Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The Militarization Of America

March 21, 2012 by  

The Militarization Of America
A U.S. Marine crosses a bridge during a security patrol in Afghanistan.

America is a declining empire trying to resurrect itself through military intervention and armed occupation.

The more than $1 trillion decade with Iraq has finally ended. But neocon dreams of democracy for Iraq did not pan out. Iraq has a corrupt, shaky and ineffective government. Thousands of people continue to die in sectarian violence as Iraq wallows in a bloody civil war.

As for Afghanistan, most of the original terrorists in al-Qaida who planned 9/11 are either dead, in prison, on the run or holed up in Pakistan. Washington tells us that Pakistan is our most trusted Muslim ally, ignoring Peter Bergen’s 2011 New York Times bestseller The Longest War: The enduring conflict between America and al-Qaeda. Bergen writes that Pakistan has consistently been found to be “one of the most anti-American countries in the world.”

It seems obvious that the continued occupation of Afghanistan — a country that has defeated the armies of the Russian tsars, the British Empire and the Soviet Union — is doomed to fail.

We Need Cronkite

What makes news today are celebrity overdoses, dirt on Presidential candidates and the best new reality series. But consider what Walter Cronkite said on Feb. 27, 1968, following the Tet Offensive: “It seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.”

Cronkite made this statement four years into that war. America is into its second decade of fighting in Afghanistan, and even a stalemate now seems impossible.

If the goals of victory were the killing of Osama bin Laden and the almost complete destruction of al-Qaida within Afghanistan, then victory has been achieved. But if the neoconservatives still believe we can institute a democratic government in Kabul, they are either naïve or initiating wars simply for the sake of war.

For decades, our government has been arrogant in imposing Western principals and ideals. Washington cannot understand that Afghanistan, a tribal and Muslim country, will not accept Western ideals any more than we would accept a prescript declared on us by a foreign power.

Imposing On Others

I am a peaceful fellow who is past middle age. I always tried to either walk or, better yet, run away from a real conflict. But if armed Chinese soldiers occupied and patrolled the streets of my city, I would clean the barrel on my hunting rifle. I am willing to bet that a great many of you would do the same to resist foreign occupation.

Yet Washington thinks American ideals should be welcomed with outstretched arms. Some of this has to do with the experience of World War II and how Europeans welcomed the United States as a liberator.

Here is the catch: The period 1925 to 1945 was an aberration — 20 years of dictators. Consider that before Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, much of Europe had thrived for decades with democracy. The United States helped restore that political order (except in Spain, which suffered with Franco until his death in 1975).

While the United States left scores of military bases in Europe to protect the West from a possible Soviet invasion, there was no occupation. The boys were back home months after victory in Europe. The Nazis had occupied Europe. Because of that, the murderous will of the French, Polish and Dutch resistance was visited upon German troops.

On this subject I was struck last year while re-watching Ken Burns’ PBS series, The Civil War, first broadcast in 1990.

In one segment the documentary tells of how Union cavalry surrounded a lone Confederate soldier who had no horse and whose clothes were dirty and tattered. A Union officer said to him that it was obvious that he had no wealth and not the means to own slaves. The officer asked: “Why are you fighting this war?”

The Confederate answered: “Because you are here.”

The Washington establishment fails to consider this universal truth in human nature. Senator John McCain continues to advocate the bombing of both Syria and Iran. And with the courageous exception of Ron Paul, the contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination strongly favor using the military over diplomacy and oppose any reductions in defense spending.

Exactly who is this enemy that America must outgun? Nobody has a good answer.

Neoconservatives always call upon the lesson the world learned when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. How much better the world would have been, they argue, if Britain had stood up to Germany.

But is that the only lesson of the past 100 years? What of President John Kennedy’s refusal to launch a military strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It can be argued that America’s diplomacy-first gambit saved the human race.

If you don’t like the Kennedy example, consider World War I. Because some crackpot shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, war erupted. That war cost 20 million lives. Diplomacy could have prevented that war and, as a result, prevented the rise of Hitler and, thus, World War II.

I can only scratch my head when I listen to leaders like McCain. Have any of them read history?

Wars Serve A Purpose

Why war trumps diplomacy is explained by Stephen Glain in his new book, State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America’s Empire. Glain concludes:

U.S. relations with the world, and increasingly America’s security policy at home, have become thoroughly and all but irreparably militarized. The culprits are not the nation’s military leaders, though they can be aggressive and cunning interagency operators, but civilian elites who have seen to it that the nation is engaged in a self-perpetuating cycle of low-grade conflict. They have been hiding in plain sight, hyping threats and exaggerating the capabilities and resources of adversaries. They have convinced a plurality of citizens that their best guarantee of security is not peace but war, and they did so with the help of a supine or complicit Congress. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. presidents have ordered troops into battle twenty-two times, compared with fourteen times during the Cold War. Not once did they appeal to lawmakers for a declaration of war.

I am not saying we should never use force. I believe America has enemies, and those enemies should be dealt with in a swift and deadly manner. I also believe that only if another nation is a real and “legitimate threat” to the United States should we initiate war.

America should be using the best special forces in the world with surgical strikes on those that would do us harm. America should use the RQ-1 Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles on terrorist groups and even possible terrorist groups. I am prepared to live with some collateral damage that will result from such strikes. This will be less deadly to foreign civilians and will save the lives of our young men and women in uniform, while helping to restore America’s standing in the world.

Compare this strategy to the armed occupation of Afghanistan. It is a non sequitur, and the real powers who run this country know it.

They know, and they just don’t care.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Editor’s note: It’s time to make your submissions for this month’s You Sound Off! feature, which will run March 28. Get your submission in by March 26. It should be no more than 750 words (if they are longer, we probably won’t read them). We will select the one or two we think are the best of the week to publish. We reserve the right to edit for grammar and style but will try not to alter the meaning.

Send your submissions to Please include your name, address and telephone number (only your name will be published) so we can contact you if we need to clarify something. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.–BL

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Militarization Of America”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    Whatever McCain is, John, he’s no leader. He and Obummer have that much in common. It’s safe to say that both major political parties have taken off at least one layer of their many masks, as we’re still spread thinly around the world. We’re still involved in conflicts that serve the enemy well but put our rumps in hock and our military in harm’s way to cater to the whims of true, useful idiots on both sides of the aisle.
    Where are Obummer’s world-class talents that get us OUT of unnecessary wars? It took a while, but even Obummer has to admit that GB is NOT in the White House. So why can’t he do the honorable thing and bring our military HOME where it belongs?
    If our SOBs and DOBs in Congress want to go overseas and fight, let ‘em do it. We’re staring down the barrels of a ‘convenient’ war within America, and open borders and an incompetent W H and a braindead Congress got us here.
    Let our “leaders” sacrifice. Our military and the American people shouldn’t feel obligated to give Washington ‘elites’ any free pass. Show us whatcha got, you miserable scummers.

    • Donald Raymond Baker

      In the Revolutionary War, the Colonies fought against a force that out numbered them as well as the British having Superior Firepower. During that war, communications was a problem for both sides, just as it is at this time. We won against the British not because we out did them in man power or firepower but, did it because we DESIRED to be free of the Rule of the King. We earned our Freedom and for ~ 250 years that “Earning” of our Freedom has made us who we are. If others in this world had the desire to obtain what we “Earned” and were willing to put their lives on the line as we did they also, could do the same. IT HAS BECOME QUITE OBVIOUS THAT MOST, IN THE COUNTRIES WE ARE GOING TO WAR FOR, DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE. Then why are we getting killed only to be CRAPPED on? I am ex Navy and would go to war to save my country and our way of life in a hot second but, see no reason to defend or “LIBERATE” those that will turn around and sell us out after we get their freedom for them. I am not an ISOLATIONIST but, dying for un-greatful and un-appreciative scum of the Earth (look at those we have intervened for recently, are they not?) is something we should not be doing…

      Donald Raymond Baker

      • Keith Loney

        Actually, we won the Revolutionary War because the French pulled our chestnuts out of the fire. It was the French intervention in the war on America’s side that compelled the British to abandon the fight.
        It was a French fleet that drove the British fleet away from the Virginia coastal areas.
        That same French fleet landed an Army on the peninsula. That French Army marched across the Peninsula and went into the earthworks at Yorktown while the French fleet moved back down the James River, then up the York River toward Yorktown.
        It was the French fleet that brought Yorktown under naval gunfire, while the French Army launched an assault on the British works and carried them by storm. It was the French troops who stood in the breach, holding it open while under fire, allowing the American troops to pass through the breach, take the city and claim the victory.
        When America entered the First World War, a welcome ceremony was held in Paris when the American Expeditionary Force arrived. In a speach at the ceremony the Commanding General of the American Expeditionary Force, General Pershing said “…Lafayette, we are here.” What the general was saying was we (Americans) were coming to pay back a debt owed to France. It was a young French nobleman – the Marquis de Lafayette who convinced his King that a free America was in the interests of France.

    • peeweeaz

      Amen, Brother. Those ragtags have been fighting one another for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after we are gone. If we want to stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban, spend the money we have wasted in Afghanistan and boost our intelligence services to give us better intelligence on their intent.

      • Dave

        More to the point, the real foundation for a “democratic republic” is belief in the concepts ensconced in the Declaration of Independence; the “endowment by a Creator in certain unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Not from a government nor from a despot or king but from the Giver of Life and Liberty! Those who know no freedom within can not conceive of a freedom without for themselves nor for others. They have no concept of the concepts that are, contrary to what secular humanism will tell them via the public school system found in Biblical doctrine such as separation of powers, the basic selfish intent of human nature, the need for all equally to be ruled by law (instead of by man with some being “more equal than others”) and for “the governed” to retain the bulk of rights versus the few (aka the “government”).

  • Pingback: Talks on post-2014 presence in Afghanistan built on shaky premise – Chicago Tribune | We Who Served

  • cawun cents

    The whole appeasement thing with Chamberlain.led up to the bombing of London.Had the leaders of Europe recognized him for the madman he eventually turned out to be,they might have gathered together(militarily)to put a stop to his evil plans.So much for diplomacy.Apparently it didnt work in this case.I dont remember the exact threats that were being issued but the word “leibensraum” had somthing to do with it.
    The soviets ground their economy into the dust trying to keep up with the American Jones’s,We have failed miserably to learn from their example.No wonder we are in decline.
    Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were(figuratively)lost because of political policy,not for lack of ability on our military’s part.Although the jury is still out on whether these countries can be defeated unless you wipe them from the map.Some folks just wont give in to pressure.and we could LEARN something from them.
    Here you sit thinking that these dark days could have been fixed diplomatically?
    Or the possibility that war with Hitler could have been avoided if we had just appeased him a little more?
    Perhaps folks living next to an unstable country with nuclear weapons can be reasoned and or bargained with?
    Perhaps the Cubs will win the World Series this year?
    All these things are and were possible I suppose.But really…..what are the chances of solving some of the world’s crisis by talking it out?Do you see everyone like Hitler and Ho Chi Mihn as being obviously reasoning gents?How about radical Islamists and communist dictators,are they suseptible to charm and wit?I can hear the talk at the table now.
    “You gotta give it to old Ahmadinejahd,he calls us the great Satan,and vows to destroy us,what a funny guy.That MaoMood is always joking around like that.”
    It is no laughing matter any more than “leibensraum” was.
    Can you negotiate with folks hellbent on seeing you die?Apparently there is a lack of understanding here.Some folks who wish to kill you and get that crazy smile on their faces cant be diplomatically disuaded from drawing ther gun and shooting at you.Some folks will hate you no matter how nicely you present yourself in the talkrooms.
    I do happen to agree with you that these liltte nations where no problems are likely to occur are best left alone.But how do we know what problem can be small one minute and out of control to the possibility of annihilation the next?
    mmmm….a definite plexer,dont you agree?
    In our rush to civility,we must contemplate a worse case scenario.Best case is always certainly appreciated for what it is,but not taking the worst case into consideration will eventually come back to bite us.Some people wont be diplomatically reasoned with,and need to be reckoned with knowing them for that fact.
    Hopefully we can sort through the pleasant smiling faces we see on the news and see the knife at our backs.But just blindly negotiating with folks who dont intend to bend until its to sight us in is sheer stupidity as well.Here is to hoping that we can tell the difference.

    • Brad

      And now Obama and Clinton want to give top secret info to the Russians. BOOM!! where dead!

      • templer

        You’re correct Brad, in fact Obama gave secret information as to the location of British submarines to the Russians. Now if you’ll check Obama tends to surrender US territories(islands of Alaska) to Russia if you can believe that.

      • eliwhit

        Well, if we are dead I for one will not die alone, I will take as many of those that may want to go with me. I bet I get more of them than they get of me! LOL Keep the Powder dry and the aim on and accurate!

    • eddie47d

      Cawmen Cents apparently believes in preemptive wars to solve the world’s problems and seems he is easily talked into conflicts. How is the 10 year Afghanistan War working out for us in our race to crush the enemy? It was done and over within the first year yet we are still there trying to stroke our national ego. Some are obsessed with the gallantry of history/war and want to create the same heroics for themselves so there are few wars they don’t like. Why anyone would want another Dresden or the carnage at Gettysburg or the pain and suffering at Bataan is beyond me. Once a war gets rolling you can’t stop the damages and those seeking revenge are endless. The war in Vietnam was another false flag war where we were sucked in with bad advice and a preemptive strike. No different than Iraq and that country is no better off. Too many hang onto the words of Chamberlain as the only truth out there instead of backing off on our present follies. Strike first and ask questions later is not a valid policy under most scenarios. We keep looking foolish in trolling for wars.

      • cawun cents

        First of all eddie 47d,you tend to attach your own way of thought to what I write and then attack me.Same with these other folks.
        Did you ever hear me defend going into Vietnam?I must have missed that line in my post.
        I merely truthfully stated that the Vietnam conflict eould have been winnable(and provided a clear statement that it might just as easily not have been possible witout total annihilation),and that the politicians are always preventing out troops from accomplishing their objectives.
        Never said I thought it was a good idea.
        Nor did I compare Hitler to Ho Chi Mihn,as someone else states.Does any of you realize the effect these men and their decision making processes had on their respective societies?It was devastating to say the least.The eqivalent of 25 megatons of ordinance were exploded in Vietnam.
        For what?
        Making them one of the the poorest nations in the world?
        Because that was the outcome of Mihn’s heroic stand.
        Making them all wretchedly poor and oppressed.
        At least Hitler’s madness eventually brought a positive change out of Germany.
        They are economically stong now.
        You cannot say that much for Vietnam.
        So much for your heroic Mihn.
        But that is the position you often take when you dont see the big picture.
        If just plain old resistence to ideas was gold,you would be Fort Knox.
        But just because you canresist new ideas doesnt mean you should,right?
        Tell that to the layperson on the street in Vietnam,
        When Clinton resumed trade with Vietnam after 20 years of nothing from the communist gubment there in 1995,He did so with the strategy that some(Shell,Mobil.Texaco) oil companies could drill in the disputed waters off the coast of what country?
        You guessed it.
        Until that day Vietnam was economically being crushed by its lack of trade with the most powerful economy in thhe world.
        They did not win the war,just the battle.
        The war continued being fought despite your best knowledge.
        It was just a war of ideas.
        Their idealism brought social,and economic failure(not prosperity and hope)until it was decided that we needed those resources.
        Sure they resisted the mighty United States.
        But at what cost?
        How did it profit them to do so?
        So it could be written somewhere that they won the conflict?
        Nothinng is further from the truth.
        I’n done trying to make sense to people who just dont get the main issue and conditions surrounding the subject.

    • http://gmail sancheleezy

      cawmun cents in order for you to make sense of your life you first need to realize first and foremost that not only is common sense spelled differently, but hat you need to also come to the conclusion that your thought processes need to be realigned in order to focus better on just what the author of the article was getting to, that we are forever getting involved and dictating to others how they should operate their own internal policies. In 1953 we installed the Shah of Iran, during our involvement in South Vietnam, we worked with the CIA to assassinate the President of that nation to get someone more to our liking politically/militarily. In just these 2 cases of our intervention we failed and were doomed to failure from the very beginning. We should trade and work out diplomatically our dealings with other countries in the world, and need to stop manipulating things in order to stir things up and create antagonisms that lead to sanctions and eventually war, or police actions abroad. Another comment you make is in order to defeat these enemies we might have to wipe them off the face of the earth—-sounds like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Dung might be your heroes. With your philosophy we should first deal militarily with other nations and then if we think we can tolerate them then maybe we might consider letting them exist, and then possibly trade with them, but if they turn on us in any way, bring in the troops.

      • cawun cents

        While I do not dismiss your assertions about the various entities which you went on about,I do dismiss your understanding of them.
        In a war of ideas,you cannot easily represent the opposing forces by historical note without a clear understanding of objectivity.These are not conflicts of who opresses who,but of idealism with respect to who opposes who.
        What are the consequences of this idealism and what if any measure of success will it bring to the populace involved?
        You cant always win wars by attrition of military power,but you can win those of idealism.
        Eventually to prosper in the new world order,you will have to make concessions.
        Otherwise you are in effect….urinating into the wind.
        Just look at the present power here in the United States as an example.
        The war of idealism is being fought here too.
        Its the moderate who claims middle ground that everyone flocks to.
        But what is the aim of that supposed moderate?
        Can you tell?
        I have my doubts,unless you think that they tell the truth when they speak.
        The truth as they wish you to see it.

    • Mark in LA

      Funny how this common sense person manages to equate Hitler with Ho Chi Mihn. Ho fought alongside US OSS officers in WWII against the Japanese. He wrote Truman letters asking to friendship with the US. Much of that was the realization that the USSR was too poor to help Vietnam, but it still shows a guy more interested in the welfare of his people than ideology. The Truman administration was probably too worried about losing an election by being called soft on communism. They also wanted France to join NATO.

      • cawun cents

        The welfare of his people?

        Dont make me laugh sir.The welfare……hmmmm.
        Yep….you are batscat crazy.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little.

    • ChristyK

      Our defense policy should be to mind our own business and defend our borders instead of the world, BUT….
      If you attack us, we instantaneously wipe you off the map. If terrorist (not directly associated with a country) attack us, we notify the country they are in to hand them over. If they do not, we obliterate the terrorist anyway. Although we should never intentionally attack civilians, if they have been warned and not turned over the terrorist (or left the area if they are not strong enough to turn them over), then if they are collateral damage, so be it. After a few decisive attacks, we will not have any country willing to risk our wrath. By stopping meddling in other countries (Democracy by force), we will not be making enemies. By trading freely with all countries, we will be making friends. Everyone is happier.

      • ChristyK

        Oh yea, and by not trying to police the world and convert the world to Democracy (we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic) we will be able to significantly reduce our defense budget while actually keeping us safer than we are currently. Win-Win.

        Having our troops in America rather than spread around the globe will also enable us to have patriotic Americans who love their country and know how to defend us on our soil protecting us against all enemies — foreign & domestic.

    • mac

      cawmun cents – I don’t see the native Afghans doing any aggressive actions outside their country; It looks to me like they just want to be left alone. I say, foreigners should get out of there and leave Afghanistan alone – unless some other group like bin Laden’s goes in and tries to make it their base of operations.

    • Dave

      More to the point is the 7th Century religious,political, legal, social system fomented by an illiterate, ignorant cave dweller named Muhammad. His god is Allah, a “god of this world” (aka. Satan so named in the Judeo-Christian book known as the Bible). These are extremely patient people having waited the the wings for 14 Centuries now emerging in the waning years of the Judeo-Christian era dating back to the days of “The Way”. They insist under pains of death in Islam, NOT a system of peace, not one of tolerance, not one that will be defeated under any name and one with adherents insinuating themselves into ever facet of American life including the military (Ft. Hood), politics, religion (witness the call to prayer in Detroit, and elsewhere) the law and business. They will settle for nothing other than complete domination under Sharia law (not “co-existence” with the Constitution) – and they’re here growing under a Muslim POTUS.

    • Peter Calvet

      Diplomacy and war are not either/or things. The two can work together as war is just an escalation of diplomacy.

      The key concept is results. You can get results in many ways. The much derided “leading from behind” strategy Obama employed in Libya worked. And it worked without a single American casualty Contrast the cost of killing Saddam Hussein with the cost of killing Qaddafi, And yes, we can’t control what the people will vote for in either country.
      Be careful what you wish for, though. We clamored for elections in the Gaza strip and the people voted for Hamas. And then we decried the results. Hello? It’s their vote, not ours.

      We have to live in an imperfect world and deal with it the best way we can. We are not “appeasing” Iran at the moment. Or do you think killing atomic scientists, engaging in .cyber-warfare against their nuclear facilities, disrupting their ability to sell their oil, and freezing them out of their own assets is appeasement? Wow, if that’s appeasement, I wonder what we would do if we were really were pissed off? Oh yeah, bomb the crap out of them. That is the lazy thinker’s answer for everything.

      We need leaders who are capable of getting results. Obama, so far, has showed us results. The drone attacks in Pakistan degraded Al’Qaeda. He found Bin Laden and shot him in the head, just like in the Westerns. Our Texas President couldn’t do that. And I doubt that Romney has the smarts to out maneuver Ahmadinejad. Or even Vladimir Putin. Romney has the power to pulverize the witless Santorum and the ego-maniacal Gingrinch with his money bombs but it will take skill and subtlety to defeat our enemies around the world, skills that Romney lacks in abundance.

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Everyone:
    This article is dead on. We need to leave Afghanistan, for it’s a failed policy. It’s a waste of money, time, and most importantly lives. Afghanistan, basically, is at the same level of developement that Europe was at after the fall of the Roman empire in the 6th cent. A.D.
    Therefore, let’s pull out now. The sooner the better. Thanks!!
    P.S. Even Alexander the great couldn’t defeat the Afghans. What does that tell you!!

    • Andrew C

      We already whooped their fat muslim A**es. Stop apologizing and saying the loss of lives was a waste. You should be ashamed for saying our men and women died for nothing.

      • John

        Hmm, tell us what exactly they died for? The right for our corporations to build a pipeline? The right for our corporations to mine the $trillion worth of minerals that have been discovered in Afghanistan the year before the war started?
        We lost the mineral rights to china and the pipeline is in limbo and probably will never be build in time to make any difference. They for sure did NOT fight for our freedom, the Afghan people where never a threat for our freedom and AlQaida could have been dealt with by using special forces and surgical strikes. They did not die for the freedom of the Afghan people. You don’t fight for the freedom of a people by invading them, killing hundreds of thousands of the citizens and destroying the country. So pray, tell us what did they die for?

        • Andrew C

          Have you forgotten 911?

      • Karolyn

        I don’t know about you but I rarely see a “fat Muslim a**.” they’re too poor. Wars and war mongers serve no purpose other than to get people killed. We have no business in other countries’ business! They don’t want us there! It really is for nothing other than fattening someone’s wallet.

      • 45caliber


        I will agree that most are not fat as you point out. But their LEADERS generally are – just as ours are.

      • rcrain

        Talk about people dying for nothing!! I will never forget 911. No one will ever convince me that Muslims flew planes into those towers. Their faces and names were broadcast with in a hour of the first attack, while the other planes were circling. How could they know so soon who did what, yet they could not stop them from getting flying lessons. A few days later, Muslims killed on those planes were seen in their country alive and well. 911 was committed by our government too bring about Homeland Security, and too pave the way for Obomma and the New World Order. How come our fighters never shot any down. Better to sacrifice a hundred or so on a airliner, then 3,000 or more in the towers , or people on the ground. People, whether you want to believe it or not, this country has been lead by some truly evil people running this country in the background. The President, and our do nothing Congress is proof of that.They do what the elites tell them to do. We have Represenitives from each state, and Senators also, but they mean nothing. We only have them to give you the American people the illusion that we have a choice.Wake up, you don`t. Both parties are taking ALL OF US, to the NEW WORLD ORDER, and will use what ever they need to do to get us there. Democrats, Republicans, it don`t matter, the FIX IS IN. We are going to the NWO , whether you want it or not. We have fought Communism for the last 100 years, now WE EMBRACE IT. The only way I see fixing this mess is to take our country back, charge a lot of people with treason, and they know who they are, so do we. We give them a fair trial, then hang them in public, on TV for all the world to see. This is what we do too traitors that mess over real Americans. Go back to running this country UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, with severe penalties for violating it. We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a REPUBLIC, and its up to the American People too KEEP IT THAT WAY, not government. Governments cannot be trusted, we have found that out the hard way. Trust me when I tell you, Martial Law is very close, are you as prepared as I am. I don`t live in the city, so I have a leg up on most people. I don`t live in the rural areas either. I live in the woods. I`m a gun toting survivor, and my kill zone is well defined. I even make my own electric, and I`m a ham radio operator, so I hear a lot of stuff you won`t hear on the 6:00 o`clock news. I have plenty of wild game, and fish in these streams, and I have enough wood cut and stacked to last me a couple of winters. When the crap hits the fan, many will suffer, and die from greed and stupidity, but I will hardly notice it. I AM PREPARED, ARE YOU!!

      • RichE

        “Have you forgotten 911?” Good point Andrew C. So who do you want to kill next?

      • Ted G

        To RichE
        I think your response was unecassary and childish

      • http://aol mysaaed

        It is not about that the brave men or women died, they shouldn’t. It is about failed policy. I am an Afghan and I was born in Kabul. There were a lot of changes, but by educatiion (
        truman point 4) and not force. Afghans are human as any body else and change their behavior if some trustable person tell them in correct way. If we, the Americans, want friends, we should follow Truman’s way; but if we want to buy enemies, we should follow the last ten years policy.

    • CJ

      History has shown as armies evolve, the more they create an orderly war, the more likely they loose. The British complained the colonists “didn’t fight fair’ when we used guerrilla tactics, and we couldn’t defeat the same tactics in Vietnam, and we are not having any progress now. Regardless of purpose to go to war, if we don’t take it seriously, realize it CAN NOT be a pleasant outcome and go in only with the intent ot get it over quickly, we will repeat this protracted ‘event’ every time. Sun Tzu’s words of wisdom still ring true. War is hell and you can’t make it otherwise. To try only makes the outcome worse.

      • John

        And today our soldiers and the people that support those wars use the same complaint. They accuse the Taliban of doing exactly what our forefathers did and what in effect we would do if a foreign army would occupy this country…. We would wage a guerrilla war….. just as the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan. A war where everything goes. Whatever entity used guerrilla warfare and tactics will always have an advantage over a structured military. Especially if the supply lines of said military are long. We need to always remember one fact….. WE invaded THEM. In their eyes WE are the bad guys. We need to get away from the thinking that any of them is our friend. Those people know from past history, if they would really be our friends they would be killed as soon as we leave… just as collaborators with the 3rd reich where killed all throughout Europe and the Balkans after Germany was destroyed. People wonder why the Taliban kill their own people… its simple, they kill the people they believe fraternize and collaborate with the enemy.
        Its exactly what we would do if say china would invade this country and if there would be Americans that would cooperate and aid them.

      • 45caliber


        I agree. One big laugh from WWII:

        A reporter was interviewing a top German officer after WWII. The officer stated that the German war machine, the French, and the English were all well organized. But the Americans were not. The reporter asked why, if that was true, that they lost the war and we won.

        The German’s answer: “We were very orderly. We planned for every action. But war is not orderly. We knew exactly how much ammo our army had and planned accordingly by sending a new train load of it to arrive when needed. If that train didn’t show up, it caused a lot of problems for our army. The Americans, on the other hand, never knew if a train load of ammo was coming or not so if their train didn’t arrive they didn’t even know it was coming. They simply had to make do with what they still had left.”

      • 45caliber


        WHICH people are you saying accuse the Taliban? Not our soldiers! They want to be able to respond but are not allowed to do so by our politicians. Our politicians are waging a war there for one reason – to get our attention off what they are doing in Washington. And they don’t care if we win it or not. Their orders to our troops tie their hands so they can’t respond as needed.

        For instance: In one battle in a town, the insurgents were hiding behind unarmed men on the street. These unarmed men were standing all over it. The insurgents would run to hide behind one of these unarmed men to shoot until a Marine was able to move around to get a clear shot. Then they would run to hide behind another. After a time, the Marines simply shot all of them.

        Our politicians were furious at the Marines for “shooting innocent civilians”. However … consider. If you are on a street and shooting starts, what would you do? Run to a safe place? Drop to the ground and hope that no one would accidently shoot you? Stand there and let one side hide behind you?

        The actual case is that the ones standing there are as much insurgents as those hiding behind them. The Marines were correct. The politicians didn’t like it because they were trying to use “diplomacy” to get the enemy to do what they want. And the enemy don’t like to have their people killed. But they are willing to allow their people to be killed IF they can win.

        We should do the same thing.

      • Karolyn

        45: “But they are willing to allow their people to be killed IF they can win.
        We should do the same thing.”

        You’re kidding; right?

      • Ted G

        Karolyn, with all due respect, the fact that we have soldiers and acknowledge that they are necassary means that we expect some of them to be killed.

        IMO the real point here is that we should not tie the hands of our military simply because of some false political ideal that we should sacrifice our own soldiers instead of using common sense in combat. If people allow themselves to be human shields because they know Americans really don’t kill unarmed civilians, then they are no longer civilians.

        And any politician that argues in the contrary is advocating for our American soldiers do be killed/sacrificed instead.

        I got the point why didn’t you?

      • 45caliber


        No, I’m not kidding. What you are proposing is that we allow those who died to die for nothing. I want to make their deaths worth something.

        In war … any war … people will die. I would much prefer to have those killed honored by winning that war than to simply pull out because the politics changes and allow their deaths to be meaningless.

      • 45caliber


        You are correct in what I meant. It is too bad that Karolyn can’t understand that. To her, there should be no deaths on either side. I agree. But that can’t be accomplished.

        What REALLY annoys me is that one of our distinguished Congressmen stated after Iraq 1 that it was “unfair” for us to be able to inflict far more casualties on the enemy than they did on us. He wanted to insure that all future wars we fought had approximately the same deaths on both sides. As a result, he wanted us to be able to use no better weapons or equipment than the enemy had.

        I think we should put him on the front line of the next war and see if he changes his mind.

      • eddie47d

        Caliber and Ted live in the fantasy world of Might makes Right! No matter how wrong we are. It didn’t make the Russians right in Afghanistan and it won’t make it right for us.

      • Ted G

        Your comment was unrelated to the topic in the thread and therefore wasted.

        Please try your attempted insult on me on a fresh thread and I’d be happy to debate you.

    • lawrence

      Regarding Viet Nam: Read “An Unheralded Victory”

    • Peter Calvet


      You are not well. You need help. a good doctor should be able to help overcome your delusional state. You are a danger to yourself and possibly others.

      There is no impending New World Order. Bush did not blow up the twin towers to pave the way for Obama. Please see a doctor before it is too late and you hurt someone by mistake. Seriously.

  • Vigilant

    No, Mr. Myers, we do NOT need another Walter Cronkite. Cronkite badly misrepresented the truth about the Tet Offensive in 1968. We won that battle, but Cronkite took an active part in propagandizing the public into believing that it was a defeat for us.

    Please research the military history of Vietnam a little more thoroughly.

    • eddie47d

      History tells us that we shouldn’t have been in the Vietnam War which we deliberately started and wanted. There are politicians telling us the exact same thing today as we heard back then and we are going the same route. Why are we fooled so much in repeating the same errors of our ways.

      • just amused

        Eddie, many of us are not fooled. We are too busy trying to keep our heads above water only to come home at night to find the slugs in the District of Criminals have placed a new monkey on our backs.
        Our troops should come home NOW! In November, we replace the old garbage in DC with new! We will all still be facing the economic, and moral decline we are drowning in right now. I have been talking to friends and family about why they think we don’t go after our criminal leadership in America. It has to do with the lies and brainwashing we all got in public school that elevates our national leaders to demi-gods. We need to start viewing them as the self serving, lying, money/power whores that they are! When was the last time YOU had input on a new resolution that congress made a law? NEVER??? I would foolishly suggest that those DC whores still, at least on paper, work for US, but they have turned that around long ago. We are enslaved to the federal master. We should all just accept this until we decide we have had enough and change it!

      • Artfldgr

        History tells us that we shouldn’t have been in the Vietnam War which we deliberately started and wanted…

        WE started the vietnam war?

        if your going to try to rebut a comment that shows we did not lose and Cronkite part in giving up for nothing.. you TOO might want to get the facts straight… the FRENCH STARTED that and then the US went in…

        AND if you study today, the soviets, i mean Russians just held a reunion party for the pilots of the soviet union who flew against American pilots in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, and the middle east.

        now, how can you have a reunion of soviet Russian pilots from wars that someone like you thinks they weren’t even there? just go to the wiki page on vietnam war, and look at the bar on the right… read the casualties….

        People’s Republic of China / 1,446 dead; 4,200 wounded
        Union of Soviet Socialist Republics / 16 dead

        i thought you thought that we were fighting poor Asians, and not china and Russia USING The poor Asians as tools… ie. who got beat up, china and Russia, or the poor Asians they used?

        the ONLY reason that the US went into most of those countries in the last century when it never bothered before, was that soviet and Chinese were going in… and so, what chance did Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, japan, Korea, and all that have against china and soviet Russia?

        During World War II, the French were defeated by the Germans in 1940. For French Indochina, this meant that the colonial authorities became Vichy French, allies of the German-Italian Axis powers. In turn this meant that the French collaborated with the Japanese forces after their invasion of French Indochina during 1940. The French continued to run affairs in the colony, but ultimate power resided in the hands of the Japanese

        did you remember Hitler taking over France? did you forget that once he did, french territories belonged to him and his allies? that’s at the wiki… learning history from social osmosis is rotten… it tends to be the big lie and propagandist… (a Hitler and Stalin invention – they started WWII together…).

        the rest of the history would show that the whole situation was orchestrated by diplomats! it was very diplomatic… france had it, germany took it, japan ran it… then germany lost, japan lost, and france couldnt hold on to it… so the UK, Russia, and USA thought they would diplomatically retain it for the French… however, like east and west germany or north and south korea, what was diplomatically made later, which you complain about, something that had to happen.

        The major powers came to an agreement that British troops would occupy the south while Nationalist Chinese forces would move in from the north.

        ah… so like korea, the south remained free.. ho chi min changed sides when this happened because he thought that after the war, vietnam would be free as france couldnt hold on to her. but FDR (the progressive socialist president) and his friends (Stalin the mass murderer of more than hitler), divided up free states at yalta.

        so it was diplmats that sold the north french to the chinese who never leave… notice korea? and who, like korea, started the war…

        so did the US Start the war? or did the nationalist chinese?

        from wiki:
        Following the party line from Moscow, Ho Chi Minh initially attempted to negotiate with the French, who were slowly re-establishing their control across the country

        why is there a party line from Moscow? the author of the article and you eddie dont actually know much more than what movies told you and were mostly wrong… even a cursory wiki skim would have educated you better.

        On March 6, 1946, Ho signed an agreement allowing French forces to replace Nationalist Chinese forces, in exchange for French recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as a “free” republic within the French Union, with the specifics of such recognition to be determined by future negotiation/ The French landed in Hanoi by March 1946 and in November of that year they ousted the Viet Minh from the city. British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French. Soon thereafter, the Viet Minh began a guerrilla war against the French Union forces, beginning the First Indochina War.

        so the americans came in after trying to save the republic of vietnam from Moscow and china who refused to leave and give up the property they grabbed… (while claiming the US was imperial)

        The war spread to Laos and Cambodia, where Communists organized the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Serei, both of which were modeled on the Viet Minh. Globally, the Cold War began in earnest, which meant that the rapprochement that existed between the Western powers and the Soviet Union during World War II disintegrated. The Viet Minh fight was hampered by a lack of weapons; this situation changed by 1949 when the Chinese Communists had largely won the Chinese Civil War and were free to provide arms to their Vietnamese allies

        there is not even an inkling of such basic understanding as 10 minutes would get reading the facts rather than osmosis of the zietgeist..

      • http://gmail sancheleezy

        Because inevitably we never learn from history and are doomed to repeat it over and over again and again—until we vote fro intelligent and patriotic leaders like Dr. Ron Paul a statesman and not just a politician.

      • Mark in LA

        Ho Chi Mihn fought along side US OSS officers against the Japanese. Many of those officers recommended to Truman that he work with Ho. The US was basically against the reformation of both the French and British overseas empires. Ho agreed to let the French back in for one reason only – he felt he could negotiate with the French for their future exit from Vietnam since they were half a world away and he would have more trouble removing the Chinese. So the idea that Ho rebelled againt the French only because of the commies is nonsense. Ho was fighting the French long before WWII.

        Truman should have listened to the OSS officers. Instead, blinded by Cold War drivel, he assumed any commie must be fought and backed the French when they decided to keep their empire. We took over after their mistake and magified it.

        • RichE

          Can anyone name one country America helped overthrow, invade, etc. and a good guy was installed?

          P.S. The CIA helped Osama ben Laden get started in 1997. I love that one.

      • eddie47d

        Artfldgr decides he knows alot of history but what a mishmash that was. The Vietnam War was ours and the French had the Indochina War. You give the Chinese way too much credit in North Vietnam for they hated each other and had many border disputes. The French did get some help from the Americans during their war and the North received help from the Soviets during our war. I’ll ask you again why do we get sucked into these fiasco’s? The French had no business there and we had no business there. Call it Colonialism or Imperialism but it sure gave rise to Communism.

    • Mark111

      Good point, Vigilant. From what I have heard and read about the Vietnam war and the Tet offensive, what Walter Cronkite did with his words was to make the Viet Cong and North Vietnam realize they could indeed win the war at a time they had suffered a defeat so terrible they were ready to give it up–maybe not forever–but give it up.

    • http://liberty Tony

      To vigilant:
      It’s true our forces won the Tet offensive for we where able to push the N.V.A plus V.C. back out of Saigon. However, our forces suffered 800-1,000 casualities which proved that this war was way too costly and we should of pulled out afterwards. Thanks!!

      • 45caliber

        In other words, you are saying that it is better to give up to the enemy and be slaves than it is to risk our lives. Several during Vietnam (including Oliver Stone) made that point.

        I prefer to agree with Hemingway: “There are many things worse that risking your life fighting for freedom. And if you don’t do that, you’ll find out what every one of those things is.”

      • John

        What difference did it make to OUR freedom between pulling out of NAM and staying there and get thousands more killed?

      • http://liberty Tony

        To 45 Caliber:
        What was our angle in Vietnam, except to create an economic investment base for Japan and Australia? It seems we were only doing the dirty work of those two countries so they could have econ. wealth. Truly think about that!! By the way, my uncle was a captain for the USMC during that war and he would tell you the samething. In other words, a big waste of time. Thanks!!

      • eddie47d

        Caliber confuses Freedom with the powers of the Military Industrial Complex and there is a huge difference.

      • 45caliber

        John: The soldiers were there to free the South Vietnamese people. The government had different reasons for being there. The fact that these reasons weren’t the same didn’t mean that the soldiers weren’t trying to do their best. But morale and everything else went to h**l in a handbasket when the soldiers were not allowed to win. The casualties only made us more determined to make the deaths of those before us mean something by winning. Pulling us out meant that their deaths were totally useless. The same thing happens today.

        Do you want a military that is ready to protect you? Then, if you send them to do it (and to protect the citizens of that country) you don’t decided because they have lost a few members to pull them out because you don’t like the war. I don’t like the war in Afghanistan but I am willing to give the military the freedom to actually WIN it rather than insist we should pull them out and make the deaths of their friends meaningless. Further, by doing it, you encourage the enemy – regardless of who the enemy is. All of them now know that if they want to win all they have to do is wait long enough. We’ll give them the win.

      • 45caliber


        You are so certain that all wars are fought for some unknown mythical Military Industrial Complex that you aren’t able to assume there are other reasons. Soldiers don’t fight for that. They fight to protect our country and for the freedom of people – even those who aren’t ours. YOU are the one confusing things when you insist the soldiers fight for the MIC. It is people like you who destroy the ability of our military to win for political reasons and then wonder why the military won’t defend you when there is need. Frankly, I don’t care if people like that are protected. As far as I’m concerned, they should be the first to die since they refuse to support the miltary in teh first place.

      • eddie47d

        Stop being the good German Caliber ….some of us are wise to that dead end! (Support the military no matter what). They have to earn it like everyone else and they keep letting that MIC get in the way.

    • James C. Hilborn

      Thank you. I agree. I also believe the military has done a fine job in Afganistan and Iraq. Soldiers are trained to impose the will of their leaders (countries) on the enemy through deadly force. Soldiers are not trained to build roads, mosques and schools and be policemen imposing a foreign culture on the population. It doesn’t work. The military requires a military mission to perform. That mission should be logical and short term.


      • 45caliber


        I agree completely.

    • eliwhit

      Yes Sir ree: Chronkite the Great Liberal Democrat war mongering with the White House having him in their Hip Pocket! Keeping the War Machine in motion in his own way. While Hailing himself as Against the same! They are Fence riders and go with the prevailing winds of time and place!

  • Vigilant

    “What of President John Kennedy’s refusal to launch a military strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It can be argued that America’s diplomacy-first gambit saved the human race.”

    I’d hardly call that situation an example of “diplomacy-first.”

    We blockaded Cuba, remember? If that ain’t a military action, then my name’s jopa. It’s called “interventionism.”

    Kennedy knew a military strike would precipitate a global nuclear war. It wasn’t diplomacy, it was fear, plain and simple. And you may call it diplomacy if you like, but the real defusing of the crisis was the administration’s bribing the Soviets by agreeing to remove missiles from Turkey.

    Moreover, that military face-off in the seas around Cuba almost did result in nuclear holocaust. A well-documented story recounts how one Russian sub commander was perilously at the point of going rogue and launching his missiles. It almost happened, my friend.

    • Sirian

      The point you’ve raised about the Cuban incident is quite true Vigilant. We were so much closer to a rouge initiated nuclear war than so many know or understand. I have entire period very well burned in my memory of those days even though I was but a kid. Kennedy’s blockade of Cuba along with the deal over the missiles in Turkey are the two main factors that saved us – the entire world overall – from a nuclear winter. People still can not understand the total and complete devastation nuclear weapons of today, even back then, could and can provide. And the idiots we have in Washington know what’s best to do? Chamberlain knew best too, obviously so. What they will not take hold of is the extreme radical Islamic threat that does exist today. Better yet, that that alone is much more widely and intensely infiltrated into our government and military than the majority understand. That too is beyond jopa’s understanding – correct? Without question!!

    • TML

      Vigilant, “And you may call it diplomacy if you like, but the real defusing of the crisis was the administration’s bribing the Soviets by agreeing to remove missiles from Turkey.”

      You can call it “bribing” if you like, but sounds like diplomacy to me. We agreed to move our missiles from Turkey (which sits but a 100 miles or so from Russian borders) if you agree not to put missiles in Cuba (90 miles from American borders).

      Blockading Cuba was indeed a military action, but I wouldn’t consider it an ‘intervention’ the same as American policy today exists, since it dealt with a possible attack on American soil.

      • Vigilant

        TML, I was taking issue with Mr. Myers’ calling it “diplomacy-first.” It was not. It was “military first.”

        I’ll accept your calling it diplomacy rather than bribery, but it came about as a result of the blockade, a military action.

        And you may choose not to call it interventionism, but Ron Paul and I would disagree with you. We intervened, as opposed to letting the Cubans continue to stock Soviet missiles on their ground. Non-intervention would have created an untenable situation. And on that score, I disagree with Dr. Paul. Interventionism was required.

      • DaveH

        Non-intervention would have resulted in the same thing we have now and more — That is more impoverishment of citizens in more countries as a result of more self-serving Leaders stockpiling weapons of mass destruction which they don’t dare use.

      • http://liberty Tony

        To Dave H.:
        These “self serving” leaders in these impoverished nations that are stock piling wmds. Are there, only, because we with other powers prop them up. If we would mind our own business, then these tyrants would never be able to come to power. Thanks again!!

      • 45caliber


        I think you are a little off on your timing. If you think the Russians took out their missiles from Cuba, you are sadly mistaken. They only moved a couple so the MSM could take pictures and make our poltiicians look good in the news. It was common knowledge when I was in the service a few years after Cuba that we had several Special Forces units there whose sole mission was to stop any of those missiles from firing IF the Soviets decided to do it. The last count I had then was around 150 nukes in Cuba sighted on us.

        The real problem with our “missiles” in Turkey was not nukes. They were and are anti-missile missiles. The Russians don’t think it is fair of us to be able to easily shoot down their birds.

      • TML

        Vigilant says, “I was taking issue with Mr. Myers’ calling it “diplomacy-first.” It was not. It was “military first.””

        I’ll agree with that then. And I won’t argue that it was indeed an intervention, I guess I just see it differently since it was to ward off an actual possible attack on American soil, as opposed to needless sanctions etc on countries across the globe which do not pose such a threat the homeland USA… And therefore would agree that ‘intervention’ in that particular case, was warranted.

        45 says, “I think you are a little off on your timing. If you think the Russians took out their missiles from Cuba, you are sadly mistaken. They only moved a couple so the MSM could take pictures and make our poltiicians look good in the news. It was common knowledge when I was in the service a few years after Cuba…”

        No doubt I could be off on the timing. I’m an avid student of history, but I wasn’t even alive during the Cuban missile crisis, lol. I’ll look into that.

      • Mark in LA

        Hey 45cal, there is such a thing as google. You might use it before you post some of the mindless drivel you post as facts “commonly known”. No doubt they let all the enlisted men get all the “facts” just like they let the people get them.

        Nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy removed as part of the deal.

  • AlNewman

    After decades of watching and listening to the same old same old, I’ve come to the conclusion that everything that happens is orchestrated. All Walter Cronkited did was what our msm does today. We were just still unknowingly sheep, then. They send our military in with their hands tied behind their backs, with no clear mission. To imply that our military couldn’t clean the slate in Afghanistan is not factual. We could have been in and out of there in no time, WITH NOTHING LEFT ALIVE. The agenda is for the whole middle east to be ‘one’. We have just been installing new leadership and taking out their opposition. Doing the NWO’s dirty work.
    Agenda 21 is real. The NWO is real. Just because Hitler may have died, doesn’t mean his agenda did. Islam was Hitler’s friend. Islam achieves Hitlers goals and keeps the people in submission, ripe for propaganda and a clear mission of world dominance/submission.
    War is started by a handfull of men. Everyone dies, but them. They create the propaganda to rally the little guy to go and fight ‘the handfull’s’ battles. Without the agitators, people would get along.
    If the agitators were imprisoned or executed, we might actually find world peace. The imams and their koran, the UN, Tri Lateral Commission, Central Bankers, and all the communism inducing politicians (and their sponsors) in America and around the world, would make very good kindling for the fire of freedom and liberty.

  • Jimmy

    This is good sound stuff to write about!

    Keep up the good work!

    Sorry about those who never learn from


  • newspooner

    I stopped reading when I came to the heading, “We need Cronkite”. We should never glorify a stinking statist/elitist.

    • Peter Calvet

      Too bad because you might have learned something. I guess since I’m for learning stuff that must make me a snob.

  • Dolores F. Tamoria

    We have been in the Middle East for over 10 years. It took us less than 5 years to win a World War. We need to stop trying to bring our form of government to other countries. If they want it they need to sacrifice for it and not sacrifice the cream of our youth for others to trample on. Bring our Military Home now! We need to manifest our destiny right here in the United States. NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN & WOMEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY.

    • 45caliber


      Our real problem is that we rebuilt W.Germany and Japan after WWII so we could have some say in the politics of that region.

      That made it important for us to rebuild ALL countries where we fight. America is too interested in “making friends” of all our enemies or anyone else for that matter by buying their friendship … and that never works.

      Actually, I believe we should not attack until attacked. Then we should go in and totally smash every thing that they use to make war including their military and their leaders. Then we tell the survivors to make sure their next leaders aren’t stupid enough to attack us … or we’ll be back to REALLY mess the place up!

      • John

        If you call the removal of every nut and bolt, the removal of every piece of machinery, raiding of the patent office and engineering labs by the US and the Allies rebuilding a country you are sadly mistaken. The country was rebuild NOT by the US and the Allies but by the German people. The reason Germany was able to rebuild so fast and efficiently was actually just that, in order to rebuild the country the Germans had to install all new machinery and instruments whereas the US and its allies ended up with the old junk. Something that set the industrial development of countries like the UK and parts of the Russian industries back 25 years. They still used the old crap they plundered from Germany in the 80s. Germany paid dearly for this war, between paying back the cost of the war, paying for the bases on its soil and having to rebuild its economy they where busy like hell. One of the reason the Germany is strong today is that all its industry are modern and able to compete with the world. But this has NOTHING at all to do with the US rebuilding Germany.. they did not, they actually planed to convert Germany into a agricultural society.

      • 45caliber


        You are right … and wrong. The Germans rebuilt all right but with money provided by the Allies, primarily the US. Japan, on the other hand, was rebuilt by the US and given to the Japanese. Then the US wondered why Japan could do so well economically. (They had brand new equipment and tech from the US while our plants had the old stuff.)
        The US did NOT haul all the German equpment back here. It was too expensive to haul back. At most, they destroyed it. Since most was already destroyed due to the bombings, it was mostly ignored. About the only tech we “stole” was due to missiles they used.

    • 45caliber


      If you think we have “sacrificed the cream of our youth” in Afghanistan, you are sadly mistaken. We’ve barely scratched the cream. We lost hundreds of thousands in WWII. There were over 50,000 dead in Vietnam. The three or four thousand we’ve lost in the Mid-East is a bare touch. It is wrong to lose them – but one of the biggest reasons we do is the poor micro-management by a bunch of politicians in Washington.

      The WORST thing you can do to a soldier is tell him that the sacrifice of his buddies to free people (and that’s why the SOLDIERS are fighting) is a waste of time by declaring that the war is lost. HE knows who lost the war … and it isn’t him!

      • 45caliber

        If you truly want to help the soldiers, turn them loose. Force the politicians to leave them alone and give them what they need to win. The soldiers went there to insure our people were safe and that 9/11 wouldn’t happen again. It WILL happen again if you tell the enemy that our soldiers simply were unable to stop them. And our soldiers will be mad enough at YOU to not bother to try to see that you are kept safe.

      • John

        Who are they freeing and from whom?

      • Karolyn

        45 – There are no winners in war.

      • 45caliber

        The SOLDIERS were trying to free the Vietnamese. Today’s SOLDIERS are trying to free the Iraqis and the Afghans. And they basically are doing a fair job of it … IF you talk to a soldier about his experiences there and not listen to the MSM news or our politicians. Too many soldiers back from Iraq have told me of being thanked by many of the Iraqi people for helping them. A couple from Afghanistan have done the same. At the same time our soldiers are trynig to destroy the ability and organization of those who want to attack us as they did on 9/11.

        Quit listening to the politicians and MSM and start talking to the soldiers. You might even learn something useful.

        • Linda Turner

          No nation’s soldiers can FREE anyone. They can sometimes remove obstacles to those people fighting for their own freedom. But think of how you’d feel about another nation sending soldiers here to “free” the American people from whatever perceived or real evils they might think we needed freeing from.

          Acknowledging that many American lives have been needlessly lost doesn’t denigrate the sacrifice they made. They were following orders and serving the perceived (at the time) needs of their country. What is wrong is to keep sending more and more soldiers to die in the false belief that continuing the war will somehow validate the sacrifice of the dead.

      • Artfldgr

        Linda Turner you are SOOOOOO Wrong…

        you cant free people? what about the japanese from their emperor?
        what about france from hitler?

        why don’t you ask Latvians…
        (Stalin twice Hitler once and sold out at Yalta diplomatically)
        they would have LOVED to have the US come and free them…

        better than being exterminated by stalin for helping lenin make the soviet union…
        or are you ignorant of the Latvian rifle corps that took over Russia FOR Lenin who was sitting in Germany?

      • Mark in LA

        This is the most ridiculous veteran drivel yet. The US soldier was fighting to “free” the Vietnamese. That’s why they hated us so much – they hated freedom. We were killing everything that moved there. We were a war crime. We polluted the water with agent orange. We bombed indiscriminately. Ho Chi Mihn fought to free the Vietnamese when he kicked out the French. We fought to keep the corrupt government of South Vietnam in power and nothing more.

      • 45caliber


        “There are no winners in war.”

        And you can say that because you have been involved in one?

        There are always winners in war. Most of them don’t fight it either. Many winners are on both sides and both sides have many winners. And war doesn’t make most people insane, etc. as the libs like to believe. Many of those older libs once served. The whole point of that is to try to make those who served look bad because most of them are conservative and proud to defend their country.

      • eddie47d

        Linda is correct for Nixon used that excuse that we can sacrifice more soldiers for the sake of victory. There is never victory when the invaders are wrong. Ask those whom Rome conquered.

    • john

      The rules of US military seemed to change under harry s. He fired MacArthur and the military didn’t fight wars to win anymore. It seems just to keep taxing the people. I seem to remember learning that the government can only tax the people in times of war. if we never stop fighting, they will never stop taxing.

      • 45caliber


        The government can tax you any time they want IF THE PEOPLE LET THEM. It is far easier to get the people to agree to the tax or to ignore the tax if they children are in danger so the politicians like wars for that reason.

  • Dolores F. Tamoria

    I would like to hear from anyone who hold these same views.

    • David169

      The problem we face in war is the politician, they are more of hinderence to success than the enemy we face. There is no doubt in my mind that we could win the war in Afghanistan in two weeks if the politicians would allow the military to use what should be available to them.
      Presently we are striking with less than 30% of what we could bring to bear on the Taliban. In short we, time and time again, tie the militaries hands behind their backs and limit their firepower to just slightly more than our adversaries. Do you remember when Nero made our troops hold fire until they were fired upon? This type of political interference results in more of our service people being killed and prolongs the conflict. I sometime wonder if all of these little wars are just to test new weapons under actual combat conditions.
      I would like to see our soldiers be allowed to win and if that is not politically correct then pull them out. Why go into a war to lose?
      I am glad my son made it through the conflicts over there. If our homeland is attacked again whatever group that carries out the assault better have all their graves ready. Most Americans are armed to the teeth and if I read the mood of American correctly there will be no quarter given if we are attacked again.

      • 45caliber


        I fully agree. I think one reason for the system they have now is that they don’t want to win. They want the war for other purposes. They are afraid that if they do allow the military to win some general will get the credit (as Eisenhower did for winning WWII) and decide to run for office. That isn’t fair since the general wouldn’t have “paid his dues” as the politicians do and therefore would be stealing the rightful place of some politician. If anyone gets credit for anything the military succeeds at doing it MUST be a politician – and if the military doesn’t succeed due to the politicians then they can blame the generals.

  • John

    As a Vietnam Vet (“boots-on-ground”), I remember the mix of “WW II-Korean War hooplah” that became a “whaling and nashuing of teeth” by certainsegments of society who were afraid their kin (if not themselves) might end up in that mess. Decades later they walk around claiming they ended the war and saved lives…pure rubbish. The little known fact of then was unveil;ed years later…oil under Vietnam. Problem: Too deep and not enough of it to warrant that war. The iraqi War…oil. In Afghanistan…talk of mineral deposits, as written up in Scientific American. Folks…forget it. The Taliban might have been left to wreak havoc on theirown people and be left alone (by us) if not for their hiding al-Qaeda and supporting widespread “jihad.”. But the mistake Washington made was opting for “nation building”
    where the concept of nation does not really have roots…and that was true way back in the Vietnam War days. The fighting could have ended and our forces out of their if clear military objectives were set down, pursued, and then we left. No…the State Department wanted to create a new playmate by “nation buildng.” To use Clemenceau’s quote slightly (revised): “War is too much for the diplomats. Once they come in, the military should leave.”
    They want to run the show, and they are often as not dumber about the situation than the military is after having been there a little while. Whn politics and diplomacy take over a foreign strategy that has necessitated combat actions…whatevewr gains are lost. It’s better under such circumstances not to have sent in good men and woman of the military in the first place. We don’t need to make soldiers occupiers. That concept was discredited right
    here in the 19th Century after the Civil War…but we got stupid on that count. Can we finally learn that lesson once and for all?

    • deborah cobb


      • John Tedford

        I want to comment on the war before i get deleted before i finish. This has happened to me several times now. I don’t like war at all and i don’t want to be in one. Those politicians or the elite that start these unecessary wars should be given a hard paddlling with a board of education on their rear ends. It be fine for for us Viet nam vetrans to have that job! Don’t mess around with a angry Vietnam Veteran.

  • Vigilant

    “Here is the catch: The period 1925 to 1945 was an aberration — 20 years of dictators. Consider that before Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, much of Europe had thrived for decades with democracy.”

    Once again, Mr. Myers, do your history homework. The “aberration” you speak of was the direct result of “diplomacy,” i.e., the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. I’ve not found one historian who claims otherwise.

    Wilson acquiesced, nay actively endorsed, the Draconian and punishing reparations that befell Germany as a result of that treaty. The allies (especially France) made it clear with their actions that they didn’t want justice, they wanted to ruin the economy of Germany. And they almost succeeded.

    When the Depression began, Germany was so financially strapped as a result that the conditions were very ripe for dictatorship. Hitler took advantage and the rest is history.

    I would say that it was “diplomacy,” and later appeasement, not military intervention, that caused WWII.

    • Mark in LA

      No it was America’s entry into what was at best a stalemate in the west for France and Britain and probably a German victory and us changing the outcome that resulted in the Versailles Treaty. Without our meddling everything would have been different.

      • Vigilant

        “No it was America’s entry into what was at best a stalemate in the west for France and Britain and probably a German victory and us changing the outcome that resulted in the Versailles Treaty. Without our meddling everything would have been different.”

        Mark in LA LA Land must be reading Howard Zinn again, to come up with such a pitiful “analysis.”

        No, sonny, our entry into the war swung the scales in favor of defeating the German empire, something that needed to be done. They, not the French or British, were the aggressors. To put it in terms you might be more comfortable with, the Germans were the bad guys.

        It was not the defeat of Germany, it was the imposition of unconscionable reparations on the German economy as a result of the Treaty of Versailles that virtually guaranteed the second world war.

        Argue with me and you’re arguing with the combined wisdom of, say, a few thousand historians who have studied the causes of WWII.

      • Mark in LA

        Well Vigilent, you continue to show that your reading comprehension is at the 6th grade level. My point was that our entry swung the war in the direction of the defeat of Germany which allowed the Allies to win and force the Treaty of Versailles on Germany. Maybe you should get someone to read it and explain it to you. Without us, the stalemate would have continued or Germany may even have won.

        As for your other nonsensical claims, Germany was not the aggressor. The Tsar mobilized his troops. What should Germany do, wait to be attacked on two fronts? France, Britain, and Russia were tied by treaties. Germany was tied to a weak empire in Austria that couldn’t even beat the Serbs. The issue of whose to blame for the war is not clear and there was nothing about the German Empire that was any more evil than the French, British, or Russian Empires.

  • James

    The problem is that we put up with the Karzai Corruption Machine. We’d catch the Taliban leaders; he’d let them go. Rapists and murderers bribed their way out of prison. We didn’t succeed in Vietnam because the South Vietnamese government was simply too corrupt. We won’t succeed in Afghanistan if we try to keep working with Karzai. He needs to go–now!

    • 45caliber


      We didn’t succeed in South Vietnam because OUR government was too corrupt! Just as it is today. It didn’t matter what the SV government did or was.

      North Vietnam was ready to give up when OUR Senators under HH Humphrey gave back everything we had taken from them. Further, they set up rules that were simply impossible to follow. Imagine – you are in a jungle where you are lucky to see a hundred feet. Someone starts shooting at you. The rules insisted that you cannot shoot back UNLESS YOU CAN GUARANTEE hitting only the person shooting at you. You can’t even see him! Further, you are forbidden to destroy or report any weapons, ammo, explosives, food, or other supplies used by the enemy since it might “cause the enemy to withdraw from the ‘Peace’ talks”.

      Then, after the “Peace Treaty” that was to bring peace to all in our own time was signed and approved, we bring our soldiers home. Just before the last leave, NV attacks. So instead of destroying their forces, we finish pulling out the last of our troops and then insist that the Senate actually didn’t make a peace treaty; they made a truce long enough to “save our soldiers”. Right. And if you believe that, I’ve this bridge I’d like to sell …

    • John

      Who is Karzai, and who are the Taliban….. The Taliban where Afghanistan’s rightful leaders that where deposed of by Bush because he was an arrogant ahole. He could not stand that there was a 3rd world country that questioned his mightiness. Bush demanded from a sovereign nation that they hand over Osama Bin Laden. The answer was: we will do that as soon as you show us EVIDENCE that Bid Laden was involved in the attacks on 9/11. Bush did not have any evidence and so he attacked Afghanistan. I.m.h.o. there where 2 reason why he did that, one, he needed a fall guy and action and he needed it quick before people started to question why Saudi Arabia was getting of free. After all, all of the attackers where Saudi citizens and Bin Laden was supported by Wahhabi Saudis.
      And the other reason was that he was peed off that there …gasp… actually where people that would question his wisdom and authority.. so he needed to send a message to the rest of the world that if you question Americas authority to rule the world you will be destroyed…. especially if you are a backward 3rd world country. I still think Bush was having the illusion that a war in Afghanistan would be over within weeks because the almighty American war machine would be able to destroy everything in their way. It must still hound him in his dream that neanderthal cavemen showed him what a loser he was.
      You can NOT free Afghanistan from the Taliban, Afghanistan are the Taliban they are one and the same and all attempt to install a US pupped regime will backfire if there is no support for it by the people. You can not free people from them self.
      The Afghans are NOT our friends, we invaded them, In their eyes, we are the bad guys. The Taliban are the Afghans conservative religious movement and they will fight to free their country from the occupation of a foreign country….. would you do anything else should a foreign country invade the US?

      AlQaida has left Afghanistan long time ago, and is nothing but a shell and used as a boggy man by our politicians to instill fear in the peoples mind and to give the war mongers among the population a “feindbild”. AlQaida. is a Sunni Muslim terror organization and supported by conservative Saudi Arabian clerics and business people. Today, FOX (owned by Saudis) tells the sheep that Iran is supporting AlQaida and the sheep believe it simply because they have no grasp on the hatred between the Muslim factions. Iran is SHIA and they rather would kill them self before they would have an alliance with a Sunni Muslim. Muslim on Muslim violence is nearly always Sunni vs. Shia and they hate each other 1000 times more then they hate non believers. The tribal areas in Pakistan are mostly inhabited by shia Muslims and ultra conservative Sunnis and so, the Pakistani (Sunni) government gladly uses this occasion and conducts ethnic cleansing of Shia Muslims from what they believe are lands that belong to Sunnis. All under the disguise of the war on terror and with our help. And we wonder that Iran (shia Muslims) are supporting the shia minorities in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

      • 45caliber


        The Taliban are simply a strong tribe that was able to take over the government. They then used their position to shatter any other tribe that might challenge them. Just like the Saudi tribe in Saudi Arabia has done there. The rest ot the tribes and the members thereof are basically slaves subject to whatever the “leaders” want to do to them. Trying to insist that the Taliban is actually the choice of the people as a government is right ONLY if you are referring to the Taliban tribal members.

        NONE of the Mid-East is actually like the US where all people are basically Americans. There they are a number of different tribes (families). When you try to treat them as governments you are making a big mistake and your diplomacy is wrong. The head of that family/tribe gets all the profits which is why only the rulers are rich there.

        The soldiers realize this almost immediately when they go there. They are there to free all the slave tribes.

  • David Klinchuch

    Re: The Militarization of America. I generally agree with the comments; however, John Myers has only a superficial knowledge of history. My suggestion for both John Myers and his readers is to read the following books: 1) “Brotherhood of Darkness” by Dr. Stanley Monteith, 2) “Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300″ by Dr. John Coleman, and 3) “Tragedy & Hope, A History of the World in Our Time” by Professor Carroll Quigley. There are other scholarly books by authors such as Anthony Sutton. The above mentioned books will give any intelligent reader a real background in what has transpired to cause financial and social turbulence in our modern history. The stuff stated respectively by John Myers is only babies pablum.
    David Klinchuch

    • DaveH

      Here are two more that people should read (and they’re Free) to get a better idea of the Leaders and their personal ambitions that depend on sacrificing other peoples’ lives:

      • DaveH
      • Sirian

        I fully agree DaveH, “While You Slept” is an outstanding source for this. Read it people, you’ll get a much clearer understanding.

  • Eric Bischoff (@ericbischoff)

    Unfortunately history is always written by the victors.

    • 45caliber

      Not always … but usually. Do a little research and you can learn. The problem is that after you learn the truth, there are many who will refuse to admit it since it rocks their peaceful little world and conflicts with what they learned in government schools.

      • 45caliber

        And as examples, take a look at many of the comments above – such as eddie. He is so certain that some Military Industrial Complex (as mythical as “Society”) is responsible he simply cannot understand or accept that there may be some other reasons for a war – and that the soldiers definately have a reason. Soldiers do not fight simply because someone tells them to do it. They have to have a reason THEY accept. But most libs cannot believe that soldiers are individuals who make up their own minds about something.

      • eddie47d

        Where did I blame the soldier Caliber and why do you love false flag wars and the “proud” deaths of American soldiers? Does it make you warm and fuzzy to go along with that patriotic propaganda that sends chills up your spine?

  • Stymie

    “The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”
    ― George Orwell

    • nik

      Now you got it right. The destruction also takes away beauty, order and hope and creates nihilists.

      • 45caliber


        It also, historically, generates more quallity art, books, and advancements in civilization and technology. But you can learn that only if you look.

  • DaveH

    John Myers says — “America should use the RQ-1 Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles on terrorist groups and even possible terrorist groups. I am prepared to live with some collateral damage that will result from such strikes. This will be less deadly to foreign civilians and will save the lives of our young men and women in uniform, while helping to restore America’s standing in the world”.
    “Even possible terrorist groups”? Murder is murder, John, unless they have attacked us first and we are just practicing self-defense. The logical conclusion to that type of thinking is that we can just throw out due process here in the US. I mean if our Government can ignore due process in other countries, where they have no business being in the first place, It would not be a stretch at all for them to ignore it here where they do claim the right to be here.
    And maybe you’re “prepared to live with some collateral damage”, John, but I doubt that the victims of that damage would share your sentiment.
    As soon as we start using double-standards, the degradation of morality begins.

    • DaveH

      If our Government doesn’t support the Right to Life and Freedom for those people in other countries, how in the world are we to expect them to respect our Right to Life and Freedom?

    • 45caliber


      I think we have different ideas of what an “enemy” is.

      To you, it appears that an enemy is someone who is actively shooting at you that very moment. To me, it is anyone who shoots … and anyone who supports that as well. Collateral damage is inevitable in war. If you aren’t willing to accept that, then you might as well surrender and become a slave. You will eventually, anyway.

      • Karolyn

        Just because there have always been wars does not mean there have to always be wars. It starts with more people supprting peace rather than supporting hate and war. The more people who awaken to the idea, the more it will spread, and on and on. It is possible. However, as long as the war-mongers and haters have the upper hand, it is a uphill “battle.” Love/ truth/ goodness has power; hate/fear/evil has force. Power can override force.

      • Karolyn
      • eddie47d

        The Department of War has a strangle hold on us Karolyn and for now they will always win. True capitalism will not exploit or take from another nation by force yet the crony Capitalists are in cahoots with the military so we put up with it. They seem to be saying I can’t have what I want so I’ll get the military to back me up. History has also proven that spreading a nations army too thin can have catastrophic consequences. Think Rome or Russia so could we be next.

      • 45caliber


        First, God says that there will always be “wars and rumours of wars”. So believing that we can have peace because the majority of people want it is wrong.

        However, from a more practical reason, wars are like crime. You don’t need a majority of people to start a war. All you need is a few determined people who have some private agenda. The soldiers who have fought in all our wars didn’t fight because they liked war. Most of them hated it. (And until you see yourself what it’s like fighting a war all your comments are meaningless about why a war is fought.) But they fought to stop others. It is like the Civil War here in the states. Neither side fighting the war (not those who sat back in an office somewhere piosly trying to insist they had some glorious reason) were interested in fighting it. They felt they had strong reasons to do so. The SOLDIERS (not the politicans) of the North fought to free the slaves. The SOLDIERS of the South (despite what history books might say now) fought to prevent the Northern politicians from governing the South via the Federal government. Slavery was an issue only to a few hundred slave owners.

        All other wars are the same. Do you actually think that the Iraqi soldiers we fought and killed were fighting to support Saddam? Not likely! Most were just as glad to see him gone as anyone else.

        So it will be impossible for a “majority” who likes peace to force the world to be peaceful. The minority groups will force it otherwise.

        It is like insisting that no one can attack you. Intelligent people don’t fight. If you start that argument, someone will likely strike you … and then insist that you can’t fight back due to your own arguments. Sooner or later you’ll have to realize you have no choice.

      • Detlef Naase

        Hi 45caliber, You say “Soldiers definatly have a reason, Soldiers do not fight simply because someone tells them to do it . They have to have a reason THEY accept. But most libs cannot believe that Soldiers are individuals who make up their own minds about something.”
        I like to recommend you read a story of a young American guy going to school in Germany before the war started his mother an American by birth and his father a German business man. How he ended up fighting the entire war from France to Poland to Itali and Russia ends up in Siberia as a German POW. The name of the book GULAG memoirs of an American in Hitler’s Army and Stalin’s Gulag. by Peter Schwarzlose. The man was born in New Jersey is still allive lives near Hilton Head and plays golf when ever possible. My father made just about the same trip, he never wrote a book that is why i am grateful to Peter that he did.
        I guarantee you have never read a better book explaining the REASON why a soldier fights. Lots of German soldiers had one reason, simply called “KETTENHUNDE”

      • DaveH

        I’m not one of those who can just suspend my morality to further my own goals, 45.

      • DaveH

        45 says — “To you, it appears that an enemy is someone who is actively shooting at you that very moment. To me, it is anyone who shoots … and anyone who supports that as well. Collateral damage is inevitable in war. If you aren’t willing to accept that, then you might as well surrender and become a slave. You will eventually, anyway”.
        No. To me an enemy is somebody who is actually is trying to do me harm. Not somebody who I think might want to do me harm, or somebody who supports somebody who I think might want to do me harm. And I certainly wouldn’t justify killing innocent bystanders in the process, who have no less right to life than I have.
        If you aren’t acting in self-defense, 45, then you are the aggressor. You know, the kind that would be apprehended and jailed in a civil society.

      • 45caliber


        You cannot win any war by simple defense. Sorry. Korea is a good example. The war there is basically still going on as we defend South Korea. If you intend to win a war, even though you start fighting to defend yourself, you MUST be aggressive. WWII is a good example of that.

  • metroman

    Speaking of Kennedy google “operation Northwoods” no Muslim’s there. So we have Muslim extremist, some would say we have extremist in all organized religions. As I write it is now o.k. for the President and future Presidents to be the arresting officer, judge, jury and executioner of American citizens anywhere in the world including the U.S without “due process” and no Bill of Rights protection. As in Orwell’s 1984 “war is peace.” We have not declared War on anyone. You know, Art. 1 section 8 Clause 11 so war is peace and Big Brother has pulled it off with the use of the telescreen. I fear the Republic is lost unless Ron Paul gets his message to the brain dead electorate. Good luck to all those who understand and for those who don’t may you suffer the faith of Winston Smith. I suggest you read Orwell’s 1984 again! Oh, if you really want to know who the terrorist are watch

  • K C Danielson

    What, end the war(s)! And make all those suppliers of boots and bullets destitute? Just think of the unemployment in essential manufacturers such as mega-yachts, fancy cars, mini-jets, and all that. Think of the devastating drop in political contributions. We simply can’t have that.

    • 45caliber

      The biggest reason for war is not to finance all the war mongers. It is to take the attention away from what Washington is doing. After all, a person is far more worried about their son in harm’s way than they are about a new tax Congress says is needed to keep their son safe.

  • Go Joe

    How do you trust a muslim being a christian. I mean they have allways hated us. They are persians right? I have a Spartan sword for them.

  • 45caliber

    We won’t “lose” the war in Afghanistan due to being beaten there. We will lose because Congress won’t support the military and allows the MSM to make a big thing over all the bad that a very few soldiers do. The MSM has been against the military ever since the Army about 1967 ruined one of their big stories by shutting down looters in Detroit. And they deliberately tar all military members with the same brush.

    • eddie47d

      We lost in Vietnam because it wasn’t ours to have! Just like the USA is not for Russia to ever have. Exploiting other nations through military action doesn’t make it right whether that nation wins or loses. .

      • 45caliber

        Tell me, eddie, just what should we have done after 9/11? Pretend it never happened?

      • eddie47d

        Chase out al Qaeda and Osama which was accomplished within the first year. Everything else was warmongering and for the benefit of the Military Industrial complex (as in Halliburton))

      • DaveH

        Well we could just pretend the accused conspirators were really the perpetrators:

  • Go Joe

    Hey Bob, just to let you know I have almost 5,000 friends on facebook and the bulk of the are CHristians. I have been encouraging them to subscribe to your newsletter as their #1 source for the truth about what is really going on. Get ready to be bussy like never before my friend. There is a flood of people comming your way Via email.

  • DocVenture

    Our original purpose in Afghanistan was to thwart al-Queda which had built up substantial power in the country and was a clear and present danger to us. We’ve since decimated al-Queda worldwide, even al-Queda itself acknowledges that they no longer have world wide power. So, having achieved our objective over there, get the hell out…NOW!

    Good article John, and spot on!

  • Michael Jay

    Sometimes I think that the people running this country believe that as long as we are fighting a war, we will survive the economic condition we find ourselves in. As in Vietnam this government hasn’t learned a thing. Iraq didn’t pan our an neither has Afhganistan. We are pouring money and lives so fast that we are now unable to protect our own infastructure. The World is learning that we are not the richest country in the world. We are beholding to those who hve money in our banks. These countries know that they cn topple us easily by just withdrawing their money. We have to work on our country the way Japan did and China is doing today or were are doomed. Israel is now thanks to us strong enough to defend itself(especially with 235 nuclear warheads. Our pouring money into it as well as some other countries, does our country no good and only angers countries we need to survive. The powers that be in this country only believe in what can control. It’s not necessary. To continue the same and expect a different outcome only shows how stupid we have become.

  • Ilmar Luik

    The beginning of WWII happened in April 1939 in the chemistry laboratory of Kaiser Wilhem Institude about 20 miles west of Berlin. Nobel prize winner chemist Dr. Hane made an experiment that ended with Zinc appearing from nowhere in his test tube.

    Dr. Merkle explaine what happened atom had been split. Einsteins equation enegy equals mass times speed of light squared had been proven and building atom bomb is possible.

    Within few weeks when I was ony nine years old a chemistry student explained to me all the details on of how to build a nuclear bomb. Hitler, Stalin, Roosvelt and British government got similar briefings.

    Hitler declared it to be Jewish science and ordered immediate arrest of Einstein and Merkle,
    Forunately both of them escaped.

    British government turned down the proposal to build nuclear bombs on the bases of immorality. Roosvelt turned it down for lack of money. Stalin embraced it with extreme enthusiasm and ordered immediate and total turn-around of his political objectives to take full advantages of his soon to be expected nuclear weapons monopoly.

    Based on Stalin’s decisions things started to happen fast.

    1. Process started to lead Hitler into trap of starting WWII. Hitler fell into it (temporarily)

    2. Stalin expected repeat of WWI Germany and Allies becomes exhausted and then he
    will attack both of them with nuclear weapons.

    3. To prepare for it all his generals who had organized Red Army for defence were executed and replaced with new incompotent generals who were oredered to reorganize Red Army for offence.

    4. To disguise all of the above Stalin proposed and Hitler accepted friendship and non-agression treaty wit a secret attachment which in essence diveded the world into spheres of interest. Among many other things the US was diveded between Japan and Germany along the Missisppi river. Stalin expected his monopoly of nuclear weapons to make it a reality.

    Then things started to go wrong.

    The secret attachment was not clear enough as who will get the Romainian oil fields. Stalin got greedy and grabbed them. Next Finaland refused to surrender and exposed the weakness of the Red Army. (New incompetent generals did not know lead the army)..

    Hitler started to smell the rat and attacked first. Soon it became obvious that he and his generals were not up to the task.

    Then in April 1945 Stalin had a moment of real fear General Patton declarewd his intention to march into Berlin and the Red Army was too far to stop him.

    Stalin’s fear was real the common knowlwedge at that time (turned out to be false) was that germans were close building a nuclear bomb and had accumulated 50 tons uranium at Kaiser Wilhem Institude. Stalin’s fear was that the Americans get it and it will enable them to build nuclear bomb before Stalin gets his.

    (at that time Stalin knew all about the Manahatan project it was completely infiltrated by the Russian spies, however, whether it will works or not was not known. Same for the Russian nuclear project, therefore capture of German nuclear research might have tipped the outcome. To prevent Patton from getting to Berlin ahead of the Russian became a life or death issue for Stalin.).

    Orders went out to all Russian Armys in Germany to change direction of attack from whatever to Berlin and get there at all cost as quicly as possible.

    To outside observers, especially to the US generals it made no military sense at all.
    and to the Russians it caused immense an unessary losses of estimate million lives but Stalin got there before Patton and that was all that counted.

    But id did not help The US got the bomb anyway and Stalin was humbled.

    President Eisenhower did even more he made it very clear that the US has more bombs than Stalin and Futhermore can drop them into the Stalins bedroom if he attacks the US.

    Now comes Putin he declares that the greates tragedy y of the twentieth century was the demise of the Soviet Union and all because the stupidity of its leaders.

    He has also declared that he is smarter then the past Soviet leadres and he knows how to fix the problem.

    He does not keep it secret he has made it very clear.

    It begins with building ten new ICBM launching submarines. each submarine carries 20 BBULOVA missiles. Each missile carries 10 independently targetable nuclear warheads.

    All missiles will be kept hidden under the Arctic ice cap. The submarines are arranged to break through the ice and launch all missiles within half an hour after receipt of the command.

    Thus 10 x 20 x10 = 2000 nuclear bombs can be launched at US cities within half an hour from the vicinty of the north pole. There is no way that the US missile defence can deal with it.

    The best way is to prevent is for the US Navy to start patrolling the waters under the the ice cap.

    Putin anticipated it and just declared North Pole to be the Russian territory.

    How about that?

    Can you conclude from all of the above that

    the good folks at the other side are only interested in peace.?

  • Donald York

    John McCain is a war hawk. He, and others like him are the very reason that our contry is on a slippery slope. He(McCain) conspires with the worst in Washington to keep us in war.Hey goofballs, Osama is dead. Get out, and quit squandering money we don’t have on countries that hate our way of life and what we stand for. We ca’nt change the world!
    What we should do though is close down those expensive bases throughout Europe and Asia, bring all of our troops home, station all of them on the borders and dare one illegal to step foot across the border illegally. The real threat to America is the Mexicans that come into our country and expect americans to take care of them. I get it, why do’nt you? Ron Paul said that if we brought all our troops home it would inject millions into our economy right away. We would have better defenses to keep invaders out. Why should tax dollars be spent in defense of other countries? Let them use their money to defend themselves. Our people should’nt spill blood for other nations. We should’nt try to police everything in the world that does’nt concern us. Damn! I hope i havent offended any patriots who read what i just said. My logic is mine, and mine alone.

  • RT

    I’m glad conservatives are finally coming on board with the idea that 10 years of war is enough. Welcome to the party! Now if you’d spend a little more time explaining it to your GOP/TP reps in Congress–and a lot less time trying to discover where the president was born (it was Hawaii), maybe we could bring the troops home and start re-building the US.

    • Donald York

      I’m an independant/consertative/Totally Engaged American pal, and to say we’re coming on board with your liberal/socialist views is laughable at best.

      • 45caliber

        I agree.

  • disgusted

    Politicians are great at saying “We’re” going. And now the real “we” have NDAA, NDRP, HR347, etc.

  • Jim

    I say burn Karzi’s poppy fields and come home. Let them kill one another as they have done since the beginning of time.

  • Greg

    There is a time for talking and a time for action. Our military is a war machine not a police force. You can’t have a successful government change in an illiterate country.

  • FreedomFighter

    The next great war will be due to madmen:

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • deborah cobb

      On that video at 5:47 there appears to be a human skeletal hand upraised from one of the “bodies,” hope not. Awsome power… better left to God.

    • 45caliber

      All wars are due to a madman or madmen. The other side simply defends itself.

  • Linda Turner

    This commentary and many of the posts following it are in line with what conservatives have vilified as liberal positions. I am surprised but optimistic to see that there is bipartisan support for ending this needless war which Obama inherited.

    • Donald York

      As a US senator from bankrupt Illinois, Barack voted to go to war in Afghanistan.

      • Linda Turner

        Almost everyone did; unlike Iraq. That’s the trouble with a “war on terrorism,” there are no national boundaries to dictate your strategy. Also, the war in Afghanistan began in October 2001. Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004. So your assertion doesn’t stand up.

  • Ted G

    Near the end of this article its stated that the author admitted we could and should use our military under certain circumstances, with which I agree.
    However what is really lacking in my opinion from our elected officials is under what conditions we should. And this should be articulated to say that these areas where we might invlove ourselves is not limited to just our own national security. The world after all a small place and we have a role to play wheather we like it or not.

    Why is not acceptable to state that anywhere and everywhere in the world should have these same freedoms and liberties?
    The UNUDHR stated this and all signed up to it. However it has been ignored at the UN itself regrettably.

    And why oh why should we not name names and ideologies that oppress these very same freedoms and liberties?
    Just so we don’t offend? How cowardly is that when we can’t promote and defend freedom.

    All entities (countries, orgs, and ideologies including religions) that oppose these fundamental freedoms and liberties are in fact a danger to everyone everwhere.
    And I would contend that this does endanger our own national security.

  • Walt1

    The need for the U.S. to avoid unnecessary military action was truly brought home by the actions of George W. Bush, which destroyed many thousands of American lives and many more Iraqi’s and Afghans, and, unpaid for, slammed us with a massive deficit. These ill-conceived rush-to-war efforts were largely responsible for many of the 35 articles of impeachment brought against Bush and his relegation to being one of the 10 worst Presidents of all time. More recently, the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, has suggest possible military action against Iran, which met with derision, as evidenced in this link:

    The article above hammers home the importance of doing away with dangerous regimes in a manner avoiding war–President Obama’s way. When Romney labeled President Obama “feckless” on the international stage, this was seen as laughable, per the above link. After all, Obama ruthlessly decimated al-Qaeda, taking out 23 of their top 30 commanders, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. Libya is free of Moammar Gaddafi. And today, Iran is isolated — surrounded by friends of the United States and squeezed by ever-increasing sanctions. Any Republican/Romney-sponsored war with Iran would be an absolute disaster for world stability, not only in terms of geo-political relationships, but economically as well with the skyrocketing gas prices it would cause. Even the US could not sustain $10/gallon gas prices set by oil traders/speculators on Wall Street based on a war with Iran, and developing countries would be be ruined completely.

    • Ted G

      I would argue that Obama was merely the caretaker of the oval office while America did these things.

  • Awakened

    Bring our boys home from the Middle East. We need them here to defend our own borders. I know, I know, I’m preaching to the choir.

  • Tom Wood, Hickory Hills, IL.

    I agree, it’s time to get out of Afganistan and others, those people don’t want our help, they’ve more than proved it. Also when we get out, we should stop every penney going to these countries, all they want is our money, and who knows what they’re doing with it? I have a friend that was in the service, and seen a palet of cash ready to be shipped. We should be helping our allies, not our enemies!

    • 45caliber


      The problem is that politicians see cash as a way to buy friends. It doesn’t matter if the persons getting the money are allies or not. It is a form of tribute as paid by various countries to Rome. We pay so don’t attack us. It lets us pretend that we are independent. The politicians are afraid of the military so this gives them the ability to pretend there is no need for a military since they can buy off all our enemies.

      I do agree with one thing. I think we should not give money to ANYONE. Period. Allie or not. American or not. If we want to give money away, we should do it individually to the charity of our own choice. Not require that everyone else gives money to whatever we want it to go to.

  • Lawrence

    I am remided of acartoon in the 50′s, “The enemy is us.” Also George Orwell’s novel, “1984″. Big Brother and his cohorts,forging the chains of slavery while all the time keeping the minds of the people on endless wars against an enemy that is neither existant nor dangerous to the people.

  • Joseph Foster

    John Meyers an excellent Article I agree with all of your comments. The Iraq war was based on WMD, none was found, the Afghan war was to capture a criminal that criminal was finally found and killed by our special forces, had we used that approach from the beginning we could have got him 10 years ago.
    As to Democracy for Afghan if our zest was for Democracy we should invade two of our closest Allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
    With regards to Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler there is no relation to that event and the Iraq and Afghanistan war, let’s assume Chamberlain did not appease Hitler are you suggesting Britain alone should have stood against Hitler, remember the USA did not declare war against Germany until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, Britain stood alone for two years fighting the forces of Hitler. For those that want to be educated it was Russia that broke the back of the mighty German military power. Here is what Churchill said in 1944 to the house of parliament; were it not for Russia that broke the back of the German Army, the UK and the USA will be living in an era of dark ages. Read about the Eastern front which was not given great importance after the end of WW11 because our relation was soured with the Soviet Union for their refusal to with draw from Eastern Europe.
    Hitler had amassed 4.5 million troops against Russia and over 12,000 Aircraft and thousands and upon thousands of Tanks, in the history of warfare there has never been any battles that will equal to that of the Eastern front, when the US and British forces crossed the English channel it did so with no German Air power to oppose them, since Russia had destroyed the entire German Air force.
    Why did we not stop appeasing Russia after they refused to with draw from Eastern Europe, the reason was Mutual Assured Destruction of both Russia and the USA?
    Those that advocate more wars are not fit to be elected to high office they neither serve the interest of the USA.
    Afghan has 67 tribes and these tribes are in conflict with each other, The USA could restore Democracy in Afghanistan if it plans to send over 500,000 troops and spend in excess of 5 trillion dollars, and with that there is no guarantee of success. In my book I wrote a Chapter titled,‘’The Afghan Fiasco’’
    Joseph Foster, Author ‘’Seeing Red’’ ‘How America is losing the future’ Available at: my blog Stand Up For America! – Seeing Red;

    • Ted G

      Here I would argue that the Iraq war was based on Iraq’s intransigence and continued violations of the UN/coalition of countries agreed upon requirements after Iraq’s surrender. And their continuous firing upon coalition aircraft enforcing the UN’s/coalitions imposed “No Fly Zone”. Which in itself was justification to go to war. The WMD argument was simply one of many justifications.
      If you disagree with the several reasons/triggers that justified the war, say so, but please don’t pretend that the others didn’t exist.
      Constantly repeating and implying that the only reason we went to war over there was because of the potential of WMD’s is revisionist and dishonest.

  • http://facebook David Hendrick Behrens

    Obama, is stubbornly sticking to his plans of ending the winless Afghan war. he ignores the Afghan populations and Karzai, they hate and want America out fast and polls show Americans want it to end now.. …

    • 45caliber

      “… they hate and want Americans out …”

      Really? Can you prove that? I know that the MSM news says so. However, I’ve also seen a news story (local news) where a reporter talked to the people on the street. He was amazed that the people were all grateful for our help since he’d seen all those stories too. And talk to some of our returning soldiers. Most tell the same story. Their OFFICALS want us out … but not necessarily the people.

  • FreedomFighter

    America is a declining empire trying to resurrect itself through military intervention and armed occupation.

    I have mixed thoughts on this statement and its assumptions.

    America is declining, but its not due to lack of resources, people resources, nor technical ability, the American decline is an engineered event implemented by the banking cartels (big 6) so that they may take land and resources and turn the American public into debt slaves.

    In addition, the military as Leon stated is taking orders from the UN – Controlled by these banking interest such as Goldman Sachs is doing in Western EU and is not working in the interests of America, but the is working for the interests of international corps owned by these banks.

    America is in forced decline, to be sacrificed to the banking cartels whom will divide the very resource rich corpse.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • 45caliber


      I have NEVER believed that America is a declining or any other sort of empire. An Empire is one country ruling another. I can’t think of a single time that we have RULED any other country. Even Iraq. It’s like the lib story that we attacked Iraq for their oil – we don’t get any of it. Since we don’t, why do they actually believe that? If we RULED it, we should get it all, shouldn’t we?

  • Cynthia

    I’ve always thought Afghanistan was a worthless piece of dirt and we shouldn’t have gone in. All of the Muslim countries are worthless pieces of dirt, for that matter. We shouldn’t be in any Muslim country. Their hatred of us and Israel is palpable. We need to be securing our own borders and keeping our country safe. If we’re attacked by another country, then we should retaliate, whether the attackers are Muslim or not. If they want to live in the Middle Ages with no running water or electricity, more power to them. I think they should stay in their own borders and leave us alone.

    • 45caliber

      And if we attack them because they attacked us, we should go in fast, destroy everything, and pull out fast rather than trying to “help” them recover.

      • Ted G

        I have the same feelings down in my gut. Our enemies should fear the application of force by America. War is hell and once we make the decision to go in we should be brutal and also be brutally frank about the fact that that is exactly what we will do.

        Once in we should eliminate everything or anyone holding a gun or in opposition.
        We can then leave it to the UN to clean up afterwards.
        I daresay that if this became the US policy. We would after providing a couple real examples get some results.

        The people that currently oppose the US are barbarians in suits. They know the game, public opinion blah blah, then use the UN to stop a justified response to their own barbarity. One must meet babaric behavior with brutal opposition without appology.

      • 45caliber


        Have you ever seen the movie or read the book, “The Mouse That Roared”?

        It is about some tiny country that desperately needs money. So they declare war on the US with the intention of surrendering so the US will rebuild their country.

    • Ted G

      Ahh! But in the case of Afghanistan, they did attack us. At the least by proxy and with the approval of and the protection of that countries rulers at the time.

      What is happening now is simply the immoral application of religious dogma being used as the basis of all law for that country. And the “Feckless” (yea I know I used the word feckless) actions of Obama in the handling of it since he came into office.
      Not to mention the corrupt and ineffective government of Afghanistan is now reverting back to those very same culprits and ideology that caused us to go there in the first place.

      Sure we won all the battles militarily, but what will we leave behind? I could contend that the rush by many to simply leave with the scorning attitude that we shouldn’t be there anymore is basically giving up all that was won and allowing the enemy to simply move back in.


    It seems these days and ever since the Korean war this country has leaned towards a lot of useless blather and engaged in self flagellation because the blathering fools who engage in unnecessary talk also engage in backing up an running down every thing America stands for, these learned loudmouths are called progressives, socialist, liberals and culminate in the name communist. The idea a representative Republic such as this, with a Constitution that makes the people in charge of the government, believes in providence and inalienable rights under God, can exist in the same space with a godless, morally bankrupt ideology such as communism is ludicrous, you may as well keep trying to mix oil and water and deny the sun comes up in the east.
    We at one time had a law that kept communist and like organizations that engaged professing the violent overthrow of this government at a disadvantge and now we vote them into office and allow them to put like thinkers into appointed political positions. Since the fall of the USSR communist no longer are considered a threat but take a look at the UN and ll the socialistic despotic countries that oppose rational thinking to allow their own people freedom of choice, yet we are stupid enough because the leadership of progressives, socialist and the like to threaten our own existence by ignoring our own sovereignty and engaging these clowns to interfere with our own governing by rule of law and it now has worsened.

    We will and are allowing this administration to remove liberties, rights and freedoms and putting more militant unconstitutional laws into place, they tell you it is security but would you trade your freedoms for this kind of security. Do you want a government that is non transparent, secretive and rules with impugnity, that takes from you your ability to be represented in any and all matters? Then it is best you open those sleepy eyes of yours because that is what is going on and it is going to take a lot of work to remove, repair and restore this country to one whose guide is the Constitution left to us by our founders…or you can lose this Republic.

    • 45caliber


      Consider the fact that Eisenhower won the Presidentcy after WWII. That was a general taking the rightful place of a politician – at least as the politicians see it. Truman dismissed McAuthor in the Korean War because the politicians began to fear McAuthor would do the same thing. NOT for any bad military decision. And ever since the politicians have been very careful to keep the generals from doing anything that might allow one of them to successfully challenge a politician for a political office. That should explain everything you just said.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Militarization, my left hind quarter! Incompetent dabbling in military matters has been the long standing problem. As an example, Obama has already established a surrender date in Afghanistan, we’re now only passing time and losing soldiers.

    • eddie47d

      That is an oxymoron saying we should get out of Afghanistan then blaming the person who is trying to extract us from that country. There is no light at the end of the tunnel and please none of this “peace with honor” which was a feel good hoax in another war. Mistakes can be corrected but when you repeat those same mistakes over and over again then no lesson was learned.

    • 45caliber



  • chuckb

    we need another walter cronkite?? look around we have them everywhere, cbs, abc,cnn and msnbc, these news agencies are in most part sympathetic with the communist movement as cronkite was in vietnam. no we don’t need another cronkite, we need true american patriots in the media and mostly i the white house.
    do you know why afghanistan remains undefeated? answer, there’s nothing there to defeat. defeat would be easy, just wipe out the goat herders and walla the wars over. if you allow these herders to plant ied’s in the roads at night and allow those same goat herders to shoot at you without retaliation then guess what, you are defeated. .these people are barry’s brothers on the rug for most part so don’t expect much in the winning way. and if we should win a complete victory what have we won, just another welfare state, let’s bring our troops home and place them on the mexican border where the real war is waging. .

  • Robert


    Regarding your article “The Militarization of America”, you have finally said something I can almost totally agree with. As a Vietnam veteran, I hope you can understand my feelings of disagreement with Walter Kronkite’s take on that war. It’s my personal opinion that the Tet offensive in 1968 was a complete failure, militarily, for North Vietnam and resulted in the almost total destruction of the Viet Cong cadre and infrastructure, as well as inflicting serious losses on the North Vietnamese army. If Kronkite hadn’t lost heart and convinced LBJ to concede politically, I feel we could have brought that conflict to a satisfactory conclusion. I feel certain that many other veterans of that ‘lost’ war share my feelings.


    Robert S.

    • OldWriter

      You said ‘convinced LBJ to concede. Perhaps you forget, it was JKF and then LBJ that got us into the Vietnam mess, and RMN that got us out. All during the final years of the war, RMN was in charge and kicking N. Vietnamese butt, while all the while, hippies and Democrats over here were blaming Nixon for the war, the war that Nixon did not get us into, but which he ‘won.’

      • Mark in LA

        Actually Truman got us into the mess and Eisenhower dug us deeper. Truman backed the French with money and weapons when Ho Chi Minh begged Truman to open up dialog between the US and Vietnam. Truman bought the cold war nonsense and assumed every commie is the same as the next. Either that or he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the people using these claims as a political weapon. When the French got defeated, the country was partitioned. A future referendum was slated for thde purposes of deciding if the country should reunify. The government of South Vietnam had a sham referendum and Eisenhower backed the government of South Vietnam. We could had left then. It only continued to escalate from there.

    • 45caliber


      The North Vietnamese were ready to quit when the Feds organized the “Paris Peace Talks”. There they gave everything the NV had lost back to them. Diplomacy? What a laugh! They signed the “Peace Treaty” and then pulled the soldiers out of Vietnam. Before the last left, the NV invaded. They hastily took out the rest along with a few South Vietnamese to balm their conscience. Then they insisted that the military had lost the war and they had “saved” the military by making a truce long enough to pull them out.

      Check out the history books our kids or grandkids are forced to study in school now.

    • ranger Hall

      Sorry Robert i must disagree with somw of what you said. Granted we did stop the Tet Push from the VC, Yes we did almost destroy the VC as a Force, BUT most of these people were Not Well equipped soldiers, They did not have the Weapons Power we had.
      But it showed our Country THAT we did not have any Control. NOW we would have to fight The NVA,Reg trained Military, With Tanks,Artillery, and maybe War planes, THIS would have caused Even more Americans Killed and wounded, After tet the N.Vietnam told the Us NOW you will have to face our Military, The US Politicians and Military Brass decided that with all the Information getting back to the American People, That it would be Stupid to continue a War with a Real Military, The American People would not go along with it, The North and the US reached a date and time WE would be out of SO.Vietnam, The North said on this date we will be Moving South and any American in our Path will be Destroyed. If you go to the old news Reels you will see that THEY slowed down to allow us to remove all the Americans An our so called Friends.
      The Most Powerful Military in the World was beaten by People wearing sandals.
      You sometimes can beat the MilitaryB,ut is very hard to beat the Ind. People.
      In Vietnam during the day smiles and hand shakes, At nite a rifle, granade, knife, any way to kill the enemy US. And the Military tried EVERYTHING,Just like in Afganistan and Iraq. WHO is the ENEMY. Like some of you say, KILL THEM ALL. That is Just not an American, OR is this what we are becoming.

      • Robert

        Ranger Hall,

        I don’t know where or when or if, you were ever in Viet Nam, but I served there from Nov. 1967 to May 1969 in the Central Highlands and we were engaging regular NVA troops the entire time. During Tet in “68 we destroyed regular NVA troops in Kontum, Plieku and thruout the highlands. The statement that the NVA said now you will have to engage us it bull! We had been engaging and defeating them at Dak To, Dak Pek, and all throughout the area since well before I arrived. South Vietnamese ranger outfits and Montanyard irregulars we worked with also did an excellent job and in my opinion, were abandoned in 1972 because of political failings on our part. I feel certain that had we prevailed we could have negotiated an honorable treaty that left the South Vietnamese free…

  • Thom Raasio

    Wow, John Myers, we must be twins in the brain.

    That’s the first article I’ve read in 10 years that I agree with 100% on every single point. Excellent, Excellent editorial.

    You made my day!


    • Vigilant

      100%? You too need to (re)visit the history books.

  • OldWriter

    Let’s get a few facts straight. Afghanistan did not defeat Russia, UNTIL Reagan gave the Taliban aid, remember that. America was Russia’s….Iran. The reason we have not managed to ‘defeat’ the Taliban is because we have both an Iran, and a Pakistan. You can not defeat a country if you do not control the borders. That is what happened to us in Vietnam. How could we possibly win in Vietnam when there were open borders in the North and West? Nixon had us winning in Vietnam, long enough to get us out of there with a phony ‘peace’ treaty, but only after he bombed the crap out of N. Vietnam and did some secret bombing in Cambodia. Get the picture? No way could we win in Iraq as long as Iran was next door, importing (Russian) weapons and terrorists. Ditto Afghanistan. The Russians had control of ALL the major cities (if there is such a thing) in Afghanistan, but they did not control the countryside. Ditto America. We control the major cities, and the small ones, but we still have not taken out the Taliban. The answer? There is only one way to win..take out Iran. Yes, I know, Pakistan is there too, but take out one, the rest get scared.

    • Mark in LA

      There is only one way to win – declare victory and leave like Senator Aiken suggested in Vietnam. You are suggesting an endless expansion of the war to “win” it. It is “thinking” like this that gets us into these quagmires. Once we attack Iran and Pakistan, then what, attack every Muslim country if they object or their people become jihaddis and join the fight?

      There is nothing worth “winning” there as there is no there there. You are spouting the usual drivel from old vets who somehow think the countries “pride” will be hurt by admitting the whole thing was a big mistake.

  • budman

    I said over two years ago on this site that we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan since we are dealing with countries which have deep ethic division and corrupt officials. The leaders of our country do not seem to pay attention to history or thinking out the probabilities of becoming involved in conflict.
    I spent many years observing various aspects of those countries and I knew exactly what would happen. We could have won handily but would have had to place a permanent force there and run the government. Eventually, even in those circumstances, the status would corrode as the people would want the occupiers out of their country.
    I am not a dove, but a realist and believe the only country we should be highly concerned with is Iran. They are on a religious mission which they believe is their destiny and that is to obtain nuclear weapons and control the entire middle east. I believe a strike force should be in place because the situation there will become increasingly serious. The other countries in the middle east are preparing now for such a move by Iran.

  • OldWriter

    I am changing the subject here because no way is this going to be published in the left-wing media. We need to do two things: One, DEFEND that Staff Sergeant who shot up the people in Afghanistan. I mean defend in the sense that the Obama administration is going to throw him to the wolves to appease his Muslim friends both in America and Afghanistan. That said, the other thing is: Why has the MUSLIM TERRORIST MAJOR who shot up all the innocents at Ft. Hood not been brought to trial? He was drawing O-4 Major pay, had been taking advantage of the benefits of Army life for years, was supposed to (finally) go to a combat zone and COUNSEL U. S. troops who might be under stress, because he was a PSYCHIATRIST. This Muslim shouted ALLAH AKBAR while he was gunning down innocents at Ft. Hood, in a building he DID NOT WORK IN, and shooting people he did not personally know. When the shooting first occurred, Obama said…’Let’s not jump to conclusions.’ I knew right then and there, that very day, what the result would be. The shooting was put on the back burner while an ‘Official Army Investigation’ was conducted. Well, you all might have heard the results of the Army investigation, in which, remember, Obama is the ‘Commander-in-Chief.’ The results? WORKPLACE VIOLENCE, with no mention of the shooter being Muslim or yelling ALLAH AKBAR. Workplace violence where he did not work nor know the victims. Workplace violence while yelling ALLAH AKBAR and a separate early on investigation said he had been in constant contact with Muslim terrorists. Remember all the Democrat hoopla over the shooting in Phoenix of the Democrat congresswoman Jeffords? They made a really big deal out of it. Obama even came to Phoenix and made speeches. It was plastered all over the news for weeks, and again recently when she ‘retired.’ She was shot, but survived. All those victims at Ft. Hood were massacred by a Muslim, and we hear nothing. It is time to speak up. Demand this Muslim be brought to trial, and before the November elections. Which was the greater crime in your eyes”? An U.S. Army Muslim Major killing innocents in the name of ALLAH, or a four times deployed U.S. Army Staff Sergeant who went off the deep end? Which is worse? I know, no difference. Are you sure?

    • OldWriter

      Woops, I said Jeffords when her name is Gifford. Sorry about the little typo, but you knew whom I meant anyhow.

    • ranger Hall

      Old Boy I Agree about the Major, But our Justice System Sucks. Only thing i would like to know is What happened in his MIND, Why did he do this. Any way he commited Murder and should be Hanged.
      BUT now the Sgt. No excuses he committed MURDER and Torched the bodies of Men,women and kids. He to should be hanged, BUT our Military seems to want to Protect its Murderers. I have seen it in the Past and the Present, I do not defend these people, They disgrace every good and decent Military man and woman that have served, Past and Present.

  • May

    This is the most thoughtful and intelligent article I have read on this website. I also appreciate Joseph Foster’s informative comments.

    And thank you, Bob Livingston for upgrading your website to filter some unintelligent, mean-spirited, and inflammatory comments.

    • steve

      mean spirited ????? you say what you wish to say & at the same time indicate others are not entitled. this is what obama & the eletists want.

  • Beatrix

    The current military leader is a liberal.. You’d have to change history to state that we’re in the Mideast because of the Republicans. Both parties voted for war. (And Kennedy, your example of a peacemaker, got us into Vietnam. Eisenhower sent advisors, Kennedy sent soldiers. And Kennedy was willing to get into war with the Soviets if Krushchev hadn’t backed down on Cuba).

    There is no indication that Al Quaeda had power before 9/11. OBL only got 21 people to attack America. It was after we went to the Mideast and made ourselves targets that Al Quaeda became a significant force.

  • J. Hise

    I agree we should not be in Afghanistan, should never have gone there militarily. Big mistake. If our leaders had read history, near history they would have seen how Afghanistan fought the Soviet Union to a stand still. The Soviets pulled out after loosing many lives and much equipment. Our last four presidents have been war mongers. from Bush I through Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. Being the policeman of the world is destroying this country from within. Our young men and women are being destroyed day by day and the liberal government is destroying manufacturing. The USA needs to pull our military out of all foreign countries. Let the neighboring countries give aid to and prevent each other from causing dissention in their area. As a final: I ask: Just who [what country] will come to the aid of the USA as it falls under Obamas fist?

  • ranger hall

    Mr. Meyers i liked most of you piece but some of the last part.
    .Vietnam= The little People BEAT the Most Powerful Military in the World, And did it with only 5% of the power we used against them. Granted we won the Battles due to our Power BUT they still won the War.
    Afganistan= Tailban The only group EVER to bring all the War Lords together, Except for the Northern Alliance..
    Al Quida= is nothing but People from around the World, Training for a purpose, a common cause. They were allowed to train in Afganistan because these same People were the ones that fought the Russians, WHAT WAS THEIR MAIN PURPOSE, Some say they were training to fight the USA. I disgree, from what i know they were Training to Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family, as most should know the only BASE we have in that area is IN Saudi Arabia. So it seems that Al Quida now becomes a problem to Us, for if there was a Revolt and the People won, They would have us Leave the Country, THIS we could not allow to Happen. The Taliban was our Friends, We gave them Aid. We asked them if they would throw out Al Quida They responded NO why should we, After that they became our Foes.Now we needed an excuse to do it ourselves. You know the rest.
    All we did was change one Leader for another, We have won the Battle But we have not won the War.
    Bin Laden was no way supported by Saudi Arabia, He was considered an Enemy of the Royal Family, They kicked him out of the country, and when this did not work they then took away his Citizenship, Which in Saudi Arabia means if you are caught in the Country you will be put to death. Some say WE helped make these decisions.
    I wish that someone Could tell me JUST who is our enemy.
    For some of you out there You have been watching to much Action TV, Rocky,Norris,The Rock, and Others, War is Not Hollywood, War is Hell People and Bombs and Bullets are real, and they Hurt Like Hell.
    Oh and in Vietnam most shot at anything that Moved or did not move. Im sure you old vets heard of 1 min of free fire.
    Its so easy for so many to Hate, even when you are the Bad guys
    Some people knew in 68 and even before that our cause was lost.and that the People would win.
    Show me one Govt Leader of any country that is NOT corrupt, And i will move to that Country.
    Its a BIG WORLD OUT THERE, A lot of Countries and a lot of different people and different beliefs, and most of you cant see beyond your nose, Just believe what you see in the Media and on TV. Heck im betting most of you have not traveled Past Mexico,Canada and Havahi.

    • budman

      Ranger Hall: I was in Viet Nam Oct 67 to Oct 68 and may know something you did not know. General Giap knew that a second wave of bombing of North Viet Nam would have resulted in their surrender. It didn’t happen of course. Most people have no idea why we became involved in that country but it was about establishing a foothold in that area and economic interest in the oil off the coast of South Viet Nam.
      As far as friendly fire, you being there, know that the enemy could be an old woman or young kid just as easily as those fighting as Viet Cong or North Vietnamese troops and the Chinese advisers there. Yes, I had a hair trigger finger but it was necessary and I took precautions and think this saved my life on at least two occasions. My brother-in-law, who was with the 196th Light Infantry killed an old woman coming at him with a hand grenade in her right hand. He wasn’t as lucky and was wounded twice while there.
      During the Tet Offensive. I observed the South Korean’s taking prisoners off a truck. All of them were as tall or taller than me at 5 feet, 11 inches. You know that Koreans didn’t take prisoners. They got the information they wanted and shot them on sight. I recall one radio call they had 13 prisoners and could hear gunshots in the background while at the Special Forces Camp in Nha Trang. I didn’t see any prisoners when they rolled into their camp. I can’t prove it, but I think those soldiers on the truck were North Korean by their appearance but were wearing the black pajamas of the Viet Cong.

      • ranger Hall

        Nice some people even know there was other Countries soldiers were in Vietnam, But have you wondered why they were hardly in the News. The USA was in Charge and these SO KOREANS (TIGERS) was assigned an area Same as the AUSSIES, and hardle ever left these areas, The VC hardly ever Bothered them for this reason. The Tigers were Brutal and had maimed there kills, our people picked up on some of these bad habits.
        And NO north vietnam was not about to surrender, and NO there was NO North Koreans in Vietnam that i know of.
        Glad you made it Home Soldier.

  • Pingback: How The Devil Has Won : Personal Liberty Alerts

  • Wyatt

    If one bothers to study history at all they will note that no world power has ever lasted more than 200 years . They may be around for several hundred years , but at their zenith not much longer than 200 years and most, not even that long .

    America rose to her power much against her will after the American Revolution , forced to fight for her rights on the sea and against The English power in their fight with France . A civil war and wars against the Native American people created her army and military strength and then the war in Cuba and the Boxer Rebellion in China confirmed her as a world power . This again was reinforced in WWI although we tried to stay neutral . But conspiring politicians created the incident to drag us into Europe’s war . Again in 1941 we were forced to fight and emerged as the world’s leader . Since that day we have been policeman to the world . And while we have tried to lead the way towards peace , others both in the world and in our own country have conspired to bring about changes that not only are bringing our fall and demise .

    Communism lasted but a brief 75 years or so before it collapsed under the weight of its own ambitions to dominate the world . And yet there are people , both in the world community and here in America who refuse to accept the message that Communism does not work . Why is simple , GREED ! Plain and simple greed . Those in power get or already infected with the sickness of greed when the come to power or are greedy for power . Such is our current administration and the Liberal Left and some on the right as well . And then we have the NWO who think they have the solution to it all but in reality are just rehashing Communism .

    Why anyone would wish to mess with our current form of Government , would call our Constitution outmoded and would publicly degrade it and go out of their way to circumvent it is beyond me . Well , not really , not if the one trampling it is a Communist in the first place . Yes , Communist , that is what we have elected to be our president and in 3yrs he has hastened our demise , eroded our standard of living , created class warfare and encouraged racism on an unprecedented scale . Never have we had a more vindictive and hateful president . He has shown he hates America and Americans equally . and will do anything he wishes to accomplish his schemes . And unless as Americans , we stand up and say no more to this fool and his followers , America will fade into history as one of the short lived powers , a footnote in the history of the world . Now I don’t expect us to last forever . But we have had a pretty good run of sucess with the system we used and our Constitution is Better than anything else the world has produced dispite the claims of a certain liberal judge ( who, by the way should be arrested for treason) .

    AMERICA , Love it , Leave it or , get the Hell out of the way so those who do love it can insure she endures .

    • 45caliber


      I’m not sure if he’s Communist or simply a would-be tyrant.

  • ranger hall

    One thing my Father Taught me when i turned 17 and decided to do my duty for my Country and Joined the Army. In those days we were taught that a tour in the Military was an obligation,to Our Country,Not for Money or Benefits, for in those days you lived 3rd class. Well be told me son when you go to a strange country RESPECT their ways, and and you will be ok, Well i have always lived up to this. Even in War i was respected as a Man and a Soldier, even tho i was not respected as an American.
    I was a Soldier, and one Soldier can respect another Soldier, some Soldiers have a better cause than others, At the time i had learned that their cause was better than Mine, SO i did my job And i fought to stay alive.

  • ranger hall

    Where in the world did you come up with the idea that Communist wants to rule the world,
    After ww2 we and several other Countries started dividing up the Countries well Russia sure was not going to let us have more Power then them, SO the cold war started, WE take this they take that, we build 10 planes Russia builds 10 planes, etc,etc. Russia did not trust US, WE are the ones after ww2 that said we should go ahead and finish off Russia, Well they have been trying to keep up with us all this time, BUT we out spent them, and Russia started falling apart, But still a Country that is Strong.
    And NO we do not Practice Peace, WE practice Manifest Destiny.
    Well we could be the Leader in World Peace, Just is not going to happen.

    • chuckb

      r hall says, “Where in the world did you come up with the idea that Communist wants to rule the world”,

      eviodently you don’t read past history or not around when it happened. communism/marxism is a movement, starting in russia, not unlike the muslim religion. the leaders of russia incorporated this movement into a dictatorship “stalin” and yes they had their eye on the prize. when ww2 was in it’s final stages many remnants of the communist party immigrated to this country, some illegally, we now have some of the descendants occupying positions in the white house. if you served in the military i’m sure you would be more informed on that subject.

  • RichE

    John Myers,
    I like it! Special forces surgical strikes and Predator Hellfire missiles. All we’d need for a military is the Coast Guard. Greatly reducing the budget but keeping Medicare. John, this is a bilateral, multi-faceted solution that not only rids the world of the bad guys, but stabilizes the dollar. Everyone wins! Well, not everyone. So what’s a little collateral damage when the global benefits are so great? Plus, John I bet you didn’t think about this, train civilian police. Have them surgically take out drug dealers here and abroad and Hellfire a few meth labs. Darn John, with the use of Predators I bet big cities could reduce their police forces.
    John Myers for president!

  • charles smith

    We have over extended the use of our military and funding snd this POS that is pres. knows and he has no intentions of winning, only protecting the rights of his true race, muslims. He has disrespected the Marines by making them put their lives on the line by making them disarm and he only did it because he was looking out for the muslims in the room who have opened fire on our brave soldiers and killing and then he wants to prosecute the soldiers who burned te Koran.

  • GiveMeLiberty

    I posted this a few weeks ago…in WWII it took us 3.5 years to simultaneously and totally DESTROY two evil empires….THREE AND ONE-HALF YEARS! We’ve been in Afghanistan almost 12 years jacking around, losing precious American life and treasure! My unit was one of the first to engage in Afghanistan and I was proud we struck back but now, 12 years later, thousands dead, no clear path to victory and virtually no end in sight, are you frigging kidding me?

    One of my WWII hero’s is General Curtis LeMay. Stern hard-ass who was dedicated to his work, no matter how ugly. Although he advocated war during the 61 missile crisis, his always maintained the following position that has long vanished from this country, “before America decides to go to war, it should deliberate long and hard. Should it make that fateful decision to commence war, it should not do so lightly but do so with all of her might and resources. Throw it all at the enemy, break its will and it will be over in short time.” So much for that thinking. We no longer debate long and hard nor do we commit totally to the victory.

    Only one dude will have the courage to get out now without hesitation…to stare down and buck-off the establishment…we all know who he is, now all we need to do is write him in on the ballot in November.


    • OldWriter

      Sheeeeeit. And all the time I thought you were talking about Newt Gingrich.

  • Dens

    Well Johnny….you got one right. We have no business whatsoever spending our young military peoples lives in Afghanistan. Just as we had no business spending their lives or anything else in Iraq, Vietnam or Korea. We have nothing to gain.

    War, by it’s nature, should never be engaged in unless you are determined to totally destroy your enemy. Anything less is a waste of lives and treasure and is a criminal offense against your soldiers and your people.

    • 45caliber


      I agree completely. However, if we do go in, we should intend to win – not withdraw the first time someone is killed or our politics change.

      • ranger Hall

        45, Why cant People understand the differance between a person wearing a uniform and the average citizen. BOTH can be soldiers when they have the means to harm you.
        But how do you WIN when the People are the soldiers with no uniforms. are all the people soldiers, NO, so do you kill all of them. ???
        Controlling a People and their Country, This has been debated for centurys by Military and Politicians. With no cut and dry answer. But we have learned and still learning that YOU cannot control unless the People just Give in and quit. Not likely to happen in Afganistan and Iraq.

    • OldWriter

      Iraq I can agree with. We should have gone into Iran, not Iraq. Vietnam? We could never win there because we did not invade N. Vietnam with troops. You can not win a war if you do not have boots on the enemy’s territory. But Korea? We had every reason to be in Korea. That was a justified war. Trouble is, we did not keep our troops in N. Korea before the war ‘ended.’ MacArthur had it right, but he had to answer to a damned Democrat president.

  • steve

    to start with, America was not begun as an empire, but with the help of a small persentage (rich, media moguls, ellitist politicians, & a hollow man for president) has driven us to the brink of empire. we have been brainwashed into thinking as long as our own little bubble isn’t “pricked” everything is fine. we have become so used to talking at each other we can not recognize when someone is talking to us & may have a solution that makes more sense than one we have been led to believe is best for us. the presidency & major leadership has for years been “bought” before, during, & after the ellitist “take” & leave their position of self esteme. i believe it was harry truman when asked why he didn’t take some of the offers of prestige after his presidency answered: they are not buying my expertise, but who i have been (president). this is not an exact statement, but gets to the pointt. wake up Americay for the empire will lead only to chaos & decline.

  • steve

    i have a quote that i want to see if any one knows from whom it came. the power mad believe in the gist of the following statement (my own thought).
    ideas are more powerful than guns !
    we would not let people have guns !
    why should we let them ideas ?

  • Bob

    The Cuban missile crisis was in October & November of 1962. The construction of Cuban missile bases was discovered in August of that year, so the public was told. It was actually much earlier than that. Reconnaissence aircraft, U-2′s & RF-101′s had been flying over Cuba for some time before the crisis and inteligence was well aware the bases were under construction. All the SAC B-52′S were flown to inland bases out of the reach of Soviet missiles.

    • GiveMeLiberty

      Oops, my bad Bob. Your correct, the missile crisis was in 1962. I also goofed the math for Afghanistan…it’s coming up on 11 years not 12.

  • Katrael

    Why the @#$%@## would we want to force democracy on Afghanistan when we don’t even want one ourselves? Make the world safe for democracy? We should make the world safe from democracy.
    A country’s propensity to wage war is one of the key indicators of a major governmental change. We are on the road to a open dictatorship unless the people wake up in time and return us to the rule of constitutional law; that is the Constitution of The United States of America.

  • mark

    Ya ya i would just like the pleasure of spitting in obamas eyes!

  • Bimbam

    I do not know where people get the idea we lost the war. We did not lose the war, we just don’t want to win for moral reasons.

    If not, we simply would overpower these camel and goat herders with one swoop anytime we want to. But we are not barbaric people and we operate under the law and concious of a Christian nation.

    Yet, these very countries we could slaughter at anytime want Chrisitanity removed from the West.

    • Michael Beglin

      Exactly. Our “leaders” need a war going somewhere though to keep restrictions on our personal liberties.

      I am puzzled daily as to why so many Americans think that islam does not want to subjugate the entire world. One of their last commands by their pedophile of a prophet was to spread islam by the sword. Anyone that tells you islam is a religion of peace is either a liar or a fool.

      The Taliban is alive due to our sufferance. It would be well for them to remember that.

  • Michael Beglin

    America has the capability to utterly defeat the “terrorists” in Afghanistan in less than one week. What we do NOT have is the political will necessary to do that job. This is Viet Nam all over again.

    If our politicians will not allow our troops to win, then just let our soldiers come home. Anything else is a waste of their lives.

    • Richard

      Michael, you’re right on
      We’re not policeman for politicians. I’m an ex-cop and retired military. I know the difference between both missions.

  • OldWriter

    Afghanistan did NOT fight the Soviet Union to a standstill. Russia was doing pretty well, until Reagan secretly sent in ground to air shoulder launched missiles to be used by the Taliban. Those Russian HIND choppers were pretty lethal, until….That changed the entire course of the war. We also kicked butt in Afghanistan, but the trouble is, we have two borders to worry about. On the East side, Pakistan. On the West side, Iran. You can not win a war when the country you are fighting in borders with another enemy. We found that out in Vietnam, when the N. Vietnamese could keep coming across the border, while we NEVER INVADED THEIR LAND WITH TROOPS. How can you win a war if you don’t OCCUPY the enemy’s land? And of course, we also had enemies coming across from Cambodia.

  • Richard

    Unfortunately, we have lost the resolve to win a war. Ever since Korea, we get into things without clear objectives. (that’s what the UN gets us). Nobody is scared of us anymore. There is no such thing as deterrance in war. It’s get in, achieve victory, and get out (Gen Norman Swartzkopf knew this) If that’s not the goal before we go in, then we shouldn’t go.

    I’m not saying, ‘don’t go”…just go in with the objective to win. Never write a check with your mouth that your ass can’t (or won’t) cash. Our enemies know that we won’t. Time is on their side when public opinion turns against current politicians. Why is it that only Pearl Harbor’s and 9-11′s unite this country?

    We have it good here. Do we need attacks against our country to remind us of the threats out there? It’s sad to say that maybe we do. Remain vigilant but be ready to cash that check.

  • Ilmar Luik

    On scale of things: wars in Viet-Nam, Iraq, Korea an even WWII against Germany and Japan are all small potatos, compared to what is comming.

    In less than 10 years from now, Russians will be in position to launch 2000 nuclear warheads at the United States. NRA with all their AK-47 will not be able to shoot down a single one of them.

    And that is not all, a new Viet-nam is comming, this time off the coast from Argentina.

    Argentina is coveting Falkland Islands again and this time British will loose because Argentina’s government is drifting left and Russian weapons are moving in.

    Drug gangs in Mexico and in other South American countries are organized like military armies and overnight they will become a hughe invasion army being lead by the Cuban trained officers.

    Comminuist, Marxist, Leninist style Hate America propoganda in South America is already in full swing and they are amply supported by the USA left that hates everything military blames all the problems on the American impreialism and military.
    and wants us to disarm.

    Obama trapped US into START treaty which permits Russians to keep 12,000 short range nuclear missiles and the associated launchers on the bases that these missiles will not reach continental US from Russia.

    It did not consider the possibility that they can reach the US when launched from Mexico.

    Thus, in less than ten years from now we will have 300 million militarized hate US South Americans armed with tactical nuclear weapons crossing US southern Boarder and 2000 more nuclear missiles ready to hit US cities from Russia.

    Just how are you going to save the US from that invasion. The enemy will have enough ground troops to occupy every square foot of the US territory while all the cities are burnining.

    Do you think NRA can save us?

    • Mark in LA

      It’s too bad there is no way to bet you on your stupid predictions and actually collect the money. There is nobody in South America waiting to invade America – unless you are talking about illegal aliens who want low paying jobs. However, they would be coming from developed places like Argentina, Chile, or Uruguay – mayne Peru of Bolivia.

      Large scale conventionalm forces are obsolete and we have more than enough nuclear weapons. This type of irrational scare mongering is what kept us wasting tons of money throughout the cold war and on to today.

      • Mark in LA

        I need to proof read – The illegals would NOT be coming from developed countries like Argentina, Chile, or Uruguay – but we might get peasants from Boliivia and Peru.

  • Jim

    I won’t be able to stop them all but rest assured some of them won’t make it back to their own homeland. They’re gonna kill me and my kind anyway so why just sit there and do nothing on the pretense they mean us no harm?
    People are stupid to think the Islam religion, if indeed you want to call it a religion, doesn’t want to annihilate all non-believers. What does it take to wake some folks up? It’s beyond my comprehension.
    If you continue to ignore a fox or coyote he will eventually get all your chickens, even in the hen house.

  • Keith Loney

    In 1965 the member nations of the security council of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) took under advisement that a member nation of the alliance was under attack and voted to invoke the obligations of the alliance.
    The first allied forces to arrive in Vietnam were troops of the Royal Australian Army. Then came U.S. Marines of the 1st Marine Division deploying from Marine Corps Base Camp Smedley D. Butler in Okinawa.
    Then followed (not necessarily in this order) soldiers, sailors airmen and marines of the Republic of Korea; soldiers of the Army of the Republic of China; soldiers of the Army of the Republic of the Phillipines, soldiers of Royal New Zealand Army, soldiers of the Royal Thai Army, soldiers of the Principality of Cambodia, and … Generalissimo Francisco Franko sent Spanish soldiers (an army medical group.)
    SEATO troops won the war on the battlefield in 1968. But, the leftist American media wanted desperately to see a communist victory. They deliberately falsified the stories they told the American people.

    Some years after the war ended, North Vietnamese told an American delegation that in 1968, after their army was wrecked during the TET offensive they had decided to accept all SEATO terms to end the war.
    Then, they heard what was happening in America. The American media (Communist Propaganda Organs (CPOs)) spreading the story that the war was unwinable. The North Vietnamese decided to wait a bit before announcing their decision.
    The American CPOs propaganda offensive kicked into high gear. Allied troops thought they were going to get orders to pursue the defeated enemy and complete the “knock-out blow.”
    But, the CPOs propaganda was working. A change of command occurred. The new commander had new orders. Pretend we didn’t win and start acting like losers-abandon the fight and leave the battlefield we’ve won to the enemy.
    Gen’l Lew Walt, Jr, commanding all U.S. Marine Forces in Vietnam during the TET offensive stated that after the Battle for Hue was over – the NVA uh, remnants of the NVA had taken off for the hills (er — jungles.) A very famous and respected television anchorman visited the city, and while standing in the streets of the city he filmed a report. Instead of saying that the enemy had abandoned the fight and retreated, he said “…American military officials say the city has been cleared.” Gen Walt said he was called back to Washington D.C. to report to Congress. He arrived in D.C. and checked into his quarters in time to see that report air on television. He said his jaw dropped. Between the time that film had departed from Vietnam and the time it aired on television news, someone had dubbed the sounds of gunfire onto the film.

    Very clearly, the CPOs were working hard at undermining a successful war effort.

    They spread their propaganda something like this. “In spite of having over half a million troops in Vietnam the U.S. military was unable to prevent a massive attack on every major city in South Vietnam. This war is unwinnable. We’ve lost. We might as well pack up and go home.”

    A truthful report would have been something like this. “What a show our troops put on for us the last few days. In the great effort the enemy launched a massive offensive striking every major city in South Vietnam. They even succeeded in getting into the compound of the American Embassy in Saigon. But it did them no good – they’re all dead. Our guys whipped ‘em. The remnants, uh – pitiful remnants of the enemy army have retreated into the jungle to lick their wounds.” Yeah! That would have been a truthful report – the war was won. Why did the CPOs lie to the American people. Oh, that’s right. They’re Communist Propaganda Organs.

    Let’s take the CPOs back to July 1863. The Confederate States Army of Northern Virginia is retreating after the three day engagement at Gettysburg, PA.
    So, here go the CPOs. “Oh my God!!! In spite of having over a hundred thousand troops the U.S. Armies were unable to prevent a rebel invasion of the North. The rebels got all the way to Pennsyvania. Do you now how far that is?! They got all the way to Pennsyvania!!! This war is unwinnable. The Army is incompetent – it couldn’t prevent a rebel invasion!! Unwinnable! Unwinnable. We might as well just pack up and go home.”

    What kind of effect would that kind of reporting have had? There were already anti-war and anti-draft riots going on in major northern cities.

    At any rate. The Vietnam War was won and then the CPOs stabbed us in the back.

    • chuckb

      you have it right and remember” the father of journalism” good ol’ walter cronkite and dan rather, they carried the propaganda for no. vietnam. they were the cause of many of our troops losing their life..

  • CAl

    Sorry, I didn’t get to read all posts. But, here is a clue. There is nothing righteous about war and never has been.

  • Deerinwater

    “I can only scratch my head when I listen to leaders like McCain. Have any of them read history?”

    chuckle, he he! ~ I know what you mean John Myers. ~ McCain is a character, ~too quick to double down for my taste. His stay in Hanoi Hilton should have learned him something, Keating 5 should have learned him something. Let’s face it, he’s a survivor but I would not want such a man to wield great power. There would be blood and guts on the ground everywhere you looked. Someone else blood and guts, not his.

    This split in conservative thinking, neocon’s you call it. And RINO’s? ~ so if they are not GOP, what are they? just Greedy blood suckers?

    Best I can tell, self proclaimed “conservatives” are divided into several camps today. I actually don’t see, “refusing to act” as conservative thinking, while it could be construed that way.

    Of course the “liberals’ have always been divided into many camps, but we’ve learn to get along (more or less) and stay united. We’d had to deal with Jesse Jackson’s rainbow, and the fairy’s and somehow stay together. We do want to believe there exist a land where freedom and liberty is offered to all in spite of our many differences.

    • peeweeaz

      And to think the old war horse, McCain, happens to me one of my Senators. Geez. And, he is ready to kick some ass in Syria. Is he kidding us or what?

  • Dave Bishop

    Afghanistan has not been overrun by anyone, including Alexander the Great. With the enclaves under the rule of warlords and adhering to the philosophy of Islam, the pacification of the country is an impossibility.

    An old saying: (and I paraphrase) “Me against my brother; my brother and I against the family; the family and I against the tribe; my tribe and I against the nation; the nation and I against the world.” With that mindset, one has little chance of “winning.” As Bin Laden said (again, paraphrased) “In America, the people quickly tire of war, but we will not.”

    The other problem is that we welcome anyone who says they are a friend, even when they are doing all they can to bring this country down. When even those in government want to destroy our nation and rebuild it into a utopia -under their rule, of course- we fight a losing battle. What is the answer? For some of us it is to ask the Almighty for forgiveness and get on our knees and pray.

    To others, that is not an option. More’s the pity.

    • peeweeaz

      The answer is for the policy makers and those in charge to put their big boy and big girl panties on and stop living off our post-WWII reputation. Face reality and start solving our problems here at home and leave the rest of the world alone. Let someone else take over as the world top cop. It’s going to bankrupt us for sure.

  • ddoug1

    the problem today is the lack of sticking to a plan.
    after japan and germany’s defeat we occupied the country until a new generation could grow up under liberty and their form of democracy.
    if we wanted to make a difference and start these countries onto a path of democracy, it will take 20 or 30 years. literally out with the old and in with the new.
    it seemed to work for the israelites. they had to ‘wander’ in the desert until the ideas from egypt were weeded out with a new generation.
    as for britain and russia’s folly, they didn’t have the vision of a democratic government, or the resources, and most importanly, the will to hang in there.
    a significant problem today is the wealth killing polices currently in place in america. if the path we are on could be changed and the economy picked up we could accomplish our mission of democracy.
    another big problem, have we lost the belief that the democracy, we used to have, is the best way to create a happy and prosperous society. our founding fathers were inspired. but men cannot let a good thing run as intended.

  • Against Cowards & GOP

    Let’s send John Myers to cover the troops while they pull out. I can see it know. A fat guy running screaming to the deferment office that he’s too old to go. Fact is, unlike the men and women serving the country, John Myers, talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk..


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.