Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
By Colonel Thomas Snodgrass Fri, December 29, 2006, 12:01 am
Colonel T. Snodgrass, SANE's resident military expert and strategist, takes a hard look at the Limited War Doctrine and how it plays out in the Open Society Democracy.
A curious thing happened in American thinking about warfare in 1961 – the rules needed to be rewritten, or so thought “the best and brightest” civilian strategists that President Kennedy brought with him into the White House. In his The Best and Brightest book, David Halberstam covers how Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, William P. Bundy, Dean Rusk, George Ball, et.al, arrogantly ignored the historical lessons of warfare and set about to change the rules of war. This change has had far-reaching negative effects, even to today.
What was at the root of their hubris?
With the advent of nuclear weapons, many civilian think-tank warfare theorists believed that direct superpower confrontation had become too dangerous to contemplate. Thus was born “limited war” in the national lexicon of strategic thinking when the Korean War broke out in 1950 and President Truman limited the war objectives and means in order to avoid nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. The Korean War began the change in the American concept of war away from total war, or what was called at the time “general war,” to a form of war that was more “civilized” and “less dangerous” in the minds of social scientists.
The problem of limited war from an American national interest standpoint was that it assumed U.S. enemies would likewise be restrained in objectives and means. This fanciful social science assumption rested on the unproven belief that no foreign national leader in his right mind would dare oppose America, following its World War II victory, once U.S. willingness to fight was made clear. However, the advocates of limited war never came to grips with what would happen if a Soviet Cold War client state refused to “play” by limited war “rules.” In other words, how and when would limited war be concluded when the communists were pursuing total war objectives and the U.S. was waging a war for limited objectives? This was the first appearance of an asymmetry in war strategies long before the now infamous contemporary asymmetry on the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT) battlefield. The GWOT is more appropriately termed the war against Islam (and the Shari’a touting faithful), but we use GWOT due to its common use.
This disparity of total vs. limited war objectives first became apparent as the Korean War dragged on and President Truman’s administration could find no way to conclude the conflict. When President Eisenhower assumed the presidency from Truman in 1953, he quickly recognized the logical solution to the strategic conundrum was shifting U.S. war-fighting from limited to total war means, and he thereby ended the Korean War by communicating to the communists his intention of escalating with nuclear weapons if the communists persisted in their total war objectives. Civilian limited war advocates should have seen the glaring fallacy of their theory at this point, but they didn’t. For his part, Eisenhower did not believe that limited war could remain limited.
As a warrior who knew war first-hand, President Eisenhower opted for a historically-based defense doctrine of “Massive Retaliation,” which promised an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the event of aggression. Throughout the better part of the 1950’s, Eisenhower’s national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a “limited war” would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the “New Look,” was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world.
In spite of the Massive Retaliation doctrine’s success in preventing conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union, in 1961 President Kennedy and his civilian social-science theorists rewrote the rules of war, conceiving and implementing a replacement doctrine they dubbed “Flexible Response” to counter client proxy warfare. It was at this point that we completely departed from the strategic thinking that had won World War II. The change in mindset was profound. The fundamental change in the U.S. approach to warfare now had at its essence the new approach that America would answer communist aggression against its interests with only a limited force that was “proportional” to the threat, thus inculcating the institutional idea in the U.S. national security infrastructure that American military responses should only be gradually escalated according to the perceived seriousness of the crisis.
The operative concept was that an enemy would “receive the message” that the U.S. intended to act militarily to defend its interests, and therefore, would be deterred from escalating the crisis further. Then, after it was clear to the enemy that his limited war objectives could not be attained, negotiations would ensue that would end the crisis. “Message sending” to the enemy through gradual escalation became an integral part of U.S. national security thinking and strategy.
The Flexible Response doctrine did not contemplate that the North Vietnamese would “bear any burden, pay any price” to plant Vietnamese nationalist communism in the south of the former French colony. The obvious queries -- why Kennedy’s brain-trust thought that only the U.S. was capable of complete dedication to a political concept or military strategy and how this group of men failed to address how an armed test of wills between two completely committed opponents would finally be resolved -- both call into question the Kennedy crowd’s basic rationality and the quality and integrity of their thought.
Indeed, what it really suggests is a mind-set that believed that the whole of mankind operated under the same set of values they had. In other words, there is nothing really worth fighting for until the end. Total dedication to national existence and national goals are subject to compromise. If that was the view of the American leadership, they concluded, it must be the view of our enemies.
What were the results?
Ho Chi Minh set out with the total war objective to conquer South Vietnam, while President Kennedy, and later President Johnson, in accordance with the Flexible Response doctrine regarded the conflict as limited, and they answered Ho’s total war with limited war subject to a gradual escalation. Instead of sending the intended message of strength to the North Vietnamese, Ho correctly interpreted the limited U.S. response as the sign of a lack of will on the part of the American political leadership. Once it became evident to Ho that America would not use its massive military strength to destroy North Vietnam, and thereby end the conflict and communist rule, the North Vietnamese targeted the will of the U.S. body politic and pursued the war with impunity.
Amazingly, a weak American political leadership refused to even threaten the continued existence of the North Vietnamese Communist Government, thus encouraging and enabling Ho and his successors to drag the war out to the point that the war-will of the U.S. polity was eventually destroyed. In truth it was not the media or the political opposition that “lost the war,” as is sometimes alleged, it was a U.S. political and military leadership that was both too timid (a polite word for cowardly) to be successful wartime leaders and too blinded by their own hubris to understand that the impossible asymmetry in the objectives of the warring parties guaranteed that limited war was a sure strategy for defeat in Vietnam.
Given the long and sustained trend in this country to move away from a constitutional republic as designed by the founders with a safe distance between the national leaders and their constituents and toward an open society democracy where the “public voice” is heard daily in polling data and elections and statutory and constitutional referendums meant to directly affect day to day governance, it might be arguable that no sustained or prolonged war effort is today possible. But most assuredly, in such system, the “public” will never support a decision predicated upon a purposefully limited and drawn out war strategy. This was the absurdity of the Kennedy Administration’s limited war doctrine and it is the absurdity of the current administration’s limited-war-while-we-build-a-functional-civil-democratic-government-in-the-war-zone. What makes this latter doctrine even more irrational is that we accept the presence of our enemies in the government, such as al-Sadr.
The failure to understand this issue and to blame the obvious failure to prosecute a war fully with but one goal of a military victory is manifest in both Left and Right on the US political spectrum -- among both Democrats and Republicans. On the Right side during the Vietnam debacle we heard that we were doing a splendid job militarily in Vietnam, and but for reporting to the contrary after the Tet Offensive by Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite and the rest of the main stream media that had a virtual monopoly on the attention of middle America, all was still well from the pro-war standpoint. This is a fairy tale. A poorly fought war, a Tet Offensive and media campaign to call the pro-war optimism into question, the constant demonstrations in the streets by the anti-war Left eroded public confidence in the political elite and their prosecution of the war. The public's lack of confidence was well founded.
Having fought a limited war to a standstill, the political leadership could not sustain America's motivation to continue and as a result there was absolutely no way to favorably conclude the war militarily. The American government’s loss of credibility with its own people foreclosed any military escalation against North Vietnamese capability to resupply its forces in the south. Such a strategy reversal would have been necessary to force a favorable military conclusion. America’s war-will was decimated because of the anti-war propaganda which capitalized on bad military strategy. For the North Vietnamese, the American government’s credibility problem at home was a clear sign that they just had to persevere until the Americans threw in the towel.
On the Left we have a slightly different twist on the same denial theme. The difference here though is the notion that the media and the demonstrators were correct. It was a bad war that could not be won militarily and we could only hope to negotiate a defeat with the rhetoric of a draw. An example of this mindset was on display in an interview for the Fox TV special “Give War a Chance.” In this special, Richard Holbrooke, would-be Secretary of State for John Kerry and long-time State Department diplomat, made the assertion that the U.S. had done everything possible militarily in Vietnam, purportedly establishing his point that only diplomacy could have provided the solution. Holbrooke, like his cheerleading Republican counterparts, apparently did not understand that the U.S. had made no effort to win the war using historically-proven military strategy, that is, destroy the enemy’s capability to wage war.
National Security rethinking – post-Vietnam to 9/11.
In the years following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell both recognized some of the shortcomings in the intellectual conception of U.S. national security doctrine that led to the Vietnam debacle, and they both attempted to correct these shortcomings by promulgating the “Weinberger Doctrine” in 1984 and the “Powell Doctrine” in 1991. Secretary Weinberger’s national security construct was in response to another defense debacle, the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, while General Powell’s preconditions for the commitment of American military forces came along during the build-up to Desert Storm. While both doctrines call for clarity of purpose in the U.S. use of force, they both nevertheless suffer from the debilitating constraint of continued limited war thinking and the inherent problems facing the modern democracy.
The Weinberger doctrine:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
The Powell doctrine:
Questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Both doctrines are admirable in their attempts to clarify when and how U.S. forces should be used, but they are clearly meant for limited war contexts. We know this from the doctrines themselves and their historical context. Quite simply, the limited war doctrine reigns today; it has never been re-written. As a consequence, after 9/11 when the U.S. entered into the GWOT, our national strategic thinking was not geared for global war. Hence we have both opponents and proponents of GWOT measuring the “Battle for Iraq” and Afghanistan solely in terms of limited war. We continue to be trapped in the same mental box that pre-ordained our Vietnam defeat. It is not widely understood that Iraq is merely a campaign in the GWOT, not a limited “Iraq War.” Today we are battling the faithful Muslims of the world who wish a Shari’a-based worldwide Caliphate together with the foot soldiers of Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda in Iraq.
How Democracy fits in.
Moreover, the very idea that America can no longer fight a total war, but only a limited war, has grown out of the enormous democratization of our body politic. When World War I and World War II were fought, the national leaders and especially the Commander-in-Chief, had relatively few political constraints on their war making abilities and strategies. The average citizen simply did not expect to carry on a national debate about how to fight the war -- only that it ought to be won and won decisively.
The very fact that women had only a few decades earlier gained the franchise to vote (the women’s movement had not come to fructify as it did in the Vietnam era of the 1960s and 1970s), further illustrates this point. The whole debate over getting the “soccer moms’” vote by the political punditry drives the electioneering on both sides. War today is one part war strategy and five parts domestic public relations precisely because an open society democracy demands daily watering and tender-loving care. Courageous political and military leadership is at a great disadvantage in such a polity.
The retort to this by the democracy advocates is that this is why broad-spectrum democracies don’t fight wars. This is no doubt true, but hardly comforting when you are on the receiving end of foreign aggression. This is all the more troubling when the war is an existential threat. Long hard wars, especially against stubborn and ideologically committed enemies such as Marxists and the Shari’a touting Islamic faithful, even wars prosecuted with a total war strategy, will become decidedly more difficult when the political leadership and by implication the military as well are subject to the nightly talking heads and polling data. While the contemporary wisdom is that the greater the reach of democracy the better, this has never been established as fact or even as good theory.
To raise the democracy issue, however, is not to propose a solution. That is not a subject for a military strategist. But it is a fact and it is one the founding fathers and the generations thereafter did not face until the second half of the 20th century.
Can we escape the limited war mental trap of our own making?
We have no alternative as a nation. We must! We have Muslim enemies within and without Iraq. In World War II the Vichy French, Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Iraqis, et.al, never attacked the U.S., but they were our enemies nevertheless because they were allied with the Nazis. Today Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, et.al, are likewise our enemies because they are allied to the extent that they want a U.S. defeat at the hands of an Islam bounded by the Shari’a. So long as we continue to define Iraq as the only GWOT battlefield, we are again headed for defeat because of our failure to deal with the fact that warfare does not necessarily stop at national borders. Limited war paid homage to this fallacious idea at the Yalu and Parrot’s Beak, and was fatally wrong in both cases.
American politicians (with the exception of President Eisenhower and his administration), senior military leaders, think tank civilian warfare theorists, and media pundits have been mesmerized by limited war in their national security thinking since the outbreak of the Korean War. In Vietnam, successive presidential administrations failed the American people because they were unable to break the paralyzing spell of limited war, and we lost. In the global war against the Shari’a faithful Muslims, the stakes are existential and not limited, but our national political and senior military leaders are still in the paralyzing death grip of limited war conceptual thinking. If nothing changes, nothing changes.
About the author: Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, retired U.S. Air Force, spent 30 years in active military duty. He spent much of his time in the military as a senior intelligence officer and has been an instructor at several important war colleges. He is a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and holds a Master of Arts degree in History and Political Science from the University of Texas.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Fri, December 29, 2006, 11:42 AM
Subject: Our Flawed War Doctrine
Very well done; could not agree more.
This points out the need for a Commander-In-Chief with the guts to wage war as necessary, a legislature and court system dedicated to not interfering with any war effort, and the need to either somehow restrict, in time of war, or just ignore the free press. Once war has begun, popular opinion should never have anything whatsoever to do with the prosecution of it.
Since Korea - From Ho to Osama - our national enemies have had the luxury of being able to pay more strategic attention to American popularity polls and American elections than to their own very survival. They know that all they have to do, when not hiding among the populace, is dance back and forth across various international borders, and our forces will not follow, nor will they be able to go after any of the real strategic centers of the enemy.
I would like permission to re-print this article, with link back, on the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center website.
Date: 05/07/2007 7:20 PM EST
Subject: on limited war doctrine.
I find myself in a very different place than you.
I come from a military family. But, having lived "overseas" both in Western Europe and Eastern Europe and in Central America. I come away with a different take on things.
First, it is the way in which the multinationals' corporate interests are constantly touted as U.S. interests.
Second, the way that military conflict is initiated to assist in profits and boost the economy.
Third, in the way that American values and social mores are forcibly inflicted upon other peoples and countries.
Fourth, the way that the injured and killed military personnel's families lose the most in military conflict and the wealthy make such a perverse profit from it. But of course, then wars would stop cause Dow and others like Brown and root would make no money in the matter. No money no motive and its just that simple.
Fifth, the way that the conflicts are prolonged to extract the most possible profit from the matter. Never has a war profits tax been considered as a deterrent in the matter.
Yep, congress and the rich ought to be the front line troops, they gain the most financially in these faked up fracases and the common people should be left to do what they have always tried to do.
Just get by the turbulence of the day.
Stephen G. Dees
Date: 05/08/2007 8:30 AM EST
Subject: on limited war doctrine.
All of that just appears to me to be a long string of some of the oldest and most common Leftie-Democrat talking points, designed to show America in the worst possible light when compared to any other entity at all. But, there is nothing but hot air to back any of them up. Let's look at them a little more closely.
Constantly touted? By whom? Where? Corporate interests, no matter where the corporation may be based, are business related. Millions of shareholders may be American and have American interests, but that is not why they bought their shares in the corporation.
When, exactly, in all of recorded American history, did any such thing ever happen? This statement is patently false.
Forcibly inflicted? At the point of a bayonet? Could you please identify even one such historical event in any other country for me, because I can’t seem to find any historical record of any such thing ever happening.
In the best of war situations, soldiers die in war. That’s the way it is. In the worst of war situations, civilians die in war. But I’m not sure I, or even you, understand the rest of that paragraph. The Dow measures the market, and it does so whether it’s going up or down, in time of war and in time of peace. “Perverse profit” is an interesting (and popular) Leftie, anti-Capitalist term, but until you get more specific I don’t know how to respond. I suppose you think that whoever fulfills a needed military contract should do so at a loss and go broke. “The Wealthy” remain, as usual, a vague term with no one identified. Who are they? The Rockefellers, or other old money Dems? George Soros, Bill Gates, or other newer generation Dems? Oprah, Cronkite, Whoopi and other celebrocrat Dems? Let me see even a short list of exactly who this demonic group, “The Rich”, are.
Who do you think is driving the bus here, our representative government or someone else? Who, exactly, prolonged any war America was ever involved in, from the American side, to extract the most possible profit? It’s so easy, isn’t it, to just toss around these vague charges with no specifics and nothing whatsoever to back them up.
Again, please identify “The Rich” who supposedly “faked up” any “fracases” because, again, purposeful vagueness and fuzziness point to entirely false premises that amount to nothing more than Leftie-Dem talking points, with nothing whatsoever to back them up.
Date: Thu May 10, 2007 1:50:01 PM EST
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
All of what follows is in response to the various "challenges, allegations and denials of fact" which you offered in your response to my previous statement.
I previously tried to state the time of day, you have insisted I not only build you a clock, but tell you how it works. Ok, I am up to the challenge. Are you conversant in game theory?
To start with, I am neither right, left, or central, or anything categorical as it relates to the existing political alignments domestically. I belong to neither of the two major parties nor any other.
Most importantly I truly hope the "parties" end soon and the population takes control away from the two "machines".
I, by the way, am not holding my breath, till it happens. The population is not blind, they either just simply refuse to see or are powerless to act.
I find myself consistently confronted by two general choices concerning "voting":
a corrupt group of socialists/bordering on communists, hell bent to enact more expensive useless, bloated, stupid programs, poorly run and rampant with corruption or
a corrupt group of robber barons intent on establishing super-monopolistic goals which also destroy and diminish any prospective domestic competitive assaults that might potentially disrupt the present market partitions. This party has recently begun to throw out various socialist-oriented tid bits to appease the "populations" desire for more, worthless programs. To wit, the "no one left behind", cater to the brain dead, public mis-education system.
In short, the "they are our sheep and we have a god given right, now and forever, to shear them" and any attempts to change that result in serious and negative effects.
I realized this many years ago when I found that at times the "right" was on "my side" and at others the "left" was.
Then I grew up. I realized, as all grown ups do, that the world works on the monetary enrichment principle. I also realized that any given issue may be twisted, manipulated, massaged, and modified to favor, or in my case, disfavor someone else.
By that statement concerning monetary motivation, when was the last time you spent, say, more than a continuous week's worth of time, of constructive process, that did not come down to making your preferred monetary denomination? Do you believe that anyone else engages in such non-monetary motivated philanthropic, altruistic, or moralist-based, behavior?
Vic are you aware that the Nazi's printed "Gott ist Mit Uns" on their buckles? How is that for a historical precedent concerning moral justification? Is it a matter of translation from German? The words are pretty close to the English version.
At the higher ends of the spectrum of commerce, meaning the large corporate office places, there are little means of truly "enhancing" the revenue stream. There exist no secrets, examine the quarterly or annual disclosure, to either the government or the stockholders.
Each competitive move sees a counter-move, hence in the advance realization of this and the fact that changes in product line cause costs, while stable lines of production are much more easily controlled, a general non-competitive approach is much preferred.
Despite all the supposed wizardry of the "great corporate team" it comes down to trend and cycle. There is really not much of a way for the Chairman "to get "it" in to, out of, "the ditch", if they just let the boat flow down the river".
An examination of the history of commerce in the United States, demonstrates, that at the larger corporate environments, the behavior is much closer to collusive restriction of trade than competitive.
All the Lee Iaccoca, William Gates, H. Ross Perot, William Buffet, "shinola" aside, it is a matter of market partition.
Competition and product distinguishment, as a means of doing so (revenue enhancement), died, many, many, years before I reached my age of majority.
So...... what do they do? They enter into "market stimulation", that includes the military industrial complex. I get a little little bit closer to the names, but not just yet Vic. Patience is a virtue!
Ask your preferred "military expert" what happens to the "new" weapons system, the second after part or all of it gets both used publicly and revealed and/or worse yet, captured, in the course of a conflict. How does it get exposed, by conflict, hence its usage is the means and manner by which it must be "replaced".
Then ask him what the current state of procurement with regard to the number of planes, and in fact the entire military air fleet, was/is slated to look like, if no major change, say as the basis of fatigue, lack of superiority or some other military criteria of degradation of quality occurs in the foreseeable future?
That's right Vic, they are and were going to cut the size of the fleet of planes and fleet diversity and therefore "weed some of the players" from the trough, before all this occurred! Imagine that! Just like what they, congress, were doing to the Navy, and the Army for that matter.
I refer to the procurement cycle and need for a larger, better "club or rock". Take as an example the "stealth fighter". I believe his "credits" refer to the fact that he has both an intelligence background and is from the Air Force. He should understand immediately the implications of what I am referencing.
He will fill you in on what happens. It means jobs and "product cycle" "opportunity" which results in more corporate revenue, but only if there is "market stimulation".
No wizardry, just simple supply and demand economics as it relates to, and plays upon, the "I have but one, and only one, hide" political thinking process. Also, it looks good on T.V., the "I must appear to be strong on defense" syndrome. Hells Bells even commie Hilliary got into the act! How's that for a "lefty"?
The person who originated the original blog entry is a military professional, supposedly, and, perhaps, based upon the various periods of time his commentary covered, is equally aware of a few facts which I will use on behalf of the defense of my original points. I suggest you solicit his input as to the veracity of my commentary.
Incidentally, "war mongering", and "profiteering" were termed long before my birth, hence some one else, along the time line of history, has seen, or at least attempted to allude to, the pattern of behavior.
As to your refuting the point of the corporations' intentionally positioning this country to go to war, via falsehoods and orchestrated scenarios, as well as prolongation, to extract profits, I have the following list as documented historical facts and actions which amply demonstrate and amplify my position.
|Name of Incident or Step Taken||Type of Incident|
|the Sinking of the Maine (Spanish American War)||lie to start a fight|
|The denial of rubber and junk steel to Japan (WWII)||provocation|
|the fight domestically to not use the atom bomb (WWII)||prolongation|
|The delay of information and reaction to Intel in Pearl Harbor (WWII)||lie to start a fight|
|The Yalu (Sp?) river arbitrary limitation of incursion (Korea)||hamstringing prolongation|
|The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Nam)||lie to start a fight|
|The domino theory (Nam/S.E Asia)||lie to start a fight|
|The hands off Hanoi/Laos/Thailand/Cambodia policy (Nam..again)||hamstringing prolongation|
|The backing of the Shah of Iran (Iranian embassy problem)||provocation|
|The backing of Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines)||provocation|
|The backing of Noriega (Panama)||provocation|
|The oil supply threat to U.S by Iraq taking Kuwait (Iraq)||lie to start a fight|
|The WMD as justification of the second trip into Iraq||lie to start a fight|
|The training the Iraqi civilian police force while the U.S. contractors building the schools, Power and telecommunications back which were destroyed.||prolongation|
|The (king bush of beligerencia/constipationa) no time line to stop spending your money.||prolongation|
And it goes on and on
My point, in the critical examination of the various decisions, developments and intelligence, they either led to armed incursion and arbitrary hand tying, based upon neither sound military judgment, nor simple prudence, and served for one and only purpose, to prolong the conflict, to extract the most dollar worth from the conflict.
In certain cases, they intentionally ignored accurate verifiable, intelligence available. To what purpose? I suggest, in the case of WWII, General Marshall, was a very, very, smart head of the joint Chiefs of Staff, so it was neither incompetence nor ignorance.
In each and every case, the known basis of the decision was influence exerted by one or in most cases several multi-national corporation(s).
In the time before the multinationals' existence, the process was more domestic than international, as the economic interests of the provoking party (ies) was domestic and not international. The point is not the territory affected, it is the pattern of behavior.
In each and every case, the American people were intentionally misled to manipulate their reaction, and to "seduce" their support, in a matter in which they were being defrauded and intentionally manipulated, to someone, or more accurately, something, else's monetary enrichment. You have asked for names I will get to that point later on.
For now, let us examine, the "nature of the game". The "moves on the chessboard", using game theory, and the objectives. The search for and your grant of names I consider a matter "de rigeur" and you shall not leave without having your curiosity, or your obtusity satisfied.
As to "Did it boost the economy?, In today's environment, hell if it wasn't for this current war, the current economy would be on its butt.
False? go back and look at what happened to the domestic economy after the closure of Vietnam conflict, one of the largest "recessions" in the history of the country. Support is removed, economy goes down. The war footing commentary aside, if all you have is a war foot, and you remove it, guess what happens?
Why, because the war was what, and is what, is keeping the economy going. Young and decent men, and now women, of moderate means, die for corporate profit. They even manufacture heroes according to E.E.O., politically correct criteria, in the process. The rest of the political doctrine concerning "the clear and present danger" line from Washington is dog manure.
Look at the current domestic automotive industry. Look at the heavy manufacturing sector. Look at the domestic textiles industry. Look at anything other than basic existence industries, by that, say housing starts, apartment complexes, shopping malls, food stores, pharmacies, hospitals etc.
You evidently did not notice the layoffs? Look at the rate of foreclosure of houses, of boats, automobiles. Those figures are down right? Nope!
Look at the cost of living, by the single barometer of true indication of affordability, by the "new consumers", meaning first time home buyers, and compare their income levels to the monthly mortgage costs which will be necessary to afford a single family dwelling. The true value of wages and the average wage rate in the United States, all on the up swing right?
Wherever you are obtaining your drugs, I need some of that! Because if you truly look, you will find a very, very, sick private sector income rate and employment picture, stagnant and dying.
Now, after painting the entire backdrop, back out the effect of the government procurement which is largely military industrial complex related expenses cycle. Whoa! And what do we have, a service economy of little to no worth to the working person as a means of viable employment in face of current costs.
Why? because those federal government jobs are mandated by congress to pay a federal prevailing wage. Hence an essentially higher level of profitability to the individual. The corporations which manufacture and service the military segment are pretty much the only portion of the manufacturing, meaning higher paying labor type jobs which remain in the domestic economy.
In the counting and massaging of the data, the government is pretty much the largest consumer in the domestic market place of manufactured products.
Hamburgers are now a part of the private manufacturing sector because they don't need those figures to bull crap the population, right?
Chinese trade has increased the domestic manufacturing sector jobs, correct?
The reason for the war is to make money for some while they keep the mind of the "unwashed, rabble" from going out and getting rope to hang their butts.
The problem is the tactic works. They are so concerned with their butt being on fire they fail to see their head is catching.
Just like, evidently, unfortunately, you Vic. But then of course I am familiar with the critical thinking protagonistic approach. But at this level? Come on Vic lets raise the ante and the level of dispute. Like how do intelligent people break this cycle and restore democracy?
How about new leadership, a renewed movement to prosperity based upon competition, free enterprise, the elimination of quota oriented HRS process and leaving some of the brain dead behind? How about instead of bailing out the Chrysler's we let the non-competitive corporations fail? How about insisting upon moving the level of the game up, instead of protecting existing market partitions and favoring the formation of super-monopolies? But, I digress.
Back to the main discussion line.
As to those social values and mores being inflicted. How would you like it if a Muslim came over here and told the "American female", if she did not wear a veil, she would be stoned to death?
How would you like it if someone came over here and told you your female offspring was worthless and should be placed into an orphanage, at birth, and used in prostitution rings, and the very fact of her birth should be concealed, so that your one, state authorized child could be a male from some future prospective pregnancy?
How do you think they, the Muslims, feel concerning the presence of women in their country who do not comply?
Have you ever met anyone who lived as a contractor in a Muslim country concerning their (the Muslims) perception of eating, hygiene, worship during the day, working hours, bribery as we see it, (gifting for favor as they see it), and all the myriads of ways that we differ from them? The truth is, the United States and Western Europe, is in their country not the other way around.
Some of the things said by none other than "libbist" western (meaning from the U.S. and Europe) women in Iran, in Saudi, in India, in Yugoslavia, and the expectations by the west for compliance to "modern" western values are "killing level" insults in those various countries.
It comes down to something as simple as why in the devil should I put the seat down after I am through in the rest room. Why don't you (female) leave it up, to make my next trip to the facilities easier. Its as subtle as that and just about as deep.
The very usage of a negroid woman as an ambassador is an insult. Not that the U.S. government's elected bozo doesn't have the right to name a bullfrog as his ambassador, if it so desires. No it is the expectation that the other side is supposed to talk with them.
If I named a chimp as my ambassador from "Stevaronia" and sent him to "negotiate" with you would you be pleased or insulted by my selection.
How about those schools being built by the military, are they built in the Muslim Style? No they are not.
Its like Brown v. Board of Education has gone global, complete with the bayonets used in that domestic issue. And speaking of point of a bayonet what do you think the U.S. is doing in Iraq right now?????
Are they or are they not using force of arms, meaning in every possible nuance, of the meaning, at bayonet point, by which to inflict upon portions of the population use of a form of government, people in government, and religious faith segmentation, none of which they voluntarily subscribe to????
If that is not "point of the bayonet" politics what in the devil would you call it?
Hey Vic, how would you feel if you were forced, as a catholic to accept a stupid butt, egomaniac Methodist as your president. Oh, yeah right, that's what you have huh?
Look at Kosovo, at Bosnia, Tusla, Ulcinj and Sarajevo.
I can understand your skepticism and ignorance, in this particular matter. Let me help a little here.
Long before the bullets started to fly in Yugoslavia, there was a problem. The problem was Albanians. The Albanians were coming into Yugoslavia illegally and in large numbers. they were largely Muslim in faith. They had been informed several times, nicey nice, that they: were there illegally were uninvited were affecting the domestic economy adversely were increasing domestic costs were undesired should go back to Albania, and do what should be done there, get rid of the crooks in charge.
Of course this bears absolutely no resemblance to the huge immigration problems of the U.S. in terms of Cuban illegals, Mexican, Honduran, Salvadoran, Colombian, and now, Argentinians.
But when the bullets started flying, and the U.S. and The U. N. stepped in, they forced the Serbs, to allow the Albanians, one of the groups they were trying to get rid of, to stay.
Now look at the U.S. illegal immigration problem. What do you think the attitude, of say the State of Arizona, would be in response to the U.N. mandating that the illegal Central and South Americans had to, not only remain, in the U.S., in Arizona, but should get all the benefits of the U.S. system of support, including override quota protection as minorities under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the E.E.O Commission?
Do you think they would just sit there and take that crapola? Oh yeah, they are aren't they? Yep, they just "love' the bayonet approach of government. Yes, that is what has been done in Yugoslavia.
I could go back further in time. I submit the U.S. did do the same thing concerning Germany after WWII during the period of the armed occupation of Germany and the fashioning not only of their government but their very national constitution. Ditto what happened in Japan.
Nope, to the best of my knowledge, these various acts never made big headlines domestically, just like the insults in Iran and the forced changes in that country which led to the Shah's ouster by revolution. But go to Germany and/or Japan today, and ask the "hardliners" what they think, today, of that effort and how they feel they lost their national identity in the process.
There is an old saying "You play with a puppy don't be surprised if you get licked in the face".
YES DAMMIT! AT BAYONET POINT AND OUTSIDE THE U.S. THEY STICK THEIR NOSES INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S CULTURES AND FORCE THEM TO CHANGE BY MILITARISTIC PROCESS!
It is the gradual subjugation of the entire planet to see the things the way the U.S. sees them or get their butts kicked militarily.
I will not step into the arena of moral justification, moral prerogative or moral authority, what a load of crapola! This coming from a nation which practices economic subjugation and strangulation on its own people? No wonder the rest of the planet despises that flag now.
I simply make my point, it has been done, not once, and not singularly, on the basis of victory in conflict, it is done routinely. The point is one of subjugation of peoples by force and then the "re-education" of them to see things our way or else!
The military version of Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Or as Curtis Lemay, if I accredit properly (maybe it was an army general instead), used to say, "If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds must follow!"
Yes, the government has and continues to do it. I could give a crap less about the various justifications, I say, said, and will say, they engage in the conduct. You said they did not, I would appreciate your acknowledgment that you stand "corrected" in the matter.
Don't get me wrong Vic, personally, in reference to the veil thing, I come out on the unveiled side. Always sort of impressed me as a blind date sort of thing. How else are you going to "avoid a beastie", if you can't see em?
But maybe it is an act of kindness, if most of them were ugly, maybe the best thing is to cover it all up?
Sounds sort of far fetched, but in my life, in years back, I attended some co-ed-present social gatherings that looked more like an agricultural exposition.
Veils would have truly helped, so it is possible, there was a common sense basis to their rules originally. But it is neither my country nor region nor anyone else's in the U.S.
Nor, as I have already pointed out, is such behavior the "first time". Look also at Formosa, Korea, the Philippines, Columbia, and the Boxer Rebellion in China. All various settings where the repetitive behavior has been exhibited.
Look at the American Indian and his/her life style prior and subsequent to Army and "Bureau of Indian Affairs" intervention. You will find they, the U.S. government, reacting to special interests, did have an involuntary, on the Indians part, "affair", with the American Indian as well. Some of the effects of the "affair" continue to this day.
Hell, not only does the government listen, they act to contrive an incident to satisfy the demand for action by the multi-national. It is time to face the facts, we do not currently, nor have the people of the United States had a government which represents its population.
It is and has been that way, since my arrival on the planet, more years ago than I care to share right now. I make that statement in reference to the words a government of and by the people.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Compare that to what is being done and I submit they sorely, intentionally, and completely miss the mark.
In two of the incidents of conduct, it justified entry into armed conflict on the basis of known at the time, and prior to military engagement, false information. I refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.
Now we have a third, a unique situation where the idiot in the white house actually attacked the wrong damn country, and then tried to point the finger at his political chums across the way and his own damn political appointees that he put in the very positions of influence. God, what an absolute idiot!!!!
Point being he had no military justification for his actions, it was a contrived case of unjustifiable, on any grounds, interference in the sovereign affairs of a foreign state.
Why? For the benefit of various corporate interests who were, then and now, in control of congress, and the white house. I find it incredulous that you take the position that you have stated!
How can a person, a thinking person, with an objective mind, in the face of over a century of historical incidents at their disposal, for review and contemplation, come to some other rational conclusion?
Want to go back even further? "How about there is gold in the Black Hills".
And the best one. "We are fighting this war to eliminate the slave conditions of the Negroid". What a crock!
Hell, they had Irish, Italians, Polish, Chinese, Germans, Scots, and others, located right there in their backyard. Dying from typhus, starvation, malnutrition, economic subjugation, pestilence and those were the better conditions.
I will just touch upon the rape of the pretty poor girls by the rich guys, the crippling and destruction of health because of unsafe conditions, the intentional knowing mass poisonings or the usage of children in absolutely horrific conditions of servitude.
Yet, they had to "march south" to "free the Negroid"!
People in the North, who lived in poop, never made poop, couldn't get out of the poop were not good enough to warrant the attention. Not just adults, children for Jesus' sake!! And they had to go hundreds of miles to South to cure the cause of their conflict? For the moral objective of "free the slave"?
If I had a lawn, I would request 500 pounds of that to put on the grass.
Right! The problem is one of good propaganda campaign, not the facts. Hell, the Negroids and other ignorant people still believe and try to sell that manure. Over a hundred years later!
I could give you facts, until both of us were dust.
As to my statement concerning the usage of fabrication of military conflict to boost and buoy the economy. I resubmit as evidence the state of the economy before and after the various conflicts which I have already referenced.
War is a business. When the bullets fly and the bombs go off, the helicopters fly, the tanks roll, the soldiers get shot, man oh man is there some money being spent! And who makes that money? YOU? ME?
Nope, people like us have to pay the bill, we obtain a debt, our children pay on that "mortgage" for a house they will never own, and in the current fiscal year, the multi-nationals get the profit. Just a few more words and then, by cracky, I'll give you "the list".
Do you childishly believe that the current war, in Iraq, has and is currently being used to secure natural resources for your benefit? Is your last name Rockefeller, do you have a controlling interest in Exxon/Mobil????
Tell you what, tell me when you get your check from the "deal" ok?
Do you believe that this conflict sprang from the despotic treatment by a leader of a foreign country upon its indigenous peoples?
Like Mexico, Honduras, and Salvador are not both closer and in worse shape and literally right next door!
Right, that is why the U.S. is in Iraq and not Tibet, or Columbia, or some other place. It is not for guaranteeing an oil supply to some super-monopoly right?
No, of course not, it is because the United States protestant run government is going to convert the Iraqis into Methodists or 7Th day Adventists or something other than what they are! It has a religious basis right?
I am merely demonstrating that a conjured lie or rather series of lies are given as the basis of justification for armed interdiction. An exposure of a longstanding problem with integrity, or in reality the lack thereof, by public officials and special interests. And the corresponding infliction of peonage upon a nation's people for the profits of the interests.
All of these, additional objectives along the way, merely demonstrate, the 'tune". The name of the tune is "I have control of the wallet and you, and your children are going to pay for my line of bull crap and you will not lynch nor imprison nor execute my worthless lying lazy egotistical ass".
Those are the effects of that prolongation
"In the best of war situations, soldiers die in war. That’s the way it is. In the worst of war situations, civilians die in war. But I’m not sure I, or even you, understand the rest of that paragraph. The Dow measures the market, and it does so whether it’s going up or down, in time of war and in time of peace. “Perverse profit” is an interesting (and popular) Leftie, anti-Capitalist term, but until you get more specific I don’t know how to respond. I suppose you think that whoever fulfills a needed military contract should do so at a loss and go broke."
Vic; I was referring to Dow Chemical, not the index, they make most of the chemicals used in the explosives that make all those really neat pictures we see on the news. But looking at the various high's in the military sector would help you in identification. I was specifically referring to the following: Halliburton a subsidiary owned by Brown and Root A corporation, in which Lady Bird Johnson held a significant interest in during the Vietnam era. Exxon/Moblil British Petroleum Royal Dutch Shell and the other oil companies including Marathon General Dynamics Northop Grumman Colt Hummer division Springfield Arms virtually all the manufacturers of MRE's, the Bradley, etcetera including right down to the BDU's which they are wearing. That includes all the turbine manufacturers, all the electronics manufacturers for radios radar infrared sensors, smart bombs and the whole kit and caboodle.
That's who I was talking about Vic, the military industrial complex and the oil folks.
As to giving them a "fair rate of return" that is the very reason behind the "War Profits Tax". To deny them that opportunity.
The military objectives were achieved some time ago, that came out of the very horse's ass that's sits in the white house.
They cannot disengage without putting the troops in "harms way" right? Ok then in that case make it a zero profit scenario.
Watch them execute the quickest damn withdrawal from an urban battlefield ever executed on the planet the day after the profit goes out of the effort.
Make those companies and their stock holders, among which are congressmen, suffer in ways which don't even, and never will, compare to the pain and suffering and contribution, of a father seeing his son come home in either a box or without his legs, arms or in some way not in exactly the same healthy condition in which he left the country. A son without a father, a daughter without her dad, a young mother forced to move on in life without her spouse.
Yes, a War Profits Tax, a deterrent to the means a manner repetitively used in this country to bolster profits at the normal person's expense. The proceeds used to make sure those in Walter Reed and other locations and their families are cared for in a manner consistent with the supreme and costly sacrifice which they have personally made.
Cover any and all expenses except bonus's for the executives. Make it a zero rate of return, but no negative (loss) process. A true empowerment of the "we all are going to suffer in this approach", including the rich. A you "bet your butt, I want it over as soon as possible" financial incentive.
Because, then they can get back to business as usual. Meaning making a rate of return consistent with their pre-war income. No money in it, mo monetary motivation for it.
So why do it?, hit those low life piles of garbage in the one way, which will guarantee they get the message. The message "You ain't gonna make a dime out of some one else's sacrifice".
As far a "the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton", now lets make them no money contracts, I guarandammtee you Cheney would be moving his rectum at supersonic speed then.
I took one look at the pallets full of cash wrapped in shrink wrap and I was immediately looking for a rope. It is all of the ugly profiteering that was Vietnam's trademark all over again.
Those Iraqis would be left with the smoking ruins to deal with, true. Do you believe if they pull out in the next decade that it will be anything other then another Lebanon over there for some time. Unless of course, as she most probably will, Iran puts her hand into to it.
A stupid incompetent protestant executive, as always, has lit a match to the fuse, they (the military) best take the rest while they can get it. Things are going to get busy.
I hope you see my points now. If nothing else you see exactly to what I was referring .
Stephen G. Dees Sr.
Date: Thu May 10 2007 4:00 PM EST
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
My my.You seem to have caught the same bug as the SLIMC1 , in that you seem to be seeing a Military Industrial Complex under every bed in America. But your formula for argument, which seems to be
fails because all it produces is a conjecture with no evidence. If there is no real evidence, then it’s all just a lot of typical Leftist talking point blather.
Let me add a third column to your table with some brief responses to these items.
|Name of Incident or Step Taken||Type of Incident||My Response|
|the Sinking of the Maine (Spanish American War)||lie to start a fight||Might have been a mistake; extremely doubtful that it was a lie.|
|The denial of rubber and junk steel to Japan (WWII)||provocation||Denial of fuel for continuing conquest was a bad thing?|
|the fight domestically to not use the atom bomb (WWII)||prolongation||Nobody even knew about the bomb until after it went off.|
|The delay of information and reaction to Intel in Pearl Harbor (WWII)||lie to start a fight||What started the fight was the attack itself, not any communications about it.|
|The Yalu (Sp?) river arbitrary limitation of incursion (Korea)||hamstringing prolongation||That’s the issue the article was about; maybe you missed it.|
|The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Nam)||lie to start a fight||We should have continued our limited war while Hanoi continued their unlimited war, right?|
|The domino theory (Nam/S.E Asia)||lie to start a fight||Suggest How The Dominoes Fell by John and Mae Esterline.|
|The hands off Hanoi/Laos/Thailand/Cambodia policy (Nam..again)||hamstringing prolongation||Again, that’s what the article was against.|
|The backing of the Shah of Iran (Iranian embassy problem)||provocation||So, like we should have maybe toppled him?|
|The backing of Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines)||provocation||Exactly what kind of relations are we supposed to have with heads of state?|
|The backing of Noriega (Panama)||provocation||Provocation of whom?|
|The oil supply threat to U.S by Iraq taking Kuwait (Iraq)||lie to start a fight||Kuwait was an ally, just like South Vietnam; we did not and do not need their oil.|
|The WMD as justification of the second trip into Iraq||lie to start a fight||If that was a lie then it was instituted by the Presidents Clinton in 1998 with the official change of Iraqi regime policy based on Sadam’s WMD.|
|The training the Iraqi civilian police force while the U.S. contractors building the schools, Power and telecommunications back which were destroyed.||prolongation||You really think the sole purpose is prolongation?|
|The (king bush of beligerencia/constipationa) no time line to stop spending your money.||prolongation||I’m sure you would prefer to give the enemy a date certain when they could declare victory and begin the vengeful bloodbath.|
The simple fact of the matter is we get something less than 20% of our oil from the Middle East, and almost all of that is from Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait or Iraq or Iran. That a war could widen to involve Arabia and the whole world oil supply situation is not an insignificant thing; but to state that we went to war in Iraq 1 solely for oil, or for control of oil, is just a flagrant categorical lie. And to state that we went to war in Iraq 2 for control of oil, or just because President Bush lied about WMD is yet another flagrant categorical lie. I refer you to the Bush Lied People Died page for the long list of all the Democrats who harped and harped on Sadam’s WMD long before President Bush was President, or even on anyone’s radar screen. If you don’t believe that Al Queda was in Iraq before Iraq 2 then you haven’t been paying attention, and you haven’t read much on this site either.
Stephen, the state of a country’s economy before, during and after a war, no matter how consistent, does not automatically correlate to an economic motive for war, any more than numbers of TV antennas on rooftops correlates to cancer rates. I’m sure you would like for us to beat our swords into plowshares and be nice, and tax the Northrop and all the others out of existence in the rather naive belief that everybody else would just be nice and leave us alone. But the World just ain’t that nice. We were attacked in WWII. You can’t get around that. WTC 1 happened. So did WTC 2, on 9/11/01. So did a lot of other “incidents” that had nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and everything to do with ideology.
The Leftie bobble-headed idiot response to everything wrong in the world is to shout Big Oil! and Obscene Profits! to point an accusing finger at the un-definable They! who conspire to manipulate everything imaginable behind the scenes. But the price of gasoline is the same today in constant dollars as it was in the fifties. The price of a slice of apple pie in a restaurant, yesterday and today, contains more profit margin than a gallon of gas. So does the price of bottled water. Why aren’t you screaming about Big Water! being out to get us all?
I’m not sure where you’re going, or where you’re coming from with all this “negroid” business. For the record, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The Union was in jeopardy over the sole issue of slavery. So, bottom line, the war was fought to end slavery and to preserve the Union, and it did that. It was a very simple, black and white, moral issue. What’s the problem?
Black people are human beings, and they remain human beings whether anyone likes it or not. Condi Rice is the President’s choice for Secretary of State. Get over it. When she speaks to foreign dignitaries, she speaks for all of us. If any of them don’t like her, then they have a problem, not her, and not us. She is who they need to deal with if they want to deal with us. I know how Lefties really hate blacks while pretending to love them, but you don’t even pretend to give a hoot or care for them at all; it looks like you have a personal moral issue to deal with here. They are and they will remain your fellow Americans, whether you like it or not.
Why should you, who claim to despise quotas and political correctness, seek solely a pure white male without blemish to be Secretary of State, to the exclusion of all others? Who is he supposed to represent? Only the unblemished white males, or all of us? Maybe we could give him different masks to wear to different countries, to try to please everyone all the time?
Stephen, some of your notions are just plain whacko. The Iraqi people voted, multiple times. Have you forgotten all the purple fingers? Are you ready to just let that all go, and leave them all to the mercy of a powerful ideology of terror, war and world conquest?
Date: Fri May 11 2007 3:20 PM EST
From: Stepen George Dees Sr.
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
Right again Vic, evidently I don't stand alone on the oil issue, below this are some hyper-links from some other groups including a state Attorney General, who not only are consumed with the same "paranoia", as you allege, they are willing and are going to go into court, and make their point.
The links will allow you to understand that the conduct is neither national nor restricted to domestic borders. Are you going to attribute the legal case activity as being conjured? I see, you are not to be confused by the facts correct?
All these bad people, "leftists", as you conveniently pigeonhole them, are acting in reference to the very "delusions" which you obviously think I am suffering from. You obviously believe that both the Sherman and the Clayton Acts are both needless and unconstitutional. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Incidentally the present administration in California is some of your beloved fellow Republicans.
Oligopoly Watch BP already this year bought a 50% stake in the 3rd-largest Russian oil company, TNK. And Lukoil, the pre-merger #1 Russian firm is still available for ... www.oligopolywatch.com/2003/04/22.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
http://ag.ca.gov/antitrust/highlights.php Antitrust - Office of the Attorney General - California Dept. of ... The Office of the Attorney General announced in April 2006 that he will subpoena documents from all 21 California oil refineries, and obtain information from the chief executive officers and other relevant officials of oil companies operating in California, to determine whether the firms are profiteering and gouging consumers. Companies targeted by the subpoenas will include ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Shell, BP and others. The Attorney General also announced he has convened a multi-disciplinary task force from his antitrust, corporate responsibility, consumer law and criminal units to explore all potential law enforcement options in his ongoing investigation of California’s oil and gasoline market. In California – where seven oil companies control more than 95 percent of the state’s refining capacity – refiners’ margins historically have far outstripped the national average. So far in 2006, according to the California Energy Commission, the difference between the price oil companies pay for crude and the price they charge at the pump has spiraled upward by 130 percent. Meanwhile, the price for crude has risen only 14 percent.
www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf - Similar pages From Public Citizen a watch dog group you may be already aware of the effects of the recently accomplished mergers are:
"The largest five oil companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and RoyalDutch Shell,) now control: 14.2% of global production 48% of domestic oil production 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity 61.8% of retail gasoline market 21.3% of Natural Gas production"
I notice in your response to the charge that the U.S. does not do things at bayonet point that you did not concede the fact that they do. Should I send you eyeglasses, news clips, someone to read to you personally and slowly, or what Vic? You made the allegation, I gave you over 175 years of history to support my original point and you ignored and failed to retract and state your error!
If you are going to oppose anyone posting their views on your blog why not simply put a disclosure in at the beginning. Something like, this is my blog and only my point of view will be allowed.
It is o.k. Vic. It is your blog. You can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As to the various historical precedents provided to you by myself, I suggest perhaps some good outside reading and a little academic pursuit of facts might assist you. Start with something completely verifiable in terms of both the lies, the intent and the effect. Damn I gave you a bunch of them.
Your answers, specifically the one concerning the usage of the atomic bomb, being a secret until used, are simply untrue. If no one knew about it at all, how did it get used?
Your position of total and complete secrecy is denied by the existence and the formation of the development team at Los Alamos, and discussions, then secret and now declassified, which took place within the military community at the time the option on usage was first presented. Yes, there was a very strong opposition mounted to oppose its usage. I suggest you do some serious reading in that matter as well.
As the easiest one to verify (all you have to do is contact your Air Force "expert" and ask him), I suggest the Tonkin Gulf incident, your response was wholly and completely irrelevant. It was investigated by the military and others, and it served as the basis for the beginning of the military deployment. You won't have to take my word for it Vic, you just should get a little better acquainted with reality and the time line.
What do you need? I begin to suspect I should send you a red tipped cane.
You might better place your efforts to a more intelligent dispute area. Facts are Facts, you hate to admit it.
Yes, lies to start a fight, and lies to prolong the conflict, to make profit Vic.
Not nameless profiteers as you so euphemistically allude, in your mindless babbling response, each and every one of the board members are indeed identifiable, the lists of stockholders can be obtained. So are their Political Action Committees and so are the various congressmen who are recipient from the proceeds.
Those same and additional congressmen are identifiable by the voting records, and by their public statements, Vic. My point you say you have no names and it is because you must be either illiterate of simple obtuse and belligerent.
Oh they all talk the talk Vic, just like you. But when it comes to compensating for contribution they react in the typical protestant selfish self serving manner. What a crock of crap for a government.
And that goes for both sides Vic including your sanctimonious hypocritical republicans for whom,I assume, you have elected to carry the banner. Good doggie!!! Want a biscuit??? How about a nice big milk bone????
Relative to my commentary concerning "Saint Con. Rice", I have the following to offer you. I stated bozo had the right to name his ambassador. I said anybody, including a negroid female.
My point is he nominated someone where the currently most important issues, which he manufactured, were in a region of the world where they use a ranking system. And like most of the rest of the world, they have come to consider Negroid as a sub standard contact.
I am referring to a society which still uses Nubian females both as slaves and as a form of inexpensive sexual release mechanism. Just like in say oh how about 5th Ward in Atlanta Vic?
She comes out at the bottom of the pile in that regard. Again read and comprehend my words.
In his nomination, and appointment, did he or did he not, intentionally nominate someone, by race and by sex, that would be hard, if not impossible, for the other end of any conversation in that region to accept???
Yes, Vic it was a true Victory for Woman's lib and the Black Caucus and the rainbow coalition, all at once.
And you call me a "leftie"!
Incidentally, she got that job, at the expense of and in lieu of many better candidates, both republican and white who were better qualified for the job. Not me Vic. I had no damn desire for the job. Its like seeing a 4'3" wheelchair bond paraplegic get tapped to play basketball for the Nics, Vic. It does not affect me. I don't own the Nics, not into basketball so I hardly have to watch. But it does not mean I don't notice the anomaly in the selection.
A beautiful (See, Negroids can be republicans too!) political statement. See all nicey nice! EEO and Civil Rights and her PHD. My, My, My!
Now for a little matter of Reality 101 and consequences of action:
In relation to "Saint Con. Rice", I submit you have opened a line of examination in your response which must be fully and completely examined.
Who was the National Security Adviser at the time of the WTC situation? What was that person's constitutional responsibility in relation to that matter? Was the nation secure? I suggest, submitting, as evidence, two previously existing buildings and around 3000 body bags later, the answer is in the negative.
Pre WTC ACTION
Did a documentation trail exist which demonstrated "a clear and present danger" that had come into existence in a prior administration?
What, if any, procedures did the National Security Adviser implement upon the State Department, composed of virtually all Bush appointees at the effective levels, which safeguarded and secured the issuance of visas into this country, in response to the clear and present danger?
What recommendations were made concerning severely restricting further entry until and unless identities were verifiable?
Do you believe that a person who did nothing and allowed that to occur was then deserving of not only dismissal but also trial for criminal negligence?
Do you believe that Negroid political appointees should not be held accountable for their incompetence because their appoint to the position satisfied a political requirement?
Do you believe she should have been given the Secretary of State job as a reward for here performance in protecting the inhabitants? I don't. Except for the fact of confirmation of the Peter Principle her elevation has no merit whatsoever.
Did that incompetent have anything at all to do with further use of lack of probable cause warrant less search and seizure and invasion of privacy and delay and hampering of interstate commerce of Americans after she personally screwed up?
Did that incompetent either drive or assist the effort to deny the American public access to cuticle scissors in their checked baggage destined for locked cargo holds, on flights which both originated and terminated domestically?
Do you think she deserves another PhD for that, or will the existing one serve. I mean she is Negroid should she get even more recognition for that piece of administrative, managerial and governmental service.
If I sent you a bag of fecal matter and told you it was her's, would you keep it in a special place in your home Vic? Would you dedicate a bedroom to it? Would you establish a shrine? Or would you dispose of it just like I would? Nothing special just more negroid excrement.
She got job because of her What? What? What Vic? What makes her suitable for the job of Secretary of State except the fact that she is a Negroid female. Her and her PhD.?
I tell you Vic, if she was white, male, and in the military they would have strung that female EEO poster child up.
For historical precedence look at what happened to Admiral Kimmel after Pearl Harbor, the monetary amount of property damage and loss of life are approximately equal. His intelligence information was not as good as hers was.
Oh yeah, they made him Secretary of the Navy after that right Vic????? Come off it Vic, the reason behind Saint Condo's success is like most of the EEO wand recipients in the country its not their PHD, its they have an "MBA". Meaning "My Black ___" and that's it.
That fact and the corresponding any voicing about the truth of the emperor's new clothes by the gerbils of the society is where I find myself Vic. If you say something about either an incompetent negroid or the system, just like reconstruction that makes sure they get the job then for some reason the truth is just too too ugly. Get off it Vic. You act like the quota wand either doesn't exist or wasn't used in this case.
Try as an example the prospective nomination of Shirley Temple Black as a substitute Secretary of State. Saint Condo couldn't stand in the same room with her and she is by no means the only other better qualified candidate for the job which existed at the time. Hells bells just about any other person in retrospect, including you Vic could have done an equal or better job.
Are we clear as to where I come out on "Saint Condo" now?
While I have keyboard in hand, let me lay down another gauntlet for you, concerning "Ghenghis Con" Powell, he is the recipient of the very same process. The successes occurred in spite rather than because of his appearance, but Watts needed another "super star".
As to my reaction to all of it Vic. It makes me sick to my stomach, the entire damn, quota override line of manure.
The entire "everybody step back, or side ways" because somehow some way this segment of society deserves to be guaranteed in their upward mobility at every body else's expense and never ever fired for the gross incompetence.
That, combined with the process that when the quota magic wand is waved it means instantaneous conversion to Negroid brightest and best are somehow then imbued with all sorts of qualities to appease and impress America's ghetto faction. I'll tell you what my definition of healthy is Vic, when they pull that crap and the public says right another quota and treats the matter with the same respect such process deserves.
It's called lying Vic. It's called fraud. It is a travesty on all values of fair play and every other indicator of what is the normal American competitive spirit. That's where I come out Vic.
The courts and the government have intentionally confused and redefined "spirit" with "spear it".
The matter is a "coloring" of the truth Vic. The entire, damn charade of "not only did we Negroids "overcome" we are good at it and deserve everything we are getting" sham.
How's that for a "leftie" entitlement program Vic. Totally embraced by none other then your precious republicans?
If that is not leftie what is? Damn Vic the thing I hate most is the remote appearance I have to defend the other communists on the other side. I guarantee you I don't. Your problem appears to be one of blind sidedness or single eye vision you see only on the left not on the "right" as you so conveniently name them.
Only cowards, dying for the privilege of bowing to the quota oriented communists who use this method, like you, refuse to see the matter for what it is.
Now that is what I have to say concerning not only Saint Condo but all of that matter.
And I still maintain that her appointment guaranteed friction among the various nations with whom she is mostly involved. Wrong person for the job, end of statement.
She is a total and complete incompetent! I honestly believe the only reason bozo keeps here around is cause after her line of garbage makes his idiocy appear slightly more intelligent!
In relation to the blah blah blah comment, I see you move to speculative conjecture when confronted with historical fact. Another blind and refuse to see, another failure to recognize cause and effect and re incursion into repetitive behavior. Proven and provable which you also fail,intentionally to recognize. I am used to it.
Don't worry Vic. It still your blog site and you still get to not only express your opinion you get to defend your position, even if it's sort of brain dead.
Date: Mon May 14 2007 12:20 PM EST
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
You have run the gamut from Leftist rant to full blown Red screed, and you appear to be still picking up steam. I know you deny your Leftist philosophy, but it is, nevertheless, quite clear and obvious in your own wide open and absolutely consistent rants.
You are absolutely – as in 100% – consistent in your pure anti-Capitalist ranting, which is the kindest possible descriptive term for pro-Communist ranting.
You are absolutely – as in 100% – consistent in your Blame America First ranting, which is the kindest possible descriptive term for anti-American ranting.
You are absolutely – as in 100% – consistent in your pro-Caucasoid – anti-Negroid ranting, which is the kindest possible descriptive term for flat out racist bigotry.
(A word of warning: you have crossed the line in common civility, multiple times, and you have done it for the last time in this arena. If you expect your words to be published at all, then you had better tone it down considerably from you last submission. I have neither the time nor the inclination to cherry-pick in my editing of such voluminous material. In fact, I don’t edit at all, except for miss-spelling and such. You happen to be a very wordy fellow, and even reading this stuff can be pretty tiresome, and I am a busy man. If you can’t at least be civil, then find another outlet.)
I’m not saying that your are an evil Leftist, Stephen. What I’m saying is that you simply aren’t smart enough to even know what you are, which is, a Leftist, pure and simple. You have most likely been stewing in it all your life. You were educated by Leftist teachers and professors. You grew up listening to or watching Murrow, Huntly, Brinkley, Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Mudd, Severide, Sawyer and all the rest. You got your printed “news” from publications typified by the New York Times and Time magazine. You got your “depth” reporting from 60 minutes, 20-20 and Dateline. You got your “history” from NPR, NPB and the History Channel. And you really believe all that crap. You have been educated in what to think rather than how to think.
Re your typical Leftist “Big Oil” demonizing:Regarding your SLIMC1 supplied and slanted stories and links about Big Oil finally getting its comeuppance through media exposure, investigations and criminal charges – what else is new? That’s a nearly weekly event. You’re describing the method of preference for the Dems and other Leftists to attack American industry in particular and Capitalism in general. As pointed out in the Eco-Nazism page and elsewhere in this site, every single time the gas price goes up, Dems and journalists demand and get hearings and investigations and charges and court proceedings to “prove” once and for all that Big Oil is fixing prices. Number of times it’s been proved: None. Always the same charges; always the same result; just as predictable as the next sunrise.
Large corporations have in the past and will in the future be broken up by anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, existing and to come. But even when such an event occurs, it points less to any ongoing dark and hidden Capitalist-Exploiter plot than it does to large companies fiercely or even savagely competing for market share. Plus, there is the factor of legal exhaustion to consider. When the opposition owns the courts, there are times when, even when you are innocent, the lawyer’s best advice is to cop a plea and settle somehow, and get this horribly expensive and time consuming legal issue done with. Whole law firms made their sole income for years, for decades, from ongoing litigation such as that imposed against Ma Bell, until she finally said, O.K., let’s break up. And thundering herds of rich lawyers all said, “Huh?”
(Note that, before the break-up, America had the very best telephone communication system in the world, by a long shot. Today, some of us have and equally good communication system, and it’s getting better.)
And, regarding how such and so corporations own so much of world oil production and so much of domestic, and so much of shipping, and so much of refining capability – so what? Who should own it? Who invested in it or built it? I’m sure you would prefer to see it all nationalized and put into the hands of the Leviathan State, just as I’m sure you really think it would become cheaper and more efficiently produced, transported and refined just as soon as the government bureaucrats took over control of it all from Big Oil. But, what can I say? Leftist thinking is always clouded.Consensus does not equate to evidence, Stephen. Cap’n Planet Algore enjoys a huge consensus among all of TTRSTF4 that global warming is man-induced, and that he can put a stop to it. That doesn’t make it so. Material science is not a matter of consensus. Lemmings base their movement on consensus; real material science bases its movement on empiricism alone.
Re forcibly imposing our culture on other countries:
Forgive me for not responding to every sentence of your gigantic original rant; there’s just so much there, and it’s so tiresome to even read let alone respond to in a coherent way.
You seem to equate an American woman refusing to pretend to be a Moslem in a Moslem country, to a native woman being forced by an American at bayonet point to remove her veil and pretend to be a Christian. That’s just nuts.
But you go on to the “imposed” form of self-government. (Note the word self in that term.) Ask a contemporary German if he would prefer to go back to Nazism, or a contemporary Japanese if he would prefer to go back to Empire building, and then ask the rest of the world how they would feel about such a turn of events. The important thing is that we don’t rule in Germany, the Germans do. And it’s the same in Japan, and in the Philippines, and France, and in North Africa, and in Cuba, and every other foreign place American boots have ever trod. Your typically Leftist charge of Yankee Imperialism is not only confused, it is clearly a lie. We hold no empire. The only foreign soil we own is enough to burry our own dead, who paid the price for the freedom of the place.
I know how you Lefties despise representative government, so I fully understand your absolutely consistent opposition to the spread of Democracy.
Your other weird points:
Your precise words
indicated some sort of open political debate, which did not occur. Any secret debate must have happened very quickly and been of short duration, because just as soon as Big Boy was developed, it was used at Hiroshima, even as the second (Nagasaki) bomb was being worked on. After Nagasaki, we were at a point where we had no third bomb ready, so it’s a good thing the Japanese surrendered.
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it should be of more than passing interest that American soldiers were on the ground in South Vietnam under Eisenhower in 1956. Before he was assassinated, Kennedy upped the ante and sent in the first uniformed unit, with Eisenhower standing right beside him on the podium in support. Kennedy toured the bases, called us Freedom’s Frontiersmen and designated the Green Beret. Before he died, there were over 16,000 soldiers in South Vietnam, it was quite public, and the whole world knew that an anti-Communist war was going on there. Australian troops joined us in 1962, to be joined shortly thereafter by troops from New Zealand and South Korea, at the recommendation of the UN.
Amid this buildup, the Tonkin incident happened August 12 1964. There was indeed an attack by small North Vietnamese boats against American warships; the evidence, including photographic, is available and irrefutable. That night, there was a flurry of maneuvering and live firing at radar and other electronic detection “blips” that were mistaken to be another attack by more small boats. Investigation by officers on the ships involved later showed that no second attack really occurred that night. The fact that President Johnson described the attack and announced his buildup in the same speech does not imply any diabolical plot or any lie on his part. He didn’t need an incident to continue the buildup; pressure already existed to do that. He didn’t even have to make a speech about it, but he did.
I was on the ground in South Vietnam in ’65 and ’66, and I would hazard a guess that I would have been there in that time frame whether the Tonkin incident had ever happened or not. You’re just lost in your typically Leftist dirty Capitalist and Yankee Imperialist conspiracy theories.
A list of your favorite war “profiteers” and a list of board members and a list of quarterly statements and a list of contributors amounts to nothing more than another part of a typical Leftist diatribe with no evidence whatsoever to back up your conspiracy charge. Sorry, but you need to produce a little more than a long string of names to convince me that Lady Bird Johnson should have gone to prison for Capitalist Exploitation and Yankee Imperialism.I know, I know, you and the whole SLIMC1 knew and accurately predicted way ahead of time that people would hijack commercial jets and fly them into the World Trade Center. And anyone who didn’t know it ahead of time and with great precision should be stood against the wall shot. If only you and the SLIMC1 had been in charge, why, the whole thing wouldn’t have even happened. Right? Just for the sake of argument (and tiredness) I’ll give you that one.
And, of course, your seemingly blind hatred for Condi is abundantly clear. How can you even call yourself a Catholic? I know, you know all these better qualified people for her job, and, I know, she’s just another Negroid. And, I know, that “idiot” President Bush selected her solely and exclusively because of her Negroid-ness.
But here’s the bottom line. It ain’t up to a vote. He’s the President, not you. He judges competence of candidates for his cabinet, not you. It’s his choice, not yours. So, you’re just going to have to do your very best to deal with it as best you can and get over it. I know how hard that can be, but just make an effort, swallow hard and put it behind you. Bush won two elections. I know you would prefer that Cap’n Planet Algore, or our most self-decorated war hero Johnny Kerry were the President, but in this life you just don’t always get what you wish for.
And that’s the way it is.
Date: Thu Feb 05 04:21:36 2009
You mentioned that some are educated "what to think," in lieu of being educated in "how to think."
You might want to visit that subject at some length.
I [am] somewhat disappointed in your conclusion.
You went to some effort in pointing out the difficulties with "limited war doctrine." But you failed to articulate how America is to break free of that problematic constraint.
Perhaps you could post a piece on what a war would look like, were it not circumscribed by "limited war doctrine." Take as your point of departure 9/11, and tell us what you would have done in the aftermath.
Date: Fri Feb 06 06:56:05 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Subject: To Dan
Sorry to take so long, but I still have to go to work on occasion, and my typing these days is limited to my right hand and my left index finger. Left inside two fingers are still bound up in a giant splint for awhile.
First, regarding education.
I once planned a separate page just on the state of state education in this country, but I don’t know when or if that might happen, given what’s on my plate right now. Maybe it will be addressed in one of the future argument pages. I have hit it kind of hard already, although perhaps in a scattershot kind of way. Probably the best example in the website might be in the Marxism page and among its following comments.
See also the following links, although this is not an exhaustive list.
Let me try to summarize, or nutshell state education.
Government, at any level, but most particularly at the federal level, has no business whatsoever trying to educate the masses. That’s not what our government was instituted and constituted to do; formal education is far beyond the proper scope of government. Americans were better educated before government invaded the private sector and largely took over formative education. Note well that Lincoln was a lawyer, that he never went to law school, that he was largely self-educated, and that that was a fairly typical situation in that era.
Examination of letters home from soldiers in the field, including those written by soldiers from backwoods, farm and small town backgrounds, show a quite stunning decline in penmanship, vocabulary, command of language and the simple ability to fully communicate a thought. The same may be said for meticulously maintained hand-written store ledgers and counter clerk’s records. Comparing such records between, say, the Revolutionary War and World War II Makes the World War II era look to be populated largely by semi-literate dunces. No offense intended to the World War II generation; today’s generation is far worse educated than they were. It clearly gets worse over time. We are being dumbed-down.
The need for the government to indoctrinate the masses – note that Leftists no longer use the word indoctrinate but replace it with the word educate – did not originate with our founders and may not be found in any founding documents. It originated in Marx and Engle’s Communist Manifesto. Again, see the Marxism page for more details. Over time, American public school students are taught what to think, rather than how to think. Darwinism is a perfect example subject. With no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it, it is taught as dogma, and students are very nearly prohibited from thinking about it.
Second, describing an unlimited war, or, at least, one not so constrained by the limited war doctrine. The classic example, of course, would be World War II, in which we intended from the beginning and achieved in the end total victory and unconditional surrender of the opposing forces. Our forces went wherever they had to go and did whatever they had to do to achieve final victory. Since that horrific contest, we have learned much in how to reduce collateral damage and the suffering of innocents, but, as the article pointed out, speed, meaning speed to ultimate victory, becomes a dominant factor in an open society such as ours. For the longer any war goes on the more it will come to dominate our internal politics, increasing the likelihood of eventually losing the war politically rather than militarily.
To restate your request:
I will restrict my comments to the foreign soil part of the war, for sake of time, brevity and current knowledge. I think it would be hard to fault Bush on exactly how he prosecuted this war. The only thing I might have done differently might be that I would have been more fierce with, or even against, if need be, Pakistan. Of course, I don’t know what Bush knew, and I might be all wet there. My inclination would be to go after enemy command and control, constantly and relentlessly.
The use of special ops forces combined with air power in Afghanistan was simply brilliant. The unique political and geographic nature of the so-called autonomous areas bordering Pakistan were and remain problematic. I might not be smart enough to know how to crack that nut.
Opening the Iraq Theater of the war was perfectly justified by the previous administration as well as by circumstances on the ground, and I would have done it. Regime Change in Iraq was an official American foreign policy initiated by a forceful executive order of then President Clinton, because of the threat posed by Sadam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Hillary Clinton further warned not only about Sadam’s WMD, but also about his support for and involvement with Al Queda.Of course, Hillary and Billary would lie about it later, along with the rest of America’s political left, and claim that Bush was dreaming about Sadam’s WMD program, and that Al Queda was never in Iraq. But the record remains, and cannot be refuted. See the Bush Lied, People Died Leftist chant or mantra article for the details of what they all said before Bush went to war in Iraq. Then compare all those strong statements to what they all say about it today, and note the religious censorship by the SLIMC1 of all the earlier statements, and their over-emphasis of the latter.
Bush’s war policy was as correct as it could be. Given the unpredictable and unstable, to put it mildly, nature of war itself, and the rather unique nature of this one, it’s hard to see another path. I sense the need to broaden the scope of the attack to include the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that gave birth to Al Queda. And other groups that make no bones about seeking our destruction. I would be inclined to attack Iran, as a nation under Sharia, as an imminent threat to the whole region, immediately. Initial first-wave goal would be to destroy their nuclear capability and take out their entire sitting government. Iran, as is, is just plain dangerous.
Our enemies who come at us out of Islam have proved their intention and ability to kill just as many innocent American citizens as possible, even within our own borders. They attacked the World Trade Center at least twice; they sought to destroy our Pentagon, and either our White House or our Capital building, while indiscriminately killing just as many of our civilians as possible. They have attacked our ships in port in peacetime. They have bombed and taken over our embassies overseas. They will not relent of it.
The problem, again, as pointed out in the article, is time, and the ability of the Left to defeat any war effort through politics. We just might lose this war. I’m no big shot general, there’s a whole world of stuff out there that I don’t know, and I’m just a little shot; but you asked, and so I told you what I would do.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Wed Oct 08 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and nothing else.
These are the pages that explore the dichotomy between what Benjamin Franklin called "our American religion," which is General Christianity, and waging war.
Necessity of War pages
Whether man wants war or not, it is best to be prepared for war so long as evil exists, and evil will exist until Christ comes again. Even Heaven itself was not free of war.
Unavoidable existence of evil and the periodic Necessary War. So long as evil exists, necessary war will be fought, lest the Church and "Good" be extinguished on earth.
The Necessity of War: Is there such a thing? Do we ever need war? The Thinking Catholic looks at the seemingly perpetual argument over the very Necessity of War.
America's Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw. Since Korea, top-level American war strategy has been terribly flawed. (Note well that the Korean "war" is not even over with, and we are still there, at this late date.)
The Bush War Doctrine Revisited: a fresh look at our horrible situation. A reproduction of the "Bush War Doctrine Revisited" article and discussion points by David Yerushalmi; there is much food for thought here.
For God and Country – More Thoughts on America, and on National Existence. For God and Country: Comparisons of martyrdom and heroism, Sovereign Nationhood Vs. Internationalism, distinct people-hood Vs. the Global Village, and Godliness Vs. godlessness.
How Cronkite and the SLIMC lost the Vietnam War for America. With the whole SLIMC overwhelmingly Marxist, the Reds couldn't possibly loose politically and publicly that which they couldn't posssibly win militarily in the Vietnam war.
The End Game; Marxism & Islam join hands beneath the smoke of world chaos. This could be the end game, it could be the beginning of World War Three, or, just another global depression.
World Revolution returns with a vengeance: the rebirth of Marxism. Marxist world revolution returns, and faces far less opposition than in 1848 or the period between the Great Wars.
Again, it's Israel up against what appears to be the whole pea-picking world. Weak lip-service and pretty speeches aside, America is Israel's only real ally. And, as war is imposed upon her again, even many Americans are lukewarm in their support. Why?
The latest Israeli conflict is little different from all the previous ones. The first Israeli conflict with her neighbors, and every one since then, has been a simple matter of self defense.
From 1768 through 1776 the Brits vainly attempted gun control in the Colonies. The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
American Military Assault Weapons originally intended in the 2nd Amendment. To miss the point of the 2nd Amendment is to miss the point of the whole Constitution.
CCW Entrapment discusses the legal dangers of legal carrying. George Zimmerman is a victim of CCW Entrapment and Sponsored Racial Polarization.
Thoughts in remembrance of 09/11/2001, five years later. The changing shape of the war, the changing shape of the enemy.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the