America Goes Not Abroad In Search Of Monsters To Destroy

On July 4, 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered an historic address on U.S. foreign policy. After reading the full text of the Declaration of Independence, he continued:

It is not, let me repeat, fellow citizens, it is not the long enumeration of intolerable wrongs concentrated in this declaration; it is not the melancholy catalogue of alternate oppression and entreaty, of reciprocated indignity and remonstrance, upon which, in the celebration of this anniversary, your memory delights to dwell.

Nor is it yet that the justice of your cause was vindicated by the God of battles; that in a conflict of seven years, the history of the war by which you maintained that declaration, became the history of the civilized, world; that the unanimous voice of enlightened Europe and the verdict of an after age have sanctioned your assumption of sovereign power, and that the name of your Washington is enrolled upon the records of time, first in the glorious line of heroic virtue.

It is not that the monarch himself, who had been your oppressor, was compelled to recognize you as a sovereign and independent people, and that the nation, whose feelings of fraternity for you had slumbered in the lap of pride, was awakened in the arms of humiliation to your equal and no longer contested rights.

The primary purpose of this declaration, the proclamation to the world of the causes of our revolution, is “with the years beyond the flood.” It is of no more interest to us than the chastity of Lucretia, or the apple on the head of the child of Tell. Little less than 40 years have revolved since the struggle for independence was closed; another generation has arisen; and in the assembly of nations our republic is already a matron of mature age. The cause of your independence is no longer upon trial. The final sentence upon it has long since been passed upon earth and ratified in heaven.

The interest, which in this paper has survived the occasion upon which it was issued; the interest which is of every age and every clime; the interest which quickens with the lapse of years, spreads as it grows old, and brightens as it recedes, is in the principles which it proclaims. It was the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe. It demolished at a stroke the lawfulness of all governments founded upon conquest. It swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude. It announced in practical form to the world the transcendent truth of the unalienable sovereignty of the people. It proved that the social compact was no figment of the imagination; but a real, solid, and sacred bond of the social union.

From the day of this declaration, the people of North America were no longer the fragment of a distant empire, imploring justice and mercy from an inexorable master in another hemisphere. They were no longer children appealing in vain to the sympathies of a heartless mother; no longer subjects leaning upon the shattered columns of royal promises, and invoking the faith of parchment to secure their rights. They were a nation, asserting as of right, and maintaining by war, its own existence. A nation was born in a day.

“How many ages hence shall this their lofty scene be acted o’er in states unborn, and accents yet unknown?”

It will be acted o’er, fellow citizens, but it can never be repeated. It stands, and must forever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light, till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind. It stands forever, a light of admonition to the rulers of men; a light of salvation and redemption to the oppressed.

So long as this planet shall be inhabited by human beings, so long as man shall be of social nature, so long as government shall be necessary to the great moral purposes of society, and so long as it shall be abused to the purposes of oppression, so long shall this declaration hold out to the sovereign and to the subject the extent and the boundaries of their respective rights and duties; founded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

Five and forty years have passed away since this Declaration was issued by our fathers; and here are we, fellow citizens, assembled in the full enjoyment of its fruits, to bless the Author of our being for the bounties of his providence, in casting our lot in this favored land; to remember with effusions of gratitude the sages who put forth, and the heroes who bled for the establishment of this Declaration; and, by the communion of soul in the reperusal and hearing of this instrument, to renew the genuine Holy Alliance of its principles, to recognize them as eternal truths, and to pledge ourselves and bind our posterity to a faithful and undeviating adherence to them.

Fellow citizens, our fathers have been faithful to them before us. When the little band of their Delegates, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, for the support of this declaration, mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” from every dwelling, street, and square of your populous cities, it was re-echoed with shouts of joy and gratulation! And if the silent language of the heart could have been heard, every hill upon the surface of this continent which had been trodden by the foot of civilized man, every valley in which the toil of your fathers had opened a paradise upon the wild, would have rung, with one accordant voice, louder than the thunders, sweeter than the harmonies of the heavens, with the solemn and responsive words, “We swear.”

The pledge has been redeemed. Through six years of devastating but heroic war, through nearly 40 years of more heroic peace, the principles of this declaration have been supported by the toils, by the vigils, by the blood of your fathers and of yourselves. The conflict of war had begun with fearful odds of apparent human power on the side of the oppressor. He wielded at will the collective force of the mightiest nation in Europe. He with more than poetic truth asserted the dominion of the waves.

The power, to whose unjust usurpation your fathers hurled the gauntlet of defiance, baffled and vanquished by them, has even since, stripped of all the energies of this continent, been found adequate to give the law to its own quarter of the globe, and to mould the destinies of the European world. It was with a sling and a stone, that your fathers went forth to encounter the massive vigor of this Goliath. They slung the heaven-directed stone, and “With heaviest sound, the giant monster fell.”

Amid the shouts of victory your cause soon found friends and allies in the rivals of your enemies. France recognized your independence as existing in fact, and made common cause with you for its support. Spain and the Netherlands, without adopting your principles, successively flung their weight into your scale. …

The Declaration of Independence pronounced the irrevocable decree of political separation, between the United States and their people on the one part, and the British king, government, and nation on the other. It proclaimed the first principles on which civil government is founded, and derived from them the justification before earth and heaven of this act of sovereignty. But it left the people of this union, collective and individual, without organized government. In contemplating this state of things, one of the profoundest of British statesmen, in an ecstasy of astonishment exclaimed, “Anarchy is found tolerable!’ But there was no anarchy.

From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American union, and of its constituent states, were associated bodies of civilized men and christians, in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. They were bound by the principles which they themselves had proclaimed in the declaration. They were bound by all those tender and endearing sympathies, the absence of which, in the British government and nation, towards them, was the primary cause of the distressing conflict in which they had been precipitated by the headlong rashness and unfeeling insolence of their oppressors. They were bound by all the beneficent laws and institutions, which their forefathers had brought with them from their mother country, not as servitudes but as rights. They were bound by habits of hardy industry, by frugal and hospitable manners, by the general sentiments of social equality, by pure and virtuous morals; and lastly they were bound by the grappling-hooks of common suffering under the scourge of oppression. Where then, among such a people, were the materials for anarchy! Had there been among them no other law, they would have been a law unto themselves.

They had before them in their new position, besides the maintenance of the independence which they had declared, three great objects to attain; the first, to cement and prepare for perpetuity their common union and that of their posterity; the second, to erect and organize civil and municipal governments in their respective states: and the third, to form connections of friendship and of commerce with foreign nations.

For all these objects, the same Congress which issued the Declaration, and at the same time with it, had provided. They recommended to the several states to form civil governments for themselves; with guarded and cautious deliberation they matured a confederation for the whole Union; and they prepared treaties of commerce, to be offered to the principal maritime nations of the world.

All these objects were in a great degree accomplished amid the din of arms, and while every quarter of our country was ransacked by the fury of invasion. The states organized their governments, all in republican forms, all on the principles of the Declaration. The confederation was unanimously accepted by the thirteen states: and treaties of commerce were concluded with France and the Netherlands, in which, for the first time, the same just and magnanimous principles, consigned in the Declaration of Independence, were, so far as they could be applicable to the intercourse between nation and nation, solemnly recognized.

When experience had proved that the confederation was not adequate to the national purposes of the country, the people of the United States, without tumult, without violence, by their delegates all chosen upon principles of equal right, formed a more perfect union, by the establishment of the federal constitution.

This has already passed the ordeal of one human generation. In all the changes of men and of parties through which it has passed, it has been administered on the same fundamental principles. Our manners, our habits, our feelings, are all republican; and if our principles had been, when first proclaimed, doubtful to the ear of reason or the sense of humanity, they would have been reconciled to our understanding and endeared to our hearts by their practical operation.

In the progress of 40 years since the acknowledgment of our independence, we have gone through many modifications of internal government, and through all the vicissitudes of peace and war, with other mighty nations. But never, never for a moment have the great principles, consecrated by the Declaration of this day, been renounced or abandoned.

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the older world, the first observers of mutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire, what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this–America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

Stand forth, ye champions of Britannia, ruler of the waves! Stand forth, ye chivalrous knights of chartered liberties and the rotten borough! Enter the lists, ye, boasters of inventive genius! Ye mighty masters of the palette and the brush! Ye improvers upon the sculpture of the Elgin marbles! Ye spawners of fustian romance and lascivious lyrics!

Come, and inquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind! In the half century which has elapsed since the declaration of American independence, what have you done for the benefit of mankind? When Themistocles was sarcastically asked by some great musical genius of his age whether he knew how to play upon the lute, he answered, No! but he knew how to make a great city of a small one.

We shall not contend with you for the prize of music, painting, or sculpture. We shall not disturb the ecstatic trances of your chemists, nor call from the heavens the ardent gaze of your astronomers. We will not ask you who was the last president of your Royal Academy. We will not inquire by whose mechanical combinations it was, that your steamboats stem the currents of your rivers, and vanquish the opposition of the winds themselves upon your seas. We will not name the inventor of the cotton-gin, for we fear that you would ask us the meaning of the word, and pronounce it a provincial barbarism. We will not name to you him, whose graver defies the imitation of forgery, and saves the labor of your executioner, by taking from your greatest geniuses of robbery the power of committing the crime. He is now among yourselves; and since your philosophers have permitted him to prove to them the compressibility of water, you may perhaps claim him for your own. Would you soar to fame upon a rocket, or burst into glory from a shell? We shall leave you to inquire of your naval heroes their opinion of the steam-battery and the torpedo.

It is not by the contrivance of agents of destruction, that America wishes to commend her inventive genius to the admiration or the gratitude of after times; nor is it even by the detection of the secrets or the composition of new modifications of physical nature. “Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera.” Nor even is her purpose the glory of Roman ambition; nor “tu regere imperio populosa” her memento to her sons.

Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of mind. She has a spear and a shield; but the motto upon her shield is Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

My countrymen, fellow-citizens, and friends; could that Spirit, which dictated the Declaration we have this day read, that Spirit, which “prefers before all temples the upright heart and pure,” at this moment descend from his habitation in the skies, and within this hall, in language audible to mortal ears, address each one of us, here assembled, our beloved country, Britannia ruler of the waves, and every individual among the sceptred lords of humankind; his words would be, “Go thou and do likewise!”

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848); Sixth president of the United States (1825-1829).

Joe Biden Admitted the Russian Hoax

“While Putin’s trying to undo our elections, he’s actually undoing elections in Europe. Look at what’s happening in Hungary, look what’s happening in Poland, look what’s happening! You think that would happen on my watch or Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise it wouldn’t have, and it didn’t,”

Joseph Biden

download (2)

The USSR is dead – The Party is Over

download (12)

The Soviet Union is not Russia. They are two completely different entities. This has been a difficult adjustment for the American Military Establishment. They want….absolutely must have…Russia as the same threat as was the USSR. It is not so.

Russia does not have the same territorial or political ambitions as those of the NOW DEFUNCT USSR.

If we act foolishly, without wisdom, as the Hillary Clinton Wing of the GOP/DNC wishes, we may create that existential threat. Our stupidity may lead to our demise.

Again, I’ll ask.

What war with Russia?

Why would we go to war with Russia?

Because we want them to be the USSR?

Because they want the same type regional sphere of influence that we have in the Western Hemisphere?

What would the intent of a war with Russia be? What would be their goals? What are our goals?

Exactly why would we go to war with Russia?

Because they took BACK the Crimea?

Because they use influence in Eastern Europe and the Balkans?

Would you war with Russia if they invaded Estonia or Latvia?

Think of the sheer lunacy of World War II wherein Britain and France declared war with Germany over the German invasion of Poland. End result of that stupidity was that the USSR occupied and took control, not only of Poland, but the whole of Eastern Europe.

So…exactly why are we going to go to war with Russia?

Should we prepare for war with Mongolia, Bhutan and Uruquay as well?

Russia is an ahistorical enemy of the US. We only came into conflict with them because of communism. Communism no longer exists in Russia. It’s a autarcho-fascism that lives there now. And we have no enemy therein. The people of Russia can decide for themselves what they wish to allow or tolerate in their own government. It is not for us to say.

There is not one single solitary reason for the United States to go to war with Russia.

AND….we should build down NATO and let the Europeans police their affairs now. They’re grown people who want to go their own way. We have no interests there. Europe is the past. Asia is the future.

When Russia builds a navy capable of spanning the oceans and carrying an invasion force large enough to invade and occupy the United States of America, I’ll be right there with you.

I see no reason to fight Europe’s wars with Russia when Europe is financing the Russian military might via petro/natgas purchases throughout the years and decades. This is foolish. It’s downright stupid.

Russian AAR — Chechnya

Chechen War

The Russian Army learned many lessons from its experience in Grozny. These
include:

(1) You need to culturally orient your forces so that you don’t end up
being your own worst enemy simply out of cultural ignorance. Many times
Russian soldiers made serious cultural errors in dealing with the Chechen
civilians. Once insulted or mistreated, they became active fighters or
supported the active fighters. Russians admit they underestimated the
effect of religion on the conflict.

(2) You need some way of sorting out the combatants from the
non-combatants. The days of uniforms and organized units is over. The
Russians were forced to resort to searching the pockets of civilians for
military equipment and to sniffing them for the smell of gunpowder and gun
oil. Pretty crude. Trained sniffer dogs were used, but were not always
effective. Nevertheless, dogs are probably the best way to determine if a
person has been using explosives or firing a weapon recently.

(3) The psychological impact of high intensity urban combat is so intense
that you should maintain a large reserve that will allow you to rotate
units in and out of combat. If you do this, you can preserve a unit for a
fairly long time. If you don’t, once it gets used up, it can’t be rebuilt.

(4) Training and discipline are paramount. You can accomplish nothing
without them. You may need to do the training in the combat zone.
Discipline must be demanded. Once it begins to slip, the results are
disastrous.

(5) The Russians were surprised and embarrassed at the degree to which the
Chechens exploited the use of cell phones, Motorola radios, improvised TV
stations, light video cameras, and the Internet to win the information war.
The Russians admitted that they lost control of the information coming out
of Grozny early in the operation and never regained it.

(6) The proliferation of rocket propelled grenade launchers surprised
them, as well as the diversity of uses to which they were put. RPGs were
shot at everything that moved. They were fired at high angle over low
buildings and from around buildings with little or no attempt made to aim.
They were sometimes fired in very disciplined volleys and were the weapon
of choice for the Chechens, along with the sniper rifle. Not only were the
Russians faced with well-trained, well equipped Chechen military snipers,
there were also large numbers of designated marksmen who were very good
shots using standard military rifles. These were very hard to deal with and
usually required massive fire power to overcome.

(7) As expected, the Russians reiterated the need for large numbers of
trained Infantrymen. They said that some tasks, such as conducting logpack
operations, could only be conducted by Infantrymen, the logistical unit
soldiers being hopelessly inept and falling easy prey to the Chechens.

(8) They found that boundaries between units were still tactical weak
points, but that it wasn’t just horizontal boundaries they had to worry
about. In some cases, the Chechens held the third floor and above, while
the Russians held the first two floors and sometimes the roof. If a unit
holding the second floor evacuated parts of it without telling the unit on
the ground floor, the Chechens would move troops in and attack the ground
floor unit through the ceiling. Often this resulted in fratricide as the
ground floor unit responded with uncontrolled fire through all of the
ceilings, including the ones below that section of the building still
occupied by Russians. Entire battles were fought through floors, ceilings,
and walls without visual contact.

(9) Ambushes were common. Sometimes they actually had three tiers.
Chechens would be underground, on the ground floor, and on the roof. Each
group had a different task in the ambush.

(10) The most common response by the Chechens to the increasingly powerful
Russian indirect and aerial firepower was hugging the Russian unit. If the
hugging tactics caused the Russians to cease artillery and air fires, it
became a man-to-man fight and the Chechens were well equipped to win it. If
they didn’t cease the supporting fires, the Russian units suffered just as
much as the Chechen fighters did, sometimes even more, and the morale
effect was much worse on the Russians.

(11) Both the physical and the mental health of the Russian units began to
decline almost immediately upon initiation of high intensity combat. In
less than a month, almost 20% of the Russian soldiers were suffering from
viral hepatitis (very serious, very debilitating, slow recovery). Most had
chronic diarrhea and upper respiratory infections that turned to pneumonia
easily. This was blamed on the breakdown of logistical support that meant
units had to drink contaminated water. Unit sanitary discipline broke down
almost completely.

(12) According to a survey of over 1300 troops, about 72% had some sort of
psychological disorder. Almost 75% had an exaggerated startle response.
About 28% had what was described as neurotic reactions, and almost 10% had
acute emotional reactions. The Russians recommended 2
psycho-physiologists, 1 psycho-pharmacologist, 1 psychiatrist, and 1
medical psychologist at each (US) Corps-sized unit. Although their
experience in Afghanistan prepared them somewhat for the physical health
problems, they were not prepared for this level of mental health treatment.
Many permanent combat stress casualties resulted from the soldiers not
being provided proper immediate treatment.

(13) Chechens weren’t afraid of tanks and BMPs. They assigned groups of
RPG gunners to fire volleys at the lead and trail vehicles. Once they were
destroyed, the others were picked off one-by-one. The Russian forces lost
20 of 26 tanks, 102 of 120 BMPs, and 6 of 6 ZSU-23s in the first three
day’s fighting. Chechens chose firing positions high enough or low enough
to stay out of the fields of fire of tank and BMP weapons. Russian
conscript Infantry simply refused to dismount and often died in their BMP
without ever firing a shot. Russian elite Infantry did much better, but
didn’t coordinate well with armored vehicles initially.

(14) Chechens were brutish, especially with prisoners. (Some reports say
the Russians were no better but most say the Chechens were the worse of the
two sides.) Whoever was at fault, the battle degenerated quickly to one of
“No quarter asked, none given.” Russian wounded and dead were hung upside
down in windows of defended Chechen positions. Russians had to shoot at
the bodies to engage the Chechens. Russian prisoners were decapitated and
at night their heads were placed on stakes beside roads leading into the
city, over which Russian replacements and reinforcements had to travel.
Both Russian and Chechen dead were routinely booby-trapped.

(15) The Russians were not surprised by the ferocity and brutality of the
Chechens, they expected them to be “criminals and animal brutes” but they
were surprised by the sophistication of the Chechen use of booby traps and
mines. Chechens mined and boobytrapped everything, showing excellent
insight into the actions and reactions of the average Russian soldier. Mine
and boobytrap awareness was hard to maintain.

(16) The Russians were satisfied with the combat performance of most of
their Infantry weapons. The T-72 tank was dead meat. Too vulnerable, too
awkward, not agile, no visibility, poor weapons coverage at short ranges –
Russians removed them from the battle. Replaced by smaller numbers of
older tanks and more self propelled artillery, more ADA weapons, and more
BMPs. Precision guided weapons and UAVs very useful. Some need for
non-lethal weapons, but mostly riot gas and tranquilizer gas, not stuff
like sticky foam. The Russian equivalent of the M202 Flash flame projector
and the Mk 19 grenade launcher were very useful weapon. Ultimately, a
strong combined arms team and flexible command and control meant more than
the individual weapons used by each side.

*Official Russian After Action Review translated by an American

Into the World in Search of Monsters…

john-quincy-adams-571951

What did Russia do that America has not done?

Election rigging or attempted election rigging? We have done it and do it still.

Influence peddling? We have done it and do it still.

Cyber warfare? We do it. Europeans do it. China does it.

Invading and annexing? We have done it. We do it. We will continue to do it.

Exactly what sins have the Russkies committed that the US and our CIA, NSA and Military not also committed.

I find it odd that Americans believe that the Russians are evil when they are doing nothing different from us.

Are we evil with our actions that are exactly the same as Russia’s actions?

Are we somehow the great and good nation whilst others are evil? US Foreign Policy has sowed chaos around the planet since World War II.

We have supported the most evil despots in history. We actually gave support to the Khmer Rouge while they were murdering millions as a way of poking at the Vietnamese. We weren’t going to accomplish anything with that bit of hijinx but we did it anyway. Those actions allowed the Khmer Rouge to stay in power and murder many more Cambodians who might otherwise have survived.

Americans love to look beyond our borders and conjure monsters whilst ignoring the monstrous actions of the officials whom they allow to run rampant committing terrifying atrocities around the globe in the name of Freedom and Democracy.

If Putin is evil. If the Russians are evil. So are Americans. So was Obama and Bush. So too then are we all.

You don’t trust them. Why should they trust us?

download-10

Biggest Terror Organizations in the World

terrorism-isis

1. Saudi Arabia
4. US/Russia/China
7. UK/France/Germany
8. Muslim Brotherhood
9. Puppets of #s 4 and 7
10. Israel
11. Iran
12. Remaining ME/CA Islamic Nations.
13. Everyone else.

Saudi Arabia exports more terrorism in the form of its decrepit Wahhabi creed than all of the others combined.

Iran is a chia pet by comparison.

The Great Triumvirate of the United States of America, China and Russia have terrorized the world with impunity since the close of the Second World War.

France, the UK and Germany are all too willing accomplices to any and every US adventure that comes down the pike.

Iran selectively defends the Shi’a community via the IRG and the Party of God (Hezbollah). They imported Hezbollah to Lebanon. They support factions inside of Saudi Arabia, the Houthis in Yemen as well as other places. Iran will also selectively support Sunni terrorists otherwise known as Wahhabist Saudi Arabian created scum as suits their needs.

Israel terrorizes the Palestinians and occasionally Southern Lebanon. Israel has attacked nations such as Iraq and Iran preemptively.

The Palestinians terrorize Israel and their own people. The Palestinians attempted to depose the King of Jordan. They’ve also raised a bit of hell in Lebanon and Egypt. There is also the actions of the PLO under Arafat and assorted other madmen.

The other nations of the Middle East and Central Asia mostly terrorize their own people. Only occasionally sending out State sponsored Wahhabists and assorted other misfits to further their political ends.

Pakistan created the Taliban out of the anti-Soviet Insurgency, orphans from that war and the Wahhabist Madrassahs that were established by the Saudis. They were established, equipped and used as a hedge against Indian influence in Afghanistan and as well as a buffer against Iranian influence.

Yes, the world is fucked up.

The Last Century Accomplished Nothing!

10632816_276425285894320_9038517133952519757_n

I do not think that Hillary is Hitler. One politician is about the same as the other. Some, like Hitler, are simply more successful in moving society to accomplish their aims. The aims are all the same. Control of the populace in a given geo-political area for the advancement of personal power. There is nothing more to it.

There are no Great Leaders out there.

Look at the great leaders in history.

Lincoln — He kinda freed the slaves. But not really. In order to keep the South in the Union, he prosecuted a war which claimed the lives of millions. How is he different than Hitler or Stalin or FDR or Churchill or any of the Monarchs of the 17th Century.

FDR took America to war for Democracy and to save the Free World. In the end, more people were enslaved by communism than were threatened by the madness of Hitler.

Ike, JFK, LBJ took us to war in Vietnam to stop the communist dominoes from falling. In the end, those communist dominoes fell anyway. Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia all fell to communism. Indonesia became a dictatorship.  Nixon’s “peace with honor” all but ensured the fall of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge.  Congress’ failure to support South Vietnam or Laos after our withdrawal ensured their fall to communism.  What did we accomplish except to participate in slaughter and sacrifice our citizen soldiers to madness and arrogance.

We supported the Indonesia dictator.

How were the people of Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos better off after our War of Liberation?

In Iraq, Bush “liberated” the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein only to have Obama hand those same people over to a Shi’ite despots and the Islamic madmen of the Islamic State.  All the while, we supported the Monarchy which fuels Sunni Extremism via Dollar Diplomacy.  The Wahhabis owe everything to Saudi Arabia.  The Wahhabis are ISIS, al Qaeda, al Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and every other Sunni Islamic Extremists group extant.

In what war has America actually helped anyone?

We defeated Germany and Japan? They went on to become economic superpowers. This would have occurred anyway. In fact, the war with Japan was over the US and Britain keeping resources away from Japan that would have allowed them to become an economic superpower. We basically warred with Japan for five years in order to destroy them so that they could recover and become exactly what we had attempted to stop them from becoming. Millions died because FDR and his economic obstructionism. Yet, FDR is a hero and Hitler is a villain.

It was the same with Germany. Britain did not want Germany to become master of the Continent. So, we warred with them twice in conflagrations which engulfed the world in flames…so that Germany could become the economic master of the Continent.

What did we accomplish with our wars?

Asia slowly recovers with Laos and Cambodia lagging and their people suffering in poverty. Vietnam is becoming a mini-economic superpower and are loosening their economic controls so that capitalists can profit. This benefits the State and the Capitalists. There is relatively little benefit to the people.

Germany is the power of the Continent.

Britain has lost it’s empire. (I suppose that’s a plus).

America is still an economic power though we are doing our best to implode.

Russia is what it has always been. The poor man of Europe and the villain of the east.

China is a burgeoning beast with the potential to ruin or save the world as it has always been.

And history begins to repeat itself.

Is war on the horizon?

It seems that Political Leaders of the World are repeating the sins of the last century even as they preach of peace. I see no peace. I see no good coming of this next few decades. If the “Great Leaders” of this coming Century are as incompetent and arrogant as those of the last, the World is doomed to simply repeat the sins of the past.  There were be Great Leaders only because they take us into Great Wars.

Where are the visionaries?  Where is our Jesus?  Our Moses?  Our Gandhi?  Where are the leaders who not only preach peace but practice it?

Can the earth survive human war or human peace?  If we war on one another with our current technology, we may make this world uninhabitable.  If we do not war and continue “peaceably,” human being will reproduce in unsustainable numbers.

There seems to be no way out.  By War or Peace, humanity’s ignorance and lack of foresight endangers itself…ensures it’s fall.  Perhaps that is not a bad thing.

Barack Obama Commits America To War with Russia

president-obama-worried-face-5-9-14

“I say to the people of Estonia and the people of the Baltics, today we are bound by our treaty alliance. … Article 5 is crystal clear: An attack on one is an attack on all. So if … you ever ask again, ‘who’ll come to help,’ you’ll know the answer – the NATO alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America.”

Committing America to an alliance via NATO to the Balkans is insanity.  No intelligent leader of a Nation would do such a thing.  Is America responsible for defense of the entire Globe?

Were I Putin, I would test Obama here and now.  I would invade Estonia.  Show Obama and NATO for the jaw jacking clowns that they have become.

At the end of the Cold War, we gave Russia assurances that we’d not chip away at their regional sphere of influence.  The Russian concern was that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union the United States via NATO would attempt to surround Russia with surrogate Nations.  This we have done.

We have our military in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Japan, Korea among other places.  This gives us a complete encirclement of Russia.  There is no reason for these actions.  Russia has not acted any more or less belligerent than any other Nation.  Nor have they been nearly as bellicose as the United States of America.  They have acted on terrorist threats on their border and periphery.  America has invaded the Globe and claimed it to be our right with the “pre-emptive strike” strategy/arrogance.

We tell Israel that they are wrong to launch pre-emptive strikes in Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and the farce that is Palestine.  Somehow, though, it’s legal when we do it.

The last time that Russia was encircled in this manner, a World War was launched.  Germany invaded Poland.  The Soviet Union was not long in waiting for their German invasion.  One hundred years earlier, France launched their ill-fated Napoleonic effort to defeat Moscow.  Not quite one hundred years after the Nazi invasion of the Russian heartland, America finds itself enmeshed in the Ukraine and treating with the nations that are historically used as invasion routes to Moscow.

The Russians must be feeling deja vu.

This is not the only instance where it seems that Barack Obama is historically deficient.

Barack Obama seems hell bent on bringing about World War III.  One wonders how long until Putin reacts with more than threats of low level nukes.  One wonders how long until Putin tires of Obama’s arrogance and ignorance.

obest

10641061_803094596378221_8909290785069760431_n

Outrage is not a Strategy

 

 

Image“Outrage is not a strategy. I thought military action always had to have a purpose behind it – so what is the endstate here? Hit, and then hope?

“I am not sure in what way even limited strikes help the people living in my constituency: how does this further Britain’s or America’s national security?

“There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people – and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries.

“We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind – in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself “Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013”.

“The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud links to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope.”

British MP Adam Holloway

Wishful Thinking and the West

As for giving peace a chance, the sentiment is nice, but it does not work when your self-appointed enemy wants to kill you. Gandhi’s campaign of non-violence (often quite violent in its reality) only worked because his opponent was willing to play along. Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany,Stalin’s Russia , Mao’s (or today’s) China , Pol Pot’s Cambodia , or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq . Effective non-violence is contractual. Where the contract does not exist, Gandhi dies.

Against the darkness, we fight…

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

While Obama thinks that we shouldn’t fight against evil in this world because it’s Gods job.  I disagree.  We must do that job ourselves.  While Obama will talk and talk as they use his naivite to their advantage, real leadership must plan to thwart the plans of the masters of terror and the enemies of peace.  The Wahhabis, the Russians, Communists, despots of every stripe, Fatah, Hamas, the PLA, the deceitful Lords of Qom and all  of the rest wish for nothing more than an Obama Presidency.  Michelle Obama thinks that the real enemy is America itself.  Obama seems to agree with his numerous comments on the subject.

Obama suits the terror lords and the despots and dictators.  They know that he will talk and talk and do little else.  Much like Carter and Clinton before him.  Should Obama become President, America will be rudderless.  The evil in the world relishes the opportunities that will be the Presidency of cowardice, empty talk and Inaction that an Obama White House promises.

They fear real leadership in the West.  Real leadership that will keep the wolves at bay.