The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Remembrance of Wars Past
Why There Is No Massive Antiwar Movement in America
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Well, it’s one, two, three, look at that amputee,
At least it’s below the knee,
Could have been worse, you see.
Well, it’s true your kids look at you differently,
But you came in an ambulance instead of a hearse,
That’s the phrase of the trade,
It could have been worse.

First verse of a Vietnam-era song written by U.S. Air Force medic Bob Boardman off Country Joe McDonald’s “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag”

There was the old American lefty paper, the Guardian, and the Village Voice, which beat the Sixties into the world, and its later imitators like the Boston Phoenix. There was Liberation News Service, the Rat in New York, the Great Speckled Bird in Atlanta, the Old Mole in Boston, the distinctly psychedelic Chicago Seed, Leviathan, Viet-Report, and the L.A. Free Press, as well as that Texas paper whose name I long ago forgot that was partial to armadillo cartoons. And they existed, in the 1960s and early 1970s, amid a jostling crowd of hundreds of “underground” newspapers — all quite aboveground but the word sounded so romantic in that political moment. There were G.I. antiwar papers by the score and high school rags by the hundreds in an “alternate” universe of opposition that somehow made the rounds by mail or got passed on hand-to-hand in a now almost unimaginable world of interpersonal social networking that preceded the Internet by decades. And then, of course, there was I.F. Stone’s Weekly (1953-1971): one dedicated journalist, 19 years, every word his own (except, of course, for the endless foolishness he mined from the reams of official documentation produced in Washington, Vietnam, and elsewhere).

I can remember the arrival of that newsletter, though I no longer know whether I subscribed myself or simply shared someone else’s copy. In a time when being young was supposed to be glorious, Stone was old — my parents’ age — but still we waited on his words. It helped to have someone from a previous generation confirm in nuts and bolts ways that the issue that swept so many of us away, the Vietnam War, was indeed an American atrocity.

The Call to Service

They say you can’t go home again, but recently, almost 44 years after I saw my last issue of the Weekly — Stone was 64 when he closed up shop; I was 27 — I found the full archive of them, all 19 years, online, and began reading him all over again. It brought back a dizzying time in which we felt “liberated” from so much that we had been brought up to believe and — though we wouldn’t have understood it that way then — angered and forlorn by the loss as well. That included the John Wayne version of America in which, at the end of any war film, as the Marine Corps Hymn welled up, American troops advanced to a justified victory that would make the world a better place. It also included a far kinder-hearted but allied vision of a country, a government, that was truly ours, and to which we owed — and one dreamed of offering — some form of service. That was deeply engrained in us, which was why when, in his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy so famously called on us to serve, the response was so powerful. (“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”) Soon after, my future wife went into the Peace Corps like tens of thousands of other young Americans, while I dreamed, as I had from childhood, of becoming a diplomat in order to represent our country abroad.

And that sense of service to country ran so deep that when the first oppositional movements of the era arose, particularly the Civil Rights Movement, the impulse to serve was essential to them, as it clearly was to I.F. Stone. The discovery that under your country’s shining veneer lay a series of nightmares might have changed how that sense of obligation was applied, but it didn’t change the impulse. Not at all.

In his writing, Stone was calm, civil, thoughtful, fact-based, and still presented an American world that looked shockingly unlike the one you could read about in what wasn’t yet called “the mainstream media” or could see on the nightly network news. (Your TV still had only 13 channels, without a zapper in sight.) A researcher par excellence, Stone, like the rest of us, lacked the ability to see into the future, which meant that some of his fears (“World War III”) as well as his dreams never came true. But on the American present of that time, he was remarkably on target. Rereading some of his work so many decades later set me thinking about the similarities and differences between that moment of eternal war in Indochina and the present endless war on terror.

Among the eeriest things about reading Stone’s Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia coverage, 14 years into the next century, is how resonantly familiar so much of what he wrote still seems, how twenty-first-century it all is. It turns out that the national security state hasn’t just been repeating things they’ve done unsuccessfully for the last 13 years, but for the last 60. Let me offer just a few examples from his newsletter. I think you’ll get the idea.

ORDER IT NOW

* With last June’s collapse of the American-trained and -armed Iraqi army and recent revelations about its 50,000 “ghost soldiers” in mind, here’s Stone on the Laotian army in January 1961: “It is the highest paid army in Asia and variously estimated (the canny Laotians have never let us know the exact numbers, perhaps lest we check on how much the military payroll is diverted into the pockets of a few leaders) at from 23,000 to 30,000. Yet it has never been able to stand up against handfuls of guerrillas and even a few determined battalions like those mustered by Captain Kong Le.”

* On ISIS’s offensive in Iraq last year, or the 9/11 attacks, or just about any other development you want to mention in our wars since then, our gargantuan bureaucracy of 17 expanding intelligence outfits has repeatedly been caught short, so consider Stone’s comments on the Tet Offensive of February 1968. At a time when America’s top commander in Vietnam had repeatedly assured Americans that the Vietnamese enemy was losing, the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front (the “Vietcong”) launched attacks on just about every major town and city in South Vietnam, including the U.S. Embassy in Saigon: “We still don’t know what hit us. The debris is not all in Saigon and Hue. The world’s biggest intelligence apparatus was caught by surprise.”

* On our drone assassination and other air campaigns as a global war not on, but for — i.e., to recruit — terrorists, including our present bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria, here’s Stone in February 1968: “When the bodies are really counted, it will be seen that one of the major casualties was our delusion about victory by air power: all that boom-boom did not keep the enemy from showing up at Langvei with tanks… The whole country is slowly being burnt down to ‘save it.’ To apply scorched-earth tactics to one’s own country is heroic; to apply it to a country one claims to be saving is brutal and cowardly… It is we who rally the people to the other side.” And here he is again in May 1970: “Nowhere has air power, however overwhelming and unchallenged, been able to win a war.”

Demobilizing Americans

And so it goes reading Stone today. But if much in the American way of war remains dismally familiar some five decades later, one thing of major significance has changed, something you can see regularly in I.F. Stone’s Weekly but not in our present world. Thirteen years after our set of disastrous wars started, where is the massive antiwar movement, including an army in near revolt and a Congress with significant critics in significant positions?

Think of it this way: in 1968, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was J. William Fulbright, a man who came to oppose U.S. policy in Vietnam and wrote a book about this country titled The Arrogance of Power (a phrase no senator who hoped to stay in Washington in 2015 would apply to the U.S.). The head of the Senate Armed Services Committee today: John McCain. ‘Nuff said.

In the last six decades, the American national security state has succeeded strikingly at only one thing (other than turning itself into a growth industry): it freed itself of us and of Congress. In the years following the Vietnam War, the American people were effectively demobilized, shorn of that sense of service to country, while war was privatized and the citizen soldier replaced by an “all-volunteer” force and a host of paid contractors working for warrior corporations. Post-9/11, the citizenry was urged to pay as much attention as possible to “our troops,” or “warriors,” and next to none to the wars they were fighting. Today, the official role of a national security state, bigger and more powerful than in the Vietnam era, is to make Americans “safe” from terror. In a world of war-making that has disappeared into the shadows and a Washington in which just about all information is now classified and shrouded in secrecy, the only way to be “safe” and “secure” as a citizen is, by definition, to be ignorant, to know as little as possible about what “our” government is doing in our name. This helps explain why, in the Obama years, the only crime in official Washington is leaking or whistleblowing; that is, letting the public in on something that we, the people, aren’t supposed to know about the workings of “our” government.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon ended the draft, a move meant to bring a rebellious citizen’s army under control. Since then, in a host of ways, our leaders have managed to sideline the citizenry, replacing the urge to serve with a sense of cynicism about government (which has morphed into many things, including, on the right, the Tea Party movement). As a result, those leaders have been freed from us and from just about all congressional oversight and so have been able to do what they damn well pleased. In practice, this has meant doing the same dumb, brutal, militarized things over and over again. From the repetitive stupidity of twenty-first-century American foreign — that is, war — policy, you might draw the conclusion (though they won’t) that the citizenry, even in revolt, has something crucial to teach the state.

Serving the Country in Opposition

Nonetheless, this demobilization of us should be seen for what it is: a remarkable achievement. It means that you have to be of a certain age (call me “I.F. Pebble”) even to remember what that urge to serve felt like, especially once it went into opposition on a massive scale. I.F. Stone was an early model for just that. In those years, I was, too, and there was nothing special about me. Untold numbers of Americans like me, military and civilian, engaged in such acts and thought of them as service to country. Though they obviously didn’t fit the normal definition of American “patriotism,” they came from the same place.

In April 1968, not so many months after the Tet Offensive, I went with two close friends to a rally on Boston Common organized by an anti-draft group called the Resistance. There, the three of us turned in our draft cards. I went in jacket and tie because I wanted to make the point that we weren’t hippy radicals. We were serious Americans turning our backs on a war from hell being pursued by a country transforming itself before our eyes into our worst nightmare.

ORDER IT NOW

Even all these years later, I can still remember the remarkable sense of exhilaration, even freedom, involved and also the fear. (In those years, being a relatively meek and law-abiding guy, I often found myself beyond my comfort zone, and so a little — or more than a little — scared.) Similarly, the next year, a gutsy young woman who was a co-worker and I — I had, by then, dropped out of graduate school and was working at an “underground” movement print shop — drove two unnerved and unnerving Green Beret deserters to Canada. Admittedly, when they began pretend-machine-gunning the countryside we were passing through, I was unsettled, and when they pulled out dope (no drugs had been the agreed-upon rule on a trip in which we were to cross the Canadian border), I was ready to be anywhere else but in that car. Still, whatever my anxieties, I had no doubt about why I was doing what I was doing, or about the importance of helping American soldiers who no longer wanted to take part in a terrible war.

Finally, in 1971, an Air Force medic named Bob Boardman, angered by the stream of American war wounded coming home, snuck me into his medical unit at Travis Air Force Base in northern California. There, though without any experience as a reporter, I “interviewed” a bunch of wigged-out, angry guys with stumps for arms or legs, who were “antiwar” in all sorts of complex, unexpected, and outraged ways. It couldn’t have been grimmer or more searing or more moving, and I went home, wrote up a three-part series on what I had seen and heard, and sold it to Pacific News Service, a small antiwar outfit in San Francisco (where I would subsequently go to work).

None of this would have been most Americans’ idea of service, even then. But it was mine. I felt that my government had betrayed me, and that it was my duty as a citizen to do whatever I could to change its ways (as, in fact, I still do). And so, in some upside-down, inside-out way, I maintained a connection to and a perverse faith in that government, or our ability to force change on it, as the Civil Rights Movement had done.

That, I suspect, is what’s gone missing in much of our American world and just bringing back the draft, often suggested as one answer to our war-making problems, would be no ultimate solution. It would undoubtedly change the make-up of the U.S. military somewhat. However, what’s missing in action isn’t the draft, but a faith in the idea of service to country, the essence of what once would have been defined as patriotism. At an even more basic level, what may be gone is the very idea of the active citizen, not to speak of the democracy that went with such a conception of citizenship, as opposed to our present bizarro world of multi-billion-dollar 1% elections.

If, so many years into the disastrous war on terror, the Afghan War that never ends, and most recently Iraq War 3.0 and Syria War 1.0, there is no significant antiwar movement in this country, you can thank the only fit of brilliance the national security state has displayed. It successfully drummed us out of service. The sole task it left to Americans, 40 years after the Vietnam War ended, was the ludicrous one of repeatedly thanking the troops for their service, something that would have been inconceivable in the 1950s or 1960s because you would, in essence, have been thanking yourself.

Missing in Action

Here are I.F. Stone’s last words from the penultimate paragraph of the final issue of his newsletter:

“No one could have been happier than I have been with the Weekly. To give a little comfort to the oppressed, to write the truth exactly as I saw it, to make no compromises other than those of quality imposed by my own inadequacies, to be free to follow no master other than my own compulsions, to live up to my idealized image of what a true newspaperman should be, and still be able to make a living for my family — what more could a man ask?”

Here is the last verse that medic wrote in 1971 for his angry song (the first of which led off this piece):

But it’s seven, eight, nine,
Well, he finally died,
Tried to keep him alive,
but he lost the will to survive.
The agony that his life would have been,
Well, you say to yourself as you load up the hearse,
At least, it’s over this way, it could have been worse.

And here are a few words the extremely solemn 23-year-old Tom Engelhardt wrote to the dean of his school on rejecting a National Defense Fellowship grant to study China in April 1968. (The “General Hershey” I refer to was the director of the Selective Service System which had issued a memo, printed in 1967 by the SDS publication New Left Notes, on “channeling” American manpower where it could best help the state achieve its ends.):

“On the morning of April 3, at the Boston Common, I turned in my draft card. I felt this to be a reply to three different types of ‘channeling’ which I saw as affecting my own life. First of all, it was a reply to General Hershey’s statement that manpower channeling ‘is the American or indirect way of achieving what is done by direction in foreign countries where choice is not permitted.’ I disassociated myself from the draft system, which was flagrantly attempting to make me live a life without freedom…

“Finally, I entered into resistance against an American government which was, with the help of the men provided by the draft, attempting the most serious type of ‘channeling’ outside our own country. This is especially obvious in Vietnam where it denies the people of South Vietnam the opportunity to consider viable alternatives to their present government. Moreover, as that attempt at ‘channeling’ (or, as it is called, ‘Winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people’) met opposition, the American government, through its armed forces, committed acts of such unbelievable horror as to be unbearable to a thinking person.”

ORDER IT NOW

Stone’s sign-off, that medic’s song, and my letter all are documents from a time when Americans could be in opposition to, while also feeling in service to, their country. In other words, they are documents from a lost world and so would, I suspect, have little meaning to the young of the present moment. Can there be any question that today’s young are a volunteering crew, often gripped by the urge to help, to make this world of ours a better place? Can you doubt as well that they are quite capable of rising to resist what’s increasingly grim in that terrible world, as the Occupy moment showed in 2011? Nor, I suspect, is the desire for a government that they could serve gone utterly, as indicated by the movement that formed around Barack Obama in his race for the presidency (and that he and his team essentially demobilized on entering the Oval Office).

What’s missing is any sense of connection to the government, any sense that it’s “ours” or that we the people matter. In its place — and you can thank successive administrations for this — is the deepest sort of pessimism and cynicism about a national security state and war-making machine beyond our control. And why protest what you can’t change?

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His new book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World (Haymarket Books).

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 56 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. FB says:

    This piece demonstrated that our society has been co-opted making the future look very bleak – which begs the question- what are we to do to get our country back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    It's not our country any longer. There IS no way to get it back.
    , @Realist
    "what are we to do to get our country back?"
    That ship has sailed.
    , @Maj. Kong
    It took Russia decades to recover after 1917, it may take us just as long.
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    The concentration inside the DC beltway of agent's for the !%ers has overwhelmed the left and the right. Each complains bitterly that other party is selling out to the 1%ers. Repeatedly each party asserts that it has good plans for the middle and lower class. Yet, things just get worse and worse and worse with each party pillaring the opposite parties as being in league with the devil.

    The truth is quite simple. Both sides have sold out to the devil. It doesn't matter how many devils there are but only how much in aggregate the devils expend to buy out our "supposed" leadership. In many cases, each party has been bought out by the same devils who can never lose because they cannot be on the losing side. The Dems have big business, the lawyers, the doctors, unions, Wall Street, etc. and the Reps. have big business, small business, Wall Street, lawyers, etc. A very quiet partner for both partys, remains as it has for many years, the Armaments industry. After all, how can you have an armaments industry if you do not expend a regular volume of weaponry, bullets, missiles, planes, etc. Be assured that the armaments manufacturers and brokers are very well represented inside the DC beltway and that they are on very good terms with members of each party.

    The latest Supreme Court action declaring Corporations as "individuals" reinforced the inside the beltway sell-out

    So, in the end, equilibrium can only be found in reducing the power of all the above 1%ers by limiting their donation as a corporation (including unions!) and as an individual to less than $1000 per year each, accompanied by severe punishing jail terms for those who have pocketed more than the legal allotment. Such limitations have worked elsewhere. The dissolution of our once proud Democracy is unavoidable without such an action.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tengelhardt/remembrance-of-wars-past/#comment-865246
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. muse says:

    The elimination of the draft was the biggest blow to the anti-war movement.

    Bring back the draft for both young men and women and these children and their parents would be in the street burning cars the next morning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. “Frankly, I have no taste for either poverty or honest labor, so writing is the only recourse left me”

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson

    I have no taste for war. Grandfather served Navy WWII and all he could say was never again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. […] What’s missing is any sense of connection to the government, any sense that it’s “ours” or that we the people matter. In its place — and you can thank successive administrations for this — is the deepest sort of pessimism and cynicism about a national security state and war-making machine beyond our control. And why protest what you can’t change? That’s the end, read the beginning and middle here, http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/remembrance-of-wars-past/ […]

    Read More
  5. What it reveals is that it was selfishness that motivated most of the antiwar movement then, not any sacrificial commitment to peace. Most of the same Americans who opposed the war because they would have had to fight it, don’t oppose wars they don’t have to now – even accept or support them, although war remains at least as destructive and evil now as ever.

    I personally know a Conscientious Objector from back then, a Quaker, who now owns a book store chain, but refuses to be associated in any way with the Peace Movement, because it would be “controversial and affect sales.”

    I don’t begrudge people for not wanting to fight and die in wars, nor even judge them for being afraid of dismemberment and death. But that’s not quite the same as a principled and courageous stand against war, when that calls for a possible sacrifice as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The amount of people who don't want to fight and die in a pointless unnecessary war will always dwarf the number of true peaceniks. Most people do recognize that war is sometimes necessary and will support it when so. The real problem we have here is that the people are too stupid to see when we are in an unnecessary war before it starts and it can be much easier to stop. Once it starts people are likely to be afraid to admit they were duped or are cowed by the idea that those already dead died "for nothing". So as long as they don't have to fight it, they don't bother to make any effort to stop it.
    , @Ace
    Correct. "Anti-war" sentiment during Vietnam sky rocketed as draft deferments evaporated and diminished when the lottery was instituted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Melendwyr says: • Website
    @FB
    This piece demonstrated that our society has been co-opted making the future look very bleak - which begs the question- what are we to do to get our country back?

    It’s not our country any longer. There IS no way to get it back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Just because you and I cannot think of a way does not mean that a way does not exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    There is no antiwar movement because the antiwar movement got what it wanted from the narcissistic homosexual Kenyan Foriegner:1)legalized homo marriage…2) homos in the Boy Scouts….3) Hairy Truckers who think they are Women(“I want to be called Mindy for now on”) can now take a dump in a stall next to your 7 year old daughter….this is the answer..no more complicated than this.

    And what follows from the above is this: the “antiwar” movement mutates into “WAR IS PEACE”…just look at the number of cars on the highway with Obama-Biden 2008 and 2014 bumber stickers surrounded by the iconic peace symbol and slogans attacking corporate power…and, bumper stickers such as this one right next to Obama-Biden 2014:”GIVE PEACE A CHANCE”.

    And, you might as well throw in the Kenyan Foriegner’s amnesty which is flooding the US with the Democratic Party’s high fertility highly racialized imported Democratic Party Voting Block which will be forcing neoliberal economic policy on the Conservative Orthodox Christian People at gunpoint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sue Sally and her Women
    "which will be forcing neoliberal economic policy on the Conservative Orthodox Christian People at gunpoint"

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. It might be a good idea to leave I. F. Stone out of this. It turns out he was a paid and willing agent of the KGB and, in fact, was in contact with a KGB agent sent by Moscow in the 1960s.

    Back then, I had the very good fortune to be assigned to the draft category “to be called only in case of national emergency” because in 1965 when I graduated from high school and tried to enlist in the Marines it was discovered that I suffered from a skin disease of which up until then I’d been unaware. I wound up instead accepting the admission to Brandeis University I’d already received, majoring in math and physics and going on to grad school. In the first draft lottery, heaping Pelion upon Ossa, my number was 365. I was in a very unusual position to observe the period from a pretty objective place.

    Almost all the anti-war people I knew were far from being idealists. They just wanted to avoid the draft. At the time I despised them although now I feel they showed more wissdom than I. But the bottom line is that the 1960s anti-war movement was kept from being an extreme fringe group only because of the spoiled, baby-boomer, middle-class kids who wanted to avoid any interruption in their hedonistically driven lives. If the “greatest generation” had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLa
    Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government.
    , @Wally
    "If the “greatest generation” had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world."

    Your received history dies hard.

    Look at a map of the world at the time, who actually ruled the world? Not the Germans, not the Japanese, not the Italians.

    http://imgur.com/saK2w.png

    Match color with empire.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    They’ve learned a thing or two since Vietnam. First was to go to an all volunteer military. That way if they get killed or maimed people can just shrug and say they volunteered for it so why complain. Second is to avoid having too many casualties whereby the public might wonder about what’s going on. That’s done by using heavy air power, bombs, missiles, drones, and also by recruiting local puppet troops to do as much of the dying as possible. Of course, that’s all rather expensive but there’s little choice. Times have changed, people have evolved. They’re not going to be dragooned into being cannon fodder for wars whose aims are unclear in places they didn’t know exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. MarkinLA says:
    @Fran Macadam
    What it reveals is that it was selfishness that motivated most of the antiwar movement then, not any sacrificial commitment to peace. Most of the same Americans who opposed the war because they would have had to fight it, don't oppose wars they don't have to now - even accept or support them, although war remains at least as destructive and evil now as ever.

    I personally know a Conscientious Objector from back then, a Quaker, who now owns a book store chain, but refuses to be associated in any way with the Peace Movement, because it would be "controversial and affect sales."

    I don't begrudge people for not wanting to fight and die in wars, nor even judge them for being afraid of dismemberment and death. But that's not quite the same as a principled and courageous stand against war, when that calls for a possible sacrifice as well.

    The amount of people who don’t want to fight and die in a pointless unnecessary war will always dwarf the number of true peaceniks. Most people do recognize that war is sometimes necessary and will support it when so. The real problem we have here is that the people are too stupid to see when we are in an unnecessary war before it starts and it can be much easier to stop. Once it starts people are likely to be afraid to admit they were duped or are cowed by the idea that those already dead died “for nothing”. So as long as they don’t have to fight it, they don’t bother to make any effort to stop it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. MarkinLa says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    It might be a good idea to leave I. F. Stone out of this. It turns out he was a paid and willing agent of the KGB and, in fact, was in contact with a KGB agent sent by Moscow in the 1960s.

    Back then, I had the very good fortune to be assigned to the draft category "to be called only in case of national emergency" because in 1965 when I graduated from high school and tried to enlist in the Marines it was discovered that I suffered from a skin disease of which up until then I'd been unaware. I wound up instead accepting the admission to Brandeis University I'd already received, majoring in math and physics and going on to grad school. In the first draft lottery, heaping Pelion upon Ossa, my number was 365. I was in a very unusual position to observe the period from a pretty objective place.

    Almost all the anti-war people I knew were far from being idealists. They just wanted to avoid the draft. At the time I despised them although now I feel they showed more wissdom than I. But the bottom line is that the 1960s anti-war movement was kept from being an extreme fringe group only because of the spoiled, baby-boomer, middle-class kids who wanted to avoid any interruption in their hedonistically driven lives. If the "greatest generation" had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world.

    Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    "Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government."

    -------------------------

    A fairly typical left-wing take. Observing what the North Vietnamese, the Pathet Lao, and the Khmer Rouge did after our dimocrat-controlled Congress sold our Indochinese allies down the river, I think a very strong case can be made that we were in fact "the good guys" in the Vietnam War. Even Joan Baez admitted as much when she observed what happened after US withdrawal.

    Whether the war was winnable or not is open to dispute. General Giap was ready to throw in the towel after the Tet Offensive and Ho Chi Minh might have gone along if that lying turd, Walter Cronkite, aided and abeted by MSM allies, hadn't completely misrepresented what happened to the American people.

    When a dimocrat Congress refused to honor treaty obligations that Nixon-Kissinger had made to South Vietnam, a communist victory was inevtitable but it might not have been. The results of that victory were catastrophic for non-communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Whether they would have been more or less catastrophic absent US involvement is open to debate.

    Certainly, when I talked to Thai, Korean, Indonesian and Taiwanese grad school acquaintances during and after the war the majority seemed to think that US involvement in Vietnam probably did put a stop to further communist victories in that region. From a privileged position in LA I'm sure the view is different.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Realist says:
    @FB
    This piece demonstrated that our society has been co-opted making the future look very bleak - which begs the question- what are we to do to get our country back?

    “what are we to do to get our country back?”
    That ship has sailed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Maj. Kong says:

    There are very few “anti-war” individuals, the anti war movement during the Vietnam war was the rage of a privileged class against conscription. The large protests against the Iraq war, were really aimed at George Bush and the conservative base (said base should have been the ones actually protesting). As soon as Obama was in office, they stopped. That is no coincidence.

    A major part of conservative thought is that the military is the soul of the people, or even a better version of society.* Any criticism of even a dumb military policy, is treated as a personal attack. That’s how Gen. George Casey can praise diversity, and never be criticized by mainstream conservatism.

    The wars of the future are the story of contractors and automation. The largest DoD line item is compensation and benefits. Engelhart and others may hope for retrenchment, but in the establishment and popular mindset, there are only two options: Liberal Internationalism and Neoconservatism. The American public will not willingly stand for weakening its prestige abroad, and letting the US be reduced to one of five Great Powers. So in the guise of Obama, it is done unwittingly, in service of globalism.

    *Quite Ironic, considering that socialist VADM Joe Sestak, later a congressman, said roughly the same thing once.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Maj. Kong says:
    @FB
    This piece demonstrated that our society has been co-opted making the future look very bleak - which begs the question- what are we to do to get our country back?

    It took Russia decades to recover after 1917, it may take us just as long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Stone (real name Isidor Feinstein) was a genuine communist. From Wikipedia:

    “Stone moved to the New York Post in 1933 and during this period supported Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. His first book, The Court Disposes (1937), was a critique of the Court’s role in blocking New Deal reforms. On the advice of an editor that his political writings would be better received if he were not perceived as Jewish, he changed his name to I. F. Stone in 1937. He would later recall he “still felt badly” about the change, and referred to himself as “Izzy” throughout his career. Then owner J. David Stern fired Stone from the Post for his excessively pro-Soviet views.”

    Here’s the whole article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone

    He was a typical Jewish Trotskyite fellow-traveler with little or no understanding of, or sympathy with the historic American nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    " a typical Jewish Trotskyite fellow-traveler "

    You write this like it was a bad thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @MarkinLa
    Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government.

    “Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government.”

    ————————-

    A fairly typical left-wing take. Observing what the North Vietnamese, the Pathet Lao, and the Khmer Rouge did after our dimocrat-controlled Congress sold our Indochinese allies down the river, I think a very strong case can be made that we were in fact “the good guys” in the Vietnam War. Even Joan Baez admitted as much when she observed what happened after US withdrawal.

    Whether the war was winnable or not is open to dispute. General Giap was ready to throw in the towel after the Tet Offensive and Ho Chi Minh might have gone along if that lying turd, Walter Cronkite, aided and abeted by MSM allies, hadn’t completely misrepresented what happened to the American people.

    When a dimocrat Congress refused to honor treaty obligations that Nixon-Kissinger had made to South Vietnam, a communist victory was inevtitable but it might not have been. The results of that victory were catastrophic for non-communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Whether they would have been more or less catastrophic absent US involvement is open to debate.

    Certainly, when I talked to Thai, Korean, Indonesian and Taiwanese grad school acquaintances during and after the war the majority seemed to think that US involvement in Vietnam probably did put a stop to further communist victories in that region. From a privileged position in LA I’m sure the view is different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Herbert
    You repeat many of the spin myths of that war. The Giap admission of defeat is total BS. That the USA had "won" the war when we pulled out in 1973 is the biggest myth. For those whose minds have been warped, read this "correction" to all these myths.

    "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War" http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    What ever happened to Cindy Sheehan. The moment the narcissistic Kenyan Foriegner was annointed Dear Leader,..,the “antiwar” pwogwessives dropped Cindy Sheehan like a hot Irish potatoe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Epaminondas
    Stone (real name Isidor Feinstein) was a genuine communist. From Wikipedia:

    "Stone moved to the New York Post in 1933 and during this period supported Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. His first book, The Court Disposes (1937), was a critique of the Court's role in blocking New Deal reforms. On the advice of an editor that his political writings would be better received if he were not perceived as Jewish, he changed his name to I. F. Stone in 1937. He would later recall he "still felt badly" about the change, and referred to himself as "Izzy" throughout his career. Then owner J. David Stern fired Stone from the Post for his excessively pro-Soviet views."

    Here's the whole article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone

    He was a typical Jewish Trotskyite fellow-traveler with little or no understanding of, or sympathy with the historic American nation.

    ” a typical Jewish Trotskyite fellow-traveler ”

    You write this like it was a bad thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epaminondas
    It was. It still is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @War for Blair Mountain
    There is no antiwar movement because the antiwar movement got what it wanted from the narcissistic homosexual Kenyan Foriegner:1)legalized homo marriage...2) homos in the Boy Scouts....3) Hairy Truckers who think they are Women("I want to be called Mindy for now on") can now take a dump in a stall next to your 7 year old daughter....this is the answer..no more complicated than this.

    And what follows from the above is this: the "antiwar" movement mutates into "WAR IS PEACE"...just look at the number of cars on the highway with Obama-Biden 2008 and 2014 bumber stickers surrounded by the iconic peace symbol and slogans attacking corporate power...and, bumper stickers such as this one right next to Obama-Biden 2014:"GIVE PEACE A CHANCE".

    And, you might as well throw in the Kenyan Foriegner's amnesty which is flooding the US with the Democratic Party's high fertility highly racialized imported Democratic Party Voting Block which will be forcing neoliberal economic policy on the Conservative Orthodox Christian People at gunpoint.

    “which will be forcing neoliberal economic policy on the Conservative Orthodox Christian People at gunpoint”

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.

     

    Be civil. The Southland invented gun control. Specifically, Virginia in 1644.

    Today's Southerners are inexplicably modest about this achievement, so please give credit where it is due.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    It might be a good idea to leave I. F. Stone out of this. It turns out he was a paid and willing agent of the KGB and, in fact, was in contact with a KGB agent sent by Moscow in the 1960s.

    Back then, I had the very good fortune to be assigned to the draft category "to be called only in case of national emergency" because in 1965 when I graduated from high school and tried to enlist in the Marines it was discovered that I suffered from a skin disease of which up until then I'd been unaware. I wound up instead accepting the admission to Brandeis University I'd already received, majoring in math and physics and going on to grad school. In the first draft lottery, heaping Pelion upon Ossa, my number was 365. I was in a very unusual position to observe the period from a pretty objective place.

    Almost all the anti-war people I knew were far from being idealists. They just wanted to avoid the draft. At the time I despised them although now I feel they showed more wissdom than I. But the bottom line is that the 1960s anti-war movement was kept from being an extreme fringe group only because of the spoiled, baby-boomer, middle-class kids who wanted to avoid any interruption in their hedonistically driven lives. If the "greatest generation" had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world.

    “If the “greatest generation” had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world.”

    Your received history dies hard.

    Look at a map of the world at the time, who actually ruled the world? Not the Germans, not the Japanese, not the Italians.

    Match color with empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Personally, I find the below map more informative:

    http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/Axis_Powers_Zenith.png

    Black indicates the Axis powers at their height, while green indicates Allied powers, including their colonies. Yellow indicates neutral countries, as well as the colonies of neutral countries (i.e., Portuguese and Spanish colonies in Africa) and the small number of independent countries in Asia that maintained neutrality (Afghanistan, Tibet [not yet occupied by China]).

    If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets' own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don't think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek -- and gain -- colonies, then I think that's wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Wally
    "If the “greatest generation” had been like these folks Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have been given carte blanche to divvy up the world."

    Your received history dies hard.

    Look at a map of the world at the time, who actually ruled the world? Not the Germans, not the Japanese, not the Italians.

    http://imgur.com/saK2w.png

    Match color with empire.

    Personally, I find the below map more informative:

    Black indicates the Axis powers at their height, while green indicates Allied powers, including their colonies. Yellow indicates neutral countries, as well as the colonies of neutral countries (i.e., Portuguese and Spanish colonies in Africa) and the small number of independent countries in Asia that maintained neutrality (Afghanistan, Tibet [not yet occupied by China]).

    If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets’ own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don’t think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek — and gain — colonies, then I think that’s wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Andrew Mathis said:
    "If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets’ own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don’t think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek — and gain — colonies, then I think that’s wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree."

    I think there are perhaps many here who are not aware of the empires, lasting centuries, that were built through force by the members of the Allied powers. namely: USSR, USA, Britain, France.

    To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false. There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to 'conquer the world', the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler's peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire.

    Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison.

    Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based. Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based. And then we need to look at the USSR Empire's seizure of Manchuria.

    My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to "divvy up the world" when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn’t even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved. LBJ didn’t even want to mine Haiphong harbor! Basically, we were just supposed to keep on fighting until the NVA and VC got tired of taking losses and quit – only they weren’t interested in quitting.

    By the summer of 68 we’d had large scale US involvement for over 2 years and LBJ still couldn’t say when or how we were supposed to win. Most of the Hawks couldn’t say anymore persuasive than “We must support our Commander in Chief” or “You have to answer when your country calls”.

    So, a lot of Boomers said ‘To Hell with that”. And I don’t blame them. Vietnam was a crusade, it wasn’t some vital US interest and LBJ and Nixon couldn’t even tell people in clear understandable language why it was vital and worth all the American lives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn’t even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved.
     
    Are you talking about the Vietnam War, or the Civil Rights Act?
    , @Ace
    You're right. LBJ was all about incremental escalation and nothing in the discussion of the war even hinted at the hideous nature of and record of communism in the USSR, PRC, and elsewhere. The ROE were criminal as well.

    Still, despite the lack of resolve and vision of the leadership (think Robert McNamara but without the charisma), we achieved a military victory as Frank Snepp ably showed.

    Can't have that now can we? Congressional Democrats to the rescue.

    When we took the fight to the NVA in Cambodia and cut out all the sanctuary and pussyfooting and hand wringing flapdoodle, they decamped for healthier climes and enemy activity in IV Corps evaporated. This, of course, was intolerable to the ultra left and its corrupt press. I'll wager old I.F. lost sleep over that bit of U.S. prowess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. bomag [AKA "doombuggy"] says:

    Looking at guys like Bill Ayers and Jerry Rubin, one could argue that the peace movement won, and their leaders moved into positions of power.

    Or were they co-opted by the Man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Sue Sally and her Women
    "which will be forcing neoliberal economic policy on the Conservative Orthodox Christian People at gunpoint"

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.

    Be civil. The Southland invented gun control. Specifically, Virginia in 1644.

    Today’s Southerners are inexplicably modest about this achievement, so please give credit where it is due.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sue Sally and her Women
    "the narcissistic homosexual Kenyan Foriegner:1)legalized homo marriage…2) homos in the Boy Scouts….3) Hairy Truckers who think they are Women"

    Be civil indeed.

    But no I did not know that the Southerners had invented gun control, thanks for that (I'm not being sarcastic). Such issues are always more complex than the stereotypes would imply, aren't they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Honesthughgrant
    The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn't even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved. LBJ didn't even want to mine Haiphong harbor! Basically, we were just supposed to keep on fighting until the NVA and VC got tired of taking losses and quit - only they weren't interested in quitting.

    By the summer of 68 we'd had large scale US involvement for over 2 years and LBJ still couldn't say when or how we were supposed to win. Most of the Hawks couldn't say anymore persuasive than "We must support our Commander in Chief" or "You have to answer when your country calls".

    So, a lot of Boomers said 'To Hell with that". And I don't blame them. Vietnam was a crusade, it wasn't some vital US interest and LBJ and Nixon couldn't even tell people in clear understandable language why it was vital and worth all the American lives.

    The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn’t even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved.

    Are you talking about the Vietnam War, or the Civil Rights Act?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epaminondas
    Very good point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Sunbeam says:

    Looking back, the Vietnam War was a massive effort.

    Later wars have cost a lot of borrowed money, but nothing like the manpower involved.

    I really don’t think you could get this country to undertake anything so large scale again, let alone a gargantuan undertaking like WWII.

    Basically if it’s not easy, or costs more than imaginary numbers, we just won’t do it.

    Of course someone is going to pay a price for our undertaking yet another effort that we cynics know will never be finished, or is impossible with the price we are willing to pay, or are just too squeamish to do.

    So we’ll do these kinds of things for … I don’t know how much longer, but I think it will end one day.

    But until then there will be terrorism or whatever we call it now. Insurgencies. We’ll fight… something with drones and air strikes. One day we get tired of it and declare victory or go home.

    Then we do it all over again somewhere else a few years later. For reasons that don’t make a whole lot of sense if anyone thinks about them or does some research, but everyone just believes or goes along with like nothing similar occurred just a few years ago.

    Whoever mentioned the anti-war portion of the “Left” disappearing when Obama was elected, like their cause was less important than partisan politics… gee ya think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Herbert says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    "Regardless of what you think their motivations were, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans were getting killed every month with no end in sight against an enemy who just wanted us to leave their country and go home. Unlike those who fought WWII, nobody attacked the US or declared war on us. If the anti-war protesters did anything, it was to wake the American people up to the lawlessness of the US government."

    -------------------------

    A fairly typical left-wing take. Observing what the North Vietnamese, the Pathet Lao, and the Khmer Rouge did after our dimocrat-controlled Congress sold our Indochinese allies down the river, I think a very strong case can be made that we were in fact "the good guys" in the Vietnam War. Even Joan Baez admitted as much when she observed what happened after US withdrawal.

    Whether the war was winnable or not is open to dispute. General Giap was ready to throw in the towel after the Tet Offensive and Ho Chi Minh might have gone along if that lying turd, Walter Cronkite, aided and abeted by MSM allies, hadn't completely misrepresented what happened to the American people.

    When a dimocrat Congress refused to honor treaty obligations that Nixon-Kissinger had made to South Vietnam, a communist victory was inevtitable but it might not have been. The results of that victory were catastrophic for non-communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Whether they would have been more or less catastrophic absent US involvement is open to debate.

    Certainly, when I talked to Thai, Korean, Indonesian and Taiwanese grad school acquaintances during and after the war the majority seemed to think that US involvement in Vietnam probably did put a stop to further communist victories in that region. From a privileged position in LA I'm sure the view is different.

    You repeat many of the spin myths of that war. The Giap admission of defeat is total BS. That the USA had “won” the war when we pulled out in 1973 is the biggest myth. For those whose minds have been warped, read this “correction” to all these myths.

    “Lost Battles of the Vietnam War” http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Reg Cæsar

    Perhaps you should be working on them gun control laws in the southern states, then.

     

    Be civil. The Southland invented gun control. Specifically, Virginia in 1644.

    Today's Southerners are inexplicably modest about this achievement, so please give credit where it is due.

    “the narcissistic homosexual Kenyan Foriegner:1)legalized homo marriage…2) homos in the Boy Scouts….3) Hairy Truckers who think they are Women”

    Be civil indeed.

    But no I did not know that the Southerners had invented gun control, thanks for that (I’m not being sarcastic). Such issues are always more complex than the stereotypes would imply, aren’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. iffen says:
    @Melendwyr
    It's not our country any longer. There IS no way to get it back.

    Just because you and I cannot think of a way does not mean that a way does not exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. In the late 60s in the Marine Corps those of us who graduated from Parris Island, Pendleton, and Quantico couldn’t win. The NY media was run by the NY Times and fellow socialists. Our careerist leaders in the Armed Forces cared little about us neighborhood kids/cannon fodder. The worst thing was the hate spewed out by the media. They had a firm agenda- there was only love for the likes of Abby Hoffman, Paul Rubin, Nelson Mandela, Israel, hippies, the breakdown of family and traditions in America and an ultraliberal-socialist agenda , and anyone in uniform in The US military was crucified. The hate shown by the uppity Manhattanite New Yorkers and done on a daily basis is still hard to understand. It has left its mark on me and I will never trust those types who ran the antimilitary agenda back then. Vietnam may have been a rotten thing but there was more going on with the hate mongers. The mainstream media controlled thought back in the 60s and 70s and they still do it.
    We saw no uprising or marches against the despicable 2003 Iraq invasion and drawn out war and I believe it was because it was the baby of neocon Zionists. The mainstream media feels that if it is good for Israel (and I am not anti Jewish so don’t pull out that old line) then it is worth having thousands of young American men and women die. After all, these people who go into the Army and Marines are expendable in an America that judges people by money, celebrity, and “beauty”.
    The comments here helped me a lot. A lot of people have told me that the huge majority of antiwar people back in the 60,70s were doing it almost solely because of that thing called the draft. People enjoy hating and finding fault especially the types that ran the antiwar movement back in the 60s. I read this article but I still believe the true reasons for not condemning the Iraq War were not issued in this article. I still cannot understand why there were not massive protests against the Iraq War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Don't overlook the fact that between the Vietnam war and the Iraq one there's a huge quantitative difference. At the height of the Vietnam war 100-150 American troops were being killed weekly with about 2-3 times that many coming back wounded, often as disabled- blinded, amputees, etc. That couldn't be glossed over. In Iraq casualties were much lower on a daily and weekly basis and thus sailed under the public's radar.
    , @iffen
    Semper Fi, man.

    Remember, it ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Lost american
    In the late 60s in the Marine Corps those of us who graduated from Parris Island, Pendleton, and Quantico couldn't win. The NY media was run by the NY Times and fellow socialists. Our careerist leaders in the Armed Forces cared little about us neighborhood kids/cannon fodder. The worst thing was the hate spewed out by the media. They had a firm agenda- there was only love for the likes of Abby Hoffman, Paul Rubin, Nelson Mandela, Israel, hippies, the breakdown of family and traditions in America and an ultraliberal-socialist agenda , and anyone in uniform in The US military was crucified. The hate shown by the uppity Manhattanite New Yorkers and done on a daily basis is still hard to understand. It has left its mark on me and I will never trust those types who ran the antimilitary agenda back then. Vietnam may have been a rotten thing but there was more going on with the hate mongers. The mainstream media controlled thought back in the 60s and 70s and they still do it.
    We saw no uprising or marches against the despicable 2003 Iraq invasion and drawn out war and I believe it was because it was the baby of neocon Zionists. The mainstream media feels that if it is good for Israel (and I am not anti Jewish so don't pull out that old line) then it is worth having thousands of young American men and women die. After all, these people who go into the Army and Marines are expendable in an America that judges people by money, celebrity, and "beauty".
    The comments here helped me a lot. A lot of people have told me that the huge majority of antiwar people back in the 60,70s were doing it almost solely because of that thing called the draft. People enjoy hating and finding fault especially the types that ran the antiwar movement back in the 60s. I read this article but I still believe the true reasons for not condemning the Iraq War were not issued in this article. I still cannot understand why there were not massive protests against the Iraq War.

    Don’t overlook the fact that between the Vietnam war and the Iraq one there’s a huge quantitative difference. At the height of the Vietnam war 100-150 American troops were being killed weekly with about 2-3 times that many coming back wounded, often as disabled- blinded, amputees, etc. That couldn’t be glossed over. In Iraq casualties were much lower on a daily and weekly basis and thus sailed under the public’s radar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lost american
    Thank you. They threw numbers around like it was just a football game in the 60s-early 70s. What was frustrating about Iraq War after 2003 was that these troops drive down a street, get hit by a massive IED (say three 155 artillery rounds hooked together), and they repeat scenario over and over ago. Yes, I am sure if death numbers were like Vietnam, there would have been a big timeout. War and people critically sick have something in common- there are no "do overs", a term we heard growing up in the 50s,60s. The PNAC crowd sees death and destruction as abstractions. We are talking blood and family destruction and these PNAC war makers do not see any of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and His Men"] says:

    Everyone knows that the War on Terror is a lie. Al-Queda-Isis-Iran have been presented in the corporate owned media as an extensional threat to Americans on the level of the Nazis and Imperial Japan during WW11…If this is true, why aren’t several million young strapping American Males down at the recruiting stations? Why isn’t 6’5” New England Quarterback Tom Brady down at the Marine recruiters office in Boston?…What about Peyton and Eli Manning? Did you see the Toyota Superbowl commercial…a White Father shedding tears as he packs his teenage daughter off to the US Military for deployment in the Middle East…where she will risk being maimed,gang raped and made pregnant by pissed of young Muslim Men….she is doing this to protect Tom Brady’s…Peyton and Eli Manning’s freedom!!!!!…NY Giants Coach Tom Caughlin another draft doging pussy during the Vietnam War…who likes sending other peoples teenager sons and daughters to the Middle East for delimbing via road bombs on Afghan and Iraq roads.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. During the Vietnam era we had Jerry Rubin and Abby Hoffman leading the Chicago 7, and men like Daniel Ellsberg and Daniel Shore were taking a stand among respected public figures. Back then it was clear that secular Jews were by and large behind the anti-war movement, aside from the rally wealthy who were “making a killing” on the war. Without them, with the whole assault on Islam something that was cooked up and often discussed in Israel a generation ago, with Jewish energy aimed at making war not peace and in control of the media, of course we have a weak anti-war movement. The whole public discussion is so curtailed and false that it is somewhat rare to see a comment as restrained as this one allowed past the censors. The important thing is to remember that when the Berlin Stock exchange crashed in 1929 more than 1200 of fewer than 1500 seats were in Jewish hands; the “Holocaust” did not come out of a vacuum, and those who really care about the next generation of Annie Franks will be well advised to discuss this Jewish dominance over the dollar and foreign policy with some vigour before the dollar crashes and starving people begin to follow leaders who will talk about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. iffen says:
    @Lost american
    In the late 60s in the Marine Corps those of us who graduated from Parris Island, Pendleton, and Quantico couldn't win. The NY media was run by the NY Times and fellow socialists. Our careerist leaders in the Armed Forces cared little about us neighborhood kids/cannon fodder. The worst thing was the hate spewed out by the media. They had a firm agenda- there was only love for the likes of Abby Hoffman, Paul Rubin, Nelson Mandela, Israel, hippies, the breakdown of family and traditions in America and an ultraliberal-socialist agenda , and anyone in uniform in The US military was crucified. The hate shown by the uppity Manhattanite New Yorkers and done on a daily basis is still hard to understand. It has left its mark on me and I will never trust those types who ran the antimilitary agenda back then. Vietnam may have been a rotten thing but there was more going on with the hate mongers. The mainstream media controlled thought back in the 60s and 70s and they still do it.
    We saw no uprising or marches against the despicable 2003 Iraq invasion and drawn out war and I believe it was because it was the baby of neocon Zionists. The mainstream media feels that if it is good for Israel (and I am not anti Jewish so don't pull out that old line) then it is worth having thousands of young American men and women die. After all, these people who go into the Army and Marines are expendable in an America that judges people by money, celebrity, and "beauty".
    The comments here helped me a lot. A lot of people have told me that the huge majority of antiwar people back in the 60,70s were doing it almost solely because of that thing called the draft. People enjoy hating and finding fault especially the types that ran the antiwar movement back in the 60s. I read this article but I still believe the true reasons for not condemning the Iraq War were not issued in this article. I still cannot understand why there were not massive protests against the Iraq War.

    Semper Fi, man.

    Remember, it ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lost american
    Thank you. Semper Fi. In Marines I was only around to here the harsh stuff.
    I learn a lot from the comments on this site. Marines had it miserable in 60s (and lots of other times and places) but all ultralib/Socialist major media newspapers in 60s could do was express hate especially for Marines and soldiers. Hate and condescension every day. It took me a lifetime to figure out their agenda. The haters are oldtimers now. I hope they get portions of what they dished out to us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @anon
    " a typical Jewish Trotskyite fellow-traveler "

    You write this like it was a bad thing.

    It was. It still is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Reg Cæsar

    The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn’t even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved.
     
    Are you talking about the Vietnam War, or the Civil Rights Act?

    Very good point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Personally, I find the below map more informative:

    http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/Axis_Powers_Zenith.png

    Black indicates the Axis powers at their height, while green indicates Allied powers, including their colonies. Yellow indicates neutral countries, as well as the colonies of neutral countries (i.e., Portuguese and Spanish colonies in Africa) and the small number of independent countries in Asia that maintained neutrality (Afghanistan, Tibet [not yet occupied by China]).

    If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets' own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don't think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek -- and gain -- colonies, then I think that's wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree.

    Andrew Mathis said:
    “If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets’ own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don’t think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek — and gain — colonies, then I think that’s wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree.”

    I think there are perhaps many here who are not aware of the empires, lasting centuries, that were built through force by the members of the Allied powers. namely: USSR, USA, Britain, France.

    To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false. There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to ‘conquer the world’, the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler’s peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire.

    Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison.

    Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based. Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based. And then we need to look at the USSR Empire’s seizure of Manchuria.

    My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to “divvy up the world” when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    "To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false."

    Lasting centuries? No. An empire? Yes.

    "There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to ‘conquer the world’, the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler’s peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire."

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler's to do list.

    "Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison."

    Only, I think, because they took what had not yet been colonized at that point.

    "Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based."

    Depends on where you're talking about. I can accept that assertion regarding Indonesia. I cannot accept it with regard to Korea (which was occupied in the late 19th century, or Manchuria (1931), or Nanjing (1937). Or Burma or Malaysia, for that matter.

    By the way, I don't know if "tiny" is a correct assertion. Korea is about the size of Great Britain.

    "Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based."

    I don't know that I'd call Puyi a Manchurian head of state. Manchurian, yes. Head of state? Puppet is more like it.

    Nor would I justify any invasion of any country for the purpose of resources as anything but colonialism.

    "And then we need to look at the USSR Empire’s seizure of Manchuria."

    That's "land occupied in war"; see above your own point on Hitler's moves in Europe. And USSR didn't occupy Manchuria permanently.

    "My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to “divvy up the world” when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world."

    Fair enough. But I don't think most informed people believe that the aim of the Axis was world domination.
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    Hitler decided early that England was a desirable friend and even convinced Chamberlain to that effect. Next thing Hitler did was to attack France and Russia and started building and assembling barges for an invasion landing on the coast of Great Britain. Hitler did not want to conquer the world but as he went on he wanted to conquer the next easy target nation and then the next. He even decided that he could conquer two or three nations at a time which eventually did not work out too well for him.

    Hitler wasn't interested in world domination.....He just wanted the next nation over the horizon. He called it Liebensraum!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Wally
    Andrew Mathis said:
    "If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets’ own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don’t think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek — and gain — colonies, then I think that’s wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree."

    I think there are perhaps many here who are not aware of the empires, lasting centuries, that were built through force by the members of the Allied powers. namely: USSR, USA, Britain, France.

    To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false. There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to 'conquer the world', the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler's peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire.

    Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison.

    Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based. Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based. And then we need to look at the USSR Empire's seizure of Manchuria.

    My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to "divvy up the world" when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world.

    “To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false.”

    Lasting centuries? No. An empire? Yes.

    “There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to ‘conquer the world’, the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler’s peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire.”

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler’s to do list.

    “Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison.”

    Only, I think, because they took what had not yet been colonized at that point.

    “Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based.”

    Depends on where you’re talking about. I can accept that assertion regarding Indonesia. I cannot accept it with regard to Korea (which was occupied in the late 19th century, or Manchuria (1931), or Nanjing (1937). Or Burma or Malaysia, for that matter.

    By the way, I don’t know if “tiny” is a correct assertion. Korea is about the size of Great Britain.

    “Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based.”

    I don’t know that I’d call Puyi a Manchurian head of state. Manchurian, yes. Head of state? Puppet is more like it.

    Nor would I justify any invasion of any country for the purpose of resources as anything but colonialism.

    “And then we need to look at the USSR Empire’s seizure of Manchuria.”

    That’s “land occupied in war”; see above your own point on Hitler’s moves in Europe. And USSR didn’t occupy Manchuria permanently.

    “My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to “divvy up the world” when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world.”

    Fair enough. But I don’t think most informed people believe that the aim of the Axis was world domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler’s to do list.
     
    Dismantling the British Empire WAS on FDR's to do list.
    And the project succeeded.

    FDR and the End of Empire, by Christopher O'Sullivan.


    btw I reject the claim that Hitler sought to conquer Europe.

    Mussolini, for example, got in the fight to redress his grievance that Versailles had not given Italy the territory promised it. Hitler had no designs on Italy.

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

    I read I F Stone in my youth. He evidently was not a Soviet spy, but his leftish and Jewish roots brought on that suspicion by the right.

    I can tell you why there was a big anti-war movement during Vietnam, and I was part of it and went to jail over it for civil disobedience and anti-draft work.

    It was because communism and its pimping little sister Liberalism fueled the anti-war movement.
    And, for the average peacenik, it was White Altruism that drove White gentiles like myself into the arms of the communist left. ( disclaimer: I was always anti-communist, but the slaughter of civilians…you know..)

    White Altruism, which is called by some, pathological altruism, and I would add, profound, promiscuous, and pathological altruism, got provoked by this Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia slaughter .
    It was also part of the Times of the Civil Rights movement, and the whole thing formed a gestalt of White altruistic disgust for nice White boys and girls.

    Today, the old seductions of the Left Vision are gone, including Civil Rights delusions. Now there is no real ideological passion along right/left lines, except for the paltry Occupy movement, and there is also profound Blackness Fatigue.

    Finally, Jewish Power has successfully covered up the Wars for Israel truth (although many folks I talk to who are basically just sorta liberal have figured it out without reading about the neocons) and anyway, the Arabs/Muzzies are hard to sympathize with, compared to Vietnam peasants on water buffaloes.

    Then, yes, there is the general malaise of Bad Government and cynicism about just about everything, along with Identity politics that marks the general anarchy of our Times.

    The neo-con agenda in the middle east was for failed states to assure Israel’s future, or so they thought.

    The liberal and Jewish Diversity agenda for Europe and the US is more failed states, or at least, states without White social solidarity. That is an agenda which is genocidal, given the UN definition of genocide as any effort to harm a people’s culture, populations, etc.

    Of course, there is a reaction to all of this; it is called counterrevolution and White Nationalism.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    I read I F Stone in my youth. He evidently was not a Soviet spy, but his leftish and Jewish roots brought on that suspicion by the right.
     
    No, its been proven he was a Soviet spy or at least a paid agent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Joe Webb
    I read I F Stone in my youth. He evidently was not a Soviet spy, but his leftish and Jewish roots brought on that suspicion by the right.

    I can tell you why there was a big anti-war movement during Vietnam, and I was part of it and went to jail over it for civil disobedience and anti-draft work.

    It was because communism and its pimping little sister Liberalism fueled the anti-war movement.
    And, for the average peacenik, it was White Altruism that drove White gentiles like myself into the arms of the communist left. ( disclaimer: I was always anti-communist, but the slaughter of civilians...you know..)

    White Altruism, which is called by some, pathological altruism, and I would add, profound, promiscuous, and pathological altruism, got provoked by this Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia slaughter .
    It was also part of the Times of the Civil Rights movement, and the whole thing formed a gestalt of White altruistic disgust for nice White boys and girls.

    Today, the old seductions of the Left Vision are gone, including Civil Rights delusions. Now there is no real ideological passion along right/left lines, except for the paltry Occupy movement, and there is also profound Blackness Fatigue.


    Finally, Jewish Power has successfully covered up the Wars for Israel truth (although many folks I talk to who are basically just sorta liberal have figured it out without reading about the neocons) and anyway, the Arabs/Muzzies are hard to sympathize with, compared to Vietnam peasants on water buffaloes.

    Then, yes, there is the general malaise of Bad Government and cynicism about just about everything, along with Identity politics that marks the general anarchy of our Times.

    The neo-con agenda in the middle east was for failed states to assure Israel's future, or so they thought.

    The liberal and Jewish Diversity agenda for Europe and the US is more failed states, or at least, states without White social solidarity. That is an agenda which is genocidal, given the UN definition of genocide as any effort to harm a people's culture, populations, etc.

    Of course, there is a reaction to all of this; it is called counterrevolution and White Nationalism.

    Joe Webb

    I read I F Stone in my youth. He evidently was not a Soviet spy, but his leftish and Jewish roots brought on that suspicion by the right.

    No, its been proven he was a Soviet spy or at least a paid agent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Webb
    izzy Stone..what's the proof. I seem to recall the Verona papers, is that it, that indicated he was not a spy. If he was a spy? what is the evidence, and what was he spying on? maybe the Wall St. J.

    or , if an agent, agent of what beyond his obvious interests.

    Then there is the issue of Jewish subversion in general, or just communist subversion, if you can discern the differenced. Joe W
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @iffen
    Semper Fi, man.

    Remember, it ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings.

    Thank you. Semper Fi. In Marines I was only around to here the harsh stuff.
    I learn a lot from the comments on this site. Marines had it miserable in 60s (and lots of other times and places) but all ultralib/Socialist major media newspapers in 60s could do was express hate especially for Marines and soldiers. Hate and condescension every day. It took me a lifetime to figure out their agenda. The haters are oldtimers now. I hope they get portions of what they dished out to us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @anonymous
    Don't overlook the fact that between the Vietnam war and the Iraq one there's a huge quantitative difference. At the height of the Vietnam war 100-150 American troops were being killed weekly with about 2-3 times that many coming back wounded, often as disabled- blinded, amputees, etc. That couldn't be glossed over. In Iraq casualties were much lower on a daily and weekly basis and thus sailed under the public's radar.

    Thank you. They threw numbers around like it was just a football game in the 60s-early 70s. What was frustrating about Iraq War after 2003 was that these troops drive down a street, get hit by a massive IED (say three 155 artillery rounds hooked together), and they repeat scenario over and over ago. Yes, I am sure if death numbers were like Vietnam, there would have been a big timeout. War and people critically sick have something in common- there are no “do overs”, a term we heard growing up in the 50s,60s. The PNAC crowd sees death and destruction as abstractions. We are talking blood and family destruction and these PNAC war makers do not see any of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Ace says:
    @Fran Macadam
    What it reveals is that it was selfishness that motivated most of the antiwar movement then, not any sacrificial commitment to peace. Most of the same Americans who opposed the war because they would have had to fight it, don't oppose wars they don't have to now - even accept or support them, although war remains at least as destructive and evil now as ever.

    I personally know a Conscientious Objector from back then, a Quaker, who now owns a book store chain, but refuses to be associated in any way with the Peace Movement, because it would be "controversial and affect sales."

    I don't begrudge people for not wanting to fight and die in wars, nor even judge them for being afraid of dismemberment and death. But that's not quite the same as a principled and courageous stand against war, when that calls for a possible sacrifice as well.

    Correct. “Anti-war” sentiment during Vietnam sky rocketed as draft deferments evaporated and diminished when the lottery was instituted.

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

    U.S. air power was anything but unchallenged and it was not overwhelming due to criminal rules of engagement.

    The national security state did not destroy any sense of service. It has been progressives (communists, socialist, liberals, and other haters of Western civilization) who have labored so long and so hard and with such dedication and enthusiasm to undermine citizenship, patriotism, and the belief that our Christian heritage, limited government, and free markets are a blessing.

    Our borders are wide open, citizenship is dispensed like Mardi Gras beads, and the ultra left is apoplectic over the movie about Chris Kyle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Ace says:
    @Epaminondas
    Very good point.

    Indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Ace says:
    @Honesthughgrant
    The problem with the Vietnam war is that it dragged on and on, and LBJ couldn't even explain what victory was or how it supposed to be achieved. LBJ didn't even want to mine Haiphong harbor! Basically, we were just supposed to keep on fighting until the NVA and VC got tired of taking losses and quit - only they weren't interested in quitting.

    By the summer of 68 we'd had large scale US involvement for over 2 years and LBJ still couldn't say when or how we were supposed to win. Most of the Hawks couldn't say anymore persuasive than "We must support our Commander in Chief" or "You have to answer when your country calls".

    So, a lot of Boomers said 'To Hell with that". And I don't blame them. Vietnam was a crusade, it wasn't some vital US interest and LBJ and Nixon couldn't even tell people in clear understandable language why it was vital and worth all the American lives.

    You’re right. LBJ was all about incremental escalation and nothing in the discussion of the war even hinted at the hideous nature of and record of communism in the USSR, PRC, and elsewhere. The ROE were criminal as well.

    Still, despite the lack of resolve and vision of the leadership (think Robert McNamara but without the charisma), we achieved a military victory as Frank Snepp ably showed.

    Can’t have that now can we? Congressional Democrats to the rescue.

    When we took the fight to the NVA in Cambodia and cut out all the sanctuary and pussyfooting and hand wringing flapdoodle, they decamped for healthier climes and enemy activity in IV Corps evaporated. This, of course, was intolerable to the ultra left and its corrupt press. I’ll wager old I.F. lost sleep over that bit of U.S. prowess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    A balanced treatise would acknowledge that WW2, the Korean Conflict and the Viet Nam War all imposed tactical limits on American military leadership and on our troops as individuals. I remember Presidential prohibitions against our troops invading Berlin, crossing the Yalu River, bombing Haiphong Harbor, etc. Looking at the history of French generalship in WW1 with their almost complete evisceration of their front line troops might lead us to conclude that Generals should not be in charge of global decision making. On the other hand, I recall LBJ's "fabrication" of the Gulf of Tonkin" incident which caused Congress to formalize that conflict as a war. it seems that neither generals or Presidents can be trusted in general On the other hand, we did have a General and President who shouldered massive military responsibilities with great dignity and restraint,

    When you balance all of that history with the history of Communism, Fascism, Islamism, etc. the only conclusion must be that something had to be done, right or wrong. Once the war is on all the hand wringing and hind-sight just becomes shrill exclamations of frustrations. How much better could it be if our Democracy were a true one man one vote election process with maximum candidate donations of a $1000 by a corporation, a union and an individual.? Of course, then the armaments industry would be neutered which can not be all bad, On the other hand, will the armaments industry still be there when we need them when and if the shooting begins?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Sam J. says:

    Simple enough. The wars we’re in now are mostly for the Jews. The Jews own the news so they don’t make much trouble about the wars. Also as said before volunteers and low casualties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Andrew E. Mathis
    "To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false."

    Lasting centuries? No. An empire? Yes.

    "There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to ‘conquer the world’, the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler’s peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire."

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler's to do list.

    "Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison."

    Only, I think, because they took what had not yet been colonized at that point.

    "Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based."

    Depends on where you're talking about. I can accept that assertion regarding Indonesia. I cannot accept it with regard to Korea (which was occupied in the late 19th century, or Manchuria (1931), or Nanjing (1937). Or Burma or Malaysia, for that matter.

    By the way, I don't know if "tiny" is a correct assertion. Korea is about the size of Great Britain.

    "Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based."

    I don't know that I'd call Puyi a Manchurian head of state. Manchurian, yes. Head of state? Puppet is more like it.

    Nor would I justify any invasion of any country for the purpose of resources as anything but colonialism.

    "And then we need to look at the USSR Empire’s seizure of Manchuria."

    That's "land occupied in war"; see above your own point on Hitler's moves in Europe. And USSR didn't occupy Manchuria permanently.

    "My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to “divvy up the world” when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world."

    Fair enough. But I don't think most informed people believe that the aim of the Axis was world domination.

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler’s to do list.

    Dismantling the British Empire WAS on FDR’s to do list.
    And the project succeeded.

    FDR and the End of Empire, by Christopher O’Sullivan.

    btw I reject the claim that Hitler sought to conquer Europe.

    Mussolini, for example, got in the fight to redress his grievance that Versailles had not given Italy the territory promised it. Hitler had no designs on Italy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Conquer the world? No. Divvy up the world? Yes. As long as Italy held the territory (or allied countries, including Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania), Germany satisfied; once those regimes switched sides, Hitler rolled in tanks.
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    The Islamic State indicates that it just wants to restore the Caliphate but somehow Muslim discussions morph into imposing worldwide Islamic State Sharia Law. Strange how that keeps creeping into the discourse of Muslim Mullahs and Muftis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @solontoCroesus

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler’s to do list.
     
    Dismantling the British Empire WAS on FDR's to do list.
    And the project succeeded.

    FDR and the End of Empire, by Christopher O'Sullivan.


    btw I reject the claim that Hitler sought to conquer Europe.

    Mussolini, for example, got in the fight to redress his grievance that Versailles had not given Italy the territory promised it. Hitler had no designs on Italy.

    Conquer the world? No. Divvy up the world? Yes. As long as Italy held the territory (or allied countries, including Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania), Germany satisfied; once those regimes switched sides, Hitler rolled in tanks.

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

    There is no movement almost entirely because there is no draft, and because the army is smaller. Folks, we had half a million men over there at the peak of the war. These days, there can always be found enough volunteers for the little interventions the government now favors. Why send hundreds of thousands when you can just knock a leader off with a drone, and install your own puppet?

    It’s true there is more cynicism, but that’s because of the Internet. The government does not control the flow of all information any more, and the traditional media is discredited. The fact is, it was NEVER “our” country. There has always been a parasitical ruling class running the place. Our form of government is an oligarchy, with trappings of “democracy” or “republic” to deceive the peons. More and more people are understanding this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Joe Webb says:
    @Honesthughgrant

    I read I F Stone in my youth. He evidently was not a Soviet spy, but his leftish and Jewish roots brought on that suspicion by the right.
     
    No, its been proven he was a Soviet spy or at least a paid agent.

    izzy Stone..what’s the proof. I seem to recall the Verona papers, is that it, that indicated he was not a spy. If he was a spy? what is the evidence, and what was he spying on? maybe the Wall St. J.

    or , if an agent, agent of what beyond his obvious interests.

    Then there is the issue of Jewish subversion in general, or just communist subversion, if you can discern the differenced. Joe W

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @FB
    This piece demonstrated that our society has been co-opted making the future look very bleak - which begs the question- what are we to do to get our country back?

    The concentration inside the DC beltway of agent’s for the !%ers has overwhelmed the left and the right. Each complains bitterly that other party is selling out to the 1%ers. Repeatedly each party asserts that it has good plans for the middle and lower class. Yet, things just get worse and worse and worse with each party pillaring the opposite parties as being in league with the devil.

    The truth is quite simple. Both sides have sold out to the devil. It doesn’t matter how many devils there are but only how much in aggregate the devils expend to buy out our “supposed” leadership. In many cases, each party has been bought out by the same devils who can never lose because they cannot be on the losing side. The Dems have big business, the lawyers, the doctors, unions, Wall Street, etc. and the Reps. have big business, small business, Wall Street, lawyers, etc. A very quiet partner for both partys, remains as it has for many years, the Armaments industry. After all, how can you have an armaments industry if you do not expend a regular volume of weaponry, bullets, missiles, planes, etc. Be assured that the armaments manufacturers and brokers are very well represented inside the DC beltway and that they are on very good terms with members of each party.

    The latest Supreme Court action declaring Corporations as “individuals” reinforced the inside the beltway sell-out

    So, in the end, equilibrium can only be found in reducing the power of all the above 1%ers by limiting their donation as a corporation (including unions!) and as an individual to less than $1000 per year each, accompanied by severe punishing jail terms for those who have pocketed more than the legal allotment. Such limitations have worked elsewhere. The dissolution of our once proud Democracy is unavoidable without such an action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @solontoCroesus

    The world? No. Europe? Yes. I accept that dismantling the British Empire was not on Hitler’s to do list.
     
    Dismantling the British Empire WAS on FDR's to do list.
    And the project succeeded.

    FDR and the End of Empire, by Christopher O'Sullivan.


    btw I reject the claim that Hitler sought to conquer Europe.

    Mussolini, for example, got in the fight to redress his grievance that Versailles had not given Italy the territory promised it. Hitler had no designs on Italy.

    The Islamic State indicates that it just wants to restore the Caliphate but somehow Muslim discussions morph into imposing worldwide Islamic State Sharia Law. Strange how that keeps creeping into the discourse of Muslim Mullahs and Muftis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Ace
    You're right. LBJ was all about incremental escalation and nothing in the discussion of the war even hinted at the hideous nature of and record of communism in the USSR, PRC, and elsewhere. The ROE were criminal as well.

    Still, despite the lack of resolve and vision of the leadership (think Robert McNamara but without the charisma), we achieved a military victory as Frank Snepp ably showed.

    Can't have that now can we? Congressional Democrats to the rescue.

    When we took the fight to the NVA in Cambodia and cut out all the sanctuary and pussyfooting and hand wringing flapdoodle, they decamped for healthier climes and enemy activity in IV Corps evaporated. This, of course, was intolerable to the ultra left and its corrupt press. I'll wager old I.F. lost sleep over that bit of U.S. prowess.

    A balanced treatise would acknowledge that WW2, the Korean Conflict and the Viet Nam War all imposed tactical limits on American military leadership and on our troops as individuals. I remember Presidential prohibitions against our troops invading Berlin, crossing the Yalu River, bombing Haiphong Harbor, etc. Looking at the history of French generalship in WW1 with their almost complete evisceration of their front line troops might lead us to conclude that Generals should not be in charge of global decision making. On the other hand, I recall LBJ’s “fabrication” of the Gulf of Tonkin” incident which caused Congress to formalize that conflict as a war. it seems that neither generals or Presidents can be trusted in general On the other hand, we did have a General and President who shouldered massive military responsibilities with great dignity and restraint,

    When you balance all of that history with the history of Communism, Fascism, Islamism, etc. the only conclusion must be that something had to be done, right or wrong. Once the war is on all the hand wringing and hind-sight just becomes shrill exclamations of frustrations. How much better could it be if our Democracy were a true one man one vote election process with maximum candidate donations of a $1000 by a corporation, a union and an individual.? Of course, then the armaments industry would be neutered which can not be all bad, On the other hand, will the armaments industry still be there when we need them when and if the shooting begins?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Wally
    Andrew Mathis said:
    "If the imputation is that the British and French already held colonial empires taking up much of the eastern hemisphere (not to mention the Soviets’ own empire in eastern Europe and central Asia), then I don’t think any of us here disagree. If the imputation is that the Axis powers did not similarly seek — and gain — colonies, then I think that’s wrong. If the imputation is that two wrongs make a right, then, again, I disagree."

    I think there are perhaps many here who are not aware of the empires, lasting centuries, that were built through force by the members of the Allied powers. namely: USSR, USA, Britain, France.

    To say, in the case of Germany, land occupied in war is tantamount to an empire lasting centuries is simply false. There is absolutely no proof that Germany wanted to 'conquer the world', the size of their navy proves that. In fact, Hitler's peace offeringss to Britain stated that he had no such desire to dismantle their empire.

    Italy had colonial ambitions in Africa no doubt, still quite minor, and rather local in comparison.

    Tiny Korea/Chosen aside, Japan is somewhat uncertain. Had it not been the need for resources due to the economic war on them by the US, a solid case can be made that occupations were temporary needs based. Manchuria, who did have Manchurian head of state, is a debatable issue which was really not tenable long term, and again resource based. And then we need to look at the USSR Empire's seizure of Manchuria.

    My point is that there is an unbelievable double standard in claiming the Axis powers were trying to "divvy up the world" when in fact it was the Allies that had and were truly divvying up the world.

    Hitler decided early that England was a desirable friend and even convinced Chamberlain to that effect. Next thing Hitler did was to attack France and Russia and started building and assembling barges for an invasion landing on the coast of Great Britain. Hitler did not want to conquer the world but as he went on he wanted to conquer the next easy target nation and then the next. He even decided that he could conquer two or three nations at a time which eventually did not work out too well for him.

    Hitler wasn’t interested in world domination…..He just wanted the next nation over the horizon. He called it Liebensraum!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @ESP | Berserk!
    […] What’s missing is any sense of connection to the government, any sense that it’s “ours” or that we the people matter. In its place — and you can thank successive administrations for this — is the deepest sort of pessimism and cynicism about a national security state and war-making machine beyond our control. And why protest what you can’t change? That’s the end, read the beginning and middle here, http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/remembrance-of-wars-past/ […]

    You are correct. I have not voted “for” a desirable Presidential candidate for a long time now. I do vote “against” the candidate that I fear the most. I do not have any sense that either party represents my concerns and those in office spend all their time looking up to big money interests. Even the Supreme Court participated In the disenfranchisement of voters by giving corporations and unions status as an “individual” opening the doors for big money Dem and Rep supporters to completely buy out their Party with a few “huge” gifts!. Eisenhour stated “beware of the military-industrial complex.” He was correct but too self limiting. He should have included the lawyers, wall street, major corporations, major unions, etc. Our federal political campaigns are more comparable than ever to an auction where to the buyer go all the benefits. My measly $50.00 donation is like peeing upwind.

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower