Embracing The Dark Side: A Short History Of The Pathological Neocon Quest For Empire

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Dan Sanchez via DanSanchez.me,

When Bill Kristol watches Star Wars movies, he roots for the Galactic Empire. The leading neocon recently caused a social media disturbance in the Force when he tweeted this predilection for the Dark Side following the debut of the final trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Kristol sees the Empire as basically a galaxy-wide extrapolation of what he has long wanted the US to have over the Earth: what he has termed “benevolent global hegemony.”

Kristol, founder and editor of neocon flagship magazine The Weekly Standard,responded to scandalized critics by linking to a 2002 essay from the Standard’s blog that justifies even the worst of Darth Vader’s atrocities. In “The Case for the Empire,” Jonathan V. Last made a Kristolian argument that you can’t make a “benevolent hegemony” omelet without breaking a few eggs.

And what if those broken eggs are civilians, like Luke Skywalker’s uncle and aunt who were gunned down by Imperial Stormtroopers in their home on the Middle Eastern-looking arid planet of Tatooine (filmed on location in Tunisia)? Well, as Last sincerely argued, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru hid Luke and harbored the fugitive droids R2D2 and C3P0; so they were “traitors” who were aiding the rebellion and deserved to be field-executed.

A year after Kristol published Last’s essay, large numbers of civilians were killed by American Imperial Stormtroopers in their actual Middle Eastern arid homeland of Iraq, thanks largely in part to the direct influence of neocons like Kristol and Last.

That war was similarly justified in part by the false allegation that Iraq ruler Saddam Hussein was harboring and aiding terrorist enemies of the empire like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The civilian-slaughtering siege of Fallujah, one of the most brutal episodes of the war, was also specifically justified by the false allegation that the town was harboring Zarqawi.

In reality Hussein had put a death warrant out on Zarqawi, who was hiding from Iraq’s security forces under the protective aegis of the US Air Force in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region. It was only after the Empire precipitated the chaotic collapse of Iraq that Zarqawi’s outfit was able to thrive and evolve into Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). And after the Empire precipitated the chaotic collapse of Syria, AQI further mutated into Syrian al-Qaeda (which has conquered much of Syria) and ISIS (which has conquered much of Syria and Iraq).

And what if the “benevolent hegemony” omelet requires the breaking of “eggs” the size of whole worlds, like how high Imperial officer Wilhuff Tarkin used the Death Star to obliterate the planet Alderaan? Well, as Last sincerely argued, even Alderaan likely deserved its fate, since it may have been, “a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents…” Last contended that Princess Leia was probably lying when she told the Death Star’s commander that the planet had “no weapons.”

While Last was writing his apologia for global genocide, his fellow neocons were baselessly arguing that Saddam Hussein was similarly lying about Iraq not having a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. Primarily on that basis, the obliteration of an entire country began the following year.

And a year after that, President Bush performed a slapstick comedy act about his failure to find Iraqi WMDs for a black-tie dinner for radio and television correspondents. The media hacks in his audience, who had obsequiously helped the neocon-dominated Bush administration lie the country into war, rocked with laughter as thousands of corpses moldered in Iraq and Arlington. A more sickening display of imperial decadence and degradation has not been seen perhaps since the gladiatorial audiences of Imperial Rome. This is the hegemonic “benevolence” and “national greatness” that Kristol pines for.

“Benevolent global hegemony” was coined by Kristol and fellow neocon Robert Kaganand their 1996 Foreign Affairs article “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” In that essay, Kristol and Kagan sought to inoculate both the conservative movement and US foreign policy against the isolationism of Pat Buchanan.

The Soviet menace had recently disappeared, and the Cold War along with it. The neocons were terrified that the American public would therefore jump at the chance to lay their imperial burdens down. Kristol and Kagan urged their readers to resist that temptation, and to instead capitalize on America’s new peerless preeminence by making it a big-spending, hyper-active, busybody globo-cop. The newfound predominance must become dominance wherever and whenever possible. That way, any future near-peer competitors would be nipped in the bud, and the new “unipolar moment” would last forever.

What made this neocon dream seem within reach was the indifference of post-Soviet Russia. The year after the Berlin Wall fell, the Persian Gulf War against Iraq was the debut “police action” of unipolar “Team America, World Police.” Paul Wolfowitz, the neocon and Iraq War architect, considered it a successful trial run. As Wesley Clark, former Nato Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, recalled:

“In 1991, [Wolfowitz] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy?—?the number 3 position at the Pentagon. And I had gone to see him when I was a 1-Star General commanding the National Training Center. (…)


And I said, “Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.”


And he said: “Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the region?—?in the Middle East?—?and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes?—?Syria, Iran, Iraq?—?before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

The 1996 “Neo-Reaganite” article was part of a surge of neocon literary activity in the mid-90s. It was in 1995 that Kristol and John Podhoretz founded The Weekly Standard with funding from right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Also in 1996, David Wurmser wrote a strategy document for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was co-signed by Wurmser’s fellow neocons and future Iraq War architects Richard Perle and Douglas Feith“A Clean Break” called for regime change in Iraq as a “means” of “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.” Syria itself was a target because it “challenges Israel on Lebanese soil.” It primarily does this by, along with Iran, supporting the paramilitary group Hezbollah, which arose in the 80s out of the local resistance to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and which continually foils Israel’s ambitions in that country.

Later that same year, Wurmser wrote another strategy document, this time for circulation in American and European halls of power, titled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant.”

In “A Clean Break,” Wurmser had framed regime change in Iraq and Syria in terms of Israeli regional ambitions. In “Coping,” Wurmser adjusted his message for its broader Western audience by recasting the very same policies in a Cold War framework.

Wurmser characterized regime change in Iraq and Syria (both ruled by Baathist regimes) as “expediting the chaotic collapse” of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that, “the phenomenon of Baathism,” was, from the very beginning, “an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy.” Of course King Hussein was a bit biased on the matter, since his own Hashemite royal family once ruled both Iraq and Syria. Wurmser argued that:

“…the battle over Iraq represents a desperate attempt by residual Soviet bloc allies in the Middle East to block the extension into the Middle East of the impending collapse that the rest of the Soviet bloc faced in 1989.”

Wurmser further derided Baathism in Iraq and Syria as an ideology in a state of “crumbling descent and missing its Soviet patron” and “no more than a Cold War enemy relic on probation.”

Wurmser advised the West to put this anachronistic adversary out of its misery, and to thus, in Kristolian fashion, press America’s Cold War victory on toward its final culmination. Baathism should be supplanted by what he called the “Hashemite option.” After their chaotic collapse, Iraq and Syria would be Hashemite possessions once again. Both would be dominated by the royal house of Jordan, which in turn, happens to be dominated by the US and Israel.

Wurmser stressed that demolishing Baathism must be the foremost priority in the region. Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter, not even, he added, for the sake of stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism.

Thus we see one of the major reasons why the neocons were such avid anti-Soviets during the Cold War. It is not just that, as post-Trotskyites, the neocons resented Joseph Stalin for having Leon Trotsky assassinated in Mexico with an ice pick. The Israel-first neocons’ main beef with the Soviets was that, in various disputes and conflicts involving Israel, Russia sided with secular-Arab nationalist regimes from 1953 onward.

The neocons used to be Democrats in the big-government, Cold Warrior mold of Harry Truman and Henry “Scoop” Jackson. After the Vietnam War and the rise of the anti-war New Left, the Democratic Party’s commitment to the Cold War waned, so the neocons switched to the Republicans in disgust.

According to investigative reporter Jim Lobe, the neocons got their first taste of power within the Reagan administration, in which positions were held by neocons such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliot Abrams, and Michael Ledeen. They were especially influential during Reagan’s first term of saber-rattling, clandestine warfare, and profligate defense spending, which Kristol and Kagan remembered so fondly in their “Neo-Reaganite” manifesto.

It was then that the neocons helped establish the “Reagan Doctrine.” According to neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term in 1985, the Reagan Doctrine was characterized by support for anti-communist (in reality often simply anti-leftist) forces around the whole world.

Since the support was clandestine, the Reagan administration was able to bypass the “Vietnam Syndrome” and project power in spite of the public’s continuing war weariness. (It was left to Reagan’s successor, the first President Bush, to announce following his “splendid little” Gulf War that, “by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all!”)

Operating covertly, the Reaganites could also use any anti-communist group they found useful, no matter how ruthless and ugly: from Contra death squads in Nicaragua to the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen in Afghanistan. Abrams and Ledeen were both involved in the Iran-Contra affair, and Abrams was convicted (though later pardoned) on related criminal charges.

Kristol’s “Neo-Reaganite” co-author Robert Kagan gave the doctrine an even wider and more ambitious interpretation in his book A Twilight Struggle :

“The Reagan Doctrine has been widely understood to mean only support for anticommunist guerrillas fighting pro-Soviet regimes, but from the first the doctrine had a broader meaning. Support for anticommunist guerrillas was the logical outgrowth, not the origin, of a policy of supporting democratic reform or revolution everywhere, in countries ruled by right-wing dictators as well as by communist parties.”

As this description makes plain, neocon policy, from the 1980s to today, has been every bit as fanatical, crusading, and world-revolutionary as Red Communism was in the neocon propaganda of yesteryear, and that Islam is in the neocon propaganda of today.

The neocons credit Reagan’s early belligerence with the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. But in reality, war is the health of the State, and Cold War was the health of Soviet State. The Soviets long used the American menace to frighten the Russian people into rallying around the State for protection.

After the neocons lost clout within the Reagan administration to “realists” like George Schultz, the later Reagan-Thatcher-Gorbachev detente began. It was only after that detente lifted the Russian siege atmosphere and quieted existential nuclear nightmares that the Russian people felt secure enough to demand a changing of the guard.

In 1983, the same year that the first Star Wars trilogy ended, Reagan vilified Soviet Russia in language that Star Wars fans could understand by dubbing it “the Evil Empire.” Years later, having, in Kristol’s words, “defeated the evil empire,” the neocons that Reagan first lifted to power began clamoring for a “neo-Reaganite” global hegemony. And a few years after that, those same neocons began pointing to the sci-fi Galactic Empire that Reagan implicitly compared to the Soviets as a lovely model for America!

Fast-forward to return to the neocon literary flowering of the mid-90s. In 1997, the year after writing “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” together, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan co-founded The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The 20th century is often called “the American century,” largely due to it being a century of war and American “victories” in those wars: the two World Wars and the Cold War. The neocons sought to ensure that through the never-ending exercise of military might, the American global hegemony achieved through those wars would last another hundred years, and that the 21st century too would be “American.”

The organization’s founding statement of principles called for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity” and reads like an executive summary of the founding duo’s “Neo-Reaganite” essay. It was signed by neocons such as Wolfowitz, Abrams, Norman Podhoretz and Frank Gaffney; by future Bush administration officials such as Dick CheneyDonald RumsfeldLewis “Scooter” Libby; and by other neocon allies, such as Jeb Bush.

Although PNAC called for interventions ranging from Serbia (to roll back Russian influence in Europe) to Taiwan (to roll back Chinese influence in Asia), its chief concern was to kick off the restructuring of the Middle East envisioned in “A Clean Break” and “Coping” by advocating its first step: regime change in Iraq.

The most high-profile parts of this effort were two “open letters” published in 1998, one in January addressed to President Bill Clinton, and another in May addressed to leaders of Congress. As with its statement of principles, PNAC was able to garner signatures for these letters from a wide range of political luminaries, including neocons (like Perle), neocon allies (like John Bolton), and other non-neocons (like James Woolsey and Robert Zoellick).

The open letters characterized Iraq as “a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” and buttressed this ridiculous claim with the now familiar allegations of Saddam building a WMD program.

Thanks in large part to PNAC’s pressure, regime change in Iraq became official US policy in October when Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. (Notice the Clinton-friendly “humanitarian interventionist” name in spite of the policy’s conservative fear-mongering origins.)

After the Supreme Court delivered George W. Bush the presidency, the neocons were back in the imperial saddle again in 2001: just in time to make their projected “New American Century” of “Neo-Reaganite Global Hegemony” a reality. The first order of business, of course, was Iraq.

But some pesky national security officials weren’t getting with the program and kept trying to distract the administration with concerns about some Osama bin Laden character and his Al Qaeda outfit. Apparently they were laboring under some pedestrian notion that their job was to protect the American people and not to conquer the world.

For example, when National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke was frantically sounding the alarm over an imminent terrorist attack on America,Wolfowitz was uncomprehending. As Clarke recalled, the then Deputy Defense Secretary objected:

“I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”

Clarke informed him that:

“We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.”

This simply did not fit in the agenda-driven neocon worldview of Wolfowitz, who responded:

“Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

And as Peter Beinhart recently wrote:

“During that same time period [in 2001], the CIA was raising alarms too. According to Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter given access to the Daily Briefs prepared by the intelligence agencies for President Bush in the spring and summer of 2001, the CIA told the White House by May 1 that ‘a group presently in the United States’ was planning a terrorist attack. On June 22, the Daily Brief warned that al-Qaeda strikes might be ‘imminent.’

But the same Defense Department officials who discounted Clarke’s warnings pushed back against the CIA’s. According to Eichenwald’s sources, ‘the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.’

By the time Clarke and the CIA got the Bush administration’s attention, it was already too late to follow any of the clear leads that might have been followed to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorist attacks by Sunni Islamic fundamentalists mostly from the Saudi Kingdom hardly fit the neocon agenda of targeting the secular-Arab nationalist regimes of Iraq and Syria and the Shiite Republic of Iran: especially since all three of the latter were mortal enemies of bin Laden types.

But the attackers were, like Iraqis, some kind of Muslims from the general area of the Middle East. And that was good enough for government work in the American idiocracy. After a youth consumed with state-compelled drudgery, most Americans are so stupid and incurious that such a meaningless relationship, enhanced with some fabricated “intelligence,” was more than enough to stampede the spooked American herd into supporting the Iraq War.

As Benjamin Netanyahu once said, “America is a thing you can move very easily.”

Whether steering the country into war would be easy or not, it was all neocon hands on deck. At the Pentagon there was Wolfowitz and Perle, with Perle-admirer Rumsfeld as SecDef. Feith was also at Defense, where he set up two new offices for the special purpose of spinning “intelligence” yarn to tie Saddam with al-Qaeda and to weave fanciful pictures of secret Iraqi WMD programs.

Wurmser himself labored in one of these offices, followed by stints at State aiding neocon-ally Bolton and in the Vice President’s office aiding neocon-ally Cheney along with Scooter Libby.

Iran-Contra convict Abrams was at the National Security Council aiding Condoleezza Rice. And Kristol and Kagan continued to lead the charge in the media and think tank worlds.

And they pulled it off. Wurmser finally got his “chaotic collapse” in Iraq. And Kristol finally had his invincible, irresistible, hyper-active hegemony looming over the world like a Death Star.

The post-9/11 pretense-dropping American Empire even had Dick Cheney with his Emperor Palpatine snarl preparing Americans to accept torture by saying:

“We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.”

The Iraq War ended up backfiring on the neocons. It installed a new regime in Baghdad that was no more favorable toward Israel and far more favorable toward Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria. But the important thing was that Kristol’s Death Star was launched and in orbit. As long as it was still in proactive mode, there was nothing the neocons could not fix with its awful power.

This seemed true even during the Obama presidency. On top of Iraq and Afghanistan, under Obama the American Death Star has demolished Yemen and Somalia. It also demolished both Syria and Libya, where it continues the Wurmsurite project of precipitating the chaotic collapse of secular-Arab nationalism. Islamic terror groups including al-Qaeda and ISIS are thriving in that chaos, but the American Death Star to this day has adhered to Wurmser’s de-prioritization of the Islamist threat.

As Yoda said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side.” The neocons have been able to use the fear generated by a massive Islamic fundamentalist terror attack to pursue their blood-soaked vendetta against secular-Arab nationalists, even to the benefit of the very Islamic fundamentalists who attacked us, because even after 12 years Americans are still too bigoted and oblivious to distinguish between the two groups.

Furthermore, Obama has gone beyond Wurmser’s regional ambitions and has fulfilled Kristol’s busybody dreams of global hegemony to a much greater extent than Bush ever did. To appease generals and arms merchants worried about his prospective pull-outs from the Iraqi and Afghan theaters, Obama launched both an imperial “pivot” to Asia and a stealth invasion of Africa. The pull-outs were aborted, but the continental “pivots” remain. Thus Obama’s pretenses as a peace President helped to make his regime the most ambitiously imperialistic and globe-spanning that history has ever seen.

But the neocons may have overdone it with their Death Star shooting spree, because another great power now seems determined to put a stop to it. And who is foiling the neocons’ Evil Empire? Why none other than the original “Evil Empire”: the neocons’ old nemesis Russia.

In 2013, Russia’s Putin diplomatically frustrated the neocons’ attempt to deliver the coup de grâce to the Syrian regime with a US air war. Shortly afterward, Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland yanked Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence by engineering a bloody coup in Kiev. Putin countered by bloodlessly annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. A proxy war followed between the US-armed and Western-financed junta in Kiev and pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.

The US continued to intervene in Syria, heavily sponsoring an insurgency dominated by extremists including al-Qaeda and ISIS. But recently, Russia decided to intervene militarily. Suddenly, Wolfowitz’s lesson from the Gulf War was up in smoke. The neocons cannot militarily do whatever they want in the Middle East and trust that Russia will stand idly by. Suddenly the arrogant Wolfowitz/Wurmser dream of crumbling then cleaning up “old Soviet client regimes” and “Cold War enemy relics” had gone poof. Putin decided that Syria would be one “Cold War relic” turned terrorist playground too many.

Russia’s entry into Syria has thrown all of the neocons’ schemes into disarray.

By actually working to destroy Syrian al-Qaeda and ISIS instead of just pretending to, as the US and its allies have, Russia threatens to eliminate the head-chopping bogeymen whose Live Leak-broadcasted brutal antics continually renew in Americans the war-fueling terror of 9/11. And after Putin had taken the US air strike option off the table, al-Qaeda and ISIS were the neocons most powerful tools for bringing down the Syrian regime. And now Russia is threatening to take those toys away too.

If Hezbollah and Iran, with Russia’s air cover, manage to help save what is left of Syria from the Salafist psychos, they will be more prestigious in both Syria and Lebanon than ever, and Israel may never be able to dominate its northern neighbors.

The neocons are livid. After the conflicts over Syria and Ukraine in 2013, they had already started ramping up the vilification of Putin. Now the demonization has gone into overdrive.

One offering in this milieu has been an article by Matthew Continetti in the neocon web site he edits, The Washington Free Beacon. Titled “A Reagan Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century,” it obviously aims to be a sequel to Kristol’s and Kagan’s “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” As it turns out, the Russian “Evil Empire” was not defeated after all: only temporarily dormant. And so Continetti’s updated Reaganite manifesto is subtitled, “How to confront Vladimir Putin.”

The US military may be staggering around the planet like a drunken, bloated colossus. Yet Continetti still dutifully trots out all the Kristolian tropes about the need for military assertiveness (more drunken belligerence), massive defense spending (more bloating), and “a new American century.” Reaganism is needed now just as much as in 1996, he avers: in fact, doubly so, for Russia has reemerged as:

“…the greatest military and ideological threat to the United States and to the world order it has built over decades as guarantor of international security.”

Right, just look at all that security sprouting out of all those bomb craters the US has planted throughout much of the world. Oh wait no, those are terrorists.

Baby-faced Continetti, a Weekly Standard contributor, is quite the apprentice to Sith Lord Kristol, judging from his ardent faith in the “Benevolent Global Hegemony” dogma. In fact, he even shares Lord Kristol’s enthusiasm for “Benevolent Galactic Hegemony.” It was Continetti who kicked off the recent Star Wars/foreign policy brouhaha when he tweeted:

“I’ve been rooting for the Empire since 1983”

This elicited a concurring response from Kristol, which is what set Twitter atwitter. Of course the whole thing was likely staged and coordinated between the two neocon operatives.

Unfortunately for the neocons, demonizing Putin over Syria is not nearly as easy as demonizing Putin over Ukraine. With Ukraine, there was a fairly straight-forward (if false) narrative to build of big bully Russia and plucky underdog Ukraine.

However, it’s pretty hard to keep a lid on the fact that Russia is attacking al-Qaeda and ISIS, along with any CIA-trained jihadist allies are nearby. And it’s inescapably unseemly for the US foreign policy establishment to be so bent out of shape about Russia bombing sworn enemies of the American people, even if it does save some dictator most Americans don’t care about one way or the other.

And now that wildly popular wild card Donald Trump is spouting unwelcome common sense to his legions of followers about how standing back and letting Russia bomb anti-American terrorists is better than starting World War III over it. And this is on top of the fact that Trump is deflating Jeb Bush’s campaign by throwing shade at his brother’s neocon legacy, from the failures over 9/11 to the disastrous decision to regime change Iraq. And the neocon-owned Marco Rubio, who actually adopted “A New American Century” as his campaign slogan, is similarly making no headway against Trump.

And Russia’s involvement in Syria just keeps getting worse for the neocons. Washington threatened to withdraw support from the Iraqi government if it accepted help from Russia against ISIS. Iraq accepted Russian help anyway. Baghdad has also sent militias to fight under Russian air cover alongside Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces.

Even Jordan, that favorite proxy force in Israel’s dreams of regional dominance, has begun coordinating with Russia, in spite of its billion dollars a year of annual aid from Washington. Et tu Jordan?!

Apparently there aren’t enough Federal Reserve notes in Janet Yellen’s imagination to pay Iraq and Jordan to tolerate living amid a bin Ladenite maelstrom any longer.

And what is Washington going to do about it if the whole region develops closer ties with Russia? What are the American people going to let them get away with doing about it? A palace coup in Jordan? Expend more blood and treasure to overthrow the very same Iraqi government we already lost much blood and treasure in installing? Start a suicidal hot war with nuclear Russia?

And the neocon’s imperial dreams are coming apart at the seams outside of the war zones too. The new Prime Minister of Canada just announced he will pull out of America’s war in the Levant. Europe wants to compromise with Russia on both Ukraine and Syria, and this willingness will grow as the refugee crisis it is facing worsens. Obama made a nuclear deal with Iran and initiated detente with Cuba. And worst of all for neocons, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is being de-legitimized by the bourgeoning BDS movement and by images of its own brutality propagating through social media, along with translations of its hateful rhetoric.

The neocons bit off more than they could chew, and their Galactic Empire is falling apart before it could even fully conquer its first planet.

Nearly all empires end due to over-extension. If brave people from Ottawa to Baghdad simply say “enough” within a brief space of time, hopefully this empire can dissolve relatively peacefully like the Soviet Empire did, leaving its host civilization intact, instead of dragging that civilization into oblivion along with it like the Roman Empire did.

But beware, the imperial war party will not go quietly into the night, unless we in their domestic tax base insist that there is no other way. If, in desperation, they start calling for things like more boots on the ground, reinstating the draft, or declaring World War III on Russia and its Middle Eastern allies, we must stand up and say with firm voices something along the lines of the following:

No. You will not have my son for your wars. And we will not surrender any more of our liberty. We will no longer yield to a regime led by a neocon clique that threatens to extinguish the human race. Your power fantasy of universal empire is over. Just let it go. Or, as Anakin finally did when the Emperor came for his son, we will hurl your tyranny into the abyss.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Morbid's picture

beware of false alien invasion.

J S Bach's picture

Actually, the "quest for empire" is not novel to the Neocons.  It is as old as history itself... duly "recorded" in the Old Testament and discreetly translated into a plan of action in the Talmud and Protocols.  What is amazing is not that the self-chosen attempt world-domination, but rather that we idiotic goy tolerate their manevolent behavior generation after generation ad infinitum.  What must it take to end all of this lunacy?

NidStyles's picture

Exactly, Neo-Cons are just leftists that the narrative is saying are conservative and represent the right. They don't, and that is the problem. The majority has no representation anymore. Nationalists are being told they are evil by actors pretending to be nationalists while promoting Communist ideology.



This site has turned into a propganda mindfuck. 

TruxtonSpangler's picture

Just follow Vicky Noodleman's travels for a future prediction of where regime change will land http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/10/248314.htm

jeff montanye's picture

and when pressed they are certainly willing to take a page from mexico's playbook.  you betcha.


RaceToTheBottom's picture

Wait, isn't the Star Wars series of movies, just that?  Movies?

Do these guys really live trying to act out movies?

Victor von Doom's picture

Close. The movies are heavily inspired by, even analogous to WWII history.


Act out movies? No - emulate others from history, yes.



jeff montanye's picture

what would you term george w. bush's administration?  big spending and endless war seems about right.

how about john mccain, the next republican nominee?  ditto.  mitt romney?  i don't see any significant difference -- big time zionist and massachusetts spender.

you can say they aren't conservatives and you're right.

obama isn't a liberal and neither is either clinton.  so what?  

it's not what they differ on that's the problem.  it's what they agree on.  

neo conservative.  neo liberal.  

fuck it.  they're banksters and zionists.  done.

Majestic12's picture

"you can say they aren't conservatives and you're right."

Ugh, no. Political "economy" has a spectrum for a reason.

"Conservatives" have always been pro-monopoly, anti-labor, pro-Supply side, anti-demand side, pro-monetary policy, anti-fiscal policy. (pro-rich)

"Liberals" have always represented "small business", more civil freedom (until lately), pro-worker's rights, pro-demand economy, pro-fiscal policy. (pro-middle class)

If any "labels" are going to be used, at least get it fucking right.

If you say it doesn't matter, because the "public" policy of politicians is the opposite of the "private" policy, then that you can say is "right".

jeff montanye's picture

where are these liberals of whom you speak?  bernie sanders might count, elizabeth warren. dennis kucinich, paul wellstone, rip, jfk, rip.

not too many at the centers of power though, are there, save jfk, rip?

also i think your lists of characterizations are simplistic beyond pro captial vs. pro labor.  conservatives certainly have a deep fissure on civil liberties between libertarians and the rest.

no "conservatives" since the work of keynes became known have been loathe to use fiscal policy to retain power.  they just spend it on somewhat different things.

to say liberals have always represented something until lately is to say what exactly?

SSRI Junkie's picture

"Exactly, Neo-Cons are just leftists that the narrative is saying are conservative and represent the right. They don't, and that is the problem. The majority has no representation anymore. Nationalists are being told they are evil by actors pretending to be nationalists while promoting Communist ideology."


yep (i always downvote an article when they use the term "neocon" as it is a term statists use to misdirect)

Majestic12's picture

"They don't, and that is the problem."

Neo-cons represent:
* big business, so do conservatives
* regressive taxation, so do conservatives
* central banking, so do conservatives
* supply-side economics of the wealthy, so do conservatives
* monetary policy, so do conservatives

So, what exactly is so different? Or are you in the wrong classification?

Most, when questioned on individual stands, are "not" the "label" they claim they are.

Freddie's picture

Neo-Libs are the same but are quieter about it.  Schumer, Feinstein and a bunch more.  The USA has the uniparty run by Deep State.  They are destroying America and Europe with open borders.  They are dual shit-i-zens or they love dual shit-i-zens and Bibi/Jonathan Pollard. 

Grimaldus's picture


True conservatives are constitutional conservatives and do not represent any of what you claim they do.

Your comment lacks the word "progressive" , and thus blows back in your face. Like CNBC last night.






CitizenPete's picture

Hows the coffee there at the Pentagon?

Money Boo Boo's picture

USSA and its MIC/NSA are the real terrorists, economically, militarlity, morally and gastronomically

Raging Debate's picture

JS Bach - Your answer is that of the Jews, that took at least a couple tgousand years tl fogure out. Ready? YOU ARE YOUR BROTHERS KEEEPER. Now, the Jews have again partially forgetten that so as another world war comes, expect the Jews in Israel and American to say, sorry whats thats, your screaming? Not saying all of these cycles are great, its all evolution.

And I say partially bexause in science and medicine the Jews have made a great contribution. But them like us Americans are resonsible for holding leadership accountable or not.

 We all tend to awaken based on pain, alas most times too late.  Why I know longer act as if my shit does not stink. But as Maiminedes said, one must act as if he or she can tip the balance of this world. Because that is true but it does come with risk and pain as well as personal evolution in satisfaction in life. A deep subject...

In a binary system, choose to internalize, take some pain and sleep at night or externalize, blame shift and steal. Striving for balance is easier said than done but one way we advance and the other we stall. No judgement flr those that TRY and that is all I can say as a person I do. Moses was right, choose life or choose death. Such is a 3D system. Only great news is we as a species are nearly beyond it. 




Majestic12's picture

"Moses was right"

WTF? I drink, too, but your response may be a mason "jar" over the abyss.

Btw, believe what you want. But there is little evidence that any bible character either wrote any of the words or ever lived.

The subjective "interpretation" of multiple translations is rife with ambiguity.

It is a "collection" of writings...not even a "book" in the traditional sense, especially after the Catholic church was done with it.

But to quote "characters" as if they are here on ZH reading along, is a little much.

With that, Archibald (Harry) Tuttle was right..."we're all in this together..."

Infinite QE's picture

"What is amazing is not that the self-chosen attempt world-domination, but rather that we idiotic goy tolerate their manevolent behavior generation after generation ad infinitum.  What must it take to end all of this lunacy?"

Precisely my dear fellow. And your music is quite wonderful as well.

HardAssets's picture

Khazaria was a place with a warmongering people who often used deceit as a weapon. The Rus were among their most hated enemies, especially after being defeated and scattered by them.

omniversling's picture

Lot's of 'dual citizen's' names there...Did I blink, or was Oded Yinon Plan not mentioned? 

Toonces McGraw's picture

Boris, that nephew is well beyond sock usefullness. Don't touch the bath towels!

NidStyles's picture

Anyone ever notice how ZH always frames things of evil as right-wing? 


They never once mention anything about Communism being bad.

Mark Mywords's picture
Mark Mywords (not verified) NidStyles Oct 28, 2015 10:01 PM

Because it's true. What you have been told was communism, was not.

NidStyles's picture

Uhh, you retards obviously don't understand anything. That is to be expected.


Neo-Cons are being framed as right-wingers, when they are obviously Communists. They are a part of the party, we are the proles. 


Yet in this article they are saying Neo-Cons are evil right-wingers and need to be opposed by more leftism. You guys can't seriously be that stupid. This site has turned into a narrative supporting mechanism, instead of what it was originally, a truth machine.



AmericasCicero's picture

There is only state and individual, and the war is eternal

NidStyles's picture

Oh yes, the old false dichotomy nonsense man vs. the state. Mix in a little of the "big lie propaganda", and you can get everyone to accept your narrative. The state as an aporatus is only indicative and representative of the nation it formed from. If that nation is flooded with variables it becomes ineffective and has to attack it's original creators to survive, as they will inevitably want to reset it. This is what makes the state hostile to it's owner's, and it's only after foreign influences have pushed their way in, be wary of foreign entanglements. Distorting the community and pushing different nations into it causes the original nation to lose control of it's own created apparatus.  


There are many nations, and they are devided by genetic distinctiveness that leads to directed cultural differentiation. The state is the form by which the people of any one given nation rule. All of this authoritarianism has come from contact with the middle-east and Semitic peoples. Their culture is based around stern and harsh controls on behavior that are not conductive to inclusive relations and degeration of the cultural norms, which means a destuction of that said nation.

It was only when the Semitic people started pushing into Europe that Euorpeans have taken up arms and started projecting their power. Push out the Semitics, and keep them out. This is the only way the people of the US can regain power over their state again. Any other option is you playing right into their hands. If you fight the state, you destroy your own civilization. If you let them own and control what your state does, they will use it to destroy your civilization by killing your nationalism and nation.

My downvotes only display how deep the indoctrination and propaganda is getting on this site.


We are getting very close for the Semitics to try and take control overtly, and it's obvious by the amount of shit they pushing out. They have a dude dressed up as a woman being declared woman of the year FFS.





There is nothing from the Libertarian sphere that anyone here can use to prove me wrong on any of this. I have read almost everything Rothbard ever wrote, and Mises as well. I understand the libertarian positions, and I respect libertarians a great deal, for in a few short decades they have created an amazingly simplestic philosophy to describe the world. It's unfortunate tha tthey ignore a major aspect of how the world operates, and hwo the Smeitic people operate culturally. 


Intelligence_Insulter's picture

Copy and paste garbage why would you have different space gaps between paragraphs.  Your mother is a whore.

NidStyles's picture

See look at this troll. Everything about him is contradictory.



This place is loaded with Hasbara trolls now. 



Yeah, I copied and pasted the errors in grammar and typos as well, right? 

jeff montanye's picture

communist?  really?  what's communism?  marxism leninism?  maoism? dictatorship that stole from the rich?

what's fascism?  dictatorship that didn't?  that's enough of a distinction to get your dander up?  you must be pretty rich, but i doubt it.

the important consideration here is the ethno religious political support for this tiny but oh so important colonial outpost that got stuck in the truly innocent middle east because of the holocaust, call it real or call it exaggerated or call it fake.  the arabs didn't even take sides in ww2.  but zionists, many jews but hardly exclusively so have hijacked the u.s. government with the connivance of the military industrial complex and the national security state so as to have job security.  

get real.

fockewulf190's picture


You know that there are different Tylers working the levers behind the curtain at this site.  At least one is pro-Putin/China and is following the RT/Sputnik/Saker line quite closely. There is another who selectively sorts through the German political scene, spinning his own flava into the stories.  Another (or others) does a good job documenting the economic madness being inflicted on humanity daily.   The latter attracted me to ZH over 5 years ago, and it still does to this day.  The former does attract a lot of eyeballs (and comments), so it must be working out well for their  biz model.

Victor von Doom's picture

Why the downvotes?

I thought ZHs were primarily interested in freedom. Are you telling me you don't agree with the analysis as to who the cultural enemy is?

I don't believe it.

I think it's more of a case of Americans not wanting to face up to the fact that some of their programming makes them universal humanists.

That's fine if all you want is to live by an ideal, come what may.

Just stop the bitching about being driven into the ground by Zios/Jewish powerbrokers.

If you don't like that, then what's the problem with the NidStyles approach?

Comment please.

Ghordius's picture

Victor von Doom, don't take it personally, but I am quite sure that "why the downvotes" is one of the most futile questions here on ZH

yes, in the early and middle ages of ZH this place was crowded with libertarians. now, I would not be that sure anymore

my problem with Nid Skywalker's approach is here below. to spell it out: that beast that is the Empire of Eternal War does suck blood out of the involved states, but does not really need them

Imperialism can be done, has been done and might in future be done again on a full private basis. Example: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Ghordius's picture

"Neo-Cons are being framed as right-wingers, when they are obviously Communists. They are a part of the party, we are the proles. "

what I see here is the pathological need to frame the whole discussion into two sides, one good, the other bad. and then mix ideology into it

"Communist" is bad. On that I agree. But framing everything in the terms of "us" vs "them, communists" or "them, socialists", or "them, equalists" is a bit... childish

There are THREE strains of ideology, and many combinations to extremism

The (classic) liberal gone bad makes you his debt serf or sugar baby, and his hired mercenaries bomb you for the missing pound of flesh

The conservative gone bad burns you on a stake, gasses or crucifies you, particularly if you were so stupid to be born the wrong way

The socialist gone bad puts you in a labour camp and starves you... while preaching that it's your fault, really, for non-compliance to norms and equalitarian tenets

now, let's see... what are those "neo-cons" all about? well, they care about... security

so they are all about MOAR WEAPONS, and in particular about MOAR MILITARY SPENDING, which then leads to MOAR MEDDLING EVERYWHERE

so it makes sense that the Imperial Faction, "aka NeoCons" felt originally more at ease with the liberals

but the problem is that the US Democrat party has a dual-function. It's the party of US (classic) liberals and of US equalists/socialists

and for the latter, social spending is as important as "defense" spending. so they were not receptive enough for moar woars. in the sense that they generally don't mind to spend ammo for bombings and cruise missile bombings, but get queasy when it comes to boots on the ground

and so the Imperial Faction switched to the US Republicans, which is a party of US (classic) liberals and of US conservatives

In short the Imperial Faction aka "NeoCons" has liberal (classic) roots

It's about... freedom of business and money. First about military spending, then all the rest including Dollar, Oil, etc. etc. (and, of course... Israel, on the side. But mixed with Saudi Oil interests)

Calling them "communists" might make you feel good, but there is NOTHING about them that goes in the direction of more equality, what all communists steer to or less inequality, where all socialists steer to. They are not about redistribution, they are not about caring for veterans, they are only there because WAR IS A BIZ

Your flag, NidStyles, is black and yellow. The black is about no state, or as little as possible. the yellow is the classic colour of... liberalism

The recipy of complete freedom of business

Nid Skywalker, face it: Darth Vader the NeoCon is... your father. And he has your support

Your fullest support, actually, by your framing them into such terms which then misdirect the whole discussion into "us" vs "communists"

The problem is that you will have, if you want to stop them, to frame the whole thing in something that is anathema to you: "ANTI-BIZ". Can you?

Probably no, and so you will continue to be unconsciously and automatically pro-whatever-freedom-of-biz, pro-whatever-biz, and so... PRO-WAR-BIZ

This while the average equalist is horrified by all that and points at you and Darth Vader as the evil pro-biz exploitative nexus, and the average conservative is recruited as soldier, fights the imperial wars and is afterwards ditched as useless (economic) "veteran trash"

the "right-wingers", in all that, are those who get high on wars, "possessing" the most powerful military force in the world, and more violence. in this biz, they are... consumers

Memedada's picture

I agree, somewhat, to most in your post. The division of ideologies into three branches is, however, too simplistic (I know you wrote “and many combinations”). In which branch do you put anarchism (libertarianism – the US-version – is easily put in the camp of liberalism, but the other versions of anarchism? I.e. the real/historical version of libertarianism?).

And I think that it is important to make a distinction between liberal and liberalism. The former is basically being open-minded, tolerant and against regulations/laws that inflict on personal liberty (= you can be a liberal socialist) and the latter is pro-free-market/laissez faire capitalism.

Ghordius's picture

three branches, but they are mixable

the US Democrats follow a mix of equalitarianism/socialism and liberalism (classic). i.e. are united in being not conservative

the US Republicans follow a mix of liberalism (classic) and conservativism, i.e. are united in being not socialist/equalitarian

here on the european continent we have "Christian Democrats", which is a mix of conservativism and equalitarianism/socialism, i.e. social conservative

this particular version is, when it goes bad, transformed into... national socialism, i.e. the nazis

my point here is that it's strongly a question of "how much", and what means are justified by what goals (and where you want to go... negative)

anarchism as such is "not included" in this model for a simple reason: those are all ideologies that give a recipy for how society and/or the state ought to behave.

on the other side, we could declare the "triple zero" of this tri-dimentional model to be the anarchist's point of view

then the classic full-monty pure anarchist disowns concepts like "society" or "state". hence he or she is completely out of scope, will not contribute to anything. zero, zero, zero

but most anarchists are nevertheless not pure anarchists. so you have the black & yellow flag, that Nid "Skywalker" here is sporting, i.e. the anarcho-liberal (classic), aka anarcho-capitalis, the black & red flag of the "anarchist of the left", i.e. anarcho-syndacalists, and the full black flag of "up your ass, die, MF" violent anarchism, among many

as you pointed out, only three dimensions don't capture fully the thing, but they do capture multiparty dealings with issues where multi-party parliaments are elected, which is it's "claim" to fame, even when "greens" have to puff and huff because they are, in this model, a breed of conservatives (they do, after all, want to conserve... the environment)

"a distinction between liberal and liberalism. " this, I fear, is only a semantic problem in the US, where social-liberal (i.e. Dem) has been rebranded as "liberal" by opponents, as a slur, btw

hence I write on ZH as often as possible "liberal (classic)". the fact that in the US the various forms of liberty are highly "segregated" in areas (economic, social) has more something to do with the fact that both parties and the whole nation subscribes to liberalism (classic) in principle

all three branches are varied and have many different sub-branches. and yet it all goes back to Liberty, Fraternity and Equality

Liberty, in it's best and simplest form, is just leaving people be in their life and dealings. the enemy of that is... illiberal

Fraternity, in it's best and simplest form, is relatives and/or neighbours caring and helping each other, scalable to clan, tribe, nation, society

Equality, in it's simplest form, is judging disputes among two individuals or groups impartially. hence Justice is depicted as blindfolded

now picture The Thing, be that the state and/or society, as a plane

each ideology says: here or there, altitude is the most important thing, and that's... me. if you lose me, you crash into something terrible

and indeed, all three are right in this. if you fight and vanquish any of the three, you lost sight of human needs, and call in the jackboot that stamps on the face of humanity

shovelhead's picture

Sounds like the secret sauce recipes that diverge. I like mine with more ketchup, less mayo and a smidge of sweet relish.

Wifey is more mayo, sweet relish and a bit of ketchup. It looks like tarter sauce that had a minor accident.

I hate her secret sauce and ban it entirely from my burgers.

My burger sauce reigns supreme. You're welcome to your own, but when you come to my house for burgers, I make the sauce. I'm not letting a bunch of assholes who don't know anything about good secret sauce to run amok in my kitchen.

Secret sauce fascist.

Grimaldus's picture

Neo-cons are progressives. This article is a progressive head fake--"Hey look over there at the neocons" probabbly a desperate attempt at damage control because of the progressive super-murderers Hillary and Obirdbrain's doubling down on shubs middle east death machine and the oceans of blood spilt because of them. Progressives are the face of death.

And never forget, the progressive stupid, it burns!







Raymond_K._Hessel's picture
Raymond_K._Hessel (not verified) Grimaldus Oct 29, 2015 10:47 AM

No - they are not.

They are proxy zionists.


AmericanWarrior's picture

Nidstyles, Right on Brother, I have never seen anything bad about the russians, even though they exterminated 30 to 40 million of their own people, currently routinely slaughter civilians in the Caucuses and Syria. They supported the ChiComs and North Koreans killing 60 to 100 million and 5 to 10 million of their own peoples, respectively, but they can't say anything good about the US, its intentions or motivations. ZH is obviously ran by America hating leftists who blame America for all of the evil in the world and have a mindset that mimics O'hillarybama. 

They lose all credibility by their obvious bias, they never mention the good that America has done for hundreds of years and is the first to respond with the most to any and all disasters with our friends and many times, our enemies. Do these idiots believe that the communist chinese or russians would run a benevolent world if the US backed up and left the world to the evil doers?

What is the BS with NeoCons, that means new conservatives, many of those people have been conservative their whole lives and they do not have a clue what the term means nor what in the hell they are talking about. I have lived and served in many of these war zones, helped many refugees resettle in the US and I am telling you, these guys are clueless. They sit in their offices or moms basement and spew forth BS about things that they have no clue about. Look at the friends of china and russia, they are murderers and evil all. They persecute women, minorities, and incarcerate or murder anyone who disagrees with them. We are not talking about not baking cakes for a gay wedding, we are talking about throwing the gays off of buildings or stoning them to death.

If not for the US, the soviets and their evil allies would be running a world wide gulag with no one to step up and stop them. God bless America and its warriors who stand up to evil around the world and for freedom of speech of all, even America hating, communists loving ZH.

Respectfully, American Warrior

TahoeBilly2012's picture

AW I keep hearing this same shit you say everywhere, our corrupt Government is still better than theirs. Do your homework on who the Bolsheviks exactly were and who backed them (Christian Russia was attacked by foreigners!). Do your homework on who started WW1 and why (It wasn't the Kaiser). The US citizenry has been played by a gang seeking world order and likely plans to walk away once they have used it to obtain the goals.

You don't know what the f&%k you are talking about, go watch the Martian, probably high culture for you.

jeff montanye's picture

russia under stalin killed many millions.  china under mao ditto.  what light is cast on current events by this?  less than by the old testament.

it's not so much that it's old history; it's, largely, irrelevant history.

bad actors change over time.  currently and for the past fourteen years (you know since when) the bad actors have been, unequivocally, the u.s. and israel.

some (me) would date it from the murder of jfk.










pachanguero's picture

23 years of service to my country as well a 6 years U.S. Army officers tells me you are a REMF.  Another arm chair "warrior" calling for more blood.

P.S. We are over the right or left false narrative somewhere else. 

11b40's picture

For anyone wondering what a REMF is, it is military parlance for Rear Echelon Mother F***ker. In the business world, the comparison is the conflict between line & staff.

AmericanWarrior's picture

pachanguero. you served your country for 23 years, which one, as well as 6 years US Army officers, I am not sure what you are trying to say, you attack me as a REMF, another armchair warrior calling for more blood, exactly when did I call for more blood and I said nothing to tell you where I served or what I did. From the first day that I swore in as a 17 year old in 1979, I swore to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic. I proudly served in the US Army, initially as a paratrooper in Panama and then eventually retired as from 5th SFG(A) with 18E, 18B, 18F MOS's with language qualifiers in Arabic, Spanish, and Farsi. I served in the First Gulf War as a commo operator running a TSEC 99 Van, until the ground war started and then led a REMF team of commo guys and mechanics non SF guys clearing buildings in Northern Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq and Kuwait around Hafar Al Batin. During war time, there are no mare REMF's anymore the young mechanics and commo guys that I led, had almost no training in combat techniques, but they did well and we captured a great many Iraqis. When you receive rockets and mortars, as well as, suicide bombers, they do not care whether you are mechanic, a clerk, or a trigger puller. A large percentage of the soldiers killed and maimed in the current wars would have once been considered REMF's, but now they are the main targets, since they are considered "soft targets". I am telling you these things to help educate you. 

I am proud of my service, whether as a support guy, team leader, country chief, or just an attached medic. I have most of the valor awards that I have received have been for working as an attached medic (actually, I am a Registered Nurse), who volunteered to go out with convoy operations that had no medic.

All who serve, deserve to be recognized and like I said, when the 240mm rockets were coming into the camps in Iraq or the scud missiles in the first gulf war, dead is dead, regardless of the MOS. The worst incident of the gulf war, was when the aircraft hangar full of REMF's was hit with a scud.

On Nov. 2 2003 I went out on an operation to assist with rescue and recovery of men and women shot down (CH 47) in Falujah. Many of them were obviously not infantry guys, but they were just as injured or dead. The civilians that were killed on my convoy just a few hours earlier in the center of Falujah were just as dead, as well. They were prior service EOD guys and just wanted to continue to serve and were killed by an IED.

Obviously, those who attack me, without knowing me or caring to know me, are practiced liars, for they so easily falsely accuse those that they do not know or care to know. I have the pictures, awards, documents, DD-Form 214 to prove who I am what I have done. I deal with the truth and reality, I lived in Iraq with Iraqis for 6 years on the ground during the years 2003-2010 and I know that much of what I read here is not written by people who were there, because it is just plain not true.

I am proud to be an American, I love America and I will spend the rest of my life defending her. I have had 4 sons serve in the Army as well and I am proud of them, as any father should be.

I can't understand the hatred that I read here everyday for America, yes, I have a big problem with Obama, but one day soon he will be gone and God willing we will have a new president who does not hate America. The US is still the light on a hill, as President Reagan, use to say. The greatest country to World has ever known, the greatest force for good and against evil the world has ever known. I can't think of anything positive that the russians have ever done for the world and pretty much the same for china, but you attack America, deny the evil of others, this I can not understand.

God bless America, respectfully, American Warrior