Title: Happy May Day, The Wall Street Journal Runs Another LET'S MURDER MORE AMERICAN TROOPS Article.
Author: Andrew M Molchan
Date: Wed May 1st, 2013


May 1st 2013. ANDY'S UNPOPULAR OPINIONS. Happy May Day - I'm celebrating by going to a Beer Tasting Party given by the Molson Company. After a half-century of studying military history my motto is, "Let's have More Beer - and Less War."

Today's  Wall Street Journal ran ANOTHER Article in a Long Line of Articles that in my opinion advocate: Murder, War, and the Breaking of International Law.

Today's WSJ has an article of page A17 titled, "The Case for Pre-Emptive War, From Goliath to the Dardanelles," by Andrew Roberts, a British so-called "historian" who was a great friend of George W Bush, Dick Cheney and the expansion of wars against Muslims.

Andrew Roberts was one of the many military morons who advocated the "Pre-Emptive" US SURGE in Iraq and Afghanistan that totally and forever destroyed Al Qaeda in the World. (Al Qaeda is destroyed - isn't it?)

The Pentagon's stupid SURGE murdered 1100 young Americans - 50 times the Sandy Hook murders, and 400 times the Boston Bombing murders.

While Mr. Roberts was writing about how Pre-Emptive attacks like the US SURGE against Al Qaeda ALWAYS WORK. In the same WSJ, on page A16 to the left of the above articles is a Map showing how strong Al Qaeda has become in the World.

Maybe that was intentional? Maybe some WSJ editors are stealthily sticking it to their Masters who are always pushing to start a war between  America and Iran?

Once again we have the constant WSJ drumbeat about how Israel is going to attack Iran, and the implication is that America MUST do it first and NOT let Israel get all of the Historic Glory.

As one of America's proven best grand strategists, for over five years I've predicted that Israel WILL NOT attack Iran by itself. Not now, and not forever. The grand strategy of the Zionists is to fight to the last American Soldier and the last American Dollar. While their Zionist troops stay on the Tel Aviv beach drinking beer. Hey, it's worked perfectly up to now.

Mr. Roberts writes in the WSJ, "Thinking counterfactually, as historians are occasionally permitted to do..." WHAT! As an historian myself, I didn't know that the provable Historical FACTS are irrelevant. In my opinion, Nazi and Stalinist "Histories" think "counterfactually," but not honest historians. Or, honest anythings.

Mr. Roberts writes, "Massive pre-emption has been the ONLY Sensible strategy when facing a new weapon in the hands of one's sworn enemy REGARDLESS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW."

Are Mr. Roberts, and the WSJ, saying that in 1948 (When the USSR got atomic bombs), the USA should have immediately nuclear attacked the USSR and murdered 60 million people?

In 1951, as many US Generals wanted, should the USA have nuclear attacked China and murdered 200 million people?  God in heaven, if America had done that who today would be making our shoes and buying our long-term worthless Bonds?

As a SIDE NOTE, "Goliath" (Samuel 1.17) in the above WSJ headline; the FACTUAL truth is that Goliath "Challenged" (i.e. attacked) David. It was the aggressive ATTACKER who died.

In the Dardanelles (in the same WSJ headline), it was the UK British troops who were the ATTACKERS. The Dardanelles was one of the WORST MILITARY DISASTERS in the 1000 year history of English military campaigns.

In WWI it was the Germans who were the attackers by declaring war on the Russians. In WWII in Europe it was AGAIN the Germans who were the attackers in a "Pre-Emptive" attack on Poland. WWII in the Pacific started with Japan ATTACKING China.

I guess thinking  "counterfactually" it was Germany that won BOTH WWI and WWII because they were the first to attack?

In Vietnam, it was America that attacked the Vietcong. As Mr. Roberts and the WSJ suggest, the attacker always wins. So thinking "counterfactually" as the Pentagon's General Staff ACTUALLY DOES, Vietnam was clearly and without question a Great Military Victory for America.

Maybe America can have an equally GREAT Military Victory in Iran by once again be Nazis?

"Counterfactually" Mr. Roberts talks about the six million Jews who would supposedly NOT have been killed if only France had a Pre-Emptive attack against German as soon has Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland. (A Rhineland where the German voters WANTED Hitler to re-occupy the territory because they were tired of French troops marching in and shooting Germans).

As a military strategist I've learned that IT'S REALLY EASY to talk about sending in troops to DIE when you're NOT one of those troops. Maybe the French after having LOST A TOTAL GENERATION OF YOUNG FRENCE MEN were not so anxious to lost even more young men for some kind of (at the time) totally obscure if-come?

Mr. Robert apparently CANNOT grasp the FACT that the Holocaust, and the murder of 6 million Jews was in the mind of Hitler, and the minds of the tens of thousands who Directly helped Hitler do the Holocaust, and in the minds of the MILLIONS of Europeans who approved of the Holocaust. In ALL of their minds the Holocaust was PRE-EMPTIVE LAW ENFORCMENT.

The Holocaust was Against International Law, but like Mr. Roberts de facto says, WHO GIVES A FLYING FIG ABOUT THE LAW? Especially where the murder of thousands (if not millions) of women and children are concerned.

Mr. Robert and the WSJ, in the article, in my opinion are saying that International Law is totally irrelevant. In my view they are saying that if you think somebody is a possible future threat then you not only have a Legal Right to murder them, you have a Moral obligation to God to murder them, (This is what Hitler believed). Following Mr. Robert's line of reasoning, the "Holocaust" NEVER HAPPENED as a crime. It happened because Jews were communists, and enemies of Germany, and that gave Hitler the LEGAL and MORAL RIGHT to kill any and all Jews as "Pre-Emptive" Law Enforcement. Right?

Apparently from what Mr. Roberts is saying his answer would be, "Yes." But my answer would be "NO."

I believe that International Law must not only be obeyed, but expanded, FOR EVERYONE ALL OF THE TIME. I believe that those who attack FIRST are legally by definition WRONG - be they Nations or individuals. If I'm out at night getting some milk at a 7/11, and I see a Black man by the store and believe he's going to hurt me; do I have a right to shoot and kill him because in my mind he was a threat? Even if he was a real threat, do I have to right to aggressively attack him first and kill him? I say, "No." However. apparently Mr. Roberts and the WSJ would apparently DEEPLY DISAGREE with me.

The one factor that I do sincerely love about President Obama, and the BIGGEST FACTOR in his re-election. Is the FACT that President Obama is NOT a dupe of the American troop murdering Zionists. President Obama is NOT buying the Con Game.

On the other hand, the BIGGEST factor in Romney's DEFEAT was that he was a total DUPE of the Zionists. A President Romney would have murdered thousands, or tens of thousands, of American Troops in Iran. However, none of the murdered US soldiers would have been Romney's sons because they would never have joined the US Army, and none of the troops dying in Iran would be Israeli troops.

Permission to Reprint. Permission to reprint is given by the author, Andrew M Molchan, to reprint, and/or quote, any of Andrew M Molchan's  1,805 essays and stories he has written over the last 40 years, including this current essay.

If you like this essay, email a copy to your Congressman, Senator(s), and local newspaper and talk radio show. Congressmen DO read the emails from voters in their district.  





  Copyright © 2008 - All rights reserved