I recently did a sucker punch comment on a military site I belong to in order to get one of many military people on that site to give the usual liberal PC warfare lecture so I could shoot holes in their liberal PC warfare beliefs. I got my lecture, did a quick response to draw him out more, and then buried him with a lengthy essay and it has been dead silence since.
People today are not taught that Truman as a liberal commie but the best proof is that in peace negotiations with Russia following WWII, Truman gave North Korea to Russia to set up a communist dictatorship when there was no logical reason for him to do so. Prior to WWII, Korea was one unified nation and it should have been returned to that status following the war but Truman was busy carving up the "spoils of war" with the Ruskies and Brits.
Truman set up a democracy in South Korea because the American people expected him to. The leader of South Korea was rightfully upset that his nation had been split in two and the north half was a communist dictatorship so he wanted to build up an army to take it back and free his people. Truman cut this short by denying South Korea enough weapons to even build up a significant defensive military so South Korea couldn't start a war with North Korea, thinking that keeping South Korea weak would keep the peace.
North Korea realized that South Korea couldn't even defend itself because of Truman's stupid policy, decided they wanted to reunify Korea as a communist dictatorship and invaded South Korea.
Always remember that weakness always encourages bad guys to go on the offensive. History proves this to be true because whacko bullies don't pick fights they might lose but quickly pick fights they believe they can win.
Truman sent in General McArthur, who quickly drove the Norks back up to their northern border in the northeast part of Korea, but Truman wouldn't let him finish them off and reunite Korea. Truman had to protect his little commie buddies and didn't want to tick off the Ruskies.
The Chinese, under Mao, sent 400,000 troops to just north of the Korean border and McArthur asked for enough troops and equipment to do a preemptive strike against the Chinese because it was blatantly obvious the Chinese were getting ready to attack US forces, which was an act of war. McArthur had made the mistake of saying we should march to Beijing to remove Mao and set up a democracy so Truman refused McArthur enough troops to even properly defend against an assault by the Chinese forces thinking that would keep the peace.
Like a good little liberal, he didn't learn a thing from his first mistake, did he?
That winter the Chinese attacked the US forces by charging across the frozen river separating Korea from China and drove the US forces back into the mountains where the US forces regrouped and dug in. Still Truman refused to give MacArthur the forces he needed to drive the Chinese back across the border, forcing the US forces to withdraw from northern Korea, with Truman thinking that would allow China to reestablish North Korea and bring peace but China drove all the way into South Korea forcing Truman to commit enough troops to drive China back across the former border between North and South Korea into an area that became known as the Iron Triangle.
Liberals make terrible commanders in chief.
The US forces massed on the Iron Triangle, defeated the Chinese Army forcing them to flee north out of the Iron Triangle well north of the former border between North and South Korea.
Please note that during the two times of the US forces driving the dwindling Chinese forces north (by this time, they had less than 300,000 troops), China didn't send reinforcements once.
What should that tell you?
She couldn't spare reinforcements and was already militarily stretched so that the US forces could have easily driven the Chinese forces all the way back to Beijing.
But, what did Truman do?
He pretty much surrendered to China by giving China and North Korea a truce returning all of the land taken by US forces and blood north of the former Korean border. It was a deal China couldn't refuse.
To justify all of this stupidity, Truman and his liberal commie traitors pals, especially in the media, started liberal PC warfare propaganda where they quickly began brainwashing the American people to believe nonsense like "you can't kill your way out of a war" (in spite of the fact we just had with a war against the German/Italian/Japanese Axis), "we don't want to conquer the world and rule the world", and other such liberal garbage. PC warfare has become the "right thing" even in the Pentagon so I decided to give it a good healthy dose of reality by opening some vet and active soldiers' eyes to the truth.
That was the reason for my sucker punch comments which caused the usual drivel I have been seeing about why we lost the war against terror, which is that you can't kill your way out of a war and we tried to use too much force instead of being nicey-nice to our enemies.
Can you get more asinine than that?
Below I want to share the essay which brought complete silence and then add a few more comments about liberal PC warfare propaganda. This will better help you understand why we just lost this war against terror and what has been going on since 1950. Remember that the active soldier had just given the Pentagon official line for losing this war.
"I don't know what war you were watching but it wasn't the war I saw. Your war is probably a Pentagon fairy tale dreamed up to cover up for all of the mistakes they made from 9/11 until now and they made plenty because they are using PC warfare, introduced by Truman during the Korean War.
First, just in case you didn't notice, the US military didn't just use brute force against and try to kill ALL of our enemies. The war started out with the US declaring five nations, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (the most important one), Syria, and North Korea to be our enemies we were going to fight. Just in case you didn't notice, we didn't go into all five nations and pound their butts. We didn't go into four out of five nations and pound their butts. We didn't go into three out of five nations and pound their butts. We only went into two out of five nations or only 40% of those nations, which would have been like us only fighting Italy to win WWII without dropping so much as one bomb on Germany or Japan.
Gee, how would that war have turned out?
Just like this war turned out, we would have lost it.
The war I saw started with Bush I (one) starting to tear down the US military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies following Desert Storm and Billy Boy Clintstone (Flintstones, yaba daba don't) finishing the job taking our once powerful military down to a "less than a one front military" (Pentagon's words, not mine) or a zero front military.
Well, after 9/11, Bush II had to ramp up to fight a war in five nations but Bush II was afraid of the liberal commie traitor media and didn't want to increase our national debt beyond a certain point or he would not get elected again (putting his reelection before the nation) which started the war under extreme limitations. So some techno twit generals in the Pentagon convinced Bush II that we could do the job with just a two front military, which was insanity and a really huge mistake that was strike one against Bush II.
History teaches that you should ramp up to at least a 6 or 8 front military to fight five nations in order to have adequate reinforcements and for troop rotations but our wonder generals in the Pentagon were thinking about the fast, easy "win" in Desert Storm (you know, like OBL didn't see that war and adapt for it. Our glorious generals were the only ones to see that war.) wrongly thinking they would only take a few months to win the war against EACH of those five nations (their words, not mine) with a two front military (how did that workout?). The problem is that we didn't finish the war in Desert Storm by conquering Iraq and removing Sadman Insane.
ANY TIME you finish a war, you have to put boots on the ground to do the dirty work of finishing that war, I don't care how smart you bombs are, and that takes time, lots of time. It takes six months to just deploy that many troops half way around the world.
To do this, Bush made big mistake number 2, which was two strikes against Bush. He had a GOP controlled House and Senate and he decided to only declare war on one nation at a time. You know, like, if the Commiecrats gained control of Congress before the war was over, they would gladly declare war on the other nations for Bush to give Bush more military wins and make it harder for the Commiecrats to get reelected. Yeah, right.
Imagine what would have happened if FDR had only declared war against Italy and not also Germany and France at the same time. We would have lost that war too.
I knew when Bush made those two huge mistakes that he was probably going to lose the war but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and prayed my butt off for him.
So the GOP controlled Congress declared war on Afghanistan and we bombed the crap out of the Taliban standing army while OBL took his forces out the back door to Pakistan because someone forgot to properly close that door and declared a victory because AQ was no longer in Afghanistan...they were now operating in Pakistan (another big mistake).
Leaving about half of a front in military behind to secure Afghanistan to prevent AQ from just walking back in, Bush took his now remaining 1.5 front military to conquer Iraq without first finishing the job in Afghanistan (another huge mistake, wars are rarely lost because of just one big mistake).
After, the still GOP controlled, Congress declared war on Iraq, he marched right through Iraq removing Sadman Insane and positioned what was left of his forces, a one front military divided in two (he was using half a front to secure Iraq, gee, that two front military was getting awful small quickly with three nations left to fight), to invade both Syrian and Iran at the same time but there was this little election thingy which gave control of both houses in Congress to the liberal commie traitors who lost Vietnam for us and proceeded to lose this war for us by selling out our troops, our people and our nation. It is called treason, i.e. aiding the enemy during war.
The liberal media brow beat Bush and the liberal commie traitors in Congress extorted Bush into stopping IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR to use his very limited and rapidly shrinking military for glorious humanitarian nation rebuilding before they would declare war on Iran and Syria (gee, who would have thought?). So now Bush II had to stop in the middle of a war to rebuild the two nations he had just conquered without attacking the other three enemy nations, which would have been like FDR stopping fighting WWII to rebuild Italy before starting to attack Japan and Germany. We would have lost that war too.
When Bush tied down his entire two front military in two nations or fronts to rebuild those nations, leaving him a zero front military to finish the war, I knew we had lost the war.
Well, with the very limited two front US military tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq (with increasing problems for troop rotations, who would have thought?) rebuilding those nations in the middle of a war, Iran started playing chess while Bush and the Pentagon were playing checkers. They began using their terrorist proxy armies to further tie down the US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq by waging guerrilla warfare against them, disrupting the nation rebuilding and keeping the US forces out of Iran and Syria long enough for the US liberal commie traitors to hand them the war.
In a nutshell, that is how we lost this war and why. It was not because Bush used too much force and tried to just bully his way through the war by killing his way through the war. He lost the war because he made too many really big mistakes that prevented him from using force against the primary culprit, Iran, and gave the war to Iran.
He only attacked 40% of his enemy, without even beginning to fight the other 60%, and you expected him to win the war?
Now, back to my original train of thought, after having disproved your Pentagon fairy tale as proof against what I was saying.
There is a time line in US history in which US warfare changed. The time line is between WWII and the Korean War or what I simply refer to as 1950. Sit down and make a list of all of the wars we fought before 1950 going all the way back to the French and Indian war and after 1950 and you will notice something very interesting.
Before 1950, we used total warfare where we killed our way through wars and we won ALL of those wars. After 1950, we began using the liberal PC warfare (remember introduced by Truman in Korea) we were brainwashed to believe in where we began believing you can't kill your way through a war and other such crap and, with the exception of the wars under Reagan, who was a WWII total warfare believer, we lost all of those wars. With the exception of the Cold War and Granada under Reagan, we have not won one war since 1950, NOT ONE.
We didn't win Korea, which is still going on. We didn't win Vietnam, we didn't win Desert Storm because we didn't finish the war and remove Sadman Insane and had to do that later. We didn't win Afghanistan, we didn't win Iraq, and we are now losing both of those wars a second time under PC CIF, Obama.
Your beloved PC Warfare you have been brainwashed to believe in has failed 100% of the time.
History proves that, yes, you can kill your way out of a war and, if you don't, you won't win.
I challenge anyone and everyone, including the Pentagon, to prove me wrong based entirely on results and not your silly, great sounding liberal PC psychobabble. You can't because the results prove I am right. Every war we fought using total warfare to kill our way out of the war, we won. Every war we fought using PC war, we have not won one, NOT ONE.
Please note that our military won all of those PC wars but our government lost all of them using liberal PC warfare.
Maybe, just maybe it is time to learn from history and quit making the same mistake again and again of fighting our wars with PC warfare and start fighting again with total warfare, killing our way out of our wars. Destroy the enemy, putting them out of business and get the war over with within 3 to 5 years.
The liberals brow beat us by telling us that is inhumane but is it more humane to drag these wars out for more than a decade causing civilians all of that misery and then still not winning the war? Do you think the situation in North Korea is humane?
History teaches that, if you fight the war right and win it, every war should take three to five years. It also teaches that, if you fight the war the PC warfare way, it can last decades and you won't win the war. You CAN'T win the war with liberal PC warfare.
Go ahead, prove me wrong, no psychobabble or fairy tales, just results. You can't because the results prove me right.
PROVE.ME.WRONG based entirely on the results!!!!
No great sounding liberal psychobabble, anyone can make up great sounding fairy tales."
To this, I want to add the truth about two liberal PC warfare myths which I keep hearing. First, is the myth that waging total warfare and removing the people who caused the trouble, would "destabilize the area."
For example, if we had gone into Saudi Arabia and Iran, who have been waging war against the US for several decades, the geniuses in the Pentagon believe that would "destabilize the area". You know, like leaving those trouble makers in power would stabilize the area.
Really? Conquering those two nations, rounding up the trouble makers, trying those trouble makers in military courts, and using them for target practice would destabilize the area?
Well, we didn't do what total warfare says we should have done. We left the bad guys in power and were nice to them while they continued to wage war against us.
Does the Middle East look stable to you? Gee, I wonder why the Middle East isn't stable? Could it be that us not doing what we should have done and the bad guys know we should have done has emboldened the bad guys to increase their trouble destabilizing the area?
Yep, that is exactly what has happened. Remember that weakness, whether physical or mental, is seen by bad guys as an opportunity to cause their mischief because they think they can get away with it.
What would have happened if we had gone in and removed all of the bad guys? Who would be left to cause all of that trouble?
No one, so there would be no trouble. You see, doing what is right actually stabilizes an area because it discourages mischief. Not doing what is right encourages mischief so liberal PC warfare teaches everything backwards and causes more trouble instead of preventing trouble. Total warfare stops or prevents trouble by removing the trouble makers.
To prove their point, the liberal PC warfare x-spurts will point to Iraq, after we removed Sadman Insane but removing Sadman Insane is not what destabilized Iraq. What destabilized Iraq was tying down our troops for nation building and not invading and getting rid of the crazies running Iran which permitted Iran to start a guerilla war in Iraq, destabilizing Iraq. If we had taken out the three remaining enemy nations before stopping to rebuild Iraq, there would not have been anyone to destabilize Iraq. Therefore, not waging total warfare and taking out the rest of the bad guys and waging liberal PC warfare is what actually destabilized Iraq.
The second lame excuse used by liberals to discourage us from destroying their beloved friends and our enemies is, "we don't want to conquer the world and rule the world".
Get this straight, conquering one or more nations to stop those nations from waging war against you and/or your allies is not conquering the world to rule the world. It is called self defense, it is legal under all national and international laws, and is the intelligent thing to do.
Under total warfare, you conquer the criminal nation, round up all of the criminals who caused the war, try those criminals in a court of law, and execute those who were found guilty so they can't try to cause trouble again, then you go home and let that nation rebuild itself giving them time to think about not attacking you again.
The big mistake Britain and France made following WWI was they got greedy and insisted on pillaging Germany for two decades follow the war causing such prolonged poverty that it opened the door for Hitler to take over. The US gave into this pressure and permitted it to happen and we all paid the price but, instead of admitting we caused WWII because of the British and French greed, we made up a bunch of nice sounding fairy tales which have helped cause us to believe in liberal PC warfare and nation rebuilding.
The real lesson we should have learned about Germany and WWII is that you don't continue to steal from a country you have conquered for several decades after you conquered them because that will cause such extreme poverty the people will get mad and follow a power mad lunatic into another war.
You need to understand all of these things going into this war which is already upon us because, if we fight this war using liberal PC warfare, we can't win and we MUST win this war or we lose everything. We must fight this war with total warfare to destroy the enemy or we and our families will die or become their slaves. We have no other choice. The chickens have come home to roost from 65 years of PC warfare. It is time to learn from history and quit making the same stupid mistakes.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.