulates, and justifies Washington's lopsided and murderous Mideast 'foreign policies'.

    Shall we count the bodies together, Andrew?

    Iraq, for instance, was a functioning and rising society before Zio-American forces went in there and annihilated it. Millions died or were wounded. Millions more have been displaced. Chaos came next.

    Shouldn't the perpetrators be identified and punished, Mr. Bacevich?

    Any thoughts on crime and punishment?

    In the meantime, let's see if we can detect a pattern in all this.

    Here's the hit list:

    Anti-Zionist Iraq: Crushed and neutralized. Anti-Zionist Syria: In ruins. Anti-Zionist Palestine: Under siege and in permanent lockdown. Anti-Zionist Libya: Dismembered and neutralized. And (coming soon): Death, misery and mayhem delivered to pro-Palestinian (and anti-Zionist) Lebanon and pro-Palestinian (anti-Zionist) Iran.

    Is there a pattern here?--(one that Mr. Bacevich failed to notice)

    Perhaps.

    Are there pro-Zionist fingerprints in this crime scene?

    Oh, maybe.

    With entire nations destroyed, does this massive destruction not have the appearance of a criminal enterprise?

    Possibly.

    But support our troops!

    Bibi was right when he (privately) whispered to a concerned Israeli: "Don't worry about America. America can be moved."

    So true.

    America has certainly been 'moved'.

    We are headed over a cliff!

    But Bacevich barely notices. His 'scholarship' is typical of the Zionist-friendly, PC drivel that emanates from 'TomDispatch'.

    Fact: Zio-Washington is on a prolonged, blood-soaked, trillion-dollar killing spree.

    Can we talk about it?

    Death, discord and destruction (of Israel's foes) is the objective.

    So from an Israeli perspective, things are going very well in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

    Israel is rising. Her foes are sinking.

    America's 'military disasters' are just what the Jewish doctor ordered. Mission accomplished!

    Yet all Bacevich can finally say is that America's all-volunteer army is "the root cause of our predicament".

    Are we to take this man seriously?

    What about Israel's de facto ownership of the US Congress, Andrew?

    Any thoughts about 'patterns' of ownership of American mass media, Mr. Bacevich?

    Maybe next article, eh?

    Bacevich as presented his readers a huge puzzle which he is determined not to solve. Perhaps that's his objective.

    Fact: Zio-Washington is on a prolonged, blood-soaked, trillion-dollar killing spree.

    multi-trillion dollar killing spree

    What about Israel’s de facto ownership of the US Congress, Andrew?

    Any thoughts about ‘patterns’ of ownership of American mass media, Mr. Bacevich?

    Bacevich is a rank whore

    an unctuous, gaping gash, undulating in yawning anticipation for copious and well-earned wampum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Seamus Day

    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    “The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else.”
     

    Bullshit. The cost of most of our recent wars is orders of magnitude more than could ever be taken from these countries. That’s why the ‘war for oil’ slogan of the left is so stupid. We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.

    We spent trillions in Iraq. You don’t spend trillions for oil.

    No, the trillions weren’t spent (as in wasted) they were simply diverted from the public to the private sector.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. what bollocks.
    The purpose of all wars is conquest..

    That a few “volunteer” is hopefully a sign of decreasing stupidity.

    What sane person would fight, kill or die for the political filth?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Rurik says:
    @lack of meaning
    I had the chance to speak with many american veterans of the Vietnam war in the 70`s . There was the draft ot the time .

    Many of them came back very sick , abuse of alcohol , drugs , postraumatic stress disorder , they committed genocides against civilians , they felt guilty , they " fragged " , they were demoralized , they felt their country had betrayed them ...

    Many of them told me that the worse was that after a time in Vietnam they did nor see the meaning of the war , some of them told me : well if those f.... gooks want to be communists , let them be communists , I do not understand them , who am I or my country to tell them what to do , after all if communism is a shitty system let them eat shit , and at the end if it is a good system we will copy them , but what the hell are we doing there ....

    The war of Vietnam was a big defeat fot the USA in the peak of its power at the hands ot a little
    backwarded country , a military defeat , a moral defeat , a human defeat , an economical defeat ( except for the vultures who got rich with the war )

    If Bacevich ( nice Russian name tovarich , privet ) defends the draft , or the arab wars , he has not learned anything fron the Vietnam war , and I am affraid from none of the arab wars , habibi .

    except for the vultures who got rich with the war

    when I read post 83, where he said ” I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    I was tempted to suggest that some of them, may have wondered if he hadn’t ‘fragged’ an ambitious lieutenant or two, and wanted to thank him for the effort.

    If a war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, ‘based on lies, conducted against civilians for the fun and profit of evil men and women, (as all of our recent wars have clearly been)

    then there’s few things in this world that would bolster my disposition more than news that one or two particularly vile war pigs might catch a bit of their own medicine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    you really should have put a warning atop that photo.
    , @jacques sheete
    That picture is proof that there is no such thing as a loving G-wd.

    How could such a thing be allowed to exist on an otherwise beautiful planet such as ours?

    Dear G-wd, let me off, fer Kris' sake! The horror! The horror!
    , @Anon
    Anyone know how she went from being a rich housewife who never worked since her marriage to Secretary of State in a few years?

    I mean Hildabeast was a senator presidents wife and presidential candidate before becoming Goddess of War and Destruction.

    But Albrights resume was volunteer at her kids school and rich housewife
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @EliteCommInc.
    I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.

    Indeed, it would cure the primary dynamic in question practically over-night.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Wally says:
    @Mike P

    The problem is not with the US military. It is with the post-military strategy, for which the military is ill-equipped to handle. It’s not the military that is deciding to stay forever.
     
    The failure to rebuild functioning nation states and the "need" for continuous occupation are not bugs but features. The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy and freedom" - it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to make its own decisions in this matter, so it must endure the occupation.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    You are right. However, they probably would prefer to have an overland connection also that is not threatened by the U.S.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @anonymous

    Any war failing to yield peace is purposeless and, if purposeless, both wrong and stupid.
     
    What about the most common example of war for the purpose of plunder and material gain? The morality of "wrong" doesn't enter into it and ultimate peace may or may not be a goal.
    It's not the fault of the military that Afghans haven't all cooperated with their occupation. They've done the job assigned to them but impossible jobs are, after all, impossible. It's a military-political pipe-dream that was created by the incompetents of the Bush years and the political part is unattainable.

    Madeleine Albright said it best: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America
     
    I like this "we" part. That evil witch certainly never risked herself but sent other people's children into the cauldron. There's no "we" in all this. The upper echelon sacrifices the small fry and their lives mean nothing to them.

    Having outsourced responsibility for defending the country
     
    They're not defending the country, that's mind-boggling propaganda. There's so much delusion here that one could go through this article line-by-line and dissect it. I'm off this "support our troops" wagon. It's just a fiction; you sign up, you know the risks.

    They’re not defending the country, that’s mind-boggling propaganda.

    Indeed. The last Americans to die defending their country were the Confederate soldiers who died defending theirs. All others died for the US empire, including Union forces who died while making the South it’s first victim.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
    Exactly. Followed by the long list of needless crusades n manipulated interventions since. Unnecessary wars all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Wally says:
    @Rurik

    war – but then, sum up by blaming it on “The Joos.”
     
    exactly!

    if anything, the "Joos" are trying to stop all these wars!

    who came out strongest against the wars on Iraq, and then Libya and then Syria, if not the ((NYT))?!

    who has condemned the recent bombing of Syria, (over obvious lies about chemical attacks) if not Sheldon Adelson and bb Netanyahu!

    I mean come on, right?

    AIPAC has little to no influence in DC, but still that plucky little voice has been adamant that all of these wars are illegal, misguided and wrong.

    The Kagan 'cabal' (as some anti-Semites refer to them) have been demanding investigations into the contrived putsch (Yatz is our guy') in Ukraine, and all the lies about MH17!

    The entire Jewish media, from CNN to all the rest have been exposing the lies about these wars like no other! Look how they railed at Clinton for her role in Libya!

    But these tiresome anti-Semites will always look for an excuse for their own failures and failings, and it's not like we haven't seen this kind of scapegoat blaming before! When you're having difficulties, there's the temptation to always find some group to blame and spread blood libels, just as a certain mustached demagogue from history showed us all how it's done.

    It reminds me of those terrorists in Israel that never lose an opportunity to try to blame "The Joos" for all of their problems, so they attack Israel (on Passover!), and threaten to push her into the sea, demanding Hitlerian calls for genocide, like "The right of Return"!

    They may as well be building gas chambers and ovens with talk like that, and what does the world do?!

    they act all crybaby because a few terrorists got shot. Well what does these modern day Adolf Hitlers think the Jews are going to do when they demand The Right of Return / genocide?

    The Jews suffered the world to walk into those "showers" in the last century. You'll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again' this time around.

    From Palestinian terrorists, to neo-white supremacists like Ron Paul and PCR, pooh-poohing these wars, there's always someone looking for a group to blame for their own mediocrity and incompetence.

    You laughably stated:

    “The Jews suffered the world to walk into those “showers” in the last century. You’ll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again’ this time around.”

    Problem is that Jews were not ‘holocausted’ as they allege. There was no ‘millions of Jews murdered’, there were no ‘gas chambers’. Absurdly impossible. Proof is utterly lacking.

    It’s all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.

    The facts are that the ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth?
    Only lies require censorship.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    It’s all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.
     
    yes, because the only thing the cow-like goyim brain understands is raw power, and for the Jews to accomplish this, they have to use treachery and lies.

    that's why you must be made to feel guilty, so when the Senator who's asked by Tucker Carlson, 'why must we go to war in Syria', and he answers 'if you care about Israel...'

    now if you didn't kneejerk feel guilty about all the Jews you goyim gassed and your ovens, then would you feel the proper levels of guilt for what you did to them?!

    No. You'd say 'fuck Israel, what do I care?'

    and so this is why they had to lie about it all, because of anti-Semites like you, who otherwise wouldn't be willing to engage in endless wars for Israel! And wouldn't give them endless billions and build endless Holocaust museums, to guilt-trip the next generations. How dumb do you have to be?!

    It's not rocket science man!

    If you'd have simply allowed the world to destroy Germany, and then set about building Israel on her ashes, and then sent Israel all those billions it demanded and waged endless wars on her behalf, then they wouldn't have even needed to go to all of that trouble to create the Holocaust narrative to enslave your minds and soul$.

    Duh!
    , @Anon
    I didn’t know Rurik is a Jew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Rurik

    except for the vultures who got rich with the war
     
    when I read post 83, where he said " I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    I was tempted to suggest that some of them, may have wondered if he hadn't 'fragged' an ambitious lieutenant or two, and wanted to thank him for the effort.

    If a war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, 'based on lies, conducted against civilians for the fun and profit of evil men and women, (as all of our recent wars have clearly been)

    then there's few things in this world that would bolster my disposition more than news that one or two particularly vile war pigs might catch a bit of their own medicine.

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/madeleine-albright-6.jpg

    you really should have put a warning atop that photo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    mea culpa sir

    mea culpa
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Mike P says:
    @Wally
    "it is to encircle Iran and preventing it from linking up with China."

    Yet Iran is linking up with China, big time.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/iran-china-sign-military-cooperation-agreement/

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran-and-china-are-strengthening-their-military-ties

    https://financialtribune.com/articles/economy-domestic-economy/69312/iran-china-h1-trade-up-31-to-18-billion

    You are right. However, they probably would prefer to have an overland connection also that is not threatened by the U.S.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Rurik says:
    @Wally
    You laughably stated:

    "The Jews suffered the world to walk into those “showers” in the last century. You’ll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again’ this time around."

    Problem is that Jews were not 'holocausted' as they allege. There was no 'millions of Jews murdered', there were no 'gas chambers'. Absurdly impossible. Proof is utterly lacking.

    It's all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.

    The facts are that the 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth?
    Only lies require censorship.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/img/HHSl.jpg

    It’s all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.

    yes, because the only thing the cow-like goyim brain understands is raw power, and for the Jews to accomplish this, they have to use treachery and lies.

    that’s why you must be made to feel guilty, so when the Senator who’s asked by Tucker Carlson, ‘why must we go to war in Syria’, and he answers ‘if you care about Israel…’

    now if you didn’t kneejerk feel guilty about all the Jews you goyim gassed and your ovens, then would you feel the proper levels of guilt for what you did to them?!

    No. You’d say ‘fuck Israel, what do I care?’

    and so this is why they had to lie about it all, because of anti-Semites like you, who otherwise wouldn’t be willing to engage in endless wars for Israel! And wouldn’t give them endless billions and build endless Holocaust museums, to guilt-trip the next generations. How dumb do you have to be?!

    It’s not rocket science man!

    If you’d have simply allowed the world to destroy Germany, and then set about building Israel on her ashes, and then sent Israel all those billions it demanded and waged endless wars on her behalf, then they wouldn’t have even needed to go to all of that trouble to create the Holocaust narrative to enslave your minds and soul$.

    Duh!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. peterAUS says:
    @Anon

    No.
    “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
     
    You and the author simplify a bit; here is some context; you can find more context if you care.

    As, then, there may be life without pain, while there cannot be pain without some kind of life, so there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace, because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.
     
    I've noticed you absent from Revusky's last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).

    Nice.
    Agree, of course.
    Didn’t want to go that path on this site. Tried a couple of times and, let’s say that the level of misunderstanding was staggering.
    Getting phylosophical, or even deep into human very makeup, well, this isn’t the place.

    …because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.

    I’ll say just one thing.
    I had my own war. Apparently, it was really a very bad one, by everybody’s account.
    I just know one thing: I never felt so alive then and there. Nothing compares. Nothing……
    All elements of life itself were on the level I’ve never felt after that. The scent of air, intensity of sounds, taste of food and drinks, sleep, rest, comradeship, well…everything was 100 %. Nothing in civilian life compares. Nothing. Well, one thing only, actually.Won’t say what.
    Crazy a?
    Or….hehe…..poor civilians, “chattering class” in particular.

    If we want to get analytical now, the same applies to groups. A couple of mates, together, in war. A small community…larger community…..etc….etc.
    Anyway.

    I’ve noticed you absent from Revusky’s last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).

    Read some of the article, skimmed through some parts. Read some comments; got surprised by, say, “internal workings” of this site. Too much personal bullshit and politics if you ask me.
    As for the topic itself, well, got that video about Pentagon plane, so here I am:
    Before reading some stuff on this site (thank you guys, a couple only, of course) I thought one thing.
    Now I am inclined to think otherwise.
    Two things:
    I buy, 70/30 that the buildings, all of three of them, did collapse due to a peculiar combination of how they were built with how and with what they were hit, plus the rest. So, no demolitions.
    Second, Pentagon plane. That video, well….so, again, I believe that a plane (the plane) hit Pentagon.

    Now, did the government know that hijacking was going to happen, I am sure some parts of the intelligence community/security apparatus did. Was it intentionally not prevented, don’t think so. I go with incompetence and organizational culture there.

    That the event was manipulated and used for the Deep State goals, of course.
    I am sure that as soon some of them knew what was happening they started calculating and acting.
    Having said all this, I really don’t want to get into debate about that. I mean…done around zillion times already.

    One more thing.
    Mentioned my little war. So, can’t get emotionally involved into 9/11. What Americans see as a terrible thing re loss of life, limb and property, guys like me see “and…..?”.
    I am widely known as Russia hater here. So.. this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege

    is, in my book, worse than 9/11.
    Much worse.
    And, to add insult to the injury, only this

    2004

    In September 2004, following bombing attacks on two aircraft and the downtown Moscow Metro, Chechen terrorists seized over 1,000 hostages at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia.

    is on the Wikipedia site re “Terrorism in Russia”. Not even a fucking link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I remember those atrocities very well. They raped most of the girls age 10 and up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Fran Macadam
    A conservative Scottish pastor at a Baptist Church I visited, credibly summed up the purpose of war, more accurately than Augustine:

    "The purpose of war is to take what belongs to someone else."

    Laughing . . . I get it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Rick Johnson
    As a Vietnam War vet, I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: "Thank you for your service."

    How do they know what kind of service I rendered? Was it honorable or dishonorable? Did I perform my duties or just drink booze and chase the native women? Most of us serving did a little bit of all of the foregoing.

    But methinks the Col. doesn't understand Trump and his followers. The worldwide transition of values and forces will hasten immanent events that will rock the post-war foundations is ongoing, but not elevated up to the public consciousness yet. Stay tuned. April showers bring May flowers.

    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service. I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf. We generally assume that you served honorably, if not that is a matter for you to rest with your conscience.

    I want to encourage you to embrace whatever blessings citizens can and are willing to bestow — even if in the main said bequeathed is obtuse and annoying. No one wants to insult vets, well few anymore and no one can immediately heal the wounds of an ungrateful and vastly misinformed citizenry on the issue of Vietnam. But I like to encourage you to let them try and embrace it the same —–

    excuse or not my well intentioned comments. I tell me father repeatedly, “Appreciate your service” he too served in Vietnam and elsewhere.

    so great a sacrifice none can repay . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    What does it mean to "serve honorably" in an unjust war of aggression? The only "honorable" action is to refuse orders.

    I know, I know....You are incapable of seeing Vietnam as anything but an honorable endeavor from the charitable US govt. lol.
    , @jacques sheete

    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service.
     
    It is irritating, and what the (bleep) do you appreciate?

    I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam...
     
    Sacrifice? What sacrifice? For a lot of us it was an adventure, and a heck of a lot better than the alternatives at the time.

    Required reading. A classic from our own Fwed.


    “ Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood.”

    The Wars: Maybe We Could Go Bowling Insted (sic)
    Posted on February 17, 2003 by Fred Reed
    http://fredoneverything.org/the-wars-maybe-we-could-go-bowling-insted/

     


    ...and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf.
     
    You don't know that. Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    you really should have put a warning atop that photo.

    mea culpa sir

    mea culpa

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    You better maxima that culpa, brother!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Iris says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    "Thucydides’s famed .. “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”"
     
    Well, colonel, in case of Thucydides, I'd go with “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy” pointing to human nature hasn't changed one bit, bringing up the more apropos:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Meanwhile, under the terms of our military system, attention to how this money actually gets spent by our yet-to-be-audited Pentagon tends to be — to put the matter politely — spotty
     
    Just come out and say "Criminal." Or, look at whose books THE PENTAGON is auditing:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    The legal profession exists to implement the rule of law. We hope that the result is some approximation of justice
     
    Colonel, we haven't had a constitution & rule of law since the National Security Act of 1947. What we have is called "color of law." You might wish to study up on that:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism. And I worry more about changing weather patterns here in New England or somebody shutting down the electrical grid in my home town than I do about what Beijing and Moscow may be cooking up
     
    That's just oymoronish stupid (typo?) because it's our military and intelligence agencies combined behavior, inclusive of radicalizing Islam and setting it loose in Western China and Russia's Caucus, is no small reason for those rising giants looking at us like we're rabid dogs. BTW if you're really worried about the grid going down, well, you might have a look at EMP:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/10/14/devolution-part-1/

    As for:

    "The generals who followed one another in presiding over that war are undoubtedly estimable, well-intentioned men..."
     
    The colonel is just flat out wrong; and I don't give a rat's a** if I was a mere sergeant and Bacevich was a colonel, because I went on to work in the trenches investigating corruption and the colonel went to the la-la-land of the ivory tower. Here's the real score:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/

    All in all, the colonel's article is a fail.

    Colonel Bacevich is only playing the devil’s advocate, and, in a diplomatic manner, showing the contradictions between the “official” military agenda and the reality of today’s world.

    If the US was ruled with the interests of its people and servicemen in mind, it would not be engaged in endless and unwinnable wars. But the NeoCons imperial elite don’t care, as they don’t have skin in the game, unlike the military (Colonel Bacevich lost his only son in Iraq).

    The fate of an Empire is demise, because it is ruled by the few, who don’t care about reality, until this reality engulfs them.
    Patriots try to stop such demise by the modest , realistic means available to them: enlightening people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Well, Iris, in the geopolitical parlance called 'realpolitic', the term 'diplomatic' could approximate 'white lie.' Are there 'shades of white'? If you were to dig behind the cover Colonel Bacevich provides to the generals, example given is General Patreaus, the white lie gets pretty dark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ca1HsC6MH0

    ^ nothing like a white lie covering for the guy responsible for death squads and torture camps in Iraq, eh?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Patricus says:
    @Dr. X

    What Happens When a Few Volunteer and the Rest Just Watch?
     
    ...the volunteers become mercenaries for Israel.

    If Jews direct our military forces for their nefarious ends these Jews must be incompetent halfwits. How did making Iraq an Iranian client benefit Israel? Did the Libyan failure benefit Israel? Is the Syrian/Russian/Iranian state a boon to Israel? Maybe Israel should try something else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. SteveM says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.

    I am an unashamed advocate of the draft to ameliorate the primary dynamic in question.

    The best way to “ameliorate the primary dynamic in question” is to mandate that the arrogant DC nitwits read the foreign policy sections of George Washington’s Farewell Address first thing every day. Have C-SPAN televise the reading every day that Congress is in session.

    Then maybe those militarist clowns will eventually put 2 and 2 together without the need to draft American citizens into militarized slavery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Rick Johnson
    As a Vietnam War vet, I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: "Thank you for your service."

    How do they know what kind of service I rendered? Was it honorable or dishonorable? Did I perform my duties or just drink booze and chase the native women? Most of us serving did a little bit of all of the foregoing.

    But methinks the Col. doesn't understand Trump and his followers. The worldwide transition of values and forces will hasten immanent events that will rock the post-war foundations is ongoing, but not elevated up to the public consciousness yet. Stay tuned. April showers bring May flowers.

    April showers bring May flowers.

    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?
     
    Nectar and pollen for Apis mellifera.

    You know what they bring.
    , @Anon
    June weddings????? school graduations????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Y. V. says:

    I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior than I do about Islamic terrorism.

    ”China has thoroughly studied the Western technique of getting out of crises via controllable armed conflicts and wars. It has written its own script for squeezing the United States off the world stage. The Western script becomes an episode in a larger game.”

    Contents of the script:

    - while remaining inactive and all but invisible, China retains and replenishes its resources;

    - China supports actions of the West aimed at mutually assured destruction of Russia and the Muslim world;

    - China supports bilateral conflicts in line with the Western script;

    - China becomes ideologically active and active in the military sense when the moment is ripe;

    - when the conflicts are over, China moves into the new territories…

    The global conclusion is simple. This is the first time strategic interests of the West, Russia, Israel, and the Muslim world coincide. We can only survive together.

    [MORE]

    Under the unfolding script, all of us are victims. China has already won, strategically and tactically.

    The test is plain – we will sink or swim together. The new global Chinese order will follow the rules the Americans drew up for themselves. What counts is that the “golden billion” of the world’s population alone will prosper; the remaining 4 billion are expendable. Unlike the United States, to say nothing of the Russians or Jews, China has this billion already. All of us are expendable in this wicked colonial system of distribution of resources.

    Proposals:

    1. All efforts, including from the elite of international finance, should be made to stop the war.

    2. Russia should become the real leader of the new process. (It has already become it but not yet aware of the fact.) The West and Israel need a strategic alliance with the Muslim world more than anything else, and this alliance is possible only through Russia. Only Russia in an alliance with the Muslim world can keep China in check without conflicts, helping it find its new place in the world as another super-power.

    3. Leaders of Russia, America, Israel, Europe, Iran, India, and international financial capitals must initiate a dialogue over leaving this crisis behind and preventing events like those which swept America on September 11.

    A time of change is upon us, and it’s futile to wish we were living in some other era. We have to change ourselves and change the world.”

    THE WESTERN SCRIPT

    Using techniques of manipulating public opinion, the West is trying to establish the illusion of a global forces with the fascist- like ideology of Wahhabi fundamentalism. As far as the West is concerned, Wahhabi and Islam are the same thing. It is because of this that the essential terrorism of Wahhabi ideas is being formulated so simply for public consumption: all Muslims are terrorists by nature.

    The preliminary objective of brainwashing (Islam is the basis of terrorism) is thus achieved. Therefore, the terrorist world of Islam should be maneuvered into fighting Russia. Russia and the Muslim world will destroy each other, and the West will gain access to the natural resources on their territories. The dollar pyramid will straighten once again, and the economic crisis will be over. Life goes on.

    Apart from the need to shock the international community with atrocities of Islamic terrorists, this script requires the presence of some country fundamental for this particular global force. It should answer the following requirements: a large Muslim population, government based on military dictatorship (which allows prompt replacement of the leader); borders with Russia, China, and India; nuclear arsenals; and a well-trained army with combat experience. Pakistan is an ideal fit, and Afghanistan is just a capsule.

    Continuation of the script after the terrorist attacks in the United States: retaliatory strikes at Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and so on, depending on the situation. A dramatic rise in anti-American sentiments throughout the Muslim world as a result. A coup in Pakistan, leading to the rise of a radical Wahhabi leader there. Unification of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    A Taliban invasion of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan will follow. Conflicts with Iran and Iraq will follow. The second phase of preferable armed conflicts is as follows: Iran and Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey and Greece, Georgia and Abkhazia, China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, and escalation of the situation in Chechnya. Russia will inevitably find itself dragged into some war or other, and declare general mobilization. Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and some other ethnic republics will refuse to go to war under those circumstances. The rest of the population of Russia will also object. All this may result in a drastic destabilization in Russia, and a loss of control. Things may even reach extremes, ending in a military coup or disintegration of the Russian Federation.

    However, some details indicate that this particular script has bogged down. The world is different now. In the past, it was sufficient to torch the Reichstag or assassinate a prince; but now, even the horrors of September 11 no longer suffice.

    That is why some sort of “fuel” is needed to give the script momentum – terrorist attacks on the scale of September 11, but not in America alone. Over there, in Europe, and in Russia as well. Anthrax is just a prelude. Controllable terrorism, however, has its own limits. Russia knows, for example, that “Chechen terrorists” will no longer suffice. After all, linking them to Islam is fairly difficult.

    But even that is not the key point. Certain indirect aspects indicate that the script considered here is not the only one. Most probably, it is not even the whole script, just part of an even larger one. In accordance with the latter, Russia and the Muslim world fighting each other are not the only objectives. The West and Israel are too. It follows that some unknown Contractor and Player must be present somewhere. This script becomes possible when we assume that some Western elites and secret services made a kind of covert pact with this still-unknown Player.”

    #14
    Novaya Gazeta
    No. 75
    October 2001
    THE THIRD FORCE OF WORLD WAR III (excerpts, emphasis added)

    http://www.russialist.org/archives/5497-14.php

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. Anon[674] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Mallory

    The purpose of our modern wars is to destroy countries and then occupy them to maintain control until a puppet regime of our can be planted and bloom.
     
    In other words "To take their stuff". Why else have a "puppet regime"?

    The purposes of America’s fake wars are not complex. Its the desire of adolescents to be war heroes, ie the American version of the medieval saint, plus a lot of cowboy excitement from shooting off lots of guns and missiles. Add in the vast amounts of money and prestige the military engenders in adolescent or pubescent American society, and you end up with a gigantic bureaucracy desperate with the need for war, and the ability to create as many wars as it wants via its ownership of the media and political system. What happens to the invaded and regime changed victim country is largely irrelevant, as by that time the American war machine, grossly obese like everything else in America, has moved on to its next theater of excitement and thrills.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. anarchyst says:
    @lack of meaning
    I had the chance to speak with many american veterans of the Vietnam war in the 70`s . There was the draft ot the time .

    Many of them came back very sick , abuse of alcohol , drugs , postraumatic stress disorder , they committed genocides against civilians , they felt guilty , they " fragged " , they were demoralized , they felt their country had betrayed them ...

    Many of them told me that the worse was that after a time in Vietnam they did nor see the meaning of the war , some of them told me : well if those f.... gooks want to be communists , let them be communists , I do not understand them , who am I or my country to tell them what to do , after all if communism is a shitty system let them eat shit , and at the end if it is a good system we will copy them , but what the hell are we doing there ....

    The war of Vietnam was a big defeat fot the USA in the peak of its power at the hands ot a little
    backwarded country , a military defeat , a moral defeat , a human defeat , an economical defeat ( except for the vultures who got rich with the war )

    If Bacevich ( nice Russian name tovarich , privet ) defends the draft , or the arab wars , he has not learned anything fron the Vietnam war , and I am affraid from none of the arab wars , habibi .

    SHAME ON YOU…”lack of meaning”
    YOU and your ilk are responsible for perpetuating the “Vietnam Veteran” stereotype in which YOU paint all of us with a very broad brush. For your information, almost ALL of us Vietnam veterans came back with sound minds to an ungrateful country and quietly resumed our lives without incident or fanfare. The promised government jobs that were mandated into law for returning Vietnam veterans never materialized. YOU are of the same ilk as traitor “Hanoi” Jane Fonda who gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy while our POWS were (and are) still in captivity. Very few returning Vietnam veterans had problems…the stereotype that YOU claim…is totally false.
    I notice that you have swallowed the standard “loss of Vietnam” lies hook line and sinker. Americans and South Vietnamese prevailed in every battle…bar none. In fact, TET 1968 was a decisive victory for the South s the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were decimated. Of course, the American “mainstream media” claimed it was a victory for the communists.
    For your information, the American Vietnam war was not a “civil-war” but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese, who wanted control of the whole country. The INVASION was allowed to continue when American troops left and South Vietnamese troops were not resupplied.
    YOU must have watched the Ken Burns’ “schlockumentary” on Vietnam, in which he built up the North Vietnamese while exacting harsh criticism (lies) on the American and South Vietnamese troops. Of course, to his credit, Burns “let it slip” that the “re-education camps” contrary to communist claims (actually prisons) would be in operation for approximately six months after the war was over–it turns out that many former South Vietnamese were “detained” for as long as twenty years.
    Post-war Vietnam was so wonderful, tens of thousands of “boat people risked life and limb to escape that “communist paradise” [silence].

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Good for you. I was a kid in San Francisco when the planes were flying S Vietnamese in just before the end.

    There was a big airlift of small children as I remember.

    And then came the ones who were left behind who endured pirates and bandits and detention camps for years

    I refuse to watch any Ken Burns liberal propaganda When people mention his shows I inform them of his bias.

    , @Bill Jones
    "to an ungrateful country"

    Why should the country be grateful to a bunch of murderous parasitic thugs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.
    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service. I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf. We generally assume that you served honorably, if not that is a matter for you to rest with your conscience.


    I want to encourage you to embrace whatever blessings citizens can and are willing to bestow -- even if in the main said bequeathed is obtuse and annoying. No one wants to insult vets, well few anymore and no one can immediately heal the wounds of an ungrateful and vastly misinformed citizenry on the issue of Vietnam. But I like to encourage you to let them try and embrace it the same -----


    excuse or not my well intentioned comments. I tell me father repeatedly, "Appreciate your service" he too served in Vietnam and elsewhere.


    so great a sacrifice none can repay . . .

    What does it mean to “serve honorably” in an unjust war of aggression? The only “honorable” action is to refuse orders.

    I know, I know….You are incapable of seeing Vietnam as anything but an honorable endeavor from the charitable US govt. lol.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones, chris
    • Disagree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @SolontoCroesus

    The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts.
     
    ha

    Ask Hester Prynne.

    Puritans had a keen sense of psychological violence.
    It's still violence.
    The mouthpieces of god who mandated that violence still operated on the proposition, "Damn it, I am in charge."

    Interesting that quote is what stood out to me as well. The Puritans could be some sadistic SOBs by what I understand of their history. Their treatment of their fellow “Christians” including Quakers was a bit creative and not exactly gentle.

    Here’s someone commenting on their furious nuttiness.:

    The Puritans are almost always portrayed as a peaceful and persecuted bunch, but they were a very revolutionary, seditious, and violent people.:

    England was plunged into an environment of Puritan blood rage and unreasonable fundamentalism. In the words of Hume, “fanaticism had its own language, it was a new jargon invented by the fury and hypocrisy of the times.” The Puritans wanted “No king, no nobility,” and like every leftists or progressive, the Puritans wanted “universal equality.” To use the words of Hume, “it was, in short, necessary to fanaticize the people with notions of perfect equality, to assure the obedience of the masses, and gradually to form a coalition against the monarchy.”

    http://shoebat.com/2014/11/03/puritans-just-violent-muslims/

    Another source wrote this. (Sorry no link)

    The Puritans wanted to be free to establish a “Christian” theocracy. (A perverted one complete with Indian extermination, communist principles, a police state…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Just look what they did in Ireland for 300 years because of hatred of the Christian sect to which the Irish belonged

    They were pure evil. Their hatred of Christianity was so great they moved to America to avoid the horrors of being in a country where the 2 great Christian feasts were publicly celebrated.

    They have been re incarnated in the anti nativity scene and Christmas decoration movement. Like their ancestors 400 years ago they have just about banned the very word Christmas.

    The puritans and pilgrims weren’t Christians.
    The basis of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was God, not a prophet or founder of a Jewish sect but God.

    The founders of Puritanism, Calvin and Knox and the rest of them all preached that. “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”

    Rejection of Jesus was the foundation of their faith. I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Rurik

    war – but then, sum up by blaming it on “The Joos.”
     
    exactly!

    if anything, the "Joos" are trying to stop all these wars!

    who came out strongest against the wars on Iraq, and then Libya and then Syria, if not the ((NYT))?!

    who has condemned the recent bombing of Syria, (over obvious lies about chemical attacks) if not Sheldon Adelson and bb Netanyahu!

    I mean come on, right?

    AIPAC has little to no influence in DC, but still that plucky little voice has been adamant that all of these wars are illegal, misguided and wrong.

    The Kagan 'cabal' (as some anti-Semites refer to them) have been demanding investigations into the contrived putsch (Yatz is our guy') in Ukraine, and all the lies about MH17!

    The entire Jewish media, from CNN to all the rest have been exposing the lies about these wars like no other! Look how they railed at Clinton for her role in Libya!

    But these tiresome anti-Semites will always look for an excuse for their own failures and failings, and it's not like we haven't seen this kind of scapegoat blaming before! When you're having difficulties, there's the temptation to always find some group to blame and spread blood libels, just as a certain mustached demagogue from history showed us all how it's done.

    It reminds me of those terrorists in Israel that never lose an opportunity to try to blame "The Joos" for all of their problems, so they attack Israel (on Passover!), and threaten to push her into the sea, demanding Hitlerian calls for genocide, like "The right of Return"!

    They may as well be building gas chambers and ovens with talk like that, and what does the world do?!

    they act all crybaby because a few terrorists got shot. Well what does these modern day Adolf Hitlers think the Jews are going to do when they demand The Right of Return / genocide?

    The Jews suffered the world to walk into those "showers" in the last century. You'll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again' this time around.

    From Palestinian terrorists, to neo-white supremacists like Ron Paul and PCR, pooh-poohing these wars, there's always someone looking for a group to blame for their own mediocrity and incompetence.

    You forgot that we goyim are all motivated by jealousy, too! ;)

    Ya wanna hear something utterly depressing? I was talking to a young lady who’s been working on some degree in nursing and she said that they were required to take an “ethics” class. Guess what the big issue was? Yup, “The” Holycaust!!!!

    Cheezus, the holycaust fanatics are everywhere. I mean everywhere and the layers of irony are piled on thick. You can bet your sore emerods that they weren’t discussing the “ethics” of making stuff like that up and brainwashing people with it 75 years after it was supposed to have occurred.

    The holocaust conspiracy theorists just never give up. They are obsessed; nutzo! Good grief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    they weren’t discussing the “ethics” of making stuff like that up
     
    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

    and yet that's all they do!

    you know Jacques, it's all projection

    Their entire identity is all wound up with their Old Testament narratives, which is little more than a slough through the bowels of human-kind's reptilian origins from the slime, an exposé into the deep limbic systems of our tribal, animal brains.

    'Smite them all, to the last young man, and take their women and children as sex slaves!'

    'We are the only people that matter! God loves us and us alone!'

    'Kill all the others without mercy, God loves it when we slaughter others and steal their lands!!!'

    they herald the bible as the word of God Himself, and our most sublime achievement, the very zenith of divine human knowledge itself !

    and yet it reads like the psychotic delusions of a bloodthirsty tribe of savages and cannibals

    the only people more pathetic than those Jews who demand that the Old Testament is proof of God's singular love of the cho$en, are the Christians who concur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Rurik

    except for the vultures who got rich with the war
     
    when I read post 83, where he said " I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    I was tempted to suggest that some of them, may have wondered if he hadn't 'fragged' an ambitious lieutenant or two, and wanted to thank him for the effort.

    If a war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, 'based on lies, conducted against civilians for the fun and profit of evil men and women, (as all of our recent wars have clearly been)

    then there's few things in this world that would bolster my disposition more than news that one or two particularly vile war pigs might catch a bit of their own medicine.

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/madeleine-albright-6.jpg

    That picture is proof that there is no such thing as a loving G-wd.

    How could such a thing be allowed to exist on an otherwise beautiful planet such as ours?

    Dear G-wd, let me off, fer Kris’ sake! The horror! The horror!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Rurik
    mea culpa sir

    mea culpa

    You better maxima that culpa, brother!

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Steve Gittelson

    April showers bring May flowers.
     
    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    Nectar and pollen for Apis mellifera.

    You know what they bring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    You know what they bring.
     
    Illegals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Catiline says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The New England Puritans frowned on violence as a way of resolving social conflicts.
     
    ha

    Ask Hester Prynne.

    Puritans had a keen sense of psychological violence.
    It's still violence.
    The mouthpieces of god who mandated that violence still operated on the proposition, "Damn it, I am in charge."

    Whatever the nature of the Puritans the subject under examination is US foreign relations. The quote I linked to above remains valid despite any quibbles readers may have with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Zumbuddi
    Pat Lang should've glanced at the comments to Bacevich's writings before he posted on Unz,

    The Unz commentariat refuses to be censored or to self-censor (thank you Ron Unz, 1000 X).

    UFers call BS when they smell it.

    Lang scurried back to his gated spiderhole & winged about "delusional" commenters at Unz.

    Don't let the door hit ya.

    Col. Lang did not say that all comments here at UR were bad, only some, and having read all of the way through the comments appended to his recent post, he has a point. Some of the comments were off the mark, spiteful, and not nearly as insightful as you seem to be saying.

    He has been fighting the toxic influence of the NeoCons for years, and from the inside. He used to appear as a regular commentator on the McNeill/Lehrer Newshour, and sometimes on other media programs, trying to inculcate some basic understanding of the distortions introduced by US foreign and military policies in the world at large, and the substantial blowback that these policies engender. That is until the disapproval of the NeoCons who exerted an outsized and pernicious influence over what views could be expressed on these broadcasts reached such a pitch that he was no longer asked to appear on these programs. So before heaving too many brickbats, simple modesty might suggest to you to ask yourself, and perhaps you too Ronald Thomas West, what you have done in the war against these forces, in what venues, for how long, and to what effect?

    He seems an honorable man to me; a bit crusty, but that often flows from an encounter with those who have not done the work to understand history and its lessons, and who fall back onto simplistic cant as if it were a substitute for multi-faceted assessments of causes and the observed effects. He is a stern teacher – he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive – who does not hesitate to administer a rebuff to the lazy-minded and ill-grounded. I have seen him be pretty harsh in a reply, and then, if he thinks that either he has gone past the mark, or that the individual roughly handled now understands how they went off half-cocked, he will soften his tone, and more explicitly reveal the lesson he was seeking to impart, which was more often than not an attempt to jar the individual out of his overly-simplistic explanatory framework. But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that’s your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that’s your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.
     
    Oh, fuh-uh-uck. "Military leadership" lectures redux.

    The very last goddamn thing anyone who was military during Vietnam should pay attention to is what you gung-ho commie-killing mother-fuckers squawked morning, noon and night.

    Yeah, let's get all rough and manly together, and hold off the infidel.

    Shee-it. A few words of that well-remembered BULLSHIT, and I'm right back there. Makes me wanna puke. Only now I'm old and wise enough to reach for the 9mm and tell you assholes to get the fuck out of here.
    , @jacques sheete

    He is a stern teacher – he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive
     
    What the hell was such a hero doing in Vietnam in the first place? Stern my arse. How's this for "stern"?: Mind your own f'ckin business, get off the government dole and get a real job or better yet, start your own business.

    All recipients of stolen funds (taxes) are to be condemned and that includes government "contractors."

    Standing armies suck and they stink. They are un-American too.


    “The experience of all ages, and the observations of both the historian and the philosopher agree, that a standing army is the most ready engine in the hand of despotism, to debase the powers of the human mind, and eradicate the manly spirit of freedom.

    The people have certainly everything to fear from a government, when the springs of its authority are fortified only by a standing military force.

    Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character.”

    -Mercy Otis Warren, prominent revolution-era historian,
    History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

     

    , @Tut tut
    With this, Jersey Jeffersonian seems to have the joined the Respect and Deference Police. The US government strikes the same pose when they have no answer for obvious questions in transnational forums like treaty bodies or charter bodies. It's US statist reflex - if you have nothing to say for yourself, pull imaginary rank.

    McNeill/Lehrer is an anticredential. McNeil/Lehrer was a classic example of Project Mockingbird, circumscribing the discourse by giving you a menu of two state-sanctioned options, synthetic left and right. That's exactly what Bacevich is still doing here, even though that sort of propaganda can't pass the laugh test any more. With each little pledge of allegiance he sets out a barrier to keep you from wandering off the primrose path to his ridiculous prescription for peace: enforce public participation in war with the full coercive power of the state.

    Lang, like Bacevich, can't get his head around the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter. He's not just brainwashed. His identity is so wrapped up in his state indoctrination that he cannot consider that his military, like the rest of his police state, is parasitic and criminal.

    So stop trying to make us genuflect to colonels. When you've got a tapeworm, you don't ask its scolex what it likes to eat - you poison it and shit it out. When your country has been taken over by a violent kleptocracy, you don't ask one of its mafiya buttonmen what to do.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @JerseyJeffersonian
    Col. Lang did not say that all comments here at UR were bad, only some, and having read all of the way through the comments appended to his recent post, he has a point. Some of the comments were off the mark, spiteful, and not nearly as insightful as you seem to be saying.

    He has been fighting the toxic influence of the NeoCons for years, and from the inside. He used to appear as a regular commentator on the McNeill/Lehrer Newshour, and sometimes on other media programs, trying to inculcate some basic understanding of the distortions introduced by US foreign and military policies in the world at large, and the substantial blowback that these policies engender. That is until the disapproval of the NeoCons who exerted an outsized and pernicious influence over what views could be expressed on these broadcasts reached such a pitch that he was no longer asked to appear on these programs. So before heaving too many brickbats, simple modesty might suggest to you to ask yourself, and perhaps you too Ronald Thomas West, what you have done in the war against these forces, in what venues, for how long, and to what effect?

    He seems an honorable man to me; a bit crusty, but that often flows from an encounter with those who have not done the work to understand history and its lessons, and who fall back onto simplistic cant as if it were a substitute for multi-faceted assessments of causes and the observed effects. He is a stern teacher - he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive - who does not hesitate to administer a rebuff to the lazy-minded and ill-grounded. I have seen him be pretty harsh in a reply, and then, if he thinks that either he has gone past the mark, or that the individual roughly handled now understands how they went off half-cocked, he will soften his tone, and more explicitly reveal the lesson he was seeking to impart, which was more often than not an attempt to jar the individual out of his overly-simplistic explanatory framework. But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that's your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.

    But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that’s your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.

    Oh, fuh-uh-uck. “Military leadership” lectures redux.

    The very last goddamn thing anyone who was military during Vietnam should pay attention to is what you gung-ho commie-killing mother-fuckers squawked morning, noon and night.

    Yeah, let’s get all rough and manly together, and hold off the infidel.

    Shee-it. A few words of that well-remembered BULLSHIT, and I’m right back there. Makes me wanna puke. Only now I’m old and wise enough to reach for the 9mm and tell you assholes to get the fuck out of here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @jacques sheete

    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?
     
    Nectar and pollen for Apis mellifera.

    You know what they bring.

    You know what they bring.

    Illegals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Illegals
     
    The worst of all illegals have typically been US military men and wimmin who've been doing the devil's dirty work for decades if not quite centuries.

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    Butler was a 2 time CMH awardee.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Jake
    The reason that US militarism is so frightening is that like its parent English imperialism it is insatiable and the very definition of self-righteous and features a world class ability to lie and deceive.

    You would think that at some point it will devour itself when the rest of us have nothing left to give. We can’t pay them with borrowed money forever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Carroll Price

    They’re not defending the country, that’s mind-boggling propaganda.
     
    Indeed. The last Americans to die defending their country were the Confederate soldiers who died defending theirs. All others died for the US empire, including Union forces who died while making the South it's first victim.

    Exactly. Followed by the long list of needless crusades n manipulated interventions since. Unnecessary wars all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Iris
    Colonel Bacevich is only playing the devil's advocate, and, in a diplomatic manner, showing the contradictions between the "official" military agenda and the reality of today's world.

    If the US was ruled with the interests of its people and servicemen in mind, it would not be engaged in endless and unwinnable wars. But the NeoCons imperial elite don't care, as they don't have skin in the game, unlike the military (Colonel Bacevich lost his only son in Iraq).

    The fate of an Empire is demise, because it is ruled by the few, who don't care about reality, until this reality engulfs them.
    Patriots try to stop such demise by the modest , realistic means available to them: enlightening people.

    Well, Iris, in the geopolitical parlance called ‘realpolitic’, the term ‘diplomatic’ could approximate ‘white lie.’ Are there ‘shades of white’? If you were to dig behind the cover Colonel Bacevich provides to the generals, example given is General Patreaus, the white lie gets pretty dark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ca1HsC6MH0

    ^ nothing like a white lie covering for the guy responsible for death squads and torture camps in Iraq, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    I watched the video. Pretty disquieting stuff. If Petraeus and Steele are half as bad as the video suggests they are certifiable psychopaths.

    The deeper one digs the smell gets worse.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @George
    "The root cause of our predicament is the all-volunteer force."

    Just before WWI various reforms were made that made entering into and maintaining a war easier. Most notably direct election of senators and the federal reserve bank. If you are looking to root causes, start with those. While the direct election of senators did not stop the US from getting into wars, it does seem to have made maintaining the war difficult or even impossible.

    The sinking of the Liuisitiannia to start WW1 was just an obvious replay of blowing up the US boat in Havana Harbor to set off the Spanish American war.

    The elites gonna do what the elites do.
    Doesn’t matter which way the proles vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. gsjackson says:
    @Anonymous

    I go to baseball games regularly at the local university, and whenever a member of the U.S. military is identified as being in the audience he stands on the home dugout and receives a rousing two-minute standing ovation from virtually ever one of the roughly 3,500 souls assembled. It is beyond bizarre, especially for someone who was on campus during Vietnam. And quite scary.
     
    My dad, who is a WWII veteran in his 90’s, saw heavy combat and received a Purple Heart and still has shrapnel in him from a Japanese grenade. He hates to be thanked for his service and never stands in church on Veterans Day weekend when they ask for veterans to stand. He thinks this glorification of people who “served” is total ludicrous and they should not get any benefits or preference for it. He said no one ever mentioned being in the war, and especially not simply being in the military, when he was younger.

    Same with my dad, who saw what a dirty business war is in the Pacific. He became career military (as a lawyer), but spoke contemptuously of the “professional vets” who wanted to bask in adulation.

    I know from the military — between my father, mother and me we served in all four branches — and it boggles the mind to see this adulation/virtue signalling directed at the same old shitbird prives we all remember. Now cast as “our heroes,” no doubt on direction from Zio-central casting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS
    Nice.
    Agree, of course.
    Didn't want to go that path on this site. Tried a couple of times and, let's say that the level of misunderstanding was staggering.
    Getting phylosophical, or even deep into human very makeup, well, this isn't the place.

    ...because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.
     
    I'll say just one thing.
    I had my own war. Apparently, it was really a very bad one, by everybody's account.
    I just know one thing: I never felt so alive then and there. Nothing compares. Nothing......
    All elements of life itself were on the level I've never felt after that. The scent of air, intensity of sounds, taste of food and drinks, sleep, rest, comradeship, well...everything was 100 %. Nothing in civilian life compares. Nothing. Well, one thing only, actually.Won't say what.
    Crazy a?
    Or....hehe.....poor civilians, "chattering class" in particular.

    If we want to get analytical now, the same applies to groups. A couple of mates, together, in war. A small community...larger community.....etc....etc.
    Anyway.


    I’ve noticed you absent from Revusky’s last thread; probably a wise decision on your part. But your input would be interesting if you have any (no need to read the piece in its entirety or more than the first few comments).
     
    Read some of the article, skimmed through some parts. Read some comments; got surprised by, say, "internal workings" of this site. Too much personal bullshit and politics if you ask me.
    As for the topic itself, well, got that video about Pentagon plane, so here I am:
    Before reading some stuff on this site (thank you guys, a couple only, of course) I thought one thing.
    Now I am inclined to think otherwise.
    Two things:
    I buy, 70/30 that the buildings, all of three of them, did collapse due to a peculiar combination of how they were built with how and with what they were hit, plus the rest. So, no demolitions.
    Second, Pentagon plane. That video, well....so, again, I believe that a plane (the plane) hit Pentagon.

    Now, did the government know that hijacking was going to happen, I am sure some parts of the intelligence community/security apparatus did. Was it intentionally not prevented, don't think so. I go with incompetence and organizational culture there.

    That the event was manipulated and used for the Deep State goals, of course.
    I am sure that as soon some of them knew what was happening they started calculating and acting.
    Having said all this, I really don't want to get into debate about that. I mean...done around zillion times already.

    One more thing.
    Mentioned my little war. So, can't get emotionally involved into 9/11. What Americans see as a terrible thing re loss of life, limb and property, guys like me see "and.....?".
    I am widely known as Russia hater here. So.. this
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege
    is, in my book, worse than 9/11.
    Much worse.
    And, to add insult to the injury, only this


    2004

    In September 2004, following bombing attacks on two aircraft and the downtown Moscow Metro, Chechen terrorists seized over 1,000 hostages at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia.
     

    is on the Wikipedia site re "Terrorism in Russia". Not even a fucking link.

    I remember those atrocities very well. They raped most of the girls age 10 and up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anarchyst
    SHAME ON YOU..."lack of meaning"
    YOU and your ilk are responsible for perpetuating the "Vietnam Veteran" stereotype in which YOU paint all of us with a very broad brush. For your information, almost ALL of us Vietnam veterans came back with sound minds to an ungrateful country and quietly resumed our lives without incident or fanfare. The promised government jobs that were mandated into law for returning Vietnam veterans never materialized. YOU are of the same ilk as traitor "Hanoi" Jane Fonda who gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy while our POWS were (and are) still in captivity. Very few returning Vietnam veterans had problems...the stereotype that YOU claim...is totally false.
    I notice that you have swallowed the standard "loss of Vietnam" lies hook line and sinker. Americans and South Vietnamese prevailed in every battle...bar none. In fact, TET 1968 was a decisive victory for the South s the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were decimated. Of course, the American "mainstream media" claimed it was a victory for the communists.
    For your information, the American Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese, who wanted control of the whole country. The INVASION was allowed to continue when American troops left and South Vietnamese troops were not resupplied.
    YOU must have watched the Ken Burns' "schlockumentary" on Vietnam, in which he built up the North Vietnamese while exacting harsh criticism (lies) on the American and South Vietnamese troops. Of course, to his credit, Burns "let it slip" that the "re-education camps" contrary to communist claims (actually prisons) would be in operation for approximately six months after the war was over--it turns out that many former South Vietnamese were "detained" for as long as twenty years.
    Post-war Vietnam was so wonderful, tens of thousands of "boat people risked life and limb to escape that "communist paradise" [silence].

    Good for you. I was a kid in San Francisco when the planes were flying S Vietnamese in just before the end.

    There was a big airlift of small children as I remember.

    And then came the ones who were left behind who endured pirates and bandits and detention camps for years

    I refuse to watch any Ken Burns liberal propaganda When people mention his shows I inform them of his bias.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete
    Interesting that quote is what stood out to me as well. The Puritans could be some sadistic SOBs by what I understand of their history. Their treatment of their fellow "Christians" including Quakers was a bit creative and not exactly gentle.

    Here's someone commenting on their furious nuttiness.:

    The Puritans are almost always portrayed as a peaceful and persecuted bunch, but they were a very revolutionary, seditious, and violent people.:

    England was plunged into an environment of Puritan blood rage and unreasonable fundamentalism. In the words of Hume, “fanaticism had its own language, it was a new jargon invented by the fury and hypocrisy of the times.” The Puritans wanted “No king, no nobility,” and like every leftists or progressive, the Puritans wanted “universal equality.” To use the words of Hume, “it was, in short, necessary to fanaticize the people with notions of perfect equality, to assure the obedience of the masses, and gradually to form a coalition against the monarchy.”
    http://shoebat.com/2014/11/03/puritans-just-violent-muslims/
     
    Another source wrote this. (Sorry no link)

    The Puritans wanted to be free to establish a “Christian” theocracy. (A perverted one complete with Indian extermination, communist principles, a police state...)

     

    Just look what they did in Ireland for 300 years because of hatred of the Christian sect to which the Irish belonged

    They were pure evil. Their hatred of Christianity was so great they moved to America to avoid the horrors of being in a country where the 2 great Christian feasts were publicly celebrated.

    They have been re incarnated in the anti nativity scene and Christmas decoration movement. Like their ancestors 400 years ago they have just about banned the very word Christmas.

    The puritans and pilgrims weren’t Christians.
    The basis of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was God, not a prophet or founder of a Jewish sect but God.

    The founders of Puritanism, Calvin and Knox and the rest of them all preached that. “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”

    Rejection of Jesus was the foundation of their faith. I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    E. Michael Jones and others before him like Fr. Denis Fahey have written about the Jewish role in the Prostestant Reformation. They have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church since Christ founded it. It is this crap which brought about the Inquisition. It was also Marty Baron and his fellow tribesman who created the priest scandal story. There have always been bad priests, child molesters in the clergy, but the small numbers have been lower than Jewish and mainline Protestant clergy (according to non-Catholic sociologist Prof. Philip Jenkins). But the narrative is now fact like Assad gassed his own people in Douma.
    , @jacques sheete

    I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.
     
    I never thought of it that way, but there can be little doubt that you're correct. They "had" to examine women to determine whether they were witches or not. They engaged in sexual humiliation of other "Christians" as well such as parading "transgressors" about in public with their breasts exposed. If they were alive today they'd vie with the Israelis as kings of Pervertville.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    except for the vultures who got rich with the war
     
    when I read post 83, where he said " I detest the right-wing virtual signaling of people saying to me and others: “Thank you for your service.”

    I was tempted to suggest that some of them, may have wondered if he hadn't 'fragged' an ambitious lieutenant or two, and wanted to thank him for the effort.

    If a war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, 'based on lies, conducted against civilians for the fun and profit of evil men and women, (as all of our recent wars have clearly been)

    then there's few things in this world that would bolster my disposition more than news that one or two particularly vile war pigs might catch a bit of their own medicine.

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/madeleine-albright-6.jpg

    Anyone know how she went from being a rich housewife who never worked since her marriage to Secretary of State in a few years?

    I mean Hildabeast was a senator presidents wife and presidential candidate before becoming Goddess of War and Destruction.

    But Albrights resume was volunteer at her kids school and rich housewife

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But Albrights resume
     
    it was enough that she was a member of the tribe in good standing, and like all members in good standing, she celebrates the mass slaughter/genocide of non-Jewish children every year as their most sacred holy holiday.

    when that's your mentality, then it's just not a leap to go from that to trying to morally justify the mass-genocide of 500,000 non-Jewish children dying for lack of clean water or medicine.

    what do you think she'd say about German children dying of starvation in 1945 after the war was over?

    what do you think she'd say about Iranian children dying in a contrived war against that country?

    or American children for that matter. Provided of course that they're goyim chattel.

    Was it 'worth it' to that repulsive ghoul for thousands of young Americans to die in the Eternal Wars of this century - to bolster Israel?

    (that's a rhetorical question ; )

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    April showers bring May flowers.
     
    If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    June weddings????? school graduations????

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    June weddings????? school graduations????
     
    Old joke (very) : If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    Pilgrims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Now back to the great Betty Ong 9/11 debate to see the latest lunacy.!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    Now back to the great Betty Ong 9/11 debate to see the latest lunacy.!!!!!
     
    Yeah. I had to exit that one; I was laughing too hard. The usual suspects are inventing shit so fast it almost triggers admiration of the typhoon of combined imaginary conspiracies. It's like ten Neros fighting over a gas can.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. myself says:

    Let me state the obvious:

    While it may be (in my view it certainly ought to be) decried that our country engages in pointless wars and genocides, it does not seem to have any bearing whatsoever on the daily lives of ordinary Americans.

    “What Happens When a Few Volunteer and the Rest Just Watch”?

    A FEW die, a FEW are disabled or disfigured, and the Rest get on with the mundane aspects of existence. THAT’s what happens.

    Have the wars been, and do they continue to be, very bad for the reputation of the United States? Of course.

    Have the wars been, on a grand strategic level, quite disastrous for America’s long-term geopolitical prospects? Have they basically shown the world that we are on a, to put it bluntly, rampage born of arrogance and a (probably insupportable) feeling of invincibility? Have they strained our alliances (for example, the understandable European reluctance to endorse Operation Iraqi Freedom)? Have the wars turned even neutrals away from us? IMHO, yes they have. And continue to do so.

    BUT, none of these matter to the American public. As long as very miniscule resources, say about 3.6% of the annual GDP, is devoted to warmaking, and as long as the casualties are on the order of what, an average of only 2 American servicemen killed per day, the public will not really care.

    IT is perfectly possible, and in fact it is the daily reality, that Americans only VAGUELY care that we are engaged in overseas conflict at present.

    And in fact, this sort of low-level war is not PHYSICALLY able to cause America to collapse, save by indirect means – by financial overstretch (deficit spending to fund the wars, to avoid taxing the apathetic public naturally), and by the long-term neglect of infrastructure and education which are an outgrowth of those deficits.

    There is also the subtle PSYCHOLOGICAL toll, and it does add up over time. Finances and Resources are not the sole lenses through which to view the price a nation pays for War. And we are paying that price, albeit in trickles, not raging torrents.

    Can we keep it up? Well, eventually, what comes up must come down. “Eventually” is the operative word.

    An empire can engage in will-sapping low-level wars for a VERY, VERY long time, on the order of DECADES if history’s any guide. We have been in continuous war for almost 17 years. The material effect is negligible, though the geopolitical and psychological harm is real and considerable.

    As long as we don’t make the mistake of picking a fight with a peer rival, it is my view that America can continue on this path for another 20 more years, at least. Not indefinitely, but let the world experience hell on earth, in the meantime, courtesy of the U.S.A!

    After that? Civilizational oblivion, loss of confidence, and a probable political fracturing of the once-United States. People can’t think that far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    As long as we don’t make the mistake of picking a fight with a peer rival, it is my view that America can continue on this path for another 20 more years, at least.
     
    Yup.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. myself says:

    We can’t pay them with borrowed money forever

    Not FOREVER, but we can borrow and spend beyond our means for some time yet.

    Yes indeed, SOME TIME YET.

    These things take time, don’t count on Mordor to fall easily or swiftly. IMHO, just based on personal observation and conversation, the “resistance”, the grass-roots “insurgency”, is growing. Slowly, ever so slowly. Sloooowly.

    Mainstream media is beginning to be distrusted, a phenomenon set to become much more widespread.

    What was once on the fringe, topics like the Deep State, false flags, mainstream media monopolies, media collusion with government and financial firms, the highly undue influence of lobbying, the anti-democratic and anti-meritocratic values rammed down the throats of kids in our colleges, and MANY OTHERS BESIDES, are now increasingly able to be discussed in normal society. Ditto the endless wars and eternal need for “nation-building” abroad.

    In hushed whispers, in private settings, Americans are beginning to talk among ourselves.

    Just remember, sometimes, the most internally rotten entity can present a facade of power and divine favor, right before it actually crumbles and is revealed to be hollow. Such was the case for the Soviet Union.

    I wonder, could the same be the fate of Mordor?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. stokars says:

    Peace from war? “The object of war is to get the consent of the enemy.”–Charles Moore

    Nothing new in this article, and by its content, makes reading his book a non-starter. History did not start with the birth of Mr. Bacevich

    “I revere the characters of some of the gentlemen that composed the convention at Philadelphia, yet I think they were human, and subject to imposition and error, as well as the rest of mankind. You lost eight or ten years of your lives and labor by the last war, and you were left at last with your debts and encumbrances on you, and numbers of you were soon after the close of it, sued and harassed for them. Your persons have been put into a loathsome prison, and others of you have had your property sold for taxes, and sometimes for one tenth of its former and actual value and you now pay very grievous and heavy taxes, double and treble what you paid before the war; and should you adopt this new government, your taxes will be great, increased to support their.., servants and retainers, who will be multiplied upon you to keep you in obedience, and collect their duties, taxes, impositions, and excises. Some of you may say the rich men were virtuous in the last war; yes, my countrymen, they had reason then to be so! Our liberty then was in dispute with a mighty and powerful tyrant, and it was for their interest to promote and carry on the opposition, as long as they could stay at home and send the common people into the field to fight their battles. After the war began, they could not with decency recede, for the sword and enemy were at the very entrance of their gates. The case is greatly altered now; you conquered the enemy, and the rich men now think to subdue you by their wiles and arts, or make you, or persuade you, to do it yourselves. Their aim, I perceive, is now to destroy that liberty which you set up as a reward for the blood and treasure you expended in the pursuit of and establishment of it. They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound, Farewell! Be wise, be watchful, guard yourselves against the dangers that are concealed in this plan of a new Federal Government.” A Farmer & Planter Anti-Federalist #40

    “The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.” Allegedly, this came from an Assyrian tablet, ca. 2800 BCE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Superb anti-federalist quote there, Sir!

    They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound...
     

    Done deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Steve Gittelson

    You know what they bring.
     
    Illegals.

    Illegals

    The worst of all illegals have typically been US military men and wimmin who’ve been doing the devil’s dirty work for decades if not quite centuries.

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    Butler was a 2 time CMH awardee.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @JerseyJeffersonian
    Col. Lang did not say that all comments here at UR were bad, only some, and having read all of the way through the comments appended to his recent post, he has a point. Some of the comments were off the mark, spiteful, and not nearly as insightful as you seem to be saying.

    He has been fighting the toxic influence of the NeoCons for years, and from the inside. He used to appear as a regular commentator on the McNeill/Lehrer Newshour, and sometimes on other media programs, trying to inculcate some basic understanding of the distortions introduced by US foreign and military policies in the world at large, and the substantial blowback that these policies engender. That is until the disapproval of the NeoCons who exerted an outsized and pernicious influence over what views could be expressed on these broadcasts reached such a pitch that he was no longer asked to appear on these programs. So before heaving too many brickbats, simple modesty might suggest to you to ask yourself, and perhaps you too Ronald Thomas West, what you have done in the war against these forces, in what venues, for how long, and to what effect?

    He seems an honorable man to me; a bit crusty, but that often flows from an encounter with those who have not done the work to understand history and its lessons, and who fall back onto simplistic cant as if it were a substitute for multi-faceted assessments of causes and the observed effects. He is a stern teacher - he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive - who does not hesitate to administer a rebuff to the lazy-minded and ill-grounded. I have seen him be pretty harsh in a reply, and then, if he thinks that either he has gone past the mark, or that the individual roughly handled now understands how they went off half-cocked, he will soften his tone, and more explicitly reveal the lesson he was seeking to impart, which was more often than not an attempt to jar the individual out of his overly-simplistic explanatory framework. But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that's your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.

    He is a stern teacher – he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive

    What the hell was such a hero doing in Vietnam in the first place? Stern my arse. How’s this for “stern”?: Mind your own f’ckin business, get off the government dole and get a real job or better yet, start your own business.

    All recipients of stolen funds (taxes) are to be condemned and that includes government “contractors.”

    Standing armies suck and they stink. They are un-American too.

    “The experience of all ages, and the observations of both the historian and the philosopher agree, that a standing army is the most ready engine in the hand of despotism, to debase the powers of the human mind, and eradicate the manly spirit of freedom.

    The people have certainly everything to fear from a government, when the springs of its authority are fortified only by a standing military force.

    Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character.”

    -Mercy Otis Warren, prominent revolution-era historian,
    History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @EliteCommInc.
    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service. I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf. We generally assume that you served honorably, if not that is a matter for you to rest with your conscience.


    I want to encourage you to embrace whatever blessings citizens can and are willing to bestow -- even if in the main said bequeathed is obtuse and annoying. No one wants to insult vets, well few anymore and no one can immediately heal the wounds of an ungrateful and vastly misinformed citizenry on the issue of Vietnam. But I like to encourage you to let them try and embrace it the same -----


    excuse or not my well intentioned comments. I tell me father repeatedly, "Appreciate your service" he too served in Vietnam and elsewhere.


    so great a sacrifice none can repay . . .

    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service.

    It is irritating, and what the (bleep) do you appreciate?

    I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam…

    Sacrifice? What sacrifice? For a lot of us it was an adventure, and a heck of a lot better than the alternatives at the time.

    Required reading. A classic from our own Fwed.

    “ Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood.”

    The Wars: Maybe We Could Go Bowling Insted (sic)
    Posted on February 17, 2003 by Fred Reed

    http://fredoneverything.org/the-wars-maybe-we-could-go-bowling-insted/

    …and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf.

    You don’t know that. Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.
     
    my 'agree' button was used up
    , @EliteCommInc.
    That one gives up their will to the service of the community. Initial training: what time to go to bed, to eat, when to wake, how to wake, when to march, where to walk, how to walk, how to run, how far to run, what speed to run, how to fire a weapon, when to fire a weapon, how to fight, when to fight, when to read a map, how to read a map, who respect, when to respect, how to respect, what skill to have, how that skill is used, how to learn said skill, when to report, when to report ----


    A million upon a million choices that one gives up to serve the community . . . including and most valuable, when to risk your life and for whom.

    I appreciate that sacrifice. That ones finds it an adventure doesn't change either the sacrifice or the appreciation.


    That millions of Vietnamese appreciated being rescued from the brutality that followed -- is well expressed among the Vietnamese.


    Hmmmmm . . . . I certainly like to acknowledge heroes. But that is really not the point here. I respect and honor the men and women of the armed services who give up themselves for the greater good of community, even if that gift is mightily abused.

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem. As stated in my previous response -- I encourage that service members embrace it as gift, as acknowledgement for a service that gets very little in that regard beyond a paystub, training and some benefits.



    I would always encourage said expressed sentiments from the served --- for more than one might consider its worth. Most of us sincerely appreciate it -- hero or not.

    If you reject that appreciation -- that is of course your choice. Just know that plenty of people understand that military service is a sacrifice for which appreciation is the very least that is deserved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. wraith67 says:

    It is easy for the population in general to ignore military matters when we have an all volunteer force, military think tanks have been talking about the military demographic problem for years (decades). However, the “forever war” problem being discussed here lays entirely at the feet of the political class. We know the location of every Taliban leader and warlord in Pakistan down to the square meter. We know where every Pakistani ISI training camp for Taliban insurgents is. Every year all the enemy leadership from all factions meet at the Quetta Shura to plan the war for the coming year, we know where this is. But we don’t do anything about these, and it’s the civilian leadership’s call not to cross the border and end the war. To be fair, some of the problem does sit with the military. Every general above a one star is part of the political class, and they’ve had nearly two decades of being rewarded for not defeating the enemy – it’s patently obvious their focus isn’t on winning wars by the incessant Gay Pride celebrations, Minority of the Month “awareness” campaigns and the monumental amount of time dedicated to mandatory Social Justice/Sexual Harassment prevention training. Petreus’ COIN doctrine was extremely unhelpful, it changed the focus from defeating the enemy to trying to become friends with the enemy, in conjunction with State/USAID pumping $billions into the local economies, trying to build a middle class that would be too anesthetized and materialistic to bother picking up a gun or strapping on a bomb (based on the false notion that poverty causes terrorism). Obviously none of this is working. I wouldn’t expect anything to change, the political class is only concerned with two-year election cycles. What will change things is when we have a peer-to-peer engagement and lose a few thousand men in a day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. @stokars
    Peace from war? “The object of war is to get the consent of the enemy.”--Charles Moore

    Nothing new in this article, and by its content, makes reading his book a non-starter. History did not start with the birth of Mr. Bacevich

    “I revere the characters of some of the gentlemen that composed the convention at Philadelphia, yet I think they were human, and subject to imposition and error, as well as the rest of mankind. You lost eight or ten years of your lives and labor by the last war, and you were left at last with your debts and encumbrances on you, and numbers of you were soon after the close of it, sued and harassed for them. Your persons have been put into a loathsome prison, and others of you have had your property sold for taxes, and sometimes for one tenth of its former and actual value and you now pay very grievous and heavy taxes, double and treble what you paid before the war; and should you adopt this new government, your taxes will be great, increased to support their.., servants and retainers, who will be multiplied upon you to keep you in obedience, and collect their duties, taxes, impositions, and excises. Some of you may say the rich men were virtuous in the last war; yes, my countrymen, they had reason then to be so! Our liberty then was in dispute with a mighty and powerful tyrant, and it was for their interest to promote and carry on the opposition, as long as they could stay at home and send the common people into the field to fight their battles. After the war began, they could not with decency recede, for the sword and enemy were at the very entrance of their gates. The case is greatly altered now; you conquered the enemy, and the rich men now think to subdue you by their wiles and arts, or make you, or persuade you, to do it yourselves. Their aim, I perceive, is now to destroy that liberty which you set up as a reward for the blood and treasure you expended in the pursuit of and establishment of it. They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound, Farewell! Be wise, be watchful, guard yourselves against the dangers that are concealed in this plan of a new Federal Government.” A Farmer & Planter Anti-Federalist #40

    "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Allegedly, this came from an Assyrian tablet, ca. 2800 BCE.

    Superb anti-federalist quote there, Sir!

    They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound…

    Done deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Anon
    June weddings????? school graduations????

    June weddings????? school graduations????

    Old joke (very) : If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring?

    Pilgrims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Anon
    Now back to the great Betty Ong 9/11 debate to see the latest lunacy.!!!!!

    Now back to the great Betty Ong 9/11 debate to see the latest lunacy.!!!!!

    Yeah. I had to exit that one; I was laughing too hard. The usual suspects are inventing shit so fast it almost triggers admiration of the typhoon of combined imaginary conspiracies. It’s like ten Neros fighting over a gas can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I should apologize for my rants about how it’s possible to see 1,360 ft high buildings from many places in Manhattan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete
    You forgot that we goyim are all motivated by jealousy, too! ;)

    Ya wanna hear something utterly depressing? I was talking to a young lady who's been working on some degree in nursing and she said that they were required to take an "ethics" class. Guess what the big issue was? Yup, "The" Holycaust!!!!

    Cheezus, the holycaust fanatics are everywhere. I mean everywhere and the layers of irony are piled on thick. You can bet your sore emerods that they weren't discussing the "ethics" of making stuff like that up and brainwashing people with it 75 years after it was supposed to have occurred.

    The holocaust conspiracy theorists just never give up. They are obsessed; nutzo! Good grief.

    they weren’t discussing the “ethics” of making stuff like that up

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

    and yet that’s all they do!

    you know Jacques, it’s all projection

    Their entire identity is all wound up with their Old Testament narratives, which is little more than a slough through the bowels of human-kind’s reptilian origins from the slime, an exposé into the deep limbic systems of our tribal, animal brains.

    ‘Smite them all, to the last young man, and take their women and children as sex slaves!’

    We are the only people that matter! God loves us and us alone!’

    ‘Kill all the others without mercy, God loves it when we slaughter others and steal their lands!!!’

    they herald the bible as the word of God Himself, and our most sublime achievement, the very zenith of divine human knowledge itself !

    and yet it reads like the psychotic delusions of a bloodthirsty tribe of savages and cannibals

    the only people more pathetic than those Jews who demand that the Old Testament is proof of God’s singular love of the cho$en, are the Christians who concur.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete

    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service.
     
    It is irritating, and what the (bleep) do you appreciate?

    I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam...
     
    Sacrifice? What sacrifice? For a lot of us it was an adventure, and a heck of a lot better than the alternatives at the time.

    Required reading. A classic from our own Fwed.


    “ Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood.”

    The Wars: Maybe We Could Go Bowling Insted (sic)
    Posted on February 17, 2003 by Fred Reed
    http://fredoneverything.org/the-wars-maybe-we-could-go-bowling-insted/

     


    ...and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf.
     
    You don't know that. Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.

    Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.

    my ‘agree’ button was used up

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Since being a hero is neither required nor pertinent, your comment is misplaced -- nothing new there.


    However, when I consider the losses of the South Vietnamese that fought for their country, upwards beyond a million and those that fought on their countries behalf -- it's clear that S. Vietnam was a struggle of choice by the S. Vietnamese. Considering the children of the Vietnamese refugees -- and few are racing back to Vietnam. I am very comfortable in saying -- millions appreciated the efforts of the US service men who served. https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/kits/vac_brief_history.pdf

    To avoid a long tiresome rehash of the question, one can visit those issues and commentary here or at TAC.

    If you served, I appreciate your service, whether you accept said appreciation is clearly a matter of choice.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Tut tut says:
    @JerseyJeffersonian
    Col. Lang did not say that all comments here at UR were bad, only some, and having read all of the way through the comments appended to his recent post, he has a point. Some of the comments were off the mark, spiteful, and not nearly as insightful as you seem to be saying.

    He has been fighting the toxic influence of the NeoCons for years, and from the inside. He used to appear as a regular commentator on the McNeill/Lehrer Newshour, and sometimes on other media programs, trying to inculcate some basic understanding of the distortions introduced by US foreign and military policies in the world at large, and the substantial blowback that these policies engender. That is until the disapproval of the NeoCons who exerted an outsized and pernicious influence over what views could be expressed on these broadcasts reached such a pitch that he was no longer asked to appear on these programs. So before heaving too many brickbats, simple modesty might suggest to you to ask yourself, and perhaps you too Ronald Thomas West, what you have done in the war against these forces, in what venues, for how long, and to what effect?

    He seems an honorable man to me; a bit crusty, but that often flows from an encounter with those who have not done the work to understand history and its lessons, and who fall back onto simplistic cant as if it were a substitute for multi-faceted assessments of causes and the observed effects. He is a stern teacher - he taught soldiers under his command in Vietnam how to stay alive - who does not hesitate to administer a rebuff to the lazy-minded and ill-grounded. I have seen him be pretty harsh in a reply, and then, if he thinks that either he has gone past the mark, or that the individual roughly handled now understands how they went off half-cocked, he will soften his tone, and more explicitly reveal the lesson he was seeking to impart, which was more often than not an attempt to jar the individual out of his overly-simplistic explanatory framework. But if you are just too smart to learn anything from his tuition and breadth of knowledge, that's your look out, and some of the comments about which he remarked unfavorably originated from individuals of this sort.

    With this, Jersey Jeffersonian seems to have the joined the Respect and Deference Police. The US government strikes the same pose when they have no answer for obvious questions in transnational forums like treaty bodies or charter bodies. It’s US statist reflex – if you have nothing to say for yourself, pull imaginary rank.

    McNeill/Lehrer is an anticredential. McNeil/Lehrer was a classic example of Project Mockingbird, circumscribing the discourse by giving you a menu of two state-sanctioned options, synthetic left and right. That’s exactly what Bacevich is still doing here, even though that sort of propaganda can’t pass the laugh test any more. With each little pledge of allegiance he sets out a barrier to keep you from wandering off the primrose path to his ridiculous prescription for peace: enforce public participation in war with the full coercive power of the state.

    Lang, like Bacevich, can’t get his head around the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter. He’s not just brainwashed. His identity is so wrapped up in his state indoctrination that he cannot consider that his military, like the rest of his police state, is parasitic and criminal.

    So stop trying to make us genuflect to colonels. When you’ve got a tapeworm, you don’t ask its scolex what it likes to eat – you poison it and shit it out. When your country has been taken over by a violent kleptocracy, you don’t ask one of its mafiya buttonmen what to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter.
     
    Screw the UN. It originated as a product of the twisted, fermented, and putrefied desires of "elite"commie "Red" millionaires, mostly from New York and other such cesspits, under the usual false pretexts of saving humanity or some other such BS as I'm sure you already know. (Just posting for the benefit of those who are under the standard delusions.)

    Many of the key originators of the UN were Americans with ties to Wall Street, international banking and international communism with aspirations of ruling the world.

    Here are a few names in case anyone's interested. Alger Hiss, Cordell Hull, Henry Morgenthau Jr., Harry Hopkins, (FDR’s Presidential Special Assistant), Harry D White.

    Every one of them was a degenerate screwball occupying a position of power when they should have been swinging from nooses instead.

    Look up Marx's 10 planks and see how many fit the pitiful USA today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Tut tut
    With this, Jersey Jeffersonian seems to have the joined the Respect and Deference Police. The US government strikes the same pose when they have no answer for obvious questions in transnational forums like treaty bodies or charter bodies. It's US statist reflex - if you have nothing to say for yourself, pull imaginary rank.

    McNeill/Lehrer is an anticredential. McNeil/Lehrer was a classic example of Project Mockingbird, circumscribing the discourse by giving you a menu of two state-sanctioned options, synthetic left and right. That's exactly what Bacevich is still doing here, even though that sort of propaganda can't pass the laugh test any more. With each little pledge of allegiance he sets out a barrier to keep you from wandering off the primrose path to his ridiculous prescription for peace: enforce public participation in war with the full coercive power of the state.

    Lang, like Bacevich, can't get his head around the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter. He's not just brainwashed. His identity is so wrapped up in his state indoctrination that he cannot consider that his military, like the rest of his police state, is parasitic and criminal.

    So stop trying to make us genuflect to colonels. When you've got a tapeworm, you don't ask its scolex what it likes to eat - you poison it and shit it out. When your country has been taken over by a violent kleptocracy, you don't ask one of its mafiya buttonmen what to do.

    …the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter.

    Screw the UN. It originated as a product of the twisted, fermented, and putrefied desires of “elite”commie “Red” millionaires, mostly from New York and other such cesspits, under the usual false pretexts of saving humanity or some other such BS as I’m sure you already know. (Just posting for the benefit of those who are under the standard delusions.)

    Many of the key originators of the UN were Americans with ties to Wall Street, international banking and international communism with aspirations of ruling the world.

    Here are a few names in case anyone’s interested. Alger Hiss, Cordell Hull, Henry Morgenthau Jr., Harry Hopkins, (FDR’s Presidential Special Assistant), Harry D White.

    Every one of them was a degenerate screwball occupying a position of power when they should have been swinging from nooses instead.

    Look up Marx’s 10 planks and see how many fit the pitiful USA today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E.R.s Chattering False Teeth
    Sadly for you, you can't screw the UN. Its Charter is supreme law of the land by constitution Article VI clause 2, equivalent to federal statute under the Supreme Court's The Paquete Habana decision, and uniquely, cannot be repealed, because the US government ratified the treaty with no provision for denunciation or withdrawal. So screw the Supreme Court, that laughingstock of crooks, Right? But maybe really what you want to do is screw the consitution, huh?

    Go ahead, shitcan your constitution (It's obsolete crap, every middling African shithole has a better one, and anyway, CIA set it aside for an illegal state of emergency based on Continuity of Government (COG.) Your constitution's gone. You're not getting it back.) But guess what! You're still stuck with the UN Charter. Screw everything, start over, sit on your butt in constitutional conventions till your hemmorhoids pop. You will find that the UN Charter is a requisite for sovereignty for any US successor state (and not just the UN Charter! To be recognized as a sovereign state you wannabe founding fathers will also have to suck on the International Bill of Human Rights and the Rome Statute, at the minimum.)

    Your best hope is that the UN member nations dissolve the UN. However when the world replaces it, there will be no veto, because the USA wrecked it for everyone by using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card. No more impunity for you US pukes. The new organization will ensure an international civil service free from nationalist subornation, as stipulated in the UN Charter - not hacks and spies like Haley and Feltman. You know who'll run it? Guys like Hiss, the pre-eminent international statesman of his time. Who was framed, by the way. Did you ever see the evidence? Fabricated by CIA.

    So shart yourself in furious defiance, it makes no difference. You need to shake off that old Bircher propaganda you got crusted on you. CIA brainwashed you with that stuff so they could get away with crimes and screwing you. The International Bill of Human Rights is a much better deal than you got now. You don't even know what's in it, you just know you hate it. The outside world is laughing at you cause you don't even know your rights. Get with it, Grampa.

    , @Anon
    It was a Rockefeller operation from day one. They should turn the building into cheap housing for Americans. Qualification should be all 8 grandparents born in America.

    Of course it would be hard to find such people in or near NYC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Just look what they did in Ireland for 300 years because of hatred of the Christian sect to which the Irish belonged

    They were pure evil. Their hatred of Christianity was so great they moved to America to avoid the horrors of being in a country where the 2 great Christian feasts were publicly celebrated.

    They have been re incarnated in the anti nativity scene and Christmas decoration movement. Like their ancestors 400 years ago they have just about banned the very word Christmas.

    The puritans and pilgrims weren’t Christians.
    The basis of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was God, not a prophet or founder of a Jewish sect but God.

    The founders of Puritanism, Calvin and Knox and the rest of them all preached that. “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”

    Rejection of Jesus was the foundation of their faith. I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.

    E. Michael Jones and others before him like Fr. Denis Fahey have written about the Jewish role in the Prostestant Reformation. They have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church since Christ founded it. It is this crap which brought about the Inquisition. It was also Marty Baron and his fellow tribesman who created the priest scandal story. There have always been bad priests, child molesters in the clergy, but the small numbers have been lower than Jewish and mainline Protestant clergy (according to non-Catholic sociologist Prof. Philip Jenkins). But the narrative is now fact like Assad gassed his own people in Douma.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Anon
    Henry 8 just wanted church property and the right to divorce himself. It’s kind of weird in that it’s the only religion in the world where the head isn’t a clergy critter of some kind.

    Luther’s motive wasn’t acquiring all the church property in Anhalt. But I always wondered about his trip to Rome a few years before he started his reformation.

    At the time Rome has a big and important Jewish population. Like everybody else in Rome they made a lot of money from the pilgrimage tourist trade.

    Soooo did Luther contact Roman Jews when he was there??? It’s a fact that as well as not sending German church tithes to Rome, Luther planned to convert the Jews to a new Old Testament based version of Christianity

    Was that idea cooked up with Roman Jews? Who knows? Luther turned against Jews when they didn’t convert to his new religion

    It’s interesting that all the tithe abs indulgence money being sent to Rome was used to remodel St Peter’s.

    St Peter’s is still there as glorious as ever. Lutheranism is dead in Germany.
    American Lutherans only occupation is bringing Muslims and Muslim Africans to America and setting them up in welfare.

    Meanwhile the Vatican art collections museums and most important the oldest and best library in the world is still there.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Anon
    Just look what they did in Ireland for 300 years because of hatred of the Christian sect to which the Irish belonged

    They were pure evil. Their hatred of Christianity was so great they moved to America to avoid the horrors of being in a country where the 2 great Christian feasts were publicly celebrated.

    They have been re incarnated in the anti nativity scene and Christmas decoration movement. Like their ancestors 400 years ago they have just about banned the very word Christmas.

    The puritans and pilgrims weren’t Christians.
    The basis of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was God, not a prophet or founder of a Jewish sect but God.

    The founders of Puritanism, Calvin and Knox and the rest of them all preached that. “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”

    Rejection of Jesus was the foundation of their faith. I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.

    I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.

    I never thought of it that way, but there can be little doubt that you’re correct. They “had” to examine women to determine whether they were witches or not. They engaged in sexual humiliation of other “Christians” as well such as parading “transgressors” about in public with their breasts exposed. If they were alive today they’d vie with the Israelis as kings of Pervertville.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I didn’t know that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Rurik says:
    @Anon
    Anyone know how she went from being a rich housewife who never worked since her marriage to Secretary of State in a few years?

    I mean Hildabeast was a senator presidents wife and presidential candidate before becoming Goddess of War and Destruction.

    But Albrights resume was volunteer at her kids school and rich housewife

    But Albrights resume

    it was enough that she was a member of the tribe in good standing, and like all members in good standing, she celebrates the mass slaughter/genocide of non-Jewish children every year as their most sacred holy holiday.

    when that’s your mentality, then it’s just not a leap to go from that to trying to morally justify the mass-genocide of 500,000 non-Jewish children dying for lack of clean water or medicine.

    what do you think she’d say about German children dying of starvation in 1945 after the war was over?

    what do you think she’d say about Iranian children dying in a contrived war against that country?

    or American children for that matter. Provided of course that they’re goyim chattel.

    Was it ‘worth it’ to that repulsive ghoul for thousands of young Americans to die in the Eternal Wars of this century – to bolster Israel?

    (that’s a rhetorical question ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    Yeah, on top of the monstrous immorality of her acknowledgement, her sheer rank incompetence of as a diplomat, actually saying something so stupid ! Almost as bad as the blithering imbecile 'Noodleman' cooking up a revolution on an insecure phone line.

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they're also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.

    BTW, Scott Horton re-confirmed the deaths of Iraqi children in this interview the other day.
    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/4-20-18-dennis-halliday-on-the-deaths-of-iraqi-children-due-to-american-sanctions-in-the-90s/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @jacques sheete

    ...the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter.
     
    Screw the UN. It originated as a product of the twisted, fermented, and putrefied desires of "elite"commie "Red" millionaires, mostly from New York and other such cesspits, under the usual false pretexts of saving humanity or some other such BS as I'm sure you already know. (Just posting for the benefit of those who are under the standard delusions.)

    Many of the key originators of the UN were Americans with ties to Wall Street, international banking and international communism with aspirations of ruling the world.

    Here are a few names in case anyone's interested. Alger Hiss, Cordell Hull, Henry Morgenthau Jr., Harry Hopkins, (FDR’s Presidential Special Assistant), Harry D White.

    Every one of them was a degenerate screwball occupying a position of power when they should have been swinging from nooses instead.

    Look up Marx's 10 planks and see how many fit the pitiful USA today.

    Sadly for you, you can’t screw the UN. Its Charter is supreme law of the land by constitution Article VI clause 2, equivalent to federal statute under the Supreme Court’s The Paquete Habana decision, and uniquely, cannot be repealed, because the US government ratified the treaty with no provision for denunciation or withdrawal. So screw the Supreme Court, that laughingstock of crooks, Right? But maybe really what you want to do is screw the consitution, huh?

    Go ahead, shitcan your constitution (It’s obsolete crap, every middling African shithole has a better one, and anyway, CIA set it aside for an illegal state of emergency based on Continuity of Government (COG.) Your constitution’s gone. You’re not getting it back.) But guess what! You’re still stuck with the UN Charter. Screw everything, start over, sit on your butt in constitutional conventions till your hemmorhoids pop. You will find that the UN Charter is a requisite for sovereignty for any US successor state (and not just the UN Charter! To be recognized as a sovereign state you wannabe founding fathers will also have to suck on the International Bill of Human Rights and the Rome Statute, at the minimum.)

    Your best hope is that the UN member nations dissolve the UN. However when the world replaces it, there will be no veto, because the USA wrecked it for everyone by using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card. No more impunity for you US pukes. The new organization will ensure an international civil service free from nationalist subornation, as stipulated in the UN Charter – not hacks and spies like Haley and Feltman. You know who’ll run it? Guys like Hiss, the pre-eminent international statesman of his time. Who was framed, by the way. Did you ever see the evidence? Fabricated by CIA.

    So shart yourself in furious defiance, it makes no difference. You need to shake off that old Bircher propaganda you got crusted on you. CIA brainwashed you with that stuff so they could get away with crimes and screwing you. The International Bill of Human Rights is a much better deal than you got now. You don’t even know what’s in it, you just know you hate it. The outside world is laughing at you cause you don’t even know your rights. Get with it, Grampa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. peterAUS says:
    @myself
    Let me state the obvious:

    While it may be (in my view it certainly ought to be) decried that our country engages in pointless wars and genocides, it does not seem to have any bearing whatsoever on the daily lives of ordinary Americans.

    "What Happens When a Few Volunteer and the Rest Just Watch"?

    A FEW die, a FEW are disabled or disfigured, and the Rest get on with the mundane aspects of existence. THAT's what happens.

    Have the wars been, and do they continue to be, very bad for the reputation of the United States? Of course.

    Have the wars been, on a grand strategic level, quite disastrous for America's long-term geopolitical prospects? Have they basically shown the world that we are on a, to put it bluntly, rampage born of arrogance and a (probably insupportable) feeling of invincibility? Have they strained our alliances (for example, the understandable European reluctance to endorse Operation Iraqi Freedom)? Have the wars turned even neutrals away from us? IMHO, yes they have. And continue to do so.

    BUT, none of these matter to the American public. As long as very miniscule resources, say about 3.6% of the annual GDP, is devoted to warmaking, and as long as the casualties are on the order of what, an average of only 2 American servicemen killed per day, the public will not really care.

    IT is perfectly possible, and in fact it is the daily reality, that Americans only VAGUELY care that we are engaged in overseas conflict at present.

    And in fact, this sort of low-level war is not PHYSICALLY able to cause America to collapse, save by indirect means - by financial overstretch (deficit spending to fund the wars, to avoid taxing the apathetic public naturally), and by the long-term neglect of infrastructure and education which are an outgrowth of those deficits.

    There is also the subtle PSYCHOLOGICAL toll, and it does add up over time. Finances and Resources are not the sole lenses through which to view the price a nation pays for War. And we are paying that price, albeit in trickles, not raging torrents.

    Can we keep it up? Well, eventually, what comes up must come down. "Eventually" is the operative word.

    An empire can engage in will-sapping low-level wars for a VERY, VERY long time, on the order of DECADES if history's any guide. We have been in continuous war for almost 17 years. The material effect is negligible, though the geopolitical and psychological harm is real and considerable.

    As long as we don't make the mistake of picking a fight with a peer rival, it is my view that America can continue on this path for another 20 more years, at least. Not indefinitely, but let the world experience hell on earth, in the meantime, courtesy of the U.S.A!

    After that? Civilizational oblivion, loss of confidence, and a probable political fracturing of the once-United States. People can't think that far.

    As long as we don’t make the mistake of picking a fight with a peer rival, it is my view that America can continue on this path for another 20 more years, at least.

    Yup.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @jacques sheete

    I would encourage you not to despise the good will of citizens, even when it is irritating. I appreciate your service.
     
    It is irritating, and what the (bleep) do you appreciate?

    I honor your sacrifice in Vietnam...
     
    Sacrifice? What sacrifice? For a lot of us it was an adventure, and a heck of a lot better than the alternatives at the time.

    Required reading. A classic from our own Fwed.


    “ Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood.”

    The Wars: Maybe We Could Go Bowling Insted (sic)
    Posted on February 17, 2003 by Fred Reed
    http://fredoneverything.org/the-wars-maybe-we-could-go-bowling-insted/

     


    ...and millions of S. Vietnamese respect what you and your fellows did on their behalf.
     
    You don't know that. Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.

    That one gives up their will to the service of the community. Initial training: what time to go to bed, to eat, when to wake, how to wake, when to march, where to walk, how to walk, how to run, how far to run, what speed to run, how to fire a weapon, when to fire a weapon, how to fight, when to fight, when to read a map, how to read a map, who respect, when to respect, how to respect, what skill to have, how that skill is used, how to learn said skill, when to report, when to report —-

    A million upon a million choices that one gives up to serve the community . . . including and most valuable, when to risk your life and for whom.

    I appreciate that sacrifice. That ones finds it an adventure doesn’t change either the sacrifice or the appreciation.

    That millions of Vietnamese appreciated being rescued from the brutality that followed — is well expressed among the Vietnamese.

    Hmmmmm . . . . I certainly like to acknowledge heroes. But that is really not the point here. I respect and honor the men and women of the armed services who give up themselves for the greater good of community, even if that gift is mightily abused.

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem. As stated in my previous response — I encourage that service members embrace it as gift, as acknowledgement for a service that gets very little in that regard beyond a paystub, training and some benefits.

    I would always encourage said expressed sentiments from the served — for more than one might consider its worth. Most of us sincerely appreciate it — hero or not.

    If you reject that appreciation — that is of course your choice. Just know that plenty of people understand that military service is a sacrifice for which appreciation is the very least that is deserved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem.
     
    More virtue signaling from the "I'm smarter (more comprehending) than you."

    I don't care what your problem is, Ms. Insouciant. As for your "appreciation," it and you, are both part of the problem.

    Now, go stuff it.
    , @The scalpel
    In general, you just described the responsibilities of any adult with a job.

    And yes it does make a difference if one chooses to give up one thing to get another. That is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. I am not sacrificing if I "sacrifice" a factory job in PA, for a job in France

    Troops are grossly overcompensated and overpraised for their skills. Most volunteer for just that reason
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Rurik

    Millions suffered because of what our government did, and your unctuous quasi-hero worship is nauseating, insulting and irritating.
     
    my 'agree' button was used up

    Since being a hero is neither required nor pertinent, your comment is misplaced — nothing new there.

    However, when I consider the losses of the South Vietnamese that fought for their country, upwards beyond a million and those that fought on their countries behalf — it’s clear that S. Vietnam was a struggle of choice by the S. Vietnamese. Considering the children of the Vietnamese refugees — and few are racing back to Vietnam. I am very comfortable in saying — millions appreciated the efforts of the US service men who served. https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/kits/vac_brief_history.pdf

    To avoid a long tiresome rehash of the question, one can visit those issues and commentary here or at TAC.

    If you served, I appreciate your service, whether you accept said appreciation is clearly a matter of choice.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @EliteCommInc.
    That one gives up their will to the service of the community. Initial training: what time to go to bed, to eat, when to wake, how to wake, when to march, where to walk, how to walk, how to run, how far to run, what speed to run, how to fire a weapon, when to fire a weapon, how to fight, when to fight, when to read a map, how to read a map, who respect, when to respect, how to respect, what skill to have, how that skill is used, how to learn said skill, when to report, when to report ----


    A million upon a million choices that one gives up to serve the community . . . including and most valuable, when to risk your life and for whom.

    I appreciate that sacrifice. That ones finds it an adventure doesn't change either the sacrifice or the appreciation.


    That millions of Vietnamese appreciated being rescued from the brutality that followed -- is well expressed among the Vietnamese.


    Hmmmmm . . . . I certainly like to acknowledge heroes. But that is really not the point here. I respect and honor the men and women of the armed services who give up themselves for the greater good of community, even if that gift is mightily abused.

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem. As stated in my previous response -- I encourage that service members embrace it as gift, as acknowledgement for a service that gets very little in that regard beyond a paystub, training and some benefits.



    I would always encourage said expressed sentiments from the served --- for more than one might consider its worth. Most of us sincerely appreciate it -- hero or not.

    If you reject that appreciation -- that is of course your choice. Just know that plenty of people understand that military service is a sacrifice for which appreciation is the very least that is deserved.

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem.

    More virtue signaling from the “I’m smarter (more comprehending) than you.”

    I don’t care what your problem is, Ms. Insouciant. As for your “appreciation,” it and you, are both part of the problem.

    Now, go stuff it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    As is clear from my very first comment. Whether you choose to accept or reject the appreciation is a matter of choice.

    Whether I am male or female, married or single is inconsequential to the discussion.

    Whether I have any problem or none, is really inconsequential. In this instance, the problem is non existent save what is in your own mind of in-congruence.

    Whether one is a saint or a sinner is also not pertinent. Whether others choose to extend a nod of appreciation is not currently of at issue. I choose to do regardless of what other may or may do. My choice to do so does not in any manner demonstrate i am better or worse than anyone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. The scalpel says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.
    That one gives up their will to the service of the community. Initial training: what time to go to bed, to eat, when to wake, how to wake, when to march, where to walk, how to walk, how to run, how far to run, what speed to run, how to fire a weapon, when to fire a weapon, how to fight, when to fight, when to read a map, how to read a map, who respect, when to respect, how to respect, what skill to have, how that skill is used, how to learn said skill, when to report, when to report ----


    A million upon a million choices that one gives up to serve the community . . . including and most valuable, when to risk your life and for whom.

    I appreciate that sacrifice. That ones finds it an adventure doesn't change either the sacrifice or the appreciation.


    That millions of Vietnamese appreciated being rescued from the brutality that followed -- is well expressed among the Vietnamese.


    Hmmmmm . . . . I certainly like to acknowledge heroes. But that is really not the point here. I respect and honor the men and women of the armed services who give up themselves for the greater good of community, even if that gift is mightily abused.

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem. As stated in my previous response -- I encourage that service members embrace it as gift, as acknowledgement for a service that gets very little in that regard beyond a paystub, training and some benefits.



    I would always encourage said expressed sentiments from the served --- for more than one might consider its worth. Most of us sincerely appreciate it -- hero or not.

    If you reject that appreciation -- that is of course your choice. Just know that plenty of people understand that military service is a sacrifice for which appreciation is the very least that is deserved.

    In general, you just described the responsibilities of any adult with a job.

    And yes it does make a difference if one chooses to give up one thing to get another. That is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. I am not sacrificing if I “sacrifice” a factory job in PA, for a job in France

    Troops are grossly overcompensated and overpraised for their skills. Most volunteer for just that reason

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Considering something as simple as "rights", I think anyone who has ever served and those who have served in conflict -- would look at you askance. I certainly am.

    While serving in the armed forces has similar traits and practices to any other job -- it's function, practices, and environmental existence is in no manner like working at the local factory as noble as such work may be.


    There's plenty to criticize concerning the military, but service itself is not one of those aspects. And while I might agree with some variation of your views for peace time service, --- for those who serve during conflict I fully disagree.

    , @Anon
    Not just any adult with a job but any parent as well
    , @anarchyst
    the scalpel...you are incorrect. Being in the military is not "just a job" and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a "blank check" for "up to and including one's life". Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting "officer safety" first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing "I feared for my life". This "blank check" applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put "in harms way" is part of military life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Sylvia says:

    I have always respected Mr Bacevich and have even read his books. I write here to object to his characterization of Russia. He describes Russia as “petulant” ie “insolent or rude in speech or behavior”. Frankly, if you examine history, Russia has been any thing but–the rudeness is almost all on the side of the US and “the West”. He also describes Russia as “over armed”. I wonder by what measure? Would he prefer Russia to be under armed and thus more easily brought to heel by “the indispensable nation”?
    No one wants to hear this but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia thought the Cold War had ended. Russia did everything possible to become part of the West. Russia opened it’s doors to the US to become a market economy. Basically, we screwed over ordinary Russians helping to crash their economy and to unleash the greatest wave of criminality and theft ever seen. When Putin became President the country was flat on it’s back. Slowly and relentlessly Russia has come back.
    Meanwhile, having promised not to expand NATO eastward, we did just that and now we station missiles and other offensive weapons on Russia’s border.
    What would the people in the US think if Russia did the same in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean?
    If anyone has been petulant it’s been my beloved USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    October 16–28 1962
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @jacques sheete

    Whether you comprehend, accept, or endorse my appreciation is not really my problem.
     
    More virtue signaling from the "I'm smarter (more comprehending) than you."

    I don't care what your problem is, Ms. Insouciant. As for your "appreciation," it and you, are both part of the problem.

    Now, go stuff it.

    As is clear from my very first comment. Whether you choose to accept or reject the appreciation is a matter of choice.

    Whether I am male or female, married or single is inconsequential to the discussion.

    Whether I have any problem or none, is really inconsequential. In this instance, the problem is non existent save what is in your own mind of in-congruence.

    Whether one is a saint or a sinner is also not pertinent. Whether others choose to extend a nod of appreciation is not currently of at issue. I choose to do regardless of what other may or may do. My choice to do so does not in any manner demonstrate i am better or worse than anyone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @The scalpel
    In general, you just described the responsibilities of any adult with a job.

    And yes it does make a difference if one chooses to give up one thing to get another. That is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. I am not sacrificing if I "sacrifice" a factory job in PA, for a job in France

    Troops are grossly overcompensated and overpraised for their skills. Most volunteer for just that reason

    Considering something as simple as “rights”, I think anyone who has ever served and those who have served in conflict — would look at you askance. I certainly am.

    While serving in the armed forces has similar traits and practices to any other job — it’s function, practices, and environmental existence is in no manner like working at the local factory as noble as such work may be.

    There’s plenty to criticize concerning the military, but service itself is not one of those aspects. And while I might agree with some variation of your views for peace time service, — for those who serve during conflict I fully disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    those who have served in conflict — would look at you askance. I certainly am.
     
    Scalpel, did you read that?!

    http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-04-08-1460108847-2301007-jebbush.jpg

    Heavens to Murgatroyd!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Sylvia
    I have always respected Mr Bacevich and have even read his books. I write here to object to his characterization of Russia. He describes Russia as "petulant" ie "insolent or rude in speech or behavior". Frankly, if you examine history, Russia has been any thing but--the rudeness is almost all on the side of the US and "the West". He also describes Russia as "over armed". I wonder by what measure? Would he prefer Russia to be under armed and thus more easily brought to heel by "the indispensable nation"?
    No one wants to hear this but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia thought the Cold War had ended. Russia did everything possible to become part of the West. Russia opened it's doors to the US to become a market economy. Basically, we screwed over ordinary Russians helping to crash their economy and to unleash the greatest wave of criminality and theft ever seen. When Putin became President the country was flat on it's back. Slowly and relentlessly Russia has come back.
    Meanwhile, having promised not to expand NATO eastward, we did just that and now we station missiles and other offensive weapons on Russia's border.
    What would the people in the US think if Russia did the same in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean?
    If anyone has been petulant it's been my beloved USA.

    October 16–28 1962

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    You laughably stated:

    "The Jews suffered the world to walk into those “showers” in the last century. You’ll please forgive them if they prefer to say Never Again’ this time around."

    Problem is that Jews were not 'holocausted' as they allege. There was no 'millions of Jews murdered', there were no 'gas chambers'. Absurdly impossible. Proof is utterly lacking.

    It's all about lies & propaganda for profit & power.

    The facts are that the 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth?
    Only lies require censorship.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/img/HHSl.jpg

    I didn’t know Rurik is a Jew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    it's the worst kept 'secret' at Unz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    E. Michael Jones and others before him like Fr. Denis Fahey have written about the Jewish role in the Prostestant Reformation. They have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church since Christ founded it. It is this crap which brought about the Inquisition. It was also Marty Baron and his fellow tribesman who created the priest scandal story. There have always been bad priests, child molesters in the clergy, but the small numbers have been lower than Jewish and mainline Protestant clergy (according to non-Catholic sociologist Prof. Philip Jenkins). But the narrative is now fact like Assad gassed his own people in Douma.

    Henry 8 just wanted church property and the right to divorce himself. It’s kind of weird in that it’s the only religion in the world where the head isn’t a clergy critter of some kind.

    Luther’s motive wasn’t acquiring all the church property in Anhalt. But I always wondered about his trip to Rome a few years before he started his reformation.

    At the time Rome has a big and important Jewish population. Like everybody else in Rome they made a lot of money from the pilgrimage tourist trade.

    Soooo did Luther contact Roman Jews when he was there??? It’s a fact that as well as not sending German church tithes to Rome, Luther planned to convert the Jews to a new Old Testament based version of Christianity

    Was that idea cooked up with Roman Jews? Who knows? Luther turned against Jews when they didn’t convert to his new religion

    It’s interesting that all the tithe abs indulgence money being sent to Rome was used to remodel St Peter’s.

    St Peter’s is still there as glorious as ever. Lutheranism is dead in Germany.
    American Lutherans only occupation is bringing Muslims and Muslim Africans to America and setting them up in welfare.

    Meanwhile the Vatican art collections museums and most important the oldest and best library in the world is still there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    I always thought their diving into the Jewish bible was just because they enjoyed all the sex and violence.
     
    I never thought of it that way, but there can be little doubt that you're correct. They "had" to examine women to determine whether they were witches or not. They engaged in sexual humiliation of other "Christians" as well such as parading "transgressors" about in public with their breasts exposed. If they were alive today they'd vie with the Israelis as kings of Pervertville.

    I didn’t know that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @The scalpel
    In general, you just described the responsibilities of any adult with a job.

    And yes it does make a difference if one chooses to give up one thing to get another. That is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. I am not sacrificing if I "sacrifice" a factory job in PA, for a job in France

    Troops are grossly overcompensated and overpraised for their skills. Most volunteer for just that reason

    Not just any adult with a job but any parent as well

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Now back to the great Betty Ong 9/11 debate to see the latest lunacy.!!!!!
     
    Yeah. I had to exit that one; I was laughing too hard. The usual suspects are inventing shit so fast it almost triggers admiration of the typhoon of combined imaginary conspiracies. It's like ten Neros fighting over a gas can.

    I should apologize for my rants about how it’s possible to see 1,360 ft high buildings from many places in Manhattan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    ...the supreme law of the land, the UN Charter.
     
    Screw the UN. It originated as a product of the twisted, fermented, and putrefied desires of "elite"commie "Red" millionaires, mostly from New York and other such cesspits, under the usual false pretexts of saving humanity or some other such BS as I'm sure you already know. (Just posting for the benefit of those who are under the standard delusions.)

    Many of the key originators of the UN were Americans with ties to Wall Street, international banking and international communism with aspirations of ruling the world.

    Here are a few names in case anyone's interested. Alger Hiss, Cordell Hull, Henry Morgenthau Jr., Harry Hopkins, (FDR’s Presidential Special Assistant), Harry D White.

    Every one of them was a degenerate screwball occupying a position of power when they should have been swinging from nooses instead.

    Look up Marx's 10 planks and see how many fit the pitiful USA today.

    It was a Rockefeller operation from day one. They should turn the building into cheap housing for Americans. Qualification should be all 8 grandparents born in America.

    Of course it would be hard to find such people in or near NYC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Well, Iris, in the geopolitical parlance called 'realpolitic', the term 'diplomatic' could approximate 'white lie.' Are there 'shades of white'? If you were to dig behind the cover Colonel Bacevich provides to the generals, example given is General Patreaus, the white lie gets pretty dark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ca1HsC6MH0

    ^ nothing like a white lie covering for the guy responsible for death squads and torture camps in Iraq, eh?

    I watched the video. Pretty disquieting stuff. If Petraeus and Steele are half as bad as the video suggests they are certifiable psychopaths.

    The deeper one digs the smell gets worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Alfred says:

    Funny how the scare story of “Climate Change” has to be dragged out and placed in every article I seem to read these days.

    Climate Change is natural and has been going on for millions of years. Right now, the sun is moving into a less active phase and we will be getting “Global Cooling” – a perfectly natural and cyclical event. the only problem is that Global Cooling is far more lethal than Global Warming. Crops will fail and food prices will shoot up. Many will die who would not have died if Global Warming had continued.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    How dare you introduce historicism and objective data sets into the discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Alfred
    Funny how the scare story of "Climate Change" has to be dragged out and placed in every article I seem to read these days.

    Climate Change is natural and has been going on for millions of years. Right now, the sun is moving into a less active phase and we will be getting "Global Cooling" - a perfectly natural and cyclical event. the only problem is that Global Cooling is far more lethal than Global Warming. Crops will fail and food prices will shoot up. Many will die who would not have died if Global Warming had continued.

    How dare you introduce historicism and objective data sets into the discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. anarchyst says:
    @The scalpel
    In general, you just described the responsibilities of any adult with a job.

    And yes it does make a difference if one chooses to give up one thing to get another. That is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. I am not sacrificing if I "sacrifice" a factory job in PA, for a job in France

    Troops are grossly overcompensated and overpraised for their skills. Most volunteer for just that reason

    the scalpel…you are incorrect. Being in the military is not “just a job” and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a “blank check” for “up to and including one’s life”. Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting “officer safety” first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing “I feared for my life”. This “blank check” applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put “in harms way” is part of military life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Bot yet true for women.
    , @Rurik

    even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it
     
    , @The scalpel
    Your argument is mere semantics. The risk of dying in today's armed forces is lower than that risk in many other professions and those that volunteer know it. You do too. Simply citing some irrelevant concept does not change the facts.

    Furthermore, what troops do is immoral, and counterproductive no matter what their intentions (and those are usually good pay, health insurance , educational benefits, etc. ) they can get away with being murderous mercenaries Because there is no one to stop them
    , @The scalpel
    I apologize for my prior comment. It was needlessly insulting, while you have been congenial to me. I should have said that your views are remarkably similar to the "received wisdom" for someone going by the handle anarchyst. I apologize for the prior less civil terms
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @anarchyst
    the scalpel...you are incorrect. Being in the military is not "just a job" and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a "blank check" for "up to and including one's life". Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting "officer safety" first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing "I feared for my life". This "blank check" applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put "in harms way" is part of military life.

    Bot yet true for women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    the scalpel...you are incorrect. Being in the military is not "just a job" and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a "blank check" for "up to and including one's life". Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting "officer safety" first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing "I feared for my life". This "blank check" applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put "in harms way" is part of military life.

    even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    yes, especially with your IDF...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Rurik says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Considering something as simple as "rights", I think anyone who has ever served and those who have served in conflict -- would look at you askance. I certainly am.

    While serving in the armed forces has similar traits and practices to any other job -- it's function, practices, and environmental existence is in no manner like working at the local factory as noble as such work may be.


    There's plenty to criticize concerning the military, but service itself is not one of those aspects. And while I might agree with some variation of your views for peace time service, --- for those who serve during conflict I fully disagree.

    those who have served in conflict — would look at you askance. I certainly am.

    Scalpel, did you read that?!

    Heavens to Murgatroyd!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The scalpel
    Yes, I saw it LOL.you are referring to my military work, (I hesitate to call it service as it did not benefit the people of the USA) Some people are beyond reason. Hopeless. My responses to "elite" are not really targeted at him but at others who might not be so brainwashed and might benefit from a non government approved viewpoint.

    Thanks as always for having my back. You da man Rurik!
    , @EliteCommInc.
    I am sure you will back slapping yourself --- but that image has no bearing on the discussion. Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    It's out there . . . and instrumentally and intrinsically incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Rurik says:
    @Anon
    I didn’t know Rurik is a Jew.

    it’s the worst kept ‘secret’ at Unz

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik

    even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it
     

    yes, especially with your IDF…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    well anarchyst, you have to admit that it isn't just the police that get away with murder

    and of course, you're right about the IDF, in spades

    but "our" boys don't exactly have a spotless reputation either

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlGXuVYZPI

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a war is wrong, immoral, illegal and based on lies, then the only fighting that should be done is against the war pigs themselves. Fragging was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war. There was simply too many war pigs with their snouts in the $lop trough to end it otherwise.

    And I'd like to think, that if I were a member of the psychopath in the video's platoon, that I'd have emptied my clip into everyone of the rapists and murderers involved, come what may.

    Perhaps you might (correctly) conclude that I wouldn't exactly make for a 'good soldier'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    yes, especially with your IDF...

    well anarchyst, you have to admit that it isn’t just the police that get away with murder

    and of course, you’re right about the IDF, in spades

    but “our” boys don’t exactly have a spotless reputation either

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If a war is wrong, immoral, illegal and based on lies, then the only fighting that should be done is against the war pigs themselves. Fragging was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war. There was simply too many war pigs with their snouts in the $lop trough to end it otherwise.

    And I’d like to think, that if I were a member of the psychopath in the video’s platoon, that I’d have emptied my clip into everyone of the rapists and murderers involved, come what may.

    Perhaps you might (correctly) conclude that I wouldn’t exactly make for a ‘good soldier’

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Most American jews do not make good soldiers, unless its in the IDF... lol You are correct about atrocities being committed by all armed forces from time to time. However, there are other ways to deal with being thrust into a war situation. As I have previously stated, the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion. The communist "domino theory" was proven to be partially correct, as it was feared that Thailand and other southeast Asian countries would be subverted if communist expansion was not slowed down.
    For a different perspective on war, please obtain and read "Our War Was Different" by author Al Hemingway.
    Everyone has heard about the American atrocities committed at My Lai which was totally inexcusable and partially whitewashed, but no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong...
    , @Gjack
    I still recall 47 years later the words of my drill instructor at Parris Island: "That My Lai shit happens all the time."

    Our heroes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik
    well anarchyst, you have to admit that it isn't just the police that get away with murder

    and of course, you're right about the IDF, in spades

    but "our" boys don't exactly have a spotless reputation either

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlGXuVYZPI

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a war is wrong, immoral, illegal and based on lies, then the only fighting that should be done is against the war pigs themselves. Fragging was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war. There was simply too many war pigs with their snouts in the $lop trough to end it otherwise.

    And I'd like to think, that if I were a member of the psychopath in the video's platoon, that I'd have emptied my clip into everyone of the rapists and murderers involved, come what may.

    Perhaps you might (correctly) conclude that I wouldn't exactly make for a 'good soldier'

    Most American jews do not make good soldiers, unless its in the IDF… lol You are correct about atrocities being committed by all armed forces from time to time. However, there are other ways to deal with being thrust into a war situation. As I have previously stated, the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion. The communist “domino theory” was proven to be partially correct, as it was feared that Thailand and other southeast Asian countries would be subverted if communist expansion was not slowed down.
    For a different perspective on war, please obtain and read “Our War Was Different” by author Al Hemingway.
    Everyone has heard about the American atrocities committed at My Lai which was totally inexcusable and partially whitewashed, but no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The scalpel
    I have been reading some of your posts. For an "anarchyst" your views are remarkably close to those of a mindless government lackey
    , @Rurik

    the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion.
     
    I'm not sure. It seems to me to have been a war of opportunity, (based on lies of course), to take over the colonialism of the French, who were being driven out.

    Which engendered an all too natural nationalistic spirit in the Vietnamese. Communism was the pretext, but I suspect the Viet Cong fought as much to get whitey out of their lands as they did to suffer communism.

    And then it just dragged on. I think that if they had wanted to win, then they could have. But what they wanted was endless flow of slop in the trough. Much like today.

    no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong…
     
    never in a million years will you see me defending communism.

    it is prima facie institutionalized, state imposed slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Antonio
    "I don’t know about you, but I worry more about the implications of China’s rise and Russian misbehavior"

    I stopped reading here.

    Yes, that weird comment made Bacevich sound like your typical, knuckle-dragging neocon, which I know he is not. If he is truly against America’s Full Spectrum Dominance, then he should applaud the rise of China and Russia to counter US hegemony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Gjack says:
    @Rurik
    well anarchyst, you have to admit that it isn't just the police that get away with murder

    and of course, you're right about the IDF, in spades

    but "our" boys don't exactly have a spotless reputation either

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlGXuVYZPI

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a war is wrong, immoral, illegal and based on lies, then the only fighting that should be done is against the war pigs themselves. Fragging was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war. There was simply too many war pigs with their snouts in the $lop trough to end it otherwise.

    And I'd like to think, that if I were a member of the psychopath in the video's platoon, that I'd have emptied my clip into everyone of the rapists and murderers involved, come what may.

    Perhaps you might (correctly) conclude that I wouldn't exactly make for a 'good soldier'

    I still recall 47 years later the words of my drill instructor at Parris Island: “That My Lai shit happens all the time.”

    Our heroes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. The scalpel says: • Website
    @Rurik

    those who have served in conflict — would look at you askance. I certainly am.
     
    Scalpel, did you read that?!

    http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-04-08-1460108847-2301007-jebbush.jpg

    Heavens to Murgatroyd!

    Yes, I saw it LOL.you are referring to my military work, (I hesitate to call it service as it did not benefit the people of the USA) Some people are beyond reason. Hopeless. My responses to “elite” are not really targeted at him but at others who might not be so brainwashed and might benefit from a non government approved viewpoint.

    Thanks as always for having my back. You da man Rurik!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. The scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    the scalpel...you are incorrect. Being in the military is not "just a job" and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a "blank check" for "up to and including one's life". Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting "officer safety" first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing "I feared for my life". This "blank check" applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put "in harms way" is part of military life.

    Your argument is mere semantics. The risk of dying in today’s armed forces is lower than that risk in many other professions and those that volunteer know it. You do too. Simply citing some irrelevant concept does not change the facts.

    Furthermore, what troops do is immoral, and counterproductive no matter what their intentions (and those are usually good pay, health insurance , educational benefits, etc. ) they can get away with being murderous mercenaries Because there is no one to stop them

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    It depends on the job. However, you are incorrect when it comes to "rules of engagement" The military operates under real restrictive "rules of engagement". The infantry has better equipment than we had in Vietnam, but restrictive "rules of engagement" can and does cause problems. In fact, American police officers operate under NO "rules of engagement" and quite often, DO get away with murder by invoking the magic words "I feared for my life", which nets them a paid vacation and full immunity from prosecution. Not so with the military.
    By the way, have you ever served in the American military??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Rurik

    those who have served in conflict — would look at you askance. I certainly am.
     
    Scalpel, did you read that?!

    http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-04-08-1460108847-2301007-jebbush.jpg

    Heavens to Murgatroyd!

    I am sure you will back slapping yourself — but that image has no bearing on the discussion. Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    It’s out there . . . and instrumentally and intrinsically incorrect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.
     
    Yup.

    Most of "civilians" don't really get it, say, 95 %. Those who do are in dangerous jobs. Cops firs and foremost, especially SWATs etc.

    Now, some of them can't (takes imagination and perception, with some effort and time), BUT, what you are missing, most of them do not want to get it.
    More you try to explain, more they'll reject it.
    Mix of agendas and, more importantly, deep seated psychological needs. Boils down to "I am better than you", but....hehe....there are some doubts there. Very uncomfortable doubts. Keyword "fear".

    I try just a bit and then move on.
    Success is, approximately, one in ten.
    Bottom line, who cares.

    Good luck,anyway.

    , @Rurik

    Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.
     

    It isn't like any other job. That's not what I said.

    All irony aside by the (excellent) poster anarchyst's sobriquet , what military service demands is that you shut off your brain. And out-source your thinking to anyone with more bars or strips on their shirt.

    It demands of you that you be willing to kill other people, not for anything they did, or are going to do. Not for looking at you wrong or calling your mother's virtue into question, or anything like that. No. What military service demands of you is that you be willing to kill (or die) based on the orders of your "superiors". Without question, and without thought.

    It turns young men and women into zombies/monsters. Human drones to the psychopathic whims of their masters, far off in safety and luxury.

    I am not a fan of the military. If a fight is worth fighting, then I'd like to think I'd be the first one into the fray, exhorting others to follow me, rather than pointing and ordering others into the breach, while I sat in safety.

    I'm not a pacifist, but the last thing I am is a mindless golem, willfully shutting off my volition and conscience, and willing to kill other powerless people like myself, because I was ordered to do so, ultimately by some scumfuck politician on the take.

    No thanks.

    'What if they had a war and no one showed up?"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. The scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    Most American jews do not make good soldiers, unless its in the IDF... lol You are correct about atrocities being committed by all armed forces from time to time. However, there are other ways to deal with being thrust into a war situation. As I have previously stated, the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion. The communist "domino theory" was proven to be partially correct, as it was feared that Thailand and other southeast Asian countries would be subverted if communist expansion was not slowed down.
    For a different perspective on war, please obtain and read "Our War Was Different" by author Al Hemingway.
    Everyone has heard about the American atrocities committed at My Lai which was totally inexcusable and partially whitewashed, but no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong...

    I have been reading some of your posts. For an “anarchyst” your views are remarkably close to those of a mindless government lackey

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Nope, not mindless at all, but merely perceptive, having served in the US military...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. The scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    the scalpel...you are incorrect. Being in the military is not "just a job" and has no comparison to jobs in civilian life. For one, every veteran and active-duty service member signs a "blank check" for "up to and including one's life". Now tell me, how many civilian jobs require the same level of commitment? Even American cops do not subscribe to that level of commitment, always putting "officer safety" first and foremost, even to the point of murdering innocents and getting away with it, citing "I feared for my life". This "blank check" applies to everyone who serves, regardless if they are an infantryman or cook. Being put "in harms way" is part of military life.

    I apologize for my prior comment. It was needlessly insulting, while you have been congenial to me. I should have said that your views are remarkably similar to the “received wisdom” for someone going by the handle anarchyst. I apologize for the prior less civil terms

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. chris says:
    @Rurik

    But Albrights resume
     
    it was enough that she was a member of the tribe in good standing, and like all members in good standing, she celebrates the mass slaughter/genocide of non-Jewish children every year as their most sacred holy holiday.

    when that's your mentality, then it's just not a leap to go from that to trying to morally justify the mass-genocide of 500,000 non-Jewish children dying for lack of clean water or medicine.

    what do you think she'd say about German children dying of starvation in 1945 after the war was over?

    what do you think she'd say about Iranian children dying in a contrived war against that country?

    or American children for that matter. Provided of course that they're goyim chattel.

    Was it 'worth it' to that repulsive ghoul for thousands of young Americans to die in the Eternal Wars of this century - to bolster Israel?

    (that's a rhetorical question ; )

    Yeah, on top of the monstrous immorality of her acknowledgement, her sheer rank incompetence of as a diplomat, actually saying something so stupid ! Almost as bad as the blithering imbecile ‘Noodleman’ cooking up a revolution on an insecure phone line.

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they’re also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.

    BTW, Scott Horton re-confirmed the deaths of Iraqi children in this interview the other day.

    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/4-20-18-dennis-halliday-on-the-deaths-of-iraqi-children-due-to-american-sanctions-in-the-90s/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they’re also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.
     
    not just level of fools, but depraved level of moral evil

    as I'm sure you'd agree, Chris.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am sure you will back slapping yourself --- but that image has no bearing on the discussion. Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    It's out there . . . and instrumentally and intrinsically incorrect.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    Yup.

    Most of “civilians” don’t really get it, say, 95 %. Those who do are in dangerous jobs. Cops firs and foremost, especially SWATs etc.

    Now, some of them can’t (takes imagination and perception, with some effort and time), BUT, what you are missing, most of them do not want to get it.
    More you try to explain, more they’ll reject it.
    Mix of agendas and, more importantly, deep seated psychological needs. Boils down to “I am better than you”, but….hehe….there are some doubts there. Very uncomfortable doubts. Keyword “fear”.

    I try just a bit and then move on.
    Success is, approximately, one in ten.
    Bottom line, who cares.

    Good luck,anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    no easy answers --


    While I am positive that military service has its share of incompetents, liars, theives, false accusers, etc up and down the ranks. It remains a job like no other civilian position, that does not involve service of the same nature and environment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. anarchyst says:
    @The scalpel
    Your argument is mere semantics. The risk of dying in today's armed forces is lower than that risk in many other professions and those that volunteer know it. You do too. Simply citing some irrelevant concept does not change the facts.

    Furthermore, what troops do is immoral, and counterproductive no matter what their intentions (and those are usually good pay, health insurance , educational benefits, etc. ) they can get away with being murderous mercenaries Because there is no one to stop them

    It depends on the job. However, you are incorrect when it comes to “rules of engagement” The military operates under real restrictive “rules of engagement”. The infantry has better equipment than we had in Vietnam, but restrictive “rules of engagement” can and does cause problems. In fact, American police officers operate under NO “rules of engagement” and quite often, DO get away with murder by invoking the magic words “I feared for my life”, which nets them a paid vacation and full immunity from prosecution. Not so with the military.
    By the way, have you ever served in the American military??

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I think you got it other way around here:

    Not so with the military.
     
    Cops are under much stricter control and, more importantly, public scrutiny.

    I mean..."collateral damage".....taking out one high profile target with a full wedding ceremony etc.

    For individual foot trooper pulling a trigger, well, closer but still, there is much more leeway there than for a police officer.

    Now, at the other hand, where I do agree with you, the "opposition" is also much more dangerous where military is involved. So, it's more relaxed because the opponent is more dangerous/capable.

    Now, that argument "we have restricted rules", well, as always when in doubt in a First World military, skim through Clausewitz.
    For those with less inclination for intellectual pursiuts it's really simple: "we are the tools of the government". Tools.........Simple concept.

    Can an individual handle that is another matter. In all volunteer force, what's the problem?

    Is that right, who is to decide that?
    We blabbing here? Yeah........
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. anarchyst says:
    @The scalpel
    I have been reading some of your posts. For an "anarchyst" your views are remarkably close to those of a mindless government lackey

    Nope, not mindless at all, but merely perceptive, having served in the US military…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    Not perceptive, and neither you or I provided any valuable service in the military. We did something that was either inefficient, amoral (possibly immoral), or illegal or all of them together.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. peterAUS says:
    @anarchyst
    It depends on the job. However, you are incorrect when it comes to "rules of engagement" The military operates under real restrictive "rules of engagement". The infantry has better equipment than we had in Vietnam, but restrictive "rules of engagement" can and does cause problems. In fact, American police officers operate under NO "rules of engagement" and quite often, DO get away with murder by invoking the magic words "I feared for my life", which nets them a paid vacation and full immunity from prosecution. Not so with the military.
    By the way, have you ever served in the American military??

    I think you got it other way around here:

    Not so with the military.

    Cops are under much stricter control and, more importantly, public scrutiny.

    I mean…”collateral damage”…..taking out one high profile target with a full wedding ceremony etc.

    For individual foot trooper pulling a trigger, well, closer but still, there is much more leeway there than for a police officer.

    Now, at the other hand, where I do agree with you, the “opposition” is also much more dangerous where military is involved. So, it’s more relaxed because the opponent is more dangerous/capable.

    Now, that argument “we have restricted rules”, well, as always when in doubt in a First World military, skim through Clausewitz.
    For those with less inclination for intellectual pursiuts it’s really simple: “we are the tools of the government”. Tools………Simple concept.

    Can an individual handle that is another matter. In all volunteer force, what’s the problem?

    Is that right, who is to decide that?
    We blabbing here? Yeah……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I stand by my statement...cops have NO rules of engagement...Look at the number of "justified " shootings by police. An Albuquerque New Mexico homeless man is on a hill...he is shot by a cop with a rifle from 50 yards away. The cop was in absolutely no danger. He got away with it. The Somali cop working in Minnesota shoots a woman who called 911 for a problem. He shot her anyway. The court is still out on that one. For cop atrocities, there are many more than you may realize, look up the "Free Thought Project" or "CopBlock. You will not like what you find...regards,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. anarchyst says:
    @peterAUS
    I think you got it other way around here:

    Not so with the military.
     
    Cops are under much stricter control and, more importantly, public scrutiny.

    I mean..."collateral damage".....taking out one high profile target with a full wedding ceremony etc.

    For individual foot trooper pulling a trigger, well, closer but still, there is much more leeway there than for a police officer.

    Now, at the other hand, where I do agree with you, the "opposition" is also much more dangerous where military is involved. So, it's more relaxed because the opponent is more dangerous/capable.

    Now, that argument "we have restricted rules", well, as always when in doubt in a First World military, skim through Clausewitz.
    For those with less inclination for intellectual pursiuts it's really simple: "we are the tools of the government". Tools.........Simple concept.

    Can an individual handle that is another matter. In all volunteer force, what's the problem?

    Is that right, who is to decide that?
    We blabbing here? Yeah........

    I stand by my statement…cops have NO rules of engagement…Look at the number of “justified ” shootings by police. An Albuquerque New Mexico homeless man is on a hill…he is shot by a cop with a rifle from 50 yards away. The cop was in absolutely no danger. He got away with it. The Somali cop working in Minnesota shoots a woman who called 911 for a problem. He shot her anyway. The court is still out on that one. For cop atrocities, there are many more than you may realize, look up the “Free Thought Project” or “CopBlock. You will not like what you find…regards,

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    You mean this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_James_Boyd
    I think it's a bit more complicated than

    ...cops have NO rules of engagement...
     
    As for that Somali guy as you say

    The court is still out on that one.
     
    I am well aware of cop atrocities. Different topic. Every now and then there is a "discussion" here about it. One was rather recent.
    As with military, cops are also tools of the system. Tools.
    Policing a country is in direct correlation with a society there.Again, different topic, but if we were to to go there I'd prefer to start with core values of society (real, not imagined), then policing itself and police atrocities would be at the end of that conversation.

    You could notice a certain.......pattern......in such discussions.
    Cops are this/that. Feels almost as "military personnel are this/that".
    Gets worse.
    Wars are bad. Feels as "guns are bad".
    See where I am going?

    Two words: online therapy.
    Very few want to discuss those things, really. Worse, even those very few in most cases lack expertise, experience and simply common knowledge/sense.
    Bottom line, nothing changes. And, following its own logic, simply gets worse for those at the end of the play. Cops and citizens. Military personnel and peoples abroad.
    Following the same logic it's just a matter of time when military personnel will deliver that to own populace. To those at the bottom of the pyramid only, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. SteveK9 says:

    Bacevich always seems to be a bit too far down in the details. All of this makes an assumption that these wars are about anything other than making a few people who are powerful and rich, more powerful and rich. Oh, and destroying Israel’s enemies. It doesn’t.

    And statements like: ‘A petulant and over-armed Russia offers a second.’ Petulant? Overarmed? Really? I think Andrew needs to get out a bit more. First we send in our carpet-baggers to rape and pillage the country (along with the Russian scalawags), causing a depression and driving a large part of the country into desperate poverty. Then when they get a leader who actually fights back, we turn them back into the bogeyman, and threaten them in every way imaginable for not letting us suck them dry. … I might be a bit petulant myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  188. @peterAUS

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.
     
    Yup.

    Most of "civilians" don't really get it, say, 95 %. Those who do are in dangerous jobs. Cops firs and foremost, especially SWATs etc.

    Now, some of them can't (takes imagination and perception, with some effort and time), BUT, what you are missing, most of them do not want to get it.
    More you try to explain, more they'll reject it.
    Mix of agendas and, more importantly, deep seated psychological needs. Boils down to "I am better than you", but....hehe....there are some doubts there. Very uncomfortable doubts. Keyword "fear".

    I try just a bit and then move on.
    Success is, approximately, one in ten.
    Bottom line, who cares.

    Good luck,anyway.

    no easy answers —

    While I am positive that military service has its share of incompetents, liars, theives, false accusers, etc up and down the ranks. It remains a job like no other civilian position, that does not involve service of the same nature and environment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    no easy answers —
     
    Of course.
    Maybe there even can't be any definitive answers.
    That's what, with a huge cost for all parties involved, makes it so fascinating.

    But, people aren't into "fascinating". They are in agendas and quick emotional release.

    Much better men than any of us here tried to answer those questions and not quite succeeded.

    The catch is somewhere else. Now, if we were talking over a drink somewhere I'd go into that.
    Here...on this Webzine.....maybe in my next incarnation. Maybe.

    One more thing.
    I found my enemies, at the time, closer than most of my own "civilians". More....honest.
    Even now, I find them easier to communicate with than an average civilian.
    So....what does that make of "civilians" in general? Rhetorical question.

    Bottom line, until people realize, truly, what war is all about there won't be any change in what's going on. Not one bit.
    For how long is another matter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @anarchyst
    SHAME ON YOU..."lack of meaning"
    YOU and your ilk are responsible for perpetuating the "Vietnam Veteran" stereotype in which YOU paint all of us with a very broad brush. For your information, almost ALL of us Vietnam veterans came back with sound minds to an ungrateful country and quietly resumed our lives without incident or fanfare. The promised government jobs that were mandated into law for returning Vietnam veterans never materialized. YOU are of the same ilk as traitor "Hanoi" Jane Fonda who gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy while our POWS were (and are) still in captivity. Very few returning Vietnam veterans had problems...the stereotype that YOU claim...is totally false.
    I notice that you have swallowed the standard "loss of Vietnam" lies hook line and sinker. Americans and South Vietnamese prevailed in every battle...bar none. In fact, TET 1968 was a decisive victory for the South s the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were decimated. Of course, the American "mainstream media" claimed it was a victory for the communists.
    For your information, the American Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese, who wanted control of the whole country. The INVASION was allowed to continue when American troops left and South Vietnamese troops were not resupplied.
    YOU must have watched the Ken Burns' "schlockumentary" on Vietnam, in which he built up the North Vietnamese while exacting harsh criticism (lies) on the American and South Vietnamese troops. Of course, to his credit, Burns "let it slip" that the "re-education camps" contrary to communist claims (actually prisons) would be in operation for approximately six months after the war was over--it turns out that many former South Vietnamese were "detained" for as long as twenty years.
    Post-war Vietnam was so wonderful, tens of thousands of "boat people risked life and limb to escape that "communist paradise" [silence].

    “to an ungrateful country”

    Why should the country be grateful to a bunch of murderous parasitic thugs?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. peterAUS says:
    @anarchyst
    I stand by my statement...cops have NO rules of engagement...Look at the number of "justified " shootings by police. An Albuquerque New Mexico homeless man is on a hill...he is shot by a cop with a rifle from 50 yards away. The cop was in absolutely no danger. He got away with it. The Somali cop working in Minnesota shoots a woman who called 911 for a problem. He shot her anyway. The court is still out on that one. For cop atrocities, there are many more than you may realize, look up the "Free Thought Project" or "CopBlock. You will not like what you find...regards,

    You mean this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_James_Boyd

    I think it’s a bit more complicated than

    …cops have NO rules of engagement…

    As for that Somali guy as you say

    The court is still out on that one.

    I am well aware of cop atrocities. Different topic. Every now and then there is a “discussion” here about it. One was rather recent.
    As with military, cops are also tools of the system. Tools.
    Policing a country is in direct correlation with a society there.Again, different topic, but if we were to to go there I’d prefer to start with core values of society (real, not imagined), then policing itself and police atrocities would be at the end of that conversation.

    You could notice a certain…….pattern……in such discussions.
    Cops are this/that. Feels almost as “military personnel are this/that”.
    Gets worse.
    Wars are bad. Feels as “guns are bad”.
    See where I am going?

    Two words: online therapy.
    Very few want to discuss those things, really. Worse, even those very few in most cases lack expertise, experience and simply common knowledge/sense.
    Bottom line, nothing changes. And, following its own logic, simply gets worse for those at the end of the play. Cops and citizens. Military personnel and peoples abroad.
    Following the same logic it’s just a matter of time when military personnel will deliver that to own populace. To those at the bottom of the pyramid only, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    Most American jews do not make good soldiers, unless its in the IDF... lol You are correct about atrocities being committed by all armed forces from time to time. However, there are other ways to deal with being thrust into a war situation. As I have previously stated, the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion. The communist "domino theory" was proven to be partially correct, as it was feared that Thailand and other southeast Asian countries would be subverted if communist expansion was not slowed down.
    For a different perspective on war, please obtain and read "Our War Was Different" by author Al Hemingway.
    Everyone has heard about the American atrocities committed at My Lai which was totally inexcusable and partially whitewashed, but no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong...

    the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion.

    I’m not sure. It seems to me to have been a war of opportunity, (based on lies of course), to take over the colonialism of the French, who were being driven out.

    Which engendered an all too natural nationalistic spirit in the Vietnamese. Communism was the pretext, but I suspect the Viet Cong fought as much to get whitey out of their lands as they did to suffer communism.

    And then it just dragged on. I think that if they had wanted to win, then they could have. But what they wanted was endless flow of slop in the trough. Much like today.

    no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong…

    never in a million years will you see me defending communism.

    it is prima facie institutionalized, state imposed slavery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I suggest you contact the Vietnamese expat communities here in the USA--Garden Grove and Westminster California. Here you will find South Vietnamese who wanted no part of communism and risked life and limb to escape that communist "paradise". You may come back with a different outlook on the American Vietnam war.
    Keep in mind that the American component in the Vietnam war was not one of conquest...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. L.K says:
    @Mike P
    Thank you, Wobert.

    Be careful with Veterans Today… lots of disinfo over there.

    P.S. the duo who run the operation, Gordon Duff and Jim Dean, both fervently supported the NATO war of aggression against Libya, to the disgust of many of the readership and other authors, some of whom were attacked by Duffy/Dean for not going along with their propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Rurik says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am sure you will back slapping yourself --- but that image has no bearing on the discussion. Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    It's out there . . . and instrumentally and intrinsically incorrect.

    Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.

    It isn’t like any other job. That’s not what I said.

    All irony aside by the (excellent) poster anarchyst’s sobriquet , what military service demands is that you shut off your brain. And out-source your thinking to anyone with more bars or strips on their shirt.

    It demands of you that you be willing to kill other people, not for anything they did, or are going to do. Not for looking at you wrong or calling your mother’s virtue into question, or anything like that. No. What military service demands of you is that you be willing to kill (or die) based on the orders of your “superiors”. Without question, and without thought.

    It turns young men and women into zombies/monsters. Human drones to the psychopathic whims of their masters, far off in safety and luxury.

    I am not a fan of the military. If a fight is worth fighting, then I’d like to think I’d be the first one into the fray, exhorting others to follow me, rather than pointing and ordering others into the breach, while I sat in safety.

    I’m not a pacifist, but the last thing I am is a mindless golem, willfully shutting off my volition and conscience, and willing to kill other powerless people like myself, because I was ordered to do so, ultimately by some scumfuck politician on the take.

    No thanks.

    ‘What if they had a war and no one showed up?”

    Read More
    • Agree: The Scalpel
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    That may be true for some, but not most. Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact. And contrary to your commentary, the best defence is one that is present, but unused. I think most men and more women come out of service intact as people. And even those that have experienced conflict effectively navigate life. I would even grant that we need services to aide in transitioning from conflict to peace time environments.

    I am not going to challenge the insanity of war, but on occasion that is where we end up. I am not going to describing the state of mind required to kill another human being. While tragic those who have that experience entire civilian life changed, but capable of managing their lives.

    Since time immemorial people men and women in power have sent others into the insanity of war for trivial and noble reasons. I cannot solve that, would that I could. I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.

    The human condition will continue to invite war to resolve issues and people of common cause will show up to fight. On the day no one shows up -- they won't. Defending one's fellows or others is worthy service.
    , @anarchyst
    You are wrong about American military personnel being turned into "zombies". It is constantly stressed that illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one's service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Rurik says:
    @chris
    Yeah, on top of the monstrous immorality of her acknowledgement, her sheer rank incompetence of as a diplomat, actually saying something so stupid ! Almost as bad as the blithering imbecile 'Noodleman' cooking up a revolution on an insecure phone line.

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they're also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.

    BTW, Scott Horton re-confirmed the deaths of Iraqi children in this interview the other day.
    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/4-20-18-dennis-halliday-on-the-deaths-of-iraqi-children-due-to-american-sanctions-in-the-90s/

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they’re also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.

    not just level of fools, but depraved level of moral evil

    as I’m sure you’d agree, Chris.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    Yes, of course. These are very evil people who delude themselves into feeling superior to mankind by playing the 'ultimate' game of scheming to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

    It's not a coincidence that so many of them are co-confessionalists. But if they think it's their intelligence that allows them this privilege, they're badly mistaken; as you say, it's their depravity which enables it.


    BTW, very funny getting cited at the top of the article, this week!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    no easy answers --


    While I am positive that military service has its share of incompetents, liars, theives, false accusers, etc up and down the ranks. It remains a job like no other civilian position, that does not involve service of the same nature and environment.

    no easy answers —

    Of course.
    Maybe there even can’t be any definitive answers.
    That’s what, with a huge cost for all parties involved, makes it so fascinating.

    But, people aren’t into “fascinating”. They are in agendas and quick emotional release.

    Much better men than any of us here tried to answer those questions and not quite succeeded.

    The catch is somewhere else. Now, if we were talking over a drink somewhere I’d go into that.
    Here…on this Webzine…..maybe in my next incarnation. Maybe.

    One more thing.
    I found my enemies, at the time, closer than most of my own “civilians”. More….honest.
    Even now, I find them easier to communicate with than an average civilian.
    So….what does that make of “civilians” in general? Rhetorical question.

    Bottom line, until people realize, truly, what war is all about there won’t be any change in what’s going on. Not one bit.
    For how long is another matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    Nope, not mindless at all, but merely perceptive, having served in the US military...

    Not perceptive, and neither you or I provided any valuable service in the military. We did something that was either inefficient, amoral (possibly immoral), or illegal or all of them together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Before you attempt to paint my service as useless and ineffective with your broad brush, please obtain and read "Our War Was Different" by Al Hemingway. You may come back with a different perspective...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. chris says:
    @Rurik

    These blunders are obviously a godsend to us but they’re also a fantastic gauge of the level of fools who do the grunt work for the empire.
     
    not just level of fools, but depraved level of moral evil

    as I'm sure you'd agree, Chris.

    Yes, of course. These are very evil people who delude themselves into feeling superior to mankind by playing the ‘ultimate’ game of scheming to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

    It’s not a coincidence that so many of them are co-confessionalists. But if they think it’s their intelligence that allows them this privilege, they’re badly mistaken; as you say, it’s their depravity which enables it.

    BTW, very funny getting cited at the top of the article, this week!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    BTW, very funny getting cited
     
    yes, well Ron was right to make the point, because what was threatened was very wrong.

    I don't see it so much as having anything to do with me personally, as I had already made the point that I was satisfied, and no further comment was necessary. But I'm sure Mr. Unz wants his readers and commenters to know that he honors their desire not to have their names published.

    It was the right thing to do. And I'm glad he did it and the article was published and was able to inspire more debate on the subject.

    Personally Chris, I suspect that 9/11 is the best chance the world has to avail itself of the Fiend.

    It was the Fiend that perpetrated that momentous crime, and ((they)) did so in order to create a 21st century that is as horrific and bloody as the 20th.

    The Fiend's wet dream would be to see what's left of the West destroy itself utterly in a contrived and suicidal war with Islam and Russia/Asia. The world wars were orgiastic for these people. Germans slaughtering Russians slaughtering Poles slaughtering Ukrainians slaughtering Serbs slaughtering French slaughtering Italians slaughtering Australians, slaughtering... ad nauseam...

    It must have been rapturously intoxicating for them. Just as it is when American boys get slaughtered while slaughtering Iraqis or Syrians or Afghans.

    And so for them to have to sit on the world's most powerful military, and not be able to use it! well that was just a bridge too far. So they did their 'new Pearl Harbor-like event', and 'Lucky Larry got his billions, and ((they)) got what they coveted; the mass-slaughter of the hated goyim.

    But they made a lot of mistakes, and now have a tiger by the tail. If enough of the goyim cows figure out what they did, there could be hell to pay.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Rurik

    Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.
     

    It isn't like any other job. That's not what I said.

    All irony aside by the (excellent) poster anarchyst's sobriquet , what military service demands is that you shut off your brain. And out-source your thinking to anyone with more bars or strips on their shirt.

    It demands of you that you be willing to kill other people, not for anything they did, or are going to do. Not for looking at you wrong or calling your mother's virtue into question, or anything like that. No. What military service demands of you is that you be willing to kill (or die) based on the orders of your "superiors". Without question, and without thought.

    It turns young men and women into zombies/monsters. Human drones to the psychopathic whims of their masters, far off in safety and luxury.

    I am not a fan of the military. If a fight is worth fighting, then I'd like to think I'd be the first one into the fray, exhorting others to follow me, rather than pointing and ordering others into the breach, while I sat in safety.

    I'm not a pacifist, but the last thing I am is a mindless golem, willfully shutting off my volition and conscience, and willing to kill other powerless people like myself, because I was ordered to do so, ultimately by some scumfuck politician on the take.

    No thanks.

    'What if they had a war and no one showed up?"

    That may be true for some, but not most. Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact. And contrary to your commentary, the best defence is one that is present, but unused. I think most men and more women come out of service intact as people. And even those that have experienced conflict effectively navigate life. I would even grant that we need services to aide in transitioning from conflict to peace time environments.

    I am not going to challenge the insanity of war, but on occasion that is where we end up. I am not going to describing the state of mind required to kill another human being. While tragic those who have that experience entire civilian life changed, but capable of managing their lives.

    Since time immemorial people men and women in power have sent others into the insanity of war for trivial and noble reasons. I cannot solve that, would that I could. I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.

    The human condition will continue to invite war to resolve issues and people of common cause will show up to fight. On the day no one shows up — they won’t. Defending one’s fellows or others is worthy service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact
     
    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I'm sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he'd become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I'd never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn't lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I'm sure he wouldn't mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn't have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I'm not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they're snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that's out there that isn't leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it's there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc...) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil's lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they've done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.


    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.
     
    you can say that but you'd be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it's vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can't be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you're willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you're willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they're doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think 'we're defending America by fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you're that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I'm speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you're a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik

    the American war in Vietnam was a response to an invasion.
     
    I'm not sure. It seems to me to have been a war of opportunity, (based on lies of course), to take over the colonialism of the French, who were being driven out.

    Which engendered an all too natural nationalistic spirit in the Vietnamese. Communism was the pretext, but I suspect the Viet Cong fought as much to get whitey out of their lands as they did to suffer communism.

    And then it just dragged on. I think that if they had wanted to win, then they could have. But what they wanted was endless flow of slop in the trough. Much like today.

    no one has heard of the many communist atrocities that make My Lai look like a Sunday School picnic. One comes to mind, the destruction of the hamlet of Duc Duc by the communists in 1972. You never heard about that in the USA. You see, according to the mainstream media, the communists could do no wrong…
     
    never in a million years will you see me defending communism.

    it is prima facie institutionalized, state imposed slavery.

    I suggest you contact the Vietnamese expat communities here in the USA–Garden Grove and Westminster California. Here you will find South Vietnamese who wanted no part of communism and risked life and limb to escape that communist “paradise”. You may come back with a different outlook on the American Vietnam war.
    Keep in mind that the American component in the Vietnam war was not one of conquest…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Keep in mind that the American component in the Vietnam war was not one of conquest…
     
    what I know is that they lied us into that war, and every person responsible for the lie, should have been tried, and if found guilty, hanged by the neck until they were dead.

    If we treated the treasonous scum that lie us into wars in the proper way, then I suspect we'd have less of these wars for fun and profit.

    I know that communism suck arse. That's a no-brainer. But if the US's war in Vietnam ever was about fighting that evil plague, then that motivation eventually gave into greed, because they lied about everything having to do with that terrible war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik

    Telling someone who served in the armed services that their tenure is just like any other job . . . is a very strange contend.

    And anyone who actually served or understood what that service entailed would look at you as if you were from another planet.
     

    It isn't like any other job. That's not what I said.

    All irony aside by the (excellent) poster anarchyst's sobriquet , what military service demands is that you shut off your brain. And out-source your thinking to anyone with more bars or strips on their shirt.

    It demands of you that you be willing to kill other people, not for anything they did, or are going to do. Not for looking at you wrong or calling your mother's virtue into question, or anything like that. No. What military service demands of you is that you be willing to kill (or die) based on the orders of your "superiors". Without question, and without thought.

    It turns young men and women into zombies/monsters. Human drones to the psychopathic whims of their masters, far off in safety and luxury.

    I am not a fan of the military. If a fight is worth fighting, then I'd like to think I'd be the first one into the fray, exhorting others to follow me, rather than pointing and ordering others into the breach, while I sat in safety.

    I'm not a pacifist, but the last thing I am is a mindless golem, willfully shutting off my volition and conscience, and willing to kill other powerless people like myself, because I was ordered to do so, ultimately by some scumfuck politician on the take.

    No thanks.

    'What if they had a war and no one showed up?"

    You are wrong about American military personnel being turned into “zombies”. It is constantly stressed that illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one’s service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Black Blouse Girl
    "Illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one’s service."

    Yeah, and I'm a pretty ballerina, watch me twirl!

    law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/myl_bvillagers.htm

    www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/island-of-fire/
    , @Rurik

    You are wrong about American military personnel being turned into “zombies”.
     
    for some reason Anarchyst, this post stuck in my craw, and I feel like it should be addressed.

    When you go into the military, the first thing they do is set about destroying any and every semblance of your personality and especially any individuality. That identity you had as a civilian, will no longer be suitable to the new circumstances of your life. So they carefully deconstruct it, with a regimen that includes all kinds of known psychological methods developed over centuries (but scientifically perfected in the 20th century), to remodel men into automatons, who'll obey orders reflexively.

    If you're a private in the military, and a high ranking officer steps into the room and someone then shouts 'ten-hut!', you don't ruminate on the relative level of esteem that you hold that individual in, and then perhaps make a grudging and reluctant effort to stand up and salute, demonstrating your personal contempt for a power-drunk loser. No. Because if you did, you'd stand out like a single nail in the carpenter's wooden surface that hasn't yet been hammered down flat, and get hammered down you would. With a prejudice.

    If your intractability became a distraction to the squad or platoon or company, they'd deal with it in harsher and harsher methods, perhaps sending you to correctional facilities, until you got your 'mind right'.

    Individuality is anathema to the military, and it will be crushed out of the young recruits, until there is kneejerk uniform fealty to the hierarchy. That is how the military works.

    And then what you get is a culture of (mostly) men, who see that in order to advance in this system and rise up, (a natural inclination) they have to learn to be the most selectively fawning of all. They have to become even more sycophantic to their superiors than the next guy, who also wants to advance.

    So the military becomes a sort of competition between the men who want to advance, (so that they're not treated like dogs by every person with a higher rank than they have), so that they can be the ones to bark at the other men with less rank, rather than themselves being barked at.

    If you think it's possible to exist in such a culture as a free-thinker, who makes up his own mind about the right and wrong or legality of dropping a bomb on some village somewhere, or droning a wedding, or machine-gunning a group of civilian men standing around on a street corner in Baghdad...

    Then you simply haven't served in the military, (or are being disingenuous ; )

    During the 'great war'- once it had been effectively won, our heroes in uniform dropped incendiary bombs on cities in Germany that burned alive hundreds of thousands of women and children alive.

    And in between the bombing raids, I read accounts of how the fighter jet pilots would strafe anyone moving. One gunner I read about long ago said he simply aimed at anyone blonde- women or children (which is all that there really was).

    But such is the nature of the soldier. Willing to slaughter, maim or incinerate anyone and everyone - man, women or child, if ordered to do so. Because they've been eviscerated of their volition and conscience. And slaughter, maim and incinerate they do! With wanton abandon, and often with sadistic relish.

    I'm not blaming soldiers or sailors per se. In fact, you could argue that the fact that they've had their moral souls extirpated from their mortal bodies, until they're basically just moral automatons, gives them a limited dispensation of sorts. But perhaps my point is that they should consider hard the decision to subject themselves to such a fate.

    The members of the Israeli refuseniks, who must often do jail time, are released with their souls intact. And there is something to be said for having one's soul intact. (!)

    Back during the draft into Vietnam, there was no shame or blame for the men who were conscripted into service, and forced to become soldiers. The blame belongs squarely on the elite scum who sent them.

    But today perhaps it's different.

    what military service demands is that you shut off your brain. And out-source your thinking to anyone with more bars or strips on their shirt.

    It demands of you that you be willing to kill other people, not for anything they did, or are going to do. Not for looking at you wrong or calling your mother’s virtue into question, or anything like that. No. What military service demands of you is that you be willing to kill (or die) based on the orders of your “superiors”. Without question, and without thought.

    It turns young men and women into zombies/monsters. Human drones to the psychopathic whims of their masters, far off in safety and luxury.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. anarchyst says:
    @The Scalpel
    Not perceptive, and neither you or I provided any valuable service in the military. We did something that was either inefficient, amoral (possibly immoral), or illegal or all of them together.

    Before you attempt to paint my service as useless and ineffective with your broad brush, please obtain and read “Our War Was Different” by Al Hemingway. You may come back with a different perspective…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    OK, here is your chance. Please describe how your services were useful and effective. Please do not use unverifiable, undefinable bromides like "I defended democracy."

    Try reading "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller or "War is a Rackett" by General Smedley Butler. Though I am not sure why citing someones book is any proof of anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @anarchyst
    You are wrong about American military personnel being turned into "zombies". It is constantly stressed that illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one's service.

    “Illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one’s service.”

    Yeah, and I’m a pretty ballerina, watch me twirl!

    law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/myl_bvillagers.htm

    http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/island-of-fire/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    It is apparent that you never served in the military. Go back to the little kid's table until you grow up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. anarchyst says:
    @Black Blouse Girl
    "Illegal orders are not to be followed and that conscience DOES play a part in one’s service."

    Yeah, and I'm a pretty ballerina, watch me twirl!

    law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/myl_bvillagers.htm

    www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/island-of-fire/

    It is apparent that you never served in the military. Go back to the little kid’s table until you grow up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    Before you attempt to paint my service as useless and ineffective with your broad brush, please obtain and read "Our War Was Different" by Al Hemingway. You may come back with a different perspective...

    OK, here is your chance. Please describe how your services were useful and effective. Please do not use unverifiable, undefinable bromides like “I defended democracy.”

    Try reading “Catch 22″ by Joseph Heller or “War is a Rackett” by General Smedley Butler. Though I am not sure why citing someones book is any proof of anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I've read both of them. Look up "USMC Combined Action Program". Obtain and read the book "Our War Was Different" by Al Hemingway. You will see an aspect of wartime behavior that you never knew existed. Go ahead...if you dare...be sure to report back with your findings...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. peterAUS says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  206. anarchyst says:
    @The Scalpel
    OK, here is your chance. Please describe how your services were useful and effective. Please do not use unverifiable, undefinable bromides like "I defended democracy."

    Try reading "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller or "War is a Rackett" by General Smedley Butler. Though I am not sure why citing someones book is any proof of anything.

    I’ve read both of them. Look up “USMC Combined Action Program”. Obtain and read the book “Our War Was Different” by Al Hemingway. You will see an aspect of wartime behavior that you never knew existed. Go ahead…if you dare…be sure to report back with your findings…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    If I dare.....lol You are ok, man. Touche!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    I've read both of them. Look up "USMC Combined Action Program". Obtain and read the book "Our War Was Different" by Al Hemingway. You will see an aspect of wartime behavior that you never knew existed. Go ahead...if you dare...be sure to report back with your findings...

    If I dare…..lol You are ok, man. Touche!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    I suggest you contact the Vietnamese expat communities here in the USA--Garden Grove and Westminster California. Here you will find South Vietnamese who wanted no part of communism and risked life and limb to escape that communist "paradise". You may come back with a different outlook on the American Vietnam war.
    Keep in mind that the American component in the Vietnam war was not one of conquest...

    Keep in mind that the American component in the Vietnam war was not one of conquest…

    what I know is that they lied us into that war, and every person responsible for the lie, should have been tried, and if found guilty, hanged by the neck until they were dead.

    If we treated the treasonous scum that lie us into wars in the proper way, then I suspect we’d have less of these wars for fun and profit.

    I know that communism suck arse. That’s a no-brainer. But if the US’s war in Vietnam ever was about fighting that evil plague, then that motivation eventually gave into greed, because they lied about everything having to do with that terrible war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Rurik says:
    @chris
    Yes, of course. These are very evil people who delude themselves into feeling superior to mankind by playing the 'ultimate' game of scheming to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

    It's not a coincidence that so many of them are co-confessionalists. But if they think it's their intelligence that allows them this privilege, they're badly mistaken; as you say, it's their depravity which enables it.


    BTW, very funny getting cited at the top of the article, this week!

    BTW, very funny getting cited

    yes, well Ron was right to make the point, because what was threatened was very wrong.

    I don’t see it so much as having anything to do with me personally, as I had already made the point that I was satisfied, and no further comment was necessary. But I’m sure Mr. Unz wants his readers and commenters to know that he honors their desire not to have their names published.

    It was the right thing to do. And I’m glad he did it and the article was published and was able to inspire more debate on the subject.

    Personally Chris, I suspect that 9/11 is the best chance the world has to avail itself of the Fiend.

    It was the Fiend that perpetrated that momentous crime, and ((they)) did so in order to create a 21st century that is as horrific and bloody as the 20th.

    The Fiend’s wet dream would be to see what’s left of the West destroy itself utterly in a contrived and suicidal war with Islam and Russia/Asia. The world wars were orgiastic for these people. Germans slaughtering Russians slaughtering Poles slaughtering Ukrainians slaughtering Serbs slaughtering French slaughtering Italians slaughtering Australians, slaughtering… ad nauseam…

    It must have been rapturously intoxicating for them. Just as it is when American boys get slaughtered while slaughtering Iraqis or Syrians or Afghans.

    And so for them to have to sit on the world’s most powerful military, and not be able to use it! well that was just a bridge too far. So they did their ‘new Pearl Harbor-like event’, and ‘Lucky Larry got his billions, and ((they)) got what they coveted; the mass-slaughter of the hated goyim.

    But they made a lot of mistakes, and now have a tiger by the tail. If enough of the goyim cows figure out what they did, there could be hell to pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris

    It was the right thing to do. And I’m glad he did it and the article was published and was able to inspire more debate on the subject.
     
    Absolutely, Rurik!

    The Fiend’s wet dream would be to see what’s left of the West destroy itself utterly in a contrived and suicidal war with Islam and Russia/Asia.
     
    The irony is that their spitefulness makes them assiduously work at destroying the West, knowing full well they're going down with the ship!

    The fact is, that thousands of years of working behind the scene has not prepared them to lead from the front. Pax Israeli-ana, as we're experiencing today, will never be associated with anything like "noblesse oblige." Instead, there's going to be a constant Balkanization of everything they touch into bullying, threats, petty bickering, and backstabbing; and that's no way establish a long-term legacy, if they even had such noble goals.

    But they made a lot of mistakes, and now have a tiger by the tail. If enough of the goyim cows figure out what they did, there could be hell to pay.
     
    Not that it would be undeserved, but if they think they're going down, they'll take everyone down with them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Someone I spoke with recently disapproves so much of America’s war mongering that he moved to another country and renounced US citizenship, a move he will never regret. He said that he has just finished going through the entire series of NCIS episodes for the second time. It is hilarious to watch that show for someone with that slant on the USA, as it is for many many people around the world who dislike what the Americans do to others. The emotional children in the American “armed services” set about killing people, sometimes straight out murdering them, all around the world in every episode. And, the terrorist attacks that almost come to fruition in US citiew give foreign critics great hope. It was refreshing talking with this guy, because he always encourages others to relax, sit back and wait, since the fall that is coming is bound to come, probably sooner rather than later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. Rurik says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    That may be true for some, but not most. Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact. And contrary to your commentary, the best defence is one that is present, but unused. I think most men and more women come out of service intact as people. And even those that have experienced conflict effectively navigate life. I would even grant that we need services to aide in transitioning from conflict to peace time environments.

    I am not going to challenge the insanity of war, but on occasion that is where we end up. I am not going to describing the state of mind required to kill another human being. While tragic those who have that experience entire civilian life changed, but capable of managing their lives.

    Since time immemorial people men and women in power have sent others into the insanity of war for trivial and noble reasons. I cannot solve that, would that I could. I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.

    The human condition will continue to invite war to resolve issues and people of common cause will show up to fight. On the day no one shows up -- they won't. Defending one's fellows or others is worthy service.

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact

    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I’m sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he’d become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I’d never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn’t lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn’t have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I’m not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they’re snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that’s out there that isn’t leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it’s there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc…) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil’s lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they’ve done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.

    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.

    you can say that but you’d be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it’s vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can’t be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you’re willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you’re willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they’re doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think ‘we’re defending America by fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom’

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you’re that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I’m speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you’re a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said.
     
    with

    while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy.
     
    and

    I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn’t have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I’m not privy to the details of his death)
     
    It's good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That's admirable.

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.
    There are much better stories to push the agenda. True, to make them one does have to know a bit about the topic. The comedy here is that people who push the agendas don't know shit about it.

    I like the comment.
    This

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth.
     
    cracked me up.

    Keep them coming.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.


    Now I would be careful because it is not unheard of for conscientious objectors to get grief.


    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative. Our medical, social services and chaplaincies remain integral facets of service, for those who wish to avoid being in a position to harm another human being.

    I would hazard a bet that for US troops, their conscience is a gatekeeper and even may be problematic to their services.

    The UCMJ actually matters despite the abuses by some in command, over their bruised egos. Geneva convention matters.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    i am not sure you grasp the meaning of the word most.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    " And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you’re a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity."


    Utter nonsense. Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes. This is like talking to a second grader who lumps a different sized blocks together and says they are the same because they are blocks. war is atrocious. It's an atrocity. That does not by definition mean that all atrocities are crimes. And your attempt to make the rare a staple just falls flat. All of the referenced are not unknown in warfare, but as a staple of US service during wartime --

    I would encourage you to stop hyperventilating get some fresh air and continue when you've taken the time to consider magnitude, context and occurrence among the general population of those in combat. Unless you are a pacifist and by your own admission you are not, minus specific cases, your generalizations about US service personnel in combat or peace time are just that not accurate for most in service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. peterAUS says:
    @Rurik

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact
     
    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I'm sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he'd become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I'd never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn't lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I'm sure he wouldn't mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn't have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I'm not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they're snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that's out there that isn't leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it's there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc...) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil's lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they've done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.


    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.
     
    you can say that but you'd be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it's vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can't be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you're willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you're willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they're doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think 'we're defending America by fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you're that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I'm speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you're a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said.

    with

    while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy.

    and

    I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn’t have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I’m not privy to the details of his death)

    It’s good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That’s admirable.

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.
    There are much better stories to push the agenda. True, to make them one does have to know a bit about the topic. The comedy here is that people who push the agendas don’t know shit about it.

    I like the comment.
    This

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth.

    cracked me up.

    Keep them coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    It’s good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That’s admirable.
     
    not all agendas are admirable ;)

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.

     

    or rude and impertinent and inconsequential, those things are not admirable in the least.

    stories to push the agenda. True, to make them
     
    ahh, now we're delving into the sphere of scumbaggery!

    are you suggesting that I made that story up?

    what a sniveling, low-life douchbag, to suggest such a thing..

    Well, asshole, you've got my attention, so in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?

    Let's hear it scumfuck...

    Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a guy in the Air Force, (mechanic or whatever) to be in a skirmish and end up shooting a boy in Iraq? Actually I was just talking to my girlfriend about him, and she thought he was a pilot, but I told her no, that he worked on the planes. Anyways she thinks he died from complications from all the psychotropic drugs he was on.

    He was a decent guy, but he was tortured by his conscience, which, I wouldn't worry about too much personally asshole, because you have to have one in the first place, to be effected by it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Rurik says:
    @peterAUS

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said.
     
    with

    while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy.
     
    and

    I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn’t have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I’m not privy to the details of his death)
     
    It's good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That's admirable.

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.
    There are much better stories to push the agenda. True, to make them one does have to know a bit about the topic. The comedy here is that people who push the agendas don't know shit about it.

    I like the comment.
    This

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth.
     
    cracked me up.

    Keep them coming.

    It’s good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That’s admirable.

    not all agendas are admirable ;)

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.

    or rude and impertinent and inconsequential, those things are not admirable in the least.

    stories to push the agenda. True, to make them

    ahh, now we’re delving into the sphere of scumbaggery!

    are you suggesting that I made that story up?

    what a sniveling, low-life douchbag, to suggest such a thing..

    Well, asshole, you’ve got my attention, so in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?

    Let’s hear it scumfuck…

    Are you suggesting that it’s impossible for a guy in the Air Force, (mechanic or whatever) to be in a skirmish and end up shooting a boy in Iraq? Actually I was just talking to my girlfriend about him, and she thought he was a pilot, but I told her no, that he worked on the planes. Anyways she thinks he died from complications from all the psychotropic drugs he was on.

    He was a decent guy, but he was tortured by his conscience, which, I wouldn’t worry about too much personally asshole, because you have to have one in the first place, to be effected by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...are you suggesting that I made that story up?
     
    Somebody did.
    Either you or that fellow. In that case you aren't only lazy (checking, rechecking etc. ) but, how to put it politely, ignorant.
    Of course, being ignorant has no relevance on pushing the agenda, so here we are.

    ...in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?
     
    Don't worry about that. Guys who know, know. People like you, less they know better it is.

    Low quality....
    Not only you are obviously lazy and most likely ignorant, condescending too of course, but you do have a very short fuse. That's a very bad ingredient for pushing agendas.

    Actually, I've come to conclusion (see, mistake, but that's how sometimes we learn) that you aren't here to push agendas.
    You are here for "online therapy".
    And that is just..boring.
    Moving on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. peterAUS says:
    @Rurik

    It’s good to see a guy with an agenda, a mission in life, with a focus.That’s admirable.
     
    not all agendas are admirable ;)

    What is a bit less admirable is being lazy and/or condescending.

     

    or rude and impertinent and inconsequential, those things are not admirable in the least.

    stories to push the agenda. True, to make them
     
    ahh, now we're delving into the sphere of scumbaggery!

    are you suggesting that I made that story up?

    what a sniveling, low-life douchbag, to suggest such a thing..

    Well, asshole, you've got my attention, so in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?

    Let's hear it scumfuck...

    Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a guy in the Air Force, (mechanic or whatever) to be in a skirmish and end up shooting a boy in Iraq? Actually I was just talking to my girlfriend about him, and she thought he was a pilot, but I told her no, that he worked on the planes. Anyways she thinks he died from complications from all the psychotropic drugs he was on.

    He was a decent guy, but he was tortured by his conscience, which, I wouldn't worry about too much personally asshole, because you have to have one in the first place, to be effected by it.

    …are you suggesting that I made that story up?

    Somebody did.
    Either you or that fellow. In that case you aren’t only lazy (checking, rechecking etc. ) but, how to put it politely, ignorant.
    Of course, being ignorant has no relevance on pushing the agenda, so here we are.

    …in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?

    Don’t worry about that. Guys who know, know. People like you, less they know better it is.

    Low quality….
    Not only you are obviously lazy and most likely ignorant, condescending too of course, but you do have a very short fuse. That’s a very bad ingredient for pushing agendas.

    Actually, I’ve come to conclusion (see, mistake, but that’s how sometimes we learn) that you aren’t here to push agendas.
    You are here for “online therapy”.
    And that is just..boring.
    Moving on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    …in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?
     

    Don’t worry about that. Guys who know, know. People like you, less they know better it is.
     
    don't worry about that?

    A sack of shit like you presumes to question the integrity of something I write, (obviously because the truth of it is unsettling to your agenda), and then has the pus nuts to say 'don't worry about it', when called on your boorishness? And you think that's all there is to it?


    And that is just..boring.
    Moving on.
     
    unlike scumfucks in the military, who drop their bombs on innocent people with impunity and fly away, a forum like this means there's accountability for shit-bag behavior.

    You don't want all the readers out there to know you're a low-life piece of shit, now do you?

    How would that manifest on your self-esteem peter? To know that not only are you personally aware of being a lying POS, but everyone on this forum would also see how glaringly obvious it is that you are..

    a lying-

    POS? (this stands for 'piece of shit', btw ; )

    A cretin with an agenda, who likes wars based on lies, and gets upset when someone points out that all of these wars are obviously based on lies, and are war crimes.

    That
    is what anyone with a conscience would discuss if they had the nads, (which you obviously don't ; ), because instead you pick out of a post an obscure story (every word of it true), then show your ass by trying to question it, in an obvious and pathetic attempt to discredit the wider point- that the wars are wrong and illegal and morally indefensible.

    As are you, peter.

    A lying piece of shit who ought to know better, but then to go with being a dickhead, you're also too stupid to realize your (obvious) limitations.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Rurik says:

    she thought he was a pilot, but I told her no, that he worked on the planes.

    I checked his obituary out

    in the Air Force as a Boom Operator, and Flight Engineer.

    [RIP]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  216. @Rurik

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact
     
    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I'm sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he'd become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I'd never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn't lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I'm sure he wouldn't mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn't have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I'm not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they're snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that's out there that isn't leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it's there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc...) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil's lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they've done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.


    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.
     
    you can say that but you'd be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it's vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can't be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you're willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you're willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they're doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think 'we're defending America by fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you're that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I'm speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you're a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.

    Now I would be careful because it is not unheard of for conscientious objectors to get grief.

    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative. Our medical, social services and chaplaincies remain integral facets of service, for those who wish to avoid being in a position to harm another human being.

    I would hazard a bet that for US troops, their conscience is a gatekeeper and even may be problematic to their services.

    The UCMJ actually matters despite the abuses by some in command, over their bruised egos. Geneva convention matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Curious.

    Am I correct in getting an impression that all this recent COIN thing actually created a certain......mindset.... in US armed forces?

    Let's try to explain it from the bottom.
    Concepts of "high precision" vs "intensive" MOUT/FIBUA.

    Say, scenario: A stand alone small dwelling. We suspect the enemy is there. We are also positive there are civilians there too. Squad is to advance and secure that dwelling and then provide a firebase for the other squad to bound. Quite simple.

    Before: put a couple of shells in first, then move in to the holes. Chuck in frags, enter on full auto, secure. Rinse and repeat (depending on ammo expenditure, NOT on anything else). Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.

    Now, apparently: Send in men to breach. After breach stuns, after stuns "sticks" as SWATs doing hard arrest. The important part is....any "wrong" target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?

    If yes......interesting......

    , @Rurik

    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.
     
    there are two possibilities

    either they're too stupid to see the obvious, that we're not 'fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    If they're that fucking stupid, (which is a staggeringly amazing accomplishment!) then you're right, they may be shooting at men (who happened to be standing around some street corner in Iraq) with a helicopter machine gun, and be oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in a war crime.

    But I don't know anyone that stupid. Rather what that incident in question demonstrated, was that along the way there was one soldier who was bothered by that (obvious) war crime, and so he leaked the video out. And was subsequently treated like a traitor by the PTB in the military.

    They wanted to throw away the key, not because the guy committed a war crime, but because he showed how casually our brave boys over there commit such war crimes, which are normally hushed up.

    Fallujah for instance, and just the fact that Gitmo exists, is for anyone with a conscience, a moral atrocity.

    Don't get me going.

    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative.
     
    Well that's obviously because you yourself don't possess a conscience.

    The wars are based on lies. They are morally indefensible. They have mass-murdered over a million people, at least. They have destroyed utterly any semblance of honor or decency or integrity in our fecal government, who demonstrates zero respect for any rule of law, and is rather a fiend on the world's stage, menacing entire countries that don't kneejerk submit to its brutality and threats.

    Anyone who would try to justify what's being done are either dumb as fucking posts, or morally devoid of decency.

    BTW, I don't blame the young men and women who enlist because they have virtually no other prospects. It isn't the privates in the military who're the problem. It's the scumfucks higher up.

    Especially the cretins who would try to intellectually defend the indefensible.

    That's like Bibi trying to explain that he had to drop white phosphorus on Gaza in a desperate bid to defend Israel!

    Or the Zionist apologists (many of them who are here ; ) who would claim that anyone questioning Bibi's resolve to defend Israel is an anti-Semite!

    Lies. Sickening lies, intended to bolster the case for illegal and immoral and indefensible wars on innocent nations and people that have done us ZERO harm, and threatened us in no way whatsoever.

    What kind of rotten, immoral sack of shit would even try to make that case, eh 'Elite'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Rurik

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact
     
    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I'm sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he'd become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I'd never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn't lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I'm sure he wouldn't mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn't have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I'm not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they're snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that's out there that isn't leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it's there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc...) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil's lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they've done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.


    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.
     
    you can say that but you'd be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it's vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can't be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you're willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you're willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they're doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think 'we're defending America by fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you're that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I'm speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you're a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    i am not sure you grasp the meaning of the word most.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Rurik

    Most people come out of the military with their sense of self and individuality intact
     
    app. 22 veterans commit suicide on any given day.

    I'm sure they do so because they participated in the immoral mass-murder of innocent people and destruction of their homes and nations, and feel a literally unbearable sense of guilt and shame.

    I knew one such guy. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic or something like that, fueling jets I think he said. But after a few beers, he'd become despondent, and tell me that he was going to hell, (something I'd never heard anyone ever tell me before). He said that while he was in Iraq, they were out on a patrol of some kind, and that there was some kind of skirmish, and that he shot a boy. He said he was like ten to twelve years old, he guessed, and he couldn't lay the memory to rest. That it kept him up, and that his only refuge from the guilt was the pharmaceuticals the VA gave him since he was diagnosed with PTSD.

    I'm sure he wouldn't mind me telling his story, as he seemed to very much want me to know, not only what he had done, but also that he could barely live with himself, which he doesn't have to anymore, as he died about a year ago. (I'm not privy to the details of his death)

    Anyways, if they're snuffing it at 20+ a day, there is a lot of pain that's out there that isn't leading many of them to the ultimate escape. Most of them simply deal with it, but it's there.

    All the wars that American (and French and British, etc...) soldiers have been forced to participate in after 9/11 have all been based on lies. Devil's lies that have cost the lives of certainly over a million innocent souls. Not to mention the millions of lives that have been destroyed utterly, either by the loss of a father or mother, wife or husband, or sons and daughters or entire villages. All innocent people slaughtered to sate the insatiable lust for death and misery that ferments in the bowels of the Fiend, from Tel Aviv to London to NYC and DC.

    Once these young people realize what they've done, and why, they racked. Their souls are ripped apart and they go down a rabbit hole of excruciating self-loathing. Many, never to heal or recover.


    I can say with confidence our services do not demand anyone kill their conscience.
     
    you can say that but you'd be wrong, of course.

    Every single person who is or has participated in the GWT (Global War on Terror), which is to say the serial illegal wars of aggression that the ZUSA and it's vassals have perpetrated upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbas and others, not to mention facilitating war crimes in Gaza, are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    You can't be an officer in the military with your soul intact unless you're willfully blind, stupid and immoral- if you're willing to obey orders to kill people, since we have zero right to be there in the first place. Since all of these wars are based on lies and are all war crimes, based on every known metric of international law, Geneva conventions, and simple human decency.

    When the Taliban kill our soldiers, all they're doing is trying to defend their homelands from a criminal aggressor.

    I suppose there are people out there stupid enough to think 'we're defending America by fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom'

    but I find it difficult to imagine that you're that spectacularly, staggeringly stupid.

    your lexical pirouettes and equivocations are too oblique for you to be that dumb, so you must know of what I'm speaking, and therefor understand perfectly that everyone else who can see the obvious, also knows that the wars are wrong and criminal and indefensible. And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you're a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.

    And that is what you might call straight, hard, honest truth. No pirouettes trying to have it both ways. ;)

    ” And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you’re a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity.”

    Utter nonsense. Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes. This is like talking to a second grader who lumps a different sized blocks together and says they are the same because they are blocks. war is atrocious. It’s an atrocity. That does not by definition mean that all atrocities are crimes. And your attempt to make the rare a staple just falls flat. All of the referenced are not unknown in warfare, but as a staple of US service during wartime —

    I would encourage you to stop hyperventilating get some fresh air and continue when you’ve taken the time to consider magnitude, context and occurrence among the general population of those in combat. Unless you are a pacifist and by your own admission you are not, minus specific cases, your generalizations about US service personnel in combat or peace time are just that not accurate for most in service.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes.
     
    that's not what I said, what I said was:

    "are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity."

    Unless they're too stupid to comprehend the obvious.

    It isn't the grunts on the ground who're the guilty ones, at least for the vast majority.

    It's the scumfucks who're trying to justify these wars, that are the truly guilty ones. The liars and deceivers and obfuscators, barely disguising their demonic malice, because at heart, they like these wars. For a certain segment of society, these wars for Israel are heaven sent!

    But they can't say it like that, now can they?

    they have to dissemble and twist the meaning of words to mean their opposite. They have to slither with their language, like a serpent in the grass, always designing, always conniving...

    And that's where I come in. To stomp on the lies that serpents tell. To speak the fulsome, honest truth about these evil wars, and how they're indefensible on any metric, unless you're a psychopathic murderer at heart, and you believe that Jews are God-like superior, and the goyim should go out and kill and die for the Jewish supremacists of Israel.

    What do you think 'Elite'... have any of these war been based on lies?

    Are any of these wars being fought to benefit Israel, at the direct expense of Americans, up to and including the very lives of the young service men and women who were sent over there to kill or die for Israel?

    I'll leave it at that so we don't get to convoluted to get to the nitty-gritty.

    What say you 'Elite', are the wars the ZUS has waged since 9/11 - based on lies, or not?

    Are they being fought for Israel, or not....?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.


    Now I would be careful because it is not unheard of for conscientious objectors to get grief.


    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative. Our medical, social services and chaplaincies remain integral facets of service, for those who wish to avoid being in a position to harm another human being.

    I would hazard a bet that for US troops, their conscience is a gatekeeper and even may be problematic to their services.

    The UCMJ actually matters despite the abuses by some in command, over their bruised egos. Geneva convention matters.

    Curious.

    Am I correct in getting an impression that all this recent COIN thing actually created a certain……mindset…. in US armed forces?

    Let’s try to explain it from the bottom.
    Concepts of “high precision” vs “intensive” MOUT/FIBUA.

    Say, scenario: A stand alone small dwelling. We suspect the enemy is there. We are also positive there are civilians there too. Squad is to advance and secure that dwelling and then provide a firebase for the other squad to bound. Quite simple.

    Before: put a couple of shells in first, then move in to the holes. Chuck in frags, enter on full auto, secure. Rinse and repeat (depending on ammo expenditure, NOT on anything else). Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.

    Now, apparently: Send in men to breach. After breach stuns, after stuns “sticks” as SWATs doing hard arrest. The important part is….any “wrong” target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?

    If yes……interesting……

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    As to conscience . . .

    It would hardly be prudent for me to speculate about a hypothetical in which I have calculate each individuals response out of an unknown context. But givemn the oral commentaries from men who have been in battle, it's pretty clear they experience remorse even after killing a foe with whom they are pitched battles with, including hand to hand. They did what they had to do, but they are in no rush to experience it again.


    Few men who engage in war desire to return, I think that says volumes about people devoid of consciences. Given the general attitude of service personnel returning home -- their consciences on the whole are intact.

    Given warfare's brutality, the only amazing thing to me is that the personal damage isn't worse . . .

    , @Rurik

    Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.
    ...

    The important part is….any “wrong” target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?
     
    I was right.

    You are certifiable dog vomit.

    (with apologies to actual vomit dripping from a dog's jowls into the dirt and forming a little puddle. That kind of dog vomit had little opportunity to be anything else, and so we mustn't malign such vomit with comparisons to peter here ; )

    here's a clue :

    We have no right to be in those lands.

    George Bush lied to the world about these wars. Osama's henchmen did not wire building seven for a controlled demolition. That was done by the Mossad. OK shithead?

    So, based on what we all know now, that the wars are based on lies, that means that any attempt to justify them are coming from scumbags beneath contempt, and for whom no mercy should be shown.

    It isn't Afghan goat herders that belong in Gitmo. If anyone belongs there, it is the criminals responsible for 9/11. So that we can interrogate them, and discover every last one of them.

    Wouldn't you agree peter?

    Think of it this way, instead of all those "charred corpses, regardless of size and gender" that they found in that church in Waco, wouldn't it have been infinitely better if the charred corpses were those of Janet Reno and Lon Horiuchi instead?

    Because when examining the morality of a conflict and just punishments, I feel like it's significant to look at blame, and who are ultimately responsible and guilty, vs. those who are conducting themselves in good faith.

    I suppose that in certain cases, charred corpses are a grim justice, so long as it's the right charred corpses, wouldn't you agree peter?

    And consider...!

    there is more than one way to be a charred corpse. It can be in literal terms, or sometimes you can wind up as a charred corpse of inveterate odium just by participating in an Internet forum, yes..?

    and demonstrating to all the readers out there just how repellent and vomit-like your personality actually is!

    how fun is that?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Let’s take the Pacific theater during WWII. A look at the number of war crimes is roughly some 15,000, I was generous and just placed the number at 25,000. That amounts to some .7% acts that would fit the characterizations by some. So despite the war time environment the number of illegal acts (known) doesn’t even reach 1% of the near 3,500,000 troops that served in the US armed services.

    Jumping up to Vietnam there were roughly 1000 detailed criminals acts which I rounded up to 2000 that include MiLai and on other Major similar incident. Not including multiple deployments the number of troops that served in Vietnam were about 450,000. That suggests a percentage of .4% over a ten year period in which US service men engaged in criminal acts.

    While tragic, these incidents do not indicate that US men and women are wanton criminals or persons without consciences – even in war time environments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  221. @peterAUS
    Curious.

    Am I correct in getting an impression that all this recent COIN thing actually created a certain......mindset.... in US armed forces?

    Let's try to explain it from the bottom.
    Concepts of "high precision" vs "intensive" MOUT/FIBUA.

    Say, scenario: A stand alone small dwelling. We suspect the enemy is there. We are also positive there are civilians there too. Squad is to advance and secure that dwelling and then provide a firebase for the other squad to bound. Quite simple.

    Before: put a couple of shells in first, then move in to the holes. Chuck in frags, enter on full auto, secure. Rinse and repeat (depending on ammo expenditure, NOT on anything else). Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.

    Now, apparently: Send in men to breach. After breach stuns, after stuns "sticks" as SWATs doing hard arrest. The important part is....any "wrong" target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?

    If yes......interesting......

    As to conscience . . .

    It would hardly be prudent for me to speculate about a hypothetical in which I have calculate each individuals response out of an unknown context. But givemn the oral commentaries from men who have been in battle, it’s pretty clear they experience remorse even after killing a foe with whom they are pitched battles with, including hand to hand. They did what they had to do, but they are in no rush to experience it again.

    Few men who engage in war desire to return, I think that says volumes about people devoid of consciences. Given the general attitude of service personnel returning home — their consciences on the whole are intact.

    Given warfare’s brutality, the only amazing thing to me is that the personal damage isn’t worse . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Almost to a person, anyone who has served in a combat zone is totally against future wars and conflicts, especially when the "homeland" is not threatened. The biggest warmongers are actually the "chickenhawks" who did whatever they could to get out of serving. You see, when the draft was in effect, those who could escape did so, most out of fear, and NOT for altruistic reasons. Those who had money, went to college and got deferments; those who did not went to Canada or feigned medical conditions that would disqualify them. Even present-day "uber-patriot" and musician Ted Nugent urinated and defecated on himself, not washing for a month and showing up at the draft board wearing a diaper avoided service by stating that "Vietnam was not his war"...Of course, there are more aberrations such as John McCain who, despite being held in captivity, "never met a war that he did not like". He must have had the "honeymoon suite" at the Hanoi Hilton...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. anarchyst says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    As to conscience . . .

    It would hardly be prudent for me to speculate about a hypothetical in which I have calculate each individuals response out of an unknown context. But givemn the oral commentaries from men who have been in battle, it's pretty clear they experience remorse even after killing a foe with whom they are pitched battles with, including hand to hand. They did what they had to do, but they are in no rush to experience it again.


    Few men who engage in war desire to return, I think that says volumes about people devoid of consciences. Given the general attitude of service personnel returning home -- their consciences on the whole are intact.

    Given warfare's brutality, the only amazing thing to me is that the personal damage isn't worse . . .

    Almost to a person, anyone who has served in a combat zone is totally against future wars and conflicts, especially when the “homeland” is not threatened. The biggest warmongers are actually the “chickenhawks” who did whatever they could to get out of serving. You see, when the draft was in effect, those who could escape did so, most out of fear, and NOT for altruistic reasons. Those who had money, went to college and got deferments; those who did not went to Canada or feigned medical conditions that would disqualify them. Even present-day “uber-patriot” and musician Ted Nugent urinated and defecated on himself, not washing for a month and showing up at the draft board wearing a diaper avoided service by stating that “Vietnam was not his war”…Of course, there are more aberrations such as John McCain who, despite being held in captivity, “never met a war that he did not like”. He must have had the “honeymoon suite” at the Hanoi Hilton…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    You see, when the draft was in effect, those who could escape did so, most out of fear, and NOT for altruistic reasons.
     
    what if they simply didn't want to kill other poor people like themselves to enrich some greedy, immoral war pigs?

    especially when the war was based on lies, (as we all now know), and because we're not really the "exceptional people" who have a right to bomb other nations into submission to the whims of our rulers?

    Perhaps some of the men who went to Canada did so for reasons of simple honor. Because they were unwilling to kill people who had done them no harm.

    Is that possible, do you suppose?

    What about today? When all the wars are obviously based on lies.

    If a young man say he will not go to Syria or Iran to die for Israel, does that make him a coward?

    (btw, as I said, we now know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, but a lot of young American men at the time had no way of knowing that, and went to Vietnam for honorable reasons, thinking they were fighting commies - a noble endeavor. So I would never besmirch their good name, like I would the elite$ who sent them)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Rurik says:
    @peterAUS

    ...are you suggesting that I made that story up?
     
    Somebody did.
    Either you or that fellow. In that case you aren't only lazy (checking, rechecking etc. ) but, how to put it politely, ignorant.
    Of course, being ignorant has no relevance on pushing the agenda, so here we are.

    ...in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?
     
    Don't worry about that. Guys who know, know. People like you, less they know better it is.

    Low quality....
    Not only you are obviously lazy and most likely ignorant, condescending too of course, but you do have a very short fuse. That's a very bad ingredient for pushing agendas.

    Actually, I've come to conclusion (see, mistake, but that's how sometimes we learn) that you aren't here to push agendas.
    You are here for "online therapy".
    And that is just..boring.
    Moving on.

    …in what way is that story in anyway implausible?! Eh?

    Don’t worry about that. Guys who know, know. People like you, less they know better it is.

    don’t worry about that?

    A sack of shit like you presumes to question the integrity of something I write, (obviously because the truth of it is unsettling to your agenda), and then has the pus nuts to say ‘don’t worry about it’, when called on your boorishness? And you think that’s all there is to it?

    And that is just..boring.
    Moving on.

    unlike scumfucks in the military, who drop their bombs on innocent people with impunity and fly away, a forum like this means there’s accountability for shit-bag behavior.

    You don’t want all the readers out there to know you’re a low-life piece of shit, now do you?

    How would that manifest on your self-esteem peter? To know that not only are you personally aware of being a lying POS, but everyone on this forum would also see how glaringly obvious it is that you are..

    a lying-

    POS? (this stands for ‘piece of shit’, btw ; )

    A cretin with an agenda, who likes wars based on lies, and gets upset when someone points out that all of these wars are obviously based on lies, and are war crimes.

    That
    is what anyone with a conscience would discuss if they had the nads, (which you obviously don’t ; ), because instead you pick out of a post an obscure story (every word of it true), then show your ass by trying to question it, in an obvious and pathetic attempt to discredit the wider point- that the wars are wrong and illegal and morally indefensible.

    As are you, peter.

    A lying piece of shit who ought to know better, but then to go with being a dickhead, you’re also too stupid to realize your (obvious) limitations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Rurik says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.


    Now I would be careful because it is not unheard of for conscientious objectors to get grief.


    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative. Our medical, social services and chaplaincies remain integral facets of service, for those who wish to avoid being in a position to harm another human being.

    I would hazard a bet that for US troops, their conscience is a gatekeeper and even may be problematic to their services.

    The UCMJ actually matters despite the abuses by some in command, over their bruised egos. Geneva convention matters.

    the US military does not and has not demanded anyone abandon their conscience as a general principle.

    there are two possibilities

    either they’re too stupid to see the obvious, that we’re not ‘fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here, because they hate our freedom’

    If they’re that fucking stupid, (which is a staggeringly amazing accomplishment!) then you’re right, they may be shooting at men (who happened to be standing around some street corner in Iraq) with a helicopter machine gun, and be oblivious to the fact that they’re engaging in a war crime.

    But I don’t know anyone that stupid. Rather what that incident in question demonstrated, was that along the way there was one soldier who was bothered by that (obvious) war crime, and so he leaked the video out. And was subsequently treated like a traitor by the PTB in the military.

    They wanted to throw away the key, not because the guy committed a war crime, but because he showed how casually our brave boys over there commit such war crimes, which are normally hushed up.

    Fallujah for instance, and just the fact that Gitmo exists, is for anyone with a conscience, a moral atrocity.

    Don’t get me going.

    But my confidence here is not dented in the least by your broad narrative.

    Well that’s obviously because you yourself don’t possess a conscience.

    The wars are based on lies. They are morally indefensible. They have mass-murdered over a million people, at least. They have destroyed utterly any semblance of honor or decency or integrity in our fecal government, who demonstrates zero respect for any rule of law, and is rather a fiend on the world’s stage, menacing entire countries that don’t kneejerk submit to its brutality and threats.

    Anyone who would try to justify what’s being done are either dumb as fucking posts, or morally devoid of decency.

    BTW, I don’t blame the young men and women who enlist because they have virtually no other prospects. It isn’t the privates in the military who’re the problem. It’s the scumfucks higher up.

    Especially the cretins who would try to intellectually defend the indefensible.

    That’s like Bibi trying to explain that he had to drop white phosphorus on Gaza in a desperate bid to defend Israel!

    Or the Zionist apologists (many of them who are here ; ) who would claim that anyone questioning Bibi’s resolve to defend Israel is an anti-Semite!

    Lies. Sickening lies, intended to bolster the case for illegal and immoral and indefensible wars on innocent nations and people that have done us ZERO harm, and threatened us in no way whatsoever.

    What kind of rotten, immoral sack of shit would even try to make that case, eh ‘Elite’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Had 9/11 been an act by a state actor I would make the case. If a state invaded one of our allies, I would make the case (some caveats) -


    I like clear and present danger, despite the vagueries of clear and present might presuppose.


    Unfortunately, there are times for war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Rurik says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    " And that in order to participate in them, not only must you shut down your conscience, but you must actively admit to yourself that you’re a willing accomplice to atrocities, war crimes, murder, torture, rapine and crimes against humanity."


    Utter nonsense. Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes. This is like talking to a second grader who lumps a different sized blocks together and says they are the same because they are blocks. war is atrocious. It's an atrocity. That does not by definition mean that all atrocities are crimes. And your attempt to make the rare a staple just falls flat. All of the referenced are not unknown in warfare, but as a staple of US service during wartime --

    I would encourage you to stop hyperventilating get some fresh air and continue when you've taken the time to consider magnitude, context and occurrence among the general population of those in combat. Unless you are a pacifist and by your own admission you are not, minus specific cases, your generalizations about US service personnel in combat or peace time are just that not accurate for most in service.

    Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes.

    that’s not what I said, what I said was:

    “are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

    Unless they’re too stupid to comprehend the obvious.

    It isn’t the grunts on the ground who’re the guilty ones, at least for the vast majority.

    It’s the scumfucks who’re trying to justify these wars, that are the truly guilty ones. The liars and deceivers and obfuscators, barely disguising their demonic malice, because at heart, they like these wars. For a certain segment of society, these wars for Israel are heaven sent!

    But they can’t say it like that, now can they?

    they have to dissemble and twist the meaning of words to mean their opposite. They have to slither with their language, like a serpent in the grass, always designing, always conniving…

    And that’s where I come in. To stomp on the lies that serpents tell. To speak the fulsome, honest truth about these evil wars, and how they’re indefensible on any metric, unless you’re a psychopathic murderer at heart, and you believe that Jews are God-like superior, and the goyim should go out and kill and die for the Jewish supremacists of Israel.

    What do you think ‘Elite’… have any of these war been based on lies?

    Are any of these wars being fought to benefit Israel, at the direct expense of Americans, up to and including the very lives of the young service men and women who were sent over there to kill or die for Israel?

    I’ll leave it at that so we don’t get to convoluted to get to the nitty-gritty.

    What say you ‘Elite’, are the wars the ZUS has waged since 9/11 – based on lies, or not?

    Are they being fought for Israel, or not….?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Rurik, you remind me of the so-called anti-Vietnam war "protester" who blamed the ordinary military service member for the prosecution of the war, while expressing fealty for communist causes, expressing concern for the ordinary Vietnamese civilian (but not the "boat people" who risked life and limb to escape that communist "paradise") until the draft was abolished...then [crickets]. If you are going to blame someone for wars, blame the criminals in the U S government and their criminal Israeli handlers...
    , @EliteCommInc.
    As I understand your comment. Your position is not really addressing the initial point of discussion, which was about military servicemen and women. Your intention is to lay your indictment on the leadership and advocates for conflict, most specifically, the current conflicts since 9/11.



    I understand your position, but as you have described that was not the original issue at hand. It was strictly military men and women as participants.

    -----------------

    To your contentions that 9/11 is solely an Israeli cabal.

    My first response is not entirely.
    Are Israeli agendas to deeply interwoven in US policy in the region -- I absolutely agree that it is.
    My position on the wars:


    1. Iraq unsupportable at any level in any way. Ethically without merit and strategically unwise -

    2. Afghanistan, barely, barely justifiable -- the Afghans had no knowledge of nor were they participants in the events of 9/11 and what was required was an extradition and at worst a small covert ops mission that included the FBI and interpol --

    3. I cannot think of a single justification for meddling in Libya, Syria and as much as I hate to say it Iran. Minus any evidence that any of these states were threats to the US in each case we are in violation of international rules governing sovereignty. And any attack on the US would therefore be justifiable;e response --- I do hear the knives coming out. But we should expect that if we attack another state, they are justified in responding in kind. Only our size keeps that from happening -- for how long - unknown.

    4. I thin k it has been foolish to needless provoke Russia. While a competitor on the stage, needless conflict making has been detrimental. There is no excuse for our role in encouraging a Ukrainian violent revolution that threatens to this day to become a regional conflict.

    5. Because I have to wade through the mess of intent, I prefer to eschew the lie discussion. Suffice it to say, none of the aforementioned adventures were justified based on the arguments made to engage them. They failed the tests of evidence, soundness and moral cause.


    And while I support Israel's right to exist and self defense, I think it is clear that we are over reaching in supporting everything she says and does -- such support is a mistake on several levels in my view.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Rurik says:
    @peterAUS
    Curious.

    Am I correct in getting an impression that all this recent COIN thing actually created a certain......mindset.... in US armed forces?

    Let's try to explain it from the bottom.
    Concepts of "high precision" vs "intensive" MOUT/FIBUA.

    Say, scenario: A stand alone small dwelling. We suspect the enemy is there. We are also positive there are civilians there too. Squad is to advance and secure that dwelling and then provide a firebase for the other squad to bound. Quite simple.

    Before: put a couple of shells in first, then move in to the holes. Chuck in frags, enter on full auto, secure. Rinse and repeat (depending on ammo expenditure, NOT on anything else). Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.

    Now, apparently: Send in men to breach. After breach stuns, after stuns "sticks" as SWATs doing hard arrest. The important part is....any "wrong" target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?

    If yes......interesting......

    Charred corpses, regardless of size and gender are just normal part of all that.

    The important part is….any “wrong” target is a cause for deep moral despair for a trooper.
    Is that true?

    I was right.

    You are certifiable dog vomit.

    (with apologies to actual vomit dripping from a dog’s jowls into the dirt and forming a little puddle. That kind of dog vomit had little opportunity to be anything else, and so we mustn’t malign such vomit with comparisons to peter here ; )

    here’s a clue :

    We have no right to be in those lands.

    George Bush lied to the world about these wars. Osama’s henchmen did not wire building seven for a controlled demolition. That was done by the Mossad. OK shithead?

    So, based on what we all know now, that the wars are based on lies, that means that any attempt to justify them are coming from scumbags beneath contempt, and for whom no mercy should be shown.

    It isn’t Afghan goat herders that belong in Gitmo. If anyone belongs there, it is the criminals responsible for 9/11. So that we can interrogate them, and discover every last one of them.

    Wouldn’t you agree peter?

    Think of it this way, instead of all those “charred corpses, regardless of size and gender” that they found in that church in Waco, wouldn’t it have been infinitely better if the charred corpses were those of Janet Reno and Lon Horiuchi instead?

    Because when examining the morality of a conflict and just punishments, I feel like it’s significant to look at blame, and who are ultimately responsible and guilty, vs. those who are conducting themselves in good faith.

    I suppose that in certain cases, charred corpses are a grim justice, so long as it’s the right charred corpses, wouldn’t you agree peter?

    And consider…!

    there is more than one way to be a charred corpse. It can be in literal terms, or sometimes you can wind up as a charred corpse of inveterate odium just by participating in an Internet forum, yes..?

    and demonstrating to all the readers out there just how repellent and vomit-like your personality actually is!

    how fun is that?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    Almost to a person, anyone who has served in a combat zone is totally against future wars and conflicts, especially when the "homeland" is not threatened. The biggest warmongers are actually the "chickenhawks" who did whatever they could to get out of serving. You see, when the draft was in effect, those who could escape did so, most out of fear, and NOT for altruistic reasons. Those who had money, went to college and got deferments; those who did not went to Canada or feigned medical conditions that would disqualify them. Even present-day "uber-patriot" and musician Ted Nugent urinated and defecated on himself, not washing for a month and showing up at the draft board wearing a diaper avoided service by stating that "Vietnam was not his war"...Of course, there are more aberrations such as John McCain who, despite being held in captivity, "never met a war that he did not like". He must have had the "honeymoon suite" at the Hanoi Hilton...

    You see, when the draft was in effect, those who could escape did so, most out of fear, and NOT for altruistic reasons.

    what if they simply didn’t want to kill other poor people like themselves to enrich some greedy, immoral war pigs?

    especially when the war was based on lies, (as we all now know), and because we’re not really the “exceptional people” who have a right to bomb other nations into submission to the whims of our rulers?

    Perhaps some of the men who went to Canada did so for reasons of simple honor. Because they were unwilling to kill people who had done them no harm.

    Is that possible, do you suppose?

    What about today? When all the wars are obviously based on lies.

    If a young man say he will not go to Syria or Iran to die for Israel, does that make him a coward?

    (btw, as I said, we now know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, but a lot of young American men at the time had no way of knowing that, and went to Vietnam for honorable reasons, thinking they were fighting commies – a noble endeavor. So I would never besmirch their good name, like I would the elite$ who sent them)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik

    Much to the credit of the US service men (personnel) there are very few guilty of war crimes.
     
    that's not what I said, what I said was:

    "are all guilty as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity."

    Unless they're too stupid to comprehend the obvious.

    It isn't the grunts on the ground who're the guilty ones, at least for the vast majority.

    It's the scumfucks who're trying to justify these wars, that are the truly guilty ones. The liars and deceivers and obfuscators, barely disguising their demonic malice, because at heart, they like these wars. For a certain segment of society, these wars for Israel are heaven sent!

    But they can't say it like that, now can they?

    they have to dissemble and twist the meaning of words to mean their opposite. They have to slither with their language, like a serpent in the grass, always designing, always conniving...

    And that's where I come in. To stomp on the lies that serpents tell. To speak the fulsome, honest truth about these evil wars, and how they're indefensible on any metric, unless you're a psychopathic murderer at heart, and you believe that Jews are God-like superior, and the goyim should go out and kill and die for the Jewish supremacists of Israel.

    What do you think 'Elite'... have any of these war been based on lies?

    Are any of these wars being fought to benefit Israel, at the direct expense of Americans, up to and including the very lives of the young service men and women who were sent over there to kill or die for Israel?

    I'll leave it at that so we don't get to convoluted to get to the nitty-gritty.

    What say you 'Elite', are the wars the ZUS has waged since 9/11 - based on lies, or not?

    Are they being fought for Israel, or not....?

    Rurik, you remind me of the so-called anti-Vietnam war “protester” who blamed the ordinary military service member for the prosecution of the war, while expressing fealty for communist causes, expressing concern for the ordinary Vietnamese civilian (but not the “boat people” who risked life and limb to escape that communist “paradise”) until the draft was abolished…then [crickets]. If you are going to blame someone for wars, blame the criminals in the U S government and their criminal Israeli handlers…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Needless to say at this point anarchyst, that I've demonstrated that your characterization of me in the post I'm responding to is flat out wrong.

    I repudiated everything you said in comment 227.

    I know Vietnam vets and I have an inkling what they went though.

    They were not the guilty ones, it was the scumfucks with their lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, and their lies about the Tet Offensive and Westmorland's serial lies about how well the war was going, etc..

    My sympathy goes out to the grunts that were expected to kill and die based on (USS Liberty betrayers) president Johnson and McNamara's lies.

    I even have sympathy for the soldiers who fragged the ambitious officers who would sacrifice their young lives to bolster the careers of maggots like John McCain or John Kerry.

    I will confess that considering his subsequent career and accomplishments, I only wish one of those soldiers with a nice grenade could have gotten to McCain.

    Wow but that would have been a God-send.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    Rurik, you remind me of the so-called anti-Vietnam war "protester" who blamed the ordinary military service member for the prosecution of the war, while expressing fealty for communist causes, expressing concern for the ordinary Vietnamese civilian (but not the "boat people" who risked life and limb to escape that communist "paradise") until the draft was abolished...then [crickets]. If you are going to blame someone for wars, blame the criminals in the U S government and their criminal Israeli handlers...

    Needless to say at this point anarchyst, that I’ve demonstrated that your characterization of me in the post I’m responding to is flat out wrong.

    I repudiated everything you said in comment 227.

    I know Vietnam vets and I have an inkling what they went though.

    They were not the guilty ones, it was the scumfucks with their lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, and their lies about the Tet Offensive and Westmorland’s serial lies about how well the war was going, etc..

    My sympathy goes out to the grunts that were expected to kill and die based on (USS Liberty betrayers) president Johnson and McNamara’s lies.

    I even have sympathy for the soldiers who fragged the ambitious officers who would sacrifice their young lives to bolster the careers of maggots like John McCain or John Kerry.

    I will confess that considering his subsequent career and accomplishments, I only wish one of those soldiers with a nice grenade could have gotten to McCain.

    Wow but that would have been a God-send.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The Vietnam war was an INVASION by the communist north...period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. What Happens When the Many Peacefully Demand their Rights

    But the Few Continue to Oppress them

    Whatever Moral Ascendancy the West Held Was Lost Today.
    Stop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik
    Needless to say at this point anarchyst, that I've demonstrated that your characterization of me in the post I'm responding to is flat out wrong.

    I repudiated everything you said in comment 227.

    I know Vietnam vets and I have an inkling what they went though.

    They were not the guilty ones, it was the scumfucks with their lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, and their lies about the Tet Offensive and Westmorland's serial lies about how well the war was going, etc..

    My sympathy goes out to the grunts that were expected to kill and die based on (USS Liberty betrayers) president Johnson and McNamara's lies.

    I even have sympathy for the soldiers who fragged the ambitious officers who would sacrifice their young lives to bolster the careers of maggots like John McCain or John Kerry.

    I will confess that considering his subsequent career and accomplishments, I only wish one of those soldiers with a nice grenade could have gotten to McCain.

    Wow but that would have been a God-send.

    The Vietnam war was an INVASION by the communist north…period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The Vietnam war was an INVASION by the communist north…period.
     
    and the legacy of French colonialism..

    or Vietnamese nationalism, not wanting 'the new boss (American whitey) same as the old boss (French whitey) running things, had nothing to do with it?

    Or the infinite greed of the MIC?

    What about the lies? Like the Gulf of Tonkin, did that matter, that they lied us all into yet another war?

    I'm not a scholar on the Vietnam war by any stretch, but your characterization seems a bit simplistic to me.

    Make no mistake, I consider communism to be an evil, and would fight it tooth and nail, if I too were threatened by it.

    But the pretext that we were there to stop communism seems disingenuous to me. Our government, the one were Kennedy instituted the 1965 immigration policy, is the same government that aided and abetted Joe Stalin to enslave half of Europe, after we helped to crush