DÉJÀ VIETNAM TET ALL OVER AGAIN
By: Alan Stang
So it turns out the war wasn’t over after all. Bush was wrong again. He is always wrong. As these comments go to press, most of Iraq is in flames. In fact, the "war" we fought last year – the one Bush said was over – now turns out to have been a mere skirmish. We are fighting the real war now.
Bush says most Iraqis are not fighting, which no doubt is true. (Once in a while, he accidentally tells the truth. It’s not his fault.) Isn’t that always true? In every war, most people are not fighting. The women are not fighting, for instance (except in our country, which is literally insane). The men actually doing the fighting are a small percentage of the population. Bush says the noncombatants love us. How much does that matter when the shooting starts?
In 1968, in Vietnam, the Viet Cong finally stood up and fought. They attacked around the country. Our magnificent military exterminated them, to such an extent that they were never again a factor in the war. In this country, slime bag Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted newsman in America," and other world government traitors, reported that the Tet offensive was an American defeat. The Vietnamese people – the great majority who were not Viet Cong – loved us, despite which we lost, not to the Viet Cong in the South or to the North Vietnamese, but to the District of Criminals. In Vietnam we at least had an identifiable purpose: purportedly to "fight Communism."
Most Americans did not understand at the time that this meant exactly what it said: to fight Communism – not to win; to slog on, year after year after year, in a "managed conflict," not allowed to win, until the District of Criminals decided that enough Americans had been killed and enough money had been wasted.
Now that the real war in Iraq has begun, it is long past time to ask ourselves again why we are there. Would somebody please remind me? I can’t recall. It isn’t the Weapons of Mass Destruction. It isn’t the oil. It isn’t the Bush family’s pal Bin Laden. Oh, yes, now I do remember; it’s to bring democracy, which our Founding Fathers called the worst form of government and did everything they could to prevent.
Notice a couple of odd things. The Sunni and the Shia factions, usually at odds, apparently have united and are fighting side by side. Is it remotely conceivable that the Shia would do so without the authorization and collaboration of Teheran? It is possible that we are fighting Iran, allied with those Republican Guards who melted into the population last year.
Indeed, notice that the enemy in Iraq is going nose-to-nose with the U.S. Marines. Who could do that? The Viet Cong could do it. The North Vietnamese regulars could do it. American Vietnam veterans agree that those enemies were thoroughly professional, first-class troops. They should have been because the Soviets gave them everything they needed, including an endless cloaca of military materiel throughout the war, much of which originated in the United States.
Only thoroughly professional first-class troops could fight stand-up war against the U.S. Marines. "Insurgents," or "malcontents," or "criminals" armed with leftover Kalashnikovs could not. So the question arises of whom we are fighting. Is the enemy another version of the Soviet Viet Cong?
Notice that the American Communist Liars Union (ACLU) has taken no steps to ban the teaching of Islam in our government schools. Notice that the Prostitute National Press, which has always adored Communism, does everything it can to coddle Islam. Notice that Bush still talks about the "religion of peace." Could there be some affinity between Muslim terrorists and the atheist Reds?
Remember that the "Soviet collapse" never did happen, that it is merely another remake of the New Economic Policy of 1921 and that the Soviets have been recruiting, training, financing, equipping and commanding Arab terrorists like Yassir Arafat for many decades. Is Iraq another Soviet operation designed to give Moscow control of the second biggest oil patch on earth?
Meanwhile, June 30th approaches. On that day, the new Iraqi government imposed by the District of Criminals in the new constitution is scheduled to take over from U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer. Bush says the date is carved in sand; there will be no delay. But it looks as if the legislators will have to go to work fully armed.
Many Americans presently rejoice in the mistaken belief that the new government in Baghdad means our men can come home. No, pilgrim, our troops will stay. The District of Criminals says they must stay for many years – in case the new Baghdad government tries to do something "undemocratic."
So, typically, world government traitor Bush and his Communist neo-cons have enmeshed us in a situation in which there is no easy solution, no painless way out, a situation even worse than Vietnam. What would you do? Would you stay "for as long as it takes," implementing the "bring ‘em on" policy (making sure of course that our beloved President is safe on the ranch)?
That would mean more and more Americans killed, "to make Iraq safe for democracy," more "managed conflict," and more suicidal Islamic dupes, lusting for a shot at those virgins. How many virgins is it? Is it 47, or is that their age? Whatever it is, how did they come up with the number? It would mean ever higher federal spending, which you would pay for one way or the other. Our people would be divided as they were during Vietnam, except now it would be worse.
Because "victory" has been deleted from our military lexicon, some of our professionals are not reenlisting. Not many so far, probably, but the Marine Corps reenlistment bonus these days can go as high as $60,000. And did you know that the District of Criminals is very slyly reintroducing the draft? Yes, all these military adventures require more bodies than we can persuade to enlist. Next time, it will include your daughter. (Not mine.)
Or should we just cut and run? That would mean another American defeat, a humiliation that would have endless ramifications. It would mean a historic Muslim victory that would inspire the terrorist offensive around the world. There would be more terror, not less, because weakness inspires it.
We already have groveled in the face of the horror in Fallujah, where monsters mutilated those four Americans. The Prostitute National Press protected you from the pictures, but you can bet every aspiring lunatic around the world saw them. We did nothing for fear of making someone mad. We said the perpetrators will be "brought to justice." We are fighting now not to avenge our dead, but because inspired terrorists have launched an offensive.
So what would you do? Remember that (il)liberalism is a modern species of insanity. When the point inevitably arrives at which the (il)liberal hopelessly mucks something up, he turns to you and says, "Okay, wise guy, if you’re so smart, what’s your solution?" Remember, because he is insane there is no good answer.
So what would you do? Here are a few thoughts for Fallujah that may or may not be helpful. We know who mutilated those Americans (who were delivering food when they were killed). We have their pictures. Suppose we leaflet the town. The leaflets will include their pictures and the warning that if those perpetrators are not delivered by such and such a time in a couple of days, then you may as well vamoose because we are going to do to Fallujah what Rome did to Carthage.
As you know, Jews do not eat pork. Neither do Muslims, but the stricture is even stricter. A Jew is allowed to eat pork if he is starving and there is nothing else to eat. But if a Muslim even touches the forbidden delight he loses any chance of paradise. No virgins. So from now on we give immediate justice to terrorists; and then we bury them in pig guts.
Of course, this would not affect the millions of peaceful Muslims who "love" us, and who are "not terrorists." It would also help determine who is what. If the terror stops, we would know that the perpetrators really were Muslims. If it doesn’t, we would know they are probably something else – maybe Soviet front men.
Then we get out. In other words, we could leave only – only – only after a devastating manifestation of power. We would get out and tell them we don’t give a d-a-r-n what they do. They can blow each other up if they like. But there would be no more "managed conflict." We would mind our own business, but make sure they know that if they ever touch another American, they would wake up dead, not in paradise with those 47 virgins, but in a very deep hole in the ground among innumerable corpses.
But of course all of this is an impossible dream, eh, Sancho? It could never happen with either George Bush or Hanoi John – both Bonesmen, both world government traitors – as President.
Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Alan Stang can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org