Iraq is kicking American combat troops out of Iraq, at Iran’s behest, just as the U.S. leaves Afghanistan. We are now 1-3-1 in major conflicts since 1945. Our enemies’ successful strategy appears to be to attack us from third-country sanctuaries and bleed our troops until domestic support for the war collapses.
But that is not all.
One exception proves the rule. In the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush used overwhelming force and attacked into Iraq to liberate Kuwait. He achieved his limited goal in just six weeks, while maintaining popular support.
The one war the US did win, they had a clear and precise objection. None of the other wars did.
Breaching our NATO commitment to mutual self-defense in Europe, or failing to defend Taiwan against China, would end the American Century with a whimper. Totalitarians in Beijing would assume the mantle of world leadership. Chinese leader Xi Jinping would begin to shape our children’s futures, limiting their economic prospects – and given Han Chinese hypersensitivity to criticism and the globalization of communications, entertainment and media, likely their free expression as well.
And what a horrible prospect that is. Worse that so many are calling for communism.
Yet, American voters have grown more sensitive to casualties over the past 80 years. This, despite our population growth from 133 million to 333 million, the end of conscription, and an ever-smaller volunteer force. In World War II we suffered 405,399 dead in four years; Korea, 36,515 in three years; Vietnam, 58,209 mostly within seven years; and Afghanistan and Iraq together, 7,056 in 20 years. It hasn’t gotten any harder, or easier, to lose a loved one.
Casualties in a great-power conflict might dwarf those since 9/11. If a conflict over Taiwan devolved into a fleet engagement between the U.S. and China, losses could be particularly severe. For example, the Royal Navy had 6,092 sailors killed in under two days in World War I’s Battle of Jutland. Would America in 2021 bear such losses?
The fight for democracy, human rights, prosperity, freedoms, etc.
The answers were clearly given by all the veterans (past and current), from WWI, to WWII, to the Gulf War, it is a resounding YES!
Those that care NOT for democracy, human rights, prosperity, freedoms, etc. are NOT the ones signing up to server in the western armed forces.
They, like the movie “Revenge of the Sith”, would rather cheer for order at the loss of everything they have.
It also does not help (I think I mentioned it in another topic), the US has not updated/revised their war strategies in the last 30+ years. The enemies of western civilizations have had 30+ years to devise ways to take the west down. That military exercise (which the US lost using its current MO), is a prime example the US is NOT ready for 22nd Century warfare against an near-equal opponent.
So yes. IMO the enemies HAVE found a weakness and are actively exploiting it to their benefits.
Approximately 75 minutes. This was given over 50 years ago.
The cancer of communism has been infecting western civilization and the US since before that.
Well worth the watch/listen.
The only war we actually fought since WW2 was the Gulf War where we took the gloves off and took out Saddam (and we probably should not have done that either). Everything else were attempts at quelling terrorism via BS rules that left us emasculated.
My point is when we bring it we win hands down. When we play around and do that police action crap and we just manage a situation we lose badly because no one can win in that situation.
However I am somewhat of an isolationist when it comes to war. I believe we should not do anything anywhere until someone f’s with us and at which point you make them very very very sorry to the point where anyone else thinking of doing such a thing thinks twice. Which is the point. That my political stance.
Tavistock proved over and over again, that when a large group is successfully profiled, it can be subjected to “inner directional conditioning” in just about every aspect of social and political life.
An integral part of Tavistock’s mass mind control experiments in the U.S., which have been going on since 1946, poll taking-opinion making has been by far it’s most successful undertakings. America was whipsawed and did not know it.
Just to prove the success of his techniques, Reese got Tavistock to test a large group of people on a conspiracy- related subject. It turned out that 97.6 percent of those who were questioned utterly rejected the idea that an overall conspiracy exists. How much less then would our people believe that they have been under direct attack by Tavistock for the past 56 years? We have radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who constantly tell audiences that there is no conspiracy.
How many people would believe that for the past 56 years, Tavistock has been sending an invisible army of shock troops, into every hamlet, village, town and city across this nation? The task of the invisible army is to infiltrate, tamper with, and modify collective social behavior, by means of “inner directional conditioning.”
The Reese “invisible army” is made up of real professionals who know their job and are dedicated to the task they were commissioned to do. They are found today in the halls of justice, police, churches, school boards, sports bodies, newspapers, television studios, government advisory boards, town councils, state legislatures, and are legion in Washington. They run for every office from county councilor to sheriff to judge, from school board member to city councilman, and even, for the office of the President of the United States of America. How this works was explained by John Rawlings Reese, back in 1954:
“Their job is to apply the advanced techniques of psychological warfare as we know them to whole population groups that will grow ever larger, so that whole populations may be more easily controlled. In a world driven completely mad, groups of Tavistock psychologists linked to each other, capable of influencing the political and governmental field must be arbiters, the power cabal.”
Will this frank confession convince conspiracy skeptics? Probably not, as it is doubtful whether such closed minds could have any real knowledge of these things. Such information is wasted on radio “talking heads.”…