Editorial

Editorial

Through this website one should have gained the knowledge and understanding of our most precious and historical documents Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and The Bill of Rights to the Constitution which is the foundation to our freedom and way of live.

Even though most people will only glance at or through these web pages, most people today will really have no idea as what these three documents mean to them and their every day life and freedom. It is sad to say that the current school systems neither teach American History or even what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights meaning to our every day life. Today the majority of the people have the idea or think that The American Civil War was fought to free the slaves, but that is not so. It was all about States Rights, the right to self govern. Most of the people today have this idea and notion that the government owes them a living through government hand outs Welfare, Food Stamps, Free Housing and the like. Then you have a group of people that think that the government should take from the rich and give it to them. This is called Socialism, the redistribution of wealth. This means; Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth "including physical property" from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism such as taxation, charity, welfare, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law. A one state system with one party rule and with one leader "a dictatorship dictating" to the people as to what they can or can not do, where they are to work, how long the work day and work week is, how much one is paid for the work they are forced to do, if one does get paid, where they are to live and what they eat. For under Socialism there IS NO WELFARE, EVERYONE WORKS. This is not Freedom nor is it Democracy; It Becomes Tannery and Oppression of one's God's Give Rights, the right to pursue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let us dealt into Socialism and just what it means. Unfortunately the majority of the people who advocate Socialism have no idea as to what Socialism really is and just what effect it has one ones life. They are living in a fairytale or fantasy world. They have this idea that life will be all milk and honey, but in reality it's not. Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Let's cover Socialism a bit further:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital, and therefore functions according to different economic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm. The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism. In addition to the debate over the degree to which to rely on markets versus planning, the varieties of socialism differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism. Core dichotomies associated with these concerns include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism. While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the term "democratic socialism" is often used to highlight its advocates' high value for democratic processes and political systems and usually to draw contrast to other socialist tendencies they may perceive to be undemocratic in their approach.

By the late 19th century after further articulation and advancement by Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels as the culmination of technological development outstripping the economic dynamics of capitalism, "Socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production. By the 1920s, social democracy and communism became the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement. During the 20th century, socialism emerged as the most influential secular political-economic worldview. While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals have argued that in practice the model represented a form of dictatorship, state capitalism or a non-planned command or administrative economy. Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, some socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and liberalism.

This is just a short description as to just what Socialism is for there is much more to it then described above. I have personal talked with people in former Communist "an American expression" countries who lived under Socialism and their lives were not all milk and honey. These people longed for Freedom, enough to eat and a better way of life. Socialism is a failed system, it does not work nor has it ever worked.

In conclusion, the United States Government, it Congress, its Leaders should instead if trying to control every aspect of it citizens life's through more laws, regulations to help special interest groups or restrict its citizens freedom or turn this country in to a socials state but find ways to create more well paying jobs for its citizens. Well paying jobs does not mean exorbitant hourly wages, but wages that its citizens can live on and don't have to work two or more jobs for survival. They jobs can be created through industries or even construction jobs and I don't mean 2 million dollars to pave or build one mile of highway as is the cost today. These jobs can very well be non union jobs and one can still make a living. Unions are a thing of the past all the unions do is collect dues and make it leaders rich at the expense of its workers, for industries create the jobs not the unions. This is one of the reasons industries are and have moved out of the United States. For the cost of labor has gotten out of control. Another thing is the cost of sending a child to school way should it cost $300.00 or more to send one child to school? It sure isn't teachers pay or the cost of books. Schools get TAX dollars and should start using these dollars wisely. Why is it necessary for a school to have a five million dollar gym, when only a few use it or swimming pool when again only a few will use it. Another thing, schools are not teaching our children correctly. They let computers do the work of the teachers instead of the teachers teaching our children. Take away the computers, tables and cell phones from the first grades through twelfth grades children would not make it in the world today. Schools should be teaching the bases of life, how to make it through life by every day lessons of being able to read, add and subtract numbers and the history of this country and not by the this country owes you a living.

Another thing is the United States is a nation of extremists. This is meant by this country either goes all the way to the left or all the way to the right. It can not find a happy middle. The United States Government, its Congress, its Leaders and special interest groups have the bad habit of going to the extreme. Be it the environment, gun control, global warming and etc. They just seem not to be able to find a middle ground to any of these problems. The latest is gun control and global warming. If we don't ban guns the world will come to an end or by banning guns it will reduce the crime rate, unfortunately to which there is no scientific date to prove this theory. All this will do is put guns in the hands of the criminals, gangs or terrorist groups. The banning guns or regulating then so tight to where owning one could end one in jail, this is nothing more then extremists and special interest groups trying to get their way through fear tactics. Let's take global warming as another example. This one has so much conflicting data it is hard to believe who is right or wrong. One side says if we don't shut down all the power plants, cars, trucks, trains and airplanes, "then the government leaders needs to stop flying so much", the world will come to an end or the weather will be affected to the polar ice caps will all melt to nothing. Hear again the scientific date to prove this theory is two sided.

And the latest extreme is religion, which really gets me. This time I will not tread lightly on nor will I use the old saying "one must be political correct". Not when you have 123 House Demarcates plotting behind closed doors and over Christmas Holidays to introduce a bill that advocates using Sharia law which is not the law of the land, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. Didn't these people take an oath of office to up hold the Constitution of the United States when they entered congress? Just what planet are these Demarcate people from or who is paying them under the table or bribe them to do this? Lets not use or say bribery when it comes to politicians it is what they use or call, if you donate to my campaign funds I will do this for you. To me it is nothing more then out right bribery, something for something. Every member of congress took an oath of office as required by

Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which so states: I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

And still another one is the U.S. Attorney General stating she will prosecute anyone for hate crimes that defames or makes Anti-Muslim Hate Speeches that might incite violence against the Muslim community, or the Anti-Muslin faith. But I guess it is alright with her that the Muslim communities and their Muslim Advocates can make hate speeches against Americans and American Christian known as non believers or unfaithful ones and do so with out fear of being prosecuted. And again I guess it is alright for Muslim to rape, beat or kill Americans with out fear of prosecution but don't let an American do so. I guess it is alright for Muslims to riot in the streets but don't let an American do it. The U.S. Attorney General took the same oath of office and did any government official. I guess she never read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specially Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just what is a Hate Crime? There is the Federal definition and law of what a Hate Crime is and the Legal Definition and Hate Crime Law. Just what does constitution a Hate Crime? The following are Federal Laws that define Hate Crimes and their definitions 

Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

These acts now constitute Hate Crimes

• The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)
• The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 contained a provision at 42 U.S.C. § 13981 which allowed victims of gender-motivated hate crimes to seek "compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate", but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison that the provision is unconstitutional.
• The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003
• Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647)
• On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to apply to crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

The bill also:

• Removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school;
• Gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
• Provides $5 million per year in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;
• Requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (statistics for the other groups were already tracked).

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime, often violent, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group. Examples of such groups can include but are not limited to: ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech laws exist in many countries, but in the USA, they are in conflict with the first amendment right to freedom of speech, so have repeatedly been overturned as unconstitutional.

Legal Definition Hate Crime Law

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. Laws vary by state and if hate crimes are provided for by statute, the definitions of hate crimes and penalties imposed vary. States that have hate crime statutes provide harsher penalties for such offenses.

The underlying criminal offenses that are designated in hate crime laws include, but are not limited to, crimes against persons like harassment, terroristic threats, assault and crimes against property like criminal trespass, criminal mischief and arson. It may also include vandalism causing damage to a church, synagogue, cemetery, mortuary, and memorial to the dead, school, educational facility, community center, municipal building, courthouse, and juvenile detention center, grounds surrounding such places or personal property located within such places.

The current federal law regarding hate crimes deals with crimes where the offender is motivated by bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin. 

The following is an example of a state statute governing hate crimes:

• The Legislature finds and declares the following:
• It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals.
• It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States.
• The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions.

b. The purpose of this section is to impose additional penalties where it is shown that a perpetrator committing the underlying offense was motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.

c. A person who has been found guilty of a crime, the commission of which was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, shall be punished as follows:

• Felonies:
• On conviction of a Class A felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 15 years.
• On conviction of a Class B felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 10 years.
• On conviction of a Class C felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than two years.
• For purposes of this subdivision, a criminal defendant who has been previously convicted of any felony and receives an enhanced sentence pursuant to this section is also subject to enhanced punishment under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 13A-5-9.

2. Misdemeanors:

On conviction of a misdemeanor which was found beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the defendant shall be sentenced for a Class A misdemeanor, except that the defendant shall be sentenced to a minimum of three months.

I will let you be the judge as just what and who commits Hate Crime. Personally I have my opinions on this matter, but will reserve them to myself and not here.

Here is another American Act of going to the Extreme or being an Extremist. Wars that the Americans have fought died for and just how the returning soldiers were treated upon their return home. Is an extreme I will take very personal!

Let's start with the Civil War fought from 1861 to 1865 that was fought between the states. When I studied American History starting in the early 60's, we were taught that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, but about States Rights, the right of every state to self governing with out the interference of the central government. Most historians explain it many different ways, this is one of them further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war and there are others.  

The causes of the Civil War were complex and have been controversial since the war began. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won without carrying a single Southern state, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option, because they thought that they were losing representation, which would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies.

Now these special interest groups want to rewrite the Civil War to fit their interest. These groups are doing everything the change or the remove anything that refers to the Confederate States of America. These groups conceive that all Confederates were slave owners and anything having to do with the Confederates must be taken down or destroyed and any reference to it is races or offensive to their interest. The latest is the removal of Civil War statues that were hero during the war. Another thing is all members of the Southern States at the end of the Civil War had to be repatriated, to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship, to the United States of America with out exception. The only one who was never allow to repatriate was Robert E. Lee, the general of the Army of Virginia, even though he did submit his paper work for repatriation. Robert E. Lee died as a man without a country. And now the special interest groups want to tear down any statue of him and remove any reference to him. These groups even want the Star and Bars, Confederate Flag, removed from all building and even ban the selling of the Stars and Bars.

Next came World War I 1914-1918, Most American and politicians nether wanted to fight or be involved in World War I. Their thinking it was a European war and we neither should nor be or get involved in it. Most of the soldiers who fought in World War I came home with no fan fanfare, while some of its leaders came home to ticker tape parades.

Next came World War II 1939-1945, When events began happening in Europe that would eventually lead to World War II, many Americans took an increasingly hard line towards getting involved. The events of World War I had fed into America's natural desire to isolationism, and this was reflected by the passage of Neutrality Acts along with the general hands off approach to the events that unfolded on the world stage.

The final break in isolationism began with the Lend Lease Act (1941) whereby America was allowed to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government....any defense article." Great Britain promised not to export any of the lend lease materials. After this, America built a base on Greenland and then issued the Atlantic Charter "August 14, 1941", a joint declaration between Great Britain and the US about the purposes of war against fascism. The Battle of the Atlantic began with German U-Boats wreaking havoc. This battle would last throughout the war.

The real event that changed America into a nation actively at war was the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was precipitated in July 1939 when Franklin Roosevelt announced that the US would no longer trade items such as gasoline and iron to Japan who needed it for their war with China. In July 1941, the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis was created. The Japanese began occupying French Indo-China and the Philippines. All Japanese assets were frozen in the US. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor killing over 2,000 people and damaging or destroying eight battleships greatly harming the Pacific fleet. America officially entered the war and now had to fight on two fronts: Europe and the Pacific.

After America declared war on Japan, Germany, and Italy declared war on the US. America actually followed a Germany First strategy, mainly because it posed the greatest threat to the West, it had a larger military, and it seemed the most likely to develop newer and more lethal weapons. One of the worst tragedies of World War II was the Holocaust in which between 1933 and 1945 it is estimated that from 9-11 million Jews were killed.

World War II is another example that the American people and politicians went to the extreme. Everyone jumped on the band wagon from man power to industries from military equipment to military supplies. The politicians had their political heads stuck in the sand until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Before that, the politicians wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe, even thought Hitler was killing millions. When the soldiers and leaders came home they came home to a heroes welcome. And up through the years, the World War II, the veterans have gotten what ever they wanted or needed. Some of the ones who had money or had families with political connection before going to war, when they came home they ran for political offices using their war record and political connections to get elected. Some of these people never seen combat but went around the country saying what heroes they were. The American people couldn't see the wheat from the chaff about these people.

Comes the Korean War 1950-1953, "Was a Conflict" since it was never a declared war. With the United States being a member of the United Nations "UN", and since we already had troops in South Korea and South Korea asking for help from the United Nations and the invading North Koreans, the United States sent troops to South Korea under United Nations control. This conflict ended in a stale mate with both countries stilled divided at the 38th parallel line. Even today Korea is still a hot bed.  The solders came home with not much fanfare. Once home, they had to fight for their benefits and their place in history. 

I will not go into great details the Pros and Cons of the Vietnam Conflict, but I will say this, the U.S. solders arriving home from the Vietnam conflict were received with less then respectful welcome. This was due to the beginning of Great American Socialism Revolution here in the United States and the beginning of the end and down fall of our social society. 

Then comes Vietnam War 1960-1975, "Was a Conflict" since it was never a declared war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. North Vietnam was fighting the French Army since 1950-1954. The French Army was there to protect the French Plantation owners that had large plantation in South Vietnam and did not want to lose control of them. As to just how the United States got involved in the Vietnam Conflict, there many different versions to this depending on whom you want to believe. The United States, involvement in this conflict stated in 1961, when President John F. Kennedy sent Special Forces for counterinsurgency warfare and to advise and train Diệm South Vietnam forces. These Special Forces advisers only had their personal weapons and could only use them is self protection.

There are many versions as to how or why the United States got involved in the Vietnam conflict.

One is, The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In 1961, the U.S. had 50,000 troops based in Korea, and Kennedy faced a three-part crisis – the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement.  These crises made Kennedy believe that another failure on the part of the United States to gain control and stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies and his own reputation. Kennedy was thus determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam. He told James Reston of The New York Times immediately after his Vienna meeting with Khrushchev, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place."

Another version is, Princess Grace of Monaco who was friends with the French plantation owners wanted help protecting their plantation form the invading Viet Cong and since she was friends with Jacqueline Lee Kennedy the wife of President John F. Kennedy wanted her to Jacqueline Lee Kennedy to ask her husband John F. Kennedy for United States military help in protecting their large French plantation form the invading Viet Cong.

I'm sure there are others I'm not just sure how many other versions as to how or why the United States got involved in the Vietnam conflict

In 1963 Lyndon B. Johnson took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, he had not been heavily involved with policy toward Vietnam, Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing. Johnson's escalation 1963–1969, upon becoming president, however, Johnson immediately had to focus on Vietnam: on 24 November 1963, he said, "the battle against communism [...] must be joined [...] with strength and determination." The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Diệm. On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam.

Battle of Ia Drang was the first major battle between regular U.S. forces and People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) troops. The 2-part battle occurred from November 14 to November 18, 1965 at the Landing Zone X-Ray and Albany in La Drang Valley, Central Highlands of South Vietnam. Despite heavy casualties on both sides, both claimed the battle was a victory of their owns. As a matter of fact, Ia Drang Valley battle was considered essential as it set the blueprint for tactics for both sides during the conflict. American troops continued to reply on air mobility and artillery fire to achieve their battlefield objectives – victory of the so-called “body count”. On the other side, the Viet Cong learned that by quickly engaging their combat forces close to the enemy (fighting at close range), they could neutralize American advantages.

The first deployment of 3,500 in March 1965 was increased to nearly 200,000 by December. The U.S. military had long been schooled in offensive warfare. Regardless of political policies, U.S. commanders were institutionally and psychologically unsuited to a defensive mission. In December 1964, ARVN forces had suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Bình Giã, in a battle that both sides viewed as a watershed. Previously, communist forces had utilized hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. However, at Binh Gia, they had defeated a strong ARVN force in a conventional battle. Tellingly, South Vietnamese forces were again defeated in June 1965 at the Battle of Đồng Xoài.

Desertion rates were increasing, and morale plummeted. General William Westmoreland informed Admiral U. S. Grant Sharp Jr., commander of U.S. Pacific forces, that the situation was critical. He said, "I am convinced that U.S. troops with their energy, mobility, and firepower can successfully take the fight to the NLF [National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam a.k.a. the Viet Cong]."With this recommendation, Westmoreland was advocating an aggressive departure from America's defensive posture and the sidelining of the South Vietnamese. By ignoring ARVN units, the U.S. commitment became open-ended. Westmoreland outlined a three-point plan to win the war:

• Phase 1. Commitment of U.S. (and other free world) forces necessary to halt the losing trend by the end of 1965.
• Phase 2. U.S. and allied forces mount major offensive actions to seize the initiative to destroy guerrilla and organized enemy forces. This phase would end when the enemy had been worn down, thrown on the defensive, and driven back from major populated areas.
• Phase 3. If the enemy persisted, a period of twelve to eighteen months following Phase 2 would be required for the final destruction of enemy forces remaining in remote base areas.

In late 1967 the Communists lured American forces into the hinterlands at Đắk Tô and at the Marine Khe Sanh combat base in Quảng Trị Province where the United States was more than willing to fight because it could unleash its massive firepower unimpeded by civilians. However, on 31 January 1968, the NVA and the Viet Cong broke the truce that traditionally accompanied the Tết "Lunar New Year" holiday by launching the largest battle of the war, the Tet Offensive, in the hope of sparking a national uprising. Over 100 cities were attacked by over 85,000 enemy troops including assaults on General Westmoreland's headquarters and the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.

On January 20, 1969 U.S. President Richard Nixon began troop withdrawals in 1969. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization".

Nixon said in 1970 in an announcement, "I am tonight announcing plans for the withdrawal of an additional 150,000 American troops to be completed during the spring of next year. This will bring a total reduction of 265,500 men in our armed forces in Vietnam below the level that existed when we took office 15 months ago."

Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975 The United States began drastically reducing their troop support in South Vietnam during the final years of Vietnamization. Many U.S. troops were removed from the region, and on 5 March 1971, the United States returned the 5th Special Forces Group, which was the first American unit deployed to South Vietnam, to its former base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War: 1962–1973. During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population came to be opposed to U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Public opinion steadily turned against the war following 1967 and by 1970 only a third of Americans believed that the U.S. had not made a mistake by sending troops to fight in Vietnam.

Nearly a third of the American population was strongly against the war. It is possible to specify certain groups who led the anti-war movement and the reasons why. Many young people protested because they were the ones being drafted while others were against the war because the anti-war movement grew increasingly popular among the counterculture and drug culture in American society and its music.

Some advocates within the peace movement advocated a unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. One reason given for the withdrawal is that it would contribute to a lessening of tensions in the region and thus less human bloodshed. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diệm in refusing elections was seen as thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John F. Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. This is very strange statement for he is the one who got us into the Vietnam Conflict.

Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism and imperialism and, for those involved with the "New Left such as the Catholic Worker Movement". Others, such as "Stephen Spiro" opposed the war based on the theory of "Just War". Some wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam, such as Norman Morrison emulating the actions of Thích Quảng Đức. In a key televised debate from 15 May 1965, "Eric Severeid" reporting for CBS conducted a debate between "McGeorge Bundy" and "Hans Morgenthau" dealing with an acute summary of the main war concerns of the U.S. as seen at that time stating them as: "(1) What are the justifications for the American presence in Vietnam – why are we there? (2) What is the fundamental nature of this war? Is it aggression from North Vietnam or is it basically, a civil war between the peoples of South Vietnam? (3) What are the implications of this Vietnam struggle in terms of Communist China's power and aims and future actions? And (4) What are the alternatives to our present policy in Vietnam?"

High-profile opposition to the Vietnam War turned to street protests in an effort to turn U.S. political opinion. On 15 October 1969, the Vietnam Moratorium attracted millions of Americans. Riots broke out at the 1968 Democratic National Convention during protests against the war. After news reports of American military abuses such as the 1968 My Lai Massacre, brought new attention and support to the anti-war movement, some veterans joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The fatal shooting of four students at Kent State University in 1970 led to nationwide university protests. Anti-war protests ended with the final withdrawal of troops after the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973. South Vietnam was left to defend itself alone when the fighting resumed. Many South Vietnamese subsequently fled to the United States.

For these protest, demonstration and riots were Leonid Brezhnev General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Communist "KBG" which had a hand in funded, organized and lead. This was the beginning of Great American Socialism Revolution here in the United States and the beginning of the end and down fall of our social society.  

Grenada 1983, this was nothing more the U.S. Marines going into Grenada to rescue American Medical Students that were being held by Cuban soldiers. It wasn't much of a battle.

U.S. Invasion of Panama 1989, The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the United States between mid-December 1989 and late-January 1990. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000.

During the invasion, de facto Panamanian leader, general, and dictator Manuel Noriega was deposed, president-elect Guillermo Endara sworn into office, and the Panamanian Defense Force dissolved.

United States' justification for the invasion, the official U.S. justification for the invasion was articulated by President George H. W. Bush on the morning of 20 December 1989, a few hours after the start of the operation. Bush listed four reasons for the invasion:

• Safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama. In his statement, Bush stated that Noriega had declared that a state of war existed between the U.S. and Panama and that he threatened the lives of the approximately 35,000 U.S. citizens living there. There had been numerous clashes between U.S. and Panamanian forces; one U.S. Marine had been killed a few days earlier.
• Defending democracy and human rights in Panama.
• Combating drug trafficking. Panama had become a center for drug money laundering and a transit point for drug trafficking to the U.S. and Europe.
• Protecting the integrity of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. Members of Congress and others in the U.S. political establishment claimed that Noriega threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and that the U.S. had the right under the treaties to intervene militarily to protect the canal.

U.S. military forces were instructed to begin maneuvers and activities within the restrictions of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, such as ignoring PDF roadblocks and conducting short-notice "Category Three" military exercises on security-sensitive targets, with the express goal of provoking PDF soldiers. U.S. SOUTHCOM kept a list of abuses against U.S. servicemen and civilians by the PDF while the orders to incite PDF soldiers were in place. As for the Panamanian legislature's declaration of a state of war between the U.S. and Panama, Noriega insists that this statement referred to a state of war directed by the U.S. against Panama, in the form of what he claimed were harsh economic sanctions and constant, provocative military maneuvers "Operations Purple Storm and Sand Flea" that were prohibited by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. The U.S. had turned a blind eye to Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking since the 1970s. Noriega was then singled out for direct involvement in these drug trafficking operations due to the widespread public knowledge of his involvement in money laundering, drug activities, political murder, and human rights abuses.

Bush's four reasons for the invasion provided sufficient justification to establish bipartisan Congressional approval and support for the invasion. However, the secrecy before initiation, the speed and success of the invasion itself, and U.S. public support for it (80% public approval did not allow Democrats to object to Bush's decision to use military force. One contemporary study suggests that Bush decided to invade for domestic political reasons, citing scarce strategic reasoning for the U.S. to invade and immediate withdrawal without establishing the structure to enforce the interests that Bush used to justify the invasion.

Two days before the invasion, on 18 December, Panama announced that the U.S. was planning an invasion of Panama.

There is not much more to say about this operation.

Persian Gulf War 1990-1991, the Gulf War "2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991", codenamed Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war - in the Persian Gulf region - waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

The war is also known under other names, such as the Persian Gulf War, First Gulf War, Gulf War I, Kuwait War, First Iraq War, or Iraq War before the term "Iraq War" became identified instead with the 2003 Iraq War. The Iraqi Army's occupation of Kuwait that began 2 August 1990 was met with international condemnation, and brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by members of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. President George H. W. Bush deployed U.S. forces into Saudi Arabia and urged other countries to send their own forces to the scene. An array of nations joined the Coalition, the largest military alliance since World War II. The great majority of the Coalition's military forces were from the U.S., with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt as leading contributors, in that order. Saudi Arabia paid around US$36 billion of the US$60 billion cost.

The war was marked by the introduction of live news broadcasts from the front lines of the battle, principally by the U.S. network CNN. The war has also earned the nickname Video Game War after the daily broadcast of images from cameras on board U.S. bombers during Operation Desert Storm.

The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial and naval bombardment on 17 January 1991, continuing for five weeks. This was followed by a ground assault on 24 February. This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces, drove the Iraqi military from Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory. The Coalition ceased its advance and declared a cease-fire 100 hours after the ground campaign started. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and areas on Saudi Arabia's border. Iraq launched Scud missiles against Coalition military targets in Saudi Arabia and against Israel.

There is not much more to say about this conflict, we fought, they lost and we went home.

Invasion of Afghanistan 2001 – United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism. The War in Afghanistan "or the American war in Afghanistan" is the period in which the United States invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Supported initially by close allies, they were later joined by NATO beginning in 2003. It followed the Afghan Civil War's 1996–2001 phase. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the "Taliban from power". Key allies, including the United Kingdom, supported the U.S. from the start to the end of the phase. This phase of the War is the longest war in United States History.

In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the United Nations since 1999. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks and declined demands to extradite other terrorism suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a delaying tactic, and on 7 October 2001 it launched Operation Enduring Freedom with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces, including the Northern Alliance. In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to assist the Afghan interim authorities with securing Kabul. At the Bonn Conference in December 2001, "Hamid Karzai" was selected to head the Afghan Interim Administration, which after a 2002 "loya jirga" in Kabul became the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the popular elections of 2004, Karzai was elected president of the country, now named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Note: Popular Election, They only had one candidate that ran and it was one supported by the United States and one the United States could control. The only way Karzai is or will be able to stay in power and in office is through the hands of the NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. With out them Karzai would be gone.

NATO became involved as an alliance in August 2003, taking the helm of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and later that year assumed leadership of ISAF with troops from 43 countries. NATO members provided the core of the force. One portion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan operated under NATO command; the rest remained under direct U.S. command. Taliban leader Mullah Omar reorganized the movement, and in 2003, launched an insurgency against the government and ISAF. Though outgunned and outnumbered, insurgents from the Taliban, Haqqani Network, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and other groups have waged asymmetric warfare with guerilla raids and ambushes in the countryside, suicide attacks against urban targets and turncoat killings against coalition forces. The Taliban exploited weaknesses in the Afghan government, among the most corrupt in the world, to reassert influence across rural areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan. ISAF responded in 2006 by increasing troops for counterinsurgency operations to "clear and hold" villages and "nation building" projects to "win hearts and minds". While ISAF continued to battle the Taliban insurgency, fighting crossed into neighboring North-West Pakistan.

On 2 May 2011, United States Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. In May 2012, NATO leaders endorsed an exit strategy for withdrawing their forces. UN-backed peace talks have since taken place between the Afghan government and the Taliban. In May 2014, the United States announced that "[its] combat operations [would] end in 2014, [leaving] just a small residual force in the country until the end of 2016". As of 2015, tens of thousands of people have been killed in the war. Over 4,000 ISAF soldiers and civilian contractors as well as over 15,000 Afghan national security forces members have been killed, as well as nearly 20 thousand civilians. In October 2014, British forces handed over the last bases in Helmand to the Afghan military, officially ending their combat operations in the war. On 28 December 2014, NATO formally ended combat operations in Afghanistan and transferred full security responsibility to the Afghan government, via a ceremony in Kabul. [Note: It is alleged that Seal Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden. Only a select government officials' have support to have seen this happen. Again it Obama's administration who has see it and Obama has lie so much who can really believe him. But they are to make a movie about the operation. This was a classified mission and they are making a movie about it give me a break.]

Atrocities committed by: Northern Alliance Forces, In December 2001 the Dasht-i-Leili massacre took place, where between 250 and 3,000 Taliban fighters who had surrendered, were shot and/or suffocated to death in metal truck containers during transportation by Northern Alliance forces. Reports place U.S. ground troops at the scene. The Irish documentary Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death investigated these allegations and claimed that mass graves of thousands of victims were found by UN investigators and that the US blocked investigations into the incident.

Atrocities committed by: Coalition Forces, On 21 June 2003, David Passaro, a CIA contractor and former United States Army Ranger, killed Abdul Wali, a prisoner at a U.S. base 16 km (10 mi) south of Asadabad, in Kunar Province. Passaro was found guilty of one count of felony assault with a dangerous weapon and three counts of misdemeanor assault. On 10 August 2009, he was sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in prison.

In 2002, two unarmed civilian Afghan prisoners were tortured and later killed by U.S. armed forces personnel at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility: also Bagram Collection Point or B.C.P." in Bagram, Afghanistan. The prisoners, Habibullah and Dilawar, were chained to the ceiling and beaten, which caused their deaths. Military coroners ruled that both the prisoners' deaths were homicides. Autopsies revealed severe trauma to both prisoners' legs, describing the trauma as comparable to being run over by a bus. Fifteen soldiers were charged.

During the summer of 2010, ISAF charged five United States Army soldiers with the murder of three Afghan civilians in Kandahar province and collecting their body parts as trophies in what came to be known as the Maywand District murders. In addition, seven soldiers were charged with crimes such as hashish use, impeding an investigation and attacking the whistleblower, Specialist Justin Stoner. Eleven of the twelve soldiers were convicted on various counts.

A British Royal Marine Sergeant, identified as Sergeant Alexander Blackman from Taunton, Somerset, was convicted at court martial in Wiltshire of having murdered an unarmed, reportedly wounded Afghan fighter in Helmand Province in September 2011. In 2013, he received a life sentence from the court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, and was dismissed with disgrace from the Royal Marines.

On 11 March 2012, the Kandahar massacre occurred when sixteen civilians were killed and six wounded in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. Nine of the victims were children, and eleven of the dead were from the same family. United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales was taken into custody and charged with sixteen counts of premeditated murder. After pleading guilty to sixteen counts of premeditated murder, Bales was sentenced to life in prison without parole and dishonorably discharged from the United States Army.

[Before I get stated here there is one thing I want to make very clear here is I do not support nor condone Terrorism]

In this whole thing about President George W. Bush's reason for invading Afghanistan 2001 is not completely or being told in full. Let's start with when the Soviet Union Army invaded Afghanistan. The Soviet–Afghan War lasted over nine years from December 1979 to February 1989, during this time, the Insurgent groups "the Mujahideen" who received aid from several Western countries one of them being the United States CIA was furnishing the Afghanistan with weapons and Stinger Missiles and several Muslim countries, fought against the Soviet Army and allied Afghan forces. Between 850,000–1.5 million civilians were killed and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran. What is not being told here is once the Soviets left the country in February 1989, the United States turned their backs on the Afghanistan people basically leaving a vacuum in its government. At this point, the Taliban came to power as the country's rulers. Until 11 September 2001 the United Stated had no interest in Afghanistan and when Bush made demands and the Taliban ignored him Bush got mad because he didn't get his way and couldn't bully another country into what he wanted. Yes I said bullied by stating if you don't do as I want you to do, we will bomb you into submission. The United States has a bad habit if invading sovereignty countries. As for the United Kingdom joining in, the United States paid for their cost of helping the United States. The only reason the NATO got involved they were also bullied by Colin Powell as Secretary of State. One should remind the United States and its NATO coalition forces that the Afghanistan people have never been defeated. The Afghanistan people are what you call warring tribes.

Another reason the United States wants to keep Afghanistan is its poppy crop.

Costs, the cost of the war reportedly was a major factor as U.S. officials considered drawing down troops in 2011. A March 2011 Congressional Research Service report noted,

• Following the Afghanistan surge announcement in 2009, Defense Department spending on Afghanistan increased by 50%, going from $4.4 billion to $6.7 billion a month. During that time, troop strength increased from 44,000 to 84,000, and was expected to be at 102,000 for fiscal year 2011;
• The total cost from inception to the fiscal year 2011 was expected to be $468 billion. The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million a year.

The Afghanistan war, the longest overseas conflict in American history 13 years, has cost the US taxpayer nearly $1 trillion and will require spending several hundred billion dollars more after it officially ends, according to Financial Times calculations and independent researchers. Around 80 per cent of that spending on the Afghanistan conflict has taken place during the presidency of Barack Obama, who sharply increased the US military presence in the country after taking office in 2009.

This $1 Trillion could have been spent else were much better. This war or conflict has reached a no win situation. After 13 years, 7 October 2001, with the Taliban insurgency it is still strong and well, although it does not hold any major cities, they still have not been defeated. The United States, United Kingdom and the other NATO coalition forces should have read the history of Afghanistan Wars. Hannibal and even Alexander the Great never defeated the Afghans. The Taliban are just setting back and waiting for the right time to stick back. The Afghan government of "Hamid Karzai" is being propped up with the foreign aid money form the United States Billions of Dollars in cash and weaponry and the stationing of coalition forces some 20,000.

Before going into the reason for invading Iraq, one needs to go back in the history of Iraq. The Iran–Iraq War was an armed conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iraqi Republic lasting from September 1980 to August 1988, making it the 20th century's longest conventional war. There are many conflicting and conservancy issues to the reason behind this war. The history of this war has been further complicated by historical revisionists since 1988. The United States was the one who brought Saddam Hussein to power and furnished him with military weapons which included chemical weapons that were used in the Iran's killing thousands. The United States turned a blind eye on this since the United States wanted Iraq to win. Then the war ended, the United States did what it does best it turned its back on Iraq and the Iraqi people. There is quite a bit more to this history, but I need not go into it at this time. For some one will come along and change it again.

Invasion of Iraq 2003, United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush reasons for invasion of Iraq.

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger."

– U.S. President George W. Bush

What about Iran and its terrorist allies? There is nothing said about them because the United States needed their OIL and didn't want to rock the oil pipe line that it needed.

There was many reason both Pro and Con for invading Iraq and the Pro side was based on phony, faulty, and misleading information obtained from a informer by the State Department and then Secretary of State Retired Gen. Colin Powell who the State Department paid millions of dollars to this person who hadn't lived or been to Iraq in 30 years and who also wanted to become its next leader. Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations and convinced them to allow the United Stated and the United Kingdom to invade Iraq based on this phony, faulty, and misleading information.  

He then goes on to list these reasons:

1. The United States and the world has a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq. [Meaning Weapons of Mass Destruction]

2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant that has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and should be brought to justice.

3. The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people.

4. The oil reserves of the region are important to the world's economy. A rogue element like Saddam threatens the oil reserves of the entire region.

5. The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants.

6. By removing Saddam, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks.

7. The creation of another nation favorable to US interests in the Middle East.

8. The removal of Saddam would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility.

9. If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he could share those with terrorist enemies of the United States.

Let's take these nine reasons and examine them one at a time.

Reason one - The United States and the world has a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq. This Meaning Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist, for the United States spend a year searching for these WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION that did not exist and even after being told multi times by Iraq personal that Saddam had destroyed these weapons years ago before the United States invaded Iraq. Again this was based on phony, faulty, and misleading information obtained from a informer by the State Department and then Secretary of State Retired Gen. Colin Powell and that The State Department had paid millions to.

Reason two - Saddam Hussein is a tyrant that has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and should be brought to justice. I have to agree that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and did demonstrate a complete disregard for human life. As a dictator, what does one expect then why didn't we also invade Iran. It is a known fact that Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction and they are trying very hard to obtain Nuclear weapons, they are also a country that oppresses its people. But I don't see the United States or the United Kingdom invading Iran. Ho I forgot we had already done that when the United States helped Great Britain England over through the former leader of Iran, the Shaw in 1951 with the help of then President Eisenhower's son. And again with out going into detail, it was all over OIL. The Shaw had nationalized the countries oil production and Great Britain did not like this change because they no longer had sole control of the oil fields and its refineries. 

Reason three - The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people. Let's take this one step further, all the people in the Middle Eastern countries are oppressed people in one way or another. This is not a reason to invade just one country and not others. Here again the United States is again acting as the guardians of the world and they are the children to act for themselves.  

Reason four - The oil reserves of the region are important to the world's economy. A rogue element like Saddam threatens the oil reserves of the entire region. This reason is very false because before the United States pressured the United Nations to place an embargo on Iraq's oil, Saddam Hussein was more then willing to sell its oil on the world market and was doing so. Again Hussein was playing hard ball with the United Nations and the United States for the way they were treating him and his country and Hussein wouldn't and couldn't be bullied by the United States. Other countries were more then willing to trade with Iraq, but again the United States bullied its way to get wait it wanted through the United Nations.   

Reason five - The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants. This one I don't quite get or understand as to just what he was trying to say or the reason behind it. The definition of appeasement - Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict. Just how this fosters even bigger tyrants I don't see it in its definition. Maybe Bush and his writers found another definition that's not in any published dictionary.

 

Reason six - By removing Saddam, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks. This is another one I don't quite get or understand as to just what he was trying to say or the reason behind it. What about the other Middle Eastern countries that support terrorization. Now I get it, Bush need an excuse to justify his invasion of Iraq and this seem like a good one. But the problem it didn't stop terrorist attacks from Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. I guess Bush got this one from his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice who was a Political Science major at the University of Denver. She is also the one that introduced and authorized the CIA use of controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, human rights organizations, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and many senior politicians. The CIA also used and through its many different contractors in the country other means of torture, and by justifying their use the ends justifies the means.

Reason seven - The creation of another nation favorable to US interests in the Middle East. Sure the United States did, this way they had someone in power they could control and dictate to, for there is no other reason for this reason.

Reason eight - The removal of Saddam would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility. This one is another farce that Bush used to cram down the United Nations members throat to invade Iraq, for the United Nations had Saddam Hussein contained. The United Nations is nothing more then an International organization composed of independent states brought together to encourage diplomacy and peace between various countries. The UN is also in charge of maintaining treaty obligations and ensuring that countries included in the organization obey international laws. Nothing more, it does have a military peace keeping force. Only to be used to maintain peace in a region or country. It is not a combat force. So what does uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility means?

Reason nine - If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he could share those with terrorist enemies of the United States. I love this one, if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he could share those with terrorist enemies of the United States. What about other countries, this is referring to the United States. But again he didn't have weapons of mass destruction as seen and were told by other Iraqis when the United States went looking for them. Bush and his administration were going on false and incorrect information that the CIA and State Department had paid millions of dollars for and were completely taken in and did nothing about once they found out it was all a lie. The money was already in the informers Swiss Bank Account(s) because this person wanted to be the next Iraqi leader, but got into trouble when he returned to Iraq and tried to exercise his ambition by trying to bully his way into the leadership role. Since the United States could not find or prove Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction after two different groups combed the country, President George W. Bush changed courses and called it Regional Change. He had to do something to cover the mistake he made.    

The truth and whole reason for invasion was the United States wanted someone in Iraq that they could control known as Regional Change, a leader the United States could dictate to and the United States wanted also to control the OIL Iraq has. The United States also wanted a base in the region to where it could spy on the other Arabic Middle East countries though the CIA and NSA with out getting caught spying. This is being done through the $750 million dollar U.S. Embassy Complex now in Iraq, with a staff of 15,000 people. It is located along the Tigris River and covers 104 acres "42 ha", it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City. Ambassador Stuart E. Jones is currently the Chief of Mission. This embassy complex employs 15,000 people. Chiefly it is a city within its self.

Since I first started studying American History and World History over the past 56 years, I have seen many changes being made to the American History and to World History. These changes have come about by revisionists or special interest groups who want the history of this country and the world to fit their personal ideas of how the history should be written and told. The rewriting of American History as to fit what one precedes or should precede is not true history. It is nothing more then what wants someone or a group of people to believe is history. In fact, it is nothing more then changing the facts of history to fit or suite their needs. It has come to the point that American History and World History should stop being changed to fit the needs of others. 

TheCeļotājs