Mr. President, tell the media that Putin is infinitely less murderous than U.S. democracy crusaders

In an interview with FOX’s Bill O’Reilly on 5 February 2017, President Trump botched an exemplary opportunity to strike a major blow in favor of a durable America First foreign policy. But more such chances are sure to appear, and the President ought to be ready next time out.

In their conversation, O’Reilly referred to Russian President Putin as a thug and a killer. President Trump hit a home run with a pitch-perfect response, telling O’Reilly, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” (1) With this question, the president hit the factual core, but then lost track of his non-interventionist music and wandered into needlessly worrying about the number of  foreign civilians that have been killed by U.S. forces in the conduct of the unnecessary, interventionist wars their commanders-in-chief start. Lots of civilians get killed in wars, and, though that is tough to stomach, it is tremendously more important to fight and win wars with the greatest possible speed, no matter what the toll on the civilians who are either supporting or, regrettably, living near the enemy requiring annihilation. Indeed, there are times when targeting civilian populations or facilities — like Mosul University, where IS built chemical weapons — could add speed to a war-winning campaign.

President Trump would have been on much firmer and more truthful ground if he had said that, since 1945, U.S. and European politicians, their yes-men generals, their reliable liars in the media, and the UN and other multinational organizations have killed far more civilians through their unstinting democracy crusading abroad, than has the U.S. military in its politically and international-law hamstrung, and so always losing, war-making.

To put it plainly, the post-World War II addiction of the bipartisan U.S. governing elite to spreading the abstraction of democracy by military force has killed far more people than those killed by their militaries in the one or two necessary wars they fought since V-J Day. Indeed, wars for forcibly imposing the West’s abstract ideas and secular (sordid?) values on foreigners probably have killed nearly as many civilians as have post-1945 natural disasters. As a top foreign-policy agenda item, history has irrefutably proven that the forced spread of democracy is pretty much the recipe for results akin to genocide.

Neither the president nor Mr. O’Reilly seemed clear on the point that the United States should never, ever fight a war for abstractions, like freedom, liberty, human rights, women’s rights, abortion rights, indigenous rights, or any other right that happens to be invented in the future by the human-rights mafia. How many more instances of failure and wasteful blood-letting do Americans need to see before recognizing that their governing elite and its elite buddies in Europe are simply murderers every time they either use their own militaries to try to impose democracy on foreigners, or when they support indigenous organizations that cynically spout the words democracy and freedom because they know that once the U.S. and European leaders hear those magic words, Western guns and money will flow in to help them start a war in which they want power, not freedom. Americans too often forget that the only universal principle is the desire for power, not for freedom.

If I can be so bold, even Mr. O’Reilly falls into the “killer” category in the foregoing sense. Years ago, I appeared with some regularity on the Factor — and was always well treated — and on one occasion I argued that the U.S. government ought not to be involved in Darfur and South Sudan because they were sinkholes of irrelevancy for the United States, and that each would swallow many billions of U.S. dollars and, in the end, would make no difference but a negative one by setting the stage for more war and further deepening the republic’s debt. I also added that only an adolescent-run national government — a more than apt description of the Bush and Obama administrations — would allow itself to be pushed into pro-democracy intervention in Darfur and South Sudan by a gaggle of terminally juvenile Hollywood “stars” who are, at best, moronic leftists — like George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, etc.– and, on average, just plainly addled people whose only skill is reading words other, smarter people write for them.

On that occasion, Mr. O’Reilly supported unnecessary and self-defeating U.S. political, financial, political, military interventionism — which included tearing off the oil-rich half of Muslim Sudan and giving it to gangster-led Christians — under the guise of a humanitarian operation. In other words, while he did not pull any triggers, he supported those who wanted U.S.-Western intervention so they could take power, and so played a bit role as what might be called a “killer-abettor” in the carnage that has gone on in both places in the name of forcibly imposing those always murderous abstractions, freedom, liberty, and human rights.

The usually amiable Mr. O’Reilly, like so many other Americans, becomes little more than one of Pavlov’s dogs on this issue — maybe Woodrow Wilson’s dogs would be more accurate — savage, snarling pups who jump to demand or support interventionist actions that kill Americans serving the republic overseas — mostly military personnel — and foreigners in the name of imposing glorious freedom, liberty, and democracy on them. There is not much funny in this kind of murderous and predictably war-causing behavior, save for the hilarity extant in the enduring, baseless, and rock-hard refusal of the U.S. governing elite to see that the foreigners on which it aims to impose secular democracy via the bayonet, generally, (a) do not want it and will fight it, and/or (b) are not competent enough to handle freedom without turning it into license, much like most Democrats.

So Mr. O’Reilly and the rest of the media, no matter on which political side they reside, ought to realize that there is murder, and then there is murder. Has Putin killed his opponents when they became a threat to his power or Russia’s interests, probably, but so what? It is none of America’s business unless he kills Americans. Naturally, Mr. O’Reilly and the rest of the media do not seem to have much trouble with Putin-like actions that originate from the Neocons’ buddies in Tel Aviv or our imagined “Muslim allies” in Cairo, Riyadh, North Africa, Yemen, Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

In sum, the greatest mass murderers over the past 20 years have not been Putin, Osama bin Laden, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but, rather, they have been those U.S. and European politicians and their public- and private-sector advisers — supported by the media, the academy, and the churches — who have started or supported interventionist wars in the name of unobtainable abstractions. Recent instances of this lethal phenomena are legion. Among them:

–Mrs. Clinton’s State Department’s fomenting  of anti-government activities and violence in Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Ukraine.

–The Bush/Cheney wars for spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and, from there, across the Islamic world.

–The Bill Clinton-G.H.W. Bush no-intention-of-winning military intervention in Somalia, a war that is still ongoing.

–Obama’s re-interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his fun for death-loving Democrats, but strategically feckless drone attacks.

–The Bill Clinton-EU-UN military intervention in the Balkans, which stopped the war there from burning out and so allowed all sides to patiently rearm and otherwise prepare for the war that will start when NATO leaves.

–The Obama-Clinton-EU-UN-McCain-Graham-led-or-caused wars that destroyed Ukraine, Syria, and Libya.

Now, if Putin killed a person or three once a day for the rest of his life, and his descendants took over that duty after his death, they would never total a number of killed “innocents” that is even remotely equal to the murders accumulated since 1945 by U.S. and EU democracy crusaders though interventionist wars and economic sanctions.  When next the opportunity arises for President Trump to address the issue raised by Mr. O’Reilly, he should calmly, clearly, and truthfully say that since Woodrow Wilson launched the deeply anti-war and non-interventionist United States into a century of unending war in 1917, the only murderers who have more notches on their belts for murdered innocents than the elite U.S. and European democracy-spreaders are Stalin, Mao, and American abortionists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Endote:

–1.) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Mr. President, tell the media that Putin is infinitely less murderous than U.S. democracy crusaders

  1. Mike,

    I appreciate your candor and judgment as always. I concur with most of what you say. The general public in the US has been successfully distracted by nonsense in the media by the leftists. I feel we are largely fighting a huge uphill battle, but we should continue exposing idiocy wherever we see it. You are a Patriot and I love you for it.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing, and for your kind words. I have been entirely unsuccessful, however, in making a difference. I truly relish writing the pieces that appear in this spot and answering questions whenever I can, and I sometimes believe that someone outside the regular readers of these pieces stumbles on my work. There is a piece I saw today by Karl Rove that describes the mayors of sanctuary cities as being like \”the Nullifiers of 1832\”, which all but copies the piece I published here a week or two ago. That\’s all to the good,if Rove\’s piece gets widely read, and given what I wrote was pretty elementary, he will help to spread an idea that worked before in the republic\’s history and would surely work to today against much less talented and much more effete men and women. But that said, I cannot crack the mainstream media, the youtube media, or the online-media. My views on using massive military force in a necessary war, on the irrelevance of Israel to genuine U.S. interests, on the subversion of the Constitution by Democrat-authored minority rule, on the mass murder that is abortion, on the citizenry\’s responsibility to arm themselves and their coordinate and absolute duty to use armed rebellion as the proper tool against the national government if it does not begin to steadily cut back its agenda of domestic political, economic, and legal oppression, and on any number of other issues has kept me off of all media venues, save the John Fredericks morning radio program in Norfolk, VA. I appear to have gored every sacred cow in North America. I also sense some tampering with my visibility on GOOGLE. When doing a general search on my name, for example, invariably the first things to appear after the wikipedia article and this site, are a three-year-old article by the smarmy Neocon coward David Frum attacking my mental competence, and a second article denigrating my wife. When searching on my name (in quotes) for a more limited period — say 24 hours, a week, or a month — the overwhelming number of hits are from a site called TUNDRATABLOIDS.COM, which is a viciously Neocon and pro-Israel site for which I never written and on which I cannot even find a mention of my name. When I perform the same searches on BING and DUCK-DUCK-GO neither phenomena occurs. Now, all readers of this site know that I am a close to a computer illiterate, but this situation still seems to me as if someone contrived it. I hope none of the foregoing is regarded as whining. It is the situation that I have encountered and have yet to find a way to crack. I apologize for prattling on for so long, and again thank you kindly for writing. MFS

  2. jfresh says:

    Abortion is not murder.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. I have long said that I would reconsider my opposition to abortion if someone could present an instance where a woman gave birth to a palm tree, a Cadillac, a fawn, or a toaster, and not to a human being. So far there have been no takers. For me, not only is abortion murder, but is the most despicable kind of cold-blooded murder-for-profit-and-convenience that America, and perhaps the world, has ever seen. In 45 years of Feminist agitation, whining, and demands to be above the law, the movement has attained for women only the reputation for pandemic promiscuity and mass murder. MFS

  3. Viscuso says:

    Michael, I respect you dearly, but I think the biggest murderers are the American women and abortion doctors that have killed 60 million unborn babies at American style SS camps since 1973 and still supported and abetted by politicians today.

    • mike says:

      Thank you for writing. I cannot disagree with you, as the numbers for Mao and Stalin are estimates, those for the abortionists are rock solid. It may well be true that American women and their doctors and the cowardly politicians who abet them are the greatest mass murders that the world has ever seen. I always reflect on Lincoln’s second inaugural where said, to paraphrase, that America might have to fight the civil war until every drop of blood drawn by the lash has been equaled by the drops drawn by the sword. Lincoln may have been onto something there, and, if so, contemporary America will be in sad shape when the day of retribution for abortion arrives. MFS

  4. Eric Morris says:

    Hi Mike, what war(s) by the US haven been “necessary”? Thank you.

    • mike says:

      Thanks for writing. Our revolution; the Indian wars (an unavoidable clash of civilizations); World War II, but only after after Japan attacked and Hitler declared war on us; the post-9/11 Afghan war, but only as a short (18-24 months), massively destructive punitive expedition and quick withdrawal. I am always in the middle on the Civil War, but I guess I would come down on the necessary side as the South behaved impetuously in Charleston and then stupidly shot first. MFS

  5. Andzhelo says:

    Mike, What is your thoughts on the Intervention by Clinton and Senior Bush during the Serbian- Bosnia- Croatian war from 1992-1995, in the former Yugoslavia which ended at the Dayton Peace accords?

    • mike says:

      Thank you for writing. I regard the intervention in Bosnia as an intervention that was unnecessary, as well as one that will, over time, lead to a larger and far more bloody war. The only solution to almost all wars is to let them burn themselves out, so that either one side clearly wins (U.S. Civil War), or all sides seem some advantage in cooperating to end the fight (WW I). The U.S.-led intervention took a war that had no pertinence to U.S. interests, and was nearing the burned-out stage, and arranged what basically is a time out. Today, the participants in that war hate each other will no less vehemence, and are using the NATO-supervised time out to regroup, amass what wealth they can, rearm, and educate children about the atrocities committed by their ethnic and/or religious enemies. The time out also has allowed the strengthening of Russia-Serbia ties, and permitted an unprecedented growth in militant Sunni Islam across the Balkans. (NB: Note the high number of Balkan fighters serving with IS.) When NATO leaves, the war will gradually recommence as a Christian Orthdox-vs-Sunni Muslim war, and as a far fiercer, more bloody, and perhaps geographically broader struggle than the first war. The U.S.-led intervention will have not solved the problem, but only worsened it. Finally, the idea of the United States unleashing its air power on Serbs who did us no harm, and had once been on good terms with us, serves as a reminder that our governing elite — Democrats and too many Republicans — love war and death as long as can it be delivered from 20,000 feet by airplanes, missiles, and drones; as long as there is no close-in media coverage of the human carnage; and as long as there is no chance of U.S. casualties. MFS

      • Andzhelo says:

        Thank you for writing kindly back to me. I concur greatly since the conversations i had with Serbs, believe that a war in the Balkans will happen soon, and the Greeks who share the same emnines as the Serbs( Albanians, Turks) believe that the same will happen soon in Cyprus,and Albania where Albanians attack churches and villages of both Serbs and Greeks. Both fought together in the 1990s war. I did research for a history project on Bosnia at Sbrencia and Alija Itezbolvic invited jihadists to help and there is VHS film showing a Sunni militia made of volunteers from the Islamic world. Also here is a song on how the Serbs saw Americans, and the VHS Film of Islamic volunteers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sqMNHZxjI- Serb song on us bombing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4omePMceTM – Church destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6WWgaJmPYc – Alija's vlounteers

        Thank You Dr. Scheuer for repsosding and taking the time to read what i wrote here!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *