unreal....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6fD9...
Kissinger is a sociopath and he attended dozens of these ceremonies.

the one thing that stayed with me on my 5 hour flight sitting next to Henry Kissinger was his lack of remorse for the murder of 58,000+ americans in Vietnam...he claimed we had to do it to prove to the communists that we were willing to kill as many americans as necessary to prove our determination to the communists...

Let's see. Afghanistan has been invaded several times beginning with Attila the Hun. The Chinese owned it for a time as well before they just gave the area up as unproductive. More recently, the Soviet Union invaded it and we assisted the Taliban fighters in resisting. The Soviets eventually gave up as there really isn't anything there in Afghanistan. Then the Taliban took out the standard government - an event which was marked by their destruction of several unique Buddha statues. After 9/11, they were judged to be co-conspirators when they hid Osama Bin Laden for a time (as well as other notable terrorists) so the US sent in their forces to overthrow the Taliban and replace it with a "democratically"-elected representative government. But as the US found out, Islam doesn't do "democratic" and Kharzai turned out to be really corrupt. Hmmm. Underlying problem US intervention or ideology? Ideology.

Libya. Let's see. You had a military regime leftover from WW II when the Italians invaded that bombed a civilian passenger plane (Lockerbie) and who in turn was utterly crushed by Reagan. We should have left Qaddafi alone. This one can absolutely be chalked up to unnecessary intervention by an utterly incompetent - or Islamic as one sees fit - US President (Obama). Overthrowing the military regime led to the ideological base taking over and turning that country into a hotbed for Islamic terrorists. Again, ideology comes to the forefront.

Syria. Syria has a few more issues, but the US never effected regime change there, and the "rebellion" we "fomented" turned out to be the Islamic radicals known as Al Qaeda. I'm not saying Bashir Assad is a great guy, but the Russians had this one right as opposed to - again - our incompetent Barack Hussein Obama.

"What has the US accomplished by supporting autocratic, corrupt and repressive governments in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States?"

So first you complain when we intercede and now you complain because we don't overthrow some of the governments? Pick a foreign policy strategy and stick with it.

"What would be accomplished were we to ... invade Iran?"

Here at least we have both a military and a moral case. Obama missed a huge chance during the student uprising - which without Western recognition was summarily and brutally suppressed. Iran is a known sponsor of terror around the globe and is a belligerent State currently pursuing the use of nuclear weapons against "Zionist" regimes. And believe it or not, they consider Israel a vassal State to the United States. We are the "Great Satan". I'm not arguing that we should invade, but I don't think twenty years will pass without a major armed conflict with these ideologically-driven lunatics. (And lest we forget, we're going to be fighting ourselves thanks again to President Obama's release of billions of dollars of quarantined funds.) Even other Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia support military action against Iran because Iran even threatens their well-being with their missile batteries along the coast which can shut down all shipping in the Persian Gulf.

"That's an easy and woefully wrong cop out to say that the problems of the Middle East all stem from the violent tenets of the Islamic religion"

If one studies the Qu'ran and what it advocates, one finds that the "radicalism" isn't really radical at all - it's actually mainstream Islamic doctrine. And having had personal conversations with an ex-PLO member who admitted this fact, I'll just tell you that no, it really isn't a cop out at all - it's recognition of reality for these people. They teach it to their children and their children grow up learning to hate and accepting that violence against non-believers is part of life. It is a mindset most Westerners simply are in denial about. Having lived in the region for two years, talked with many people about ideology - especially refugees but also some candid believers - I speak from personal experience in this area.

"The Middle East 16 years after 9/11 looks very much like Vietnam after the US's intervention there..."

And I agree, but the problems are very different. In Vietnam, we were fighting an invading foreign force which was pushing an ideology backed by coercive force. In Vietnam, the people themselves were basically peaceful and wanted to be left alone. They appealed to the US for protection and the US bungled its response. In Iraq, we were intervening in a civil war between two factions of a violent ideology. Iraq was majority Shiite (like neighboring Iran) but was being run by the Sunni. And Iraq was only a few years removed from having its military dictator deposed and executed (justifiably) who had waged a twenty-year-long war against Iran before turning to invade neighbor Kuwait. The biggest foreign policy mistake we made was in trying to mix two opposing ideologies into their new government: Islam and natural law. They are opposing ideologies like oil and water.

The truth is that you are trying to pin the problems caused by the ideology of Islam on the US and that conclusion belies your ignorance of the region and its history. I'm not saying that US foreign policy decisions have been perfect, but to attribute the violence in the region to them is giving the US more power than it really has and totally ignoring the violent philosophy which has dominated that region for 1200+ years.

Your economic pieces have some great insights. Your foreign policy understanding, unfortunately, is neither astute nor accurate. I'd strongly recommend more study.

Just watched this today and this scene seemed relevant:
http://www.ohsorare.com/WhenHonorWas Earned.avi

Another interesting essay! Your premise is correct to a certain extent. The problem with governments is that they choose their adversaries to advance the military industrial complex ( as stated by D, Eisenhower). World War 2 had to participated in because the Nazi's would have overwhelmed Europe and the US would have become a target, The Nazi's did detonate a tactical size nuke towards the end of the war. Japanese military did attack Pearl Harbor despite the circumstantial proof that FDR knew the attack was going to happen.
I'm hoping that if N. Korean crazy-man launches a missile towards the US that it will be shot down; will be the end of it? Of course there is the scenario that when the missile is on the way Kimmy boy could launch a assault on the DMZ. Then what happens?
Look what just happen in the Senate these politicians went against the people of the US by plunging the world into another Cold War. Russia, Russia, Russia that's all that these idiots have on their/in their brains. If we had a trade program with Russia then they would be more at our mercy. They need us more than we need them, Besides the US government has to stop playing politics with our country's security Cyber-wise and other.

I think the state governments might even have to compete with each other to attract residents. What a novel idea. They could contract with a company to provide for common defense, a bank to provide a common currency, etc.

If the states split then there would be no reason for the fed...funny, they couldn't even "rule" themselves...they'd all starve!

Islam, from its founding in the 7th century, has spread by the force of violence almost non-stop. The periods of peace have always followed a devastating defeat by opposition forces, but those periods have never been anything but a time for the violent elements of the faith to regroup for the next push.

We gave the Taliban government of Afghanistan a chance to hand over the perpetrators of 9/11. They refused, and we decided to act to stop the terrorists. The invasion was necessary. The assault on Libya was foolish and unnecessary, particularly when negotiations between the government and opposition were making progress. Syria's rebellion is a self-inflicted wound, and unfortunate, since it's one country where the various sects of Islam had experienced relative comity alongside Christians.

Our intervention in the Middle East has prevented more large scale attacks like 9/11, with the terrorists reduced to small attacks by individuals. You may disagree with that statement, but your claim that nothing we've done has made us safer is without foundation. OBL had more big plans, including biological and chemical attacks that could have killed more thousands of Americans.

Labels mean little. The names Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra are just titles for what has existed in the Muslim ummah since the beginning, fanatic violent believers. We didn't create them, and doing nothing in the hope we can live in peace with them hasn't worked since the theocracy's founding. About 10% of the Muslim faithful share the most extreme beliefs of the faith, which means there are only about 120 million Muslims that think all infidels should die. We are fortunate, for now, that most of these are ignorant and primitive, without the means to carry out their goals.

I wonder what would happen if the states were free to split off if they didn’t like an oppressive federal government. Maybe that would force that very federal government to be more rational and serve the states better

You remind me why old dino is concealed carry.

Spare me your pity.

Simple...get everyone on the planet, including governments, the worst in society and the least qualified, to respect Property!..the basic unit of which is the individual.

Can't be done you say?..that's why, "We the People" fight, regardless of what the Kakistcracy's want.

And Yes! it's a hard thing for us to do and live with...they call us... Conscious Humans.

Who invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq and changed their regimes, and fomented rebellions in Libya and Syria for the same purpose? No denying that Middle Eastern history is sectarian and violent (I never attributed "live and let live" to Islam), but what has the US accomplished there by choosing sides, militarily intervening, and changing those regimes? What has the US accomplished by supporting autocratic, corrupt and repressive governments in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States? What would be accomplished were we to fulfill the wishes of those countries, Isreal, and many neoconservatives, and invade Iran?

That's an easy and woefully wrong cop out to say that the problems of the Middle East all stem from the violent tenets of the Islamic religion, but ignore the fact that we are over there, making war, have engaged in regime change, have failed completely in the stated goal of instituting democracy in the Middle East, and have killed, wounded, and displaced millions of people who had no connection at all to terrorism. The Middle East 16 years after 9/11 looks very much like Vietnam after the US's intervention there, and there are few Muslims in Vietnam. Nothing we have done in the Middle East since 9/11 has enhanced the safety of anyone living in the US, and accounting for the blowback of terrorism and refugee flows, it has in fact gone the other way. We have turned al-Qaeda from a few hundred jihadists in Afghanistan's caves into a potent force throughout the Middle East and North Africa. If any good had come of our interventions since 9/11 your argument would make some sense, but nothing has so they don't

We would of then...been no better than Europe and not exceptional at all...can you imagine all the walls?

Nice quote. -also- the muslims intend the same on every other country they are force upon by those too, that wish to take down the local cultures.
Can you say...Kakistocracy?

Thanks.

That's the Prime Law, Dino. Article 1, No one has the right to mess with you...article two, if they do, you wipe em out! Article 3, no exceptions to articles 1 or 2.

There are portions of your article which are interesting - others which are nothing more than false attribution. The US is not responsible for the aggression in the Middle East nor is it even primarily responsible for the millions of displaced nor the flattened towns and I challenge you to find support for such a position.

Here is the real problem: Islam. It is a philosophy of coercion and aggression and has been since its inception somewhere around the eighth century AD. Islam has been at war nearly perpetually since that time, conquering Bedouins, Christians, Agnostics, sheikhs and sultans with no abandon and no mercy. After the schism of leadership which resulted in the sects of Shia and Sunni, they have as often been at war with themselves as they have outside forces, and today is no exception. One need only turn to the Iran-Iraq War to see the bloody results of nearly twenty years of war - including chemical attacks on civilians. Or one can view the carnage which resulted when the Shia of Iran overthrew the Sunni leadership in Iraq following the US invasion and occupation. Now we have a primarily religious group rather than a territorial group (ISIS/ISIL) running around causing havoc - albeit with the full support of both Iran and Syria. It should also be noted that of the FBI's terrorism watch list, more than 90% of the top 100 are Islamic groups, and with the peaceful disbanding of the IRA more than a decade ago, the entire top 10 holds Islamic ties.

The failure in this article is the attribution of the "live and let live" mantra to Islam. It ignores the 1300 years of bloody history of this philosophy and attempts to blame other parties - namely the United States - for their militarism. This is patently false. Islam has always been militaristic because it is a vital part of their philosophy. It is one of the great failures of policy to think that their nations have any desire for negotiated settlements and peace talks such as those hosted by various presidents from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton. There will be no peace in the Middle East until Islam no longer exists - or no other philosophy does. One has only to look at the late Yassar Arafat's actions following the Oslo Peace Accords to see that Islam doesn't bargain in good faith - something the Israelis can attest to all too readily.

Several of the author's other articles have been stirring and poignant. This one just leaves me shaking my head at the author's ignorance.

I didn't know that either, but it rings true. He was from KY and had relatives on both sides of the war, so he was in a position more than other people to bring sides together. He was also an average American with no wealth who taught himself by a little schooling that his parents paid for and a lot of reading on his own. In some ways I have an idealized image of him as what an American should be, so I like the notion that he could have handled rebuilding the South better.

"How does evil become banal? Practice, practice, practice. Killing becomes the routine, what the government does. Like many bloodthirsty, tyrannical regimes the US government has warmed up on foreigners. However, the functionaries and politicians who now push the Kill the Enemy button also push the Domestic Surveillance button. They will not hesitate to push the Enemies of the State, Mass Detention, Concentration Camp, and Execution buttons when the time is right. Rotten government, like rotten fruit, gets more rotten, until ..."

The devisive result of the two parties differences
will make the imprisonment of US citizens ok by about half the population.

The demise of a nation is a function of the demise of its values. 100 years ago, immigrants came to the US to become American, adopt American values and better themselves with such. Muslim migration is not intended to, and never will, adopt American values. Islam is intent on replacing American (and all other) values.

As AR might note, "Be aware when you are practicing sanction of the victim."

The Saudis felt that Saddam's next move after Kuwait was going to be into their territory, so who do you suppose was better at determining his intentions? They also asked us not to leave, since after the first Gulf war, Saddam was still in power, and they did not trust him. We did not occupy or enter the holy cities. Civilized people engage in dialogue, which OBL never did concerning his objections to our presence. We only heard of his anger over our presence when he announced his justification for the slaughter of 3,000 innocent people. People who twist themselves into a knot justifying the actions of a sociopathic barbarian are objects to be pitied.

Great points! True ones, as well. I would offer the opinion that we kept the things most prized, a natural instinct for independence - and raw American defiance. While the 19th century north showed their true selves as authoritarians, bullies and thieves - and in our time, communists, we have refused to change our ways, our manners and our way of life simply because we were whipped. A look at a state by state migration chart proves people move to Liberty - some because they have voted for policies that eventually drove them South. ( and we know who you are)

The siren song of war has lured many millions more into slaughter than the supposed siren song of pacifism.

We got 9/11 because contrary to our assurances to the Saudi Arabian government, we did not disband our "temporary" military bases there after the first Iraq war and they became permanent. Osama bin Laden, formerly our ally in Afghanistan, was incensed by infidel military bases in Islam's holy land and became our enemy. And Saddam never threatened Islamic holy cities in Saudi Arabia, so we did nor prevent their seizure or destruction. All of which undercuts your neocon talking points, or propaganda.