Why we keep losing wars...

Read this.


March 28, 2007 - lyndon larouche.


In the U.S.A.'s foolish plunge into an 1964-1972 Indo-China war, the U.S. forces won the battles, but lost the war for no more relevant reason than choosing that war. The war in Iraq which Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher foisted upon a credulous President George H.W. Bush, was much less a disaster, only because George H.W. Bush was wisely advised not to go deeper into Iraq. But, after the end of that war, Europe and the U.S.A. (both) promptly entered and lost the Balkan Wars which never should have been started. The new, spreading war in Southwest Asia, into which the British Blair government has lured such among its silly dupes as President Bush and its stooge Vice-President Cheney, has already been the worst folly of all, but is about to become much worse unless Cheney is quickly expelled from office.
This fact is underlined by reading of the meticulous March 26, 2007 After-Action Report by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (ret). To sum up the essence of his report, the U.S. military forces are winning the battles, but our nation is being successfully destroyed by the criminality of London's Blair, a Blair Fabian government which has been leading Vice-President Cheney, and sundry other accomplices by their silly noses, leading our republic for "just one more step into the global strategic quicksand," into its imminently threatened self-destruction in the same fashion that London lured Napoleon Bonaparte into the guerrilla warfare trap in Spain.
Some of us are reminded of a grim joke, the Marine Colonel who led his regiment in the successful frontal attack on an opposing machine-gun nest, but lost the troops of his regiment in the attempt. The question asked of that colonel afterward, was: "Why didn't you flank them?" That colonel was a genius, compared with the Bush Administration's strategic planners of today.
The question the foolish U.S. Senators, and others, should be asking themselves, is: "Who is it who has virtually drugged our Congress, again and again, into battles which our forces win abroad, but lose at home?"
Who were the confounded idiots in the U.S. Senate, and elsewhere, who cheered for shutting down the U.S. economy permanently, at the behest of British agent Al Gore, all for the sake of abandoning our republic's sovereignty, to make us all slaves of a new world-empire, the new Tower of Babel called "globalization"?
Who are the idiots who are prepared to run for President of the U.S.A. under an alliance with those carrying that banner of treason which the Prince of Wales' patsy, and long-standing bearer of a deeply embedded family racist tradition; that of the Prince of Wales' intimate crony, the half-witted, but vicious, and babbling Malthusian Al Gore, whose lying "Global Warming" swindle is pushing all available, campus and other idiots among us, into bringing about the national suicide of the U.S. republic? That is the suicide which is being pushed by that Middlebury Monster and former associate of Chile's Pinochet and George Shultz, Felix Rohatyn.
The great lesson from the history of strategy since Greece was destroyed by its victory in the Peloponnesian War, is that the dangerously evil people in world history are those, like the British Empire, who have learned to win wars by getting other people to destroy themselves in fighting the kinds of wars designed to effect the mutual ruin of the combatants, such as our foolish plunge into the Indo-China war, the Balkan wars, and the Southwest Asia warfare unleashed by Britain's favorite, Henry A. Kissinger, in Lebanon, in April 1975, a war still raging today.
We do not need new enemies in Southwest Asia, when we have more than enough high-ranking scoundrels and fools successfully misleading us, in high-ranking circles here at home.
The great strategic issue facing the U.S.A., as the world as a whole today, is the conflict between the patriots, and those who defiled the U.S. Constitution on which our sovereignty is based, for foreign alliances and wars in complicity with those who wish to rid us of our sovereignty in favor of a global "Tower of Babel," and degrade us from a science-driven economy of progress, into a kind of people who self-respecting cave-men, and perhaps even monkeys, would justly regard with disgust.

 

You need look no farther than the author. LaRouche is a former Marxist who has never found a conspiracy theory that he didn't hop on the bandwagon of.

This guy's a joke.

 

The U.S. will never lose a war. We might find wars that we determine are no longer worth fighting and withdraw, but the U.S. military will never surrender, nor will a successful invasion of our homeland ever be completed.

 

Delusional patriotism at its finest. America has lost wars, not because they no longer felt it "worthy," but because they surrendered. Simple. And it will happen again.

 

Like what?

And it will never happen "again". If America is truly in danger of losing a war and there's a possibility of our country being invaded, taken over, or compromised, the world will end. And this is not "delusional patriotism". We would destroy the world.

In the 1960s, we had enough nukes to destroy the world...and then do it 21 more times. It's not a joke.

 

Destroy the world? Are you joking? This isn't the '60s anymore... You're forgetting OTHER countries, who would sure as anything gang up and nuke your asses before you had a chance to launch a missile, because they all share at least one thing in common... their hatred for the U.S.A. You're completely exxagerating things.

 

You're clueless.

 

Well, that was a good try.

 

To RadicalActor

First of all, I would like to touch the subject of credibility. In order for one to be considered credible when submitting an analytical essay is to not mistake opinion with slander. I was eager to read this post; it was the first post that caught my attention since I signed up for the board, but was disheartened to read the continuous insults that blighted the piece that I pretty much zoned out and did not take it that serious. Throwing out somewhat accurate (I use that lightly) historical information to use as comparison to the downfall of the U.S. was a little too far fetching, and by no means adds credibility, since most of the time it was out of context. I could go into more detail about that, but I'm too lazy and have dry cleaning to pick up. Continue down for more commentary.

(WTF??)

First of all, I have to say that I agree with you about globalization being bad for the U.S., in respects that we are loosing our individuality as a nation, and a super power. England was officially at war with Napoleon and France, they had every right to trap them into a war, but if I remember correctly, the French learned the skills of guerilla warfare from the Native Americans, see French-Indian War, Wikipedia it.

Do I really need to say the obvious here? The situation was different, and looking to much to history and attempting to coincide it with what is current does not add up, no matter how much you put the pieces together. History is to LEARN the past, not to change the future. It is a little more complicated than that

Foolish Senators? There is a major problem with who and how the upper government is ran...but put the blame where it is needed most for this. The citizens who chose not to vote or don't think before they vote. Voter turnout is at the lowest it has ever been. Why? Because people are more worried about losing their jobs across seas, paying mortgages, car notes and making sure they still have their health insurance. Now, about the Tower of Babel, truly an interesting way to make this whole situation biblical, but, from my opinion, the story needs to be re read and applied slightly differently here to get your point across. Though I do agree that we are somewhat owned by globalization, it is by far more the problem of us electing corporate interested politicians to office. Corporate America is what's really in charge.

Granted, all of the potential nominees for President are not exactly what this country needs, at to some degree may be considered inept, comparing Gore though to a Crony of Britain is a bit far fetched. I really think that Al Gore's campaign for global warming comes from a guy who needs to stay in the media. The Earth is still coming out of the Ice Age, it is part of a cycle that has been going on since before mammals walked the Earth. Pangea will repeat eventually, the cold will come back. There is no downside to living better, being considerate of one aspect, i.e. the environment eventually leads to better consideration of ones neighbor, and we could use that, just not the hate filled anger from extremists.

The only war that I can think of that we failed, was before we were even a nation, the French-Indian War, or the 7 year war where we fought for the British over Canadian territory, and the French perfected the guerilla warfare tactic through the Native Americans...The British Empire has been in existence for nearly 2 thousands years. Unfortunately the empire is a sister country to us, they have also been dragged into some of our hostilities with other countries, i.e. France, and Spain when they chose to boycott American products, then England began boarding our ships and kidnapping our men to fight for the British against France. That was also the time of our first Great Depression under Thomas Jefferson. The British Empire has some respect from me, the main reason why is because they keep themselves separate and insist on not conforming to the Euro, or dismantling their royalty succession. They have kept their individuality. That is what gives them strength as a nation. We need take some examples from them. Hitler was evil, he blatantly lied to the League of Nations about producing arms, then shortly after, decided to invade Poland claiming he was re uniting Germanic peoples. He was also insane. Britain, and the U.S.A. are no where near that type of ambition. North Korea is to a certain extent, and China is our biggest threat and leading our nation into bankruptsy, but I blame Corporate Executives more for that because they need their 8 million dollar a year raise. That is evil, and treasonous of our citizens to do that other U.S. citizens.

Who exactly? Remember, the American peoples indifference is at fault for that. As for Southwest Asia? They are loving us right now, well, I think it's our money. With the exception of North Korea, which I'm sure they have some stock in China, that comes from an American company, to fund them, but that is just speculation. My point is we fool ourselves.

What exactly is conflict patriotism? That's bit of a contradiction. Patriots are not likely to sell their own country out. It's more of a lack of patriotism and capitalistic agenda that is leading our county to demise.

The so called "science-driven economy in progress" is the health care industry who has 42% of Americans dependent upon anti depressants that induce complacency, and charge outrageous amounts for their "science driven economy" to proceed further. Every body needs medicine, everyone needs x-rays, CAT scans, etc. That is what drives the industry. As for other sciences? Well, I guess you can count micro fiber socks, and the rarely invested solar power as well...even the technology of home computers that are top of the line for all of 6 months and crash forcing you to find another one. And what is the most popular past times according to statistics that Americans do on computers? Myspace and porn...nuff said.

 

USAIsGarbage? Trying to prove a point? Got it...

Name the exact war in which the U.S. surrendered? Name it, give details, such as dates, factual quotes, and a bibliography...Clever quips only get you so far. "Delusional patriotism?" Define that as well. And please include your citizenship, anybody with a simple understanding that an individual will defend their home out of instinct, including country, wouldn't go as far to call them "delusional". It's understandable. One thing that U.S. is most noted for, and probably most annoying as well, is stubborn persistence...now, which war did we lose?

 

hmm..

Vietnam

 

hmm...

Wrong, try again.

 

Viva La Revolution

Vietnam was not the U.S.'s War, nor did the U.S. ever declare an official war. It was the French's conflict, and they were warned before to get out of Vietnam, but they thought if they were going to remain a major power they had to keep some territories, also, Michelin had a major investment in rubber in Vietnam. The French failed to overcome the rebellion, that lead to a major stand off. The french thought they could lure the rebels and take them. The Vietnamese surrounded the French fortress and took over French supplies. The U.S. was called in to help them. We agreed, Kennedy tried to prevent it by telling the French it was their own fault. Johnson unfortunately saw an opportunity to rebuild the American Forces, and he wanted to be involved, and agreed to send our troops to Vietnam, after the French had already lost millions of soldiers. The Vietnamese sought help from China, they got money and arms from China. Russia also put their two cents. It was a scare for them to have American's around that area, considering it was all communist, and felt the U.S. presence was a threat. So once again, the French dragged us into a conflict they couldn't handle, and we suffered, but we never lost. We knew going in it wasn't our fight, we were trying to help the French, but low and behold, they do not appreciate it, they still owe the U.S. for that, on top of the millions they owe the U.S. for WW2.

 

ROTFL. You are one verbose blowhard. One can have a de facto war without an official declaration. The U.S. had military and political objectives in Vietnam. It failed to meet those objectives. If you want to understand exactly why, the answers are here:

The Invincible Secret Weapon, Part 1

http://www.henrymadisonresearch.com/bulletin-060105.html

 

Agreed we didn't achieve our objectives, but that doesn't mean we lost. There's a difference between packing it in and going home and being defeated.