- BlankGeorge Will, that fastidious "yes-man"
prig -- that not-very-bright lap dog full of all of the canards of Rockefeller
correctness, has given us his solution to defeating an "intensly motivated
enemy" (referring to Arabs and Moslems intensly motivated by our mass-murderings,
economic plunderings, and endless instances of hardship inflicting injustices
that doom their future generations to misery and debt slavery etc.) I
have yet to see a better example of the degeneracy, incompetence and depravity
of our deviant soi-disant "elites" than Will's "modest
proposal" that follows below-- excluding the stupidities and bararities
issuing from our own White House, State Department and Defense Departments.
-
- And Will's essay is of course infinitely more evil and
debauched knowing, as most of us do now, that the Moslem peoples have been
framed by our very own deviant ruling class, that the WTC crashbombing
was not the work of Moslems opposing globalists, that it was the work of
globalists seeking control of Caspian oil wealth and continued flows of
the investment-bank launderable heroin revenues that depends on the opium
crops supplied by the "Northern Alliance" drug lords, a trade
that the Taliban had almost succeeded in erradicating when globalism undertook
its illegitimate conquest.
-
- Anyone in America's heartland who thinks he is a "conservative"
as George Will is a conservative --was he named after George III, as he
named his daughter after Queen Victoria?-- is totally deceived. Mouthpieces
like WIll, Tony Snow, Limbaugh, William Buckley (who "banished"
all anti-CFR thinkers from the conservative movement in the early 1960's)
and the rest of the "conservative" panoply are decadent pretending
aristrocrats, (aristocracy is traditionally viewed as treason in the, the
intended land of the free) referring to themselves as "upper class"
(as Snow did in a conversation with me, a caller, on a radio program)
and opposed to all of the principles of the Declaration of Independence
and the Jeffersonian ideals of American populism.
-
- Populists are what heartland Americans are and what all
Americans can be and are better off being -- no matter how recently they
arrived in this country, no matter what color their skin or how and when
they pray to the God of us all . Don't let the monopoly media deceive
you into thinking that the only choice is between "liberal" and
"conservative" -- which is as phony a dichotomy as that of "republican
and democrat" -- since the leaders of both the "liberals"
and the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats -- are CFR mouthpieces
and the CFR is nothing but the interlocking directorate that runs a United
States that is in receivership to the investment bankers of Wall Street
and the City of London and Shanghai-HongKong.
-
- Here is Will, followed by the brilliant and establishment
indicting answer of Thomas J. DiLorenzo author of: The Real Lincoln: A
New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
-
- Thank you Lew Rockwell, whoever you are, for exposing
Will and introducing us to DiLorenzo, a true friend of human kind everywhere.
___
-
- In the Washington Post George Will writes: Thursday,
December 27, 2001; Page A23
-
- "I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion
that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill
(the) three hundred thousand I have told you of so often, and the further
they run the harder for us to get them." -- Gen. William Tecumseh
Sherman, 1864
-
- America's Civil War provides many analogies by which
we measure -- and sometimes misunderstand -- today's military developments,
and American ways of waging war.
-
- Because facets of the Afghanistan operations -- real-time
intelligence, stealthy aircraft, precision munitions -- are so modern,
we miss the fact that the war requires an American tradition of warmaking
that has a 19th-century pedigree. And the bloody uprisings by fanatical
Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners underscore the pertinence of Sherman's understanding
of how to define victory over an intensely motivated enemy.
-
- When military operations in Afghanistan began, just four
weeks after Sept. 11 and three weeks after Gen. Tommy Franks was told to
begin planning attacks, some critics were quick to say the operations did
not begin quickly enough. Then they said the tempo of operations was too
torpid. Critics compared Franks -- and Colin Powell, ever mindful of allies'
sensibilities -- to Gen. George McClellan. Those were fighting words, because
McClellan was a reluctant fighter.
-
- One of President Lincoln's commanders, McClellan was
notoriously reluctant to close with Confederate forces, the strength of
which he consistently overestimated. This drove Lincoln to distraction,
and to sarcasm about hoping to "borrow" the Army if McClellan
was not using it.
-
- Sherman, an energetic user of the Army, believed its
principal use against the Confederacy was not to occupy territory but to
destroy enemy personnel. His reason for believing this has contemporary
resonance during a war against fanatics, many of whom come from the privileged
strata of corrupt and exploitative societies.
-
- Long before secession, Sherman despised the South for
its caste and class systems. In 1843, when stationed in South Carolina,
he wrote: "This state, their aristocracy . . . their patriarchal chivalry
and glory -- all trash. No people in America are so poor in reality, no
people so poorly provided with the comforts of life."
-
- So why did the Confederate army, composed mostly of poor
whites, fight for a social system beneficial only to a tiny landed minority?
Partly because of the elan of its martial elite, those whom Sherman called
"young bloods" who were "brave, fine riders, bold to rashness
and dangerous in every sense."
-
- Sherman, writes professor Victor Davis Hanson in his
book "The Soul of Battle," considered the Confederacy "a
motley conglomeration of distrustful factions." Sherman thought the
really dangerous faction -- dangerous during the war, and potentially afterward
-- consisted of what Hanson calls "young zealots, men between 18 and
40 who often formed the cavalry of the South and were led by rabid knights
like Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler and Jeb Stuart. These fanatics
. . . were the children of the wealthy, excellent horsemen, full of youthful
vigor and insolence."
-
- The South, although militarily weak, "fielded,"
Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant
and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called
"the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class
of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
-
- Donald Rumsfeld says his preference is for al Qaeda fighters
to surrender rather than fight to the death: "It ends it faster. It's
less expensive." Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
says: "This is not a war of extermination." Such statements are
perhaps obligatory and even sincere.
-
- However, is surrender really less expensive in the long
run? It is a reasonable surmise that a reformed terrorist is a very rare
terrorist, and that the rate of recidivism will be high among terrorists
who are forced to surrender but continue to believe they are doing God's
will when they commit mass murder of infidels. So, as far as is consistent
with the rules of war and the husbanding of the lives of U.S. military
personnel, U.S. strategy should maximize fatalities among the enemy, rather
than expedite the quickest possible cessation of hostilities.
-
- Many Americans will vehemently reject any analogy between
Confederate and al Qaeda elites. But Sherman might have felt vindicated
by a postwar letter from one former Confederate general to another, D.
H. Hill to Jubal Early:
-
- "Why has the South become so toadyish & sycophantic?
I think it is because the best and noblest were killed off during the war."
-
- © 2001 The Washington Post Company =====
-
- Here is Thomas DiLorenzo's reply:
-
- Letter to the Editor The Washington Post
-
- Dear Editor:
-
- In his recent article on General Sherman, George Will
picked the wrong role model from which to derive lessons for waging the
war on terrorism ("Gen. Sherman's Advice," Dec. 27). General
Grant would have been a better choice, since he excelled in bringing the
war to enemy combatants. Sherman's specialty, on the other hand, was waging
war on civilians, as I discuss in The Real Lincoln (Forum/Random House,
Feb. 2002).
-
- In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife Sherman explained
that his goal was "extermination, not of soldiers alone . . . but
the people." Beginning in 1862 Sherman ordered his army to burn the
towns of Randolph, Tennessee, and Vicksburg, Jackson, and Meridian, Mississippi
after the Confederate army had evacuated. "Meridian no longer exists,"
Sherman wrote to Grant in the spring of 1863. This was all apparently a
rehearsal for the burning of Atlanta after the Confederate army had left
the city, an act that Sherman's chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, said
was of no military significance at all.
-
- Just three months after Robert E. Lee surrendered at
Appomattox Sherman was given the assignment of eradicating the Plains Indians
from the western territories to make way for the transcontinental railroad.
In his memoirs Sherman wrote of how he instructed his army that, during
its assaults on Native American villages, "the soldiers can not pause
to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age."
Most of Sherman's raids on Native American villages were planned in the
winter months, when families would be together, according to Sherman biographer
John F. Marszalek. A year before his death in 1889 Sherman wrote a letter
to his son in which he expressed his deep regret that his armies did not
kill every last Native American.
-
- Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who lionizes the
general, concludes that had the Confederates somehow won the war they would
have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire
Union high command for . . . waging war against noncombatants." George
Will contradicts himself by offering Sherman as a role model on the one
hand, while urging our military to act "consistent with the rules
of war" on the other.
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Thomas J. DiLorenzo
- Professor of Economics
- Loyola College,
- Baltimore Maryland ==========
-
- Source: Of Will and DiLorenzo letters:
- LewRockwell.com:
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo10.html,
as posted to the piml list. ========
-
- I recommend:
-
- Non-CFR news and analysis of the WTC crashbombing frame-up
of Afganistan and related matters
-
- http://www.emperors-clothes.com/ http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.rense.com http://www.copvcia.com http://www.Public-Action.com
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/ http://daastol.com/EurasianGreatGame/
-
-
- Clarification of the political landscape (passages from
history kept from you): http://hardtruth.topcities.com/believe_new_world_order.htm
-
- My key articles available at: http://www.memes.org/article.php?sid=743
http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm (many helpful discussant/activists
archived here)
-
- Solution oriented (good men, good minds, right objective,
appropriate means): http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmemails/wmemailsindex.html
http://members.ams.chello.nl/jsteenis
-
-
- Action:
-
- Ron Paul for President in 2004 (both a call for reform
and a protest in one well-placed constructive best shot) http://www.petitiononline.com/Paul2004/
|
