The “Good” War

So you would have fought during World War II but not Nam, Korea or Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was the actual outcome of World War II?
w6m17k
Why did we fight World War II?

Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?

Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. That was the pretense at any rate.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after America had engaged in a systematic effort to deny the Empire of Japan the resources necessary to build their Nation and Empire.

By the end of World War II, Poland and all of Eastern Europe was in the hands of a greater evil than Hitler could ever have hoped to represent. That evil being the Soviet Union.

Soviet Communism which later morphed into Maoist Communism took China.

Communism also swept through Southeast Asia.

The end result of World War II was that the West fought Japan and Germany in order to hand over their Empires to the Soviet Union.

World War II was a direct cause of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War and attributed to the rise of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the cause of 90% of the Islamic Fundamentalism on this Globe. Islamic Fundamentalism is the root of Islamic Terrorism.

If there were no Saudi Arabia, there would exist no taliban, no ISIS, no al Qaeda, no Khorasan and so on and so forth.

Fundamentalist Shi’a Iran can also be traced to poor decision making based on the the Cold War anti-Communist paranoia that haunted the West from 1945 through the end of the Soviet Union circa 1991.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict can be traced back to World Wars 1 and 2.

World War II also gave us the CIA and the NSA via Cold War paranoia.

You can research any and all of this with a simple google search.

I’m not seeing how World War II was “the good war.” It was an asinine war prompted by the American Banking conglomeration.

World War II was not the good war. It was a war like any other only on a global scale. It put the globe to the flame and destroyed millions of lives and billions of dollars of property.

America profited from the outcome immensely which drove our recovery out of the Great Depression and into the boom years of the 50s and 60s.

It was as much an elective war for the United States of America as Polk’s Mexican War or LBJ’s Vietnam War or Bush’s Iraq War or Obama’s wars in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

Presentation1quote-not-wishing-to-be-disturbed-over-moral-issues-of-the-political-economy-americans-cling-to-the-c-wright-mills-127915

984277_409265232584846_7751683487784598379_n (1)

The War on Drugs ~ Unethical, Illegal, Unconstitutional

end-the-war

Laws and legislation are not always ethical or decent or good for the public. some laws are unethical. I believe that the War on Drugs was an unethical actions. It was/is a war on the Bill of Rights.

If you go back and research it, this is precisely what Nixon intended. Of course, it wasn’t a war on all citizens. Merely the citizens whom Nixon considered contemptible, beyond reach and unworthy of being allowed to exercise their freedoms.

Nixon own words can be used against him here. He stated that marijuana use was the domain of “hippies, criminals and niggers.” The war on drugs was actually a war on these people. He equated all as the same. To Nixon and his elitist scum, Black people, the youth of the ’60s and ’70s were the same as criminals.

The War On Drugs was nothing more than an attack on the Constitution of the United States. It was the beginning of the police state and the militarization of the police and the use of said forces unconstitutionally on the citizens of America.

All of these drug laws should be abolished and all of the victims of these Statist circumventions of the rights of American Citizens should be freed from the Statist bondage into which they were enslaved and with which they (we) have been oppressed these past 40 plus years.

To my way of thinking, the laws of the Drug War are no better than the Soviet laws which crushed freedom and dissent. They were used for exactly the same purpose. To crush dissent, to stifle the people, to invade our privacy, our homes and our lives.

The whole institution is heinous and the inventors, perpetuators and perpetrators of the War on Drugs should all be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity and treason against America.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

reaganberlinwall.jpg

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Reagan was the President when I started paying attention to the world around me.  He’s been my hero since.  He stood up for America.  Talked about the evils in the world.  There are things that I don’t like that occurred under his watch.  But overall, I have nothing but respect for Reagan.  He put America back in a leadership position on the World Scene.  He made it ok to be proud to be an American.

My opinion.  We need another Reagan now.  The Liberals are once more destroying our national pride.  Someone who can lead our nation into the future with certainty and pride and a vision of greatness, goodness and hope.

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard

02814_olivier_rebbot_reporter.jpg

A HISTORY LESSON STILL UNLEARNED
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
April 18, 2007

With war drums beating louder, senior military commanders in Tehran miss few opportunities to warn the government against plunging the country into an unequal fight with the United States and its allies.

One such warning came last month from the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRCG) General Rahim Safavi.

In an unusually frank assessment of the situation, he told an audience of guardsmen that the country lacked the necessary means to defend its extensive land and sea borders. He insisted that everything be done to avoid an “unhappy episode”.

In Tehran’s military circles, the phrase “unhappy episode” is a codeword for the only direct military clash that has so far taken place between the Islamic Republic and the United States.

The clash came on April 18, 1988, exactly 19 years ago today.

At the time, the Islamic Republic censored all news of the event so that most Iranians do not even know that it happened at all. For their part, the Americans also “managed” the flow of information about the clash to prevent its strategic importance from becoming apparent at the time.

Nevertheless, the clash between the navy of the Islamic Republic and a US naval task force led by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, was subsequently classed as one of the five naval battles of historic importance that established American sup-remacy at sea.

Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding.

The battle

The battle, nicknamed by the US “Operation Praying Mantis”, was followed in July by a tragic accident when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air jetliner by mistake, killing all 290 passengers and crew.

Khomeini interpreted the accident as a deliberate escalation by the US and feared that his regime was in danger. Rafsanjani and other advisers used that fear to persuade the ayatollah to end the war with Iraq, something he had adamantly refused for eight years.

A broken Khomeini appeared on TV to announce that he was “drinking the chalice of poison” by accepting a UN-ordered ceasefire. He was no longer going to Karbala on his way to Jerusalem.

In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.

The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. “This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes,” he said.

Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.

Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe

___________________________________________________________________________

I was not aware that this had occurred. Interesting to note. If we were to retaliate against Iran in the near future, I think this is the way to go. Get in. Destroy the regime. Leave it behind. Let the Iranian people pick up the pieces on their own.

Lastly, leave a promise in the air. Act well or We Shall Return.

gfon127l.jpg

This is the only kind of deal you are likely to get from the Iranian Government.   Yet, Barack Obama wants “dialogue.”

Dec 2011 ~  Iran playing games again in the Straits of Hormuz.  Will there be a repeat?

Obama has failed in every endeavor as regards Iran.