Saddam Was Right

Saddam…..remember him?  He was the leader of Iraq that we hunted down and eventually hanged after a trial (if one could call it that…..he was always gonna die no matter what)….well it seems that he predicted the long and bloody stay for American troops……

His thoughts are documented here in an article in The American Conservative……with a little history thrown in for good measure……(did not want my readers to go with that shot of History)…….

In early 1917, during World War I, British general Sir Frederick Stanley Maude led an army of sixty thousand British and Indian soldiers from Basra up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to Baghdad. His enemy was a Turkish army, some twenty-five-thousand strong, defending a province of what was then a part of the decrepit Ottoman Empire. Maude was hardly a creative campaigner (his troops called him “systematic Joe”), but then his conquest of Mesopotamia wasn’t much of a fight. “The Turkish Army that was recently before us,” he reported to his superiors, “has ceased to exist as a fighting force owing to its casualties, prisoners, demoralization and the loss of a large proportion of its artillery and stores.” Maude led his army into Baghdad on a prancing horse on March 11 and then, in the finest British tradition, issued a proclamation: “We come as liberators, not occupiers,” it said. The Iraqis thought otherwise.

Many people predicted the problems the US would have in Iraq…..a shame it all fell on deaf ears.

Is The Red Sun Rampant Again?

To be truthful…I do not pay as much attention to Asia….I lost interest in the region once I left the military after Vietnam….then I started my education and the Middle East became my focus.  I do keep an eye on the developments especially when it may lead top some sort of armed conflict….which was one of my majors.

In this case and since we have just celebrated, not the best word for the occasion) the attack on Pearl Harbor 75 years ago I thought that an article I recently read might bring about a few comments….

Once we nuked the piss out of Japan and they surrendered aboard the USS Missouri they have been allowed to have a military force but for defense only….nothing that could appear to be an offensive force.

The problem there is…how do you define or draw a line on which force is which?

On another note…I read a couple of years ago that Japan has resended its self-defense call for its military…..

Source: Japan Ends Ban on Military Self-Defense | TIME

That one move got me to thinking about the future and then a report on CNN (not a fave of mine but will use the report anyway)……

Seventy-five years after Japan unleashed one of the most devastating naval attacks in history on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, the country has again established itself as one of the world’s foremost military powers, experts say.

The resurgence comes despite a constitution imposed by the United States after World War II that limited the country’s forces to defensive purposes only. In fact, analysts say, that defensive restriction has helped make Japan’s military stronger than it might have been without it.
“Pilot for pilot, ship for ship, Japan can stand toe to toe with anybody,” said John T. Kuehn, a professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
With all happening in the South Asian waters…is it possible that the military is once again becoming an important part of their society?  Are we rebuilding another future Empire of the Rising Sun?
I know….I know….they are our valued ally…..but keep in mind that Japan was a valued ally during World War One… take that for what it is worth.

Armed And Dangerous?

6 days and counting……..

Recently that mental midget Rep. Walsh from Illinois made the comment that if “Trump loses he will grab his musket”… he is either talking about a gun of some sort or his wanker….personally I think he is lacking the later….so a gun it is…..

Sadly there have been several such comments from those on the Right…..there was something I read that said that about half the people expect violence after the election…..

How long will it be before someone gets shot by a Donald Trump supporter in what the shooter may likely consider an act of patriotic civil disobedience? Or before someone uses a gun against right-wing vigilantes?

There is no shortage of evidence pointing toward some violent outburst surrounding the presidential election results. Reporters interviewing Trump supporters at rallies, national polls showing likely voters are expecting Election Day violence, consumer-trend tracking firms saying demand is rising for gun purchases, and rhetoric from the longstanding cadre of right-wing loudmouths, all suggest some type of ugly response.

“Sixteen percent of Americans plan on buying a gun as a result of the upcoming election,” said a press release Thursday from Elementum, “the real-time supply chain platform company, who polled 2,000 Americans from October 20-24 and found that among those living in the South, 19 percent will buy guns and among Gen Xers, the number is nearly 23 percent, especially among women, 24 percent.”

Source: As Election Day Nears, 1 in 6 Americans Say They’re Buying Guns and Half of Voters Expect Violence | Alternet

Am I saying I am expecting violence after the election?  NO I am NOT!

But there is a story circulating that there could be the possibility of violence….and to be fair there are those saying any such notion is just wrong…..

Is it possible that enraged Trump supporters, convinced the election has been stolen through a massive fraud, could rise up in an armed insurrection, splitting the country? Sure, just about anything is theoretically possible. But how many Americans really will wake up on Wednesday, November 9, ready to pick up their firearms and start a civil war? Almost certainly not enough to succeed. Winning a presidential election is difficult, but it’s still a lot easier than toppling the United States government.

Source: Trump Supporters’ ‘Armed Revolution’ Overhyped by Left-Wing Media | National Review

There is the tagline that this will be a “rigged” election which possibly lead some misguided person to resort to violence….but a large scale revolt….doubtful!


GOP Candidates Compete

The 2016 election is now in full swing….the candidate pool is diminishing and the rhetoric is heating up……

I have been watching and listening to the GOP candidates when they talk about what they would do to defend the US homeland……I understand the concern over the possibilities of some sort of uncoordinated attacks here and there…..but some of the rhetoric sounds a lot like some sort of crime….

You know of which I speak….especially from the so-called front runners…..statements like “make the sand glow”….”carpet bomb the Hell out of them”……even some more talk about extremes in torture….

Before someone tries to debate me on torture let me say what I always say…..”Try it…then we will talk”….until then you have nothing to say…..

The Republican candidates have seemingly been competing with one another over who would commit the gravest war crimes if elected. In recent months, one candidate or another has promised to waterboard, do a “helluva lot worse than waterboarding,” repopulate Guantánamo, engage in wars of aggressionkill families of suspected terrorists, and “carpet bomb” Middle Eastern countries until we find out if “sand can glow in the dark.”

Source: GOP Candidates Compete Over Who Will Commit Most War Crimes Once Elected

I know we Americans think we are above the law when we are “defending” ourselves…..but going to extremes is not defending in my opinion……

Ten reasons to vote against the use of military force | Fox News

We are waiting to see how the AUMF vote will go….the problem is that the Congress in their limited mental capacity can only do one thing at a time and right now they are all twitchy about Clinton’s e-mails……maybe after that investigation they will actually worry about something that matters…..the e-mails are just a diversion from doing real Congressional work.

I am opposed to the AUMF because I feel that a lot more thought ought to go into sending Americans to die than politicians are willing to give it…..

This article list some pretty good reasons for voting against the AUMF…..some I agree with and others not so much… for yourself and say what you think……


Ten reasons to vote against the use of military force | Fox News.

Reaction Is Not A War Strategy

Since the first executions by ISIS the US and its Coalition have done nothing but react to the situation……..there is very few times that I will agree with columnist Kathleen Parker….but a rare occasions I do and this is one of those times…..

After the Islamic State beheaded American James Foley, the US struck back with military action. Jordan and Egypt did the same when their own hostages were killed. Unfortunately, we can expect the same scene to be replayed again and again, writes Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post. ISIS is combining age-old atrocities with modern technology to spread its message of terror—and to lure the US and other nations to the battlefield. “These responses have a knee-jerk quality to them that speaks to concerns about a lack of strategy on our part, while enhancing the Islamic State’s recruitment and propaganda powers,” writes Parker.

Do these “fresh horrors” truly demand these predictable responses? she wonders. The US is now debating a new military authorization for the president, but the arguments about the parameters of this particular war are tantamount to “playing chess with polar bears,” writes Parker. Something has to change. “Our legislators and president will need more than noble intentions or good ol’ American values,” she writes. “They’ll need the wisdom of the ages—and a coalition of the civilized world.” Click for her full column.

Every thing we have done to day has been a reaction to counter ISIS……that is NOT a winning strategy….if we cannot get ahead of them and go on the offensive this will be a very long war…… will have NO end…..because we are fighting ideology…….and if kill every ISIS member the thought is out there and can be resurrected at will…….and it will be!

What will signal the defeat of ISIS?  What sign should we be looking for as the sign we have won?  A body count is NOT a good indication.  If it were then we won Vietnam by a wide margin.

What will the signal be?

Keep in mind that a knee jerk reaction is what got us to this place in time……and it appears that we have learned nothing from 30+ years of situations……

If you know the answer….then by all means share with the rest of us mere mortals.

5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s ISIS War by Peter Certo —

I have voiced my objection to the new AUMF that the prez is seeking approval of by the Congress…..

I feel that it will open a door that can never be shut……another analogy…opening a can of worms……

Soon, very soon, the debate on the AUMF will be all over the media…..,and as usual there will be an inordinate amount of misinformation surrounding the issue and in the end we will get the authorization and a whole new world of conflict will appear.

The big problem is that the public if not military connected, does not care or even interested in the outcome of this debate.


5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s ISIS War by Peter Certo —

‘US hasn’t learnt to fight unconventional warfare with unconventional means’ — RT Op-Edge

I have been bitching about this for decades….in today’s world the Napoleonic tactics are NO longer a viable use of the military……the days of D-Day are over…..only unconventional tactics will be successful……

A good article that makes some good points…read and comment…..I will wait!


‘US hasn’t learnt to fight unconventional warfare with unconventional means’ — RT Op-Edge.

Lone Wolf Terrorists Are Exceedingly Rare, So Why Does Everyone Keep Talking About Them? | Mother Jones

With the prez requesting the authorization to war on ISIS…..the media has trotted out tons of pundits to support the prez and his request…..I even heard one talk about it necessity because of the foreign fighters, some Americans, that could come home and in essence be a Lone Wolf terrorist……then I recalled an article I had read about a week ago on that subject……..


Lone Wolf Terrorists Are Exceedingly Rare, So Why Does Everyone Keep Talking About Them? | Mother Jones.

Should We Or Should We Not…..Arm Ukraine?

There is a debate raging in the halls of Congress, the White House and around the world…….should Ukraine been armed to meet the threats from Putin’s Russia.

The US is increasingly leaning towards the former………

Despite Vladimir Putin’s posturing for a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a senior US State Department official says Eastern Ukraine’s security position is “dire” and Russia is “failing miserably” in its peace efforts, CNN reports. The official spoke today on John Kerry’s plane as he headed to Kiev to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Speaking later on the ground, Kerry called on Russia to pull heavy weapons, equipment, and troops out of Ukraine and shut down the border in a solution to the crisis “that is staring everyone in the face.” French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are also set to arrive in Kiev today before heading to Russia tomorrow to meet with Putin, CNN notes.

Kerry has pledged $16.4 million in new humanitarian aid to Ukraine designed to “help alleviate the suffering of people in conflict-affected areas,” a State Department statement issued today said. Meanwhile, NATO is refining its strategy as well. Even though Ukraine isn’t a member, the organization says it “strongly supports” the beleaguered country and would continue to offer political and practical assistance, as per CNN. In discussion now are plans to set up dedicated NATO command centers in six member nations, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland. These units would help with NATO training in these countries and make it easier to quickly deploy troops. Meanwhile, the US is mulling whether to send defensive “lethal aid” such as anti-armor missiles to Ukrainian troops to help them fight pro-Russia rebels.

This is a tricky question and even trickier decision that is being made……my problem is one thing that the prez had to say about the arming debate…..

President Obama left little doubt that he intends to eventually start providing weaponry to the Ukrainian military for its civil war, saying only that he needs to be certain it is “used properly.

Okay first of all what does the term “used properly” actually mean?  It has been said that these will be defensive weapons……pause here for thought……what is the difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive one?  And just who makes that decision?

This is the same type of rhetoric that we always get from the government……but the question remains….should we or should we not arm Ukraine?

Personally I say NO……it will not make the situation any less explosive.  If anything will lead to an escalation by Putin.  Even with a massive influx of weapons from NATO will not make Ukraine safer and if push comes to shove they will not be capable of fending off a Russian onslaught….

This tactic will not work….it will be a waste of time and the possibility of it getting worse instead of better is a real threat.

Arms are not the answer…..however diplomacy may prove a better weapon….too bad it is seldom tried before someone pulls the trigger.

The only people that will benefit from the massive weapons that could be sent to Ukraine is the ones that ALWAYS make out in these situations…..the defense contractors.

Any thoughts from my readers?