For translation, click on
English Español Français Deutsch Italiano Portuguese

Wars: Causation Process,
Prevention Efforts:
Lessons from History

Table of Contents
Early - Medieval Efforts
War Analyses 1845-1886
Criminalizing War 1912-1923
Example Royalty
Peace Method

Cannon Fodder
Early Christian View
Mortal Sin
Economic Basis of Wars
Politician Character
Preventive Wars
Examples of False
War Reasons

The U. S. Empire
World Wars List
News Headlines

After the 1939-1945 War against the Nazis under Adolf Hitler, crimes that they had committed were prosecuted at the "Nuremberg Trial." Since similar crimes continued, a less ad hoc system came to be seen to be needed. The 1990's efforts for an International Criminal Court had a long preceding record. It is the latest step to enforce law and save life on a basis in addition to national laws (which may or not not be enforced). The first section of information here is derived primarily from the World War II era book (1943) Prefaces to Peace: A Symposium Consisting of the Following

One World, by
Republican Pres. Nominee Wendell L. Wilkie
(Simon and Schuster, Inc.)
The Problems of Lasting Peace, by
Pres. Herbert Hoover and Hugh Gibson
(Doubleday, Doran & Co, Inc)
The Price of Free World Victory, from
The Century of the Common Man, by
Vice-Pres. Henry A. Wallace
(Reynal & Hitchcock, Inc)
Blue-Print for Peace from
The World of the Four Freedoms, by
Under-Secy of State Sumner Welles
(Columbia Univ Press)

"During all the history of man there have been strivings to find methods for assuring peace. . . . From time immemorial, nations have marked the end of their wars by the signature of treaties of ‘perpetual peace' and solemnly promised its continuance. We are, however, at this point interested not in promises, but in methods for preserving peace." (P 169).

The book cites examples from the ancient world:

  • "ancient Chinese proposals of arbitration"

  • "settlement of controversies among the early Greek states" (P 169)

In that ancient era, "the first workable scheme for the preservation of peace was the Pax Romana." (P 169)

"The Pax Romana is proverbial and the model of various later systems which have not always admitted the resemblance. . . . With the triumph of the Roman Empire at the beginning of the Christian era came a period of peace which lasted for more than three centuries. That is to say, there was peace within the empire, although there was constant fighting on its borders. " (P 170)

"There were thousands of other writings and millions of preachers of peace and good will. And always the greatest of all contributions to the building of moral and spiritual foundation of peace began with the Sermon on the Mount. These teachings of Christ have thundered down over these 1900 years." (P 169)

For background on the Early Christian view, see, e.g., "Return to the Catacombs: Reintroducing the Nonviolent Jesus," by Archbishop Robert M. Bowman (23 Sep 2002).
Sadly, "these teachings" were notoriously violated in, e.g., the Crusades. See, e.g.,

  • "Holy Smoke: What Were the Crusades Really About?," by Joan Acocella, The New Yorker, pp 92-100 (13 Dec 2004)

  • Henry Treece (1911-1966), The Crusades (London: Bodley Head, 1962)

  • Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford, September 2004)

  • Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (Viking, October 2004).

  • Rodney Stark, God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (New York: HarperOne, 2009)
  • “From the Middle Ages [on], there was a wealth of plans for averting war and keeping the peace. Allowing for the differing conditions, they are strikingly like the plans of our own day [e.g., the 1920's - 1940's]. There are plans for a League of Nations. There are plans for federations. We find supergovernment and an international force to impose its rulings, collective security, mutual assistance, sanctions against an aggressor—even the radical idea of applying undiluted Christian morality to international affairs.” (P 172)

    “. . . the [Medieval] Church took the first steps toward regulation and restraint of warfare. A notable instance of this was the 'Peace of God'—a tenth-century attempt to do away with private warfare. This was an early effort to compel [governmental entities] to submit their conflicts to the judgement of tribunals.” (P 171).

    “The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good,” says Cecil John Cadoux, M.A., D.D., The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics (London: Headley Bros., 1919), Summary.
    Thus “refusal to serve in the military was the normal policy of the early Christians,” says Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., “The Early Christian Attitude to War” (7 November 2005). “And while 'a general distrust of ambition and a horror of contamination by idolatry entered largely into the Christian aversion to military service,' it was 'the sense of the utter contradiction between the work of imprisoning, torturing, wounding, and killing, on the one hand, and the Master’s teaching on the other' that 'constituted an equally fatal and conclusive objection.'” See also Dr. Vance's "Military Doublespeak" (19 Nov 2009), "How to Demilitarize Your Church" (11 Nov 2009), and "Christianity and War," Part 1,   Part 2, and Part 3 (13 March 2008). (Statement 20 August 2013).
    Note Early Church "mortal sin" teaching pursuant to, e.g., Matt. 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2, as war is a "proximate occasion of serious sin," with politicians' votes and orders immorally placing lower-ranking individuals, e.g., troops, in the position of committing "mortal sin," e.g., atrocities, destruction, violence, killings, etc., typical in warfare.
    The wholly anti-war Christian position is to be sharply distinguished from the competing heathen "just war" notion of the pagan Roman philosopher Marcus T. Cicero (106 B.C. - 43 B.C.). "The just war ethic [is] based on Roman thought," says The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, "War" by Prof. Charles S. McCoy, General Editor William H. Gentz (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), p 1099.

    “War is the pornography of violence. . . . filled with the monstrous and the grotesque. The Bible calls it 'the lust of the eye' and warns believers against it. War allows us to engage in lusts and passions we keep hidden in the deepest, most private interiors of our fantasy lives. It allows us to destroy not only things and ideas but human beings. In that moment of wholesale destruction, we wield the power of the divine, the power to revoke another person’s charter to live on this Earth. The frenzy of this destruction — and when unit discipline breaks down, or when there was no unit discipline to begin with, “frenzy” is the right word — sees armed bands crazed by the poisonous elixir that our power to bring about the obliteration of others delivers. All things, including human beings, become objects — objects either to gratify or destroy, or both. Almost no one is immune. The contagion of the crowd sees to that . . . They [troops] can instantly give or deprive human life, and with this power they become sick and demented. The moral universe is turned upside down. All human beings are used as objects. And no one walks away uninfected. War thrusts us into a vortex of pain and fleeting ecstasy. It thrusts us into a world where law is of little consequence, human life is cheap, and the gratification of the moment becomes the overriding desire that must be satiated, even at the cost of another’s dignity or life,” says Chris Hedges, M.Th., “Collateral Damage: What It Really Means When America Goes to War” (4 June 2008).

    “Have you ever had to kill anyone?”
    The man put his hands behind his head, stared up at the ceiling and responded: “Yes I have had to shoot to kill many times.”
    “Didn’t it bother you at all to know that you had killed another man?”
    With his hands still behind his head and one leg crossed over another, he leaned back in his chair and said
    “You know I’ve got 22 years in the Army. You learn that you don’t think about what you do, you just do it. I’ve never seen the results of my shooting.
    “That’s the problem with the ‘boys’ they’re bringing in today. I tell them and tell them in training, don’t look back – just shoot ‘rat-a-tat-a-tat’ (holding his hand out as a weapon) and don’t look back. When we was first starting out, the soldiers I came in with and me, we all learned in training, shoot and look away – walk away but don’t look at what you’ve done.
    “If I could get anything across to these new ‘boys’ it’s that they can’t look. I see them; they shoot and then look to see if they hit their target, if they did good, if they followed orders. I see their eyes and there’s fear, and I know right away if there’s going to be trouble with that one or the other by their face after they see the result of the explosion.
    “We’ve got to teach these boys to shoot and look away, and they wouldn’t be so bothered by what they did.” Cited by Monica Benderman, "What Do You Know of War?" (28 November 2007).

    Church anti-war teachings derive from the Judeo-Christian Bible's multiple anti-war teachings and principles. Christ overruled the war "traditions of men” (over 14,000 wars), Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:6-8.

  • The Bible of course says “thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13. And, "do violence to no man" (Luke 3:14). That bans significant methodology in war-making. See, e.g., "Collateral Murder" (Video).

  • More fundamentally, it bans the underlying causation process in wars—coveting, “thou shalt not covet.” Exodus 20:17. War is due to covetousness, meaning lust, says James 4:1-2. Lusting for money/wealth is root-cause of evil, 1 Timothy 6:10.

  • Re “thou shalt not kill,” Christ expressly added to the command, banning even the earliest stages, the pre-action thought level, e.g., anger and name-calling, Matthew 5:21-22. See also 2 Corinthians 10:5 (on the duty to make every thought morally right).

  • The Bible bans another fundamental aspect of war, stealing (e.g., land and other property), says Exodus 20:15.

  • It bans lying, Exodus 20:16. Truth is notoriously the first casualty in war, says Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty (New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975). Three-fold lying (about the enemy's nature and activities, about one's own purposes and activities, and to entice youths to enlist) is common. See, e.g.,

  • Gwynne Dyer, Ph.D., "Anybody's Son Will Do: Part #2 of the 6-part Film Documentary WAR (1985) (the military's teaching youths how to kill is very much an often subtle and/or direct form of brainwashing / propaganda)

  • Aimee Allison and David Solnit,   Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World (Seven Stories Press, August 2007)

  • "Top Military Recruitment Lies" (20 September 2007).

  • David Goodman, "A Few Good Kids? [The Pentagon in the Classroom]: How the No Child Left Behind Act allowed military recruiters to collect info on millions of unsuspecting teens" (31 August 2009) ("In the past few years, the military has mounted a virtual invasion into the lives of young Americans. Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect like Travers, the soldier [recruiter] may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents.")

  • The Bible bans extortion, 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 1 Corinthians 6:10, whereas extorting, coercing, the 'enemy' is of course the whole point of war, meaning, all aspects of the war process are forbidden!! Note various Bible anti-extortion references: Ezekiel 22:12 , Matthew 23:12, Luke 18:11, and Isaiah 16:4. (And note that while committing extortion is the purpose of militaries, extortion is also often used [in combination with lying and deceit] to raise, draft, enlist, and establish military entities such as armies.)

  • The Bible bans smiting fellow humans with guile, Exodus 21:14. War often involves "guile," deceits, strategems, demonstrations, feints, flanking movements, surprise attacks, etc. This includes targeting youth below age of consent.

  • The Bible bans following a multitude to do evil, Exodus 23:2. Armies are, of course, 'multitudes,' not a mere one person entity.

  • Love does no harm to others. Romans 13:8-10.

  • The greatest commandment is love, Matthew 22:37-39, meaning to love God and fellow humans. Love is the fulfillment of the law. Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8-10, and is to be internalized, Jeremiah 31:33-34. Esteem others better. Philippians 2:3.

  • This includes to “love your enemies,” Matthew 5:44.

  • This includes to not revile, nor threaten nor retaliate, 1 Peter 2:23.

  • This includes to not cast the first stone, John 8:7, e.g., not fire the first shot, not drop the first bomb, even under provocation, Luke 9:54-55. No doubt, as "My [God's] kingdom is not of this world," John 18:36.

  • Instead, Bible-adherents are travelers, sojourners [Gen. 23:4, Ps. 39:12], pilgrims [Heb. 11:13, 1 Pet. 2:11], and wanderers [Hos. 9:17], essentially "in tents," 2 Corinthians 5:1-10.

  • Christians' real citizenship is in heaven, i.e., we are citizens of heaven itself, our country, from which Christians are now [temporarily] absent, and from which Christians await a savior, a different government, the Lord [President, Prime Minister, King, Emperor] Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20. Christians thus do not and cannot "serve their country" with its borders in politico-geographic terms. The heathen politician "serve your country" concept inherently leads to wars, is inherently sinful, is inherent violation of Genesis 1:28 (the "original grant").

  • The duty is not for the nation to coerce other nations but to set a good example, be a model nation, for others to imitate. Deuteronomy 4:5-6. For the nation to do that, its individuals are to "be ye perfect." Matthew 5:48.

  • People can serve “God or mammon,” Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13, God or politicians, God or country, one citizenship or the other. The choice is clear, the nations with their borders are "as nothing," Isaiah 40:15 and 17.

  • War is a symptom, Proverbs 16:7, Judges 2:10-20, Judges 3:7-8, Judges 3:11-14, Judges 4:1-3, Judges 6:1-7, Judges 10:6-9, Judges 13:1, 1 Samuel 4:3, etc.

  • Christ loved sacrificially that He “might reconcile both groups [people in all nations] to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it,” Ephesians 2:16.

  • War to move boundaries to cease a neighboring nation's land is unacceptable. Hosea 5:10.

  • The duty is, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” Romans 12:21. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men," Galatians 6:10. “Resist not evil,” Matthew 5:39. “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5:15.

  • The message is, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy . . . Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” Matthew 5:7, 9. "Live peaceably with all men," Romans 12:18. "Follow peace with all men," Hebrews 12:14.

  • The divine goal is “peace on earth to men of good will,” Luke 2:14.

  • Genesis 1:28 cites human authority as in charge only of nature, in the "original grant." Reference Psalm 8:6-8 and Hebrews 2:6-8.

  • The Bible warns of the danger posed by the existence of politicians, specifically citing politicians' war-making propensities. 1 Samuel 8:11-12.

  • Politicians (whether hereditary or elective) are a “tradition of men.” Christ explicitly warns against and rejects “traditions of men.” Matthew 15:9. Cf. Colossians 2:8.

  • People are to "obey God rather than men." Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, Exodus 1:17, 1 Samuel 22:17, Daniel 1:8, Daniel 3:12 and 18, and Daniel 6:7 and 10. There were 613 clauses in the Laws (or Constitution, in modern terminology) of Israel, 613 commandments. Said Laws made the nation a theocracy, i.e., church and state were united. “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society,” said U.S. President John Quincy Adams, in Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61. The 613 Commandments were not to be added to nor subtracted from. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (Commandments 14-15). (This concept of not adding, not subtracting, is also evident in the New Testament e.g, Revelation 22:18 Revelation22:18). The 613 Commandments/Laws do not include a law to “obey men rather than God,” a law commanding politician wars and partaking in same. Politician laws commanding such are clearly an addition, thus are forbidden. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.

  • “Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.”—Guy de Maupassant. As a religion, patriotism competes with Bible religion (the mammon vs. God issue, you can serve one or the other), and has its own idols, e.g., politicians and troops.

  • Idolatry of politicians directing commandment violations is also banned, Exodus 20:3-5, Colossians 3:5. Such idolatry is rampant in war, with the public and troops typically en masse obeying/serving politicians ordering commandment violations. In contrast, I Cor 6:18 and 10:14 give the principle, "flee" sin, vs join in! becoming partakers. Note Bible warnings against becoming partakers in sin, e.g., Ephesians 5:7,   1 Timothy 5:22,   John 17:15,   2 Corinthians 6:14-18, and Revelation 18:4. Instead, people are to become partakers in the divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4. “Let him that stole steal no more,” Ephesians 4:28. Don't be overcome by evil, Romans 12:21. Resist the devil, James 4:7 and 2 Peter 5:8-9. Be holy, 1 Peter 1:16. Abstain from lusts, 1 Peter 2:11. War is caused by lusts. James 4:1-2.

  • Additional idolatry, of troops, is banned, e.g., Deuteronomy 8:17 (bragging that national benefits or freedom are from troops' power and strength, for example, especially on "Veterans Day" and "Memorial Day." Sometimes this idolatry is pretended to be justified by the pagan doctrine that, supposedly, "freedom isn't free," with the false innuendo that freedom comes from troops, not from God).   Cf. Acts 12: 22-23 (idolatry of political leader vs. giving God the glory, and setting aside days to do so; penalty was death for the political leader); Daniel 5:23-31 (idolatry of false gods vs the God whose power they should have known; penalty was death for the political leaders and the nation being conquered by foreign invasion).

  • Note also the example of a census involving idolatry of national troop strength, 2 Samuel 24:1-9 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-8. And see background by Neil Chadwick, "Davi's Senseless Sinful Census."

  • Note also the idolatry of weapons, underlying the hostility to the anti-war advocates at a 1 May 2008 Raleigh, NC, war parade.

  • Contrast such attitude with principles evident in incidents cited at, e.g., Exodus 14:13-14, 2 Kings 6:14-23, 2 Kings 7:6-7, and 2 Kings 19:35-36

  • Idolatry of politicians includes them usurping the divine prerogative of forgiveness of sin. “As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying [via universal malice] to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil [power to forgive sins].”—George Orwell (London, UK, 1941).

  • Re such a nation, killing, wicked, unrepentant, do not even pray for them. Proverbs 1:26-28,   Isaiah 1:15,   Isaiah 59:2,   Jeremiah 2:28-29,   Jeremiah 7:16,   Jeremiah 11:14,   Jeremiah 14:11, and 1 John 5:16.

  • 2 Chronicles 20:21-23 cites an alternative to oneself going to war.

  • Going before or to unbelievers to decide disputed issues is warned against, 1 Corinthians 6:1-10. (Cf. 'trial by combat' analysis.)

  • Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21.

  • The works or practices of the flesh are clear: immorality, impurity, indecency, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party spirit (factions, parties, heresies), envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. . . . those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21. Note that many of such activities are elements of war.

  • And the entire Book of Jonah is devoted to opposing war, preemptive war. Nineveh (Iraq) was foreseen as soon attacking. Preemptive war against Nineveh, destruction of Nineveh was sought, and immediately sought, to occur in 40 days! Jonah tried to arrange this. God personally intervened and prevented the destruction, for the reason that He is "gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and kind," Jonah 4:2 (certainly not politician traits! and their "tough" approach), and thus with these holy characteristics, God was concerned lest the result include property damage and 120,000 casualties, Jonah 4:11. But the United States has twice attacked, see background, entitled"America - the New Babylon - seizes control of Old Babylon" by Rev. S. R. Shearer, Antipas Church.

  • As "Judge of all the earth," God in contrast with war with its "collateral damage," killing the innocent, does not "put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked," Genesis 18:23-25.

  • Note the divine warning that those who live by the sword shall die by it. Matthew 26:52, Revelation 13:10. This includes even small-scale military action, 2 Kings 1:9-14. National strength (including GNP including agriculture and the military) shall be spent in vain, Leviticus 26:20.

  • People are to be in the habit of obedience to God, not to politicians. Troops ultra-blatantly "follow orders," politician orders, thus when Christ returns, will "follow orders" to open fire on Christ and His angels. The penalty for thus "following orders" will be mass extermination. Zechariah 14:12-13 and Revelation 14:20, the final fulfillment of Matthew 26:52, the final penalty for the bad habit of following politician orders.

  • Instead of many nations with their conflicting borders, the divine goal is for the LORD to be the unitary ruler over the whole earth, Zechariah 14:9.

  • Vengeance belongs to God. Proverbs 20:22, Deuteronomy 32:35, and Romans 12:19.

  • The repeatedly emphasized divine goal is for no hurting, no destroying, hence that swords, war weapons, be re-manufactured into plow-shares, agricultural tools, peaceful devices. Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 65:25, Joel 3:10, and Micah 4:3.

  • Isaiah 2:4 goes so far as to provide for total disarmament and peace: "neither shall they learn war any more," i.e., the abolishment of military academies, schools, lessons.

  • The Bible economic system was incompatible with war.

  • The Bible has clear unmistakable language expressing the bottom line reason for wars. It bluntly says that war arises from politician-based causation, politicians' lusts, says James 4:1-2:

    “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?     2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.” [KJV].

  • These words refute the opposing heathen "just war" notion of pagan Roman philosophy of, e.g., Cicero). These words state the opposing view, the Biblical view that wars are in fact caused by violation of the "thou shalt not covet - steal - kill - idolize" commands. For a refutation of the "just war" heresy, see, e.g., Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy Christian Just War Theory: The Logic of Deceit (2003).

  • Christians are not to even keep company with, associate with, the covetous, railers, idolaters, and extortioners. 1 Cor 5:11, much less, to join the military and partake in their war-making enterprises. Reference Ephesians 5:7 and Revelation 18:4. Bible teaching on "mortal sin" shows wrongfulness of politicians placing people in the position of committing sin.

  • Christians "are not of this [politico-military] system [thus] do not fight in the wars of the kingdoms of this world," says John W. Ritenbaugh of The Bible Tools Website, citing Philippians 3:20, "our citizenship is in heaven," 2 Corinthians 5:20, Christians "are ambassadors for Christ" (Christians' allegiance is to Christ, the King of the Kingdom of God); and 1 Peter 2:11, Christians are "strangers and pilgrims" in a foreign land. The national duty is, by adherence to the Divine Laws, to set a good example to other nations, not to fight them. Deuteronomy 4:6-7.

  • Politicians' defiance of these Bible commands and principles will lead to killing all of mankind.   Jeremiah 25:33,   Revelation 6:8 (25% leaving 75% left),   Revelation 9:15 (33% leaving 42% left),   Revelation 9:18 (33% leaving 9% left), and Matthew 24:22 (the remaining 9% -- except divine intervention stops them before politicians can commit this yet additional killing spree against the 9% remainder of humanity).
    The U.S. military in 1961 with the limited nuclear weaponry of the time was planning that the first strike alone would be committing a hundred holocausts minimum against civilians in the nations attacked: "The lower number was 275 million dead. The higher number was 325 million." Re the surrounding non-attacked neutral nations, "up to another hundred million depending on wind conditions." Re the U.S.' European allies, they'd be likewise affected, theirs "could be up to a hundred million deaths . . . 'depending on which way the wind blows,' as a general testifying before Congress had recently put it." That's just the first strike's results, "rougly 600 million dead." See Daniel Ellsberg, Ph.D., Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (New York: Viking Penguin, 2002), Chapter 3, "The Road to Escalation," pp 58-59.
    “The decisive contradiction of the kingdom of God against all concealed or blatant kingdoms of force is to be seen quite simply in the fact that it invalidates the whole friend-foe relationship between one human and another. . . . The disciples are told: ‘Love your enemies!’ (Matt. 5:44). This is the end of the whole friend-foe relationship, for when we love our enemy he ceases to be our enemy. It thus abolishes the whole exercise of force, which presupposes this relationship, and has no meaning apart from it. . . . In conformity with the New Testament, one can be pacifist not in principle but only in practice (praktisch Pazifist). But let everyone consider very carefully whether, being called to discipleship, it is possible to avoid – or permissible to neglect – becoming a practical pacifist!”—Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2, pp. 549-50 (KD IV/2, p. 622).
    Note that "the military has deliberately researched how to best design training for how to teach recruits how to kill. Such research was needed because humans are instinctively reluctant to kill [and for] teaching recruits how to dehumanize the enemy. The process of dehumanization is central to military training," says Sgt. Martin Smith, USMC, ret., "Learning to be a Lean, Mean Killing Machine: Structured Cruelty" (20 February 2007). And, "It speaks volumes that in order for young working-class men and women to gain self-confidence or self-worth, they seek to join an institution that trains them how to destroy, maim, and kill."
    Troops thus admit a money-motive, a "lust" or "covetous" motive, for “serving,” e.g., “excuses that they give for joining or intending to join the US military terrorist training camps are first and foremost motivated by a desire for money. One student proudly said that he is willing to kill for money, a better standard of living and an education,” says Dr. June Scorza Terpstra, in “Killers in the Classroom” (15 Feb 2007).

  • And, “for the most part and by their own admission, personal financial gain was their main focus in signing on. Their bottom line was getting the money and their thrills . . . .”

  • “They know the greed and programmed lust for violence that motivates them. They expect that if they can make it out alive, they get some money, a comfortable lifestyle and an education. Their plan is to secure the oil, the diamonds, the gold, the water, the guns, the drugs, and the bling for their masters, who they hope will cut them in on the swag.”

  • “They want a university degree so they can get an even higher salary terrorizing more people around the world with security companies such as Blackwater or Halliburton. They want that appropriately named 'sheepskin' so they can join the CIA, FBI, and other police and track down and terrorize US residents here.”

  • “These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power hungry US corporate war lords.”
    Then Lt. Ulysses S. Grant observed money-motive among his colleagues: "Some of them seem to contemplate with a great deal of pleasure some difficulty [war] where they may be able to gain laurels and advance a little in rank," says Profs. Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, The Dominion of War: Empire and Liberty in North America, 1500-2000 (New York: Viking, 2005), Chapter 7, p 273.
    Note example of "unabashed glee in killing people from high altitudes [that] might not be a psychiatric aberration, but an inevitable consequence of the entire structure of our economy, which is based heavily on government spending in the area of high-technology defense manufacturing," says Matt Taibbi, "Too Much Blood: On being the subjects of a military economy"(3 March 2007).
    In contrast, the divine goal is, “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). Note the contrast with the present era, “the way of peace they [politicians] know [respect] not” (Isaiah 59:8). Politicians, practical atheists, teach young people to violate God's laws, by the process known as "killology." God's Will is to abolish learning war; politicians take the opposite view. See Vicki Haddock, "The Science Of Creating Killers: Human reluctance to take a life can be reversed through training in the method known as killology" (San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006).

  • For more on killology, see Penny Coleman, "War Psychiatry and Iraq Atrocities: How Killing Becomes a Reflex" (Alternet, 22 August 2007) ("American soldiers are using indiscriminate and often lethal force in their dealings with Iraqi civilians. . . . American troops are trained to act in criminal and sadistic ways [military] training . . . makes use of the principles of operant conditioning to overcome what studies done over the last century have consistently demonstrated, namely, that healthy human beings have an inherent aversion to killing others of their own species.")

  • For more on leaders' responsibility, see Paul Rieckhoff, President of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, "(a)nyone who wants to write a serious piece about the ethical lapses of the U.S. troops should start and end the article by putting blame where it belongs -- on the politicians who sent our troops to war unprepared and without a clear mission" (The Nation, 13 July 2007). See also William Blum, "Boston Marathon, this thing called terrorism, and the United States" (3 May 2013): "What is it that makes young men, reasonably well educated, in good health and nice looking, with long lives ahead of them, use powerful explosives to murder complete strangers because of political beliefs? I’m speaking about American military personnel of course . . . ."

  • Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield (Basic Books, 23 April 2013) (Outlines why the war on terror was formulated, planned and brought about. And who benefits. Has background on war crimes by U.S. troops. And how the "war on terrorism" creates additional new present and future terrorists in reaction to US war crimes, e.g., regularly killing civilians with no combatant role. [Ed. Note: The Nazi Gestapo did better fact checking!! See, e.g., Irene Gut Opdyke, In My Hands: Memories of a Holocaust Rescuer (Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, Inc, 1992), Part II, § 13, "The Forester's Cottage," pp 201-203 (SS wait for people to respond to their knocking, then once admitted inside, fact-checking, searching before acting)]). (Jeremy Scahill Video Interview, 29 April 2013.) For elaboration and context, see e.g., Robert Scheer, "The Terror Con: How Keeping Americans Terrified Is Making Corporations Big Bucks" (19 June 2013) ("The name of the game is threat inflation.").

  • William Blum, "Anti-Empire Report # 118" (26 June 2013) (on Edward Snowden and US spying, not only for "security" against "enemies," but also for industrial espionage against even U.S. allies). See also Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "Coup d’etat (13 July 2013).

  • Prof. Steve Striffler (Univ. of New Orleans), "Why Ecuador Might Shelter Snowden" (CNN, 26 June 2013) ("the United States may have the law on its side when demanding the arrest of Snowden, but it does not, from the perspective of many foreign observers, have a moral leg to stand on. Our past use of covert surveillance at both home and abroad, combined with our current pursuit of an individual who exposed questionable surveillance programs, has meant that our attempts to capture Snowden, however sound legally, have been effectively undermined by our own moral bankruptcy within international circles (at least with respect to issues of surveillance, privacy, espionage, etc.")

  • Tom Leonard, "Inside Guantanamo Bay: Horrifying pictures show the restraint chairs, feeding tubes and operating theatre used on inmates in terror prison" (Daily Mail, 27 June 2013)

  • Rev. Chuck Baldwin, "What Does John Hagee Really Want?" (27 June 2013) (on crimes of the U.S., and soldier suicides depressed for having followed orders to commit war crimes)

  • Todd Gitlin, "American World of Informers and Agents Provocateurs" (Friday, 28 June 2013) ("American high-tech surveillance is not, however, the only kind around. There’s also the lower tech, up-close-and-personal kind that involves informers and sometimes government-instigated violence. . . . surveillance as well as the suborning of illegal acts by government agencies, including the FBI")

  • Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Flag-Waving to Death" (4 July 2013) (background on "why 22 American veterans are committing suicide daily and why there are more active-duty soldier suicides and suicide attempts than there are KIAs).

  • For background on media aiding and abetting the slaughter, see, e.g., John Pilger, "The War You Don't See" (United Kingdom, 2010; Interview).
    And note the type of persons who choose a military career. "'You say his military career is a result of his [mental] disturbance?' 'Most military careers are,'" says Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny: A Novel of World War II (Garden City: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1951), chapter 35, p 416. Note the psychopathic aspect displayed in the movie U-571 (2000) in the scene when the Captain tells the Executive Officer the essence of command, decrees sacrificing lives of others (e.g., enlistees) with "imperfect information," "without reflection," "without hesitation." (See also 'politicians.')
    And: "the military [is] now forced to accept high-school dropouts, felons, drug addicts, fatsos, gang-bangers, rapists, cretins and half-wits in a desperate attempt to meet the Pentagon’s demand for more bodies," says "Army Brass Beg 24: 'Stop Torturing Everybody'" (13 February 2007).
    "The American army of World War II habitually filled the ranks of its combat infantry with its least promising recruits, the uneducated, the unskilled, the unenthusiastic," says "military historian Russell Wrigley," cited by Prof. Paul Fussell, Ph.D., Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (Little, Brown, 1996), p 171. (Review; 2) (Chapter 1).
    "Those remaining after the Air Corps, the navy, the coast guard, and the marines had exercised their choices 'were then expected to bear the main burden of sustained battle.' A hell for the men, and a hell for their leaders. . . . the bulk of those killed by bullets and 172shells were the ones normally killed in peacetime in mine disasters, industrial and construction accidents, lumbering, and fire and police work. No one we [upper classes] knew, certainly. Wasn't the ground war . . . an unintended form of eugenics, clearing the population of the dumbest, the least skilled, the least promising of all young American males? Killed in their tens of thousands, their disappearance from the [gene] pool of future fathers had the effect . . . of improving the breed," says Fussell, Doing Battle, pp 171-172. "It's hard to enough to be asked to die in the midst of heroes, but to die in the midst of stumblebums led by fools--intolerable," p 173.
    See also Prof. Paul Fussell, Ph.D., The Boys' Crusade (2003).
    "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? . . . A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men." -- Daniel Webster (1782-1852), Source: Speech in the House of Representatives, 14 January 1814.
    Military officers bond together by factors including their graduation class and seniority, thus can impact political decisions. See, e.g., Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Closer Than Brothers: Manhood At the Philippine Military Academy (New Haven, Conn: Yale Univ Press, 1999).
    "Uncomfortable truth: U.S. troops ignored sex slave atrocity, used Japanese-run brothels" (Mainichi Daily News, 26 April 2007) ("Japan's abhorrent practice of enslaving women to provide sex for its troops in World War II has a little-known sequel: After its surrender—with tacit approval by U.S. occupation authorities—Japan set up a similar 'comfort women' system for American GIs.")
    “And we were approaching this one house, and this farming area; they’re, like, built up into little courtyards,” he said. “So they have like the main house, common area. They have like a kitchen and then they have like a storage-shed-type deal. And we were approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, because it was doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn’t — motherf—er — he shot it, and it went in the jaw and exited out.“So I see this dog — and I’m a huge animal lover. I love animals — and this dog has like these eyes on it, and he’s running around spraying blood all over the place. And the family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad horrified. And I’m at a loss for words. And so I yell at him. I’m like, ‘What the f— are you doing?’ And so the dog’s yelping. It’s crying out without a jaw. And I’m looking at the family, and they’re just scared. And so I told them, I was like, ‘F—ing shoot it,’ you know. ‘At least kill it, because that can’t be fixed. It’s suffering.’ And I actually get tears from just saying this right now, but — and I had tears then, too — and I’m looking at the kids and they are so scared. So I got the interpreter over with me and I get my wallet out and I gave them twenty bucks, because that’s what I had. And, you know, I had him give it to them and told them that I’m so sorry that asshole did that. Which was very common," says Chris Hedges, M.Th., “Collateral Damage What It Really Means When America Goes to War” (4 June 2008).
    Early Christians opposed war and participation in it. Pagan Romans ("breaking," "smashing," "crushing," "dreadful," "terrible," "stamping," and "devouring" warmongers, Daniel 2:40 and 7:7) objected to Christians' anti-war activism, saying, for example, as Roman writer Celsus in The True Word (178 C.E.), § viii. ¶ 68, did, "If all men were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent the Emperor [politicians] from being left in utter solitude and desertion and the forces of the Empire [politicians] would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians" (as though the Roman / politician system wasn't / isn't wild and barbaric!). For more on Early Christians vs war, see Cecil John Cadoux, M.A., D.D., The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics (London: Headley Bros., 1919). (Review).
    For additional background on historic Christian views, see Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960). (Review, 19 Theology Today (#1) 133-137 (April 1962). Note deterioration from original purity to the modern seemingly 'anything goes' attitude.) See also John J. Neumaier, Ph.D., "Obstacles to the abolition of war" (3 July 2006).
    For an overview of Jesus Christ's teachings, see, e.g., Prof. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner's, 1977).
    See also Chris Hedges, M.Th., Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America (New York: Free Press, 2005), especially pp 48-50 and 101-115; and anti-war writings by Count Leo Tolstóy, e.g.,

  • Thou Shalt Not Kill” (8 August 1900)

  • "Last Message to Mankind" (1909).
    See also Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D., "The War on Iraq vis-à-vis The Ten Commandments" (Metaphoria, Vol. 11, # 5, Issue 126, January 2004) (while it cites the Iraq War, it shows how war inherently violates all Ten Commandments).
    Nowadays, most "Christians" hold the opposite view of the First Century. Most are now pro-war. As in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four [1984] by George Orwell, the truth of history has being falsified, forgotten. The original doctrine of the First Century has been reversed, all the while keeping average church members in ignorance of the reversal. Church hierarchies reverse the facts of history, and conceal them from their gullible members / sheeple.
    Said Martin Luther, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the [christian] is proved; and to be steady on all the [rest of the Bible] is mere flight and disgrace if he [the alleged Christian] flinches at that point." This trenchant comment reminds us that most so-called "Christians," especially the leaders, are conspicuously absent from the peace cause.
  • Some few clergymen, churches, and organizations still promote the Early Christian view. See, e.g.,

  • "Every Church A Peace Church"

  • "Christian Nonviolence — Heresy? Or The Peace Plan Of God?"

  • "Christian Nonviolence and The Church"

  • Orthodox Pro-Peace Quotations

  • Pax Christi - WNY: "Following the Nonviolent Jesus - The Iraq War"

  • "Some People Don't Register for the Draft ... Should I?” (“Today, some believers cannot . . . register for the draft. To do so would be to perform a sacramentum to war. It is having another god before the true one.”)

  • Disturbing 'Christian' Website Mixes Killing & Evangelism

  • "War, Killing and the Military"

  • Pax Christi Michigan

  • Center for Christian

  • "Military Service and War"

  • Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Reflection for the Nagaski/Hiroshima week: What if every church had been a peace church? (8 September 2001)   (See video reenactment 1 and 2)

  • Clergy Behind the Scenes (19 June 2006)

  • Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Christian Nonviolence -- Heresy? Or The Peace Plan Of God?" (November 2007)

  • Fr. John S. Rausch, "Opt-Out of War" (12 December 2007)

  • Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Calling Down Fire: Lost Sheep and Lost Shepherds" (24 December 2007)

  • 11th Hour for Peace

  • Daniel H. Shubin, Militarist Christendom and the Gospel of the Prince of Peace (2007) (cites Christian religion purpose to stop aggression and war, and unveils how Jesus Christ's message of peace was altered and corrupted into a message of militarism)

  • Dr. Roger Ray, "Our local churches should - finally - oppose war in Iraq" (The News Leader (Springfield, MO), 19 March 2008) ("the churches of this nation [should] observe the fifth anniversary of the war by repenting for their cowardice, silence and failure to provide moral leadership as our nation spiraled down into unjustified war, torture and indefensible incarceration of prisoners.")

  • Rev. Rich Lang, pastor, Trinity United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA, "We Dare Not Speak Its Name (August 2008) ("When do we, as clergy, take up the ministry of Ezekiel, and warn our people of that which is coming?" (Ezekiel 33:1-9))

  • Rev. Charles E. Jefferson founded the New York Peace Society and preached a "Sermon on Militarism and the Church" 3 May 1908.

  • Rev. Clarence Waldron, told a Bible Study class, "Christians could take no part in the [1914-1918 world] war" (was arrested, convicted, sentenced to 15 years in prison. Note that "World War I might have been avoided entirely had it not been for a small group of statesmen who, in the month after the assassination, plotted to use Ferdinand's murder as the trigger for a long-awaited showdown in Europe," citing Prof. Sean McMeekin, July 1914: Countdown to War [Basic Books, 2013]). Others "believed that the Great War was no accident of dynastic rivalries or personal misjudgements [but] the result of economic development reaching a level where profits were insecure without conquest of foreign markets. European states [nations] had scrambled to colonize [conquer] Africa and Asia in the last years of the nineteenth century. Rising powers like Germany had arrived too late to seize what they thought they deserved, and their governments were under pressure by banks and industries to adopt a belligerent policy towards the established empires. Capitalist economic development required the taking of gambles with assets and elbowing competitors aside. Cabinets [government politicians] had to satisfy the demands of their most powerful businessmen," says Prof. Robert Service (Oxford), Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West (London: Macmillan, 2011), Chapter 6, p 63.   See also Dominic Alexander, "Ten Lies We're Told to Justify the Slaughter of 20 million in the First World War" (No Glory, 13 November 2014), and "The Enemy Within" (13 November 2014), "The visiting of violent and if possible painful death upon the complacent, patriotic, uncomprehending, fatuous civilians at home was a favorite fantasy indulged by the troops [and] to see them crushed to death by a tank in one of their silly patriotic music halls.")

  • In contrast, "Maine Jury Says It's Legal to Protest an Illegal War" (Penny Coleman, AlterNet, 31 May 2008). See also "Peace activist honored with Pacem in Terris award" (4 September 2010).

  • Mick Meaney, "‘Western Leaders Are War Criminals’" (26 April 2008) ("The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has echoed calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Speaking at Imperial College in London, Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, singled out US President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australia’s former prime minister John Howard")

  • Ted Rall, "Arrest Bush: Bush Confesses to Waterboarding. Call D.C. Cops!" (30 April 2008)

  • Vincent Bugliosi, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" (10 May 2008) (Review 1, and 2, due to the illegality of the War of Aggression Against Iraq)

  • Richard C. Cook, "The Battle for America Has Begun: Strategic Forecasts" (14 May 2008) ("the U.S. economy is bankrupt . . . suckered . . . into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens to bring Russia and perhaps China into the fray.")

  • Sheila Samples, "EVERYBODY KNOWS..." (15 May 2008) ("George W. Bush -- a 'criminally insane, pill-popping dry drunk' . . . can neither think nor speak coherently, can recognize little other than Texas on a map, has completely torpedoed every business venture he attempted, and admittedly was a hard-partying sot until he was 40. . . . a spoiled, bumbling, schizophrenic little president. . . . can't be trusted to maintain a single train of thought in one-on-one interviews . . . .")

  • Dave Lindorff, "For His Treatment of Children in the 'War on Terror,' Bush Is a War Criminal" (22 May 2008)

  • George Monbiot, "War Criminals Must Fear Punishment" (The Guardian, 3 June 2008).

  • "Howard war charges bid" (The Age, 3 June 2008) ("AN AUSTRALIAN doctors' group is pushing to have former prime minister John Howard charged with war crimes for sending troops to Iraq. The Medical Association for the Prevention of War said the war was illegal because it was not backed by the United Nations. Association spokesman Robert Marr said Mr Howard committed Australian troops to the war on the basis of misleading information about weapons of mass destruction. He said the medical group was supporting a legal brief prepared by International Criminal Court Action Victoria that would be sent to the court. Dr Marr said more than 650,000 Iraqi citizens had died as a result of the war.") (This would be a precedent for charging the pertinent U.S. officials who started the war of aggression against Iraq.)

  • Massachusetts School Of Law, "Law School to Plan Bush War Crimes Prosecution" (17 June 2008) ("This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth." "We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice," Velvel said. "And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s.")

  • Law Prof. Francis A. Boyle, "On the case against Bush and potential war with Iran" (18 June 2008) ("George W. Bush could be indicted at the state level for murder with malice aforethought . . . According to Boyle, President Bush deceived US soldiers about the reason for sending them to Iraq. Thus, he argues, the 4100 US soldiers who have died in Iraq thus far were murdered. Professor Boyle sees a variety of cases that could be brought and he believes it would take just one indictment . . . .")

  • Tom Lasseter, "America’s Prison For Terrorists Often Held The Wrong Men" (15 June 2008)

  • "Maj. Gen. Taguba Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes" (19 June 2008) ("Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who first investigated the abuse at Abu Ghraib, has accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes. 'The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,' Taguba said.")

  • Nat Hentoff, "The 'W.' Stands for 'War Criminal'" (24 June 2008) (on the recent request for "an immediate investigation with the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) . . . and other U.S. and international laws.")

  • Linda Milazzo, "Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder" (27 June 2008)

  • David Glenn Cox, "Demonizing Iran" (Alice through the looking glass, a leader who hasn't invaded anyone cast as the next Hitler by the nation occupying two foreign countries by force of arms")

  • Glenn Greenwald, "Tom Friedman doesn't understand why America is unpopular in the world" (Wednesday, 16 July 2008) (unpopular due to "Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay" and "unprovoked attacks on other countries -- who casually justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people")

  • Aijaz Zaka Syed, “Justice Only For Darfur Victims?" (Arab News, 18 July 2008) (supports the ongoing prosecution of crimes in Darfur, urges doing likewise re crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “From Stupid to Moronic to Evil" (8 August 2008) (gives background behind the war between the nations of Russia and Georgia)

  • Timothy Gatto, “American Complicity: The Solution (8 August 2008) (“everything that happens . . . has a cause and effect. . . . We are in a period of American Fascism, where the corporations, the bankers and the government direct and control policy. Benito Mussolini once stated that the definition of fascism could be 'corporatism.'”)

  • Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies (2008) (Bush brought to power in Iraq the pro-Iran faction that Reagan had supported Iraq in its war vs Iran to prevent them coming to power). Called by New York Times columnist David Brooks the "smartest and most devastating" critic of President George W. Bush's Iraq policies,
    The role of covetousness and lust is verified by history: “every . . . war [has] an economic foundation. Every reputable historian . . . no matter how great his proccupation with the diplomacy of its [wars'] precipitation, regards the diplomacy, the propaganda, the [politician] alleged [high-sounding] aims and objects for fighting, as mere secondary structures reared on the foundation of money and trade [lust]. The flag follows trade [lusts], the politicians follow the flag, the propagandists [including mainstream clergy] follow the politicians, and the people follow the propagandists.”—Historian Clinton H. Grattan (1902-1980), Why We Fought (New York: Vanguard Press, 1929, 1957), p 127.
    “Everything, everything in war is barbaric . . . But the worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being.”—Ellen Key.
    And "war, organized war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and co-operative [organized] form of theft. And that form of theft began ten thousand years ago when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus, and the nomads rose out of the desert to rob them. . . . Genghis Khan and his Mongol dynasty brought that thieving way of life into our own millennium. From AD 1200 to 1300 they made almost the last attempt to establish the supremacy of the robber who produces nothing . . . that attempt failed. . . . they [too] became settlers because theft, war, is not a permanent state that can be sustained," says Prof. Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1973), p 88. (Note: In reality, permanent war may not have been sustainable in the past, but now in the modern nuclear and organized media and government propaganda era, a war footing is being maintained almost indefinitely by the USA. Many movies aid and abet, see, e.g., “Operation Hollywood: Hollywood's dirty little secret” (20 February 2005). They “glorify war in order to get the public to accept the fact that [the government is] going to send their sons and daughters to die.” This documentary exposé has the “the inside story of the cozy relationship between big box office American war movies and the Pentagon.”)
    “In short, many wars seem to be a mass, communal robbery of another social group's life-support resources,” says Prof. Michael P. Ghiglieri, Ph.D., The Dark Side of Man (Reading, MA.: Perseus Books, 1999), p 190. [Example: the U.S. v. Mexico War.]
    Saying likewise was Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler in his book, War Is A Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1931 reprinted 1935; and Torrance CA: Noontide Press, 1984; Gainsville FL: Veterans for Peace, 1995; Los Angeles CA: Feral House, 2003, etc., video at (This book was cited anew in "Intrigue" by David Gallagher, Military History, pp 18-22 [May 2005]. See also his Proposed Constitutional Anti-War, Pro-Peace Amendment (September 1936), and "Marines Self-Destruct," by Robert S. Finnegan [13 November 2004])
    Of course, politicians say other reasons than lusts for their starting wars, pursuant to “the capacity of mankind to rationalize its conduct in ways more flattering to its self-esteem than a frank [honest] admission that dollars and goods [lusts] rule. Economics [lust] provides the ground to walk on, while the rationalizations [politican lies] give the excuse for walking.”—Grattan, p 127.
    “In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.”—Leo N. Tolstoy (1828-1910).
    “They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.”—Eugene Debs.
    "Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth, they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.”—Eugene Debs (16 June 1918. Note this speech was deemed a crime so Debs was thereupon arrested and jailed long-term).
    "Americans are wonderfully courteous to strangers, yet indiscriminately shoot kids in schools. They believe they are masters of the world, yet know nothing about what goes on outside their shores. They are people who believe the world stretches from California to Boston and everything outside is the bit they have to bomb to keep the price of oil down. Only one in five Americans hold a passport and the only foreign stories that make their news are floods, famine, and wars, because it makes them feel good to be an American. Feeling good to be American is what they live for.”—Brian Reade, London columnist.
    “Governments [politicians] have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.”—C. Friedrich Hebbel (1813-1863).
    “The biggest lesson I learned from Vietnam is not to trust [our own] government statements. I had no idea until then that you could not rely on [them].”—Senator James William Fulbright (D-Ark., 1905-1995). See background references,

  • Stanley A. Karnow, "Vietnam: A Television History," Parts
  • 1: Early Vietnam Independence Efforts, 100 AD - 1945 AD,  
  • 2: France vs. Vietnam Independence, 1946 - 1954,  
  • 3: Early U.S. Opposition to Vietnam Independence, 1954-1963,   [US government purpose under President Eisenhower (1890-1969) was to prevent Vietnam holding the National Elections that had been set by International Treaty. The US government felt it might not like the winner the Vietnamese would foreseeably elect, the long-time Nationalist patriot Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969). So the US under Eisenhower was instrumental in causing the split-off / secession by the southern part of Vietnam. Neither the Vietnamese in the north end of Vietnam nor the south end of Vietnam agreed to this. Thus people throughout the nation of Vietnam fought to repel the US invaders, just as they had fought other invaders for 1000 years.]
  • 4: U.S. Deepens Its Opposition, 1964-1965,  
  • 5: U.S. Expands Role Against Vietnam Independence, 1965-1967,  
  • 6: Treating Vietnam as an Enemy, 1954-1967,  
  • 7: Vietnam's "Tet" Offensive, 1968,  
  • 8: U.S. Intensifying South Vietnam's Secession From Vietnam, 1969-1973,  
  • 9: Cambodia and Laos, 1970-1975,  
  • 10: Peace Talks, 1968-1973,  
  • 11: Internal U.S. Opposition to U.S. Undermining of Vietnam Independence, 1963-1975,  
  • 12: U.S. Begins Ending Its Opposition, 1973-1975,  
  • 13: Legacies within the U.S., 1975-1981 (PBS, 1983)
  • See also "1950 - 1954 Vietnam: The First Indochina War" (Discovery Channel) and Nick Turse, Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (Picador, 2013) ("violence against Vietnamese noncombatants was not at all exceptional during the conflict. Rather, it was pervasive and systematic, the predictable consequence of orders to 'kill anything that moves.'")

  • Prof. C. Wright Mills, The Causes of World War Three (Simon and Schuster, 1958) (Review by Robert Higgs)

  • Prof. George C. Herring, America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, 2nd Ed., 1986)

  • Pat Mitchell and Jeremy Isaacs, Cold War Documentary, Parts
  • 1: Comrades, 1917-1945
  • 2: Iron Curtain, 1945-1947
  • 3: Marshall Plan, 1947-1952
  • 4: Berlin, 1948-1949
  • 5: Korea, 1949-1953
  • 6: Reds, 1948-1953
  • 7: After Stalin, 1953-1956
  • 8: Sputnik, 1949-1961

  • 9: The Wall, 1958-1963
  • 10: Cuba, 1959-1962
  • 11: Vietnam, 1954-1968
  • 12: Mutually Assured Destruction, 1960-1972
  • 13: Make Love, Not War, 1960's
  • 14: Red Spring, 1960's
  • 15: China, 1949-1972
  • 16: Détente, 1969-1975

  • 17: Good Guys, Bad Guys, 1967-1978
  • 18: Backyard, 1954-1990
  • 19: Freeze, 1977-1981
  • 20: Soldiers of God, 1975-1988
  • 21: Spies, 1944-1994
  • 22: Star Wars, 1981-1988
  • 23: The Wall Comes Down, 1989
  • 24: Conclusions, 1989-1991 (1998)
  • flawed policy cited by James R. Arnold, The First Domino: Eisenhower, the Military, and America's Intervention in Vietnam (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1991)

  • falsification cited by Robert Parry, "Colin Powell: Failed Opportunist" (26 November 2004)

  • Prof. Vivienne Sanders, "Turning Points in the Vietnam War" (History Review, 2008) ("Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid [this], the US . . . sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam." And obstructed and prevented the national election. This set the stage for the U.S. invasion, paralleling had outsiders invaded the U.S. to aid the South during the U.S. Civil War. The North would have deeply resented this, and denied that the South was recognized as a legitimate nation.)

  • Prof. H. Patricia Hynes, "Vietnam: Resistance, Regret and Redemption" (27 January 2013).

  • U.S. Government History of U.S. Presidents Lying to the American People (1971) aka The Pentagon Papers - Revealed by Daniel Ellsberg
    Many civilians resisted being extorted, forced, into the military, see, e.g., Sherry Gershon Gottlieb, Hell No, We Won't Go: Evading the Draft During Vietnam (New York: Viking Press, 1991). And re the troops themselves, the books by authors such as George Lepre, Fragging: Why U.S. Soldiers Assaulted Their Officers in Vietnam (Texas Tech University, 15 January 2011),   Soldiers in Revolt: The American Military Today (Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday, 1975), by T. David Cortwright, Ph.D., his subsequent book Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War (Haymarket Books, 1 September 2005) (review),   the movie "Sir! No Sir! The Suppressed Story of the GI Movement to End the War" (April 2006), and the article, About the GI Movement Against the War in Vietnam, all reveal the role of GI opposition to the Vietnam war helping bring it to an end as they, GI's, chose to mass refuse to fight the war.   See also "Christmas Truce 1" and 2 mass troop refusals to fight in World War I (week of 25 December 1914), and modern parallels, e.g.,

  • Ana Radelat, "Thousands of Troops Say They Won't Fight" (Gannett News Service, 5 August 2006)

  • Dahr Jamail, The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. See also the video, "Why Are We in Afghanistan?."

  • Robert Greenwald, Rethinking Afghanistan (September 2009) Part 1,   Part 2,   Part 3: Cost of War,   Part 4: Civilian Casualties,   Part 5: Women of Afghanistan, and Part 6: Security

  • anti-war troops' site. See also William Blum, Anti-Empire Report #117" (4 June 2013) (the US invasion "of Afghanistan was . . . about pipelines. . . . next door to the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia – reportedly containing the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world – [to] build oil and gas pipelines from that region running through Afghanistan.") For elaboration and context, see, e.g., Robert Scheer, "The Terror Con: How Keeping Americans Terrified Is Making Corporations Big Bucks" (19 June 2013) ("The name of the game is threat inflation.").
  • "The [medieval "Peace of God"] scheme [anti-war policy] was not successful partly because the nobles were unwilling to forego the use of arms or to accept the decisions of the tribunals. The Peace of God was later (in the eleventh century) supplemented by the Truce of God, designed to regulate what could not be suppressed. It prescribed that there should be no private warfare during certain seasons and on certain days." (P 171).

    "The seasons included the time from Advent to Epiphany and from Septuagesima to one week after Pentecost. Throughout the rest of the year hostilities were forbidden from sunset on Wednesday until Monday morning and on all saints' days. By the end of the eleventh century private warfare was forbidden on all but some eighty days in the year. Sometimes the national sovereign supported the decrees of the Church, which thus became law of the land." (P 171)

    Some international "laws" "could be imposed by a clearly recognized authority, as when Pope Alexander VI [1492-1503] drew a line on the map and divided the overseas world between the great colonizing powers, Spain and Portugal. The penalties were of a spiritual character, culminating in the dread sanction of excommunication. The influence of the Church was effective in averting warfare and contributed materially to the growth of higher standards of international conduct." (P 172).

    "Gerohus of Regensburg, about the time of the Third Crusade (1190) advanced a plan for abolishing war. Gerohus saw the problem in simple terms. In his view, it would suffice for the Pope to forbid all war—an early version of the [1920's] outlawry of war. He proposed that once this was done, all conflicts between princes [governments] should be referred to Rome for decision—here we have compulsory arbitration. And finally, any prince rejecting the arbitral award should be excommunicated and deposed—sanctions with a vengeance." (Pp 172-173)

    "A plan for a League of Nations appeared in the fourteenth century. In a document entitled On the Recovery of the Holy Land, Pierre Dubois of Normandy (c. 1300's), an adviser of [French King] Philip [III (1270-1285)], advocated a federation of Christian sovereign states. There was to be a Council of Nations to arbitrate all quarrels." (P 173).

    "Dante [Alighieri (1265-1321)], in his De Monarchia, tried his hand at designing a brave new world. . . . he did put forward the idea that human happiness must come from the reign of Law. He did not advocate the supremacy of one state over another, but the supremacy of law over all, so that national passions might be held in check—in other words, international law for arbitration of disputes [in essence] a world state guided by a Supreme Court of Justice." (P 173).

    [French King] "Henry of Navarre (1553-1589-1610) and his adviser, the Duc de Sully, produced a more detailed and specific plan, the Great Design." (P 173). "Europe was to be redivided among fifteen Powers in such equal portions as would prevent any future uneven balance of power—a drastic and original method.

    "Having redrawn the frontiers of Europe, Henry set up—on paper—his League of Nations. The fifteen Powers were to be represented in a Great Council, whose members were to be subject to re-election every three years. The expenses of the Council were to be paid by proportional contribution from the member states. It would be the duty of the great Council to settle disputes of all sorts among the states and to deal with current affairs.

    "Thus far, Henry kept closely to the lines of the future League of Nations. But he further proposed an international army and navy to enforce the decisions of the great Council. . . .

    ". . . .the Great Design was to do away with war among the fifteen member states . . . And it was prescribed that the Council should undertake reforms which would from time to time be necessary. This was a wise and farsighted regulation by which Henry of Navarrre proposed the peaceful revision of treaties."

    "Henry's plan was never put into operation, although Sully tells us it was on the eve of being tried ‘when it pleased God to call him too soon for the happiness of the world.' But it has been a mine of precedent and ideas for every subsequent plan for international government. It is the first balanced plan of federal partnership among sovereign states, with machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and an international force to apply sanctions" (P 174).

    "Emeric Crucé produced his Nouveau Cynée some twenty years after the Grand Design of Henry of Navarre. He went further in two particulars. He advocated that membership in the League of states should be open to non-Christian as well as Christian states—which thus opened the door to world federation. He further proposed that war should be done away with by the adoption of a comprehensive system of arbitration." (P 175).

    Charles Irénée Castel, Abbé in Saint-Pierre's Project for Settling Perpetual Peace in Europe (1713), had a plan that "shows the inspiration of Henry of Navarre. Saint-Pierre proposed: a League of Sovereign states in a permanent Congress of Representatives; a code of Articles of Commerce; arbitration of disputes by a permanent Senate; combined military sanctions against a rebellious state; reduction of peacetime armies in all states to 6,000 men; weights, measures, and coinage to be standardized throughout Europe; creation of a similar self-contained Asiatic League." (P 176)

    "Jean Jacques Rousseau's Judgment on a Plan for Perpetual Peace (1761) sought to improve on Saint-Pierre's plan by guaranteeing the existing status quo and rendering it subject to modification by arbitration only. He provided for the drafting of a Code of International Law and its amendment by unanimous vote of the Diet or Congress of Representatives." (P 176).

    "William Penn [1644-1718] advanced in his Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe (1693) a scheme for the future organizing of the world which he hoped would create tremendous benefits. By stopping war, he hoped to avoid bloodshed, save money, strengthen Christianity's reputation, increase trade and commerce—and make it possible for princes to marry for love, not power. A permanent International Tribunal was to be set up by the sovereigns of Europe, consisting of ninety representatives, chosen by a system of proportional representation, meeting every year to discuss and settle all international differences not settled by diplomatic means. Decisions were to be made by ballot, with a minimum majority of three quarters of the votes. He recognized the need for sanctions . . . against an offender." (P 175). So "he prescribed common action involving the use of sanctions of more violent order than those of the League of Nations." (P 176).

    "Jeremy Bentham, in Fragment of an Essay on International Law (1786-89), devised a plan to avert future wars comprising four fundamentals: reduction of armaments; "Permanent Court of Judicature" with powers of arbitration backed by sanctions of force; codification of international law; emancipation of all colonies." (P 176).

    The philospher Immanuel Kant's "Kant's Zum Ewign Frieden (Perpetual Peace) (1795) contained an examination of reforms to be undertaken while war still existed." (P 176). The goal was "to create a public opinion favorable to the abolition of war, and [he made] suggestions for final organization of perpetual peace. . . . He foreshadowed . . . a ‘federation of free republics,' meaning by ‘republic' any form of government embodying the liberty and equality of its subjects. Federation would involve a surrender of a portion of power in return for participation in a wider, richer, more abundant life. His practical measures concentrated on . . . the gradual abolition of standing armies. . . . Kant's enduring contribution to the problem was that he lifted the discussion of war and peace above the level of politics and exalted it into a question of ethics and social conscience." (P 177)

    ". . . there were other plans and proposals for maintaining peace. But these references will at least indicate the antiquity of peace yearnings." (P 177).

    "The Protestant churches have been no less vigorous in teaching the moral foundations of peace." (P 172) "In a brief study of this sort we cannot hope even to outline the important role of the Papacy in the struggle for peace. A separate volume could be profitably devoted to this . . . ." (P 171).

    As recently as the Napoleonic Era, Tsar Alexander I around 1806 proposed an international treaty to "never to begin a war again before having exhausted all means to have the quarrel settled by a third party," and a league to "form a new code of law for the nations." Three nations, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, in 1815, did sign a treaty, the "Holy Alliance," wherein they agreed that they would

    "in the administration of their respective states and in their political relations with every other government, take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity and Peace,

    • which far from being applicable only to private concerns must have an immediate influence on the councils [decisions] of princes [governments], and

    • must guide all their steps as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections."

    Further, that they would remain united "by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow-countrymen, they would on all all occasions and in all places lend each other aid and assistance."

    In the 19th century, in 1897, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), deplored the arms race (production of "instruments of death"), foresaw a "terrible effort of [nation's] mutual destruction which will be fatal for Christian civilization," and said the only hope would be to "be welded in some international constitution."—London Times, 10 Nov 1897.

    Two years later, Ivan Bloch, in his six-volume work, The Future of War (1899), compiled and published facts showing that wars would no longer be short, with oft-decisive one-day battles, limited to the military as in the past, but would involve the total society, constitute "total war," and tend to become vastly protracted, with large numbers of casualties. His prediction were soon verified in World Wars 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

    In 1908, an Englishman, Norman Angell, in The Grand Illusion (1908) argued that both victor and vanquished lose by war.

    Earlier, William Jay (1769-1853), son of John Jay (1745-1829), a long-time U.S. diplomat and even Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, had published War and Peace: The Evils of the First With A Plan for Securing the Last (England, 1842), recommending an international arbitration process. That writing helped lead to the Treaty of Paris (1856) saying that nations, before going to war, should obtain third party advisory. [William Jay (Yale, 1807) had been a founder, 1816, of the American Bible Society.]

    In the 21st century, some clergymen continued peace activism, e.g.,


  • the Church of the Brethren and Recent News

  • the Friends

  • the Mennonites

  • the American Friends Service Committee.

  • See also the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
  • "The French philosophes of the Enlightenment began to see war not as one of these things which happen but as one of those things which must be forbidden. ('War, like murder, will one day number among those extraordinary atrocities which revolt and shame nature, and drape oppobrium over the countries and centuries whose annals they sully,' the Marquis de Condorcet wrote, while Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie assured readers that the body politic is only healthy--that is to say, in its natural state--when it is at peace.')" Quoted from "Slaughterhouse," by Adam Gopnick, in The New Yorker, pp 82-85, at 82 (12 February 2007), reviewing the book The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare As We Know It, by Prof. David A. Bell (Houghton Mifflin, 2006).

    In South America after becoming free from Spanish rule, Simon Bolivar (1783-1830) worked for “a league of Hispanic-American states [which] came to fruition in 1826. He had long advocated treaties of alliances between the American republics. . . . By 1824 such treaties had been signed and ratified by Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Central America, and the united provinces of Rio de la Plata. In 1826 a general American congress convened in Panama. . . . . Colombia, Peru, Central America, and Mexico . . . signed a treaty of alliance and invited all other nations to adhere to it. A common army and navy were planned, and a biannual assembly representing the federated states was projected. All controversies among the states were to be solved by arbitration. . . . the congress of Panama laid the cornerstone for future hemispheric solidarity and understanding. The Organization of the American States and the United Nations can look to Bolivar as one of the first statesmen in the world sincerely interested in advocating and implementing international cooperation.”—G. S. M., “Bolivar, Simon,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol 3, pp 840-874 (Treaties of Alliance §, p 873) (1963)

    “Don't talk to me about atrocities; all war is an atrocity.”—Field Marshall Lord Horatio H. Kitchener (1850-1916), British Minister of War, to PM David Lloyd George, quoted in Soldier from the War Returning. And, “atrocities follow war as the jackal follows the wounded beast.”—Prof. John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), Chapter 1, p 12. See also "Carson Soldiers Say Iraq Horrors Led to Crimes" (Associated Press, 27 July 2009). The torture continues, says Jeremy Scahill, "Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama" (15 May 2009).
    Wherefore: “War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals”—Charles Evans Hughes (Republican Presidential Nominee, 1912; U.S. Chief Justice, 1930-1941). In the 1923 Kellogg-Briand Treaty (re which U.S. Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg received a Nobel Peace Prize), aggressive war was in fact made a crime. For background, see, e.g., David Swanson, When the World Outlawed War (2011). Review by Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet: “David Swanson’s recently released book, When the World Outlawed War, tells the story of how the highly energized peace movement in the 1920s, supported by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens from every level of society, was able to push politicians into something quite remarkable—the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. The 1920s 'War Outlawry' movement in the United States was so popular that most politicians could not afford to oppose it.”
    “Nothing unites people like a good war.”
    How could you deal with someone who thought like that?
    [Commander of Police] Vimes asked himself. A mere murderer. . .
    He could deal with a mere murderer.
    You had criminals and you had policemen,
    and there was a sort of see-saw that which balanced out in some strange way.
    But if you took a man who’d sit down and decide to start a war,
    what in the name of seven hells could you balance him with? . . .
    All it really meant was that he [the police] was allowed to chase the little criminals,
    who did the little crimes.—Terry Pratchett, JINGO.
    "You will probably defeat us. But not all of us.
    And then what will you do? Leave a garrison?
    For ever?
    And eventually a new generation will retaliate.
    Why you did this won't mean anything to them.
    You'll be the oppressors. They'll fight. They might even win.
    And there'll be another war.
    And one day people will say: why didn't they sort it all out, back then?
    Before it all started. Before all those people died."
    —Terry Pratchett, SMALL GODS.

    “War . . . should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.”—James Madison (1751-1836).
    Although “[a] standing army is . . . an . . . assurance of domestic tranquillity, [it is] a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure [wars].”—Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, U.S. Vice-President (1813-1814), at the 1787 Constitutional Convention (while advocating limiting the Army to a mere 300 troops in peacetime, from a population of some four million. That ratio, 90 times more population now, would mean a military not exceeding 27,000!!).
    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower.
    “War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity; it destroys religions, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it.”—Martin Luther.
    “The church that preaches the gospel in all of its fullness, except as it applies to the great social ills of the day, is failing to preach the gospel.”—Martin Luther.
    “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”—John F. Kennedy. And see Gordan Zahn, In Solitary Witness and The Refusal, a book and DVD concerning Franz Jagerstatter, a conscientious objector who refused to enter Hitler's German Army and was executed 9 August 1943, being beatified as a martyr in October 2007. The movie on DVD is available from The Center for Christian Nonviolence.
    “War: first, one hopes to win; then one expects the enemy to lose; then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering; in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.”—Karl Kraus (1874-1936).
    “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions.”—Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening statement to the tribunal (1946).
    “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”—Justice Robert Jackson, supra, cited by Scott Ritter, “Let history judge” (02/27/06). See also
    “We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.”—Justice Robert Jackson (12 August 1945).
    It is illegal for one country to invade another country: As the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded after the 1939-1945 World War: “War is essentially an evil thing . . . To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (Details by Linda McQuaig, 29 October 2006).
    "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience . . . therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."--Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950. See also Nuremberg Prosecutor Telford Taylor's book, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, and his papers at Columbia Law School.
    “[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”—John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), 6th US President. Source: Speech before the House of Representatives, 4 July 1821, cited in William Bonner and Pierre Lemieux (Editors), The Idea of America (Les Belles Lettres, 2003), p. 237.
    “A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock [criminal trial] and much surer of the noose [capital punishment] than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own.”—Herbert George (H. G.) Wells (1866-1946).
    Before the 1914 World War, Ivan Bloch (1836-1902) wrote The Future of War (1899 reprinted 2000), six volumes that included an expose of the huge costs of war with tendency to social upheaval. It helped lead to pre-1914 peace efforts. See background by Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War: 1890-1914 (New York: Macmillan Co, 1962), pp 236-241.
    After the 1914-1918 World War, to ban future aggressive wars, they were made illegal (as had been proposed in the Medieval Era). See the "Briand Announcement of Outlawry of War" (1927). “Aristide Briand, Foreign Minister of France, publicly announced a proposal for the 'outlawry of war.' Briand developed this proposal after conversations with Professor James T. Shotwell of Columbia University in March 1927.” The Treaty was soon thereafter adopted, and formed basis for the prosecutions after the 1939-1945 World War.
    For more background, see the Kellogg-Briand Pact: A Bibliography Compiled by the Avalon Project.
    For more by Prof. James T. Shotwell, see his book At the Paris Peace Conference (New York: MacMillan Co, 1937).
    For background on the World Court aka International Court of Justice, see, e.g., Howard N. Meyer, The World Court in Action: Judging among the Nations (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) and Review by Andrew Johnstone.
    “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience; therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”—Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950.
    “Some explanations of a crime are not explanations: they're part of the crime.”—Olavo de Cavarlho.
    “And so long as they were at war, their power was preserved, but when they had attained empire they fell, for of the arts of peace they knew nothing, and had never engaged in any employment higher than war.”—Aristotle, Politics.
    “It would be some time before I fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy. Power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy . . . The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States.”—Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
    “To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”—Tacitus.
    “Many [other nations] don't like us."
    “Whyever not?" . . .
    “For some reason the slaughter of thousands of people tends to stick in the memory."
    —Terry Pratchett, JINGO.
    "The institutions founded 'to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' have failed. Since the end of world war 2, some thirty million people have been killed in armed conflict. Most of them were civilians."—George Monbiot, The Age of Consent.
    In unanimously adopting statements opposing all war and affirming peacemaking efforts, they said: “Rather than continuing support of a just-war theory, a more compassionate church would oppose all war and teach peacemaking skills for all levels of government and interpersonal conflict resolution.”—National Coalition of American Nuns (August 2007).
    For background on historic Christian views, see Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960). (Review, 19 Theology Today (#1) 133-137 (April 1962) Note deterioration from original purity to the modern seemingly 'anything goes' attitude.) See also John J. Neumaier, Ph.D., "Obstacles to the abolition of war" (3 July 2006).

    See also writings of General Ulysses S. Grant and of two Senators, e.g., Charles Sumner, LL.D. (1811-1874):

  • The True Grandeur of Nations (Boston: 4 July 1845) (giving examples of cost of war, e.g., one warship cost more than the total cost of the entire Harvard University from its inception!)

  • War System of the Commonwealth of Nations (Boston: 28 May 1849)

  • The Duel Between France and Germany, With Its Lesson to Civilization (Boston: 26 October 1870) (The latter covered the French war of aggression against Germany that year, and German errors in overcoming same. These errors he predicted could lead, if uncorrected, to another Franco-German war. As the errors were not corrected, they played a role in the commencement of World War I.)
    These three items were later reprinted by Edwin D. Mead, ed., Addresses on War (Boston: Ginn and Co, 1904), pp 1-132, 133-239, and 241-319, respectively. [See brief excerpts.]

  • The other Senator is Thomas Corwin (1794-1865) of Ohio, speaking on the Mexican War, in the U.S. Senate, 11 February 1847, entitled, “Unjust National Acquisitions.”
    General Ulysses S. Grant admitted the U.S. aggression in Personal Memoirs (New York: C.L. Webster & Co, 1885-1886), Vol. I, Chapter II, pp 53-56, et seq. As a Congressman, future President Abraham Lincoln had done likewise.

    Examples of the massive devastation of Medieval warfare in Mongolia - Mideast are given in the article Invaders by Jan Frazier, in The New Yorker, pp 48-55 (25 April 2005).
    One method of peace-maintenance was attempted by many royal families, especially the Hapsburgs: interlocking marriages with other royal families. The Hapsburgs were particularly keen on this approach. For details, see Dorothy Gies McGuigan, The Hapsburgs (Garden City: Doubleday & Co, 1966). For centuries, the Hapsburgs were sufficiently successful, to be enabled to go about without bodyguards, pp 246 and 327. At the peak, during the reign of Charles V, Hapsburgs served simultaneously as Kings, Queens, Regents, or Emperors, in Austria, Bohemia, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
    For “The Development of Europe's Modern States 1648-2001,” oft by war, click here.
    For an example of the blind obedience demanded by governments of troops, see the statement by Kaiser Wilhelm II “to a company of young recruits: 'If your Emperor commands you to do so you must fire on your father and mother,'” quoted by Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War: 1890-1914 (New York: Macmillan Co, 1962), p 240.

  • The English government had a similar system whereby troops would shoot relatives—the invoking of religion, see details by Upton Sinclair, The Profits Of Religion (1917).
  • Pope Benedict XV reigned during the 1914-1918 World War.

  • "His formal peace proposal was made on Aug 1, 1917. Its main provisions were: (1) substitution of the 'moral force of right' for military force, (2) reciprocal decrease in armaments, (3) arbitration of international disputes, (4) freedom of the seas, (5) renunciation of war indemnities, (6) restoration of all occupied territories, (7) examination 'in a conciliatory spirit' of rival territorial claims. . . . Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points . . . resembled Benedict's own plan," says The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2d ed, Vol 2 (Thomson-Gale, 2003), p 250.

  • "The sincerity of Benedict's humanitarianism was demonstrated in his untiring efforts to relieve the sufferings of the war . . . . He established an international missing-persons bureau, [arranged] refuge to soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, assigned priests to visit the wounded and prisoners, and established relief agencies. So generous was he in such activites that at his death the Holy See was virtually bankrupt. . . . [When he died] The Holy See had to borrow money to pay for the funeral, the conclave, and the coronation of Pius XI," New Catholic Encyclopedia, supra, p 250.
    For well-reasoned analyses of causes of the 1914-1918 World War, see, e.g.,
  • Prof. Christopher Clark (Cambridge), The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (shows "that Germany's role in the conflict was no greater than the other belligerents . . . Germany's vibrant social democracy with its workers' rights and concern for the poor posed a threat to the capitalists of Britain and France," quoted from review by Eric S. Margolis)
  • Seumas Milne, "First world war: an imperial bloodbath that's a warning, not a noble cause" (The Guardian, Wednesday, 8 January 2014), and
  • Konne Zilliacus [1894-1967], M.P. (Great Britain), Mirror of the Past: A History of Secret Diplomacy (New York: A. A. Wyn, 1946). This British Member of Parliament, Konne Zilliacus, M.P., cites the bottom-line, politician contempt for the public: “As for the peoples, they were nothing at all . . . except cannon fodder. No government ever . . . hesitated to deceive them [; each government] took it for granted that they [average citizenry] would let themselves be butchered in unlimited quantities when the game of power politics [included] war.”
  • Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., "1918: On When a War Ended (Though Others Would Follow)" (27 October 2014) ("It is the few, who together constitute a bloc of industrialists and landlords, who think war will bring bigger markets abroad and civic discipline at home. One of [them] in 1914 saw war as a way of promoting compliance and obedience on the labor front and—as he himself said—war 'would permit the hierarchal reorganization of class relations.'")
    An earlier analysis had said, "The decades of imperialism have been prolific in wars . . . Every one of the steps of expansion in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific has been accompanied by bloodshed . . . The pax Britannica, always an impudent falsehood, has become of recent years a grotesque monster of hypocrisy," says John A. Hobson (1858-1940), Imperialism (London: Nisbet & Co, Ltd.; New York: James Pott & Co, 1902), Part II, Chapter I, paragraph II.I.35, p 132 [Book Excerpt].
    And "war would be impossible if the individuals [the 'cannon fodder'] who waged it did not . . . cooperate by fighting against other [people]," says Prof. Michael P. Ghiglieri, Ph.D., Dark Side of Man (Reading, MA.: Perseus Books, 1999), p 184.
    The article "Impeach Bush, Nation of Islam chief demands" has a 25 February 2007 speech "urging the black community to avoid military service at all costs." "Mr Farrakhan urged his almost exclusively black audience to resist the calls of US military recruiters, who he said targeted young people lacking education and opportunity. 'I'm here to tell you, brothers and sisters, [enlisting] that's the worst decision you can ever make.'"
    For examples on how the "cannon fodder" is treated, see Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny: A Novel of World War II (Garden City: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1951). The material on "the deposed captain [Queeg] was contrived from a study of psychoneurotic case histories. . . . The author [Wouk] served under two captains of the regular Navy in three years aboard destroyer-minesweepers. . . . The general [common] obscenity and blasphemy of shipboard talk have gone almost wholly unrecorded [as] largely monotonous . . . mere verbal punctuation of a sort . . . . " Examples include officers as "harsh, ill-tempered, nasty, oppressive, and often showed bad judgment," p 409. "They're as cunning as acrobats at treading that fine line between being a bastard and being a lunatic," p 269.
    "You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
    An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
    Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
    A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."

    "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."—Samuel P. Huntington.
    "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."—Major General Smedley Butler.
    Danish analyst Dr. Georg Brandes (1842-1927), The World at War (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1917), p 170, said: “The sound sense of the masses and their intuitive conception of right have never been anything but a democratic legend. For the masses believe, as a rule, every lie that is cleverly presented to them.”—Later cited with approval by Historian Clinton H. Grattan (1902-1980), Why We Fought (New York: Vanguard Press, 1929, 1957), 71, adding, “. . . propagandists counted heavily on the naiveté of the civil populations of all countries and of the American public in particular. It can hardly be said that their [propagandists'] confidence [in public gullibility] was misplaced.” As British leader Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) said concerning ability to deceive voters: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” [For more on public gullibility, click here. See also Herman Goering's famous quote].
    Like wars generally, the 1914-1918 war had economic underpinnings. "Follow the money." “The [First] World War is on all fours with [typical of, like, the same as] every other war in having an economic foundation. Every reputable historian . . . no matter how great his proccupation with the diplomacy of its precipitation, regards the diplomacy, the propaganda, the alleged aims and objects for fighting, as mere secondary structures reared on the foundation of money and trade [economics]. The flag follows trade, the politicians follow the flag, the propagandists follow the politicians, and the people follow the propagandists.”—Grattan, p 127. (And see "Secrets of World War I" (Video, Part 1 of 5)).
    “Economics provides the dynamics of history. . . . [But politicians invent other reasons for starting war pursuant to] the capacity of mankind to rationalize its conduct in ways more flattering to its self-esteem than a frank [honest] admission that dollars and goods [lusts] rule. Economics [lust] provides the ground to walk on, while the rationalizations [politician lies] give the excuse for walking.”—Grattan, p 127.
    The “cannon fodder” seem to instinctively know this.   "Many ordinary white southerners opposed United States entry into the Great War. They thought that the war was being fought for economic interest not their own, and they struggled against being forced to serve in it," says Prof. Jeanette Keith, "The Politics of Southern Draft Resistance, 1917-1918: Class, Race, and Conscription in the Rural South," 87 Journal of Am History (#4) 1335-1361 at 1338 (March 2001). "The result was widespread evasion, desertion, and (in places) armed resistance."   "Consider the standard book on the World War I draft, John Whiteclay Chambers II's To Raise an Army . . . . Chambers acknowledges that the draft was unpopular with the American people. He estimates that between 2.4 and 3.6 million men avoided service by refusing to register," p 1336. And "Chambers notes that 337,649 men 'deserted' . . . about 12 percent of the 2.8 million men drafted thus 'deserted,'" p 1336. See also Prof. Keith's book Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2004).
    And note this additional data on the instinctive reaction of the "cannon fodder," from the 1939-1945 World War:

  • “the biggest problem American officers encountered in the field was getting their men to fire at other human beings. The infantryman did not have the psychological prop of the fighter pilot, who could tell himself he was only trying to bring down an enemy aircraft; or of the sailor, who could tell himself he was attacking another ship rather than the people aboard it; or the bomber crewman who was attacking a factory and not factory hands [employees]. The infantryman had to face the bleak reality that he was there to kill another human being, sometimes close enough to see his face. Only about one rifleman in four could bring himself to fire his weapon in combat. 'The American soldier is willing to die,' Patton discovered, 'but not to kill.'”—Geoffrey Perret, A Country Made by War (New York: Random House, 1989), p 436.

  • Another analyst says likewise: “'On average . . . no more than 15 percent of the men [and, adding in casualties who could not be interviewed but did likely fight, no more than 25 percent] had actually fired at the enemy positions or personnel with the weapons during the entire course of an engagement,'” quoting Army interviewer and historian Colonel S. L. A. Marshall, says Prof. Michael P. Ghiglieri, Ph.D., Dark Side of Man (Reading, MA.: Perseus Books, 1999), p 185.

  • Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., in "Twilight of the Psychopaths" (11 June 2008), says "Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. Marshall’s work brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority would rather die than fight. The implication . . . was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society."

  • See also Howard Zinn, "A Violent Cartography: Bomb After Bomb" (Counterpunch, 17 December 2007) (analysis by "a bombardier who flew bombing missions for the U.S. Air Corps in the second World War")

  • Prof. Paul Fussell, Wartime (debunks myths about World War II)

  • Kelly Kennedy, Army Times Medical Reporter, with Interviewer Amy Goodman, "U.S. Soldiers Stage Mutiny, Refuse Orders in Iraq Fearing They Would Commit Massacre in Revenge for IED Attack" (21 December 2007) (“When the IED, the roadside bomb, went off, it was so close to one of the Iraqi police stations that they should have been able to see somebody burying that. It was right in front of somebody’s house, and nobody said anything. Nobody said to these guys, 'Listen, there’s a bomb here. We’re worried about you,' even though they had been going out and patrolling and doing what they were supposed to be doing, in their minds. So when that IED went off and killed their five friends . . . when they lost their five men, they—I think they gave up on the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people weren’t willing to fight for them, then what was the point?”)

  • Robert C. Koehler, "The Scapegoat's Apology" (, 26 August 2009) Re evils, "when you show the people from the CIA, the FBI and the MI (military intelligence) the [torture] pictures and they say, ‘Hey, this is a great job. Keep it up,' you think it must be right." Thus: "I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women and children. They were all classified the same, and that was the classification that we dealt with, just as enemy soldiers." Thus, the soldier could "lead a raid on a village that slaughters 500 or more defenseless people."

  • And note the electric shock experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram, reported in his book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974) (summary). See also his Obedience to Authority (HarperCollins, 1983), on "the elusive and sometimes shocking conditions under which men obey authority regardless of the morality involved."

    “Killing a stranger without malice or satisfaction,
    other than the craftsman’s pride in a job well done,
    is such a rare talent that armies spend months
    trying to instill it into their young soldiers.” —Terry Pratchett, THE FIFTH ELEPHANT

  • And see the article by Azmi Bishara, "When the skies rain death: The culture of the fighter plane is the culture of annihilation" (Al-Ahram, Issue No.06, 3 - 9 August 2006). See also data on "killology," by Vicki Haddock, "The Science Of Creating Killers: Human reluctance to take a life can be reversed through training in the method known as killology" (San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006).
    “Almost 600,000 of America's 1 million active and reserve soldiers enlisted as teens. The military lures these physiologically immature kids with a PR machine that would make Joe Camel proud. . . . But the prefrontal cortex, 'important for controlling impulses, is among the last brain regions to mature' . . . and doesn’t reach 'adult dimensions until the early 20s.' Teenagers’ brains simply lack the impulse control that can prevent a lifetime of regret, psychological and physical disability, and preventable deaths—their own, their fellow soldiers’ and those of civilians. . . . Chiefs of warfare reach out to children precisely because they are innocent, malleable, impressionable,” says Terry J. Allen, “America's Child Soldier Problem" (15 May 2007).
    Propaganda example: “We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been. I can't imagine why you'd even ask the question,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when questioned by an al-Jazeera correspondent 29 April 2003.

  • “It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”—General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, 15 May 1951.

  • “The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service.”—Albert Einstein.

  • "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”—Albert Einstein [See legal terms used in murder, i.e., weapon, intentional, premeditated, malice, Element of Illegality, foreseeable, natural and probable consequences, universal malice, non-accidental, all of course applicable to war.]

  • “Strike against war, for without you [workers] no battles can be fought! Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of murder! Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings! Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! Be heroes in an army of construction!”—Helen Keller. (Told to an audience at Carnegie Hall one year before the United States entered World War I. From 'Declarations of Independence,' by Prof. Howard Zinn, page 75).

  • “They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.”—Ernest Hemmingway

  • "[I]t is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war."--Anthony Scrivener QC: (Times, 5 October 2001, p. 7)

  • “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”—Mohandas Gandhi
    Current activism by effectuates this view. It aids parents to 'opt-out' of military recruiters contacting their child / children.
    To 'opt-out' is especially crucial when the war itself is illegal, e.g., an unlawful preventive war of aggression. Every participant from the aggressor nation in such a war is in essence a war criminal. See, e.g., Prof. Gabriel Kolko, Richard A. Falk, and Robert Jay Lifton (eds), Crimes of War: A Legal, Political-Documentary, and Psychological Inquiry into the Responsibility of Leaders, Citizens, and Soldiers for Criminal Acts in Wars (New York: Random House, 1971).
    David Wilson, “The secret war” (The Guardian, 27 March 2007) (on “the estimated 14,000 rapes committed by American soldiers in England, France and Germany between 1942 and 1945.”   “We know that conflict creates conditions in which soldiers commit rape and murder. Why should American GIs in the 1940s be an exception?” Note “that young men—soldiers—who are given power over others, and have a structure surrounding them that closes ranks at the first sign of criticism, a structure which is, in turn, enclosed within a popular and political culture where members of the public want to invest in their father's or their brother's or their husband's decision to become a soldier and go to war with nobility and sacrifice are, in fact, the preconditions for abuse, torture and totalitarianism.” See details by Prof. J. Robert Lilly, N. Ky. Univ., Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in WWII (France, 2003; and Palgrave Macmillan, August 2007)
    Compare with Anthony Marchant, The Mark of Cain (5 April 2007) ("about British soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners in Basra in 2003" and on "the dilemmas [troops] face as the war forces them to choose between loyalty to their regiment and their own morals. Marchant said: 'It's a rites-of-passage film about these two 18-year-olds who go on this journey. What's interesting about soldiering is this thing called moral courage. If you're asked to become involved with something you think is wrong, when the rest of the group is doing it and you don't do it, you can be ostracised by your section and your life becomes at risk in a very real way.")
    And see also Biderman and Zimmerman, The Manipulation of Human Behavior (John Wiley, 1961) aka "The Torture Bible" (based on government-sponsored research in the 1950's).
  • In the 1914-1918 World War, Germany rapidly conquered Belgium, then much of France, all the way to Paris, in the first month (August) of the war. Conquests, advances, more conquests, more advances (Liege, Brussels, Lorraine, Ardennes, Charleroi, Mons, etc.), had rapidly followed in succession.
    Would you have learned this—the series of German victories—from the Allied media [propagandists]?!
    No, of course not. In this pre-television era, politician-inspired news reports to the public were the opposite of fact!
    “The fighting had been presented to the British public—as to the French—as a series of German defeats [emphasis added] in which the enemy unaccountably moved from Belgium to France and appeared each day on the map at places farther forward!”—Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: Dell Paperback, 1962), Chap. 20, p. 432.
    "The battle of the Somme did not end on that first day . Throughout July, August, September, and October [1916], the British army threw its young soldiers across no-man's-land to be mown down by machine guns. Again and again the newspapers hailed a victory, but the telegrams told another story," says Ken Follett, Fall of Giants (New York: Dutton Group, 2010), Chap. 20, p. 589

    “You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
    thank God! the   .   .   .   journalist.
    But, seeing what the man will do
    unbribed, there's no occasion to!”
      —Humbert Wolfe (1930)
    Note the term “press prostitute” concerning media types, by George Seldes, Witness to a Century (New York: Ballantine Books, 1987), pp. 331, 347, and 297. Note the phrase, “crooked and prostituted journalist,” p 347. Seldes also said of one such, that “he had sold himself . . . for money,” p 399. Sadly, the term “press prostitute” is a “now disused term,” says p 331.

    “How are nations ruled and led into war? Politicians lie to journalists and then believe those lies when they see them in print.” —Austrian journalist Karl Kraus, explaining the causes of the 1914-1918 World War, cited at “The Best War Ever.”
    Re the 1914-1918 World War: “Another underlying cause of the war was the poisoning of public opinion by the newspaper press in all of the great countries. . . . Too often newspapers in all lands were inclined to inflame nationalistic feelings, misrepresent the situation in foreign countries, and suppress factors in favor of peace. In the diplomatic correspondence of the forty years before the war there were innumerable cases in which governments were eager to establish better relations and secure friendly arrangements, but were hampered by the jingoistic [warlike] attitude of the newspapers.”—Historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay, The Origins of the World War (The Macmillan Co, 1928), p 47.
    “Next the statesmen [politicians] will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”—Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger (1916).
    Reference Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime (New York: Dutton, 1928), and William A. Cook, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy (Dandelion Books, 2005).
    See also Prof. Philip Jenkins, The Great and Holy War: How World War I Became a Religious Crusade (HarperOne, 29 April 2014) (Review)
    Ask yourself: Can you trust propagandists not to deceive?! not to present the viewpoint of their nation's politicians? [Admittedly, exceptions happen, like lightning strikes!].

    Politicians are not scholars. They are “good ole boys” who prefer drinking, schmoozing, BS-ing to honest scholarly research into actual “cause and effect” truths. For example, note the World War I German submarine campaign, to which the U.S. President pretended to have moral objections. As historians note, the real truth is the cause, the British blockade of Germany.

    For politicians, information content is a mere 10%!! Non-verbal communication is 60%! with vocal tonality, pitch, and pauses 30%. Then of that tiny amount of "content" to which they give heed, recall is a mere 25%. Reference: Stanley Zareff, "Literally Speaking," 14 Worth (#1) 46-48 (January 2005).

    "A factor of immense importance in deflecting attention [away] from British violations of neutral rights was the German submarine campaign. The campaign was the German reply to the British blockade. In so far as America acquiesced in the blockade, she made the submarine war inevitable. Since it [that submarine campaign] was treated [by U.S. politicians] as a fact in itself without reference to its genesis [cause], the American [politician] Government took up a rigid position of disapproval of the campaign. The American attitude toward the end product [result] of a British policy [cause] led us to war with Germany.”—Grattan, p 172. “That this reasoning is correct is affirmed by such different figures as

  • [President Wilson's Texas aide] Colonel [Edward M.] House, cf. [Charles] Seymour [Intimate Papers of Colonel House, 2 vols. (Boston, 1926)], II, 311, and

  • Winston Churchill, The World Crisis [3 vols (New York, 1923)], II, 292, 304-5-6.”
    When a German submarine torpedoed a British ammunition-carrier, the Lusitania, carrying “six million rounds of ammunition, besides explosives” with passenger travel illegal “in violation of a statute . . . that no passenger shall travel upon a railroad train or sail upon a vessel that carries dangerous explosives” (Grattan, p 295) with the President told this “in person by Secretary of State Bryan”; and loaded with “5,400 cases of ammunition; rest of cargo chiefly contraband” (Grattan, p 300), it “had [anti-submarine] guns on board . . . instructions to destroy German submarines by ramming or gunfire . . . had Canadian troops on board . . . carried munitions” (Grattan, p 309). (The ammunition was "stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters," says Samuel Greenhill, "Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship" (Daily Mail (UK) 26 December 2008).

  • However, U.S. politicians, including the President, pretended differently, pretended concern for the "dictates of humanity," and used that excuse "to override the truth to a very considerable extent.”—Grattan, p 314.

  • And the President ignored and obstructed the facts “and saw to it that no authoritative information about them [the facts] reached the American people from American governmental sources.”—Grattan, p 310.

  • (Incidently, this Presidential fraud was done over the opposition of Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and honest Senators like Robert M. LaFollette (R, WI).—Grattan, pp 295-296, and 303-312. Note also Brooklyn College English Prof. Eric Alterman, When Presidents Lie: A History of Deception and Its Consequences (Viking, September 2004), and the five part video series, "Secrets of World War I.")
  • Why are politicians thus? In addition to their willingness to lie, they also act on “whims, fancy, and sudden childish notions.” Awareness is at ignorant level, typically “does not know about” key factors. They listen with “little attention,” react with “remarkable irrelevancy” to reality due to “ignorance.” There is “a special failure of communication in dealing with heads of state.” “It is a feature of government that the more important the problem, the further [up the political structure] it tends to be removed from handling from anyone well acquainted with the subject.”—Barbara W. Tuchman, Stilwell and the American Experience in China (New York: Macmillan Co, 1970), pp 241, 404, 405, 464, respectively.
    For politicians, content is a mere 10%!! Non-verbal communication is 60%! with vocal tonality, pitch, and pauses 30%. Recall is a mere 25%. Reference: Stanley Zareff, “Literally Speaking,” 14 Worth (#1) 46-48 (January 2005). This low level of mental performance and memory does not meet the requirements of passing exams even in grade school! Children are required to do far better than paying attention to facts merely 10%, recalling merely 25%! the below "F" (failure) level, indeed, indicative of mental retardation.
    This data is long known. For example, “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.”—Thomas Paine (1737-1809).
    “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to office,” says Aesop, c. 550 B.C. And, “none but unprincipled and beastly men in society assume the mastery over their fellows, as it is among bulls, bears, and cocks,” says ancient historian Polybius (205 B.C. - 125 B.C.), lib. 4.
    Another ancient source says likewise: leaders are typically the “basest of men,” says Daniel 4:17. Ancient King Nebuchadnezzar was the best world leader, the “head of gold,” Daniel 2:32 and 38. Politicians and rulers thereafter would be “inferior” to Nebuchadnezzar, says Daniel 2:39-43. Nebuchadnezzar was mentally ill for seven years, with lycanthropic symptoms, living and eating grass like an animal, hair long as feathers, fingernails and toenails like birds' claws, Daniel 2:32-33. This went on for some seven years, Daniel 2:34-36, until his “understanding” and “reason returned.” Politicians after him would be even worse, “inferior,” Daniel 2:39. Bottom line: The scum rises to the top, Jeremiah 17:9; Daniel 4:17 in context of, e.g., Luke 4:5-6, Matthew 4:8 and Hosea 8:4.
    Modern political leaders are disproportionately smokers. The significance of this fact used to be known, that smokers are disproportionately mentally ill and damaged. After decades of observations of such leaders, Tolstoy had warned against having smokers as leaders: “The brain becomes numbed by the nicotine.” What Tolstoy called “conscience” thus expires, as impulse control is impaired (abulia, anomie, psychopathy). Tolstoy cited an example, a smoker who began assaulting an aged woman with a knife, wounding her badly. He then shrank from killing her, but after smoking two cigars, dazing his brain, he then completed the knife-murder.—Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), Why Do People Intoxicate Themselves? (10 June 1890), p 10 [Excerpt].
    Note pertinent medical / analytical findings on politicians' widespread mental abnormality:

  • World Health Organization, “Wide research needed to solve the problems of mental illness,” World Mental Health, Vol 12, pages 138-141 (WHO Press Release, October 1960) says that “people with psychopathic make-up often become leaders” / “les postes de commandement sont souvent assumés par des personnes à tendances psychopathiques”

  • Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (New York: Praeger Pub, 1975), says at p xi, “The psychopath in a position of supreme power is almost a common-place.”

  • Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th ed (Scott, Foresman & Co, 1976), p 10, by James Covington Coleman, Ph.D., summarizes the 1960 WHO data thus: “individuals with psychopathic personality makeup, who tend to exploit power for selfish purposes and have little concern for ethical values or social progress, often become leaders”;

  • Prof. Michael P. Ghiglieri, Ph.D., Dark Side of Man (Reading, MA.: Perseus Books, 1999), says at p 230, “. . . madmen—and slightly mad men—still rise to lead nations”; and

  • Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” by John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, Frank J. Sulloway, 129 Psychological Bulletin (#2) 339-375 (July 2003), cites politician symptoms. Note also: “the Conservative [pro-war] Party was . . the stupidest party. . . . I did not . . . say that . . . Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” (Public and Parliamentary Speeches, 31 May 1866, pp. 85-86.)           “Stupidity is much the same the world over. A stupid person's notions and feelings may confidently be inferred from those which prevail in the circle by which the person is surrounded. Not so those whose opinions and feelings are emanations from their own nature and faculties.” (Subjection of Women, Chapter I, p. 273)—John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

  • "The Power of Political Misinformation" (Washington Post, 15 Sept. 2008, p A6), shows that conservatives are more prone to believing falsehoods, with this proneness increasing after being told the truth. Said another way, "No need to tell the neocons facts, they just get dumber, and dumber." Such conservatives are "utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world," says Allen L. Roland, Ph.D., "Dealing with Right Wing Conservatives" (18 October 2008). They are in medical terms, unresponsive to stimuli.

  • The Authoritarians," by Robert Altemeyer (Univ of Manitoba, 2006) (concerns such individuals as "very aggressive . . . hostile . . . almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence . . . dogmatic . . . hypocrites, from top to bottom . . . two-faced, and . . . one face never notices the other [and] give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong [and] the rank-and-file believe them.")

  • Kurt Vonnegut, "Custodians of chaos" (The Guardian, 21 January 2006) "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president." See confirmatory data by Jonathan R. T. Davidson, MD; Kathryn M. Connor, MD; and Marvin Swartz, MD, "Mental Illness In U.S. Presidents Between 1776 and 1974: A Review of Biographical Sources," Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 194 (#1): 47-51, January 2006.

  • H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) says, “People constantly speak of 'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men.” (Details, 1922: "shallow fellows, ignorant of the grave matters they deal with and too stupid to learn. . . . incompetent and imbecile, and not only incompetent and imbecile, but also incurably dishonest . . . in the hands of small groups of narrow, ignorant, and unconscionable manipulators . . .” And: "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.")

  • Robert LeFevre, in his essay, Aggression is Wrong, says “Government, when it is examined, turns out to be nothing more nor less than a group of fallible men with the political force to act as though they were infallible.”

  • James Bovard, in Freedom in Chains, says “Governments and citizens blend together only in the imagination of political theorists. Government is, and always will be, an alien power over private citizens.”

  • Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., in "Twilight of the Psychopaths" (11 June 2008), says "Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and 'warfare.' Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder."

  • Aspects of politican mental disorder include but are not limited to abulia,   dyscalculia and acalculia,   dyslexia,   fragmentation,   confabulation,   delusions including of grandeur,   psychopathology,   time disorientation,   unresponsiveness to normal stimuli, and anosognosia.

  • Symptoms such as “inability to think on higher conceptual levels,”   “Impairment of inner reality and ethical controls,”   “concrete and impoverished” “ideation,”   “a tendency to confabulate,” fragmentation,   disconnection from reality, etc., are often conspicuous. Reference James C. Coleman, Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, supra pp. 460-461. Symptoms can also include "Impairment of learning, comprehension, and judgment—with ideation tending to be concrete and impoverished—and with inability to think on higher conceptual levels and to plan.” The mental "inability . . . to plan" can typically lead to crises, forcing last minute panic-style efforts to deal with such politicians-created crises.

  • Note also that when politicians' “ideation” is “concrete and impoverished,”   showing "inability to think on higher conceptual levels,"   they then “do not respond to and are not motivated by normal stimuli”   such as abstract concepts and principles, but passively behave   “like cattle, sitting around until someone tells them what to do next,”   e.g., by providing specific concrete examples such as arise when some problem receives widespread media coverage, reference Lyle Tussing, Ph.D., Psychology for Better Living, 5th edition (New York: John Wiley, 1959), pp. 361-2.
    This problem is compounded by the media, which censors such data, prevents, obstructs public awareness. The media has a record of a long-term widespread preference, like Editor-Publisher Julius Streicher, to print disinformation. Click here for a pertinent analysis, "The Crushing of Fallujah" by Prof. James Petras (Counterpunch, 19 November 2004).
    See also "The Incredible Blight of TV Punditry" by Norman Solomon (5 August 2005), and his book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (Wiley, 2005).
    This problem is further compounded by clergymen pretending to be Christian, who regularly support war, for ANY cause. Examples:

  • the U.S. war against Mexico—a war of aggression!—but preached-for anyway, exposed by Rev. Parker Pillsbury, Forlorn Church (1847), pp 58-68

  • the 1914-1918 War!!!—a war of aggression! "The chauvinistic cant that poured from [the] pulpit was meant to rouse flagging spirits to new sacrifices. . . . it started with the theme 'love your country and defend it' and gradually turned to 'hate your enemy and kill him.' . . . The guardians of God's word led the martial chorus. Total war came to mean total hatred," says Fritz Stern (Hist. Prof., Columbia), in The Columbia History of the World (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p 988.

  • "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," said Pres. Woodrow Wilson, 1919.

  • Re the underlying 1914-1918 "national patriotism, religion [churches, clergy] sanctioned it," says Carlton J. H. Hayes (Hist. Prof, Columbia), A Brief History of the Great War (New York: Macmillan Co, 1920), p 3. (Such 'emperor-worship' religions (masquerading as Christian) reject basic Christian doctrine that "our citizenship is in heaven," Philippians 3:20. See also Sen. Charles Sumner's analysis [1845]), and troops' defiance of leaders, to adopt a 1914 "Christmas Truce 1" and 2.

  • Such wicked churches put their members who became troops into what was called a "devil's trap." Here are characteristics of the "devil's trap":
      "Loyalty to their own side, discipline, with the death penalty behind it, spell [constitute] words of old tradition, obedience to the laws of war [vs. the laws of God], or to the [ruling] caste which ruled them, all the moral [immoral] and spiritual [demonized] propaganda handed out by [demonized church] pastors, newspapers, generals, staff officers, old men at home, exalted women, female furies, a deep and simple love for England, and Germany, pride of manhood, fear of cowardice—a thousand complexities of thought and sentiment prevented men, on both sides, from breaking the net of fate in which they were entangled, and revolting against that mutual, unceasing massacre," says Sir Philip Gibbs [1877-1962], Realities of War (London: William Heineman Pub, 1920), p 173, cited by Sir Martin Gilbert, The First World War: A Complete History ( New York: Henry Holt and Co, 1994), p 219.

  • Troops asked, "What have the Churches done to stop war or preach the Gospel of Christ? The Bishop of London, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all those conventional, patriotic, cannon-blessing, banner-baptizing humbugs. God! They make me tired!" (page 225). Note that "bishops and clergy . . . praised God as the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies and had never said a word before the war to make it less inevitable" (page 32)

  • Said one troop, "I don't like butcher's work. Christian service, that's what the padre calls it. I wonder if Christ would have stuck a bayonet into a [fellow human's] stomach . . . That's what we are asked to do. Oh, Christianity is out of business, my child. Why mention it?" (page 82)

  • Said one troop, "I've no quarrel with those poor blighters [enemy soldiers] over there by Hooge [battlefield]. They are in the same bloody mess as we are. They [the enemy troops] hate it [war] just as much [as we do]. We're all under a spell together which some Devils have put on us. I wonder if there's a God anywhere." (p 116)

  • "our spirit was stricken by the thought of this world-tragedy, and cried out in anguish against this bloody crime in which all humanity was involved. The senselessness of it! The futility! The waste! The mockery of men's faith in God!" (p 253)

  • the battlefield "is a place where the Devil goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour; where he leaves his victims' entrails hanging on to barbed wire; and where the [unburied] bodies of your friends and mine lie decomposing in muddy holes" (p 257)

  • Said one officer, Christ's "whole teaching was love and forgiveness. 'Thou shalt not kill.' 'Little children, love one another!' 'Turn the other cheek.' . . . Is it all sheer tosh? If so, why go on pretending? . . . Take chaplains in khaki [uniform]—these lieutenant-colonels with black crosses. They make me   263sick It's either one thing or the other. Brute force or Christianity. . . . I'm not going to say, 'God is love,' one day and then prod [bayonet] a man in the stomach the next. Let's be consistent.'" (pp 262-263)

  • War "on the edge of Hell . . . quite close and near, was Hell, of man's making, produced by chemists and scientists, after centuries in search of knowledge. There were the fires of hate, produced out of the passion of humanity after a thousand years of Christendom, and of progress. . . . There was the Devil-worship of our poor, damned, human race, where the most civilized nations of the world were one each side of the bonfires" (p 297)

  • Said one troop, "there will be a lot of murder after this bloody war. What's human life? What's the value of one man's throat? We're trained up as murderers—I don't dislike it, mind you—and after the war we shan't get out of the habit of it. It'll come nat'ral, like!" (p 331)

  • Troops on both sides had "the same loathing   333of war, the same bewilderment as to its causes, the same sense of being driven by evil powers above them" (pp 332-333)

  • "Modern civilization was wrecked on those fire-blasted fields. . . . More died there [in the Somme battles] than the flower of our youth. . . . The old order of the world died there, because many men who came alive out of that conflict were changed, and vowed not to tolerate a system of thought which had led to such a monstrous massacre of human beings who prayed to the same God, loved the same joys of life, and had no hatred of each other except as it had been lighted and inflamed by their governors, their philosophers, and their newspapers." (p 364)

  • "After the Somme battles there were many other battles as bloody and terrible, but they only confirmed greater numbers of men 365in the faith that the Old World had been wrong in its 'make-up,' and wrong in its religion of life. Lip-service to Christian ethics was not good enough as an argument for this. Either the heart of the world must be changed by a real obedience to the gospel of Christ, or Christianity must be abandoned for a new creed which could give better results between men and nations. There could be no reconciling of bayonet drill and high-explosives with the words 'Love one another.'" (pp 364-365).

  • "The devotion of military chaplains . . . would not bridge the gulf the in the minds of many soldiers, between a gospel of love and this argument by bayonet and bomb, gas-shell and high-velocity [shells], blunder-buss, club, and trench-shovel. . . . there must be a new order of things . . . inspired by an ideal higher higher than this beast-like rivalry of nations." (pp 364-365).

  • in view of the mass slaughter and total 'scorched earth' devastation allowed, "our laws of war are not justified by any code of humanity" (p 371)

  • Cites "the belief of many [in] the guilt of the whole political society of Europe . . . based upon hatred and fear and rivalry, in play for Imperial power and the world's markets. . . . Imperial prestige, the personal vanity of politicians, and vast private gain of Trusts and Profiteers" (p 423)

  • "To keep the living counters [cannon fodder] quiet, to make them jump into [war] at the word 'Go!' the statesmen, diplomats, Trusts, and Profiteers, debauch the name of Patriotism, raise the watch-word of Liberty, and play upon the ignorance of the mob, easily, skilfully, by inciting them to race hatred, by inflaming the brute passion in them, and by concocting a terrible mixture of false idealism and self-interest, so that simple minds, quick to respond to sentiment, as well as those quick to hear the call of the beast, rally shoulder to shoulder and march to the battle-grounds under the spell of that potion. Some go with a noble sense of sacrifice, some with blood-lust in their hearts, most with the herd instinct following the lead, little knowing that they are but the pawns of a game . . . being played beyind closed doors by the great gamblers in the Courts and Foreign Offices, and Committee Rooms, and Counting Houses, of the political casinos in Europe" (p 423).

  • But "do not divorce all peoples from their Governments . . . see the Evil which led to the crime of war . . . with deep-spread roots in the very foundation of human society. . . . statesmen knew that their diplomacy was supported by the majority of the people by their ignorance as well as by their knowledge . . . fear and envy . . . to fulfill the high destiny marked out for [the nation]. The greed of the 'bloated aristocrats' was only on a bigger scale than the greed of the small shopkeepers. The desire to capture new markets belonged not only to statesmen but to commercial travelers. The . . . peasant believed as much in the might of the . . . Armies as [generals]. The brutality of . . . 425generals was not worse than that of the 'Unteroffizier,' or the foreman of works [factories]" (pp 424-425).

  • "The official propaganda, the words and actions of. . . statesmen, did actually express the conscious and subconscious psychology of the multitude. The call to the old watchwords of national pride and Imperial might thrilled the soul of the people of proud tradition in sea battles and land battles. . . . Base passions, as well as noble instincts, were stirred easily. Greedy was the appetite of the mob for atrocity tales. The more revolting they were the quicker they were swallowed. . . . Preachers and confessors denied any quality of virtue or genius to [enemy] poets, philosophers, scientists, or scholars. A critical weighing of evidence was regarded as Pro[-enemy] and lack of patriotism." (p 425)

  • "Truth was delivered bound to Passion. Hatred at home, inspired alrgely by . . . hysteria and official propaganda, reached such heights that when fighting men came back on leave their refusal to say much against their enemy, their straightforward assertions that [the enemy] was not so black [evil] as he was painted, that he fought bravely, died gamely, and, in the prison camps, was well-mannered, 426decent, industrious, good-natured, were heard with shocked silence by mothers and sisters who could only excuse this absence of hate on the score of war-weariness." (pp 425-426)

  • "The people of all countries were deeply involved in the general blood-guiltiness of Europe. they made no passionate appeal in the name of Christ, or in the name of humanity, for the cessation of the slaughter of boys and the suicide of nations, and for a reconcilation of peoples . . . Peace proposals from the Pope [etc.] were rejected with fierce denunciation, most passionate scorn, as 'Peace Plots' and 'Peace Traps,' not without the terrible logic of the vicious circle, becuase, indeed, there was no sincerity of renunciation in some of those offers of peace and the powers hostile to us were simply trying our strength and our weakness in order to make their own kind of peace, which should be that of conquest. The gamblers [leaders] . . . were upheld generally by the peoples who would not abate one point of pride, one fraction of hate, one claim of vengaeance, though all Europe should fall in ruin and the last legions of boys be massacred. . . . There was no forgiveness, no generous instinct, no larger-hearted common sense in any combatant nations of Europe. Like wolves they had their teeth in each other's throasts, and would not let go, though all bloody and exhausted, until one should fall at the last gasp to be mangled by the others." (p 426).

  • "Yet in each nation . . . there were men and women who saw the folly of the war and the crime of it, and desired to end it by some act of renunciation and repentance, and by some uplifting of the people's spirit to vault the frontiers of hatred, and the barbed wire which hedged in patriotism. Some of them were put in prison. Most of them saw the impossibility of counteracting the forces of insanity which had made the world mad, and kept silent, hiding their thoughts, and brooding over them." (p 426)

  • "The leaders of the nations continued to use mob passion as their argument and justification, excited it 427anew when its fires burned low, focussed it upon definite objectives, and gave it a sense of righteousness by high-sounding watch-words of Liberty, Justice, Honour, and Retribution." (p 426)

  • "Each side proclaimed Christ as their Captain, and invoked the blessing and aid of the God of Christendom . . . The peoples shared the blame of their rulers, because they were not nobler than their rulers. They cannot now plead ignorance or betrayal by false ideals which duped them, because character does not depend on knowledge, and it was the [bad] character of European peoples which failed in the crisis of the world's fate, so that they followed the call-back of the Beast in the Jungle reather than the voice of the Crucified One, whom they pretended to adore." (p 427)

  • "The character of European peoples failed in common sense and in Christian charity" (p 427)

  • "If patriotism were enough as the gospel of life [the] nation was perfect in that faiths" (p 428)

  • "their [national] hatred of the [enemy], their desire for vengeance, complete and terrible, at all cost of life, even though [the nation] should bleed to death and die after victory, is to be understood in the heights and depths of its [patriotic] hatred, and in the passion of its [idolatrous] love for [one's own nation] and liberty. . . . I am tempted to see no greater thing than such patriotism as that, to justify the gospel of hate against such an enemy, to upheld vengeance as a sweet virture. . . . if civilization may [is to] continue, patriotism is 'not enough'; that international hatred will produce other wars, worse than this." {429)

  • "vengeance, even for dreadful crimes, cannot be taken of a nation without punishing the innocent more than the guilty, so that out of the cruelty and injustice new fires of hatred are lighted, the demand for vengeance passes to the other side, and the Devil finds another vicious circle in wihich to trap the souls of men." (p 429)

  • "Henri Barbusse [1873-1935] . . . has the courage to say that all peoples in Europe were involved in the guilt of that war 430because of their adherence to that old barbaric creed of brute force [not Christianity] and the superstitious servitude . . . to symbols of national pride based upon military tradition. He . . . denounces the salute to the Flag . . . as a [heathen] fetish worship in which the narrow bigotry of national arrogance is raised above the rights of the common masses of men [raised above Bible law] . . . all peoples who go to war dupe themselves into the belief that they do so in defense of their liberties, and rights, and power, and property" (pp 429-430)

  • "The deliberate falsification of news . . . made them [troops on leave] discredit the whole presentation of our case and state [condition]. They said 'Propaganda!' with a sharp note of scorn. The breezy optimism of public men, preachers, and journalists, never downcast by bad news, never agonized over the slaughter in these fields, minimizing horrors and loss and misery, crowing over the enemy, prophesying early victory . . . accepting all the destruction of manhood (while they stayed safe) as a necessary and inevitable 'misfortune,' had a depressing effect on men who knew they were doomed to die, by the law of averages, if the war went on" (p 436)

  • "The frightful suspicion entered the heads of some of our men (some of those I knew) that at home people liked the war and were not anxious to end it, and did not care a jot for the sufferings of the soldiers" (p 436).

  • "The people did not want to hear the tragic side of things" (p 438)

  • "'What are we fighting for?' asked officers back from leave, turning over the pages [of the news including of profiteers]. 'Are we going to die for these swine? These parasites and prostitutes? Is this the war for noble ideals, Liberty, Christianity, and Civilization? To Hell with all this filth! The world has gone mad, and we [troops] are the victims of insanity.'" (p 438)

  • One "chaplain, an Anglican, found it hard to reconcile Christianity with such a war as this, but he did not camoflage the teachings of the Master he tried to serve. He preached to his men the Gospel of Love, and forgiveness of enemies. It was reported to the general who sent for him. 'Look here, I can't let you go preaching 'soft stuff' to my men. I can't allow all that nonsense about love. My job is to teach them to hate. You must either co-operate with me, or go.' The chaplain refused to change his faith or his teaching . . . " (p 439)

  • "For all chaplains it was difficult. Simple souls were bewildered by the conflict between the spirit of Christianity and the spirit of war. Many of them—officers as well as men—were blasphemous in their scorn of 'parson stuff,' some of them frightfully ironical. A friend of mine watched two chaplains passing by. One of them was a tall man with a crown and star [insignia of rank] on his shoulder-strap. 'I wonder,' said my friend, with false simplicity, 'whether Jesus Christ would have been a lieutenant-colonel'?" (p 439)

  • "the Catholic Church, certain of its faith, and all other Churches claiming that they teach the Gospel of Christ, have been challenged to explain their [pro-war] attitude during the war, and the relation of their teaching to the world tragedy, the Great Crime, which has happened. It will not be easy for them to do so. They will have to explain how it is that German bishops, priests, pastors, and flocks, undoubtedly 441sincere in their professions of faith, deeply pious . . . and fervent in their devotion to the Sacraments . . . were able to reconcile this piety with their war of aggression." (p 441)

  • "The faith of the Austrian Catholics must be explained in relation to their crimes, if they were crimes, as we [English] say they were, in leading the way to this war by their ultimatum to Serbia" (p 441)

  • "If Christianity has no restraining influence upon the brutal instincts of those who profess and follow its faith, then surely it is time the world abandoned so ineffective a creed and turned to other laws [religions] likely to have more influence on human relationships. That, brutally, is the argument of the thinking world against the clergy of all nations who all claimed to be acting according to the justice of God and the spirit of Christ. It is a powerful argument, for the simple mind, rejecting casuistry, cuts straight to the appalling contrast between Christian profession and Christian practice, and says
    'Here, in this war, there was no conflict between one faith and another, but a murderous death-struggle between many nations holding the same faith, preaching the same Gospel, and claiming the same God as their protector. Let us seek some better truth than that hypocrisy! . . . " (p 441)

  • "I think the clergy of all nations, apart from a heroic and saintly few, subordinated their faith . . . to national limitations. They were patriots before they were priests, and their patriotism was sometimes as limited, as narrow, as fierce, and as blood-thirsty, as that of the people who looked to them for truth and light. They [clergy] were often fiercer, narrower, and more desirous of vengeance, than the soldiers who fought . . . whereas the Acchbishiop of Canterbury, the Archbishiop of Cologne, and the clergy who spoke from many pulpits, in many nations, under the Cross of Christ, still stoked up the fires of hate, and urged the armies to go on 442fighting 'in the cause of Justice,'   'for the defence of the Fatherland,'   'for Christian righteousness,'   to the bitter end" (pp 441-442)

  • "The entire aspect of the war was changed by the Russian Revolution . . . By this new revelation [of Communism] they [Russian troops] forgot their hatred of Germans. They said,
    'You are our brothers: we have no hatred against you. We do not want to kill you. Why should you kill us? We are all of us the slaves of blood-thirsty castes who use our flesh for their ambitions. Do not shoot, us, brothers, but join hands against the common tyranny which enslaves our peoples.'
    They [Russian troops] went forward with outstretched hands. . . . German soldiers gaped, wide-eyed at this new gospel [unpreached by their "Christian" clergy!], as it seemed, and said, 'They speak words of truth. Why should we kill each other?' The German War Lords ordered a forward movement [an attack], threatened their own men with death if they fraternized with Russians . . . But as [German General] Ludendorff has confessed, and as we now know from other evidence, many German soldiers were 'infected' with Bolshevism and lost their fighting spirit." (p 442)

  • "All the lives . . . will have been laid down in vain . . . if the agony they suffered is forgotten, and the 'war to end war' leads to preparations for new, more monstrous conflict. . . . if that is so, there is no God . . . with love for men" (p 455)

  • "Let us seek . . . God's truth. . . . Let us have peace" (p 455).
    For first hand statements by war participants and victims, see, e.g.,

  • NCO Raymond Gantter, Roll Me Over: An Infantryman's World War II (New York: Ballantine, Ivy, 1997). See, e.g., Chapter 3, § "December 16, Minerie," p 77, "Christmas Eve is a week from tomorrow. [See, e.g., "Christmas Truce 1" and 2.] I can't lift my spirits over that homely fact and I find myself getting very bitter about the whole thing in a melodramatic sort of way. As if the birth of a Jewish sage and poet-prophet nearly two thousand years ago is of any avail to us today! We pray to God, and our chaplains invoke the blessing of that deity and his anthropomorphic son upon us. Then, heartened by the certain knowledge that God is on our side, we gird up our khaki-clad and itching loins and go out to hunt Germans, who in turn wear emblazoned on their belt buckles the quaintly incongruous legend Gott Mit Uns! It's a wonderful world. If I possessed a little more ruthlessness or a little less conscience, I'd be a gangster or a politiican when I get home and a stuanch pillar of the Episcopal Church on the side."

  • Warren R. Jackson, His Time in Hell: A Texas Marine in France, George B. Clark, ed. (Ballantine, 2001)

  • Gunter K. Koschorrek, Blood Red Snow: the Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front (2005)

  • Svetlana Palmer and Sarah Wallis, Intimate Voices from the First World War (Wm Morrow & Co, 2004). Their voices from the grave show war's horros and demoralizing effects, and regrets of combatants.

  • See also the TV series The First World War: 1914-1918, based on the prolific writings of Professor Hew Strachan, e.g., The First World War, The Outbreak of The First World War, European Armies and the Conduct of the War, The First World War in Africa, Financing The First World War, Big Wars and Small Wars.
    For historiography, see Prof. Dwight E. Lee (Clark University), ed., The Outbreak of the First World War: Who Was Responsible? (Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1963).
    "The soldier does not wish to appear a coward, disloyal, or un-American. The situation has been so defined that he can see himself as patriotic, courageous, and manly only through compliance."--Prof. Stanley Milgram.
    15 May 2009: International Conscientious Objectors Day.
    See also

  • Upton Sinclair, Profits of Religion (1917), in § 3.2.

  • Edward Crankshaw, The Fall of the House of Habsburg (New York: Viking Press, 1963), citing the "divine right" notion, pp 50-51; the corrupt triple alliance of Army, Church and Nobility, p 10; and the ease of starting wars, p 405.

  • Calvin White, “Who's Taking Blame for Christian Violence?” (Toronto Star, 26 July 2005)

  • Charles Sullivan, “Christianity and the Demise of America” (1 Oct 2005).
    Real horrors of war are left unstated, understated, glossed over, and/or not reported until afterwards. Examples:

  • Mark Twain's War Prayer (March 1905)

  • Under Fire: The Story of a Squad by Henri Barbusse (1874-1935), transl by Fitzwater Wray (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1917)

  • Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front (1929) (Excerpts, Nationalism)

  • Graphic depiction of sending troops to their deaths, in The Dawn Patrol (1938)

  • Graphic depiction of 1943 naval warfare, Alistair MacLean, H. M. S. Ulysses (Britain: Wm. Collins & Sons & Co Ltd, 1955; U.S.: Doubleday & Co, 1956)

  • Graphic description of 1918 events is in John Toland, No Man's Land: 1918: The Last Year of the War

  • Pentagon "Survival Under Atomic Attack" Video (1950)

  • Graphic desciption of 1944-1945 war in the Pacific is in Marine Eugene B. Sledge, With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa (Random House, 1981) (Video: Horror in the Pacific)

  • "The Thin Red Line" (1998)

  • Richard Lloyd Parry, “Dissect them alive: chilling Imperial order that could not be disobeyed” (The Times, 26 February 2007)

  • Prof. John C. McManus, Ph.D., Grunts: Inside the American Combat Experience, World War II Through Iraq (Penguin Group NAL Caliber, 3 August 2010) ("the horrors . . . the closest you will get to experiencing actual infantry combat without getting shot at" -- excellent on "the horrors" but quite unaware of / superficial in citing war causation, thus from his desk recommends more of the same "horrors" to continue!)

  • “atrocities follow war as the jackal follows the wounded beast.”—Prof. John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), Chapter 1, p 12 (book has atrocities examples, machine-gunning prisoners, etc., pp 7, 10-12, 33-73, 141-142, 144, 182, 238, 261, 285-288, 300, 327, 330-331, and 349) Cf. the "mortal sin" concept. See also "Carson Soldiers Say Iraq Horrors Led to Crimes" (Associated Press, 27 July 2009).
    For a simulation of the 1914-1918 World War, click here. For a video overview (the first filmed war), see the beginning DVD's in the series The Century of Warfare (History Channel, 1993).

  • For realistic depiction of horrors of nuclear war, see, e.g., John R. Hersey, Hiroshima (1946) (Summary, Background, Context, Real Reason, Pictures, Video Reenactment), Video of the First Atomic Test, The War Game (BBC, 1965) (online excerpt) and Threads (BBC, 1984) (online excerpt). Re the Afghanistan War, see Reflections on the Human Cost of War. For fictionalized movies with some aspects of the miscalculations or horrors, see also, e.g., Failsafe (2000), On the Beach (1959), Dr. Strangelove (1964), and The Day After (1983).

  • For Iraq OIL reality video, click here.
    “When a mother gives birth to her child, she checks all fingers and toes to see if they're all there.” “And we [mothers] expect them [fingers and toes] to be there when they leave [die] here [not blasted away].”—Andrea Hackett (17 Feb 2007).

  • “[T]he doctrine of the offensive . . . died on a field . . . where at the end of the day nothing was visible but corpses strewn in rows and sprawled in the awkward attitudes of sudden death as if the place had been swept by a malignant hurricane. It was one of those lessons, a survivor realized afterward, 'by which God teaches the law to kings [nations],'” says Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: Bonanza Books, 1962), Chap. 13, p 233, quoting Fernand Engerand, La Bataille de la frontiere, Aout 1914: Briey (Paris: Brossard, 1920), p 473. The single battle of "Ypres was . . . the grave of four-fifths [80%] of the original [British Expeditionary Force] BEF," says Tuchman, p 438.

  • Karen Horst Cobb, “No Longer a Christian” (25 October 2004) (details).

  • For information on napalm use in Iraq, see "US uses banned weapon . . . but was Tony Blair told?," and "Fallujah Napalmed," by Paul Gilfeather (Sunday Mirror, 28 Nov 2004).
    For background information, see

  • Francis Neilson, M.P., How Diplomats Make War (1916)

  • Anthony Shadid, Night Draws Near: Iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War (Henry Holt & Co., Aug 2005).
    "Dr Anthony Storr notes that the majority of [people], given a can of petrol [gasoline] and told to pour it over a child of three and ignite it, will tend to disobey the order. Yet put the same decent men [people] in aircraft a few hundred feet above a town, and they will often be ready without compunction to inflict death or appalling pain on masses of men, women, and children. Distance has a disinhibiting effect. Moreover, as Dr Storr further points out, distance need not be physical; it may simply be psychological," says Bernard Wasserstein, D.Phil., D.Litt., Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945, 2d ed. (London: Leicester Univ Press, 1999), pp 320-321, citing Anthony Storr, Human Aggression (London, 1970), p 152. See also Storr's Human Destructiveness: The Roots of Genocide and Human Cruelty, 2d ed. (January 1991).

    For information on the 1920's British war vs. Iraq, see

  • Eric Margolis, "West Has Bloodied Hands" (Toronto Sun, 1 April 2007) ("the first high government official to authorize use of mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq [was] Winston Churchill")

  • Prof. Christopher Catherwood, Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq (New York: Carroll & Graf Pub, 2004). The book also covers oil issues (pp 34-35, 64-68, 78 etc.); politicians fancying selves as Bible experts vis-a-vis restoring Israel without awaiting the Messiah (pp 38-39); Christian orientation of the Ba'ath Party, to prevent (by coalition with secular politicians) Fundamentalist Islamics from persecuting Christians (p 60); Churchill's plan for gas bombing Iraqis (pp 85 and 186-187); Churchill's pro-appeasement activity (p 99), etc. See also analysis by Donald Chapman, "Following Churchill’s Folly In Iraq" (24 August 2007).
    For background on smoker Churchill's impaired psychiatric condition, see, e.g., Anthony Storr, Churchill's Black Dog, Kafka's Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind (Grove Press, January 1989).
    For background on the U.S. Empire, see, e.g.,

  • Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire (1836) that "echoed the fear of Americans, over a century ago, that all civilizations, our own included, must someday perish," and cited in Marshall B. Davidson,   "Whither the Course of Empire?," in American Heritage, Vol. viii, issue 6 (October 1957), pp 52-61, 104.

  • Major General and Senator Carl Schurz, Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League (18 October 1899)

  • John A. Hobson [1858-1940], Imperialism: A Study (New York, J. Pott & Co.; London: James Nisbet & Co, 1902) citing "a constantly growing tendency" of the wealthy "to use their political power as citizens of this State [nation] to interfere with the politicial conditions of those States [nations] where they have an industrial stake")

  • Prof Archer Butler Hulbert, L.H.D. (1873-1933), The Ohio River: A Course Of Empire (New York, London, GP Putnam's Sons, 1906) (Review by Frederic Austin Ogg, Am Historical Rev, Vol. 12, No. 3 [Apr. 1907], pp. 662-663)

  • Montgomery Schuyler [1843-1914], Westward The Course Of Empire (New York, London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1906)

  • Senator Richard F. Pettigrew (R-S.D.)   (1848 - 1926), The Course of Empire: An Official Record   (New York: Boni & Livwright, 1920)   (covers U.S. role in Cuba, the Phillippines, and Latin America; atrocities by the U.S. Army; and in Appendix VIII, "The Press," p 689, the immoral U.S. media that "sell their editorial columns for cash")

  • Senator Richard F. Pettigrew, Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920 (New York: Academy Press, 1922; reprinted as Imperial Washington: The Story of American Public Life from 1870-1920, New York: Arno Press, 1970) (on U.S. presidents' pro-empire policies)

  • Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972, "Pan-european" publicist and political figure), in Praktischer Idealismus ("Practical Idealism") (Vienna, 1925) ("Today democracy is a facade of plutocracy. Because the peoples will not tolerate naked plutocracy, power is nominally turned over to them, while real power rests in the hands of the plutocrats. In democracies, whether republican or monarchical, the statesmen are marionettes, and the capitalists are the wire pullers: they dictate the political guidelines, they control the voters by buying public opinion, through business and social connections [whereby they control] higher government officials . . . . The plutocracy of today is more powerful than the aristocracy of the past, because nothing stands above it except the state, which is its tool and helper." (Review)

  • Bernard Augustine De Voto (1897-1955), trilogy: The Year of Decision: 1846 (1943); Across the Wide Missouri (1947); Course of Empire (1952 reprinted, Mariner Books; September 1998)

  • Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War: 1890-1914 (New York: Macmillan Co, 1962), Chapter 3, “End of A Dream,” pp 117-167 (citing efforts by Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Samuel Gompers, Pres. Grover Cleveland, Speakers of the House Thomas B. Reed and Champ Clark, etc. to preserve the American democratic dream and keep the U.S. as a Republic for reasons including to avoid future wars (that empires typically lead to, cause, start, and/or provoke). But these advocates of keeping America a Republic were defeated by the pro-Empire coalition including Pres. William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Adm. Alfred T. Mahan, etc. See also Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "Three Who Made A War" (24 March 2014)).

  • Prof. William Appleman Williams, Ph.D., Roots of the Modern American Empire: A Study of the Growth and Shaping of a Social Consciousness in a Marketplace Society (1969)

  • Prof. William Appleman Williams, Ph.D., Empire as a Way of Life (1980)

  • Jonathan Kwitney, Endless Enemies (New York: Congdon and Weed, 1984) (cites U.S. foreign policy controlled by, e.g., economic interests as distinct from the public interest)

  • Robert Vincent Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of the American Empire, 1767-1821 (Harpercollins, April 1982, reprinted Johns Hopkins Univ Press, April 1998)

  • Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Against Empire (1995). Chapter 1, Video (Excerpt from “Myth of UnderDevelopment!")

  • Lawrence S. Kaplan, Thomas Jefferson: Westward the Course of Empire (Scholarly Resources Inc, November 1998)

  • Prof. Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000)

  • Doug Bandow, "Book Review of Blowback," 5 The Independent Review (Issue # 4, Spring 2001)

  • William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Common Courage Press, 2001 and 2002) (Review)

  • Scott Peterson, "In war, some facts less factual: Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious" (Christian Science Monitor, 6 September 2002) (exposes fabrications and disinformation to start the first Gulf War in early 1991)

  • Tom Chaffin, Pathfinder: John Charles Fremont and the Course of American Empire (Hill & Wang Pub, December 2002 and April 2004)

  • The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003) (documentary on the attempted coup in Venezuela in April 2002)

  • Interview with John Le Carré on his essay, "The United States of America Has Gone Mad" (2003)

  • Prof. Ward Churchill, Reflections on the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality (AK Press, 1 November 2003) ("sees September 11th as the chickens coming home to roost . . . With uncompromising clarity and resolve . . . a complete history of US military actions (1776 to the present) . . . illuminates the US' relationship with international law to present the . . . question, 'how could they not hate us?'")

  • Prof. Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (March 2004) (“Empires do not last, and their ends are usually unpleasant . . . .”)

  • Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Price of America's Empire (New York: Penguin Press, April 2004) (Reviews: By "Book Browse" and by "Natl Rev Book Svc")

  • Univ. of Wisc. Prof. Stanley Kutler, “Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire” (1 Dec 2004)

  • Profs. Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, The Dominion of War: Empire and Liberty in North America, 1500-2000 (New York: Viking, 2005) (on "the wars Americans have fought less to preserve liberty than to extend the power of the United States IN THE NAME OF liberty" and "and stresses the 'centrality' of imperial ambition to the development of the United States.") [HNN Review; PMHB Review; AHR Review.]

  • Douglas McWhirter, "The [Supposedly] Reluctant Hegemon," 14 Worth (#1) 50-51, 54-56 (January 2005)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush" (ICH, 29 January 2006), says "Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq." But: "Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information. . . . half of the American population is [mentally] unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts. . . . the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism." And: "The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government." Thus: "America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits."

  • Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?" (17 April 2006) (“A senior Pentagon adviser [said] 'This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,' he said. The danger, he said, was that 'it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.”)

  • James Bovard, "Killing in the Name of Democracy" (1 Sep 2006) (short history of U.S. Empire 1898 to present)

  • Larry Everest, Oil, Power and Empire (Common Courage Press, January 2003) (Excerpt; Review)

  • Chris Hedges, M.Th., What Every Person Should Know About War (9 June 2003) (has "a stark look at the effects of war on combatants" and "a grimly factual account of the true face of war--culled from 'medical, psychological, and military studies'--that America shies away from in favor of sanitized myths of glory and heroism")

  • Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State (Vance Publications, 1 January 2005) ("Christian enthusiasm for the state, its wars, and its politicians is an affront to the Saviour, contrary to Scripture, and a demonstration of the profound ignorance many Christians have of history.") The sycophantic clergy policy of defending politicians is notorious. For example, see this sycophant wording: "we [alleged Christians] have simply to do with the government in fact, and its acting head [politicians] as representing to us, however imperfectly in the civil sphere, the government of Christ. Our subjection [to politicians] takes the form of obeying the [politician] laws, paying taxes, lending our influence on the side of authority," and "Christians were really the greatest friends of [law and] order, and it was not only their interest but their recognized duty to occupy no doubtful position toward the Roman state [government]," say Very Rev. H. D. M. Spence, M.A., D.D., and Rev. Joseph S. Exell, M.A., eds., Vol. 22, The Pulpit Commentary, I Peter (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Pub Co, 1950), p 122. [Such demonized clergy were likewise sychophantic to slavery, to Hitler, and to torture].

  • Tom Hull, "Fred Anderson/Andrew Cayton: The Dominion of War: Comparing U.S. Wars in the Phillippines and Iraq" (16 Feb 2005)

  • Boston Univ. Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism (Oxford Univ Press, August 2006) (See also his The Islamic Way of War (The American Conservative, 11 Sep 2006).

  • Robert Harris, "Pirates of the Mediterranean" (New York Times, 30 September 2006) (history repeating itself on national over-reaction to terrorist incident)

  • Robert Fisk, Ph.D., "The Roman Empire is Falling - So It Turns to Iran and Syria" (Independent, UK, 7 December 2006) (Romans gave citizenship to conquered peoples; the US lacked such wisdom)

  • William Lind, "Boomerang Effect: When Will the First IED Strike Cleveland?" (, 9 December 2006) (creating new terrorists among US troops who'll attack America upon their return)

  • Phyllis Bennis and Danny Glover, Challenging Empire:   How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press, 2006)

  • Phyllis Bennis and Louise I. Gerdes, Rogue Nations (Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006)

  • John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Best War Ever (2006) (“Details how the Bush administration has aimed its propaganda not at a tactical deception of enemy combatants, but at the American people themselves. This violates long-standing and important American political traditions dating back to the Smith-Mundt Act, which was first passed by Congress in 1948 after lawmakers saw the harm that propaganda had done during Hitler's reign in Germany.”)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, “Attacking Iran: What’s In It For Bush?” (17 January 2007) (in connection with stealing Election 2008).

  • Issandr El Amrani, “The New Saddam” (25 January 2007) (Bush's SADDAM Policy: Sunni Arab-Dominated Dictatorships Against the Mullahs)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “More Deception from the War Criminal” (25 January 2007) (“Bush hides the neoconservative agenda behind 'the war on terror,' which essentially is a hoax. The main purpose of the neoconservatives’ 'war on terror' it to eliminate any effective Muslim opposition to Israel’s theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. To silence Muslim opposition to Israel’s theft of Arab lands, the US must eliminate or intimidate Middle Eastern governments that are not under US control—Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah which governs southern Lebanon.”)

  • Mike Whitney, “Why the Surge will push us into a War with Iran” (3 February 2007) (“the surge is ethnic cleansing” and includes “deliberate attack on Iraqi intellectuals and academics.”   “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks will be blamed on the Iranians. There will be some clashes, collisions, and the war expands.”)

  • Prof. Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis - The Last Days of the American Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 6 February 2007) (Interview 1; 2;   Review)   ("The long-awaited final volume of Chalmers Johnson's bestselling Blowback trilogy confronts the overreaching of the American empire and the threat it poses to the republic In his prophetic book Blowback, Chalmers Johnson linked the CIA's clandestine activities abroad to disaster at home. In The Sorrows of Empire, he explored the ways in which the growth of American militarism and the garrisoning of the planet have jeopardized our stability. Now, in Nemesis, he shows how imperial overstretch is undermining the republic itself, both economically and politically. Delving into new areas - from plans to militarize outer space to Constitution-breaking presidential activities at home and the devastating corruption of a toothless Congress - Nemesis offers a striking description of the trap into which the dreams of America's leaders have taken us. Drawing comparisons to empires past, Johnson explores in vivid detail just what the unintended consequences of our dependence on a permanent war economy are likely to be. What does it mean when a nation's main intelligence organization becomes the president's secret army? Or when the globe's sole "hyperpower," no longer capable of paying for the vaulting ambitions of its leaders, becomes the greatest hyper-debtor of all times? In his stunning conclusion, Johnson suggests that financial bankruptcy could herald the breakdown of constitutional government in America - a crisis that may ultimately prove to be the only path to a renewed nation.") (More Reviews:
  • "Chalmers Johnson, a patriot who pulls no punches, has emerged as our most prescient critic of American empire and its pretensions. Nemesis is his fiercest book--and his best."--Andrew J. Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism."
  • Nemesis, the final volume in the remarkable Blowback trilogy, completes a true patriot's anguished and devastating critique of the militarism that threatens to destroy the United States from within. In detail and with unflinching candor, Chalmers Johnson decries the discrepancies between what America professes to be and what it has actually become--a global empire of military bases and operations; a secret government increasingly characterized by covert activities, enormous 'black' budgets, and near dictatorial executive power; a misguided republic that has betrayed its noblest ideals and most basic founding principals in pursuit of disastrously conceived notions of security, stability, and progress." --John Dower, author of Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II
  • "Chalmers Johnson's voice has never been more urgently needed, and in Nemesis it rings with eloquence, clarity, and truth."--James Carroll, author of House of War
    "Nemesis is a stimulating, sweeping study in which Johnson asks a most profound strategic question: Can we maintain the global dominance we now regard as our natural right? His answer is chilling. You do not have to agree with everything Johnson says--I don't--but if you agree with even half of his policy critiques, you will still slam the book down on the table, swearing, 'We have to change this!'" --Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
    "Nemesis is a five-alarm warning about flaming militarism, burning imperial attitudes, secret armies, and executive arrogance that has torched and consumed the Constitution and brought the American Republic to death's door. Johnson shares a simple, liberating, and healing path back to worthy republicanism. But the frightening and heart-breaking details contained in Nemesis suggest that the goddess of retribution will not be so easily satisfied before 'the right order of things' is restored."--Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
    "Last fall a treasonous Congress gave the president license to kidnap, torture--you name it--on an imperial scale. All of us, citizens and non-citizens alike, are fair game. Kudos for not being silent, Chalmers, and for completing your revealing trilogy with undaunted courage."--Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)")
  • John V. Walsh, “It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War: Republicans Show the Way: Filibuster to End the War Now!” (8 February 2007)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “The World Can Halt Bush’s Crimes By Dumping the Dollar” (12 February 2007)

  • Chris Hedges, M.Th., on “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America” (19 February 2007) (Interview)

  • Kimberly Hefling, “AP: War Losses Mount for Small Towns” (20 February 2007) (“On a per capita basis, states with mostly rural populations have suffered the highest fatalities in Iraq. Vermont, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Louisiana and Oregon top the list, the AP found. . . . Diminished opportunities are one factor in higher military enlistment rates in rural areas.”

  • Stephen Lendman, “The President's Private Army: A Review of Chalmers Johnson's Nemesis" (2 March 2007) ("Our present crisis isn't just from our military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's from growing international anger and revulsion that America is no longer trusted with a president showing contempt for the law including our treaty obligations Article 6 of the Constitution says are the 'supreme Law of the Land.'”)

  • Anthony Arnove, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal (2007) (Review, 12 March 2007) (on millions of deaths caused by empire-building, and media role in cover-ups)

  • Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Video, 28 March 2007) ("Retired CIA agent, Scheuer argues that the greatest danger for Americans confronting the radical Islamist threat is to believe—at the urging of US leaders—that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. He contends that a rapidly growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific US policies and their military, political, and economic implications. Al Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Scheuer suggests that unless US leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, US actions in the Muslim world will only continue to empower Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.")

  • Lydia Georgi, "Saudi King Slams Illegitimate Occupation of Iraq" (Agence France Presse, 28 March 2007)

  • Barry Lando, "A fake British map? More on the Captured Brits" (28 March 2007) (faking the border between Iran and Iraq)

  • "Iraq policy 'spawned new terror'" (BBC, 11 April 2007) ("The British and US policy towards Iraq has 'spawned new terror in the region' . . . had tried to 'keep the lid on' problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes.")

  • Ray McGovern, "For His Dunk, Tenet Deserves Slam" (30 April 2007) “So, it is better that the ‘slam dunk’ [remark] referred to the ease with which the war could be sold?")

  • "A retired British Army general says the US and allies should "admit defeat" (Telegraph; and XXX The Gulf Daily News Newspaper (#45) Friday, 4 May 2007)

  • Prof. David Michael Green, “One Day You're Gonna Wake Up, America” (4 May 2007) (“One day you're gonna wake up in a hostile world where your country no longer has any friends. There will be governments of other countries—former long-standing allies—that cannot afford to have anything to do with you, lest their publics angrily remove them from office for collaborating with a country as hated as yours. Nor will those governments trust yours anyway. . . . Your country will have become an international pariah.”)

  • Diane Farsetta, "War vs. Democracy: Untold Stories from the Lynch / Tillman Hearing" (PR, 11 May 2007) (on military falsifying information including witness statements)

  • Robert Shetterly, “The Moral Obligation to Lose The War” (12 May 2007)

  • Prof. Chalmers Johnson, “Evil Empire: Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?” (17 May 2007)

  • Patrick J. Buchanan, “But who was right - Rudy or Ron?” (18 May 2007) (“Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out. What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do? Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was [1] U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, [2] U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and [3] U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.”)

    The 30-part movie series Zero Degree Turn (Iran, Hungary, France and Lebanon, 2007) covers Iranian diplomatic help to Jews during the Holocaust. The movie series “is based on a true story of diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape.”   Re the series shown in Iran starting in April 2007, “government media produced the series and is airing it on state-run television.”   “The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image . . . and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials [and educated people everywhere, e.g., Rev. George Cheever] often make—that their conflict is with Israel [a political entity], not with the Jewish people.”   Source: Associated Press, Nasser Karim, in The Detroit News, “Iran shows sympathy for plight of Jews,” page 6A, 17 September 2007, and “Iran launches Holocaust miniseries,” Jerusalem Post, 16 September 2007.

  • Arash Norouzi, “'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century” (26 May 2007) (what was really said was: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” Translation: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

    Context: “As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated.”

    The Distortion: “Yet we [Americans, etc.] are [falsely] led to believe that Iran's president threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map,' despite never having uttered the words 'map,'   'wipe out'   or even [the word] 'Israel.'”

    Claims that he denies the Holocaust are also a fraud. What he is denying instead is that the Palestinians committed a holocaust! He denies that the Palestinians committed it!
    Well, duh! Of course! The Nazis did it! But his point is that Palestianians are the ones being punished! being forced off their land!
    That punishment of the innocent Palestinians is what Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is objecting to, and denying has legal basis. He opposes the the myth (claim) that because Germans in Europe murdered Jews, non-Germans a thousand miles away in Palestine should give Jews a nation contrary to the divinely imposed Exile / Diaspora.

    The distortion disregards Iran's anti-war policy: “We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.”)   See also "Why is Gordon Brown Repeating a Mistranslation?" (23 July 2008) ("Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [Ph.D.] never called for Israel 'to be wiped off the map'. This has been confirmed by many Iranian language experts. That the mainstream media have repeated and echoed the original mistranslation from 2005 attests to their bias and hidden [pro-war] agenda.")

  • David Sirota, "The Innocent Bystander Fable" (Monday, 28 May 2007) ("The Innocent Bystander Fable teaches that every politician in America except the President of the United States has absolutely no power at all to stop or even slow down the escalation of the war in Iraq . . . ." and refuting the allegation that "Democrats 'lack the votes' to do anything other than write President Bush a blank check, making no mention of the fact that if they did nothing at all and didn't pass any bill, they would have taken a major step toward ending the war . . . ")

  • James Rothenberg and Otto Hinckelmann, “Why Being 'Worst President Ever' Is Not Enough ” (6 June 2007) ("Bush administration officials responsible for Iraq (incidentally all surviving) repeatedly and dramatically represented Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States. This was a great lie. Ample proof exists of this, most famously (though not here in the States) the Downing Street Memos. The invasion took place without UN authorization (illegally according to Kofi Annan) and therefore was an outright act of aggression, the “supreme international crime,” the crime for which the Nazi defendants were condemned. We have a modern version of the Nuremberg Tribunal, called the International Criminal Court. . . . If a war crime was committed, it is elementary that those that aid and abet this crime are also war criminals. This includes the Congress when it repeatedly funds the operations which are criminal. It also includes the soldiers who carry out the orders of the war criminals. . . . .”)

  • Marjorie Cohn, “No Unlawful Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo” (7 June 2007)

  • Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Untold Story" (August 2007) (on a little known result, the extermination of its Christian community)

  • Stacy Bannerman, "America’s Military Kids Are Latest Collateral Damage" (6 August 2007) ("The children of the troops serving in Iraq are experiencing significant collateral damage at home, according to two staggering new reports on the occurrence of child maltreatment, neglect, and abuse during combat-related deployments.")

  • 1,000,985 Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq” (9 August 2007) For current data and equivalency in U.S. terms, see below:
    Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "More War on the Horizon" (23 August 2007) ("America's hegemonic hubris is a sickness. A country that tolerates a war criminal while he openly plans to attack yet another country is definitely not a light unto the world.")

  • Chris Hedges, M.Th., "The Next Quagmire" (, 3 September 2007) ("The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran.")

  • Patrick Buchanan, "Phase III of Bush's War" (5 September 2007) (on Bush's plan to attack Iran next).

  • Lindsay Renick Mayer, "The Other Iraq Surge" (Capital Eye, 13 September 2007) ("A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats suggests the Republican commander-in-chief and his party are losing the troops' support. . . . Donations May Be a Way to Protest, While Still Following Orders") (See also 26 October 2007 analysis, infra.)

  • "The disgraced ABC consultant and the push for war in Iran" (15 September 2007) (If journalist Alexis Debat fakes news stories to promote war, as he is "a leading source in pounding the drumbeat for war in Iran," the question arises: Is he "a lone wolf . . . promoting himself. Or he is acting . . . as a conduit, spreading occasional disinformation at the behest of others"?)

  • Clive Boustred, "Department of Veterans Affairs Reports 73 Thousand U.S. Gulf War Deaths" (22 September 2007) (See VA site).

  • Podhoretz Granted Secret Access To Lobby Bush On ‘The Case For Bombing Iran’" (24 September 2007) (“Norman Podhoretz, the 'patriarch of neoconservatism,' recently published a book entitled “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” staunchly supporting the Iraq war and pushing for war with Iran. . . . Podhoretz has argued that 'if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will . . . we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.'” See also

  • "The New American Century" which documents the rise to power of the Neoconservative National Movement (NEOCONs) and their Project for an American Century (PNAC). Their plans for global domination and the required increase in military spending would require, in their own words, a catalyzing event along the lines of a new Pearl Harbor. The events of 9/11 were, to the NEOCONs, a dream come true" [or made to do so].

  • "This is no Pearl Harbor," by Robert Novak (13 September 2001) ("Security experts and airline officials agree privately that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners was an 'inside job,' probably indicating complicity beyond malfeasance."

  • "The Painful Truth and lies behind 9/11" and "Loose Change, 2d ed" (2006), elaborating this point, in engineering, architectural, and similar scientific vein.

  • "CIA Asset Susan Lindauer's book Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq: The Ultimate Conspiracy to Silence Truth (Lexington, KY: CreateSpace, 10 Oct 2010).
  • Linda S. Heard, "Let's try partitioning the US" (GulfNews, 1 Oct 2007) (Reaction to Senate vote to partition Iraq, as senators "think they have the right to do in Iraq. Surely if such [policy] is good enough for [Iraq], it's equally appropriate for the [U.S.]." Sarcastically: "How about a vote on the break-up of America? How about giving California back to Mexico, returning Hawaii to its indigenous islanders and Alaska to the Eskimos and Indians? Let's restrict Caucasians to the East and West coasts, and package-up a few states in between for African Americans and Latinos. And while we're about it, let's invite foreign conglomerates to buy up the country's oil, gas and timber."

  • Scott Ritter, "The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’" (8 October 2007) ("Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection. . . . the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd.")

  • Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, "How the Military Can Stop an Iran Attack" (The Nation, 10 October 2007).

  • Frank Rich, "The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us" (14 October 2007) (on Bush use of Gestapo “Verschärfte Vernehmung" torture techniques)

  • Fr. Andrew Greeley, "Will We Fall For War Vs. Iran?" (Chicago Sun-Times, 17 October 2007)

  • Prof. Francis A. Boyle (Law, Univ of Illinois), Protesting Power: War, Resistance and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Inc., 2007)

  • Prof. Maurice Isserman, "The Flower in the Gun Barrel" (The Chronicle Review, 19 October 2007) (incident of the anti-Vietnam War protest)

  • Timothy Gatto, "What the Media Won't Tell You: The Military is Supporting Anti-War candidates" (26 October 2007) ("the next time that some redneck or neo-con tells you that supporting [an anti-war candidate] is “Not supporting the Troops”, you tell them that the troops themselves are supporting these candidates.") (See also 13 September 2007 analysis, supra.)

  • Penny Coleman, "Veterans' Suicides: a Hidden Cost of Bush's Wars (AlterNet, 11 November 2007) ("suicide rate among solders that has now reached a 26-year record high [reminiscent of the] virtual epidemic of veteran suicides that followed the war in Vietnam")

  • Archbishop of Canterbury Williams, "Iraq and Afghanistan violated just war theory, says Williams" (11 November 2007) ("the Western-backed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . failed to conform to the principles of 'just war' theory and brought great suffering.")

  • "120 US war veteran suicides a week" (Herald Sun, 15 November 2007) ("The US military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week . . . an average of 17 a day")

  • Gideon Polya, Ph.D., "Top US Lawyer And UNICEF Data Reveal Afghan Genocide" (8 February 2008) ("6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths")

  • William Blum, "Why Didn't They Know That the Iraq War Was a Mistake From the Start?" ("Was it faulty information?") (5 March 2008)

  • General William Odom, "Tells Senate Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution" (2 April 2008)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D.,"Petraeus Testimony Next Week Will Signal Iran Attack"(5 April 2008)

  • Pat Flynn, "Irish Anti-War Activist Refused Entry Into The United States" (The Limerick Leader [Ireland], 9 April 2008) (citing US troops as "gunmen . . . allowed . . . to kill people in the Middle East”)

  • Robert Fox, "Cheney cold-shouldered: Dick Cheney's belligerence and aggressive anti-Iran rhetoric is driving Arab nations into the arms of Russia" (Guardian (UK) 12 April 2008)

  • Richard Norton-Taylor, "Top Bush Aides Pushed for Guantánamo Torture: Senior Officials Bypassed Army Chief to Introduce Interrogation Methods" (The Guardian, 19 April 2008) ("In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, reveals that: Senior Bush administration figures pushed through previously outlawed measures with the aid of inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo." See also “Crossing The Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert.)

  • David Barstow, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand” (The New York Times, 20 April 2008)

  • Ray McGovern, "What About the War, Benedict?” (23 April 2008)

  • Mick Meaney, “‘Western Leaders Are War Criminals’" (26 April 2008) ("The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has echoed calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Speaking at Imperial College in London, Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, singled out US President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australia’s former prime minister John Howard”)

  • Prof. Chalmers Johnson, “The Pentagon Strangles Our Economy: Why the U.S. Has Gone Broke” (Le Monde diplomatique, 26 April 2008) (Background)

  • Andrew Wimmer, “Obliterate Them!” (26 April 2008) (“Sixty years ago, as Europe lay in the ruins of war, Albert Camus was invited to the Dominican monastery in Latour-Maubourg. 'What does the world expect of Christians?' the friars wanted to know. 'What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today.' German theologian and political activist Dorothee Soelle put it simply, 'The truth is concrete.' In 1948 at Latour-Maubourg, the Dominicans told Camus that the Catholic church had in fact spoken out, but that the arcane language of papal encyclicals had obscured the message. The Vatican had indeed signaled its condemnations, but by necessity through diplomatic indirection.”)

  • Gareth Porter, Ph.D., "Yes, the Pentagon did want to hit Iran" (Asia Times, 7 May 2008) (U.S. plan to hit six nations, i.e., Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia)

  • Vincent Bugliosi, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" (10 May 2008) (Review 1, and 2, due to the illegality of the War of Aggression Against Iraq)

  • Jim Lobe, "School Military Recruiting Could Violate International Protocol" (Inter Press Service, 14 May 2008) (on military targeting youth below legal age. documented in "Soldiers of Misfortune")

  • Ray McGovern, "Attack Iran: Trash the Constitution" (20 May 2008) ("Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief.") See also the video, "Crimes Against Peace: Was The U.S. Invasion Of Iraq Legal or Illegal Under International Law."

  • "China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo" (2 July 2008) ("Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.")

  • "War crime suit filed against Israelis" (23 July 2008) ("The [defendant] list includes former Israel's war minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, his former military advisor Michael Herzog, former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon, and former air force commander Dan Halutz, Ma'an News Agency reported on Tuesday [22 July 2008].")

  • June Mayer, The Dark Side (2008)

  • Prof. James Petras, "The New York Times: Making Nuclear Extermination Respectable" (30 July 2008) (rebutting "calls for the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians and the contamination of the better part of a billion people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe" re which the author "is utterly, starkly and clinically insane" in "his [anti-Iranian] genocidal ravings." "Unlike the Nazi past, we cannot claim, as the good Germans did, that 'we did not know' or 'we weren't notified', because it was written by an eminent Israeli academic and was published in the New York Times.")

  • Fr. Andrew Greeley, "America's Leaders Violated One of the Commandments" (30 July 2008) (Review of June Mayer's book The Dark Side: "June Mayer's carefully documented book The Dark Side demonstrates beyond doubt that the president, the vice president, the director of the CIA and their closest aides are war criminals. They violated international law, they violated American law, and they violated natural law.")

  • Prof. Howard Zinn, "A People's History of American Empire" (and Video, 28 March 2008)

  • Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D. The Post-American World (W. W. Norton & Co, 2008) (Review: “we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.” "America remains a politico-military superpower, but “in every other dimension — industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance.”)

  • Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, and Brian Ross, "President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan" (ABC News, 2 December 2009) ("With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.")

  • Ray McGovern, “Iran a Threat? I Mean, Really?” (, 27 April 2010) (“five years ago, a previous DIA director told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until 'early in the next decade' — this decade. Now, we're early in that decade and Iran's nuclear timetable, if you assume it does intend to build a bomb, has been pushed back to the middle of this decade. Indeed, the Iranians have been about five years away from a nuclear weapon for several decades now, according to periodic intelligence estimates. They just never seem to get much closer. But there's no trace of embarrassment among U.S. policymakers or any notice of this slipping timetable by the FCM.”)

  • Thomas Engelhardt, "The War Addicts: 2016 and Then Some" (Thursday, 30 September 2010) (on "Bob Woodward's new book Obama’s Wars, a vivid account of the way the U.S. high command boxed the Commander-in-Chief into the smallest of Afghan corners")
    An example of the militarism attitude is from Prussia (the catalyst for modern Germany).
    “. . . what is Prussia? The Prussian monarchy is the creation of war. Its history, its traditions, its ideals are simply those of war. It is the sole European kingdom which has been built up, province by province, on the battlefield, cemented stone by stone in blood. Its kings have been soldiers: sometimes generals, sometimes . . . drill-sergeants, but ever soldiers. The whole state organization from top to bottom is military. Its people are a drilled nation of soldiers on furlough: its sovereign [Kaiser Wilhelm I] is simply commander-in-chief; its aristocracy are simply officers of the staff; its capital is a camp [armed city]. Nowhere in Europe—not even in Russia—has the military tradition and ideal been sustained in so unbroken a chain.

    Prussia . . . has been the only European state organized on a military basis as completely as any state of antiquity. . . . Prussia in a distorted way is the Rome of modern Europe—a brave and energetic race giving their whole [nation] to war, and steadily conquering their neighbors. . . .

    It seems necessary now again to repeat old truisms—that the slaughter of mankind is horrible in itself, that the trade [military service] of slaughtering mankind is a horrible one, that the morality of the slaughterer of mankind [soldiers] is necessarily a low one. . . . But now . . . war is to be rehabilitated. The military becomes the normal form of life. Our civil life is to be recast. Every citizen is to be a soldier. Every civilian talks of guns, and shells, and formations. . . .

    The one great public question [media issue] is the recasting of our military system. . . . Our literature is the picturesque recounting of the battle or the seige. And thus we are falling back in morality a century. The military becomes the true type of human society; some pitiless strategist [general] is a hero; some unscrupulous conspirator is a statesman; and the nation which is the best drilled and the best armed in Europe is to go to the van [forefront] of modern civilization [as though an example to follow!] Brutalizing and senseless creed!” Source: Fredrich Harrison, “Bismarckism,” Fortnightly Review (London: December 1870), pp 634-635, 640 (i.e., written during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870).

    ". . . the United States, for generations, has sustained two parallel but opposed states of mind about military atrocities and human rights: one of U.S. benevolence, generally held by the public, and the other of ends-justify-the-means brutality sponsored by counterinsurgency specialists. Normally the specialists carry out their actions in remote locations with little notice in the national press. That allows the public to sustain its faith in a just America, while hard-nosed security and economic interests are still protected in secret."--Robert Parry, investigative reporter and author. (See also Stephen Kinzer's analysis, infra.)
    “To include all that is designated as atheism, it is necessary to distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. Theoretical atheism, is the denial, in principle, that there is a god. . . . Practical atheism, on the contrary, is not limited to the intelligentsia, but represents the working [life-style] philosophy of large numbers of men [people]. Practical atheism is the denial, in practice [life-style], that there is a god [with laws]. For such a philosophy, the question of the existence of God [His laws] is irrelevant to the meaning of life and the decisions of human existence,” says “Atheism," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2 (1963), p 667. Said another way: "The greatest source of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."
    “Practical atheism does not deny God, but life is lived as if there is no God. There is complete indifference to His claims, and often there is outspoken and defiant wickedness (Psalm 14:1). This form of atheism is widely prevalent,” says David Horton, Ed., The Portable Seminary (Bloomington MN: Bethany House, 2006), § Atheism, p 410. “Hebrew has no equivalent word for athieism. In the Old Testament the form of atheism that one encounters is practical atheism—human conduct carried out without consideration of God (Psalm 10:4; 14:1; 53:1; cf. Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 2:13, 17-18; 5:12; 18:13-15).” p 409.
    In short: “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him. . . .” Titus 1:15.
    The opposite position is that the person “will not need to be forced by law to [right living] but will himself come running in a hurry . . . constrained within himself . . . [such] people will then come of themselves [internalized, inner-motivated, to right living] without your using compulsion,” says Martin Luther, Th.D., in Luther's Preface to the Small Catechism (1529).
    This must be emphasized, repeated: Said another way: "The greatest source of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
    Such pro-war “Christians” and politicians are in reality “practical atheists,” denying relevance of God's laws in human existence, everyday life-style (e.g., God's anti-war principles and commandments). See 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 for background on such "Christians."
    See also concerning "just war" theory, the analysis by Prof. John Howard Yoder, Th.D. (1927-1997), When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking (Augsburg 1984) (summary from The Christian Century, 13 March 1991, pp. 295-298, and citing politicians telling contradictory versions simultaneously so as to appease different groups, thus refuting the various criteria supposedly enabling analyses re "just wars").
    As troops are put in “mortal sin” situations, rape, murder, torture and other atrocities (sins) are foreseeable results. See for example,

  • Ruth Rosen, “A Wave of Sexual Terrorism In Iraq" (, 14 July 2006)

  • Chris Floyd, “Home Free: American Power in Mahmudiyah" (17 July 2006) (on troops following leaders' immoral example)

  • Susan Van Haitsma, “The Ground Truth: Iraq War Veterans Speak Out” (19 September 2006) (shows drill instructors dehumanizing recruits as training to dehumanize others. Has first-hand accounts from soldiers. Reveals the ways their training to "Kill, kill" leads them to target Iraqi civilians)

  • New Zealand Herald, “Iraqi captive died with 93 injuries” (20 September 2006) (cites captives as beaten with iron bars, kicked, starved, and forced to drink their own urine as part of the abuse process)

  • Before You Enlist! 15 Minute Video” (20 September 2006) (has straight talk from soldiers, veterans and their family members, tells what is missing from sales pitches by recruiters and military marketing efforts)

  • Pauline Jelinek, “Army suicides highest in 26 years” (Associated Press, 15 August 2007) (“Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years . . . a rate of 17.3 per 100,000 — the highest in the past 26 years, the report said. The average rate over those years has been 12.3 per 100,000”).

  • Marilyn Marchione, AP Medical Writer, " Thousands of GIs cope with brain damage" (9 September 2007).
  • “The debate here isn't only how to protect the country. It's how to protect our values.”     “If cruelty [torture] is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America--even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles.”—Alberto J. Mora, former Navy General Counsel, in The New Yorker, "The Memo" (27 February 2006).
    “How we burned [thought] in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs [houses, apartments], paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, not withstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine [arrest system] would have ground to a halt.”—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), Chapter 1, pp 3-18, especially p 13 (book on soviet-era concentration camps).
    “It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way.”—Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University, in Interview on ABC's Nightline.
    “The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”—Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Prime Minister of England (21 November 1943).

    What Happened to Spain?: A Warning
    Spain took upon itself to be the policeman of the world. What happened to Spain? It had had all those treasure ships of gold and silver from the New World, riches without limit! Answer: Spain regularly had to send “urgent appeals to. . . send [ever more] gold and silver which would then be spent on absurd European wars which never seemed to end,” says Fernando Diaz-Plaja, History of Spain, in the series Concise History of Great Nations, General Editor: Otto Zierer (New York: Leon Amiel Pub, 1977), p 33.
    “The gold and silver provided by the Americas was all consumed by the never-ending wars . . . Since the money was urgently needed before the ships arrived with their precious cargo, the [government] had to borrow from . . . bankers in order to finance armies, munitions and warships; then, when the galleons arrived, repayment had to be made at high rates of interest. On 47many occasions, the agents of . . . banks simply took possession of the convoys as they arrived in Seville. In this way, countless shipments of treasure passed though Spain without leaving a trace, whereas this wealth could well have been used for [other, useful, purposes],” pp 46-47.
    Spain was bankrupt by 1547 (a mere half century after the riches began pouring in after Columbus, 1492!! And re-bankrupt in 1597!!)
    In short, the government was

  • spending money faster than the taxpayers, etc., could send in to the government!

  • borrowing and increasing the national debt at a high rate.
    “Empires do not last, and their ends are usually unpleasant,” says Prof. Johnson, supra.
    War and funding historically are interconnected. Bonds, inflation, debased currency, hyperinflation, national debt, increased taxes, increased or centralized banking controls, all have been linked to wars.

  • Ancient Persia issued coins to finance its wars vs. Ancient Greece. Persia lost. Soon Alexander the Great used their captured riches to pay for his own war of aggression into Asia. The cost of Alexander's armies was half a ton of silver a day.

  • To pay for the Roman wars vs. Ancient Carthage, Rome debased its currency, and came to suffer so much inflation, it defenses against barbarian attacks were weakened.

  • The Anglo-Saxons used debased coins to hire mercenaries. This had a role in helping William the Conqueror launch the Norman Invasion.

  • Great Britains borrowed heavily to fight Napoleon. The American Colonies used paper money and hyperinflation to win the Revolution, almost bankrupting themselves in the process. "Continental" paper money became so debased, worthless, they dropped in value to 1/1,000th of their original face value.

  • During the U.S. Civil War, the South used paper money, Confederate dollars. The North too used paper, greenbacks and $853 million in war bonds.

  • The 1914-1918 World War meant Great Britain had to borrow the biggest loan in banking history.

  • The 1939-1945 World War II increased U.S. National Debt, rocketing it from $16 billion to over $260 billion. "The military ratchet is the most important single influence in raising prices and reducing the value of money in the past 1,000 years, and for most of that time, debasement was the most common, but not the only, way of strengthening the 'sinews of war,'" says Glyn Davies, A History of Money, p. 646. (Davies is a World War II veteran and economist).

  • Bottom line: First war, then financing crises, including weaker currencies, soaring prices, and reduction in personal wealth, on a massive scale.
  • Preventive Wars: Not A Record of Success:
    But Rather: Often Unexpected Results
    1. The Confederacy in South Carolina in 1861, started a "preventive war" to prevent the incoming Lincoln Administration from halting the expansion of slavery. Result: The Lincoln Government not only halted slavery from expanding, it stopped it altogether! This was the opposite result from what the war-starters had had in mind!
    2. France began a "preventive war" in 1870 to prevent injury to the French Emperor's prestige, and to prevent the many disunited German independent entities from unifying and growing. Result: The various German states defeated France. The disunited states united under one state, Prussia! as an Empire! The unity meeting was held at Versailles, France (to make the point)! The now suddenly unified Germany grew. Germany built a Navy. Germany took part of France, annexed eastern France, Alsace-Lorraine! The French Emperor (Napoleon III) was overthrown, the French Emperor system itself was abolished, France became a Republic! (Napoleon had started that war. See details by Charles Sumner, Lecture (1870), pp 243, 266-267, 274-277. Napoleon got opposite results of what he intended!)
    3. The 1914-1918 World War was started, to prevent

  • the decline of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, and Russian Empire monarchies and dynasties,

  • including their decline as "Great Powers," a nd

  • to prevent the decline of the British Empire!

    It was specifically to be a tiny localized war by Austria-Hungary to prevent the small Balkan nation of Serbia from threatening the existence of Austria-Hungary (Serbia was supposedly involved in assassination of the AH Archduke Ferdinand). The 1914-1918 World War was alleged by politicians to be the “war to end (prevent) all wars"! [“The way of peace they know not!"—Isaiah 59:8.]

    Result: The war expanded, was not purely local! The first three monarchies and dynasties not only lost prestige, they were abolished entirely! One monarch (Russia's Nicholas II) was shot dead, the two others (Wilhelm II and Charles I) were run out, abdicated, fled!

    All three nations that started the war to promote monarchy and dynasties, ceased being monarchies at all! Austria-Hungary ceased to be a "Great Power," under one monarch. Austria and Hungary became two distinct republics! (This was essentially a total win for Serbia!) Thinking of Austria-Hungary as a "Great Power" is now a joke! Germany and Russia are neither monarchies, nor "Great Powers." Britain no longer has an Empire! The U.S.A. is the only meaningful "Great Power" left! Wars have not been prevented, ended!

    4. The 1939-1945 World War was begun in 1939 to prevent Western democracies from stopping the expansion of the dictatorships of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism in Europe, and of Japan throughout Asia, including ruling much of China. Result: All three dictatorships have ceased to exist! Italy lost its Fascist government, so did Germany. Japan lost its Emperor-government, became more like the without the events of 1898 U.S.! Japan does not rule Asia! lost all its acquisitions! China became independent, got rid of its anti-Communist government, became itself Communist, rules itself, and dwarfs Japan!
    5. The Vietnam War began in the 1960's to prevent Vietnam from unifying as one country under long-time nationalist activists such as Ho Chi Minh, who'd written Vietnam's "Declaration of Independence" paralleling that of the U.S. Result: Vietnam was taken over by Ho Chi Minh's victorious nationalist supporters, and is now unified as one country. (See PBS series as depicted).
    Not good odds — 5-0 ! 'Preventive war' does not necessarily have the effects hoped for! In fact, such wars can expand greatly from being purely local (can become a World War!), can boomerang, can expand, can bring results extremely different than planned or expected!
    Will soon be 6-0 as the U.S. is losing the Iraq War, see Prof. Gabriel Kolko, "The US Will Lose War Regardless What it Does" (10 September 2007).
    And re U.S. Empire wars, see the review on Prof. Chalmers Johnson's Nemesis entitled "Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?" (24 March 2007).
  • False Reasons Re U.S. Wars
    WarPretextReal Truth
    War of 1812Impressment of Northern sailorsSouthern purpose, to damage North's shipping, economy
    War vs MexicoPer pre-conceived plan of aggression, President Polk lied, said Mexico attacked U.S. on U.S. soilU.S. troops had crossed into, invaded, Mexican territory (Lincoln raised this issue)
    Civil War 1861-5Southern President Davis lied, alleged States' RightsSlavery was the real reason, Southern clergy protracted it
    Spanish-American War, 1898President McKinley lied, said Spain refused U.S. demands; his real motive was to develop the U.S. Empire, conquer Cuba, Philippines, etc.Spain had agreed to all but immediate capitulation (and see Mark Twain's War Prayer and Battle Hymn of the Republic, protesting the U.S. aggression against Spain)
    Phippine War, 1899-1902McKinley-Roosevelt lied, pretended attacking the Philippine people (killing 200,000+), to force them into the U.S. Empire, not to teach them democracy! (which they already knew)
    World War I, 1917-1918President Wilson lied, blamed German sinking of peaceful ship LusitaniaLusitania was carrying tons of weaponry, explosives
    Vietnam War 1955-1974Pres. Eisenhower started it, Pres. Johnson lied, said N. Vietnam shot at U.S. shipsNo such incident occurred; French Pres. Charles De Gaulle called it a"detestable war, since it leads a great nation to ravage a small one"
    Operation Iraqi LiberationPresident Bush alleged to promote 'freedom,' link to 9-11, and extreme danger of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction to rationalize "pre-emptive" war9-11 link is dubious; No WMD existed, nor were any found; intelligence services had forecast this result; real war reason was economic, for oil and pro-Israel; and with war crimes

    Re the U.S. aggression against the people of the Philippines, "Our men . . . have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of 10 up. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to "make them talk," and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later. . . stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses."--Philadelphia Ledger newspaper in 1901, from its Manila [Philippines] correspondent during the US war with Spain for the control of the Philippines.

    "Listen to Senator Thurston, of Nebraska. He said, 'War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce.' In other words, war was to be promoted as a commercial venture. They were outspoken in those days [1898]; they said what they meant. In the time of the World War [1917-1918] the munitions makers and moneylenders were more subtle; they declared that we should go to war to make the world safe for democracy. It is refreshing to know that the warmakers of 1898 were frank about it. They wanted to take Spain's possessions away from her simply because they were strong enough to do it, and because 'it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce.' Senator Thurston was not alone in advocating war. There were Henry Cabot Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt and many other men of influence who were as war-mad as Thurston," says W. E. Woodward, A New American History (New York: Garden City Pub Co, 1936), Part IV, § 5, pp 687-688.

    Note that "the United States . . . cannot withdraw from the consequences of having entered them [the Philippine Islands] in the beginning. . . . it is likely that without the events of 1898 [U.S. aggression] the United States and Japan might never have had the confrontation that led to Pearl Harbor. America's involvement in Asia grows instead of shrinks, in labyrinthine ways that appear to have no exits. These, too, have their origins in a time [1898] when a war was splendid, when [Pres. Wm.] McKinley walked the floor in the White House, and was [he said] told personally by God that he should annex the Philippines." Source: Ralph K. Andrist, "On the making of splendid little wars, and of how God spoke to William McKinley about taking an empire in the Orient without fully explaining the consequences," in The Nineties (New York: American Heritage, 1967) pp 117-119, at 119. See also "The Road to War - JAPAN" (Video).

    To learn the cost of Operation Iraqi Liberation in your community, click here.

    See also

  • America’s Blinders” by Prof. Howard Zinn (The Progressive, 20 March 2006)

  • History of US Wars

  • Civil Religion

  • Al Franken, The Truth (New York: Dutton, 2005), Chapter 14, pp 285-287, citing the "Defense Science Board Report" (September 2004).

  • Richard Maybury, “Why do they hate us? and, How do we end the war?” (2006).

  • Eugene Robinson, "We the Paranoid (Washington Post, 5 December 2007) ("So why do we increasingly find ourselves hunkered behind walls, popping pills by the handful to stave off diseases we might never contract and eyeing the rest of the world with an us-or-them suspicion that borders on the pathological? . . . We're afraid of one another, we're afraid of the rest of the world, we're afraid of getting sick, we're afraid of dying [and may] turn the whole nation into one big, paranoid gated community . . . .")

  • Peter Chamberlin, "The Planned Collapse of USA" (Online Journal, 9 December 2007) ("The government has known for decades that America is on a countdown to self-destruction. Among the elite it is common knowledge that our "global economy" must one day collapse from its own dead weight. In 1974 an intensive research project was undertaken by the Stanford Research Institute and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for the Dept. of Education. Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. . . . The research revealed that there were a multitude of crises that were about to intersect in America's near future. Not the least of these converging catastrophes was a rapidly approaching breakdown of both American capitalism and democracy. . . . A system based on usury and putting everyone in the 'poor house' is an economic order that is guaranteed to produce a democratic revolution.")

  • Philip Giraldi, "CIA Torture and other War Crimes" (16 December 2007) ("Looking for war crimes committed by members of the Bush administration is a complicated exercise because there are so many to go around. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come immediately to mind. The Nuremburg Tribunals at the end of the Second World War defined an aggressive war against another country if that country has not attacked you first or threatened to do so as 'essentially an evil initiate a war of not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing  only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.")

  • Sherwood Ross, "Ridding America of the Warmongers" (1 January 2010) (One "way to strengthen 'people power' is to re-enfranchise the 5.3 million citizens 'still barred from the polling stations because of some prior conviction,' writes Greg Palast in 'Armed Madhouse' (Plume). 'The Right to Vote campaign is fighting this Soviet-style loss of citizenship. Notably, lifetime loss of citizenship is imposed by only seven states of the Old Confederacy under laws originally created at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan.'")

    Note that “In American folklore the myth of 'the most peace-loving nation in the world' still exists. But the fact is that American history is not only concurrent with the annals of American arms, but is as firmly woven into it as a strand of hemp in a rope,” says Robert Leckie, The Wars of America (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp 11-12. And “the birth of . . . the . . . colonies in the New World was simultaneous with the birth of modern warfare.”   “That there is an aggressive, expansionist, militaristic side to the American character can hardly be denied,” Foreword, p xii. And, “understand . . . our own nation as perhaps the fightingest society since the advent of modern warfare,” Preface, p xvi.

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in this article, “Annan says Iraq war was illegal” (15 September 2004), says “it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” This was repeating what he had said 10 March 2003. A Dutch inquiry later confirmed his analysis, see Afua Hirsch, "Iraq invasion violated international law, Dutch inquiry finds" (The Guardian, UK, 13 January 2010).

    "Bishop Botean states that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory." Bishop John Michael Botean is author of Rejection of the War Against the People of Iraq (7 March 2003).

    There were no WMDs in Iraq. None of the three teams (by Ritter, Blix, and Kay) found anything that could have justified the fabrication for war in Iraq. Scott Ritter, former chief of UNSCOM inspection team for years in Iraq, said that the US Government KNEW for unequivocally and for certain by 1996 that Iraq had no WMD. He explained that with their professional experience on the ground, and their search and destroy teams that had destroyed more than 95% of all materials known to exist by 1993 or 1994, and that the remaining 5% was inert and of no value — in his words — because those components had limited shelf life, by 2002 there were no WMDs in Iraq. The WMD story was a fraud, a scam, a PRETEXT for pre-emptive war and global domination, as the aggressors had envisioned and pre-planned back in the early 1990s.

    Pres. George Bush admits an oil motive in the US - Iraq War. He says a motive is to prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists. Source: “Bush gives new reason for Iraq war,” by Jennifer Loven, Associated Press, New York Times and Boston Globe (1 September 2005). (See context above).

    In the book, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Times Books: 2006), Stephen Kinzer tracks the U.S. having overthrown many different governments, for Big Business reasons, while pretending different reasons to the public. See review and list of countries attacked by the US: Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Chile, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama. (See also Robert Parry's analysis, supra.) This books' information parallels data from U.S. State Department whistleblower William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995).

  • See also Naomi Klein's bestselling book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Henry Holt and Co., 2007), citing the violent and murderous overthrow arranged by the U.S. under Richard Nixon of the 160 year old democratic country of Chile on 11 September 1973. And see related video.

    See also the data by

  • Prof. Robert Elias, “Terrorism and American Foreign Policy” (25 September 2001), on US policy and practice of undeclared wars, use of weapons of mass destruction, use of chemical and biological weapons, election abuses, torture, supporting and harboring terrorists, assassinations. Note the similarity of US reaction when 'payback' or 'blowback' results, like that of Germans' reaction when for it too, the 'chickens come home to roost,' 'reap as sow,' etc. See also George Galloway, M.P., Background Video, 29 September 2005), and Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., The Terrorism Trap (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2002) ("a richly informed, powerfully argued, well written analysis of the deeper causes and meaning of September 11. Michael Parenti dissects the religious, political, and economic forces behind the attacks, putting them in proper historical perspective, which includes an understanding of Afghanistan's hidden history. He answers such questions as: why did September 11 happen? who is to be blamed? who is taking advantage of the crisis? who is hurt by all the ensuing events? And why do they hate us? He sees the religious terrorism of today as related to a longstanding religious tradition of violence as well as being a reaction to a US-led globalization process that has impoverished and angered much of the world.")

  • Prof. Marjorie Cohn, "Navy Judge Finds War Protest Reasonable" (Truthout, Friday, 13 May 2005). This is a correct decision in view of data that the "Iraq invasion violated international law, Dutch inquiry finds" (The Guardian, UK, 13 January 2010).

  • Reese Erlich, "The Difference Between a Terrorist and Someone Who Flies a Plane Into a Building" (10 March 2010)

  • U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture as Amnesty report blasts 'war crimes'” (Friday, 28 April 2006)

  • Jonathan Turley, "Pride in His Work: Rove Publicly Rejoices in the Use of Torture" (BBC, 12 March 2010)

  • Andrew Sullivan, "Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld Knew They Were Innocent" (12 April 2010) ("Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff, is the man putting the record straight. . . . . Another part of the . . . dilemma originated in the Office of Vice President Richard B. Cheney, whose position could be summed up as 'the end justifies the means', and who had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were innocent, or that there was a lack of any useable evidence for the great majority of them. If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.")

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “Is the Bush Regime a Sponsor of State Terrorism?: The Evil Within" (29 May 2006) (A powerful case can be made that it is, as in the past three years the Bush Regime has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Afghan ones).

  • Prof. Marjorie Cohn, “First Officer Publicly Resists War" (Truthout, Thursday, 8 June 2006)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “War Criminal Nation" (9 June 2006)

  • Prof. Francis A Boyle, “The Middle East Agenda: Oil, Dollar Hegemony & Islam: Perdana Global Peace Forum 2006” (22 June 2006) (gives history of U.S. wars)

  • Charles J. Hanley, “Journalists besieged over Iraq, terror news” (Associated Press, 2 July 2006) (on governments censoring and prosecuting honest journalists)

    For additional background, see also

  • War Against Iran, April 2006: Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292,” by Prof. Jorge Hirsch (1 April 2006)

  • US Strike on Iran Could Make Iraq Look Like a Warm-Up Bout,” by Tim Harper (Toronto Star, 15 April 2006)

  • "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?: An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad," by Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann, transl. by Erik Appleby (19 April 2006) (More)

  • "Ahmadinejad: Lost in translation," by Mary Cutter (Peace Palestine, 5 May 2006; and Seoul Times, 19 June 2006)

  • Full Text: The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush (Translation, 9 May 2006)

  • "Lost in translation," by Jonathan Steele (The Guardian, 14 June 2006). Says: "Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks."

  • "Was the Invasion of Iraq A Jewish Conspiracy?," Tikkun Magazine (July/August 2006) (Answer: No, refutes this anti-semitic claim, and instead shows Big Oil's actual role)

  • Anders Strindberg, "Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon" (Christian Science Monitor, 1 August 2006)

  • Mike Wallace, Interview with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (8 August 2006) (again making the point that since the Holocaust was in Germany, amends should be made there, not in a geographic area, Palestine, thousands of miles away).

  • Dan Glaister, "Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon' " (The Guardian, 14 August 2006)

  • Michel Chossudovsky, "The Next Phase of the Middle East War" (Global Research, 4 September 2006) (the Lebanon attack was part of a pre-planned series for next stage of war, war against other Middle East nations, e.g., Syria)

  • Daya Gamage, "14th Non-Aligned Summit Reflects Growing Disappointment Of Rich Nations: Summit Opens in Cuba" (Asian Tribune, 15 September 2006) ("preparing a draft declaration supporting Iran, and . . . seeking to enlarge the definition of terrorism to include both the US occupation in Iraq and recent Israeli actions in Lebanon")

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran” (6 June 2006) (“Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers “issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent.” Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again. There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that 'some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out.' What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney [pushing for war vs. Iran] again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.”)

  • Phyllis Bennis, "Afghanistan: This War Won't Work" (Common Dreams, 25 January 2010)

  • Bernard Weiner, "Mr. Obama: Tear Down This War!" (11 May 2010)

  • William Rivers Pitt, "Out of Iraq? Don't Hold Your Breath" (t r u t h o u t, 14 May 2010)

  • Prof. William Quigley, J.D., "Number One in War: No End in Sight" (Counterpunch, 24 May 2010) ("the US is much closer to permanent war than permanent peace. Corporations are profiting from wars and lobbying politicians for more. . . . No doubt, the USA is number one in war. This coming year the US will spend 708 billion dollars on war and another $125 billion for Veterans Affairs – over $830 billion. In a distant second place is China which spent about $84 billion on its military in 2008. The US also leads the world in the sale of lethal weapons to others, selling about one of every three weapons worldwide. The USA’s major clients? South Korea, Israel and United Arab Emirates. Our country has 5 percent of the world’s population but accounts for more than 40% of the military spending for the whole world. . . . Since 2001, the US has spent over $6 trillion (a trillion is a million millions) on war and preparations for war. That is about $20,000 for every woman, man and child in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost the US taxpayer over a trillion dollars since 2001.")

  • John Pilger, "The War You Don't See" (United Kingdom, 2010) ("Documentary-maker John Pilger has returned to a subject that can't be revived often enough: the grotesque untruth of "weapons of mass destruction": a cloudy concept, eagerly amplified and lent credibility by credulous and submissive journalists who, after 9/11, lost their nerve en masse. Pilger's contention is that on Afghanistan, on Iraq and on Israel and the Palestinian territories, the mainstream media simply take the official line. The force of his film is in its contention that the colossal scale of civilian casualties is, within the grammar of news, downgraded in importance so that it doesn't figure as news at all, but as all-but-invisible deep background to be ignored." See also Interview.)

  • Sara Robinson, "The True Cost of Freedom -- Progressives, Sacrifice, and Civilization" (Our Future, 31 May 2010) ("I was taught that 'freedom isn't free' is shorthand for the whole social contract that enables our democracy to function, and our civilization to deepen and grow. And the obligation to make those sacrifices falls on every single one of us. They're not optional; they're the basic tribute owed to the past and the future by every adult American. And those old civics teachers made it clear that we wouldn't be political grown-ups in their eyes until we did.")

  • Rev. S. R. Shearer, "Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange: Hunted by the U.S. Government " (28 November 2010) ["A secularist whose courage to speak out against the wickedness of the American Empire puts Christians to shame . . . The Bible calls this nation BABYLON THE GREAT (Rev. 14:8,   16:19,   17:5,   18:2,   18:19,   18:21)"]

  • Gareth Porter, Ph.D., "From Military-Industrial Complex to Permanent War State" (17 January 2011) ("Fifty years after Dwight D. Eisenhower's January 17, 1961 speech on the 'military-industrial complex', that threat has morphed into a far more powerful and sinister force than Eisenhower could have imagined. It has become a 'Permanent War State', with the power to keep the United States at war continuously for the indefinite future.")

  • Prof. Juan R. I. Cole, Ph.D., "Labor movement drives Egypt, Tunisia protests" (Detroit News, 10 February 2011), pp 1B and 3B.

  • John Nichols, "America's Not Broke, Wisconsin's Not Broke; We're Just Wasting Money on War" (18 March 2011)

  • Elizabeth Schulte, "Assassination nation" (9 May 2011) ("it used to be that when the United States carried out its imperial assassinations, it did so in the shadows, covertly using CIA-trained proxies. NOT ANY MORE! Today, America assassinates its enemies in the OPEN and celebrates its "hit men" as heroes: all this indicates the distance down which the United States has traveled; and more than that, it indicates the degree to which the American public has been transformed into MONSTERS in precisely the same way Germans were transformed into cruel fiends in the 1930s and 1940s.")

  • "Gitmo - A documentary on Guantanamo Bay Cuba" (20 May 2011) ("portrays how, after two years in this American made hell on earth, many men might become unbalanced, void of hope and trust in God. This was stated purpose of Gitmo, to produce hopelessness that would cause men to talk. How better to create a killer than to confine him years in that place where torture became the American way. America creating this incidents by manufacturing enemies, as Israel does every day." See also "Mehdi Ghezali")

  • Cynthia McKinney, Anti-War vs Libya Activities (May - August 2011)

  • Gareth Porter, Ph.D., "The Lies That Sold Obama's Escalation in Afghanistan" (Truthout, 6 July 2011) ("Defense Secretary Robert Gates advanced the official justification for escalation: the Afghan Taliban would not abandon its ties with al-Qaeda unless forced to do so by US military force . . . Even in comparison with the usual lies that justify wars, this one was a whopper. Gates was deliberately ignoring the serious political split that had become apparent in 2008 between Mullah Omar, the spiritual and political leader of the Taliban, and the leadership of al-Qaeda over fundamental issues of strategy and ideology. . . . The story of the lies that took the Obama administration into a bigger war in Afghanistan shows that those lies have structural, systemic roots. The political dynamics surrounding the making of war policies are so completely dominated by the vested interests of the heads of the Pentagon, the military, and other national security bureaucracies that the outcome of the process must be based on a systematic body of lies. Only by depriving those institutions of their power can Americans have a military policy based on the truth.")

  • Ray McGovern, "They Died in Vain; Deal With It" (8 August 2011) ("Many of those preaching at American church services Sunday extolled as ?heroes? the 30 American and 8 Afghan troops killed Saturday west of Kabul, when a helicopter on a night mission crashed, apparently after taking fire from Taliban forces. This week, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) can be expected to beat a steady drumbeat of 'they shall not have died in vain.' But they did. I know it is a hard truth, but they did die in vain. As in the past, churches across the country will keep praising the fallen troops for protecting 'our way of life' . . . In sum, by and large, American preachers are afraid to tell the truth. They lack the virtue that Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] taught is the foundation of all virtue -- courage. Aquinas wrote (to translate into the vernacular) that all other virtue is specious if you have no guts.")

  • Philip P. Kapusta, Blood Guilt: Christian Responses to America's War on Terror (New Covenant Press, 11 September 2011) (This book "takes a reflective look back at America's War on Terror, and does so from a Christian perspective. "Blood Guilt" recounts a decade of Christian involvement in America's first "war" of the twenty-first century. With virtually all American troops scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of the year, many people are questioning whether the sacrifice was worth the cost in lives and resources. The author, however, asks a different, but more important question -- one with spiritual significance: Why is it that those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are the staunchest advocates of war than any other demographic group in America? According to a 2003 Gallup poll, church-going Americans were more likely to support a war against Saddam Hussein than Americans with no faith. Mahatma Gandhi once observed, "The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as non-violent are Christians." "Blood Guilt" examines why this is so. The book provides an answer as to why Christians have, for the most part, "lost their saltiness" when it comes to their witness against war (Luke 14:34-35).)

  • Gareth Porter, Ph.D., "How McChrystal and Petraeus Built an Indiscriminate "Killing Machine" (Truthout, 26 September 2011) ("Two senior US commanders freely admitted to The Washington Post's Dana Priest and William Arkin that they had not targeted the right home or individual on more than "about 50 percent" of the raids. Given the tendency of commanders to overrate the success of their operations, that admission further underlines the vast human cost of the uncontrolled violence carried out by [U.S. Army] units in Afghanistan.")

  • "Why Did They Kill Muammar Gaddafi/" (26 October 2011) (provides background on the social justice projects in Libya under Gadhafi). See also his plan to replace the dollar with gold dinars, and his ability to travel safelywithout having a bubble top, no fear of his own people, he was safe, he waved, people waved back! This safety and lack of fear of his own people is quite different than the fearful, secretive, high-security traveling methods of leaders in other nations. See also "Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim" (30 September 2012) ("He is said to have infiltrated a violent mob . . . and shot him in the head. The motive . . . was to stop Gaddafi being interrogated about his highly suspicious links with Sarkozy, who was President of France at the time.").

  • "Gaddafi Family to File War Crimes Complaint" (26 October 2011) ("Marcel Ceccaldi, a French lawyer who previously worked for Gaddafi's regime and now represents his family, told AFP that a complaint would be filed with the Hague-based ICC because NATO's attack on the convoy led directly to his death. 'The wilful killing (of someone protected by the Geneva Convention) is defined as a war crime by Article 8 of the ICC's Rome Statute,'" he said.")

  • William Blum, "It doesn't matter to them [anti-Gaddafiists] if it's untrue" (1 November 2011) ("this tragedy was the culmination of a series of falsehoods spread by the Libyan rebels, the Western powers, and Qatar . . . In fact, it appears rather likely that a majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi. How else could the government have held off the most powerful military forces in the world for more than seven months? . . . . under Gaddafi health care and education were completely free.")

  • Glenn Greenwald, "Middle East Propaganda 101" (1 November 2011) "New York Times readers were told, the U.S. must increase its military presence still further in that region because . . . it is Iran (which has no military bases in countries bordering the U.S. or fleets stationed off its coast) that is “belligerent” and poses a “threat.” "When it comes to American propaganda about the Middle East, this New York Times article" is an example. The real truth is, "The U.S. has Iran completely encircled."

  • Rev. S. R. Shearer, "Why Israel May Attack Iran" (10 November 2011) ("Israel is planning to attack Iran in the not too distant future, and it is doing so largely at the behest of the American elites, and not so much because they fear a nuclear armed Iran. . . that's [merely] the excuse Israel is giving. . . . because the elites in America know perfectly well that war is now the only way for them to extricate themselves from the wrath of what they see as 'the mob' - which is to say, the gathering revolt of the 'little people' against their greed and avarice.")

  • "Unmasking the Illusion - Drones on Trial" (20 November 2011) (on religious anti-war activists "refusing to be complicit with the immoral and illegal assassinations and killings committed by the USAF and other US government agencies."

  • "Bush, Blair Found Guilty of War Crimes" (23 November 2011)   ("A War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia has found former US President [sic] George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of war crimes for their roles in the Iraq war, Press TV reports. The five-panel Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal decided that Bush and Blair committed genocide and crimes against humanity by leading the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a Press TV correspondent reported on Tuesday. The Malaysian tribunal judges ruled that the decision to wage war against Iraq by the two former heads of government was a flagrant abuse of law and an act of aggression that led to large-scale massacres of the Iraqi people. . . . In their ruling, the tribunal judges also stated that the US, under the leadership of Bush, fabricated documents to make it appear that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, the world later learned that the former Iraqi regime did not possess WMDs and that the US and British leaders knew this all along. Over one million Iraqis were killed during the invasion, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.")

  • Seymour Hersh, "Propaganda Used Ahead of Iraq War Is Now Being Reused over Iran’s Nuke Program" (24 November 2011)   ("longtime investigative journalist Seymour Hersh questions the growing consensus on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. International pressure has been mounting on Iran since the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency revealed in a report the "possible military dimensions" to Iran’s nuclear activities, citing "credible" evidence that "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In his latest article for The New Yorker blog, titled "Iran and the IAEA," Hersh argues the recent report is a "political document," not a scientific study. "They [JSOC] found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization," Hersh says. "In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact.")

  • John Pilger, "The World War on Democracy, and how the US secured (stole) Diego Garcia" (19 January 2012) ("When the American soldiers arrived . . . they backed their big trucks against the brick shed where . . . hundreds of our dogs had been rounded up and imprisoned there. Then they gassed them through tubes from the trucks’ exhausts. You could hear them crying.")

  • BBC, "WikiLeaks: The Secret Life of a Superpower" (21 March 2012)

  • Hon. George Galloway, M.P. (Britain), "On Syria" (5 April 2012) (hypocrisy of the West vs. Syria is behind the Western invasion of Syria)

  • Rev. S. R. Shearer, "The Greek Crisis and the Inevitable American Military Intervention" (19 May 2012) (Greece's situation is "a depression brought on NOT by the so-called profligacy of the Greek people, as the American and European financial elites want people to believe, but by the greed and avarice of Wall Street.")

  • Marilyn Marchione, "Iraq, Afghanistan Veterans Filing For Disability Benefits At Historic Rate" (Monday, 27 May 2012) ("America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen. A staggering 45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now seeking compensation for injuries they say are service-related. That is more than double the estimate of 21 percent who filed such claims after the Gulf War in the early 1990s, top government officials told The Associated Press. What's more, these new veterans are claiming eight to nine ailments on average, and the most recent ones over the last year are claiming 11 to 14. By comparison, Vietnam veterans are currently receiving compensation for fewer than four, on average, and those from World War II and Korea, just two. . . . These new veterans are seeking a level of help the government [George Bush] did not anticipate, and for which there is no special fund set aside to pay. . . . '"You just can't keep sending people into war five, six or seven times and expect that they're going to come home just fine.'")

  • Rep. Ron Paul, "Congressman Ron Paul's Speech Against Iran Sanctions" (House of Representatives, Video, 1 August 2012) (Contrast with the militaristic attitude: "I came here to shoot your parents, your friends, and your relatives. After that you will be free."

  • Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, "Anglo-American 1957 Secret Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President: Déjà Vu?" (Global Research, 7 August 2012) ("[in 1957] Britain and America sought a secretive 'regime change' in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures. Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours")

  • Robert Fisk, Ph.D., "Syria's 'Rebel Army? They're a Gang of Foreigners'" (Thursday, 23 August 2012) (Recruited by Britain and the US to attack Syrians, they've been told they are in Palestine fighting Israelis!)

  • Ellen Brown, "The Myth That Japan Is Broke: The World's Largest "Debtor" Is Now the World's Largest Creditor" (Saturday, 8 September 2012) ("The Japanese government's debt is the people's money. They own each other, and they collectively reap the benefits.")

  • Lizzie Phelan, Background on Death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya: Chickens Coming Home to Roost (Wednesday, 12 September 2012) ("[1] The first thing that comes to mind about the murder of the US Ambassador and his three staff in Benghazi, Libya today is the irony. Indeed this is the man who served as envoy to the rebels/mercenaries during the illegal NATO proxy war against the legitimate government headed by Muammar Gaddafi of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah. His life has been taken by what he helped give birth to, and indeed this is what Gaddafi and other former officials warned the west about time and time again, but it is hard to believe that the west were so naive as to not foresee this and so it seems clear that they were willing to pay this price.       [2] The second thing that stands out is the somewhat mild response of the US, in comparison to say if an act much less grave than this was carried out on one of their embassies in places like Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, or in any other country that unlike today's Libya, the government is not its product. While the US may expect events like this, it is nonetheless embarrassing and comes as close as one can get to the loss of western troops in their theatres of conflict that they have so deviously sought to avoid, not in small part because of the unease it creates with populations at home who can stomach their government's wars more readily when it is exclusively brown people and people of the south who are losing blood on behalf of the NATO powers.       [3] Finally, since February last year, the extent to which NATO's mercenaries have been destroying and desecrating the country's infrastructural and historical and religous architectural wealth has been well documented, and this has only intensified over the last few months, including the bulldozing of a mosque in broad daylight in Tripoli at the end of last month. It is hard to escape the irony of these Salafist groups killing US officials in response to a blasphemous Islamophobic film released in the US, when they themselves have been busy destroying a Muslim country and sites that are dear to many Muslims."

  • "No Shame" (New York Times, 14 October 2012) ("The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. . . . Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.")

  • Nick Hopkins, "Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran" (The Guardian, Thursday, 25 October 2012) (" Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law. . . . They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general's office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent 'a clear and present threat'. Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states. 'The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran,' said a senior Whitehall source. 'It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans.'")

  • "The Julian Assange Story" (TEN, 2012)

  • Paul Mason, "The real Greek parallel with Weimar" (BBC, 26 October 2012)   (on the Greek Nazi / Religious Right coalition activities including attacking performances of movies or plays they disagree with. That happened in Germany, and is now occurring in Greece: "After the first-night disruption of The Silver Lake in Leipzig this is how its director, Douglas Sirk, described the scene at the theatre:     'The sturmabteilung filled a fairly large part of the theatre and there was a vast crowd of Nazi Party people outside with banners and god knows what, yelling and all the rest of it. But the majority of the public loved the play… And so I thought at first, well, things are going to be tough but perhaps it isn't impossible to overcome…[But] no play, no song, could stop this gruesome trend towards inhumanity.' (quoted in Kurt Weill On Stage, by Foster Hirsch).     And this is how the director of Corpus Christi, Laertis Vasiliou, whose play was once again disrupted by far right demonstrators in Athens on Thursday night, described it in a message to me just now: 'We went ahead with the performance, which started with two hours of delay because of the fight outside the theatre between the police against the Christian fundamentalists and the Nazis. It was like hell. The noise from outside was clear inside the theatre during the performance. People were beaten up by Nazis and Christian fanatics.'") (See also "Alarm at Greek police 'collusion' with far-right" (17 October 2012)).

  • Patrick Watson, "Secret NSA Deals Cast Doubt on All US Stocks" (3 July 2013) ("The company whose shares you own may be lying to you — while Uncle Sam looks the other way. . . . Foreign companies are already using their non-American status as a competitive advantage. Some plan to redesign networks specifically to bypass U.S. companies. By yielding to the NSA [bullying allowed by aiding and abetting U.S. courts], U.S. companies likely broke laws elsewhere. They could face penalties and lose significant revenue. Right or wrong, their decisions could well have damaged the business. Securities lawyers call this "materially adverse information" and companies are required to disclose it. But they are not. Only chief executives and a handful of technical people know when companies cooperate with the NSA. If the CEO can't even tell his own board members he has placed the company at risk, you can bet it won't be in the annual report.")

  • "Obama Warned on Syrian Intel" (6 September 2013) (citing that the chemical attack was not by Syria, but instead, that there is "a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.")

  • "Catholic Bishops Say No Bombs on Syria" (8 September 2013) (Catholic Bishop Richard Pate, Chair, U.S. Catholic Bishops Committee on Justice and Peace, gives a straight up NO to War, message to the U.S. government, 'don't add fuel to the fire, with U.S. bombs in Syria!')

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "Putin Steps Into World Leadership Role" (12 September 2013) ("The destabilization of other countries is precisely the main aim of Washington’s wars in the Middle East. Washington intends for radicalization of Muslims to spread strife into the Muslim populations of Russia and China. Washington’s propaganda machine will then turn these terrorists into “freedom fighters against oppressive Russian and Chinese governments,” and use Human Rights Watch and other organizations that Washington has penetrated and corrupted to denounce Russia and China for committing war crimes against freedom fighters. No doubt, chemical weapons attacks will be orchestrated, just as they have been in Syria.")

  • Gary Leupp, "Chemical Weapons: A Quiz" (21 September 2013) (Sample question: "An international conference in 1899 produced the Hague Treaty, which bans the use of projectiles containing poison gas in warfare. Only one country's representative dissented. What country was this?"

  • Sabir Shah, “US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to cost $6 trillion" (The News, 19 September 2013) (“ Remember, when President George Bush’s National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Lindsey, had told the country’s largest newspaper “The Wall Street Journal” that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, he had found himself under intense fire from his colleagues in the administration who claimed that this was a gross overestimation. Consequently, Lawrence Lindsey was forced to resign. It is also imperative to recall that the Bush administration had claimed at the very outset that the Iraq war would finance itself out of Iraqi oil revenues, but Washington DC had instead ended up borrowing some $2 trillion to finance the two wars, the bulk of it from foreign lenders. . . . According to the report, the US 'has already paid $260 billion in interest on the war debt,' and future interest payments would amount to trillions of dollars. . . . The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid.. . . Another major share of the long-term costs of the wars comes from paying off trillions of dollars in debt incurred as the US government failed to include their cost in annual budgets and simultaneously implemented sweeping tax cuts for the rich. . . . the legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would dominate future federal budgets for decades to come. . . . the largest expenditures on health care for World War II veterans took place in the 1980s, roughly four decades after the war, and that spending on medical care and disability payments for Vietnam War veterans was still on the rise.”)

  • Greg Palast, "The Golden Dawn Murder Case: Larry Summers and the New Fascism"   (Monday, 7 October 2013) ("Fascism, as defined since the days of Il Duce, is the official combine of government and big business. By that definition, Golden Dawn is the only non-Fascist party among Greece’s top four. And that is why Golden Dawn has been targeted for elimination.")

  • Radwan Mortada, "Al-Qaeda’s New Orders: Avoid Killing Christians and Shia" (10 October 2013) ("Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri . . . emir of the international organization . . . called to avoid killing Shia, Christians, Hindus, and Sufis.")

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., Has Russia Invaded Ukraine?   Propaganda Rules The News" (Wednesday, 5 March 2014) ("Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia’s help."   "Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington."   It is purely "Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea."   Indeed, Russian troops were INVITED by the Ukraine President.)

  • Nicolas J. S. Davies, "35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists" (8 March 2014) ["from A (Argentina) to Z (Zaire)"]

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., Crimea Election Background (17 March 2014) (massive voter turnout, refusing to be intimidated by U.S. / E.U. pressure)

  • Vladimir Putin, "Putin's Speech" (The Kremlin, 18 March 2014) (accepting and supporting the Crimean people's vote, and giving historical context)

  • Sharon Tennison, "Russia Report: Putin" (21 April 2014)

  • "Putin Says US Backed A Coup D'état In Ukraine" (24 May 2014) (Video and Transcript: "The West supported anti-constitutional coup d'état, not just by giving away cookies, but by giving political support, support in the media, using all sorts of tools. And are you blaming us?")

  • The Saker, "The Conflict in the Ukraine as Seen by a Professional Soldier" (24 May 2014) ("If you only knew the reality of combat you would never even whisper the word 'war', you would hang your politicians from the nearest lamp post at the first beat of the war drums.")

  • Prof. James Petras, "The Ascent of a New Power Bloc: Capitalists, Technocrats and Fanatics" (26 May 2014)   (on "the world-wide advance of a new power bloc which promises to impose a New World Order harnessing ethno-religious fanaticism and narrowly trained technocrats to capitalist absolutism. The far-right is no longer at the margins of western political discourse. It is center-stage.")

  • National Security Archive, "U.S. Covert Intervention in Chile: Planning to Block Allende Began Long before September 1970 Election" (History News Network, 28 May 2014)   (on U.S. Backed Coup in Chile: "Kissinger said we should present to the President an action plan to prevent [the Chilean Congress from ratifying] an Allende victory and noted that the President may decide to move even if we do not recommend it.")

  • Ray McGovern, "Premature US Victory-Dancing on Ukraine" (Consortium News, 28 May 2014)   ("The U.S.-backed ouster of elected President Viktor Yanukovych presented Russia's leaders with what they saw as a last-straw-type deceit by the U.S. and its craven satellites in the European Union.")

  • Paul Craig Roberts. Ph.D., “The Lies Grow More Audacious” (6 June 2014) (“The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943 [in the process of defeating the invading] Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months. By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up.”) (Note that most Americans are deliberately kept ignorant of such matters. See "agnotology," "the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt," "deliberate production of ignorance.")

  • Justin Raimondo, June 09, 2014, “Taliban Prisoner Swap: A Fact-Free Controversy: Who needs facts when we have our emotions?” (9 June 2014)   (“None of these statements [by Senator John McCain] are even remotely true: and, what’s more, the Senator surely has access to information directly contradicting his assertions. So either he’s lying, or he’s gone senile.”)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “World War II: The Unknown War” (10 June 2014)   (cites “the fact, well known to historians and educated people, that the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany long before the US was able to get geared up to participate in the war." Also cites the 20-part TV series “The Unknown War: WWII and the Epic Battles of the Russian Front” (1978) “narrated by Burt Lancaster" -- “a revelation to Americans because it demonstrated beyond all doubt that Nazi Germany lost World War II on the Russian front.”)

  • David Edwards, “Pat Robertson unloads on Bush for latest Iraq crisis: ‘We were sold a bill of goods!’” (16 June 2014) (“we should never have gone into that country!”)

  • Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, "What We Can Learn From Lawrence of Arabia" (27 June 2014) ("Lawrence’s vision of Arab independence was shattered when the Versailles peace conference confirmed the carving of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine into British and French spheres of influence; arbitrary boundaries drawn in the sand to satisfy the appetites of empire . . . [rejecting his] closer heed to tribal allegiances and rivalries.")

  • Philip Giraldi, "Is Israel a U.S. Ally?" (Video, 14 July 2014: "Inside the beltway types and the media constantly refer to Israel as an ally, which it is not. Israeli soldiers have never fought beside American troops.")

  • Prof. Ilan Pappe, "Israel's Incremental Genocide in the Gaza Ghetto" (14 July 2014) ("One can witness again consensual Israeli Jewish support for the massacre of civilians in the Gaza Strip, without one significant voice of dissent.")

  • Chris Hedges, "Israel Is Captive to Its 'Destructive Process'" (14 July 2014) ("The Palestinians in Gaza live in conditions that now replicate those first imposed on Jews by the Nazis in the ghettos set up throughout Eastern Europe.")

  • Chris Floyd, “Blockading the Truth: Obama's Big Lie About Gaza” (27 July 2014) (on issues including international law giving Gaza the right to resist the blockade against it)

  • Jonathan Cook, “The Experts’ Verdict: Every Israeli Missile Strike is a War Crime” (1 August 2014)

    "Burning Conscience: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out" (October 2006),

    "Israeli Soldiers Breaking The Silence on the Occupation of Palestine" (October 2012),"

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "'Intelligent American' Is An Oxymoron. Do you want to die for a lie? Another Washington lie?" (2 August 2014) ("Washington is behind the destruction of MH-17, because Washington's propaganda show was already ready and was instantly in performance.")

  • Prof. Noam Chomsky, "Nightmare in Gaza," Truthout (3 August 2014) ("Large areas of Gaza had been turned into rubble. Four hospitals had been attacked, each another war crime.")

  • Chris Hedges, M.Th., "Why Israel Lies" (4 August 2014) ("The Big Lie allows believers to take comfort—a comfort they are desperately seeking—in their own moral superiority at the very moment they have abrogated all morality. . . . The Big Lie makes it clear . . . that Israel will continue to wage a campaign of state terror and will never admit its atrocities or its intentions.")

  • Prof. Noam Chomsky, “Why National Security Has Nothing to Do With Security" (5 August 2014)   ("the doctrine of national security does not encompass the security of the population. The record reveals that, for instance, the threat of instant destruction by nuclear weapons has not ranked high among the concerns of planners.")

  • Robert Parry, “Was Putin Targeted for Mid-Air Assassination?" (8 August 2014)

  • Robert Parry, “New York Times Discovers Ukraine's Neo-Nazis at War" (Consortium News, 10 August 2014)

  • Press TV, “ISIL completely fabricated enemy by US: Former CIA contractor" (28 August 2014) (“Former CIA contractor Steven Kelley says that the ISIL terrorist group is a completely fabricated enemy created and funded by the United States. . . . 'The funding is completely from the United States and its allies.'")

  • Tom Engelhardt, “How America Made ISIS: Their Videos and Ours, Their 'Caliphate' and Ours” (2 September 2014) (cites “the virtual library of videos and other imagery the U.S. generated, images widely viewed (or heard about and discussed) with no less horror in the Muslim world than ISIS’s imagery is in ours.  As a start, there were the infamous “screen saver” images straight out of the Marquis de Sade from Abu Ghraib prison.  There, Americans tortured and abused Iraqi prisoners, while creating their own iconic version of crucifixion imagery.  Then there were the videos that no one (other than insiders) saw, but that everyone heard about.  These, the CIA took of the repeated torture and abuse of al-Qaeda suspects in its “black sites.”  In 2005, they were destroyed by an official of that agency, lest they be screened in an American court someday.  There was also the Apache helicopter video released by WikiLeaks in which American pilots gunned down Iraqi civilians on the streets of Baghdad (including two Reuters correspondents), while on the sound track the crew are heard wisecracking.  There was the video of U.S. troops urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.  There were the trophy photos of body parts brought home by U.S. soldiers.  There were the snuff filmsof the victims of Washington’s drone assassination campaigns in the tribal backlands of the planet (or “bug splat,” as the drone pilots came to call the dead from those attacks) and similar footage from helicopter gunships.  There was the bin Laden snuff film video from the raid on Abbottabad, Pakistan, of which President Obama reportedly watched a live feed.  And that’s only to begin to account for some of the imagery produced by the U.S. since September 2001 from its various adventures in the Greater Middle East.   All in all, the invasions, the occupations, the drone campaigns in several lands, the deaths that ran into the hundreds of thousands, the uprooting of millions of people sent into external or internal exile, the expending of trillions of dollars added up to a bin Laden dreamscape.  They would prove jihadist recruitment tools par excellence.”)

  • Robert Parry, “The Whys Behind the Ukraine Crisis” (4 September 2014) (“a global version of Israel’s 'Samson Option,' the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.”)

  • Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "The Ukraine Crisis Remains Unresolved" (11 September 2014) ("Washington’s strategic goals go beyond NATO membership for Ukraine [including] to break apart the economic and political relationships between Europe and Russia. . .. the European Union is imposing sanctions on the Russian energy firms Rosneft, Gazpromneft and Transneft . . . . The Russian response to this audacity should be to turn off the gas in the winter without warning. All of it.")

  • Israel Shamir, "The Guns of August II: The Reasons Behind the Cease-Fire" (18 September 2014) (" the Russians have made peace in Ukraine their priority. . . . One million refugees from Ukraine already crossed into Russia; continuation of Kiev’s war in Donbass could dislodge up to five million refugees, too much for Russia to swallow.")

  • Prof. James Petras, "Empire or Republic: Imperial Wars and Domestic Epidemics: You Can’t Have Wars and Public Health" (3 November 2014) ("Washington's war policies, account for the fatal deterioration of health and welfare services in the US.")

  • Finian Cunningham, "'Russia Uses Language Washington Understands'" (15 November 2014) ("Has Russia reached the limit of its diplomatic tolerance of the US and its NATO allies? The announcement this week that Moscow is to begin deploying long-range bombers in the Gulf of Mexico - America's own backyard - suggests so. . . . It has a legal right to fly its warplanes in any international airspace it chooses, as do all nations, to perform training maneuvers. . . . It is simply Russia giving a taste of American medicine back and in language that the arrogant warmongers in Washington will understand.")

  • Jeremy Scahill, "Obama's Orwellian War in Iraq: We Created the Very Threat We Claim to be Fighting" (20 November 2014)

  • Prof. Juan Cole, "Why the Founding Fathers thought banning Torture Foundational to the US Constitution" (9 December 2014) ("It was the insistence of Founding Fathers such as George Mason and Patrick Henry that resulted in the Bill of Rights being passed to constrain the otherwise absolute power of the Federal government. And one of their primary concerns was to abolish torture. . . . That the Founding Fathers were against torture is not in question. . . . Those who wish to create a category of persons who may be treated by the government with impunity are behaving as fascists like Franco did in the 1930s, who also typically created classes of persons to whom legal guarantees did not apply.")
  • List of World-wide Wars
    (Combatants in Both the
    “Old World” and “New World”)
    DatesThe War's Title(s) / Name(s)Old World CombatantsNew World InvolvementComments
    1. 1492-1890'sIndian WarsWestern EuropeExplorers/Colonists vs N. and S. American IndiansHolocaust vs 100 - 150 Million Indians
    2. 1689-1697King William's War / War of the League of AugsburgEngland, Holland vs France, SpainNew England, New York, CanadaTo reduce French power
    3. 1702-1711Queen Anne's War / War of Spanish SuccessionEngland, Holland, Austria vs France, SpainFlorida, New EnglandTo have different Spanish King
    4. 1739-1748King George's War / War of Austrian SuccessionEngland, Holland, Austria, vs France, Spain, PrussiaWest Indies, New England, CanadaTo control Austria's ruler
    5. 1756-1763Seven Years War / French and Indian WarEngland vs France, SpainUS colonies, Ohio country, CanadaTo create British Empire in Ohio, Africa, India, etc. [See "The War That Made America" (PBS, 2005)]
    6. 1776-1783American RevolutionEngland, FranceU.S. Colonies, CanadaTo obtain U.S. independence for the elite
    7. 1802-03Haitian IndependenceFranceHaitiTo obtain independence (Napoleon's 'Vietnam'! per Haitians' using guerrilla tactics) (French defeat led to the Lousiana Purchase)
    8. 1812-1814War of 1812EnglandU.S., Canada"impressment, slavery"
    9. 1840's-1850'sChina War (aka Opium War)England vs China, Japan, other nationsU.S. aiding/abetting EnglandTo force opium into China, bully Japan to alter its foreign policy, etc. [Details.]
    10. 1898Spanish-American WarSpain and colonies, e.g., Phillippines, CubaU.S.U.S. aggression to expand its own Empire under McKinley-Roosevelt (see also Mark Twain's War Prayer)
    11. 1899-1902Phillipine-American WarPhilippinesU.S.To assault Philippine people (200,000+ killed), to force them into the U.S. Empire
    12. 1914-1918World War IGermany, Austria, Ottoman Empire (Turkey), etc. vs Serbia, France, Russia, England, etc.U.S.To save Europe's monarchies (killed 16 million)
    13. 1939-1945World War IIGermany vs Poland, France, England, Russia, U.S., etc.U.S.To end aggression (see "Christian" support of Hitler)
    14. 1948 -Conflict over IsraelArab States vs Israel, involving U.S.S.R., Britain, France, etc.U.S. & U.N.To establish, continue Israel
    15. 1950-1955Korean ConflictU.N. vs Korea, ChinaU.S.To defend South Korea (But see Prof. Cumings The Origins of the Korean War (Modern Library, 2010) and Review)
    16. 1955-1974Vietnam WarSouth Vietnam v North VietnamU.S.To prevent Vietnamese unification
    17. Mid 1983Falklands WarBritainArgentinaRe Falklands Islands
    18. 1990-1991War with IraqIraq v Kuwait, U.N.U.S.To save Kuwait
    19. Oct 2002
    War with Afghanistan
    To fight "terrorism"
    20. March 2003 —
    Operation Iraqi Liberation
    Coalition including Britain vs Iraq
    Alleged on "freedom," "weapons of mass destruction," actually on oil and Israel (see illustrated Mark Twain War Prayer)
    World Events Clock

    Example of Other Church Activism
    Example of International Extradition

    News Headlines

    News Headlines & Details

    TCPG Home Page

    This site is sponsored as a public service by
    The Crime Prevention Group