Obama speaks at WH on Syrian chemical weapons

This is James Kitfield’s first piece for Breaking Defense since his departure from his award-winning tenure at National Journal. As one of the best defense reporters around, Kitfield’s specialty has always been spotting the big strategic trend first and writing clearly, simply and persuasively about it. Following is a classic example of his work, which our readers will see roughly once each month. The Editor.

When President Barack Obama spoke from the White House last September to rally a war-weary nation behind limited strikes against Syria, the vast power he wielded as commander-in-chief seemed more curse than blessing. The United States was the only nation that could punish and deter a dictator from continuing to slaughter his own people with chemical weapons, Obama argued, even as Congress sought to tie his hands and reject a military option the American public overwhelmingly opposed. So the president who campaigned as the man to get America out of its wars was left to argue that military action made sense when an important principle was at stake.

“What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?” Obama asked, stressing at the same time that the United States was not the world’s policeman. “But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes American different. That’s what makes us exceptional.”

Call it the curse of the “indispensable nation.” With an unmatched military — the only one with truly global reach — presidents feel constant pressure from political factions, interest groups and close allies alike to right the world’s myriad wrongs using our military for the simple reason that we alone can. That sense of uniqueness also plays to a national psyche nursed on the mother’s milk of ‘American Exceptionalism,’ and a strategic culture that favors decisive action and quick fixes. With new military technologies that can translate the waggle of a joystick in Nevada into an explosion half a world away, the reflex can be even stronger to reach for the hammer in America’s superpower toolbox, and to view international problems as a nail.

In his new memoir “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” Robert Gates argues passionately for a change in the strategic calculus behind America’s use of military force. Gates was the only defense secretary to serve two presidents, from different political parties, in two costly and ultimately unsatisfying conflicts.

“Today, too many ideologues call for U.S. force as the first option rather than a last resort,” Gates writes. “On the left, we hear about the ‘responsibility to protect’ civilians to justify military interventions in Libya, Syria, Sudan and elsewhere. On the right, the failure to strike Syria or Iran is deemed an abdication of U.S. leadership. And so the rest of the world sees the U.S. as a militaristic country quick to launch planes, cruise missiles and drones deep into sovereign countries or ungoverned spaces… Our foreign and national security policy has become too militarized, the use of force too easy for presidents.”

Unchained Superpower

During the nearly half-century standoff of the Cold War, counsels on the use of military force were tempered by fears that a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union could end in nuclear Armageddon. Even that restraint was not enough, however, to dissuade Washington from the Vietnam War, which cost the lives of more than 58,000 service members and ended in the U.S. military’s first major defeat.

With Vietnam firmly in mind, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran, proposed what became known as the “Powell Doctrine.” Devised in 1990 to dissuade civilian leaders from stumbling into military actions without thinking through the potential repercussions, it amounted to a sort of when-to-use-military-force template. According to the “Powell Doctrine,” U.S. leaders should use military force only:

  • If a vital national security interest was threatened and the U.S. military was given a clear and attainable objective;
  • When the risks and costs had been fully analyzed and all nonviolent policy options exhausted;
  • When there was a plausible exit strategy to avoid “endless entanglement”;
  • When the proposed action enjoyed broad support from the American people and the international community.

Ironically, two signature successes during Powell’s tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs conspired to render his doctrine obsolete: the end of the Cold War; and the overwhelming victory of U.S. military forces over the Iraq Republican Guard in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Those historic achievements ushered in an era in which U.S. military action was viewed as quick, decisive and relatively low-cost.

“The lesson that many Americans drew from those nearly simultaneous events was that we had war figured out, and had achieved such a level of military dominance that it would be our strong suit throughout the post-Cold War era,” said Andrew Bacevich, professor of International Relations and History at Boston University, and author of “The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War.” “That notion that military power provides a way to fix problems decisively and quickly took hold in our national psyche, and it carried over into our politics.”

Politics of Intervention

That notion gave rise to liberal interventionists who argued that an international community — inevitably led by the United States — had a responsibility to intervene when countries failed to protect their own people from crimes against humanity. The principle, later adopted by the United Nations, was used to advocate U.S. military interventions in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans in the 1990s. After 19 U.S. troops were killed in the “Blackhawk Down” incident during a peacekeeping operation in Somalia in 1993, President Bill Clinton declined to intervene in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and later described it as one of his greatest regrets as president. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described America’s role in this post-Cold War era as that of the “indispensable nation,” pointedly asking Powell at one point, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

On the right, the notion that unmatched U.S. military supremacy should be used to advance U.S. ideals such as democracy and freedom gave rise to the neoconservatives, who by the late 1990s had supplanted Republican “realists” like Gates and Powell as the dominant foreign policy voice in the GOP. Heavily represented in the George W. Bush administration by officials such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative ideology found voice in Bush’s expansive, post-9/11 “global war on terror,” and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan intended to bring American ideals to those countries and regions.

“Even if you give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt in deciding to invade Iraq, what prudent analysis led them to believe we could topple Saddam Hussein and occupy Baghdad, and then leave in a matter of a few months? I never saw that analysis,” said retired Lt. Gen. James Dubik, a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, and a former commander in Iraq. Nor did Dubik see a rational analysis of how U.S. military forces could quickly topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, hand that country off to the international community and expect to see democracy flourish.

“So Bob Gates is exactly right in arguing that we need to decide not only whether military action is moral and legal, but also prudent in terms of accomplishing your political goals at acceptable cost,” said Dubik. U.S. participation in the NATO operation that toppled the regime of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, he argues, suggests that the United States is still too quick to embrace the military option. “Gaddafi may be gone, but we’re left today with second order consequences that no one thought through very well,” said Dubik.

Videogame War

Gates also argues in his book that the technologies behind the United States’ targeted killing program – where unmanned drones eviscerate suspected terrorists in distant lands, their shredded bodies conveniently disappearing in the blast clouds from Hellfire missiles – has created a misguided perception of war almost by immaculate conception. “For too many people – including defense ‘experts,’ members of Congress, executive branch officials and ordinary citizens – war has become a kind of videogame or action movie: bloodless, painless and odorless.” In his many trips to the front lines and the hospital wards Gates was close enough to the true article to smell the unmistakable rot of war.

But a sterilized view of war, says Steven Metz, director of Research at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, is in keeping with America’s strategic culture, one that is impatient and averse to ambiguity and complexity. “We have a collective national psyche that tends to conceptualize foreign and national security policy using sports metaphors: ‘Americans play to win, not to tie.’ As a result our leaders feel compelled to resolve problems quickly and then move on to the next issue before our attention span wanes, not to just manage problems that can’t actually be resolved. For all of those reasons, the military is often the preferred tool of U.S. statecraft. The Defense Department is also the one agency in the U.S. government dominated by Type-A, ‘can-do’ personalities, and they often feel compelled to fill the policy vacuum.”

After two unpopular wars and the most protracted period of conflict in U.S. history, however, Pew Research Polls have found that isolationist sentiment in the public hit a 50-year high in 2013, with a majority of Americans agreeing — for the first time — that “the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”

The lives of nations are cyclical, and the evidence suggests that the body politic is rethinking an era of excessive, if often well-intentioned, American militarism. In that sense Robert Gates’ observations from a Cold War warrior and realist strike a resonant chord.  “I think we’re reentering a period of great reluctance to intervene militarily, and it’s likely to last for quite a long time,” said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. As one Army general recently told me, ‘We’ve had our hand on this stove in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade, and when we take it off, we’re not going to be eager to put our hand back on that stove. Neither will the American public.”

Comments

  • Mehmet

    I must say -as a Turk- we need US’s military power in order to stop violence in Syria, killings and slaughtering of children and women. No matter what others say we are not capable of doing this on ourselves. In the meantime here you can have a look at some great F-35 JSF photos:

    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Pictures

    • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

      “I must say -as a Turk- we need US’s military power in order to stop violence in Syria, killings and slaughtering of children and women.”

      The slaughter of Syria’s civilians by both sides wouldn’t be taking place unless Moscow & Allies wanted the co-opted political establishment in Washington, DC to do so, thereby destroying the United States’ prominence in the eyes of the world while increasing Russia’s prominence. Who do you think manufactured and controls the forces fighting Assad?

      • Kirschwasser

        “Who do you think manufactured and controls the forces fighting Assad?”

        Al-Qaeda HATES the Russians though:

        BAGHDAD – The head of Al Qaeda is calling on Muslims across the Arab world and beyond to support rebels in Syria who are seeking to overthrow President Bashar Assad, and says they cannot depend on the West for help.

        In a new videotaped statement, Ayman al-Zawahri calls on Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join the uprising against Assad’s “pernicious, cancerous regime.”
        FOX News.com (Feb. 12, 2012): “Leader of Al Qaeda calls on Muslims to help Syrian rebels”

        • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

          “Al-Qaeda HATES the Russians though”

          There’s no such real entity outside of the CIA-created, Moscow-tasked group.

          As bin-Laden said just after the 9/11 attacks:

          “…The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia….” — http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

          It’s Russia, as bin-Laden knew.

          Take a look at what’s still on Aeroflot aircraft…

          http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2013-8/31/316500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/316500/vp-bdn-aeroflot-airbus-a319/&h=853&w=1200&sz=342&tbnid=LpEalOG0f8GrcM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=142&zoom=1&usg=__G489DWC7zsP5bnmGg5-Pi0QB8xs=&docid=xUpoGn9FHxnMDM&sa=X&ei=evRRUtGuJNGs4APLsoDICg&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA

          Note the Soviet emblem of the hammer & sickle stenciled on the Aeroflot aircraft’s fuselage!

          Now, for the main paper of the Russian Ministry of Defense…

          http://www.redstar.ru/

          “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian (no kidding!) for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era masthead, one of which pictures Lenin’s head, the man who removed the independent Russian nation from the map, supplanting it within the new nation called the USSR (the USSR being the nation that was to one day include all the nations of the Earth, incorporation taking place either by violent revolution or deception)! Those Soviet emblems and Lenin’s head can’t still be next to the masthead of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s newspaper due to their association with the Soviet Union and its ideals of world revolution; the nations of
          the world constituting the Soviet Union!

          The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”. Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

          Clearer for you now?

          • Kirschwasser

            “(since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces);”

            Not yet anyway…..but for the past 22 years, they have been steadily trying:

            “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
            -Wolfowitz Doctrine (Feb. 18, 1992)

          • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

            As I said, “For those not in the know, Moscow & Allies decades ago co-opted the political establishments of the West, which is why the West is doing everything it can to destroy its prominence in the eyes of the world (and weaken civil liberties at home), which will lead to the isolation of the United States.”

            That includes, of course, Paul Wolfowitz.

            The Moscow-tasked “War on Terror” is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, while the co-opted central banks of the West (and Japan) are sabotaging the West’s economies via net (new) investment-retarding low interest rates policies.

            One more time:

            http://www.redstar.ru/

            “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian (no kidding!) for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era masthead, one of which pictures Lenin’s head, the man who removed the independent Russian nation from the map, supplanting it within the new nation called the USSR (the USSR being the nation that was to one day include all the nations of the Earth, incorporation taking place either by violent revolution or deception)! Those Soviet emblems and Lenin’s head can’t still be next to the masthead of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s newspaper due to their association with the Soviet Union and its ideals of world revolution; the nations of the world constituting the Soviet Union!

            The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”. Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    • Don Bacon

      The US and Turkey have conspired to aid the terrorists fighting against the government in Syria. Don’t you think that Turkey acted as a US puppet in the matter? If this happened, do you think that US military power is in Turkey’s favor? Considering that Turkey’s “no problems” foreign policy went out the window, it didn’t work too well. Now the Islamic terrorists will threaten Turkey.

      • Mehmet

        The matter is not Turkey’s foreign policy. The matter is the agony Syrian people’s suffering. Am I able to clarify myself?

  • ziggy1988

    What utter garbage. American militarism and a militarized foreign policy?? Are you freaking kidding me?? US foreign policy is currently one of appeasement, defense cuts, and unilateral disarmament, and Gates, far from being a ‘realist’, is simply one of the leading appeasers. As for isolationism, it is an idiotic policy and has failed everytime it was tried. The US may try to mind its own business, but the rest of the world will not and is not.

    If this Kitfield guy is one of the Beltway’s best def correspondents, I dont want to read the writings of the worst.

    • paulrevere01

      Young man…please enlist immediately, volunteer for ground forces duty in Afghanistan and after that EXPERIENCE, which it is obvious by your bellicosity exhibit here that you sadly lack, come back and let all know if you learned anything…or not.

  • Don Bacon

    Obama was lying (as he is wont to do) about Syria using chemical weapons. He disregarded US intelligence reports and concocted an untrue story which was the opposite of what actually happened. It was the anti-Syria forces, probably instigated by Saudi Arabia, who conducted the attack.

  • Don Bacon

    It is not isolationist to take the position that the US should not act as a world hegemon, invading and occupying other countries, and there is no danger that isolationalism would take hold in the USA. Americans freely and openly interact with people all over the globe, with a lot of it being done for economic reasons. General Motors sells more cars in China than it does ij the US, for example. (They’re Buicks — go figure.)

  • Don Bacon

    What sort of person would “give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt in deciding to invade Iraq?” Just because John Kerry did, doesn’t make it rational.

  • Blivethopper

    The US has never been a militaristic country. That said, the US will regain the respect of other goverments when the current boob that occupies the Oval Office is replaced by somebody who actually knows what they’re doing.

    • UH34D

      “The US has never been a militaristic country.” Of course that’s a joke? Since the Spanish-American War, the US began to flex its muscles militarily around the world. The list of interventions is lengthy and is available on any number of sites. With such a lengthy list, I’d say it qualifies us as a ‘militaristic’ nation regardless of the political justifications fed to the American public.

  • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

    For those not in the know, Moscow & Allies decades ago co-opted the political establishments of the West, which is why the West is doing everything it can to destroy its prominence in the eyes of the world (and weaken civil liberties at home), which will lead to the isolation of the United States.

    The United States will be further isolated when the European Union collapses soon. Europe will then join Russia in a new union, from the “Atlantic to Vladivostok”. This will accomplish two objectives for Communist strategists in Moscow and other Communist capitals, (1) the further isolation of the United States; and (2) the disbanding of NATO:

    http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/publications/interview/interview0004.html

    and

    “Editor’s Note: The phrases ‘From the Atlantic to the Urals’, ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’ and ‘From Vancouver to Vladivostok’ are interchangeable in the strategists’ lexicon. In the course of his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, delivered in Oslo in June 1992, Gorbachev said: ‘Our [sic] vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union [sic], which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries’. Note that Gorbachev, who had been out of office for six months, referred to the Soviet Union, not Russia. In an interview on Moscow Television on 19 November 1991, Eduard Shevardnadze continued speaking as though he was still Soviet Foreign Minister: ‘I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-Asian space, this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security’. These statements by key implementers of the strategy reflect the central strategic objective of asserting ‘irreversible’ Russian/Soviet hegemony over Eurasia, thus establishing the primary geographical component of the intended World Government.” — ‘The Perestroika Deception’, by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn.

    http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf

    For those unfamiliar with this subject, the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991 was a strategic ruse under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP). What is the LRP, you ask? The LRP is the “new” strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West with. The last major disinformation operation under the LRP was the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991.

    The next major disinformation operation under the LRP will be the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government. When that occurs, Taiwan will be stymied from not joining the mainland. This is why China is buying up gold all over the word. It is believed that China currently has 3,000 [metric] tonnes of gold. When China has 6,000 [metric] tonnes it will have the minimum gold reserves necessary for its currency, the yuan, to replace the United States’ dollar as the world’s reserve currency, that is after the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government (the United States gold reserves is approximately 8,133.5 [metric] tonnes).

    Of course, the fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”. Notice that not one political party in the West demanded verification, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    Google: ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’

    http://www.redstar.ru/

    “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian (no kidding!) for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era masthead, one of which pictures Lenin’s head, the man who removed the independent Russian nation from the map, supplanting it within the new nation called the USSR (the USSR being the nation that was to one day include all the nations of the Earth, incorporation taking place either by violent revolution or deception)! Those Soviet emblems and Lenin’s head can’t still be next to the masthead of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s newspaper due to their association with the Soviet Union and its ideals of world revolution; the nations of the world constituting the Soviet Union!

    For more on the “Long-Range Policy”, read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn’s books, “New Lies for Old” and “The Perestroika Deception”, the only Soviet era defector to still be under protective custody in the West:

    http://www.archive.org/details/GolitsynAnatoleTheNewLiesForOldOnes

    http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf

    The following is an excellent brief three-page introduction to Golitsyn and his significance in understanding Communist long-range strategy:

    http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/looking.htm

    • kpkva

      The Russians are not going come rolling through the Fulda Gap anytime soon. They have neither the will or manpower to occupy all of Europe. You suppose the Poles, Hungarians and the rest are just going to lay down when the Russian come rolling across the border, I think not. NATO served its purpose during the Cold War, but, it is time for Western and Central Europe to consider its own mutual defense pact. At the same time a mutual defense treaty between the United States, Canada, and Great Britian is something we should strongly consider.

      • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

        “The Russians are not going come rolling through the Fulda Gap anytime soon.”

        Firstly, Russians don’t control Russia, Communists do, as they do in the other 14 republics that constituted the USSR (though I prefer to simply say the USSR still exists) and Eastern Europe (the Communists never left power there either, and why would they since the co-opted West wasn’t going to verify the collapse of the East Bloc), and Germany’s Chancellor is a Communist agent (former Stasi agent, code name ANITA); secondly, if you had read my comment carefully, you’d know that upon the collapse of the European Union Europe will then join Russia in a new union, from the “Atlantic to Vladivostok”; and thirdly, by the time this transpires, and if the Communists should have to go to Plan B (thanks to my warnings), then Russia, in alliance with the other 14 republics that made up the USSR and East Bloc nations, will indeed have the manpower and military resources to TEMPORARILY occupy Western Europe; China will be responsible for the temporary occupation of the United States and Canada. This is why the Chinese Communist Party instituted a one-child policy, knowing that females would be aborted, resulting in a large male population with (1) no family obligations; thereby making possible (2) the use of such males for overseas duties.

        • paulrevere01

          It is exactly your style of paranoid, anticommunist ranting that has led this nation from a creditor to a debtor nation.

          Your rantings only make sense if one can possibly believe that all this ‘unionizing’ of countries and nationalities that have been in social and cultural angst with each other for more than a thousand years have the will to unite in some megalomaniacal plot to rule the world…get a grip please.

          • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

            “It is exactly your style of paranoid, anticommunist ranting that has led this nation from a creditor to a debtor nation.”

            You don’t know what proof is, or are you blind? If you’re blind, get someone to describe the links out of Russia.

            “Your rantings only make sense if one can possibly believe that all this ‘unionizing’ of countries and nationalities that have been in social and cultural angst with each other for more than a thousand years have the will to unite in some megalomaniacal plot to rule the world…get a grip please.”

            Nationalities haven’t been in control of the territories that made up the USSR since January 1, 1924. Communists are! Where did you go to school?

          • paulrevere01

            You are naive about human dynamics my friend…bloodlines, cultural and tribal affiliations are at the core of that thousand years, so how on earth are you so presuming as to believe that dynamic will be voluntarily unified…force and economics are the only factor that will do that, thus defeating your basic premise about evil communism.

          • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

            “You are naive about human dynamics my friend…bloodlines, cultural and tribal affiliations are at the core of that thousand years…”

            One more time for the bullheaded: Communists don’t do bloodlines, Communists “liberate” the World from such concepts!

            You need to take a course on Communism and its motivating forces.

  • Joey half a dozen of NJ

    Helping other nations is very noble,but not at the expense of our own people here in the USA. We help the world out with everything from food to medicine, to police,and military action,yet we have so much crime,hunger,illness in this country,and we can help ourselves. So you tell me whats wrong with this picture.