During World War 1, the “Great War”, the following countries were involved in hostilities:

France and Empire
Great Britain and Empire
Germany and Empire
Italy and colonies
Portugal and colonies
San Marino
Unites States of America


The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 37 million: over 17 milliondeaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians.


The US, alone, suffered some 116,708 military fatalities. The British stumbled along with some 887,711 deaths.  It was called not only the “Great War”, but the “War to End All Wars”.

Of course, it did nothing of the sort.  World War 2 came along, pretty much instigated by the same scum that caused the first one.  The following countries were affected by the Second World War:

Axis Powers (signers of the Tripartite Treaty)

  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Japan

Co-signers of the Tripartite Treaty

  • Bulgaria (March 1st, 1941)
  • Hungary (November 20th, 1940)
  • Romania (November 23rd, 1940)
  • Slovakia(1) (November 24th, 1940)

Countries that were annexed by, or at war with, Axis Powers before the World War II

  • Austria (annexed to Germany, “Anschluss”, March 13th, 1938)
  • Ethiopia (annexed by Italy in 1936, after the Abyssinia crisis, independence restored in 1941)
  • Republic of China (at war with Japan since 1931)

Allied Powers

  • Australia
  • Brazil
  • Canada
  • Newfoundland
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Soviet Union (from June 1941)
  • United Kingdom
  • United States (from December 1941)

Supporters of the Allies

  • Bolivia
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Cuba
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt(2)
  • El Salvador
  • Guatemala
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • Iraq
  • Lebanon
  • Liberia
  • Mexico
  • Mongolia
  • Nicaragua
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Turkey
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela

Countries that were attacked, occupied, or switched sides during the war (Most countries below had declared their neutrality before being assaulted.)

  • Algeria
  • Albania (occupied by Italy April 7th 1939, by Germany September 26th 1943)
  • Belgium (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
  • Burma
  • Czechoslovakia(1) (Bohemia and Moravia occupied by Germany March 15th 1939)
  • Denmark (occupied by Germany April 9th 1940, Greenland occupied by USA April 9th 1941)
  • Estonia (occupied by the Soviet Union from June 18th 1940, by Germany September 5th 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
  • Finland (attacked by the Soviet Union November 30th 1939 and June 26th 1941)
  • France (surrendered to Germany June 22nd 1940)
  • Greece (invaded by Italy October 28th 1940, German occupation from April 6th 1941)
  • Iceland (occupied by Great Britain May 10th 1940, by USA from July 1941)
  • India
  • Iran
  • Latvia (occupied by the Soviet Union from June 18th 1940, by Germany June 25th 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
  • Lithuania (occupied by the Soviet Union from June 18th 1940, by Germany June 22nd 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
  • Luxembourg (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
  • Morocco
  • The Netherlands (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
  • New Guinea
  • Norway (invaded by Germany April 9th 1940)
  • Philippines
  • Poland (invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union in September 1939)
  • Singapore
  • Syria
  • Thailand
  • Tunisia (Occupied by USA in 1943)
  • Yugoslavia(3) (German occupation from April 6th 1941)

Countries that remained nominally neutral

  • Ireland

  • Portugal

  • Spain

  • Sweden (with exception for the Winter War)

  • Switzerland


How many lives were affected, and how?

World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million. The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled from 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine.


Up to 80,000,000 DEAD.



Violence, starvation, etc.  All because of a country of the damned, that completely fell into the hands of Satan, went insane and tried to exterminate everyone else that would not bow down to them, or was just too different.  The United States learned some hard, but great, lessons from the Second World War, some of which we still put into practice, today.


One of the things that we learned was that America had to remain militarily strong.


Once the Nazi scum were defeated, other enemies surfaced, just as evil and just as eager to plunge the world into a fireball of blood and death, as long as they could be in charge.  Who were they?  What enemies do I speak of?




The laughably named “PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC OF CHINA”

Under the flags of these evil empires, some of the worst atrocities Mankind has ever seen were perpetrated.

According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20thCentury Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.


Weakness was no longer an option in a world that was, and is, becoming increasingly dangerous and outright deadly.  Today, the world has become an even more dangerous place, and, once again, the United States is at war.

never forgive, never forget -

Eight years ago, I remember opening my eyes at 8:46 a.m. in my downtown Manhattan apartment because…

…I thought a truck had crashed in the street outside

I remember pacing my apartment for the next 15 minutes thinking, stupidly, that a gas line might have been hit in the North Tower…

…and then I heard another explosion. I hope no one ever hears anything like it.

All I can say to describe it is: Imagine the sound of thousands of Americans screaming on a city street

It was unbelievable, almost literally

I remember being on the sidewalk and there was an FBI agent saying he was cordoning off the street…

…and then, the next day, when I went back for my cats, they told me I might see bodies lying in front of my apartment building (I didn’t)

We held a memorial service in October for my cousin’s husband, who was “missing” but not really…

He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. They found a piece of his ribcage in the rubble not too long afterwards.



Modern day America was formally introduced to ISLAM.  Muslims reached out across the ocean, in fulfillment of their declaration of war against the United States, started during the Clinton Regime, published in multiple fatwas.  They all boiled down to this:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…. [E]very Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.


It’s possible we still haven’t seen the end of death, from the first, major attack.

The 9/11 Death Toll Is Still Rising, 13 Years Later — And Won’t Stop Anytime Soon

Today is Thursday, Sept. 11. It’s been 13 years since the attacks that changed everything — American foreign policy, our domestic security and surveillance programs, our sense of security, the militarization of local police forces — forever. That terrible day, the nation watched in horror as nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered. Sadly, here’s the thing: the 9/11 death toll is still rising, even today.

That’s because the attacks weren’t just hell on the victims of that day and their families — they also condemned countless first-responders and emergency personnel to awful medical maladies, which persist to this day. As The Telegraph reports, thousands of people are still developing fatal cancers after all this time, and it’s believed to be a direct result of the toxic environment that spawned from the collapse of the two enormous skyscrapers.

In fact, it’s so bad that more police officers have died from 9/11-related illnesses than were killed in the attack themselves, according to the Daily Mail. It’s a massive health crisis for the people who, by all rights, should’ve been taken care of first and foremost.

Their health issues are linked to exposure to the Ground Zero site in the days, weeks and months following the towers’ collapse are varied and intense. Emergency workers have succumbed to cancers and respiratory ailments, The exact number of emergency workers who’ve died from these ailments isn’t clear, but what is clear that the total death toll from the attacks is now far higher than the nearly 3,000 victims who perished 13 years ago today.


The manhunt to find and capture or kill Osama bin-Laden (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/death-osama-bin-laden-us), the threat of international terrorism still remains.

rollng stone bin laden memorial issue paint

In fact, literally due to the incompetence of the current leftist regime in the United States, it has gotten worse.

Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election, says administration insider

  • A national security staffer in the Obama administration said the president has been seeing ‘highly accurate predictions’ about the rise of the ISIS terror army since ‘before the 2012 election’
  • Obama insisted in his campaign speeches that year that America was safe and al-Qaeda was ‘on the run’
  • The president said during Sunday’s ’60 Minutes’ program that his Director of National Intelligence had conceded he underestimated ISIS
  • But the administration aide insisted that Obama’s advisers gave him actionable information that sat and gathered dust for more than a year
  • ‘He knew what was at stake,’ the aide said of the president, and ‘he knew where all the moving pieces were’
  • Obama takes daily intelligence briefings in writing, he explained, because no one will be able to testify about warning the president in person about threats that the White House doesn’t act on

President Barack Obama’s intelligence briefings have provided him with specific information since before he won re-election in 2012 about the growing threat of the terror group now known alternatively as ISIS and ISIL, an administration insider told MailOnline on Monday.

‘Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election,’ said a national security staffer in the Obama administration who is familiar with the content of intelligence briefings. 

The staffer declined to share anything specific about the content of those briefings, citing his need to maintain a security clearance.

But ‘it’s true,’ he said, ‘that the [intelligence] community was sending pretty specific intel up to us.’

‘We were seeing specific threat assessments and many of them have panned out exactly as we were told they would.’


How Obama Caused ISIS

The administration has caused or exacerbated most of the current problems in the Mideast. The Syria policy of the Obama administration is the main reason for the growth of the Islamic State (or ISIS)  – and with it, for the current crisis in Iraq, and for a greatly increased danger of terrorism in Europe and America. Administration policy has fanned the rebellion in Syria and kept it going for three full years, while doing nothing to bring it to a successful close. Sometimes the administration has explicitly tried to keep the rebels in a stalemate with Assad; Secretary of State Kerry said that it was his policy to do just that, in order to promote negotiations and “peace.” The result, so obvious as to make that statement a shameless Orwellianism, has been to keep the war dragging on.

This has provided the hothouse for the growth of the extremist Islamic State. In due course, it spilled over from Syria into Iraq, and it has issued threats against the American homeland. The Obama-Kerry policy has also made for the more than 190,000 deaths in Syria, 500,000 wounded, and 8 million refugees (more than 2 million abroad, 6 million inside Syria) — this, out of a population of about 22 million. It is hard to imagine a policy more irresponsible, or worse from a moral standpoint. Yet it has been the long-standing policy of Obama and Kerry — and it was Secretary of State Clinton’s, too, until her last weeks in office, when she finally seemed to be getting serious, only to have her new plans thrown out by Kerry. Fanning a rebellion just up to the point where the country is bleeding continuously — what could be more horrible? As the saying goes, “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” Worse, because it keeps compounding the crime, as a matter of principle. But absurd behaviors often have their causes in beliefs. This policy has been a logical product of the attitudes and ideologies of the Obama administration: anti-anti-Islamism, moral posturing, moral inversion — enthusiasm about toppling allies like Mubarak, nervousness about toppling adversaries like Assad — and, under the guise of peace, an ideological neutralism directed against one’s own side, something very different from an honestly neutral objectivity.

There are several other self-defeating U.S. policies that have nurtured the rise of the Islamic State, directly and indirectly. They go beyond Syria; indeed, they span the entire Mideast:

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-straus

Even as Obama crowed to the public that through his policies and lackluster military campaigning al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had been defeated (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/17/fncs_rosen_to_earnest_since_obama_acknowledged_aqi_was_defeated_didnt_rise_of_isis_happen_entirely_under_him.html)  , it should be noted that this very same group is the one that mutated into what is known, today, as the brutal, evil Islamic State.

Graeme Wood’s article, “What ISIS Really Wants,” in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic is a fantastic summary of how the Islamic State (ISIS) interprets Islam – and, perhaps more importantly, how the rest of the Islamic world looks at ISIS.  It does a great deal of damage to President Obama’s preferred narrative about how the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, as well as his characterization of the terror state as “nihilistic.”

In truth, their brand of Salafist Islam is apocalyptic, but that is not the same thing at all.  ISIS has a constructive agenda for its conquered territory, with an expansive and specific to-do list that must be checked off before the End of Days can get rolling.

Contrary to the Obama administration’s rhetoric, even Muslims who are strongly opposed to the ISIS agenda can see that the terrorist group is accurately quoting Islamic teachings to justify its actions.  A far more robust response than simply declaring them “non-Islamic” – as if the political leaders of secular Western nations possess the religious authority to make such a determination! – is called for.  Woods’ suggestion is interesting, if perhaps overly optimistic.

Woods memorably portrays the rise of ISIS as comparable to “a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.”  The crucial difference between ISIS and other Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamic State’s godfathers in al-Qaeda, is that ISIS dogma is based on seizing and holding territory – the creation of an aggressive nation-state, the “Caliphate,” which is perpetually at war with everything around it.  The head of this religious state, the Caliph, must meet certain criteria, all of which are purportedly filled by ISIS head man Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Furthermore, the Islamic State is squatting on exactly the territory it needs to control to fulfill Koranic prophecy about the end of days, particularly the Syrian province of Dabiq, from which the official magazine of ISIS takes its name.  The fields of Dabiq are supposed to host a massive showdown between Muslim armies and the forces of “Rome,” which ISIS propagandists sometimes interpret as a blanket term for all of Christendom, and sometimes interpret as the actual city where the Vatican is located.  (That’s one reason the Italian government is so nervous about the prospect of ISIS capturing Libya and adding it to the Caliphate.)

ISIS and its followers are very excited at the thought of “Rome’s” army showing up at Dabiq to receive the defeat Mohammed predicted Islam’s forces would inflict upon them, a detail Woods judges Western analysts often miss, because they don’t understand why the head-choppers keep ranting about a seemingly obscure town in Syria.  Note that ISIS mentions both Dabiq and the conquest of Rome in the new snuff film where they beheaded21 captive Egyptian Christians in Libya.

There’s actually a bit more to the apocalypse after the prophesied battle at Dabiq, and the Islamic State’s long-term objectives involve preparing themselves for it.  As Woods tells the story:

Read more at:  http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/17/the-truth-about-the-islamic-state-and-end-of-days-prophecy/

The world is spinning out of control:

Iran ‘Directed’ Washington, D.C., Terror Plot, U.S. Says

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States” tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was “conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran” by a faction of the government and called it a “flagrant” violation of U.S. and international law.

“The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions,” Holder said.

READ: U.S. Complaint in Alleged Iran-Directed Terror Plot (PDF)

FBI Director Robert Mueller said the arrest of a suspect in the plot shows the U.S. will “bring the full weight of [the] law to bear on those responsible” and that “any attempts on American soil will not be tolerated.”

Senior Obama administration officials said the U.S. currently does not have any information indicating that either Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad necessarily knew about the assassination plot and said the U.S. will pursue a path of response that would not include the possibility of an armed conflict with Iran.

Read more at:  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-dc-disrupted/story?id=14711933

China Secretly Sold Saudi Arabia DF-21 Missiles With CIA Approval

In 2007, China secretly sold Saudi Arabia improved ballistic missiles with U.S. approval Newsweek magazine is reporting.

According to the report, which cites a “well-placed intelligence source,” in 2007 China secretly sold Saudi Arabia DF-21 solid-fuel, medium-range ballistic missiles. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency quietly sanctioned the deal after confirming that they were not the nuclear-capable variants of the missiles.

The U.S. support for the deal stands in stark contrast to previous Sino-Saudi missile deals. Specifically, in the late 1980s Saudi Arabia clandestinely purchased DF-3 missiles from China, which the U.S. later exposed publicly and harshly criticized the deal. The arms deal created significant concern in some circles over fears that Riyadh’s purchase of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles signaled the Kingdom was intent on developing nuclear warheads.

The Newsweek report tries to play up the possible nuclear angle on the newer DF-21 missile deal, although there’s little reason to think this is Saudi Arabia’s reason for purchasing them given that it already possesses the DF-3 missiles. The report also notes that the DF-21 ballistic missiles have a shorter range but better accuracy than the DF-3 missiles.

Although the greater precision of the DF-21’s are important, perhaps the DF-21’s biggest advantage is their solid propellant and road-mobile ability. Their solid-fuel allows them to be launched more quickly and requires less maintenance, which is especially advantageous to the Saudi military which often requires significant foreign assistance to operate more advanced weapons systems. The fact that they have road mobile launchers gives them greater survivability, although this characteristic isn’t particularly necessary given the kind of threats Saudi Arabia faces.

The deal is interesting in a number of different ways. First, it shows China’s growing advanced weapon sales in the Middle East. Last year, Turkey announced that it had selected a Chinese air and missile defense system over a number of U.S. and European alternatives. China has a particular interest in furnishing Saudi Arabia with advanced military technology given Beijing’s heavy reliance on the Kingdom for oil.

Additionally, it reveals the dysfunction of America’s foreign and national security processes. That Saudi Arabia turned to China for advanced missiles is almost certainly because the U.S. would not provide comparable missiles to Riyadh. Advanced weapon sales to Saudi Arabia can be controversial in the U.S. as evidenced by theamount of effort former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to devote to get through a deal to sell Riyadh more F-15s, as well as upgrade existing ones.

Still, in the end the U.S. ended up approving the DF-21 missile sale. Although the CIA took action to ensure that the DF-21 missiles aren’t nuclear capable, this can always change at a later date. Thus, the U.S. not only lost potential revenue in selling Saudi Arabia the missiles itself, but it also lost control in the process.


Iran escalating efforts to destabilize region, says Panetta

The outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary said the United States was stepping up efforts to counter the Iranian threat.

Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta accused Iran of an intensified campaign to destabilize the Middle East by smuggling anti-aircraft weapons to militant allies, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

“There is no question when you start passing MANPADS around, that becomes a threat, not just to military aircraft but to civilian aircraft,” Panetta told the newspaper in an interview. “That is an escalation.”

MANPADS are shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Western officials have worried about the spread of such weapons and the risk they pose to airline passengers as well as to military helicopters and jets.

Yemeni forces intercepted a ship on Jan. 23 carrying a large cache of weapons – including surface-to-air missiles – that U.S. officials suspect were being smuggled from Iran and destined for Yemeni insurgents.

“It is one of the first times we have seen it,” Panetta said, referring to the seizure of MANPADS.

A Defense Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment on Panetta’s remarks to the paper.

Yemen’s government said the arms intercepted aboard the ship off the country’s coast also included military-grade explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making equipment.

Iran denies any interference in Yemen’s affairs.

Panetta said the United States was stepping up efforts to counter the Iranian threat, and was leading a multinational exercise in the United Arab Emirates through Thursday to improve the interdiction of Iranian arms and other weapons.

He called the exercise critical to building up Arab capabilities to help halt Iranian arms transfers, including the smuggling of MANPADS.

U.S. officials have said the anti-aircraft weapons intercepted on Jan. 23 likely were headed to northern Yemen’s Houthi separatists, who are fighting the U.S.-backed government in Sanaa and have also clashed with Saudi forces.

Panetta is preparing to step down as defense secretary after 19 months in the job.

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday on the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to succeed Panetta.


Russian Subs Patrolling Off East Coast of U.S.

WASHINGTON — A pair of nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines has been patrolling off the eastern seaboard of the United States in recent days, a rare mission that has raised concerns inside the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about a more assertive stance by the Russian military.

The episode has echoes of the cold war era, when the United States and the Soviet Union regularly parked submarines off each other’s coasts to steal military secrets, track the movements of their underwater fleets — and be poised for war.

But the collapse of the Soviet Union all but eliminated the ability of the Russian Navy to operate far from home ports, making the current submarine patrols thousands of miles from Russia more surprising for military officials and defense policy experts.

“I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years,” said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and submarine warfare expert.

The submarines are of the Akula class, a counterpart to the Los Angeles class attack subs of the United States Navy, and not one of the larger submarines that can launch intercontinental nuclear missiles.

According to Defense Department officials, one of the Russian submarines remained in international waters on Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The location of the second remained unclear. One senior official said the second submarine traveled south in recent days toward Cuba, while another senior official with access to reports on the surveillance mission said it had sailed away in a northerly direction.

The Pentagon and intelligence officials spoke anonymously to describe the effort to track the Russian submarines, which has not been publicly announced.

President Obama spoke by telephone with President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia on Tuesday, but it was not clear whether the subject of the submarines came up, although another source of friction between the two countries did. Mr. Medvedev called Mr. Obama to wish him a happy birthday and the White House said the president used the opportunity to urge Russia to work through diplomatic channels to resolve rising tensions with Georgia.

Read more at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/05patrol.html?_r=0

Column: Obama’s Weakness Emboldens Putin, Other Dictators 

What is it about Western leaders from Neville Chamberlain to George W. Bush who want to find good in men of bad character?

Acting as if he were endowed by special insight bestowed upon no one else, President George W. Bush declared in 2001 that he had looked Vladimir Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul.”

According to the Daily Caller.com, in a 2010 interview with talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, Bush, who was promoting his book “Decision Points,” was asked about his ability to see into the souls of men. The former president explained, “The reason why I said that is because I remembered him talking movingly about his mother and the cross that she gave him that she said she had blessed in Jerusalem.”

Well, bless my soul, as the saying goes. No doubt several communist leaders in the former Soviet Union had mothers who went to church and took their sons with them — until faith became a drag on upward mobility in the Communist Party. It doesn’t mean any one of them underwent some drastic religious transformation.

What Bush should have asked Putin is whether he shared his mother’s faith and if so, what difference that had made on his thinking? Usually when people “convert” from one belief system to another they give a reason for the shift. Not so with Putin. He has not walked the sawdust trail of redemption and embraced pluralistic, democratic or capitalistic beliefs. Quite the opposite.

In a 2005 state of the nation speech, Putin declared: “Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”

In the Hewitt interview, Bush claimed that since that early meeting with Putin, the Russian leader had become a different person. The other possibility is that Putin has always been the same person, but lied and projected a different image to a gullible Bush who wanted to believe what he thought he saw.

Putin and his cronies are now openly mocking the United States. Under President Obama we are becoming a humiliation nation. Meaningless “sanctions,” which amount to not even a slap on the wrist, are laughed at in Moscow. And the problem with sanctions is that Russia has options, too, like cutting off gas and oil supplies to Europe and making trouble in other former Soviet republics. Recently, Russian news anchor Dmitry Kiselyov took to the Rossiya 1 news channel to declare that Russia is the only country capable of turning the United States into “radioactive ashes.” A picture of a mushroom cloud was projected on the screen behind him. Iran might see this bragging by Russia as a challenge to its own nuclear ambitions.

Understanding one’s adversary is sometimes more important than defeating him, especially if one wishes to avoid armed conflict. The fall of the Berlin Wall was the symbolic collapse of the Soviet Union and occupied Eastern Europe. Putin clearly believes Russia was humiliated after the collapse and the American triumphalism that followed. But humiliation can cut two ways.

Russia feels slighted for not being recognized as a great power. In some sense — though the analogy is far from perfect — Russia reflects Germany’s attitude after its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to disarm, concede territory and pay reparations. Hitler’s rise to power two decades later was in large part due to his appeal to German nationalism and pride, which is precisely Vladimir Putin’s appeal to the Russian people.

Putin has promised not to annex any territory beyond Crimea. We’ll see if he keeps that promise. Meanwhile, it would be nice if President Obama led on this matter instead of making the United States the laughingstock of the world’s dictators and to our detriment, perhaps some of our allies.


World enduring ‘more dangerous times’ than at height of Cold War: expert

The world is a more dangerous place “than even at the height of the Cold War,” when the threat of mutually assured destruction kept the world’s superpowers in check, says one historian and global security expert.

With fighting between Israel and Hamas flaring once again and adding to what seems like a growing list of conflicts around the world, the threat to global peace is more significant than ever before, says Bonny Ibhawoh of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

At the height of the Cold War in the 1960s, the United States and Soviet Union were ultimately prevented from engaging in all-out war by the threat of mutually assured destruction, Ibhawoh told CTV’s Canada AM on Thursday.

“But today we live in a world where the weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of militias, insurgencies and so there’s really no control over how these weapons are used around the world,” he said.

During the Cold War, the West had a clearly defined enemy in the Soviet Union and containing Communism was a singular goal.

Now, there are almost too many enemies, Ibhawoh says.

“Fragmented warfare, insurgencies, asymmetrical warfare: That is exactly the problem,” he said, noting that one scholar has coined the term “the democratization of the weapons of mass destruction.”

And unlike the 1960s, when a strong and vocal peace movement tried to drown out the sound of war drums with popular protest songs, activists and artists today are not writing this generation’s “Imagine” or “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

“Today we see that the voices for peace have been drowned out by the voices of extremism and the voices of intolerance and I think that makes us an even more dangerous world today,” Ibhawoh said.

What is also missing today, he says, is grassroots political activism that has the power to push world leaders to the negotiating table to solve conflicts, he said. For example, “a very vigorous grassroots activist movement” in South Africa and around the world helped end apartheid.

“That is missing today,” Ibhawoh said. “And I think that unless you begin to create a space for these kinds of grassroots activism, the prospects for peace in our world are very slim.”


john bolton american conservative

Anti-ISIS coalition has mobilized up to 62 nations and groups

It’s like belling the cat: Everyone agrees it is a good idea, but no one is brave enough to make the attempt.

So it is with the coalition mustering to battle the Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq & Al-Sham (ISIS). Air strikes are OK, sending in ground troops not so much.

François Hollande, the French president, announced the group’s formation at a meeting in Paris two weeks ago. Twenty-five nations, plus representatives of the Arab League, the United Nations and the European Union, agreed to help Iraq in its fight against the jihadists. The battle has since between extended to Syria.

Meanwhile, their ranks have swelled, although there’s little agreement on just how many have signed on.

Speaking at the United Nations in New York this week, President Barack Obama claimed there were more than 40 nations; a day earlier, John Kerry, his secretary of state, put the number of more than 50, while the State Department itself listed 62 (including the European Union and the Arab League).

Here’s a list of who has agreed to what:

Allies providing air support and military equipment

U.S.: The prime mover. Has launched air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria since the end of August.

Canada: Has sent about 60 members of the Canadian Armed Forces to Iraq. Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) also provided airlift support to Albania, delivering 230 tonnes of military supplies to Iraq. Also sent $15-million for security.

Iraq: Authorized France to use its air space and welcomed coalition support in battling ISIS.

Jordan: Destroyed several ISIS targets through air strikes in Syria. Also worked to cut off funding to extremist and terrorist organizations.

Bahrain: Carried out air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

Saudi Arabia: Participated in air strikes in Syria. Has frequently condemned ISIS and given $100-million to the UN Counter-Terrorism Center and $500-million in humanitarian aid.

United Arab Emirates: Took part in air strikes on Syria. With other Persian Gulf nations has condemned ISIS and offered support to the coalition.

France: Bombed a warehouse occupied by ISIS in Iraq. French Air Force has also carried out reconnaissance flights over Iraq and vowed to take part in future air strikes “if needed.” Sent 59 tonnes of humanitarian cargo to Erbil, further deliveries due soon.

Germany: Sent 40 paratroopers to Iraq to provide weapons training to Kurdish fighters. Also sending 16,000 assault rifles, hundreds of anti-tank weapons and armoured vehicles — enough to arm 4,000 peshmerga soldiers. Some Kurdish fighters are also being trained in South Germany. Sending 36 tonnes of humanitarian aid.


2 Russian nuclear bombers entered Alaska airspace, report says

Two nuclear-capable Russian bombers reportedly intruded into the U.S. air defense zone near Alaska last week.

The Washington Free Beacon, citing defense officials, reports the tu-95 Bear H bombers flew into the zone on April 22, but no U.S. jets were dispatched to intercept them.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for NORAD, declined to confirm the incursion to The Times, but said that no jets were dispatched to intercept intruding aircraft.

The incident was the first Russian bomber incursion of a U.S. or Canadian air defense zone this year. It likely signals the start of Russia’s long-range aviation training cycle, officials said.

U.S. and Canadian jets intercepted Russian bombers at least six times last year, while intruding Russian long-range aircraft were detected on 10 occasions, Davis said.

Senior military officials have said that Russia has increased bomber flights near U.S. coasts as part of a strategic messaging and influence operation.

Northern Command commander Adm. William Gortney told reporters earlier this month that Russia is developing a more capable military than the former Soviet Union. Both flight missions and numbers of locations for the flights “have gone up,” Gortney said.

The latest bomber mission near Alaska was described as provocative and dangerous by the Pentagon. At that time, a U.S. RC-135 intercepted the bomber.


It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the world, mostly on Obama’s watch, has become a far more dangerous place.  However, there are some really stupid people out there, that insist this isn’t true, in spite all the evidence to the contrary.  One with any lick of sense would know that whether the US has declared war, or not, has become irrelevant.  The forces of what may once again become Soviet Russia are on the move, emboldened by Obama’s weak, chinless response and his promises to bend over for them.

In spite of other enemies showing that they are preparing for war with the United States, and anyone else in the free world that dares stand up for their right to live, Obama continues to do nothing.

China Announces 12.2% Increase in Military Budget

BEIJING — China announced on Wednesday that it would increase its military budget for 2014 to almost $132 billion, a 12.2 percent rise over last year. The rapid growth in defense spending is another sign of the country’s goal of becoming a dominant military presence in the Pacific, with a navy able to project power across the region.

The rate of growth in spending is greater than that of recent years. In 2013, China’s defense budget increased by 10.7 percent over the previous year. The country’s military spending is the second largest in the world, behind that of the United States.

The buildup of the People’s Liberation Army, which also includes navy and air force branches, is considered by many analysts to be consistent with the size of China’s economy — the second largest in the world — and its global political influence. Nevertheless, the military expansion is being closely watched by other nations in the region and by the United States, the supreme military power in the Pacific.

American officials have expressed growing concerns over diplomatic tensions in East Asia and Southeast Asia, much of it related to regional anxieties over China’s military rise and its assertion of sovereignty over rocks, reefs, islands, fisheries and sea lanes in the area. The United States has said it does not take sides in the territorial disputes, but it asserts it will maintain freedom of navigation.

Foreign military analysts say China’s actual annual military spending is higher than the official figure. IHS Jane’s, a defense industry consulting and analysis company,estimated that China would spend $148 billion this year, but such estimates can vary widely. The unofficial estimate is still much less than the military budget of the United States, which is officially $526.8 billion for fiscal year 2014.


No, actually, that’s not exactly true.  Obama is doing something.

obama biden golf islamic state troubles away American Conservative Cover

Navy Department could face $10 billion in budget cuts

The Navy could be forced to slash its annual budget by $10 billion as the Pentagon pares its spending, defense insiders tell The Hill.

White House officials have ordered the Pentagon to begin slashing its budget starting in 2013 to meet President Obama’s goal of $400 billion in national security cuts.

Pentagon and Navy Department officials have yet to make final decisions about how much the department (which includes the Navy and Marine Corps) will trim from its annual budget, or about what to truncate or eliminate.

But multiple industry sources with ties to the department said it has been told to expect a $10 billion funding cut for 2013. And department officials are seriously mulling options that would alter shipbuilding plans and naval operations for years, according to those sources and lawmakers.

“The Navy is anticipating a $10 billion cut to its fiscal 2013 budget request that will necessitate major program changes,” said Loren Thompson, a defense industry insider and chief operating officer of the nonprofit Lexington Institute think tank.

“That’s what I’m hearing,” another Navy insider said when asked about the $10 billion amount.

The Navy Department requested $161.4 billion in baseline funding for 2012. The House-passed 2012 defense appropriations bill proposed a $1.7 billion cut to department procurement accounts.

With the department facing a possible cut approaching $12 billion, weapons program cuts are on the table.

“One option under active consideration for most of the year has been to delay construction of the second aircraft carrier in the Ford class from 2013 to 2015,” Thompson said.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, said the Navy Department also was considering removing another aircraft carrier from its long-term shipbuilding plan. 

That won’t sit well with lawmakers from districts and states that are home to U.S. carriers and their related industries. The so-called shipbuilding caucus would no doubt make a lot of noise if such plans were included in the department’s 2013 budget plan.

Two senior Navy officials testifying at the session did not directly respond to Forbes’s questions about either alleged change in aircraft carrier plans. 

The carrier moves, if enacted, would “severely impact” defense firms that build the big warships and their many subcontractors and parts suppliers, Thompson said. 

But, he added, because aircraft carriers are so expensive, delaying one and canceling another also would “save significant funding in the near term.”

How much savings? Tens of billions of dollars.

The second Ford class carrier is projected to come with a $10.3 billion price tag, with the third carrier in that class expected to cost $13.5 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Navy Department has been in cost-cutting mode for months.

Read more at:


Obama to kill Navy’s Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation

President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.

The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.

In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.

The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.

The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces.

“The administration’s proposed budget dramatically under-resources our investments in munitions and leaves the Defense Department with dangerous gaps in key areas, like Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles,” said Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of House Armed Services Committee.

Read more at:


I recall Obama talking a lot about “Nation-Building at Home” instead of abroad, but like every other word that comes out of his mouth, that was another lie.

While Barack Hussein Obama is firing 20,000 Marines as part of his massive purge of the United States military to “save money”, he’s also fighting to send $700 million to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

On Feb 8th, Obama issued yet another waiver for Palestinian Authority aid, claiming that sending money to the corrupt undemocratic terrorist kleptocracy that refuses to negotiate a peaceful solution was “important to the national security interests of the United States.”

Unlike those 20,000 Marines who aren’t important to the national security of the United States.


obamanation townhall cover

General: With cuts, Marine Corps will ‘cut into bone’

Severe budget cuts will require the Marine Corps to “cut into bone” as officials are forced to make painful decisions in the months and years ahead, the service’s top general warned troops and their families in a letter distributed throughout the force over the weekend.

With sequestration in effect, the Marine Corps faces a shortfall of about $1.4 billion through the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and approximately $2 billion annually through 2022, said Gen. James Amos, the commandant.

Though thin on specifics, his letter indicates deep concern about the effect these cutbacks will have on the Corps’ active-duty and Reserve personnel, their families and the 20,000 civilians whom the service employs throughout the U.S. and around the world.

“We are already a lean and frugal service,” Amos wrote, “thus every reduction that we make from this point forward will cut into bone — we are beyond muscle.”

Combat units deployed to Afghanistan and those preparing to go will have the required staffing, training and equipment, according to Amos’ letter.

For units deploying elsewhere, “we will do our best” to ensure they’re adequately resourced, he wrote.

Today, approximately 6,000 Marines remain in Afghanistan, down from a high of 20,000 after President Barack Obama ordered a surge of forces there in 2009.

As the Corps winds down its role there, officials are shifting focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

Plans call for rotating thousands of Marines through Japan, Australia, Guam and elsewhere so they can train alongside U.S. allies and respond quickly to humanitarian disasters or other contingencies.

Cutbacks caused by sequestration could limit the Corps’ ability to do as much as it would like in that part of the world.

In his letter, Amos said that despite the fiscal challenges ahead, he is committed to preserving the Corps’ status as a “911 Force.” But maintaining such readiness will require sacrifices “in other areas,” the commandant said, though he did not elaborate. A forthcoming video, to feature Amos and his top enlisted adviser, Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Mike Barrett, will provide more details, he said.

Read more at:


Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years

WASHINGTON — Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said Tuesday that the Army would institute the largest organizational change since World War II by eliminating combat forces from 10 bases across the United States, part of a planned reduction of 80,000 active-duty troops over the next five years.

The announcement supports the Army’s effort to downsize the active-duty force to 490,000 as the military winds down from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cuts were a result of the 2011 Budget Control Act that required $487 billion in military spending cuts over a decade. This is the fourth round of budget cuts for the military since President Obama took office.

Under the plan, the Army will cut its brigade combat teams to 33 from 45 by 2017 at bases in Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Washington State. A brigade is roughly 3,500 to 5,000 people. Two additional brigades in Germany, at Baumholder and Grafenwöhr, have already been scheduled for elimination this year.

General Odierno said the cutbacks are only a precursor to further action. “There is going to be another reduction,” he said at a Pentagon news conference. “There is no away around it.”

The across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, which calls for some $500 million in military spending reductions by 2022, could force the Army to speed up its current plans for cuts.

General Odierno said that most of the troop reductions will occur with natural attrition, but if “full sequestration occurs,” then the Army will have to cut more officers, including colonels, lieutenant colonels and captains.

The cuts are certain to be unpopular in the communities where the bases are a significant source of local jobs, although General Odierno said the Army had tried to minimize the damage. In the past year, the Army has conducted an extensive study on the economic impacts of the reductions and held community meetings across the country.

Read more at:


Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

WASHINGTON — Defense SecretaryChuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War IIbuildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.



On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced massive cuts to the size of the armed services, slashing the army to its pre-World War II size. In 2011, the army had some 566,000 soldiers; Hagel wants it cut to somewhere between 440,000 and 450,000 troops by 2019. If Congress does not add additional funding, Hagel threatens to slash that number to 420,000 by 2019.

Such cuts to defense spending do not bode well for the security of the United States. Historically, defense spending cuts have preceded increased international turmoil as America’s global enemies sense a failure of will. A senior Pentagon official leak to The New York Times betrayed precisely that failure of will: “You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war.” And the Times added that the proposal is designed to defeat “any adversary,” but prevent the military from engaging in any “protracted foreign occupation.”


‘Enough is enough:’ U.S. Air Force officials say budget cuts and non-stop war have threatened U.S. air superiority and left the fleet smaller and weaker than ever before 

The U.S. Air Force has a quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it did 25 years ago and two-thirds of the active duty airmen, a drop that threatens U.S. air superiority, defense officials told lawmakers on Friday.

‘Enough is enough,’ Air Force Secretary Deborah James told lawmakers in the House of Representatives as she defended a Pentagon budget request that exceeds federal spending caps. ‘Given the state of the world … the number one thing we have to stop is this downsizing.’

But members of the defense appropriations subcommittee said President Barack Obama’s 2016 Pentagon base budget of $534 billion exceeded spending caps by nearly $35 billion and would have to be cut.


In spite of the fact that our enemies have declared war on us, through their actions (and even their words, in some cases), Obama continues to do his level best to fight our own defenders, and not the enemy.  These cuts are not to help the economy; he’s already destroyed that, and has no intention of reversing that destruction.  These military cuts are done out of a spirit of hatred and envy of our military, and to do this:

  1. Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = “ten”) was a form of military discipline used by senior commanders in the Roman Army to punish units or large groups guilty of capital offences, such as mutiny or desertion. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning “removal of a tenth”.


Now, after showing example, after example, I will bottom line this, for you:  the United States is at war, and we have a president that is more concerned with welfare programs and destroying education in this country, than he is concerned with fighting off the existential threat that America’s vast legions of enemies have literally become, not only for the US, but for the world, itself.  In his own words, he is out to rid the US – and the world – of nuclear weapons, and will take steps to break down America’s readiness to fight wars against any enemy that may come forth.

This is almost humorous, considering he likes to view himself as Ronald Reagan, or better.  And let’s not forget the words of Ronald Reagan, when it came to national defense and readiness:

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children ofIsrael to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.


It’s simple.  Obama is not on America’s side.  Obama is on Obama’s side.  His policies are setting the state for a war that could be apocalyptic in scale, involving virtually every nation, everywhere.  Though everyone hates and fears the United States, it’s us they come running to, when they get into trouble, but this time, we’re too weak to help them, and our enemies have continually gotten stronger.


Not only has Obama endangered the People of the United States, but the people of the world.  When it comes time to cast your ballot to change the leadership of this country, at any level, when you sit back and do nothing, you’re not helping anyone, but the enemy.

“A vote not cast, is a vote for the other guy.”

Sergeant Okerlund, United States Army Military Police Corps

We are reaching a critical point that can have dire consequences for America, and the rest of the world.  Don’t sit back and do nothing.

great seal of virus x


~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on July 12, 2015.

5 Responses to “LEGACY COSTS”

  1. There is a big difference between starting from a point where
    your profile has zero followers on Instagram and a profile that is
    followed by 1000 people. Retain the actual Possibilities
    that can basis you would possibly check out what
    precisely coping with getting ready to start this
    sort of Instagram Folks Attain. Ever since, the application has
    gained popularity in a manner not similar to My
    – Space.

  2. This site was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve found something that helped me. Thank you!|

  3. Hi, yes this post is truly nice and I have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging. thanks.|

  4. Thank you very much.

  5. Thank you very much for the kind words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: