Another Nail in the Neocon Coffin

IMG Auteur
Published : May 05th, 2013
1424 words - Reading time : 3 - 5 minutes
( 29 votes, 4.1/5 ) , 32 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials

The recent opening of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity was a watershed moment in American history. There has never been anything quite like it. Ideologically diverse, the Ron Paul Institute reaches out to all Americans, and indeed to people all over the world, who find the spectrum of foreign-policy opinion in the United States to be unreasonably narrow. Until Ron Paul and his new institute, there was no resolutely anti-interventionist foreign-policy organization to be found.

Neoconservatives have not responded warmly to the announcement of Ron's new institute. Whatever their particular gripes, we can be absolutely certain of the real reason for their unhappiness: they have never faced systematic, organized opposition before.

The Democrats would see the earth tumble into the sun before supporting nonintervention abroad, so they pose no fundamental problem for the neocons. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is real opposition, and he can mobilize an army. The neocons know it. What's Tim Pawlenty up to these days? Where are his legions of well-read young fans who seek to carry on his philosophy? You see the point.

For the first time, strict nonintervention will have a permanent voice in American life. It is another nail in the neocon coffin. The neocons know they are losing the young. Bright kids who believe in freedom aren't rallying to Mitt Romney or David Horowitz, and, like anyone with a critical mind and a moral compass, they are not going along with the regime's war propaganda.

At this historic moment, I thought it might be appropriate to set down some thoughts on war - a manifesto for peace, as it were.

(1) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.

Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term "collateral damage," along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.

Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else.

(2) Humanize the demonized.

We must encourage all efforts to humanize the populations of countries in the crosshairs of the warmakers. The general public is whipped into a war frenzy without knowing the first thing - or hearing only propaganda - about the people who will die in that war. The establishment's media won't tell their story, so it is up to us to use all the resources we as individuals have, especially online, to communicate the most subversive truth of all: that the people on the other side are human beings, too. This will make it marginally more difficult for the warmakers to carry out their Two Minutes' Hate, and can have the effect of persuading Americans with normal human sympathies to distrust the propaganda that surrounds them.

(3) If we oppose aggression, let us oppose all aggression.

If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.

(4) Never use "we" when speaking of the government.

The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say "we" when discussing the US government's foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of "we" when discussing their government's foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.

But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government's foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them - why, you're insulting my foreign policy!

Likewise, the use of "we" feeds into war fever. "We" have to get "them." People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, "they" can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice "we" dispense to them.

The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes "we" have committed. But we haven't committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.

(4) War is not "good for the economy."

A commitment to peace is a wonderful thing and worthy of praise, but it needs to be coupled with an understanding of economics. A well-known US senator recently deplored cuts in military spending because "when you cut military spending you lose jobs." There is no economic silver lining to war or to preparation for war.

Those who would tell us that war brings prosperity are grossly mistaken, even in the celebrated case of World War II. The particular stimulus that war gives to certain sectors of the economy comes at the expense of civilian needs, and directs resources away from the improvement of the common man's standard of living.

Ludwig von Mises, the great free-market economist, wrote, that "war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest."

Elsewhere, Mises described the essence of so-called war prosperity: it "enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income."

(5) Support the free market? Then oppose war.

Ron Paul has restored the proper association of capitalism with peace and nonintervention. Leninists and other leftists, burdened by a false understanding of economics and the market system, used to claim that capitalism needed war, that alleged "overproduction" of goods forced market societies to go abroad - and often to war - in search for external markets for their excess goods.

This was always economic nonsense. It was political nonsense, too: the free market needs no parasitical institution to grease the skids for international commerce, and the same philosophy that urges nonaggression among individual human beings compels nonaggression between geographical areas.

Mises always insisted, contra the Leninists, that war and capitalism could not long coexist. "Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations.. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war.. The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another."

"The market economy," Mises said simply, "means peaceful cooperation and peaceful exchange of goods and services. It cannot persist when wholesale killing is the order of the day."

Those who believe in the free and unhampered market economy should be especially skeptical of war and military action. War, after all, is the ultimate government program. War has it all: propaganda, censorship, spying, crony contracts, money printing, skyrocketing spending, debt creation, central planning, hubris - everything we associate with the worst interventions into the economy.

"War," Mises observed, "is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds; war destroys."

See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government's version of things.

Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all.

Peace builds. War destroys.

Source :
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.1 (29 votes)
>> Next article
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of, and author of Speaking of Liberty.
WebsiteSubscribe to his services
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
It looks like Jim C. has never heard of the USS Liberty and Israel's murderous assault on her that left 34 Americans dead and 171 maimed. If he has, he is a fool to call Israel our ally. Maybe he's just one of those fools who have swallowed the "Chosen People" bait... hook, line and sinker!
Rate :   10  4Rating :   6
I think the real manifesto of the Ron Paul Institite for 'Peace and Prosperity', and its advocates, is this:

1) Never acknowledge a military threat to the United States of America.

2) Always place America at fault for any attack against it.

3) Never, under any circumstances, lend military or moral support to our ally Israel.

4) The advocacy of State secession supersedes any issue of individual rights.

5) Limited government is to be advocated until the opportunity for complete anarchy becomes feasible.
Rate :   10  10Rating :   0
Absolutely correct, Jim C. As you have found, daring to defy Ron Paul on these pages always draws abuse, but you are not alone in recognizing that ignorant articles like this one explain fully why Ron Paul will never, ever, ever come close to being President. While domestically and economically, he has many superb ideas worth supporting, as soon as he touches on foreign policy he becomes the crazy Uncle that has to wear a GPS tracker on his ankle so he can be found when he wonders off wearing his tin-foil hat. His views area are ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality, and he is prone to the 'blame America first and foremost' attitude that assumes all is well in the world...if we would just sit on our hands and leave everyone alone. I like much of what Ron Paul has to say on economics and domestic issues, but as one who spent 35 years in service to this country and most of the last 15 years overseas, Ron Paul's view on diplomacy, the United States, and what motivates foreign powers are nothing short of stupid and uniformed. Enough people are smart enough to know this and will continue to keep his hands far from the levers of the State. Thank God, even though what we have now couldn't be much worse.
Rate :   5  12Rating :   -7
BDB, how is it that your opinion which is based on 35 years in the military is so far apart from the opinions of my friends and family who are serving and who have served in the same military? I could take a stab at it and guess that you were possibly posted behind a desk and were not plunged into the consequences that have resulted from decades of US meddling. Those on the front lines and those that are part of cleaning up (trying to buy off those who were unjustly treated or had family members killed by US personnel without cause) have a deep understanding of the tragedy that is US foreign policy.

Of greater concern here is your whole hearted backing of Jim C. Do you forget that Jim C is for big government and at every opportunity pounces on anyone that will criticise Obama and the true cause behind the rest of the planet hating the US.

Take his first two items. Please tell us who on this globe poses a military threat to the US? There are a number of pissed off nations that the US has screwed with that want to retaliate but seriously, what nation poses a military threat to the US? All the US has done is maximize the number and creation of radicals that want to blow themselves up and take as many US citizens as possible with them.

His second point is an attempt at pure Obamafuscation. Let’s play role reversal here for a moment. If you were an Iraqi citizen that has had his home blown apart by US troops, your children have been murdered by cowards flying drones half a world away, and this was all done to eliminate the possibility that your country has weapons of mass destruction, that even after tearing the country apart were never found, how would you feel towards the US? If the same thing happened to your family in some other middle east country how would you feel towards the US? So let’s phrase what Jim C said in the right context - always blame the US for any attack against it that was a direct result of the screwing around the US has done to the attacking party.

This is basic stuff that even grade school kids understand yet it seems to elude the educated adults. No other country on the planet is as hated as the US simply because no other country has carried on the kinds of open and covert wars that the US has. It’s arrogant and ignorant to think that by placing US military bases in just about every country possible means that US citizens are safer, in fact it’s been well proven now that this has the opposite effect.

When will you and people like Jim C open your eyes to the fact that offensive actions, especially those that are carried out in secret, have a detrimental effect on all of the US citizens, and the cretins in Washington don’t give a rat ass about you?
Rate :   11  3Rating :   8
You can guess, as you have--and you'd be wrong. Also, I didn't say my experience was solely military, but if you are guessing I was a 'desk jockey', then guess again. I've done 5 combat tours. Be that as it may, I do not entirely disagree with some of your commentary, in that I surely do not believe that DC and the beltway have all the answers and that all power should be centralized there. If that is Jim C's position, then I strongly disagree. In fact, this centralization--which has really been going on ever since the States unified and accelerated during and after WWII--is indeed largely to blame for most of what we are suffering domestically today. However, it is complete poppy-cock (to put it mildly) to blame ourselves for the murderous appetites of foreign countries and the terrorists (state sponsored terrorism) they support, as it is stupid and ignorant to think foreign policy has anything to do with being "liked" by other countries on the planet. No sophisticated foreign policy body of any other major power wastes its time on who 'likes' and 'dislikes' them; that is a particularly American idiocy. You make policy based first and foremost on your national interests; not something as high school sophomoric as being 'liked'. Also, if you don't want to be blown up by a drone (and calling that cowardly is really moronic; the real cowards were the 9/11 terrorists and the Boston terrorists), then do not support or even stand close to a member of Al Qaeda. If you do, there's a good chance you will be blown to bits--and I cheer that every time it happens. If you attack and murder thousands of US citizens, as happened on 9/11 (try to remember), then a Navy Seal will show up on your doorstep one day and blow your brains out. Do the math. There is an ideological war being waged against the US that we never volunteered to participate in, but it was going on for decades before it manifested itself in the COWARDLY acts of 9/11. Staring into your own belly-button and assuming all the things that have occurred in our history automatically make us the bad guy will not save you nor the United States. We emerged from the last century with global hegemony whether we like it or not, and that makes us a target. I can understand not having the stomach to defend yourself and your fellow citizens, but at least stop attacking those of us that do. We're really not the enemy, despite what Ron Paul and his "Peace Institute" might be trying to make you believe. (P.S. We found WMD in Iraq--I was there [see Wiki-leaks if you wish]. We just didn't find Saddam's VX, which is likely part of Syria's arsenal now. Also, instead of pretending that it was a big 'lie', do your research and learn that every single major intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had VX stockpiles, and the Democrats to include Hillary and Bill Clinton also were completely convinced by the intel of the time, and supportive of the actions taken in 2003. To now, in hindsight, claim otherwise and that it was 'lie' concocted by Bush and Cheney IS the true lie in all of this, but an effort that--with the full support of the media--has become the false narrative of the day.)
Rate :   3  10Rating :   -7
Your applauding of drone kills is baffling to me. As a military man where is your concern for reducing collateral damage? If you believe that drone strikes are targeted and that anyone who is not a combatant shouldn’t be standing next to an Al Qaeda member where is the justification for the killing of dozens of Pakistani soldiers at their out posts? How is it that even after intel was delivered that the targets were friendly the strikes continued. It was only after this was made public that ‘apologies’ were made. In the meantime a few ‘guy’ got in some target practice. Drone strikes, when they start happening within your own borders will be a real eye opener. I seriously hope it doesn’t come to that but you know innocents are going to die because they “were to close” to the targets at some event even though they weren’t participants. When will collateral damage caused by drones finally be too much for yourself and those who believe as you do?

Ok I’ll stand corrected on the WMD in Iraq but please do provide links to real documentation. As I have not been able to find such anywhere I will remain suspect. The term WMD itself is now suspect after, possibly prior to, the Boston bombing. When did a pipe bomb become a WMD? Where does that fit into the scale when compared to let’s say one round at one end and a nuke at the other.

Not to surprisingly, the response I got from a brother who has served when he read your comments was ‘HURAAAH HELL YA the old line to get em passionate about killing’. In other words standard fare to feed to troops to believe what DC wants them to believe. By the way, he also had a hard time believing that anyone who has served as long as you indicate would believe that “the --------- ----------“ (can’t put that here) had the brains to carry out 9/11. On this item we seem to have completely opposing views, mine being that this was an event sponsored and funded by the DC scum. There is too much evidence that proves my point, just as you feel there is enough evidence to prove Saddam had WMD.

Your statement about making policy based on your national interest is also standard fare, the stuff DC wants you to believe. When is it in anyone’s best interest to meddle in other nations affairs when it is detrimental to that nation? Who has the right to dictate policy to a freely elected government in another nation? It’s this narrow vision that has brought the US into the radicals cross hairs, no matter what DC might put out through the talking heads, there is a reaction for every dark deed. Having a strong military does not mean that you ‘have’ the right to dictate to others. Where was this right granted in the constitution? Being liked in high school is one thing, a country being hated passionately enough that people will strap bombs onto their kids so they can kill a few Americans is a difference that’s too large to even begin to articulate here. I have to ask you, when you’re in the military does the constitution stand for anything?

I’m not sure where you got the impression I was attacking you for your service? If I conveyed that I apologize, it would amount to attacking my own family for the same thing. It is because of family and friends that I know firsthand the sacrifice you and anyone else who have/has served has made. The target of my attacks will never be against anyone individual for serving their country, my displeasure (hatred really) is solely targeted at the psychopaths in Washington. There is no way to have a real discourse on this within this forum. The end result is that men and women that are willing to sacrifice are used as disposable items by those who want only to ‘feel the power’ and/or line their pockets.

Foreign policy is not about being popular, I agree to that point but it also cannot be sustained if that policy simply provides for one nation to the complete destruction of other societies. Friends are easy to make and keep, enemies are easier to make but cost a hell of a lot more lives.

You don’t care for Ron Paul, you don’t care for Obama? What’s left?

A head turn in Jim C’s direction. That guy, he’s not here to provide anything relevant. He seems to be hell bent on rewriting history and spreading hate across any author that would dare to make him uncomfortable. Arrows, at least in his case the down arrows, are a very good indication of a commenters ‘overall’ attitudes and opinions or their ability to ad to a discussion. You’ll find that people here are fair in their evaluation. You may not always get a up from me but you already have them. With Jim C It boils down to simply yapping like a poodle, no one gets an up arrow for that.
Rate :   10  2Rating :   8
You're not really a "9/11 truther," are you?? At any rate, I find it interesting that people 'ask people they know' or talk to members of their own family to form opinions on the military and diplomatic actions overseas, yet I can talk first-hand. Clearly mentioning that one has this experience is a sure fire way to draw a target on your back and have people accuse you of being a "liar," (not you, Iesos), but I'll let that go.

Here is what I will say, though. I am no friend of the "inside the beltway crowd." I would rather see the United States be the republic it was intended than have the far too powerful central government that we have now.

On foreign policy, l suggest this: let's pretend for one second that we do not have treaty obligations (can't really do that, because we do, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It works in our interest. Take Poland, for example. After being robbed of the opportunity to be a State most of the last century, they labored hard after the wall came down to get into NATO. Why? Because of the Article V protections provided in that treaty that state an attack on one is an attack on all. We supported Poland's efforts, and now Poland is one of best allies. Not because they "like" us, but rather because it is in their interest and ours. There are other examples, but understand this--we are committed to the defense of all our NATO allies, even if the attack was not directed at America or Americans.) I would propose that, just as Romney said we should apply the China test to new departments (we start none if we have to borrow the money from China), I would apply a test to foreign policy and the use of the military force that states, "we will use force only to defend the lives of our citizenry, to defend our borders, and to defend the liberty and freedom of American citizens." If the issue doesn't meet that criteria, than we do not deploy troops. That would, of course, end our efforts to assist in finding Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army in the jungles of Africa. We also wouldn't be in South Sudan, and we certainly would have to drop Obama's policy to fight genocide around the planet. (Yes, the Obama administration committed your sons and loved ones in the military to be the world's genocide police.) I'm good with pulling back from some of these over commitments. Note however, that you would STILL have to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and other Islamic Supremist groups because they are irreconcilable and totally dedicated, for ideological reasons, to killing Americans. You're not going to stop them by dreaming, by musing, by reason, by well-crafted arguments. I suppose you could surrender, but fortunately most of us don't do surrender.

Of course, a foreign/military policy this simple ignores the fact that we indeed have treaty obligations that we would be foolish to throw away. However, I think it would be possible to honor them yet still pull back somewhat. Not fighting fanatical Islamic groups; that's never going to be an option. I do not have faith in DC, but I do believe in liberty, freedom, and why this country formed. Conversion and/or submission might be okay for some, but it most certainly is not for me. And there is definitely going to be collateral damage. The line in the sand was drawn long ago, and its time everyone threw a rock and committed to what they believe in, gritted their teeth. and steeled their souls to what lies ahead. Gouging our own eyes out and worrying about who "likes" us has never been the right answer.

That's all I have to say on this subject. Most other commentary here has merely been a vicious personal attack on me--kind of like what Vietnam vets must have experienced in the San Francisco airport when they returned and were spit on by their fellow citizens. I'm rather shocked to see the personal viciousness I've seen on the 24hr Gold commentary pages. I can take it, though. I am just the bearer of bad news, and that news is that there are bad people out there dedicated to murdering our citizenry, and it is NOT/NOT our fault.

Rate :   2  8Rating :   -6
Using Poland in your example shows a weak understanding of the reasoning behind your foreign policy. The US government will do anything it can to encircle Russia and Poland is a perfect example of that. It’s no secret to anyone here that the psychopaths in DC want to rule the world. To that end they have and will continue to do anything and everything to first of all try to alienate Russia, and China, and then bully them. It’s the common boneheaded military mentality that keeps digging the US further into what will soon be a hole to deep to get out of. Poland didn’t labor hard to get into NATO, their allegiance was bought and paid for by DC as was virtually every other country that left the USSR.

Let me state this one more time and be very clear. Most nations in the world hate the US because of the decades of constant meddling in other nations affairs. Your spewing the standard poppycock that is spoon fed by Washington to every US citizen. “There is an ideological war being waged against the US that we never volunteered to participate in, but it was going on for decades before it manifested itself in the COWARDLY acts of 9/11.” Now that is a moronic statement to make and any educated person would not be fool hardy enough to do so.

You mentioned WikiLeaks, there is more than enough information available there for any intelligent person with a will to know the truth to determine just how much screwing around the DC crowd have done with other nations and none of it had anything to do with foreign policy unless you define it as making sure the people who line your pockets get the contracts they want.

By the way, I believe you were challenged to provide links that proved there were WMD in Iraq. I’ve not seen you post anything. I do however understand that if you shift the definition of what constitutes a WMD, like they did for the Boston bombing, you may be correct but in that case the US used WMD’s when they invaded Iraq.

“There are other examples, but understand this--we are committed to the defense of all our NATO allies, even if the attack was not directed at America or Americans.”. Really? I don’t see US aircraft carriers off of Japans shores to hold the Chinese back in their moves to take over strategic islands. It appears that the defense of allies is a hit and miss kind of thing and the reality is that the US choses who and when it will ‘protect’.

One more thing, “"we will use force only to defend the lives of our citizenry, to defend our borders, and to defend the liberty and freedom of American citizens." To defend our borders. If I’m not mistaken that is the purpose of the military, defense of the homeland. Why then is your military killing Pakistani soldiers, children in Yemen, wiping out whole villages in Afghanistan and finding no Taliban were present, why why why? In today’s world you need to realize that when the US kills innocents video of these actions hits the web, there is no more cover-up and this is why Obama want’s the ability to limit what we see. When Apache helicopters kill Iraqi civilians we see the video and we also see how poor the so called intel that has cost billions to acquire really is. Civilians being killed by the US military in Somalia… There is so much material on this that you have no defense.

Allow me to direct you to the US military ‘Law of Armed Conflict’ located at The first line states “The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited.” I would recommend you read the whole thing before answering this comment.

But then, not surprising since this is the US military we’re talking about here, it gives itself an out by stating “Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. Judge advocate, intelligence, and operations personnel play a critical role in determining the propriety of a target and the choice of weapon to be used under the particular circumstances known to the commander when planning an attack.” So instead of halting an attack because there will be collateral damage and taking out the target later, let’s not take any chances and kill them all now.

In other words as far as it’s concerned the US military is able to kill at the mere whim of a few select psychotic people, sort of like Obama now being able to call a hit on any individual including those within the US “he” decides to term a terrorists.

From the LOAC “Deadly force should only be used in response to a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile intent. Deadly force is defined as force that causes or has a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.” Please do tell how kids in Yemen or Pakistani soldiers in their border station posed a deadly threat to the drones flying over head that were being piloted by cowards back in the US? From the LOAC “Distinction. Distinction means discriminating between lawful combatant targets and noncombatant targets such as civilians, civilian property, POWs, and wounded personnel who are out of combat.” Interestingly it does not mention targeting allies in this section. Now I do not target any US military personnel with this, my focus is on the DC morons who have never even heard of the LOAC mush less restrain themselves to working within it. How many times has the LOAC been violated in the name of protecting the US from hordes of invading foreign children?

This is why people around the world hate the US, this arrogance that says we can do anything we want to and kill anyone we think we need to but don’t you dare retaliate or we’ll wipe you out.
Rate :   8  2Rating :   6
You're not listening; you're just ranting. Your mind is made up and it is quite clear you have only a mild surface-level understanding of foreign policy and warfare. To miss the Polish example is key, since it is clear to all who aren't on some sort of anti-American crusade as you clearly are that I was pointing out that the US has treaty obligations agreed to by the Senate that are binding, and that many of them support our interests. Yet you claim I have weak understanding. That is laughable, since it is clear you have no understanding whatsoever. You're just venting your hatred. I'm done with this topic. I'm obviously casting pearls amongst swines.
Rate :   2  9Rating :   -7
You seek to find details but you miss the obvious.

Anti-American crusade? You really do miss the obvious, such as my attempt to open your eyes so that we might be saved from more of the same from DC.

You've still skirted the point of providing evidence of WMD being found in Iraq. You have negated any validity that you might have had by not presenting proof of your claim, a very serious claim that everyone from the past president to the head of the CIA and every three letter agency involved in setting up Iraq has admitted was wrong. So of course you want to end any discussion here.

Jim C was right, you two are compatible and based on the way you conduct yourself it's even starting to look like BDB is just another alias that Jim C uses.

But you are right about one thing, this discussion is done as you have shown no ability to think beyond the reality you have created in your mind.
Rate :   6  3Rating :   3
Isn't it interesting that someone (commenter and not site admin) has reported the posts by vox as abuse but has avoided doing the same for the load of hooey BDB and Jim C have posted. I'm sure once the admins look over the abuse claims they will see that this was just another childish move by one individual that frequents these forums.

One request to the admins, take the ability to report abuse away from the person that misused the privilege.
Rate :   7  5Rating :   2
You can disagree with a person's point of view--even call it "hooey" if you choose, but personal attacks on some one you don't even know, as well as unsubstantiated claims that the person is a 'liar,' are not "commentary"--they're abuse. You may not agree with Jim C or my point of view, but the truly childish act is to personally attack some one you don't even know.
Rate :   3  8Rating :   -5
I could not tell you my source since you wouldn't believe it, but I was there--so I had first-hand information that was classified. It remained classified because the insurgents had captured some of this stuff but didn't know they had it, and they were using it to make IEDs the same way they used regular artillery rounds. We didn't want them to know they had WMD.

Another 'America hater' such as yourself, however, accidentally did a good thing and released classified documents that show EXACTLY what I had already told you; that we found WMD in the form of Mustard Gas (Blister Agent), but did not find the caches of VX that we thought Saddam had. Look it up: By the way, Mustard Gas is a genuine WMD and he was forbidden by the UN to have this--just as he was VX or any other WMD.

Google it for even more information. I know you and the other blind posters here won't open your slammed shut minds even an inch, so I won't be looking for your apology to me here. But, you were wrong and I was right. Simple as that. Case closed, and I'm done responding. (This time I mean it.)
Rate :   2  9Rating :   -7
The site you listed states "In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site. "

American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard... Hello! What they thought was mustard gas!!! Where are the lab results showing it was mustard gas? This is about the lamest cover for invading Iraq I've ever seen. The NY Post, a real bastion in the fight to provide the real truth? I bought a bridge in New Mexico one time that I thought was the Golden Gate Bridge, I even saw pictures of it, I was wrong.

"I could not tell you my source since you wouldn't believe it, but I was there--so I had first-hand information that was classified." Let me tell you something, I was there when my friend told me that they found a alien alive after his space craft hit the side of a mountain. They managed to get the holes patched up with duct tape and the alien was able to leave our planet. I could tell you where this happened but it's classified. My statement is more believable than yours as mine does not include any US government cover up. You sir are a prime example of the type of brainwashing the US citizenry has been subjected to.

Circular reasoning, conjecture, assumptions, and a deep desire to be right does not constitute finding WMD in Iraq.

Rate :   7  3Rating :   4
I know how much it must sting for you to find out that I was absolutely 100% correct about what I stated regarding WMD in Iraq, but with time you will probably get over it. Any fair-minded reader of the article whom, as I recommended, also continues to research the topic (Google) and actually read the full WikiLeaks documents will find that, as I stated, we indeed found and continued to find WMD in Iraq--we just did not find the stockpiles of VX we thought Saddam had. Sources demonstrating this are now abundant. Attacking me with made up nonsense about "space craft", attacking the NY Post's credibility (there are plenty of other sources now as well), and launching hate-filled rants against the "US citizenry" is not a good way for you to deal with your humiliation. Just give it time, and eventually you'll probably get over it. As for now, it will probably only sting for a couple weeks.
Rate :   1  8Rating :   -7
Your childish attempt to deflect is amusing, I had you down as being able to come up with better.

Obviously you never read my complete post wherein I mock the article in the NYP, you know, about the soldiers finding what they THOUGHT was mustard gas. And thus the article ends. Nothing about lab work showing it really was mustard gas as this would require releasing evidence that would have a trail which they can't create.

As for attacking the NYP, only a flaming lib would defend this spreader of government propaganda. Shame on you for defending them after you yourself have commented on the governments invasion into everyone's life beyond that which they have a right to. And yes, I did more searching and still found nothing that would stand up in court to have Saddam found guilty of having WMD's. But I'll repeat what was said earlier, if you change the meaning of what constitutes a WMD then heck ya they had em. Thing is the US used them to invade Iraq, they are still using them in Afghanistan and every other undeclared war they are involved in. Think I'm crazy, look no further than the articles on the Boston bombings where two guys used WMD, a.k.a. pipe bombs. Get my point or do I need to be more exact?

The space craft story was not an attack, you seem pretty touchy for a military guy. It was merely to draw attention to how little validity your statement about having been in Iraq and having first hand second hand (that's right I said first hand second hand information since you didn't personally see it nor can you provide real evidence but you know about it) information really had. As for WikiLeaks, have you ever considered that the government could use this site to provide misinformation and have it look like it was fact? Your not a good spook (as in secret agent man) are you? You claim to be very up on foreign policy but I've not seen much to indicate you have a grasp of how the alphabet soup departments of Homeland Security operate. Best brush up.

But just so we're clear, everyone I know in the military, Army and Marines thinks your just a propaganda machine. They, just like the ex prez and all the other morons that were in office when this started know that the invasion wasn't about WMD. Before you ask me what it was about, do a little more searching on your own.

Heck, check WikiLeaks for more info ;)


Rate :   6  4Rating :   2
Nice try, but I can see you're still hurting. Just take a few breaths and you'll recover. I know you're in an excited and agitated state, but you'll get better with time.
Rate :   2  7Rating :   -5
BDB - not sure if stupid or troll but likes the sound of his own bark while trying to catch his tail.
Rate :   4  2Rating :   2
Just like Jim C. Coincidence???
Rate :   5  2Rating :   3

Methinks you are wasting your time presenting a reasoned position to this individual. It is quite obvious that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Had any been found, the war criminals would have been trumpeting this to us at every opportunity. And with the war now over and American troops out of harm's way, BDB's lame excuse for the "truth" not having been revealed is fully exposed for what it is.

If BDB really did serve in Iraq as claimed, (something i still very much doubt) i believe his or her position can best be understood as a defence mechanism that enables him or her to cope with the profound feelings of guilt and shame he or she experiences as a result of said service. And if correct, rather than attempting to disabuse this individual of their absurd--some might say hallucinatory--beliefs, we should just feel pity for him or her and let it go at that.
Rate :   3  4Rating :   -1
But I'm still amused. BDB is either George Dubya or Jim C. just not sure which one yet. It's always interesting to me that when Jim C doesn't say much we get new guys like BDB that want to be controversial, just like Jim. But what really amuses me is this statement "Any fair-minded reader of the article " referring to the weakest and I mean the absolutely weakest article ever used to support the invasion of Iraq. BDB misses the point that the NYP is a very liberal outlet of misinformation and is completely blind to how this post actually pokes fun at the whole Iraq invasion. The soldiers thought they found mustard gas. The local constabulary here once found a back pack at a bus stop that they thought contained a WMD, turns out it contained a kids lunch, the kid must have caught the bus and forgot the back pack but it made a for a great story and filled 3 minutes that would have otherwise been dead air.

The things some people try to pass off as truth in this forum has more entertainment value than a months worth of MSNBC news on how the US economy is picking up.

Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
You're just wrong, and you should simply admit it and move on, instead of deluding yourself. As I stated long ago and is documented as fact if you care to do the research; we found WMD in Iraq--just not Saddam's VX. That is the ONLY point I've been telling you from the beginning, and it is correct. You might not like it, but you can't erase that fact by imagining that support from others on this form will make you less wrong. One can argue that finding Saddam's weaponized mustard gas--a WMD he used on his own people--and not the VX stores we expected was not sufficient reason to launch the war. Fine. One can argue that these were left over weapons from the first Gulf War. Okay. One can even argue that it is possible Saddam himself didn't even realize what he had and didn't have since his own military lost track as they fell into disarray. Sure. Those are legitimate arguments. But you cannot argue with any credibility whatsoever that we did not find any of Saddam's WMD in Iraq; that train has left the station. Do your homework in earnest--not just to find what you want. The information is readily available in print media and through diligent research via documents legally and illegally (wikiLeaks) released. Hopefully this 'reality check' will aid in your awakening and recovery.
Rate :   1  7Rating :   -6
I'm not wrong simply because you say I'm wrong, in fact I'm not wrong under any circumstance in this issue. As stated by myself and others here, not to mention the fact that the Whitehouse has admitted they were wrong, there was no mustard gas in Iraq. You are either delusional or simply can't stand being wrong hence you drag this dead horse out into the open again.

Do you earnestly believe that if WMD's were found in Saddam's Iraq that Bush would have missed the opportunity to crow from every roof top about how he was right? Well he didn't and he admitted openly he was wrong, even his CIA lackeys admitted they were wrong to provide information they did. Yet you provide a story wherein soldiers discover what they "thought" was mustard gas and they sent it in to be examined. End of story. No proof that what they found was mustard gas, no lab results, not even an honorable mention from some paid off quasi scientist that's willing to put his/her name on a document. What you have is a story that goes against everything the alphabet soup HS departments say didn't exist. You link a 3 paragraph news story from a questionable (at best) media outlet that leaves the reader feeling at best that there was nothing conclusive found. You tell us you were there and have first hand second hand info yet you won't disclose the details or the source because "you wouldn't believe it anyway". Your supposed intel amounts to nothing more than the world staring at goat entrails in an effort to make a determination about what really happened to Michael Jackson.

You sir are a sham and the fact that you pose as an ex military man shames all who have and do serve. You get one more chance to redeem yourself, post links to all documentation from reliable sources (not some internet news service you run out of your basement) that details what was found, where it was found, when it when it was found and by whom it was found. List all documents published by the US military that details the analysis of what was supposedly found, from independent third party labs as verification, and leave out opinion and circular reasoning. I've spent time looking for this information and have found nothing that provides the proof you speak of.

Rate :   5  2Rating :   3
Actually, you ARE wrong because I say you're wrong. Why? Because I have first-hand experience on the ground in Iraq, and you apparently have NONE. You call me a "sham" and someone who is "posing," but that's because you are wishing really, really hard that what you claim is true. I do not need nor require your affirmation, so such claims are meaningless; I simply shrug them off as hysterics and name calling. You don't "give" chances and you don't grant redemption--especially when none is required in the first place.

It is really your sourcing that is internet linked or bound, not mine. When I was there, we had already found nearly 1000 of Saddam's Mustard Gas munitions, and the insurgency had captured some, and--thinking they were conventional 155mm rounds--used them in making IEDs. MNF-I retained all this information as classified and clearly we continued to find Saddam's weaponized Mustard Gas munitions for years even after I left.

You have your mind made up based on what you've read and your suppositions, so I already know that nothing I say will ever open your eyes. Personal attacks seem to be the only thing people, including yourself, are capable of here on the 24hr Comment section, which is too bad since I am not a 'big-government' person, liberal, or a fan of Lincolns. I merely have pointed out something I observed first-hand with my own eyes; that we found Saddam's weaponized Mustard Gas munitions--a defined WMD--in Iraq. I know this for a fact; you don't. You have to read about it from open sources, and you don't like that because you don't want to believe it, so nothing you find out there disrupts your narrative.

My error was in assuming there was enough goodwill out there that people would actually listen to someone who had first-hand experience and did not have to read about it elsewhere. I should never have said anything about my experience since that's spawned nothing but a series of unwarranted, baseless, ignorant-of-fact personal attacks by complete strangers. I was never questioned by writers here about my experience; only attacked. Clearly you and the other writers do not want to hear any facts that disagree with your already established viewpoint.

Convincing others who clearly do not want to be shown and have gone to great lengths to NOT know is not important to me. I'll take a look at more of the open-source material out there that might perhaps make you pause for second and think, but that is not a priority for me based on what I've seen on this forum thus far. I doubt that it is possible to change minds here--only to vent. The vitriol that has been hurled at me here for merely reporting a simple FACT--that we found WMD in Iraq, but that it wasn't the VX we thought he was retaining in abundance--shows that this is not a forum for serious discussion.
Rate :   0  2Rating :   -2
Yup, I'm loving the sweet smell of vindication. Read the NY Times or researched the wiki-leaks documents yet? Of course not. You're mind is made up, and even though I have first hand experience in Iraq and now others have attested to exactly what I have long been telling you and the others, I doubt you'll "man-up" and apologize for all the stupid things you have said to someone you don't even know. We found illegal WMD in abundance in Iraq (the very Mustard Gas you claim above wasn't there). Had you done any real research you would have found that to be true. Now a source--the NY Times nonetheless--has exploded this fact all over the world stage. By the way, UNSC 687 did not say, "destroy all the WMD made after 1991." I was there when our guys were injured by this stuff in the field; when they showed up with blisters from blister agent used against them; when we found Mustard Gas that you so stupidly claimed was never there. If you will go back to the beginning, you will find that I made it clear that while we did not find any new weapons labs or a thriving nuclear program, we did in fact find illegal WMD in various states of repair that Saddam had not declared and was forbidden from having by all the SC resolutions. Merely for attesting to what I knew first-hand to be a fact, I was viciously and personally attacked--called a 'sham' by you and some one who was posing as an 'ex military man.' It is quite clear that you were ALL wrong--as I told you. I know you will now change your tactic and initiate some fancy-footwork to cover your ass as opposed to being a man an apologizing for being so, so, so DEAD WRONG, so no need to write back. As I told you long ago, and as the facts are now coming out in abundance, we found illegal WMD in Iraq. Not new stuff, not his VX, and now new programs--but WMD just the same. Ah yes...the sweet, sweet smell of vindication. Yeah, I'm loving it! As I told you before, you're just plain wrong. It is so nice to get the final LOL. Choke on it, clown.

What a heaping, steaming pile of hooey you have served up. You quite obviously have no understanding of the word cowardly. I suggest you look up its meaning before using it again....For your information, Dr. Paul served in the military....Contrary to your assertion that WMDs were found in Iraq, none were. Had they of found any, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (all cowardly chicken-hawks) and the rest of that crew of war criminals would never have let us forget that they were right all along. But they have all come out and admitted that they got it wrong. Ergo, I do not for a moment believe that you were within 5,000 miles of Iraq. Indeed, I do not believe a single thing you have written about yourself.
Rate :   4  4Rating :   0
Blah, blah, blah.... Fortunately I don't have to care about what you believe and disbelieve.
Rate :   2  4Rating :   -2
Let me assure you that your response was quite unnecessary. Anyone who cares about what others believe of them would never resort to the sort of self aggrandizement that you have indulged in. Anyone who cares about such things would never make up such obvious distortions of the truth that only an anencephalic baby would be taken in by the lies.

As a word of advice, in future, stick to the truth. You are a very poor liar.
Rate :   0  6Rating :   -6
You state "Do the math. There is an ideological war being waged against the US that we never volunteered to participate in, but it was going on for decades before it manifested itself in the COWARDLY acts of 9/11." You served 5 combat tours, as what a latrine digger? Anyone with combat experience and certainly anyone with ambitions to advance above private is well aware of why the US has become the target of so many nations. Have you forgotten the orientations prior to your deployments? Your just damned lucky that the US hasn't pissed off the Chinese and Russians yet but I suspect this is simply because as stupid as the Washington clowns are they know when to stop.

The fact that you address Ron Paul as you do is enough to cause anyone who has served as you claim to doubt you were ever enlisted. Ron Paul is thee most popular politician in our day when military men and women are asked who they support. You fail to address that Ron Paul has served his country in various positions for longer than you have. Respect, something that is earned, Ron Paul has done that in multiples, you, not so much.
Rate :   7  4Rating :   3

I too admired Paul for his free enterprise economic stances, and even voted for him a few time in the 70s. But somehow he became radicalized, I believe, by the anarchist fringe of the Libertarian Party. I see him now more as a puppet of those forces of Constitutional destruction than as a defender of individual freedom. One has only to read Paul's screeds of Lincoln -- whom, for all his faults, eliminate slavery -- almost verbatim from the Rockwell clique, to see confirm that.

Anyway, welcome aboard to the 24hr/Gold circus. It has many insightful articles deserving of praise and many that need demolishing. I reckon my success by the number of negatives I receive. I fear you may give me competition.

Rate :   9  3Rating :   6
Thanks Jim! You and I can have a race to the bottom with the negative comments, by daring to contradict the God of the 24hrGold commentary pages--the flawless and perfect Ron Paul!
Rate :   4  9Rating :   -5
Goodness, a pair of refugees from the Gaming Den, I think.
Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
Latest comment posted for this article
I'm not wrong simply because you say I'm wrong, in fact I'm not wrong under any circumstance in this issue. As stated by myself and others here, not to mention the fact that the Whitehouse has admitted they were wrong, there was no mustard gas in Iraq. Y  Read more
Hart - 6/24/2013 at 8:32 PM GMT
Rating :  5  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow