The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Danny Sjursen Archive
The Hazards of Military Worship
Everyone Loves the Troops and Their Generals, But History Indicates That Military Advice Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

More, more, more.

I was guilty of it myself. Commanding a small cavalry troop of about 85 soldiers in southwest Kandahar Province back in 2011, I certainly wanted and requested more: more troopers, more Special Forces advisers, more Afghan police, more air support, more supplies, more money, more… everything. Like so many others in Afghanistan back then, I wanted whatever resources would protect the guys in my unit and fend off the insurgent threat. No one, of course, asked me if the U.S. military should even be there, nor did I presume to raise the question. I was, after all, just a captain dug into a tough fight in a dangerous district.

It’s funny, though, people sometimes ask me now, “What’s really going on in Afghanistan?” They ask the same question about Iraq, where I led a unit back in 2006-2007. I mean, the implication is: If you served over there, unlike those (liberal!) pundits and politicians who regularly mouth off on the subject, who would know better? But I’ve learned over the years that what they don’t want to hear is my real answer to such questions, so I rarely bother to tell them that historians, analysts, and thoughtful critics, even ones who haven’t been within thousands of miles of our war zones, probably understand the “big picture” better than most soldiers.

That’s the dirty little secret of America’s wars: despite the omniscient claims of some veterans, most soldiers see their version of war as if gazing through a straw at 30,000 feet. Combat and dedication to your unit and mission naturally steer you toward such tunnel vision. And here’s the sad thing that no one wants to admit: that mantra applies as strongly to generals as to sergeants (and if you don’t believe that, just check out our wars of the last 15 years). So it’s worrisome when president after president defers to and all too often hides behind the supposed wisdom of active and retired three- and four-star flag officers.

Don’t get me wrong, some of these guys can be impressive. No one is perfect, but former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey was a gem with genuine scholarly and combat bona fides. But consider him and a few others the exceptions that prove the rule. Which is why civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration — with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions — raises some serious questions.

And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow — and this should be truly unnerving — Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only soldiers. In June 2016, for instance, a Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans had “quite a lot” of confidence in the military, versus 36% for the presidency and 6% for Congress. Such disparities ought to inspire distress about the direction of our public institutions, but rarely do.

Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in this fiscal year military spending exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department’s budget. Worse still, the new president’s proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third — despite former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates’s quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers.

The Myth of (Infallible) Military Judgment

By now, it’s part of American lore that, facing a thorny problem or potential conflict abroad, a president should throw some stars at it. If only generals were indeed pixie dust. Historically speaking, though, since World War II, calling on the generals has often resulted in abject failure. There’s plenty of evidence of that in the last 15 years of, at best, inconclusive war in the Greater Middle East, but first, let’s take a brief tour of military advice from the previous century’s crises.

MacArthur in Korea

In October 1950, just months after the Korean War began, President Harry Truman met General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the coalition forces in Korea, on Wake Island. There, MacArthur assured the president of two things: that the Chinese would not intervene in the war and that the fighting would be over by Christmas. A month later, hundreds of thousands of Chinese “volunteers” streamed across the Yalu River into northern Korea, sending MacArthur’s troops into headlong retreat. Wrong once, the general promptly called for a massive U.S. troop escalation and the bombing of China, perhaps even nuclear attacks on that country. Truman recoiled, fired the general, and opened negotiations, all while avoiding nuclear war. And what happened to the twice-wrong MacArthur? In April 1951, with the war still underway — an armistice wouldn’t finally come until July 1953 — he received a record-breaking 19-mile-long ticker-tape parade through New York City in which 3,249 tons of paper rained down on him.

Ike vs. the Generals

President Dwight Eisenhower so loved the Army that he asked his successor to return him to his five-star rank. That way he’d be addressed as “General” rather than “Mr. President” in retirement. Yet no president was more dismissive of the notion that military men, rather than civilians, know what’s best. When a senator contended that the Air Force was better positioned than politicians to assess its own needs, Ike snapped back, “Bunk!” (He knew the Pentagon regularly overstated its case.) As for sage military advice, Eisenhower dismissed General Mark Clark’s plans for an all-out assault in Korea as “madness” and sacked all his service chiefs after they “revolted” over a truncated defense budget he proposed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Arthur Radford, even hinted that it might be “high time” to reexamine the taboo against using nuclear weapons in that war. Despite significant saber-rattling, Ike ultimately chose restraint.

In fact, he was notoriously skeptical of his generals’ advice and left office famously warning Americans about a growing “military-industrial complex.” The result of his presidency: the commanding general and hero of World War II held down defense spending, never used nukes, ended the bloody stalemate of a war in Korea, and — most importantly — avoided World War III.

Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba

The U.S. high command, like much of the American public, was obsessed with newly Communist Cuba. In April 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, a disastrous CIA-sponsored invasion by Cuban émigrés, the generals proposed a new plan, Operation Northwoods. Approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it called for false-flag terrorist attacks on émigrés in Miami or on U.S. ships off the coast to drum up public support for a war against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy refused.

Soon after came the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought humanity as close to extinction as it’s ever come. When U.S. intelligence learned that the Soviet Union had stationed nuclear missiles on that island, just 90 miles from Florida, the government entered full-scale panic mode. During deliberations on how to proceed, the Joint Chiefs — to a man — recommended air strikes against Cuba and a possible follow-on invasion. Later, in a memo, they declared that they were prepared to use “nuclear weapons for limited war operations in the Cuban area.”

Instead, Kennedy chose a blockade and negotiations. The Russians responded by pulling their missiles out of Cuba and humankind lived to fight another day. After one of those meetings, Kennedy remarked to an aide, “These brass hats [generals and admirals] have one great advantage. If we… do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong.” Deeply disturbed by the advice of the Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy later confided to some White House guests that “the first thing I’m going to tell my successor is to watch the generals, and to avoid feeling that just because they were military men, their opinions on military matters were worth a damn.”

The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia

In April 1961, the Joint Chiefs recommended that President Kennedy intervene to stop a “North Vietnamese-sponsored” Communist offensive in Laos through the use of air strikes and the introduction of U.S. ground forces in that country. When Kennedy asked the military chiefs what to do if the North Vietnamese Communists bombed Laotian airports as the U.S. flew in troops, one replied: “You [drop] a bomb on Hanoi, and you start using atomic weapons!” In fact, Army General Lyman Lemnitzer assured the president that “if we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee victory.” Kennedy ruled against his generals on both counts.

Nevertheless, Kennedy and then President Lyndon Johnson foolishly agreed to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In that war, admittedly, civilian policymakers were often the chief villains. However, the generals were anything but blameless. In 1967, as U.S. casualties increased and many Americans began to question the country’s involvement in the conflict, the senior commander, General William Westmoreland, assured Congress that there was, in a phrase that became infamous, “light at the end of the tunnel.” When Vietcong guerillas attacked nearly every American base in South Vietnam in the January 1968 Tet Offensive, he had only one answer, a solution once again all-too-familiar to twenty-first-century Americans: more. He requested 206,000 additional U.S. troops on top of the half-million-plus already in Vietnam. President Johnson balked and began negotiations with North Vietnam. It took — tragically — seven more bloody years, but eventually U.S. troops were extracted from what a near consensus of credible historians now conclude was an “unwinnable” war.

These examples obviously don’t imply that no general ever gave solid advice or that civilians weren’t perfectly capable of concocting their own hare-brained war-making schemes. Rather, the point is to deflate — just a bit — the present all-too-popular notion of American military infallibility, or at least superiority.

Above Scrutiny?

It’s dangerous to deify any public institution, let alone the country’s bureau of violence. That’s not, in itself, a knock at the military to which I’ve dedicated my adult life, but a basic recognition of the gravity of all martial exertions. No government agency is so holy that it shouldn’t be scrutinized, not in a real democracy. Yet American society is headed in that very direction, along with its new president. On Inauguration Day, finding himself in a crowded room with all the generals he had appointed to key positions in his administration around him, he declared emphatically, “I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe.”

We usually imagine the threat of military control over decision-making as an aspect of opaque autocracies, but it can also stem from the excessive exultation of a “warrior” class in a democracy. Consider the chilling comments of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer after a controversial raid in Yemen in January left Ryan Owens, a Navy SEAL, several al-Qaeda fighters, and a number of civilians, as well as several children, dead.

Spicer took umbrage after a number of people, including the notoriously hawkish, wildly pro-military, former POW Senator John McCain, questioned the operation’s value. The press secretary’s statement, however, went beyond standard partisan defensiveness and into genuinely treacherous territory when he asserted that “anyone who would suggest [the raid] is not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens.” That represents a new standard for public debate on military operations. Think of the implications: if a single serviceman dies, then all critical scrutiny of such actions is off the table, being by its very nature disrespectful and unpatriotic. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an approach would leave no room for public protest or even the vestiges of an antiwar movement in response to future American war making.

Lest anyone imagine that Spicer simply misspoke, President Trump promptly upped the ante. He tweeted: “Sen. McCain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the media. Only emboldens the enemy… our hero died on a winning mission.” Take a moment to let that sink in: to question the effectiveness of a raid in a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which resulted in multiple military and civilian deaths — even when the critic is the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee — should now be considered “emboldening” the enemy. Somebody pinch me.

Generally, however, that raid led mainly to endless praise for both Chief Petty Officer Owens and the U.S. military. In fact, no matter the situation, the carnage involved, or the decision-making behind it, the rhetoric of praise for America’s “warriors” has become a commonplace of our national life.

In fact, we military professionals ought to be confident enough to weather genuine scrutiny of both our decision-making and our acts. The danger is this: while we’re caught up in the countless “thanks-for-your-service” platitudes, upgraded airline seating, ever larger flags flying o’er sporting events, and other forms of hollow soldier-worship and militarized “patriotism,” the nation may be losing something precious: the right to dissent.

Bogus “Options”

In nearly every recent instance when military commanders were asked for a strategy review, the response was the same. What was needed, swore the generals repeatedly, were more troops, more airstrikes, more bases, more money, and more time. A rare exception to this litany of more came from former Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey who laid out not just the options, but also the potential costs of a Syrian intervention.

Presidents deserve and require such real options. Too often, however, especially in this country’s 15-year “war on terror” across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, senior military leaders have failed to present plausible, achievable choices to the commander-in-chief. Nearly all of them have proved to be “more” guys.

Consider, for instance, Afghanistan in 2009. Things had been going poorly indeed in what was already an eight-year-old war. And so our nation turned its lonely eyes to him — General Stanley McChrystal, a special operator fresh off a tour tracking down and killing al-Qaeda in Iraq’s leadership, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Asked to conduct a “strategic review” and present Barack Obama with military options in Afghanistan, McChrystal instead offered the new president a Goldilocks dilemma. He submitted what were, in essence, three versions of the same option: surge big, surge little, or surge just right. Those “options” failed the Army’s own doctrinal course of action test — solutions must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, and distinguishable. Since all three of McChrystal’s choices involved counterinsurgency and troop escalation, they were hardly distinguishable.

Instead, they did what they were meant to do and boxed the young president into an escalatory corner, a “more” decision being not just the commander’s favored but only course of action. Obama grumbled and then sent McChrystal his reinforcements. It sounded like Iraq 2006-2007 all over again. Only this time — the president and Americans more generally were assured — the ensuing surge would be even better, involving a supposedly comprehensive, interagency approach to the Afghan War.

Before he used his new troops to launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly announced that he not only had a military force ready to go, but “a government in a box, ready to roll in,” too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal’s strategy failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis observed, “Looking back, the logic flaws become clear.” After all, Daddis continued, “how could counterinsurgents provide… security… if the population… too often saw U.S. soldiers as ‘anti-bodies’ invading their body politic?”

Perhaps at this point it won’t surprise you to learn that two civilians on the Obama team — Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (as well as ex-lieutenant general) Karl Eikenberry — doubted from the start the U.S. military’s ability to impose an external solution on Afghans via such a surge. They were ignored. After all, who knows better than the guys overseeing the actual fighting?

Which raises the question: How will the Trump administration’s generals, now in crucial government positions, counsel the president regarding Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and North Korea? Predictions are always a dicey matter, but recent history suggests that we can expect military escalation, which already seems to be underway in at least three of those countries. More, after all, remains the option of choice for America’s generals almost 70 years after MacArthur went head to head with his president over Korea.

What then is to be expected when it comes to the conflict with ISIS in Iraq, the complex, multi-faceted Syrian civil war, and America’s longest war of all in Afghanistan? All signs point to more of the same. Open up a newspaper or check out a relevant website and you’ll find, for example, that U.S. Afghan commander General John Nicholson wants a new mini-surge of American troops dispatched into that country, while the U.S. commander in the fight against ISIS, General Stephen Townsend, may require yet more ground troops to “win” in Iraq and Syria.

After much positive and often fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it’s hard to imagine that the president won’t grant the generals’ wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should be obvious enough that more of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn’t take a genius to know that something about U.S. strategy hasn’t been and isn’t working.

The Choice

So, isn’t it well past time for the generals and civilian leaders to ask the obvious question: Does the U.S. even have the ability to improve such societies via military power? These days, unfortunately, such thinking rings heretical to martial ears. Yet not to raise such questions is to ensure that Americans will experience a kind of endless déjà vu in their wars.

What this country needs right now are civilian leaders who think strategically, exude confidence, and aren’t afraid to challenge military advice. Appropriate respect for senior servicemen shouldn’t mean either impulsive adulation or timid apprehension. Civilian policymakers haven’t always been right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record.

Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing (if shallow) praise heaped on America’s all-volunteer force, it is increasingly distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights.

For those of us still in uniform, thoughtlessly soldiering on may sound both stalwart and romantic, but it rarely amounts to a sagacious strategy. Don’t take my word for it, consider the climactic scene in Once an Eagle, a legendary novel within the American officer corps and long a staple on every general’s recommended professional reading list. This highly touted, if ill-understood, book ends as its protagonist, an aged, decorated general, slowly dies from wounds inflicted by a Vietnamese “terrorist” bomber. Gasping his final breath, the old soldier dispenses his last pearl of wisdom to a junior officer: “Remember, Joey, if it comes to a choice between being a good soldier and a good human being — try to be a good human being…”

In war, as in much else, there’s often wisdom in abstention. And when it comes to war, sometimes less is more.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular, is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. He lives with his wife and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. fnn says:

    What’s the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics.

    So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military?

  2. We Dutch never loved our troops.
    This is perhaps the result of having been the first democracy ever, where citizens, not aristocrats, ruled themselves.
    We were a touristic attraction in the 17th century; how was this possible.
    Just to command the troops, not the navy, we needed an aristocrat with war experience, an Orange.
    Our problem was, each time there was some peace, to get rid of the troops, so that the Orange became powerless,and we could rule ourselves again.

    Just in the 19th century an Orange became king, an authoritarian one.
    We long had a problem with him, and he with us.

    Since 2000 or so the present king has no formal power whatsoever.
    I personally regret this, having someone not chosen, so with no political history, who was above politics, in my opinion a good system.
    Queen Beatrix had authority, but the presen Willem is gaining it, despite having formally none.
    Messy things, presidential elections, anywhere.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Wally
    , @Anonymous
  3. Tom Welsh says:

    “Does the U.S. even have the ability to improve such societies via military power?”

    While even being able to ask such a question proves a certain open-mindedness and liberality in a soldier, to a historian it can have only one answer: a resounding “NO!”

    More generally, no one can “improve a society” by any form of violence. Starting from the fact that no one can even clearly define what a “society” really is, it is obvious that no one can possible even say clearly how to go about “improving” it. To a strict Muslim, the USA looks like a hideous morass of irreligion and immorality. Hundreds of millions of people doing exactly as they like, committing sin after sin, completely ignoring the Word of God as clearly set down in the Holy Koran. So would Americans like such a strict Muslim to come to their country and “improve their society” by making it more like that of Saudi Arabia?

    The difference between any two societies is mostly one of values. And values are defined as those beliefs which all people have the right to choose for themselves, without any external constraint. That being so, there can be no “true” or “correct” values – merely values that are popular in certain circles. How can one justify taking a single life in order to impose one’s own values on other people?

    Last but not least, here are two relevant quotations from eminent Frenchmen. Please note that Maximilien Robespierre was not exactly a bleeding-heart liberal or “snowflake”.

    “The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one’s laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
    “One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force”.
    – Maximilien Robespierre (1791)

    “Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another”.
    – Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, “L’Esprit des Lois”

  4. Dear Major Sjursen

    Are you going to allow your sons to join the US Military so that they can become canon fodder-chopped meat for the Jews in Israel…The Jewish Neocons in the US…and the Military Industrial Complex?….Your four sons would end up dying pointless meaningless deaths….sun bleached bones in the Iraqi desert….when there bones are discovered a thousand years from now by future archaeologists….

    As USMC General and two time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Smedley Butler wrote 80 years ago:”WAR IS A RACKET”

    • Agree: anarchyst
  5. anon • Disclaimer says:

    With Trump, who knows? That’s why I voted for him, because we knew what his opponent would do.

    But the guy wants to win and is fine with blaming whoever is close at hand. I have an instinctive feeling that McMasters thinks he is controlling Trump, but that Trump is planning on blaming any failure on McMasters. Perhaps ‘planning’ isn’t what’s on Trump’s mind. But thats how he operates.

    Since 9/11, we have built a massive, rent seeking, bureaucracy that has its hooks in the ‘intelligence’ community and well beyond the military. The generals seem less insane than neocons, simply because they might actually have to implement some of their advice.

    But we are now in a situation where there is no narrative that includes us ‘winning’ in any fashion that can be remotely believed. I suppose we have the semi agreed upon goal of eliminating ISIS. I sure we can kill a lot of people and call it something. But there is nothing that resembles victory.

    But there are resource limits. I have hopes that we can divert them to ‘cyber’ war. Like cyber sex, it is intangible, and takes place in the electronic ether. No need to build a weapon system that actually has to do something like fly. The beast can just suck up funds and either claim they were essential and well spent. If something goes wrong, then they need more.

    So you have the essentials. Money to fund activities that provide careers. And you don’t need to kill people.

  6. Rich says:
    @jilles dykstra

    When you Dutch loved your Army you were able to fight off the mighty Spanish Empire and preserve your nation. Later, in the 20th century, it took the Brits and the Americans to keep you free.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    , @jilles dykstra
  7. Z-man says:

    Too many generals in Trump’s admin.
    The media pushes military worship to help with their ‘controlling’ agenda!

  8. anarchyst says:

    It is one thing to “worship” the military, and quite another to give the average military person the respect that he or she deserves. As a veteran of the Vietnam war, I endured the disrespect that was “the order of the day”…
    It is no secret that the unemployment rate is not 3.8% as claimed, but is closer to 20%. Opportunities, once available for young people are being taken (stolen?) by illegal aliens and others who do not belong here. Hence, the military becomes a more attractive option as a possible career.
    I look on the general staff as being more akin to politicians than actually military men, who are beholden to politicians for their jobs, who can be replaced at a moments notice, if they don’t “toe the line”. Politicians utilize the military for their own questionable purposes. Generals follow orders…
    The ordinary military person gives up many rights, is subject to deployments to dangerous areas, and is quite often not allowed to prosecute the war properly due to command decisions, made by generals upon orders from civilians (CIA?).
    The ordinary military person signs a “blank check” payable “up to and including one’s life”…something that is not a requirement in any other occupation.
    As to our “adventures” around the world, freedom cannot be imposed from without (outside). The PEOPLE (indigenous populations) have to be willing to fight for freedom themselves. The statements that our politicians make regarding “fighting for freedom” are pretty much all hogwash. There is ALWAYS a political agenda.
    As to Vietnam and the 1968 Tet Offensive, the American news media turned an American and South Vietnamese victory into a “defeat” with communist Walter Cronkite leading the charge. A million or so North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were terminated in this single event while our American news media gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy. Even North Vietnamese General Giap praised the American news media for giving the communists the resolve to fight on…
    Whatever people think about the Vietnam war, many notable people do acknowledge that it did slow down communist expansionism, perhaps saving the other southeast Asian countries from a communist-controlled future.
    For those who protested the Vietnam war, their only goal was to avoid the draft; they could care less about the plight of the South Vietnamese people. Once the draft ended, so did the protests. They were only concerned about “saving their own skins”–nothing else. Of course, these anti-war protesters were silent even with the massive amount of “boat people” escaping their communist “paradise”.
    There is a lot of blame to go around, but the ordinary military person does not deserve it…

  9. Agent76 says:

    Feb 17, 2012 The American Way? Our Connection To Nazi Germany

    Don’t let the title fool you. This video is actually about how government-run schooling contributed to the rise of socialism, imperialism and eventually fascism in Germany between the 1890s and 1940s.

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. Agent76 says:

    Oct 26, 2015 How to Control What People Do| Propaganda by EDWARD BERNAYS

    He was Sigmund Freud’s nephew and is seen by many as the father of public relations. Many prominent politicians, including Donald Trump have used Bernays theories to spread their message to the masses using mainstream media and alternative media.

  11. jim jones says:

    The Military have a very low profile here in the UK, I must admit I enjoy watching Trump showing respect to the US Armed Forces.

    • Replies: @RodW
  12. The CIA is desperate to enhance the perception of militarism in the American mind. That’s why assassins like Sjursen and the war loving writers of Tom’s Dispatch dedicate themselvs to controlling opposition by sounding so rational, almost anti-war, and gosh darn it, frugal. Winning in their efforts to kill civilians when needed – in other words.

    This baby killer starts his article sounding like a John Wayne protege goin’ after the natural resources of Afghanistan under the great lie of terror. Right in the action where he wanted to call in another pallet of cash from the Treasury Department.

    • Troll: The Anti-Gnostic
  13. El Dato says:

    Somewhat on topic:

    > Accident in a silo housing a Titan II, a madly dangerous contraption of a tank of hydrazine and a tank of nitrogen tetroxide, with a H-bomb on top
    > Shit’s gonna blow for sure
    > Maybe there is a risk the H-Bomb will ignite?
    > Martin Marietta recommends to close the launch door, stand well back and let the stupid thing burn down
    > Higher-up in reality distortion field says no, we will do dangerous fixit mission
    > Orders the Propellant Transfer Specialists in for no good reason ,on a crazy-ass scheme to break into the control center laden with explosive fumes, wearing hazard suits and 30 minute bottles of oxygen
    > They attempt to do it
    > The whole thing blows tremendously
    > One guy is dead, one guy lost his skin and has a hole in the leg, no further victims (a miracle, that hydrazine must have left traces though)
    > ???
    > PTS guys are not heroes but get shat on by the hierarchy

    • Replies: @Agent76
  14. n230099 says:

    Until the young wake up and simply refuse to get involved with this nonsense, we’ll have plenty of knotheads to “honor”.

  15. MarkinLA says:

    they could care less about the plight of the South Vietnamese people.

    Nobody in the US cared about the South Vietnamese people and fighting the north did nothing to help them. We weren’t fighting for their “freedom” no matter how many times you tell yourself that. Would there have been any “boat people” if we hadn’t stuck our noses into Vietnam and killed so many Vietnamese and created so many people who were viewed as collaborators? That is the question nobody can answer. If there were boat people and we didn’t intervene we would have no reason let them come to the US and could easily have returned them to Vietnam.

    What the Tet offensive did was tell America that there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  16. Avery says:

    {…As a veteran of the Vietnam war, I endured the disrespect that was “the order of the day”…}

    Did you volunteer or were drafted?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  17. @Rich

    Two misunderstandings:
    The Ottoman empire’s quarrel with Philips II saved us.
    If there had not been a Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, Hitler never would have found it necessary to overrun us, in order to subjugate France.
    The France that had declared war on Germany.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Rich
  18. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Wrong. Iceland was the first true democracy.

    • Replies: @Anon
  19. Wally says: • Website

    If you start with false premises, everything you subsequently extrapolate from those premises will likewise carry along the original error and thus exhibit error within themselves; aka: garbage in, garbage out.

    It boils down to this:

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    • Replies: @Agent76
    , @Anon
  20. Tulips says:

    The US military is a very passionate and enduring anti-communist organization, dedicated to the destruction of communism every where on the planet. Except the communism on all US military bases. Life on a US military base is COMPLETELY communistic: 1) guaranteed employment no matter how incompetent you are; 2) free housing; 3) free clothing; 4) subsidized food, gasoline and consumer goods; 5) an oppressive, bureaucratic, and often incompetent hierarchy of authority; 6) massive inefficiency and waste of resources. Ironic.

  21. Perhaps the Swiss model is the best on can hope for.

    Be like a porcupine. But that kind of citizen militia, where every family knows foreign adventure means they will be impacted, keeps the folks at the top from directing their power fantasies.

    Also requires all of your population (less the small anti-social elements) to be responsible, which with most western countries is no longer possible, having imported foreign elements that are not trusted to bear arms by the power that be.

  22. Agent76 says:

    Go back to under ground cave. Mar 14, 2012 Holocaust Uncovered (1945) – WARNING: Distressing Images

    English MP Mrs. Mavis Tate shows proof of the holocaust with shots from her visit to a German concentratino camp. Taken from the original 1945 British Pathe newsreel “German Atrocities – Proof”. This Pathe newsreel showed the world at the time what atrocities had been committed.

    • Replies: @Sam the Man
    , @Wally
  23. anarchyst says:

    Its the communists who did not care about their people. You see, communist ideology demands that HUMAN BEINGS are subservient to the state–those at the top, with all of the privileges, while the ordinary person lives in squalor. The protesters were communist “fellow travelers” who were the “useful idiots”, along with the mainstream media.
    The Tet Offensive was a slaughter of the communists–over a million…the war would have been settled then, but for the communist American mainstream media, who snatched “defeat out of the jaws of victory”.
    I would suggest that you talk to some of these “boat people” before you pass judgement on the “morality” of the war. Hear what they have to say about the communist “paradise”.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @MarkinLA
  24. anarchyst says:

    I enlisted voluntarily…

    • Replies: @bluedog
  25. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    So Germany wasn’t fascist under the Nazis?

    • Replies: @Wally
  26. Avery says:

    {The Tet Offensive was a slaughter of the communists–over a million…}

    All publicly available data says Tet offensive cost Viet Cong about 45,000 KIA and about 65,000 WIA&MIA.
    So where did you get the figure of 1+ million slaughter (KIA?) for Viet Cong?

  27. Agent76 says:
    @El Dato

    FYI El Dato – Mar 11, 2017 Your Radiation This Week

    Good Day! This is “Your Radiation This Week ” for the past 2 weeks. These are the recorded Total Gamma Radiation and Sievert highs that affected people around the United States.

  28. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    This statement is a little misleading. First of all, Iceland only afforded political power to free men, so it was essentially the same kind of system as in Ancient Greece — thus, it was not the oldest. Second, while an argument could be made that the Althing (Icelandic parliament) was the oldest legislature, it couldn’t truly be said to be democratic when Iceland spent centuries as a colony of Denmark and/or Norway.

    In short, Greece was the first democracy, and the U.K. has the oldest independent parliament.

    • Replies: @Wally
  29. Why isn’t there a military draft in the US?

    Answer:if there was a military draft in the US….the US Military would never have invaded Iraq in 1991…and 2002….a military draft would have ignited an anti-draft-anti-war resistance revolt to the 1991 and 2002 invasion of Iraq-and resistance to the invasion of Afghanistan…

  30. @Agent76

    Not denying the holocaust in any way but your post does not provide the proof you allege:

    Buchenwald was not an extermination camp. It was a internment camp established in 1934. It had very high casualties and the Germans were starving the occupants sometime during the war, but the total number of deaths at that camp and its affiliated was between 33,000 and 56,000. The lower figure is actual recorded deaths, the higher figures includes folks that went through the camp and died elsewhere or were killed/died on their way to the camp so not included in the deaths (prisoners from death camps in Poland). I think the higher figure also included some soviet prisoners that were offed in the area. That was out of a total number of inmates in excess of 240,000.

    The fact was it was bad, even by German standards and the camp commander was condemned to death by the Germans themselves before the allies got there, as well as his wife who was sent to jail for 4 years by the NAZIs for her crimes.

    In any case not trying to negate the badness of the Germans in any way, jus point out that if you are going to fight holocaust denial, pictures of non extermination camps really do not make the proof in any way.

    Here is the best way: there are over 3 million names in the Yad Vashem list in Jerusalem. That is the minimum figure of actual dead people known to have existed.

    The first post war study done showed a minimum of 4.2 to 4.5 million excess Jewish deaths due to Direct German action in 1950. However Retinger discounted a lof the hugfe figres by the soviets (where the 4 million figure for Auschwitz comes from) Further research (Hilberg 1956) showed 5.1 million being a more likely minimum figure, with as many as 5.75 to 5.95 million being the best estimates. A lot of the problem is Poland and Russia, where a lot of Jewish death that occurred but might not be directly related to the holocaust, to the war.

    So it might not be the full 6 million, no doubt some folks try to expand the figure , but likely it was close to that figure, say at least 80 %. To deny that is to deny reality.

  31. botazefa says:

    Nice thing about the draft, which should be brought back: More men and women civilians with direct experience with just how ‘amazing’ the military is.

    Rank-and-file veterans, I think, are the group least likely to fall for the bluster of the flag ranks.

  32. Sean says:

    Master philosopher of war Karl von Clausewitz emphasized almost a century and a half earlier that because war is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it both in magnitude and also in duration. He went on to say, Once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced

    — Harry G. Summers

    Kennedy asked what it would take to attain final victory, LBJ did too. Westmoreland had a defused corporate style, and was notorious in the army for telling politicians what they wanted to hear. The US government had mutually inconsistent objectives (victory but also not doing anything that would bring a million strong Chinese army in to Vietnam, just as in Korea.

    The failure to predict the Chinese reaction, (hardly the responsibility of the US army) was largely by the State department and the CIA, especially Ray Cline. Subsequently, Cline did not get a ticker-tape parade–he became the director of the CIA..

    Dempsey pulled a Cline inasmuch as he failed to understand that if the US sat on its hands over Assad gassing his people like they were bugs and he was a farmer, that would embolden Russia into sending an expeditionary force to crush the popular uprising in Syria, thereby making the US look nervous and weak.

  33. MarkinLA says:

    I would suggest that you talk to some of these “boat people” before you pass judgement on the “morality” of the war. Hear what they have to say about the communist “paradise”.

    First of all who gives a damn what those people say about communism as it would have had nothing to do with the US or it’s citizens if we hadn’t stuck our noses into the place. Why do ex-communists get to come to the US and have us bomb their enemies when there are plenty of other people worse off than the Vietnamese were? Our meddling created a lot of animosity between the north and the south that may or may not have occurred if there was no war. Nobody knows what the reunification of the north and south would have been without a war and with Ho still running the government. Ho was looked upon by the OSS officers who worked with him in WWII as a nationalist first and a communist second. He wanted our help in developing the country after WWII and sent letter to Truman offering friendly relations with the US.

    I heard all the anti-communist propaganda BS when I worked at Hughes. None of it ever made any sense. There was always a reason to start a war against communists, no matter how insignificant the place was. If you don’t bomb one communist place and world doesn’t end, it kind of screws up all your talking points so you have to bomb them all.

    • Disagree: Stonehands
    • Replies: @Stonehands
  34. Agent76 says:
    @Sam the Man

    Only visually witnessed and narrated by those and who physically removed the dead. Get real!

  35. bluedog says:

    How did you think the people were going to treat you, after all many in the South didn’t want us there either, as was told to special ambassador Lodge by those running S. Vietnam. That was the reason for the false flag affair to get us involved, and of course the military leadership sucked the same as in Korea,in Korea they had Ridgeway the only general that knew his ass from a hole in the ground and in Nam they had none at all,and as far as Asia going communist doubtful at best regardless of the war in Vietnam…

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  36. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sam the Man

    The more realistic number of Jews who were deliberately killed by the Germans is probably no more than a few tens of thousands, and most of these were likely shot on the Eastern Front for communist political or partisan activites. The total number of Jews who died under the Third Reich – of all causes – is realistically between 200,000 and 300,000 and includes victims of disease, starvation, deaths in combat, Allied air attacks (including the deliberate strafing of refugee trains and columns from the camps who were fleeing the Red Army).

    We now know, based on empirical investigation and technical and logistical studies, that there were no “extermination camps” for Jews or anyone else, and no homicidal gas chambers, and no Jews were burned alive in ovens. The entire “Auschwitz as factory of death/industrial scale mass genocide” has been disproven on many grounds, including- but not limited to – the absurd “eyewitness” accounts of the “Sonderkommandos” dropping commercially available pesticide pellets through makeshift holes in the roof of an underground, unheated, non-airtight morgue. It would never have worked.

    The documentary evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the “Total/Final Solution of the Jewish Question/Problem” was one of removing the Jews from the German sphere of influence and resettling them elsewhere, e.g., Palestine, Madagascar, the occupied territories of the USSR, etc. The myth of the murder of “6 million Jews” or “Just under 6 million Jews” is based upon Talmudic number magic, not demographics or facts, and is used as a justification for the Allies own brutal war crimes, which dwarfed those realistically imputed to the Germans, complete NATO hegemony over Western Europe, and the expropriation and brutalization of the Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Wally
  37. anarchyst says:

    Shame on you!
    The Vietnamese we associated with (in Vietnam) treated us more kindly than our own countrymen when we returned to the states.
    For the REAL story, not from the reporters, most of who hung around the bars in Saigon, reporting from the bars, look up the USMC Combined Action Program This will destroy your civilian misconceptions about the Vietnam war and the Vietnamese people who I deeply respect, to this day.
    I’ll bet you never served…

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @bluedog
    , @Stonehands
  38. Col. Harry Summers and diplomat Norman Hannah had it right about Vietnam. Gen. Krulak recommended in 1965 to form a “line” at 17th parallel from South China Sea across Laotian panhandle to the Mekong. North Vietnamese leaders later admitted that they could not have won if we had done this. But.. it would have been “violating” the accords with North about Laotian neutrality, which “neutrality” was bogus as North had free rein to move throughout the area. War could have been won by late 65 or early 66 with a fraction of casualties TO ALL SIDES. Similar DMZ in Korean peninsula at 38th parallel has lasted for going on 64 years.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  39. Wally says:

    Let’s clarify with ‘continuous’ democracy.

    It is Iceland, having been a colony is irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. Wally says: • Website

    Ah yes, the tide is turning.

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

  41. Millenium says:

    Does everyone have to love their troops?

    How about if I was in Berlin in 1939? Do I have to love my troops? Or can I have a different, independent thought?

    How about if I was in Moscow in 1967, when the Soviet troops were attacking Praque? Do I have to love my troops? Or can I have a different, independent thought?

    Does everyone always have to love their troops?

  42. Wally says: • Website
    @Sam the Man

    So where are the enormous mass graves that are alleged?

    We’re talking about an alleged ‘6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.


    There is no “reality” without physical evidence, you’re preaching a laughable and easily debunked religion.
    Got Buchenwald human skin lampshades, soap made of Jews, shrunken heads? LOL
    ‘Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil’

    Also note that aerial photos of Auschwitz at the time of alleged ‘exterminations’ show noting of the sort.

    ‘fraudulent historian Hilberg exposed in court’

    “it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.” – French exterminationist historian Jacques Baynac, Le Nouveau Quotidien (Lausanne, Switzerland), Sept. 3, 1996, p. 14.

    see ‘holocaust’ debunking videos:

    Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed (Part 1 of 2)

    The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax

    Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?

    3D Imagery Demonstrates the Auschwitz Hole Hoax

    The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth

    Auschwitz—The Surprising Hidden Truth

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

  43. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    How is being a colony not relevant? Name a single colony that is a democracy. By its very nature a colony is ruled from a metropole and its people answerable to that.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  44. Wally says: • Website

    Please grow up. You are religiously indoctrinated. I suggest a book on logic and science.

    Indeed, typhus raged all through Europe during the war and immediately thereafter.
    There was never a case of gassing shown in the countless autopsies done at the German labor camps. None.


    See Buchenwald debunked here:
    ‘Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil’
    ‘ Buchenwald: Legend and Reality’
    ‘The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies’

    You no doubt accept the countless testimonies & eyewitnesses ‘proving’ witchcraft.

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  45. Wally says: • Website

    Germany was socialist under the ‘Nazis’.

    ‘Nazi’ = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei / National Socialist German Workers’ Party / NSDAP

    • Replies: @Anon
  46. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Except it wasn’t. You can call yourself whatever you want. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic; it isn’t.

    Yes or no: Was Germany fascist under the Nazis?

    • Replies: @Wally
  47. @anarchyst

    The Vietnam war was certainly regarded as important in SE Asia to its defence against expansionist Communist régimes. And a case can be made that, despite it’s cost to the US, it played a significant part in winning the Cold War and leaving the US as the only superpower (ripe to blow all its opportunities).

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  48. @Wally

    Why would anyone want to fo an autopsy on people deliberately killed with gas by their own colleagues?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  49. Sam McGowan says: • Website

    I agree with about half of what he has to say. There are a lot of things where he’s completely off-base. For example, he thinks JFK got the Soviets to pull their nukes out of Cuba when, in fact, they didn’t and the US pulled our nukes out of Turkey and Italy. As for MacArthur, if Truman had turned him loose, Vietnam would have never happened, there’d be no North Korea and the world would be a much better place.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  50. @Anon

    You ignore the original and still idiomatic meaning of colony which was a settlement of people not indigenous to the area colonised. Until 1901 what are now the Australian states were all self governing colonies with democratic institutions in advance of those in the imperial/metropolitan centre.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  51. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    But the Icelandic people were first independent and then annexed by Denmark.

  52. nsa says:

    Hey Anarch, How long have you been spewing out the stab-in-the-back nonsense…stuff that goes over with the alcoholic morons in the VFW bar but nowhere else? Your military got whupped by a poorly equipped but highly motivated turd world army, and the US military totally disintegrated…….fragging, junior officers shot from behind, rampant drug usage and VD, poor morale, agent orange debilitation, suicides, etc. The defeat was so grotesque the concept of a citizen military was abandoned in favor of a career (mercenary) military. This has all been documented by David Hackworth in detail……including the negotiated “decent interval” allowing Nixon and his pals to save some face. 60k dead….300k severely wounded…..2k MIA…..all for what?

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  53. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You mean the Netherlands diverted valuable resources from Phillip’s efforts to drive the Turkish pirates and slave raiders out of the Mediterranean.

    Many English historians claim the Dutch defeating the Spanish was solely due to English money and troops.

    Oh well, it was a long time ago.

  54. @anarchyst

    So it was ok to false flag, oops finesse America’s entry into Vietnam?

  55. realistic says:

    Anarchyst: Is it too much koolaid or ganga? Sure isn’t reality! Tet according to US just under 100,000 casualties for the “enemy” and just over for the N Vietnamese. NV claimed 1 million “service” casualties for the entire war. Domino theory has been thoroughly discredited especially by post-war history. Protests continued to the end especially with Veterans Against the War and draft did not end but replaced by a lottery {disclosure: I volunteered for the draft at a brother’s advice who was serving in Vietnam who clearly suggested I should stay as far away as possible}. Other “professions” may be just as lethal as the military, check the stats, although not as explicitly deadly. The American state encumbers us in too many ways to list and disobedience IS punished. I do agree however that the war porn propaganda that we fight for truth, justice, and the American way is total rubbish.


  56. @Wizard of Oz

    Australia is still a colony, it always has been. It was a collection of British colonies, as you say, but even after Federation it remained essentially a colony of Britain. Post WWII it became and remains a US colony, or perhaps satrap is the better description.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  57. Anonymous [AKA "Donovan"] says:

    No one is stopping you from getting a farm job picking fruit.

    Or do you think “illegals” are working as surgeons?

  58. @NoseytheDuke

    I daresay Humpty Dumpty (Lewis Caroll’s version) might go along with your usage but none of the main dictionary meanings support you. But maybe your freedom to toss words around like desert sand in a willy-willy is your higher value as indicated by your “satrap” when you presumably meant “satrapy”.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @NoseytheDuke
  59. anarchyst says:

    You are perpetuating the falsehoods that the “lugenpresse” of the day put out about Vietnam veterans that has been totally discredited…
    Why don’t you check out the USMC Combined Action Program to see another side of war. It would blow all of your preconceived civilian Hollywood notions about war out of the water. Go ahead…I dare ya’…

    • Replies: @bluedog
  60. Sowhat says:

    The MIIC has been provided so much funding over the last six-eight decades that, combined with the instruments that form public opinion (the MSM, the One-eyed Monsters, contracts like the Military has with the NFL) that ever so slowly and methodically, we have a warrior nation, while at the same time economic superiority has been stripped and given to Asia. These things didn’t happen by accident. Whether it be our own stupidity, spoiling by affluence, the dumping down of masses, or all of these combined, we’ve been played by those who rule. Eisenhower was accurate in his warning. Barry S., in televised speech after the 2008 Grand Larceny, told Americans that they were going to have to find a new way to live (survive) . I believe that they employ close to a million Americans… Perhaps more… “Heroes?”

  61. bluedog says:

    Hate to dis-appoint you but I did put my time in (1956) but the brainwashing failed to do its job, and there are far to many books on Vietnam and its people to believe that they liked us anymore than they did the Japs or the French, and that of course is why we had to enter Vietnam before the vote because they knew that the vast majority would side with the north.

    Read up on the re-location programs where we herded up complete villages, moved them south and they picked dumps to get enough to eat, and of course the troops of S. Vietnam were next to useless even tho we spent millions upon millions on those that didn’t want to fight OUR war..

  62. bluedog says:

    What we are speaking of is the war not the vets so lets not muddy the water those that were dragged into it against their will have my greatest sympathy, those that rushed off to get into the fray either by peer pressure or some notion of patriotism not so much, as they say you make your own bed and by the way Hackworth wrote a book that every American even thinking of enlisting should be compelled to read, as to just what Our wars are all about and you can forget about freedom mom’s apple pie and all the rest of the bullshit the government puts out..

  63. Rich says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I suppose that’s one reading of it. I always saw the Dutch ability to keep the fight going against the Spanish as one of great courage and obstinacy. A small nation’s refusal to be conquered and willingness to undergo harsh conditions to remain free is a great story.
    You’re right about if there had been no Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin, but if my Aunt had a mustache she’d be my Uncle, right? They existed and what happened, happened.

  64. It is true that Germans starved many to death in Buchenwald Dora, where the V2 and V1’s were built.
    But which Germans did the starving ?
    Not the SS, rations in Dora were higher than what the allies allowed Germans after the 1945 capitulation.
    The starving was done by the camp’s self management.
    As Rassinier, French socialist resistance fighter, shows in great detail, the camp management, some 25% of those in the camp, ate very well, up to 3500 kcal a day, the others, 75%, had to live on 1100 kcal a day.
    Without food packets, as Rassinier got every week from his wife, one then dies in six months time, hunger, or hunger related diseases.
    Dora had a swimming pool and a theatre.

    Paul Rassinier, ´Was ist Wahrheit ?, Die Juden und das Dritte Reich´, Leoni am Starnberger See, 7th printing, 1981 (Le véritable procès Eichmann ou les vainqueurs incorrigibles, 1963; The Real Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors. ISBN: 0911038485, 1983

    Camp self management consisted in most cases of those who were there first, common criminals, or communists and socialists.
    Dora was run by a common criminal.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  65. Cunning, but also obstinacy
    Herbert H. Rowen, ‘John de Witt, Statesman of the “True Freedom”‘, Cambridge 1986

  66. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    he’s never the less correct about his characterization

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  67. MarkinLA says:
    @Rick Johnson

    You do realize that this action would only have delayed the day that the North restarted the war and eventually win. This is like our stupidity in Afghanistan.


    The North Vietnamese would still be there and can wait us out. The only way you can win is to put billions and billions of dollars into the South and develop it to first world status all on the US taxpayers back so that the national heroes who kicked the Japanese and French out are long forgotten. How realistic does that sound?

    AS for Korea, how much money have we dumped into that place? How much have we allowed them to dump their products into the US and cost American jobs to keep them afloat? How have we looked the other way while they had virtual dictator after virtual dictator until they finally achieved a high economic status. What did we “win”?

    • Replies: @ThatDamnGood
  68. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Except EVERY worthless speck on the globe was regarded as important against expansionist Communist regimes – even when there wasn’t any proof that these regimes were anything more than home grown revolutions without any interest in expanding.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  69. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam McGowan

    Are you talking about nuclear weapons? If not, how many US soldiers would have died fighting the Chinese army in a god forsaken place like Northern China, Siberia, and North Korea?

    Mao didn’t give a damn how many Chinese died in the war. As long at the USSR could funnel old WWII rifles into China, there would have been an endless supply of Chinese peasants thrown into that meat grinder. At some point they simply overwhelm you with numbers.

    I have read that part of the reason for the Sino-Soviet split was that Mao suggested luring the US Army deep into Northern China so the Soviets could nuke the US troops. At that point the Russians knew Mao was nuts.

  70. Dolores says:


    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  71. @MarkinLA

    Granted that the Vietnamese Communists *might* have settled down as a nationalist régime that was mostly concerned about the traditional danger from China, although it did interfere in Cambodia to support Hun Sen, why should anyone have been complacent about the possibilities given tbat

    1. Communism was avowedly at least as messianic as peak American exceptionalism,
    2. The Soviet Union was backing North Vietnam,
    3. Easy success might have encouraged and empowered gung ho Viet Minh generals

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @MarkinLA
  72. @Dolores

    And before there were bankers? How did those wars differ? And when were the first bankers’ wars?

  73. @Rurik

    I recognise John Howard speaking in the Australian House of Representatives but who is it speaking on 20 March 2003 supposedly two days AFTER Howard?

    Australia gets a pretty good deal out of its alliance with the US and even on the conservative side of politics something – msybe the sheer profitability of doing business with China – is making politicians a little more.sceptical and hardnosed.

    While it is a pity Howard didn’t (as far as we know) tell his new mate Geotge W. that invading Iraq was a stupid idea it is worth pointing out that Australia’s only fatal caualty in the Iraq War was a single private soldier who shot himself accidentally, while Australian officers right up to Major General, got a lot of valuable military experience.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  74. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Y0u’re making no sense.

  75. Wally says: • Website

    No, it was socialist.

    ‘Nazi’ = National Socialist German Workers’ Party / Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei / NSDAP.

    • Replies: @Anon
  76. Wally says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    I noticed you dodged my response which demolishes your propaganda.

    You and those like you have no chance against an informed Revisionist.

    Hence laws against free speech in Europe and the persecution of Revisionists in the US.

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

    see the impossible ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

  77. @Wizard of Oz

    The nerve of He of a Thousand Typos to call attention to my one. Typical of you. When you chose the handle Wizard of Oz was it a hard choice between that and Forelock Tugger?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  78. @Wally

    You said “there was never a case of gassing shown in the countless autopsies done in the German camps” anď I merely point out that, if you were murdering people in or outside the “labor camps” you would be unlikely to order autopsies on your victims. I also doubt that many [countless!] autopsies were performed on any of those who died apart from those who were subject to medical experimentation. Why waste resources when your economy is hardpressed on unneccessarily distinguishing between the death of a slave laboreŕ from typhus from ine from starvation?

  79. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    You’re dodging.

    As I already said, you can call a party whatever you like, but it doesn’t make the assertion true. Is Zhirinovsky’s party liberal and democratic? Recall what Voltaire said about the Holy Roman Empire.

    I maintain that Nazi Germany was fascist, many because of its anti-Marxism, anti-democratic, anti-liberal, authoritarian, militaristic, and ultranationalist features. It pretty much fired on all the cylinders.

    The only aspect it lacked was economic corporatism, although it should be stipulated that even Italy wasn’t able to establish a corporate state and that the Nazis at least made the attempt to appear corporatist, with endeavors like the DAF.

    See the above? That’s a concrete argument for Nazi Germany being fascist. Now it’s your turn. Give me an argument for it being socialist that goes beyond “Because they said so.”

    Here, I’ll help: Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. So how about some examples of the German government doing this?

    When answering bear in mind that you should exclude the military from your response for what I hope are obvious reasons. While you’re at it, maybe you could explain why Hitler banned the two socialist parties in 1933.

    And if you don’t respond, then we’ll just assume you admit you’re wrong.

  80. @Wally

    I don’t think you noticed anything. Certainly not my dodging your response because you weren’t responding to me and I was not even purporting to answer any substance there might have been in any response you made to anyone else.

  81. @Rich

    I understand the phrase to be If your aunt had balls. Lots of aunts have a moustache, ask any Greek or Italian.

    • Replies: @Rich
  82. @Wizard of Oz

    Nonsense. The Vietnamese were nationalists first and only turned to communism as it was their only source of support after being rejected by the US. Uncle Ho was asked which type of communist he was and he answered by asking which type of communism was for nationalism.

  83. @Wally

    I don’t think you noticed anything. Certainly not my dodging your response because you weren’t responding to me and I was not even purporting to answer any substance there might have been in any response you made to anyone else.

  84. @Wizard of Oz

    “Australia gets a pretty good deal out of its alliance with the US”

    Only if one considers sovereignty and independence to be of no importance, as you seem to.

    Gawd! How much Kool Aid can one man possibly drink?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  85. @Wally

    Please be sure to alert the media if ever he does, even by accident. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. @NoseytheDuke

    Your lack of mental stamina is so persistently evident that you will persuade no one that it was a typo. You were the victim of your pretentiousness in wanting to toss in a vaguely remembered grand word from something you read at school and you couldn’t be bothered to get it right.

  87. @NoseytheDuke

    You concede the material advantages out of our alliance I assume, even if one has to put a price on the value of the insurance bought by our contribution in e.g. Iraq.

    Then, obviously, you use “sovereignty” and “independence” metaphorically as in the primary legal sense these are not in doubt. So….. do you regard our having reciprocal obligations under our formal and informal alliance arrangements as limiting our independence in an unacceptable way? If so can you spell it out, with examples from the last few decades? I take it that you see us as being forced into actions or concessions we really really object to. What, for example? I don’t think you will find it easy to fit Gareth Evans’s eloquence on a duty to protect into your relevant memories, or Alexander Downer’s saying we weren’t committed to defending Taiwan (when you check that you might find some difference in detail but not I think in substance).

    I have strong objections to the changes in Copyright law and the possibilities of extradition of Australians for trial in the US that flowed from the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement signed, possibly against advice, by John Howatd. But it would be ridiculous to frame one’s objections in terms of lost sovereignty or independence. They bargained hard for what their Congressmen’s owners wanted and we looked after – mostly ‘- our farmers, though a friend tells me there are some useful visa innovations.

    So, if you have the energy, I would be interested in your making your case for our being better off as Sweden, say. Without pursuing the Sweden line too far I note Julian Assange’s apparently genuine, and to me not unrealistic, fear that Sweden would hand him over to the US. I trust we would not (95%).

    Also note that we don’t extradite people to the US without a guarantee that the death penalty won’t be sought. (Not that I would extradite any Australian resident to any country. We should try our own).

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @Rurik
  88. @NoseytheDuke

    People can find themselves known by the company they keep. Don’t you mind?

  89. @MarkinLA

    Hey man, l just hit disagree to your response by mistake- fat fingers on cell phone- whoops..
    Why do people in my family and elsewhere try to rehabilitate this hellish UN police action?

  90. @anarchyst

    Perhaps you should change your handle to corporatyst.
    Obedient serf risks his hide on behalf of his Jewish overlords on Wall St.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  91. @Wizard of Oz

    Assume nothing. Our “insurance”, as you creatively put it, has more to do with the US selling corrupt Australian politicians expensive and useless weapons systems, using our facilities for their own purposes and undermining our own weak democracy. Some ally. The “premiums for this insurance” are paid with the blood and treasure of the people and have undermined our standing in the world. Australians used to be welcomed everywhere but now we are seen as a US puppet/poodle.

    Howard and Downer? Liars both, and war criminals to any sane Australian. I feel disgust at the very mention of those names. I harbour no joy in stating that the US, UK and Australian people are well deserving of the shock wave of suffering that is to be their reward for the fealty and cowardice they have shown. Your own Kool Aid intoxication prevents you from seeing this as you toe the line and freely echo the toxic propaganda that you’ve ingested with your fruity cordial.

    Sweden has also sacrificed its sovereignty and prestige, betrayed by its own sellout politicians.

    As to your questions, questions, questions. I believe that you have yet to answer Jonathan Revusky’s question of you as to what evidence you claim supports the official explanation as to the events of Sept 11 2001? Give it a go, mate.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  92. Rich says:

    It’s my understanding that sometimes ladies peruse this site so I was doing my best to be genteel.

  93. @NoseytheDuke

    There are very few people associated with UR that I would take seriously when writ6ing the kind od stuff that Revusky comes up with in the style he adopts. Ron Unz, Steve Sailer, maybe Philip Giraldi and John Derbyshire would give me pause to entertain the idea – which otherwise actually doesn’t interest me very much – that something radically different from the story of an Al Qaeda plot was the real story behind 9/11. However let me say my provisional working hypothesis is
    1. Osama bin Laden and his acolyres hated the US and wished to inflict damage on it;
    2. It was established tactics to make simultaneous attacks with something that would blow up
    3. A rational explanation for what was done on 9/11 is that Osama bin Laden knew that his being based in Afghanistan was known to the US and that an attack on Afghanistan would almost certainly follow success in 9/11 – an outcome which he would welcome given that he was well aware of what to him were happy precedents of disasters for the US and Russia to name only the 20th century calamities.
    4. No other motive is as simple, rational and borne out by the result. No one with any weight as a planner or leader is going to devise an event killing many random civilians with careful staging that mustn’t be uncovered or leak so that someone in Afghanistan will be blamed and a war against Iraq can obtain all the necessary support. And that’s just touching on the difficulties of mounting the great hypothesised conspiracy and attacks.

    The case for some great conspiracy is very flimsy apart from its inferior plausibility for reasons mentioned above. It depends on alleged impossibilities in what is commonly believed to have happened to the WTC buildings. Is Revusky a scientist or engineer qualified to give an expert opinion? Are you? Evidently you rely on secondhand stuff from years back.

    The WTC 7 collapse doesn’t seem to me a problem. After all a fire burned within it for about 8 hours. Years ago some architects and engineers came up with doubts about the possibility of WTC1 and WTC 2 collapsing ss a result of what people in the street saw happening to them. (I can’t remember whether Revusky is one of the real maddies who doesn’t think the WTC towers were hit by planes. If he is I question your sanity in giving him the time of day). Is there now a group of truly credible experts – say the Deans of Engineering at MIT, Caltech and a few Ivies – saying WTCs 1 and 2 just couldn’t have collapsed without demolition charges being fired? No, because, the up to date written and audiovisual investigations into, and accounts of, what happened to the Twin Towers no longer support the impossiblity thesis – without which there is nothing left to waste time on.

    BTW I know Howard and Downer. Neither are luars though I am sure you will suggest, as plenty have, that Howard sas as untruthful as Bush and Blair about the reasons for attacking Iraq. (My view would be that, like Colin Powell he went into bat for the team and stretched the ethics of advocacy – as in the advocate’s “I am instructed that…”). But give me an example of Alexander Downer lying. I can’t think of anything you could choose to justify caracterising him ad a liar.

    I am used to hearing people grandly stating that Australia’s standing in the world is damaged by this or that.

    Pure pompous BS in almost every instance. And even it were in some sense true, so what? Cp. Those who want us to damage ourselves in reducing CO2 emiissions without any benefit to Australians except for the great and good who think they might be embarrassed at the Royal Society amonst the moralistic non-physicists, or lèsser folk who think it matters what Guardian reading social studies teachèrs think.

    People who say that our reputation is damaged – and that it matters – ought to face the fact that Australia’s handling of irregulsr immigrants, for example, has many admirers amongst the 2 per cent of English speaking foeigners who know what they are talking about AND, for another test, consider how likely it is China, India and Japan will punish us or countenance the punishing of us for our coal exports.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Stonehands
  94. @MarkinLA

    USA had no Marshall Plan for South Korea or Japan.

    Rather the Soviet Union had one for North Korea. Living standards in the north was far higher than the south until the Soviet Union ended.

    Another dumb American who thinks the free world prospered because of his or his parents tax dollars….

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @MarkinLA
  95. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    “sovereignty” and “independence” metaphorically as in the primary legal sense these are not in doubt.

    Australia played along with the lie that Saddam was a threat to the planet. And we just saw a video of the Prime Minister shilling zio-lies as a pretext/justification for aggressive war.

    when your government shills for an illegal war of aggression against a nation and a people who have done your country no harm, and have not threatened it and pose zero threat to it, but are nevertheless condemned to destruction and death, then you know something’s rotten in Denmark.

    the US might not have laws on the books declaring the Senate as Israeli occupied territory, but only a complete fool would not have noticed by now that the US Senate is controlled by Israel.

    Just as Australia (and Canada and Germany and Norway and Sweden and Finland and every country with a Rothschild central bank) is controlled by the Glob Zionist$


    check out my ‘website’

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  96. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    4. No other motive [for 9/11] is as simple, rational and borne out by the result.

    you’re wrong here wiz

    the simple rationale was for a new “Pearl Harbor like event” to cattle-yze the American public into a war hysteria on all of Israelis well-earned enemies. Duh.

    and talk about being borne out, whoo boy!

    Is Revusky a scientist or engineer qualified to give an expert opinion? .

    no, but thousands of scientists and engineers and architects have all gone on record effectively saying the official account of what happened is pure bullshit.

    The WTC 7 collapse doesn’t seem to me a problem. After all a fire burned within it for about 8 hours.

    it doesn’t seem to you a problem wiz, because you’re a liar. If you were like most people on the planet and had never heard of building seven, then you’d have an excuse for saying something so off the charts stupid. But you’re neither stupid or ignorant, rather you’re simply a lying, dishonest twat, huh? 😉

    the up to date written and audiovisual investigations into, and accounts of, what happened to the Twin Towers no longer support the impossiblity thesis

    just like the ‘global warming’ “science” is settled, huh?


    on second thought I shouldn't call you a twat. I understand that you're Jewish and have a kneejerk sympathy for all things Israel. Most Jews do. And since by now it's obvious that Israel was behind 9/11, you're just trying to dissemble and obfuscate in defense of your people and the nation you have a passionate attachment to.

    But then I think of all the millions of people who have lost their lives or seen their nations and villages and world destroyed as a consequence of that heinous crime, and then I go back to thinking that yea.. sure, you're a twat all right.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  97. Anonymous [AKA "TheBudaPest"] says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Excuse me if I am a little dense but are you pro or anti monarchy? I can not quite tell from your post.

  98. Avery says:

    {USA had no Marshall Plan for South Korea or Japan.}
    {Another dumb American who thinks the free world prospered because of his or his parents tax dollars….}

    Japan and South Korea were given free access to the largest, wealthiest consumer market in the world – USA – when they were starting up.
    Japan and South Korea in turn would pull every trick in the book to prevent American companies from selling anything there.
    Japanese and SKs certainly are smart people and worked hard.
    But without an open market to initially sell their junk Datsuns and junk Hyundais, they would not be selling Lexus and luxury Hyundais today.

    Semiconductor sector in both countries was pretty much created by US companies. You may be familiar with dumb fact that Americans invented the transistor, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor,….

    Same with China today: China’s economy is what it is today, because they had unfettered access to the American consumer market. Not their fault though: fault of globalists who control US Gov. China was mired in technological backwardness until the thaw with US and opening up our markets for them. Chinese products are mostly junk now, but they will improve over time, same as Japan and South Korea. All at the expense of American workers/taxpayers.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  99. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    No matter what happened in Vietnam there was no way it was ever going to affect the US given the Pacific Ocean and a US Navy that was more powerful than all previous navies in the history of the world combined.

    Given that they were no threat to us, why not take Ho up on his offer to Truman and have friendly relations instead of war?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  100. MarkinLA says:

    Well thanks, but you wouldn’t be the first to disagree (or the last) if you did.

  101. MarkinLA says:

    The US looked the other way while Japan dumped it’s products into the US – especially color TVs that destroyed the US manufacturers such as Zenith and Admiral. We did the same for Japanese and South Korean semiconductors. Nothing was ever done to protect US industry as it was viewed as a way to prop up those countries economies.

    The US was also involved in the Asian Tigers financial bailout that included South Korea.

  102. RodW says:
    @jim jones

    Really? Why?

    People who worship soldiers just look like big, stupid poofs to me, Trump included.

  103. @Rurik

    I can’t guess at your IQ but I can see that you are unobservant and/or inattentive or forgetful because I am without any Jewish ancestry at all (and I am certainly not a convert) and only a twisted mind could confidently assert his belief that I am Jewish. But the distortion of your cognitive ability is also on display when you call me a liar in respect of what I have to say about WTC 7. I won’t bother to repeat yet again the reasons why it is crass and crude to assert that someone is lying without the basis in logic, fact and motive, but even a recent Arts BA (Pass) graduate ought to be able to explain it to you.

    As to the actuality of WTC 7, which anyone properly using the word “lie” needed at a minimum to set out, I rely on having seen a film which unless faked with extraordinary attention to detail long after the event shows the fire in WTC 7 soon after the Twin Towers ahave been struck and shows it higher up in the building as the hours pass. I know fanciful stories have been told about why someone might want to burn the building or what was in it but any moderately worldly person had heard lots of attention sdekers and fanrssists at work. Also there is a very silly reliance on a BBC reporter apparently thinking WTC 7 hsd already collapsed when it was merely apparent that it was going to. Anyone who knows anything about the media’s realities wouldn’t be so naive as to think it important evidence of anything. Prove that the film was faked and of course you have a very interesting case.

    You haven’t said anything to add to whatever people might once have drawn from that now venerable architects’ and engineers” performance in the limelight. No naming of weighty figures who could still lend credit to any doubts raised. So you apparently have nothing to add on that flimsy reasoning which is,anyway, out of date.

    How you can suggest that plotters, which you think the Jewish neocons were, could not find more direct ways to cause Clinton (who was quite amenable) or Bush to take on the unfinished business of 1991 than to simulate an attack from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan I find truly amazing.

    Of course we do know or think we know that Rumsfeld and Cheney, neither of them Jewish, immediately did start using 9/11 (your Pearl Harbour event) as a pretext for sorting out Iraq. Are you seriously suggesting that some Jewish neocons were so confident that the people most influential with Bush would react just as Israel would want if Al Qaeda was thought to have launched a really shocking attack on America that they adopted an elaborate and extremely risky plot to blow up at least two major buildings and attack the Pentagon, for which evrrything:had to go right?

    While the plan – for which merely damaging the Twin Towers was enough – was a perfect fit for Osama bin Laden’s strategy and desires it is one with far too many uncertainties and contingencies if it is seen as a plot to get America into war in the ME depending ad it did on Rumsfeld and Cheney and of course the CIA and FBI being at least neutralised. Try Ockham’s Razor.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  104. @Rurik

    No doubt you have said what you wanted to say but I have no idea why you wanted to say it as it is not a response to my comments in any logical way.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that your reference to all those countries having a “Rothschild central bank” is incomprehensible if not totally meaningless.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  105. @MarkinLA

    I don’t know about the offer to Truman but what you say sounds sensible. I have never tried to make the case that US fighting the Vietnam War was in the American interest as it was in the interests of SE Asia and Australasia.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  106. anarchyst says:

    You are correct. When it comes to cars, most products of the 1960s through 1980s were “rust buckets”. Although Japan and Korea had run circles around American cars, when it came to “fit and finish”, Japanese cars actually rusted out FASTER than domestic American iron.
    Back in the day, you could take an American car with 100,000 miles, never changing the oil or transmission fluid, heaping abuse on it, and it would still run.
    Japanese cars were built with tighter tolerances and were more susceptible to failure from abuse.
    The “favor” that Japan did to our domestic automobile industry was to make American cars better, by increasing quality and by not accepting failure.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  107. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    BBC reporter apparently thinking WTC 7 hsd already collapsed when it was merely apparent that it was going to.


    how so wiz?!

    there were zero indications that the building was going to plop into its basement, until it did

    what were these indications that is was going to implode, when no steel frame building in the history of the world had ever done so before or since? Unless they had been wired for a controlled demolition.

    and it wasn’t just the BBC that pre-reported it, so did Fox news

    how did these news rooms know what no person on the planet could have ever anticipated?

    in fact, the implosion still can not be explained to this day

    I call you a liar because no sincere person can be aware of the circumstances of building seven and casually dismiss the impossible explanation as having any merit unless they’re really, really stupid, and you see wiz, I give you much more credit than that.

    Anyone who knows anything about the media’s realities wouldn’t be so naive as to think it important evidence of anything.

    not true wiz. The pre-reporting of building seven’s collapse is proof of foreknowledge. In exactly the same way as if a news organization had reported that the first plane had struck the first tower five minutes before it did, you see? Because neither event were something that could have been anticipated unless you had foreknowledge.

    … the Jewish neocons were, could not find more direct ways to cause Clinton (who was quite amenable) or Bush to take on the unfinished business of 1991 than to simulate an attack from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan I find truly amazing.

    no you don’t wiz, because it wasn’t just a matter of taking out Saddam, but rather attacking and destroying seven countries that Israel wants reduced to smoking ruins and sent reeling into the stone age for generations. In order to get the American people on board for such a Satanic adventure, these Jewish neocons and their Shabbos goy enablers had to create a sense of moral outrage in the populace, and for that they needed a crime like 9/11. As I’m certain you’re perfectly aware.

    While the plan – for which merely damaging the Twin Towers was enough –

    nope wiz, there is more to it than that. The buildings were full of asbestos and required every expensive asbestos removal to be brought up to code. Which is one reason no 0ne wanted to deal with it, and then along comes Lucky Larry/Bibi’s very close friend. Also in order for Lucky Larry to get his billions in insurance money (how’s that for Jewish lightning eh?), the buildings had to be utterly destroyed- so that Lucky wouldn’t have to pay for the asbestos removal (he’d simply use the lungs of the citizens of NYC to absorb the cancerous materials) and he’d get billions to rebuild/play with. So the plan worked almost perfectly, except that the plane that was shot down in Pennsylvania was probably slated for building seven, thereby providing the pretext for it too to come crashing down. When the plane never arrived, Lucky said they decided to “pull it” anyways. As I’m sure you’re well aware, as this stuff has already been gone over exhaustively here at UR.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  108. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have no idea why you wanted to say it as it is not a response to my comments in any logical way.

    your comments have been that Australia is in no way being controlled by the ZUSA, and that it retains its perfect sovereignty in spite of what the ZUSA might want it to do- like put a moral rubber stamp on another illegal war of aggression.

    For instance, if the ZUSA were to get its war with Russia, even tho everyone with an IO above room temperature knows that it is the ZUSA that is the aggressor, who doubts for even one second that the quisling government in Canberra, including the entire controlled Australian msm would all go along with the war crime?

    no one doubt it because Australia is just as controlled by the Zio-Fiend as my country is, and England and France and everywhere else there lurks a Rothschild central bank/deepstate pulling the strings of their foreign policy. Duh

    those countries having a “Rothschild central bank” is incomprehensible if not totally meaningless.

    yea, right wiz. Whatever you say 😉

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  109. @Rurik

    I can see you not only don’t believe in applying Ockham’s Razor but prefer something like the reverse. Always prefer the immensely complex Gothic horror tale where dozens of wicked or bewitched people have to get their parts in the satanic rituals just right. Cast a spell so that the protection of the Bletchley Park story (in which no patriot needed to have a troubled conscience) appears in contrast to be run-of-the mill discretion.

    The trouble is you really bring my scepticism to the boil when you pose as an expert, and a hopelessly bad one, and assert that there was “zero” indication that WTC 7 was likely to collapse. That doesn’t even begin to make sense. There must have been dozens of people the reporter might have spoken to who would have connected the extreme heat apparent in the Twin Towers before their collapse with the evident fact of a less explosive fire burning for several times as long in WTC 7 and said something like “it’d not just the Twin Towera ya know: Building 7 – she’s gone too”.

    So you claim perhaps that I am not sceptical. You and your story tellers have the Copyright on that description. I simply doubt the quite extraordinarily complicated with no positive proofs of a highly risky conspiracy whereas you can’t believe even the possibility of a simple proven congruence betweeen means and ends for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

    Not a single Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden yet to disclose the truth. Not even Russian or Chinese hackers able to plant evidence they think could stand scrutiny. Not a single Saudi as disaffected as ObL to blow the whistle on the shocking collaboration and concealment on which Jews/Israelis were joint venturers with Saudi Arabia. No attempts to sue the US government over the conspiracy by law firms acting for family members of those killed. No dying witness to or participant to thw conspiracy seeking to extort $100 million so he can set up a significant charity in atonement for his criminal complicity in mass murder.

    Instead of spending so much time and energy pushing your version on the Web in places like UR with about as much effect or credit as the drunken bar fly saying “if I’ve told you once I’ll tell you again….” why don’t you put it all togrther in a book now that self-publication on the web means that not being able to find a publisher is not an excuse? I’ll take the first copy, signed, for $500.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  110. @Rurik

    I had you on my Commenters to Ignore list before I changed phones. Can you give me just a little solid evidence as to why I shouldn’t treat you as so combining ignorance snd arrogance as evidenced by what you say about Australia which I know extremely well that I might as eell give you up as a hopeless case. Name me the PMs you have known, the government ministers, the heads of government departments, the heads of ASIO and of ASIS, the generals and admirals, the ambassadors, the major newspaper editors, the CEOs of TV networks, the high rated talkback hosts even: just a sample of twenty will do. You’re all hat no cattle I’m afraid.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  111. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have seen documentaries where it was said that Ho stated that even though he was communist, he didn’t think the USSR would be of much help in developing Vietnam since they were so depleted by the war and hoped that the US would help them develop. Of course, for such help the US would have had significant influence on how that development occurred.

    Vietnam was the result of local American politics and the inability of somebody standing up and saying Vietnam wasn’t worth it and still being able to keep their political job given the Red Menace hysteria that the government and the CIA had spent all that time and money since the end of WWII to ramp up. Just like Trump now is finding out about Syria.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  112. MarkinLA says:

    If you remember way back to the late 80s there was a guy by the name of Watenabe (I think) who got the idea of importing used Japanese engines Many of them had very few miles on them because in Japan cars are rigorously inspected and one of the tests is for smog. I don’t remember if the cars were junked outright or the owner had to do an engine swap to keep them on the road. Anyway, that could have been the basis for it – Japanese cars didn’t get many miles (and thus many years) so why waste money worrying about rust?

  113. @MarkinLA

    Wnat did the French say to Truman about it? Presumably that Ho was a dangerous man to have anything to do with amongst other things.

  114. @Wizard of Oz

    The French! FFS you really are an idiot. Why would the Viet people want their former colonial masters back instead of independence due to the fall of Japan? Uncle Ho threatened the return to former French repression and exploitation.
    You really are a forelock tugger to the core.

    Kindly submit a picture of yourself to unz and possibly Jonathan Revusky might choose to use it in future to illustrate the HIQI concept.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  115. @Wizard of Oz

    Don’t forget we used the same people to undermine the Soviets in Afghanistan- l think the same gang was given tertiary help pulling off 9/11- being that they were illiterate in English (renting apartments, setting up utilities etc.) What happened to the guy in San Diego who was there laison and funder? Didn’t one of the Saudi princes cough up 100 grand for this initial stage? So the big guys in the Agencies looked the other way when “brick” agents issued warnings.
    The PNAC report certainly was gifted with their desired Pearl Harbor galvanizing event- the Patriot Act was rolled out-Wes Clark’s 7 country invasion was underway; the trillions rolled into the proper corporate pockets.. Move along nothing to see here!
    It’s astounding the venality and grifting-the absolute contempt for the law in the highest places- since this seminal event.

    You speak as though you are a career diplomat; a beaucratic mercenary beholden to your paymaster. There are holes EVERYWHERE in the official narrative! Planes flying around doing loop de loops with their transponders off over numerous military bases, while our vaunted Air Force practices bombing runs over the Pine Barrens- c’mon Gomer, wake up!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  116. @NoseytheDuke

    Is it the alcohol again or are you just ab initio profoundly stupid?

    I suspect you didn’t even read the context of my remark or maybe it’s just that the damage done to your brain precludes mental exertion for long enough to work out the meaning of even my quite simple contribution to a conversation

    Let me spell it out in case there are others that also need help znd might accept it. MarkinLA had said that Truman, necessarily long before Dien Bien Phu had turned down a request from Ho (a private citizen in a French colony) to provide assistance unspecified for economic development or reconstruction in the Vietnamese part of French Indo China. MarkinLA gave neither dates nor stated or inferred reasons. So I contributed the thought, expressed so as not to insult the intelligence of the smarter half of UR commenters, that the US would hsve sought French reaction to this, a)though probably not in doubt about it, and the French would have disapproved and given reasons which may not have been their true ones but would have been unfavourable to Ho, whom they clearly did not want to see using US money to win support.

    It would be most unlikely that the US would ignore France’s preference. After all tthe US didn’t even insist on Marshall Plan aid getting through to Poland over Soviet objections, and those of their Polish puppets.

    Why don’t you give up exposing yourself on UR and lessen the anger and frustration that any reader could detect. It gives me no pleasure to say thzt you are a sad case, reacting angrily to your consciousness of weak and declining faculties. But your angry and debilitaated presence on UR seems to require that someone help you. Perhaps a resolution to be entirely amiable, equable and civil for three months, with questions rather than misguided assertions, would be therapeutic and make yourself and others happier.

  117. @Stonehands

    At least your imagined scenario (or scenarios) is/are not crazy and totally implausible even if unsubstantiated. It is not beyond all crebibility that other rich Saudis, better connected than ObL may have contributed to the events of 9/11 ‘ though an actual well informed diplomat might say it was totally wrong and incredible for all I know.

    You puzzle me however with your reference to illiteracy in English and to planes flying around over “numerous military bases” “with their transponders switched off”. There was quite enough English literacy amongst the highjackera for them to get their flight training in the US. Of course the highjackers may have switched the transpondera off. So what? What relevance would that have to any military (sic) base? But your final proof that you are juat trolling for reasons I can’t imagine is your saying the planes were doing “loop de (sic) loops”! Nah, I’m not going to let you gst away with that absurdity. As a pilot I have “looped the loop” and I can tell you for 100 per cent sure you don’t do it in a commercial jet airliner.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  118. @Wizard of Oz

    This exageration “loopedy loops” was meant to provoke a smile, in response to an absurd situation. Thanks for your edification regarding aerodynamics (sarc..l have to spell it out to you)This isn’t an imagined scenario- transponders were shut off- but the jets were travelling over numerous military bases in the DC corridor, so they were certainly being tracked. I don’t understand your glib response “so what”. Then why have transponders?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  119. @Rich

    Rich sez,”Later, in the 20th century, it took the Brits and the Americans to keep you free.”

    Then he sez, “They existed and what happened, happened.”

    Yeah, but it may not have happened the way Rich thinks it did.

    What makes Rich think the Americans and Brits did anything to keep the prols and peasants of any country free? Nice myth, but what didn’t happen, didn’t happen.

    BTW, jyles was correct about Stalin and his appeasers, but not exactly correct about Hitler. Hitler found it necessary to overrun the Netherlands, not to subjugate France, but to liberate it from the banker-commie cabal that wanted to subjugate it and the rest of the world.

    Hitler was into trying his best to avoid subjugation which is why great parts of Europe supported him without his firing a shot and that’s why he had to be crushed by the criminal banker-commies.

    Stand up against the money lenders and other parasites and history offers plenty of examples of what happens to ya.

    One of our very own, William Maclay, the first US Senator from Pennsylvania described it briefly and well, saying,

    But I am found to possess knowledge of the finances of Pennsylvania. The presumption is that I … am become independent of them, and therefore criminal.

    Journal of William Maclay, United States senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791, 1890medition page 225

    • Agree: Stonehands
  120. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Always prefer the immensely complex Gothic horror tale where dozens of wicked or bewitched people have to get their parts in the satanic rituals just right

    like the JFK assassination?

    few people believe that rot today wiz, the Warren Commission has as much credibility as the 9/11 Commission. And we aleady know they can maintain a cover up for a cowardly and murderous act of war against the citizens of this nation because they did it with the USS Liberty, didn’t they?

    would have connected the extreme heat apparent in the Twin Towers before their collapse

    you mean the heat that this woman must have felt?

    “it’d not just the Twin Towera ya know: Building 7 – she’s gone too”.


    your reaching wiz, and dissembling and obfuscating, etc..

    there was no earthly reason for anyone to believe that building seven would fall, and especially plop into its basement at free-fall speed, IOW sans any resistance from the structure of the building, that was *obviously* felled in a controlled demolition

    we’re not writing for each other’s benefit wiz, we’re writing to set the record straight and for any lurkers out there, and what I suspect is being conveyed by these conversations is that you are a liar and a shill for murderers wiz. That you know building seven was destroyed in a CD, and that anyone who looks at the videos with half a brain must obviously conclude, and yet you try pathetically to defend the indefensible. Why wiz? What agenda might you have for obscuring Israel’s obvious role in the murder of 3000 American souls so that they might trick America into going to wars against countries that they don’t like.

    Isn’t that also why they murdered the men on the USS Liberty wiz? As a cowardly way to get Americans to fight their wars for them? Eh wiz?

    Not a single Saudi as disaffected as ObL to blow the whistle on the shocking collaboration and concealment on which Jews/Israelis were joint venturers with Saudi Arabia.

    Osama said he had nothing to do with it. And I’m unaware of a shred of evidence that the Saudis had anything to do with it whatsoever. It’s wasn’t Saudi intelligence agents that were arrested after they filmed the first plane hitting the tower and were celebrating it with dancing and high-fiving. Those were Israelis wiz.

    why don’t you put it all togrther in a book

    several people already have. There’s plenty of info out there for anyone who’s curious.

    My agenda here at Unz is simply to tell the truth, as I’m convinced that all the wars Americans and others are dying in are all based on devil’s lies. And that if more people become aware of that, that it would make evil wars less likely.

    I don’t like wars based on lies wiz. They rile me, especially since its innocent people that die in them while Satanic scum benefit. So I stop by at places like Unz and simply point out the truth.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Stonehands
  121. Rurik says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Name me the PMs you have known, the government ministers, the heads of government departments, the heads of ASIO and of ASIS, the generals and admirals, the ambassadors, the major newspaper editors, the CEOs of TV networks, the high rated talkback hosts even: just a sample of twenty will do

    I don’t have to know those names to know that the ‘five eyes’ are all controlled by deepstate interests that have nothing to do with the people of those nations, except insofar as they can be used as cannon fodder or tax/debt slaves.

    the fact that you know more about Australia, yet pretend like it has total sovereignty from the ZUSA /British royal pedophiles/central banksters, only goes to destroy your credibility even further, if that’s even possible.

    Canada, England, Australia, and the ZU$A are all dominated by interests out of London-East: Tel Aviv.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  122. @Rurik

    we’re not writing for each other’s benefit wiz, we’re writing to set the record straight and for any lurkers out there,

    Exactly! Thanks.

  123. @Rurik

    I already used my agree, kudos!

  124. In June 2016, for instance, a Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans had “quite a lot” of confidence in the military,

    That’s truly tragic, un-American, and no doubt partly a result of decades of schooling and endless forms of brainwashing of a passive, ignorant, unthinking and gullible public.

    It wasn’t always that way. The early Americans were wary of bureuacracies, the military, and standing armies and that’s partly why the Constitution specified a well armed militia and NOT a standing army.

    The anti-Federalists warned us of it nearly 250 years ago, and they were right on all counts.

    Even Warren, who never impressed me as particularly anti-Fed, warned,

    Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character.

    – Mercy Otis Warren, prominent Revolution-era historian

    History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805

  125. @Stonehands

    I missed your frolic because it was encased in what I took, and take, to be blithe irrelevance to any important inference. “Military bases” is such a vague description that it conveys nothing useful. By the normal rules of interpretation it does not include air force bases from which action to intercept dangerous intruders might be expected, but I point that out just to remind you that most people think your choice of words might matter.

    What makes you think that the flight of any of the thousands of daily civil aircraft flights over “military bases” would prompt ay special response, let alone one remotely relavant to taking action to prevent one resching its unknown goal?
    Obviously the response to noticing a civilian aircraft at 3000. feet rather than 15000 would be to speculate about its being in trouble and wonder where it is going to try and land.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  126. Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character.

    …And with a standing army comes all the B.S. and costs that go with supporting a Massive Public Servant Sector and the Welfare System.

    • Agree: jacques sheete, bluedog
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  127. @Wizard of Oz

    What makes you think that the flight of any of the thousands of daily civil aircraft flights over “military bases” would prompt ay special response, let

    Those “thousands of flights” didn’t have their transponders off. There were multiple highjackings in progress. Are you trying to tell me that the Hudson/DC corridor isn’t tracked by air force radar under these drastic circumstances?

    You’re a condescending prick. All your pretty writing doesn’t make up for the fact that you lack street smarts.

  128. @Stonehands

    …And with a standing army comes all the B.S. and costs that go with supporting a Massive Public Servant Sector and the Welfare System.


    And Mercy wasn’t finished with just one comment…

    “The feelings of native freedom among the sons of America, and their own good sense taught them, that they did not need the appendages of royalty and the baneful curse of a standing army to support it.”

    Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 2> C H A P T E R X X X I: Supplementary Observations on succeeding Events, after the Termination of the American Revolution • Insurrection in the Massachusetts • A general Convention of the States • A new Constitution adopted—General Washington chosen Presid

    Tolstoy, a former artillery officer would have agreed.

    As soon as the government has the money and the soldiers, instead of fulfilling their promises to defend their subjects from foreign enemies, and to arrange things for their benefit, they do all they can to provoke the neighbouring nations and to produce war; and they not only do not promote the internal well-being of their people, but they ruin and corrupt them.

    A few typos, but otherwise a fine summary: Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times, Chap 8, 11 July, 1900

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  129. …And with a standing army comes all the B.S. and costs that go with supporting a Massive Public Servant Sector and the Welfare System.


    And Mercy had more to say on the subject, and so did Tolstoy, but I cannot get the comment to post.

  130. “The feelings of native freedom among the sons of America, and their own good sense taught them, that they did not need the appendages of royalty and the baneful curse of a standing army to support it.”

    – Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 2

  131. anarchyst says:

    For one, I have never been in a VFW hall–I don’t drink…
    We got “whupped” by a traitorous lugenpresse who wanted to see nothing other than “dead bodies”, and reported every American military success as a defeat (reporting from the bars in Saigon). Ask North Vietnamese General Giap, who credited the American lugenpresse for his successes.
    Many of the things that you state in your post are absolute falsehoods. Sure, there was a certain amount of dissension and dissatisfaction in the ranks, but not to the degree that the American lugenpresse reported. In fact, over 90% of Americans in military service volunteered for Vietnam, something the lugenpresse has never reported
    The whole image of the returning Vietnam veteran as a mentally unstable individual, ready to “crack” at a moment’s notice was so much crap that did much to sully our reputations (and the job prospects) of those of us who returned from the war for YEARS after. In fact, most people who served and returned from the war picked up their lives where they left off, quietly, as those of us who served were treated as pariahs…
    YOU yourself have “drank the kool-aid” by perpetuating what was then reported by the lugenpresse.
    You should know better…
    For a different, honest perspective on the Vietnam war, obtain and read “Our War Was Different“…
    In it are comments by those who served, covering the full spectrum of thoughts on the war…

  132. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Except Ho worked with the US OSS in the fight against the Japanese. So we had our own sources which, I think I read, respected him.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  133. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The basic reason we supported the French in their desire to hold onto Vietnam was we wanted France in NATO and all the anti-communist hysteria in the US ginned up by the government.

  134. @MarkinLA

    Since the OSS was dissolved in September 1945 the opinions of its operatives concerning a foreign chap with the nom de guerre of Ho Chi Minh, one can guess, weren’t very influential in the White House. “This fellow they call Ho that the French are so keen for us not to encourage… we apparently have some of our fellahs who have met him. But it sounds a bit as though they’ve gone native. I don’t think it’s going to help our ambassador explain to the French why we’ve fallen for one of their colonial revolutionaries”. And so President Truman never heard of him????

  135. @jacques sheete

    Hey man, thanks for the excellent sources!

  136. The US military/security complex sits on a budget extracted from very hard-pressed American taxpayers of $1,000 billion dollars annually.


Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to 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 Danny Sjursen Comments via RSS
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.