IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT ABOUT HUNTING???

"The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about keeping our government in line when all else has failed to do so."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/tonso3.html

LewRockwell.com

Second Amendment Lessons From Iraq

by William R. Tonso

Like all informed Second Amendment supporters, I don’t trust any politician who claims support for that amendment and then goes on to relate how much he/she stands up for the rights of hunters as if the rights of hunters were what that amendment is all about. We know why the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights. The Founders left us a clear paper trail including the following succinct statement from Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed in the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (emphasis added).

The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about keeping our government in line when all else has failed to do so. It’s the teeth of the Bill of Rights. And that there are still Americans who take seriously the right to defend themselves against a government gone bad worries advocates of dictatorial social engineering through judicial activism and of the ever-increasing centralization and intrusiveness of our government. But are those of us who take this right and its related concerns seriously being realistic? If our government gets to the point where it’s widely considered to be oppressive, could our heavily armed populace do much against the even more heavily armed and highly trained military and police forces that would be the instruments of our government’s oppression? After all, wouldn’t the situation existing in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was ousted seem to undermine our assumptions concerning the protection against oppression afforded by a heavily armed civilian populace?

The official justification for going to war with Iraq, of course, was to get rid of that nation’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Since no Iraqi WMDs have been found, the Bush administration’s justification for going into Iraq has shifted to liberating that nation’s people from the horrors inflicted on them by their brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. That Saddam was a brutal dictator, there’s no doubt, but if his people were so terribly treated by him, why didn’t they rise up against him? I can just hear the scoffing response to this question from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other Bush-administration shills: "Idiot, how can an oppressed people rise up against a brutal dictator and his military and police forces?" But the answer to this question should be obvious to those who believe that a heavily armed populace serves as a safeguard against oppression. Gun ownership was apparently widespread in Saddam’s Iraq.

"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence/Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence" claims, "According to media reports, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. It is believed that there are enough guns in Iraq for at last [sic] every person in Iraq to possess one, a level similar to gun ownership in clans in Yemen and Somalia, as well as in the United States. With a population of approximately 24 million, that means there could be millions of small arms in the hands of civilians. The gun culture is pervasive in Iraq. There is even an Iraqi saying, ‘Give everything to your friend, except your car, your wife, and your gun.’"

This anti-gun organization goes on to report that "in February, 2003, Saddam’s governments [sic] held a parade of thousands of small arms-bearing civilians to march down the streets of Mosul to demonstrate the capacity of ordinary Iraqis to wage war." What kinds of guns? All kinds, many old but also many new, the latter including AK-47 true assault rifles capable of full-automatic fire, and "Israeli Uzis and German MP5 submachine guns." Civilians even had rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). A retired Army Special Operations officer with whom I swap e-mails now and again confirms that that part of the world, with which he is very familiar, is awash in guns. And a soldier returned from Iraq once told Limbaugh about the widespread civilian possession of guns in that country. Rush was surprised, but I’ve never heard him mention it again. So, if Iraqi civilians were actually heavily armed even before they were "liberated" (Ha!), why didn’t the Iraqi people rise up against their brutal dictator and save the United States the trouble of "liberating" them?

Does the failure of heavily armed Iraqis to liberate themselves undermine the arguments of Second Amendment supporters in the United States, few of whom seem to be aware that Iraqi civilians were heavily armed even in Saddam’s day? I’m surprised that the gun prohibitionists haven’t used the Iraq situation to jump on this pro-Second Amendment argument with both feet. "Look! The heavily armed Iraqis couldn’t do anything against Saddam’s police state. Any attempt to overthrow his oppressive regime would have brought about the swift and brutal eradication of rebel forces by his military and police forces. Why, his oppressed masses couldn’t even assassinate him, because he had so many doubles standing in for him and he had spies everywhere. You Second Amendment yahoos are caught up in a bunch of romantic nonsense if you think that you can stand up against the military and police forces of a modern nation state gone bad." Somewhere, I believe on the Internet, I’ve seen at least one Second Amendment-supporter’s response to the Iraq situation. He argued that since the Iraqis didn’t liberate themselves, reports that they were heavily armed must be false. But both the argument that Iraqis couldn’t overthrow Saddam even though they were heavily armed, and the argument that the fact that they didn’t overthrow him proves that they weren’t heavily armed are questionable.

Had the Iraqis been as willing to take on Saddam’s military and police forces as they obviously have been to take on American and British forces far more powerful than any that could have been mustered by Saddam, they could have got rid of him themselves and been less worse off than they are now. As Saddam apparently hoped they would, Iraqis have proven that they can fight and that they’re willing to take casualties, and in doing so they’ve also shown that even if they had the means they didn’t have the will to get rid of him. They’re currently demonstrating that they have both the means and the will to take on rival factions and those whom they consider to be occupiers of their country and despoilers of everything they value. As the retired Army Special Operations officer I mentioned previously e-mailed me: "Every country I have ever spent time in, to include Iraq, the people living there are as free as they are willing to be. This is not just opinion, it is true by definition. Otherwise they would be dead or in jail trying to overthrow people like Saddam. What Americans mistakenly do is transfer their beliefs regarding distrust of government onto others. The vast majority of people around this world believe government to be a good, not evil, force in their lives." Well put. Even a well-armed populace can be oppressed if it doesn’t have the will to rebel. I might add that even in the United States, detractors of the Second Amendment, and even many of its supporters, tend to trust government too much and see it as a force for good as long as their side is in power.

December 13, 2006

William R. Tonso [send him mail] a retired sociology professor (University of Evansville) who has written a lot on the gun issue, both sociological and pro-Second Amendment. His recent book, Gun Control=People Control, is a collection of eleven of his essays previously published in Liberty, Reason, Chronicles, and Gun Week.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com



Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/tonso3.html


~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Suribachi Flag: Living Japanese Survivor, Etc.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/p20061211p2g00m0dm003000c.html

MSN JapanNews
Mainichi Daily News
INTERACTIVE

Flags of Our Fathers:
Japanese Iwo Jima eyewitness tells it in his own words

Joe Rosenthal's famous photo of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima. (AP)
"The Iwo Jima Memorial standing at Arlington Cemetery. The photo showing six U.S. Marines raising the Stars & Stripes on Mt. Suribachi was not only staged, but the summit was retaken twice by Japanese forces, who raised the Nissho-ki (Sun flag) in its place. A young Japanese serviceman who witnessed it all recounts his memories from 61 years ago." (Shukan Bunshun (12/14)

Actually, the U.S. flag was raised by five Marines and one Navy corpsman. The USMC Iwo Jima memorial stands in Rosslyn, Virginia, nearby, but not within the boundaries of, Arlington Cemetery. And allegations that AP cameraman Joe Rosenthal "staged" the famous flag-raising photo have been thoroughly debunked.

Following this acerbic and partially inaccurate lead-in, Shukan Bunshun introduces Tsuruji Akikusa, age 79. In 1944, the 17-year-old Akikusa was dispatched to Iwo Jima as a signalman for the Imperial Japanese Navy. He had enlisted two years earlier following his school graduation.

Akikusa points to a photo in a movie program showing actors portraying American GIs sitting on a patch of grassy turf.

"That would have been impossible," he scoffs. "After the naval bombardment, there wasn't a blade of grass left on the island."

Out of a total Japanese garrison of 21,000 men, only 1,023 men survived, including Akikusa. He was seriously wounded during the pre-invasion bombardment in February 1945 and did not take part in the fighting. Found unconscious in the battle's aftermath, he was evacuated to a hospital in Guam and repatriated the following year.

In "Junana-sai no Io-to" (a 17-year-old on Iwo Jima, Bungei Shunju, 840 yen), his personal memoirs released this month, Akikusa provides a rare eyewitness perspective of what happened on Mt. Suribachi from the opposing side.

Suribachi, the highest point on the island, harbored about 2,000 Japanese defenders. Akikusa himself was situated at a communications post some 3.5 kilometers to the northeast, on a lower peak called Mt. Tamana.

On the morning of February 23, he saw the first U.S. flag go up on Suribachi's peak, followed shortly thereafter by the second, larger flag, the raising of which was immortalized at 1/400th second in Rosenthal's famous photograph. Akikusa's descriptions up to this point correspond completely to American accounts of the event. But what followed afterward appears to contradict the official U.S. Naval version of the battle.

The following morning, as Akikusa relates in his book, "It was not the Stars & Stripes, but the Nissho-ki (Japanese Sun flag) that was waving. Even though the peak was the target of attack from every direction on the island, I thought how hard they must have fought, and tears naturally came to my eyes. The valiant fighters were defending Mt. Suribachi to the death."

The U.S. troops quickly hauled down the Japanese standard and replaced it with their own flag. But early the next morning, February 25, "the Nissho-ki was once again fluttering in the morning sunshine. It was a dazzling, beautiful sight."

"The flag was a different one from the day before," Akikusa recalls. "It was a smaller one, and square. It may have been improvised. The red circle in the center looked brownish, so it could have been blood."

"It may have been made out of a shirt. It moved me to tears. 'Our guys are still up there,' I thought. 'They're giving everything they've got. So will I.'"

"I had hoped to see the Nissho-ki still flying the next morning, but that miracle was not to be," Akikusa writes. "I said to myself, 'Well, I guess that's the end of it.'"

By March 8, the US attackers had turned their overwhelming numerical superiority on Mt. Tamana. Akikusa, wounded in the left leg and right hand, witnessed scenes of incredible carnage. Unconscious from multiple wounds, he awakened in a POW hospital on Guam.

Repatriated after the war, Akikusa called on the families of comrades killed in the fighting. But his visits were not necessarily welcomed.

"Their reactions were about half positive and half negative," he relates. "Many of them told me, 'We've already completed our Buddhist memorial services.' I guess they wanted to put it behind them as quickly as they could."

Shukan Bunshun asks Akikusa if he felt deaths of his comrades in arms was meaningful.

"Considering how this country has been without war for the past 60 years, I think it's commendable," Akikusa replies. "If you regard them as 'sacrificial stones' who caused Japan to relinquish what it sought to become in those times, then I want to believe their deaths were not without meaning." (By Masuo Kamiyama, contributing writer)

December 11, 2006
Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved.
Under the copyright law of Japan, use of all materials on this website, except for personal and noncommercial purposes, is prohibited without the express written permission of the Mainichi Newspapers Co. The copyright of the materials belongs to the Mainichi Newspapers Co. unless stated otherwise.
(C) 2005 Microsoft

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/p20061211p2g00m0dm003000c.html
~~~~~

LINKS TO ALAN STANG ARTICLES...

CLICK BELOW FOR A TREASURE TROVE OF LINKS TO ARTICLES BY ALAN STANG!!!!!
The Unusual, Controversial, Eye-opening, Thought-provoking, Politically Incorrect, Etc.

CLICK-HERE!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

China Marines by Eric Niderost By Eric Niderost

HistoryNet

China Marines
In the twilight of peace, the China Marines found themselves on the front lines of conflict.

By Eric Niderost

The United States Marine Corps had served with distinction in many parts of the world, but those serving in China in the 1930s faced a unique set of challenges. From 1937 to 1941, as relations between the United States and Japan steadily deteriorated, the "China Marines" became the subject of heated debate between the State Department, the diplomatic corps and the military. The disagreements were in part a reflection of the deep divisions that plagued the U.S. government and the nation at large.

In the final years prior to Pearl Harbor, Marines were stationed in several parts of north and central China protecting U.S. interests as they had done since the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. Perhaps the most famous of these isolated detachments of leathernecks, at least in terms of popular imagination and historical association, was the Embassy Guard Detachment at Peking.

In addition to that assignment, after the departure of the Army's 15th Infantry Regiment in early 1938, Marines could be found in Tientsin, about 83 miles or so from the capital and the traditional gateway to Peking. An additional 20 were stationed at Chinwangtao, a major port 140 miles northwest of Tientsin where much of the China Marines' support arrived from the States.

The largest detachment was the 4th Marine Regiment, which had been stationed in Shanghai since 1927. Its assignment was to safeguard American lives, property and commerce, not only in the great city, but in the Yangtze River valley as well.

First called to the area when China was overrun by warlords, by the 1930s the Marines were still performing the same mission as Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang -- fighting warlords and Communist forces under Mao Tse-tung in a country that seemed forever beset by chaos. A fervent anti-Communist, Generalissimo Chiang seemed so obsessed at times with destroying Mao that he ignored an even more ominous threat.

In 1931 ultranationalist officers within the Japanese army hoped to expand the borders of their country's empire at the expense of China, which they saw as weak and unable to defend itself. They staged an explosion along the Japanese-funded South Manchurian Railway near Mukden and used the incident as a pretext to seize Manchuria from China. Still obsessed with his anti-Communist campaign, Chiang did little to prevent the takeover. Other than delivering a few verbal protests, Western governments were silent, and many people believed that it would not be long before the Japanese continued their expansion.

While it did not noticeably raise the ire of Chiang or the interest of Western leaders, the Japanese seizure of Manchuria outraged ordinary Chinese citizens. An active anti-Japanese resistance movement soon sprang up. The center of that resistance was located in Shanghai. Fighting broke out in 1932 between Japanese troops guarding their settlement in Shanghai and Chinese troops at Chapei, a district of the city just north of the International Settlement.

The International Settlement was a foreign enclave that was home to thousands of diplomats, businessmen and their families. Although technically Chinese soil, it was governed by the multinational Municipal Council. The Shanghai Volunteer Corps had been created to protect the settlement, but real security was provided by the troops sent out by their respective home governments. For the Americans, that meant the 4th Marine Regiment.

When the fighting between the Japanese and Chinese nationalists intensified, the Marines helped maintain a defensive perimeter around the foreign delegations and kept the warring parties from entering until the fighting subsided somewhat.

By 1937, however, the relative calm of the previous five years began to fade. In July the Japanese military accused the Chinese of kidnapping one of their privates in Peking. The charge was patently false, and the missing man was found in a brothel, but the Japanese used the incident to launch a full-scale war against China.

Thousands of Japanese troops poured into northern China, quickly occupying Peking and Tientsin and crushing all opposition. Finally motivated to act, Chiang Kai-shek ordered two of his best divisions to Shanghai to try to stop the Japanese. The Chinese leader knew that the city's foreign community would guarantee a large international audience once battle was joined.

With heavy fighting in Shanghai's Chapei district, the commander of the 4th Marines, Colonel Charles F.B. Price, met with American Consul General Clarence Gauss and Maj. Gen. A.P.D. Telfer-Smollett, commander of the British Shanghai Area Force, to discuss the best course of action. Price could consult with officials within the perimeter, but the colonel ultimately took his orders from Admiral Harry E. Yarnell, the commander of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet. The admiral told Price in no uncertain terms that armed troops from either side would not be allowed into the American sector of the International Settlement and that if any foreign troops tried to breach the perimeter, the Marines were authorized to use force if need be.

The Chinese fought courageously, but they were finally forced to withdraw from Shanghai in mid-November 1937. The International Settlement and neighboring French Concession became small isolated enclaves of Western governance. Despite Japanese control of the city, the Anglo-American portions of the settlement were inviolate -- at least for the moment. Protected by its neutrality, the Chinese government was free to operate within the confines of the settlement -- a fact that made the Japanese grind their teeth in frustration. Chinese customs, post, radio and telegraph offices and Chinese banks all conducted business safe from Japanese interference. Patriotic Chinese newspapers within the settlement were free to report the war and publicize the plight of ordinary Chinese by exposing Japanese atrocities, which occurred with frightening regularity. Such reports only served to secure increased public support in the West for Chiang and his forces.

Anxious to continue their war of conquest without raising the ire of the international community, the Japanese wanted to seize control of the nettlesome Anglo-American settlement. They knew that any overt aggression might lead to war, so they instead relied on a series of confrontational moves that increased tensions and made life for the foreigners increasingly uncomfortable. On December 12, 1937, Japanese planes attacked and sank the gunboat USS Panay, killing two sailors and wounding many others. Americans were outraged, but strong isolationist sentiments coupled with a quick Japanese apology and generous reparation payments averted armed conflict.

Another crisis had passed, but the basic problem remained: How should the United States respond to Japan's brutal conquest of China? In 1935 Congress had passed a series of neutrality acts that rigidly controlled American trade with belligerents in foreign wars. Many isolationist politicians in Congress believed that only strict neutrality would keep the United States from finding itself in another war.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was sympathetic to China, and he got around the neutrality laws by simply ignoring them. He refused to acknowledge that a state of war existed between China and the Japanese empire. It was a legal fiction helped by the fact that no formal declaration of war had ever been made by either side. Roosevelt was therefore free to send arms to China -- some $9 million worth in 1938 alone. This was a boon not only to Chiang, but to the American economy as well.

Even within his own administration there were diverse opinions of the president's actions. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau believed that U.S. interests in China must be protected by a military and economic buildup. He thought that, like the proverbial schoolyard bully, Japan would back down when faced with firmness and resolve. Others were not so sure. Secretary of State Cordell Hull and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew believed a hard line would only weaken the position of Japanese moderates and would ultimately lead to war.

While the debate continued, the Marines in Shanghai were forced to carry on in an increasingly difficult situation. Since they could not openly seize the International Settlement, the Japanese military kept up the pressure on the remaining foreign delegations through intimidation and veiled threats. In December 1937, they announced that they were going to stage a victory parade though the International Settlement. The Municipal Council protested but, with no real support available from the Chinese government, had no choice but to permit the intrusion.

Chinese citizens within the settlement were told to stay off the street, and the municipal police were placed on full alert. As the Japanese parade tramped into the international area, a Chinese man tossed a hand grenade that killed three soldiers and wounded three policemen. A Chinese constable shot and killed the attacker, but the Japanese used the killings as an excuse to search for more "assassins" within the International Settlement. After creating a good deal of unease with these searches, Japanese authorities announced that they wanted to take control of the settlement to restore order. At this Colonel Price protested and warned the Japanese off in no uncertain terms.

As before, the immediate crisis passed but tension in the city increased as everyone prepared for the next emergency. By 1940, with Europe again at war, the situation for the Marines in Shanghai had become even more precarious. The garrison was about 1,000 men. In the past, this force could have been supplemented with reinforcements from the other delegations in an emergency, but the international situation now meant this was no longer the case. There were 750 Italian troops, but their Fascist government's warm relations with Imperial Japan made any cooperation with American interests unlikely. The French had about 4,000 troops; that force, however, was unreliable following the defeat of France and the establishment of a pro-German Vichy government. That left the British, but after a string of defeats in Europe, all but a small portion of that force was withdrawn from Shanghai on August 26, 1940. If tempers flared, a mere 1,000 Marines now found themselves defending the settlement from the nearly half million Japanese troops operating in the region.

In 1939 Admiral Thomas C. Hart took over the U.S. Asiatic Fleet from Admiral Yarnell. Uneasy about the vulnerability of his badly outnumbered forces, he slowly began withdrawing American naval units from Chinese waters. Eventually all that remained of the once powerful Asiatic Fleet was a handful of gunboats belonging to the Yangtze River Patrol (YANGPAT). Meanwhile, as the Chinese and Japanese carried out their own brutal guerrilla war against one another in the side streets and back alleys of Shanghai, the Marines found themselves acting as a local police force.

On January 3, 1940, Price was replaced by Colonel DeWitt Peck. The new commander was quickly immersed in a bewildering array of military, diplomatic and security problems that would have taxed the ingenuity of King Solomon and the patience of Job. Peck did have a friend and ally in Rear Adm. William A. Glassford, YANGPAT's commander.

On July 7, 1940, the third anniversary of the incident that started the Sino-Japanese war, the foreign delegations in the settlement were put on full alert. It was feared that the Chinese might use the anniversary to demonstrate or even stage a guerrilla-style attack on local Japanese authorities. Those fears were heightened when it was announced that Japanese General Juzo Nishio would be coming to the settlement on an inspection tour. As part of the visit, members of the council proposed that a reception for the general be held in the Cathay Hotel.

Nishio, however, said he would prefer that the reception be held in some other venue outside the perimeter of the British portion of the settlement, where the hotel was located. The Municipal Council bowed to his wishes and the reception was moved to the Park Hotel, which was squarely within the 4th Marines' defensive sector. That placed security during this very tense situation in the lap of Colonel Peck and his Marines.

On the day of Nishio's scheduled arrival, Peck received an urgent call from the settlement's municipal police asking for immediate assistance. He sent Lt. Col. Eugene F. Collier and 25 Marines from the 1st Battalion to Bubbling Well Road. They arrived to find 16 Japanese men loitering in the area, which was not far from the Park Hotel. Not only were they acting suspiciously, all seemed to be armed, their guns badly concealed under bulging coats.

These men were probably Japanese military and it was clear that the situation called for the utmost tact. Any major confrontation might well have international repercussions. The Marines feigned disinterest at first, lulling the suspects into a false sense of security. Then, at a prearranged signal, the leathernecks pounced on their unsuspecting quarry, and all hell broke loose.

The loitering Japanese were finally subdued, but most remained uncooperative and had to be bodily thrown into a waiting truck for transport to the Marines' headquarters on Haiphong Road. One of the prisoners spoke excellent English and finally admitted they were with the military police. He claimed they were an advance party detailed to protect the Japanese general.

Legitimate or not, this was a clear violation of the established rules within the International Settlement. When the commander of troops from one nation wanted to enter or cross the sector patrolled by troops from another, permission had to be asked and at least 24 hours' notice given. A phone call was placed to General Saburo Miura's headquarters. If Miura, the commander of Japanese military police forces, or his representatives could identify the prisoners, they would be released. If not, they would be charged and put on trial for carrying concealed weapons without a permit.

While things were being sorted out, the Japanese were held in a building that housed an indoor rifle range. The door was guarded by a single Marine. Seeing an opportunity, the prisoners rose as one and started for the door. "We are officers of the Japanese Emperor," the English speaker declared with as much authority as he could muster, "and you dare not detain us!"

The Marine instantly grasped the seriousness of the situation. He could not allow them to escape, but he was not in a position to use deadly force. Instead, he laid aside his rifle -- making sure it was out of reach of the prisoners -- raised his fists and prepared to stop them. In the wild free-for-all that followed, four of the would-be escapees were knocked down. Three of the four lost some of their front teeth and much of their courage. Although he had been badly outnumbered, the Marine had stopped the attempted escape.

In the meantime, General Miura had arrived at Marine headquarters for a hurried conference with Colonel Peck. The Japanese officer apologized for the incident, and for not notifying the colonel that his men were going to enter the International Settlement undercover. Peck accepted Miura's apology -- or seemed to -- and the prisoners were released.

The arrest of the 16 men had uncovered a larger, more sinister plot. While the Marines had been busy dealing with the lurking Japanese military police, seven Chinese men who were also hanging around in the area had tried to avoid observation by other Marines providing security. Alerted by the strange behavior of the seven men, several of Peck's men gave chase. In an effort to shake off their pursuers, they ducked into a large YMCA building next door to the Park Hotel.

The Marines managed to arrest three of the seven, and took them back to headquarters for interrogation. They were Chinese criminals who hailed from Formosa (now Taiwan), which at that time was a Japanese colony. The Chinese had been captured with revolvers and hand grenades, and they quickly confessed that they had been working with Miura to carry out an assassination of Nishio when he arrived at the Park Hotel. Further questioning revealed that the 16 Japanese agents arrested earlier were to be on hand to assist the Chinese assassins by firing weapons into the air and creating sufficient confusion for the attack to be carried out. If Nishio had been killed or wounded, there was little doubt that the Japanese would have used the incident as a pretext for moving troops into the Anglo-American sectors of the settlement.

It may seem incredible that a Japanese general would have hatched a plot to assassinate a brother officer. But such was the state of affairs in China at that point, and so anxious were the Japanese to shut down the settlement, that such a plot is not completely beyond belief. The difficulty was further compounded because Miura was deeply involved in a variety of criminal activities in the western suburbs of Shanghai that were known as the "badlands." Bounded by Yu Yuen, Jessfield and Great Western streets, the area had become a notorious center of Japanese-controlled vice. Opium dens, brothels and gambling halls provided a steady stream of kickback income to Miura and a small group of Japanese officers.

What could have been an incredibly disastrous incident had been narrowly averted thanks to a little bit of luck and the vigilance of a handful of Marines. But the situation was still serious -- serious enough to prompt the United States to send all Navy and Marine dependents home in December 1940.

In May 1941, Colonel Peck was replaced by Colonel Samuel Howard, who soon came to the conclusion that his Marines -- indeed, all remaining American military forces -- should be withdrawn from China. Faced with similar challenges of maintaining a minuscule force in the midst of an increasingly hostile situation, Glassford, still in command of YANGPAT, agreed.

The officers brought their concerns to the U.S. consul general in Shanghai, Frank B. Lockhart, who relayed a message to Secretary of State Hull on August 14, 1941. Lockhart began by saying that Admiral Glassford and Colonel Howard had sent a recommendation to the Asiatic Fleet commander, Admiral Hart, that all Marines be withdrawn from China. The consul general went on to say that he concurred with their conclusions without reservation. Not only was the military situation untenable, but Lockhart considered the situation politically untenable now as well.

The consul general explained that the Marines' functions "are now becoming more and more those of a police force, thus increasing the possibility of serious incidents." If there was an open break with the Japanese government, the Marines would find it difficult if not impossible to withdraw: "Their presence apparently has not been a deterrent to the Japanese in implementing their economic policies in this area. Also the strength of the force would be wholly inadequate in the case of military operations directed against them by an organized force."

The U.S. ambassador to China, however, wanted the Marines to stay. Clarence Gauss responded to Lockhart's observations two days later by stating, "I do not believe the Marines should be withdrawn from China unless and until it becomes evident to the American Government that relations with Japan have deteriorated to a point where a rupture appears inevitable, when, if the Marines are withdrawn, facilities should also immediately be afforded for the withdrawal of American [citizens] who do not elect to remain on their own responsibility."

Gauss complimented the Marines as "one of the most important factors in insuring the safety of our nationals during past years." This was true enough, but Gauss was in Chiang's capital at Chungking, roughly 1,000 miles from the Japanese-dominated area around Shanghai and had little true idea of the day-to-day challenges faced by the isolated leathernecks.

The debate on the future of the China Marines was being played out in the shadow of much larger international events. In September 1940, Japan had forced the Vichy government in France to allow their troops to occupy northern Indochina and had also signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. Earlier that same year, Yosuke Matsuoka had become Japanese foreign minister and General Hideki Tojo Japan's minister of war. The appointment of these two known hard-liners doomed the hopes of moderates within the Japanese government to avert further confrontations with the United States.

On July 24, 1941, about three weeks before Gauss' response to Lockhart, the Japanese moved their troops into southern Indochina. In response, Roosevelt imposed a heavy trade embargo on Japan. Ninety percent of the emperor's oil supply was taken away by the president's action. He hoped that such a drastic step would force the Japanese to withdraw from Indochina as well as slow their expansion in China.

As the world watched and waited anxiously to see what would happen following Roosevelt's embargo, the debate over the fate of the China Marines continued. Four days after Gauss' note, the assistant chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs in the State Department, a Mr. Adams, wrote in support of Gauss. Discounting the reservations of the military officers on the scene, Adams said Gauss "knows his China better than any of the four officers mentioned above." Admiral Hart fired back, in the third person: "The Commander in Chief favors the withdrawal of all our armed forces." That meant all Marines and the few U.S. gunboats still operating in China. In Hart's mind, "in the event of war with Japan they would be quickly contained or destroyed, probably without being able to inflict even a comparable loss on the enemy."

The State Department finally came around to Hart's views -- but it was an eleventh hour decision that was carried off in the very nick of time. The U.S. Yangtze Patrol, namely USS Oahu and Luzon, left China in late November. The gunboat USS Wake remained behind in Shanghai as a communications station ship for the American consulate. USS Tutulia was upriver, marooned in Chungking, so it was not included in the withdrawal order. USS Mindanao, the flagship -- indeed the only ship -- in the grandly named "South China Patrol," was included in the evacuation.

The 4th Marines left Shanghai in stages. The 2nd Battalion, half the headquarters and service company, and half the regimental hospital boarded the liner President Madison on a cold and rainy November 27, 1941. Colonel Howard and the rest of the regiment, including the 1st Battalion and the band, left the next day.

November 28 was a cloudy day, though the sun made a belated appearance. Colonel Howard and his staff led the way, marching on foot with the rest of his command. The 50-piece band was next, smartly playing the "Marines' Hymn" and "Semper Fidelis," followed by the rifle companies in heavy marching order shouldering Model 1903 Springfield rifles. Thousands of Chinese lined Nanking Road and the Bund waterfront, many pressing gifts into the hands of departing leathernecks and waving Chinese and American flags in farewell. A chapter of U.S. and Marine Corps history was coming to a close.

The last of the 4th Marines boarded President Harrison for the long voyage to the Philippines. They managed to reach the islands safely, and fought alongside U.S. Army and Filipino units during the epic siege of Bataan and Corregidor. They courageously endured six months of hunger, wounds and hardship before the last of the U.S. forces surrendered in May 1942. Thereafter, one kind of hell was traded for another, when the 4th Marines endured 312 years of torment as POWs.

The departure of the 4th Marines still left 203 leathernecks at the U.S. Embassy in northern China. They were due to leave on December 10, 1941, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor altered their travel plans. There was a brief hope -- a vain one, as it turned out -- that a so-called "Boxer Protocol" would give a measure of diplomatic immunity to Marine guards serving with the American Embassy.

Captain John White, the executive officer of the Marines at Tientsin, got an urgent radio message on Monday morning, December 8, that Pearl Harbor had been bombed. White immediately relayed the news to the Tientsin detachment commander, Major Luther Brown. The Japanese soon demanded that the detachments at Tientsin and Chinwangtao surrender by 1 p.m. that same day.

Major Brown phoned Colonel William A. Ashurst of the Peking Embassy Guard for instructions and was told to surrender. It was a bitter pill to swallow -- it is a tradition for Marines to never surrender without a fight -- but Ashurst believed his unit could do little else. Brown, devastated and choked with emotion, reluctantly complied. At Chinwangtao, 2nd Lt. Richard Huizenga sent a message that his machine guns were ready and that his 21 men "had a chance to stand them off," and, "Request instructions." Orders were orders, however, and Brown told Huizenga to lay down his arms.

The final chapter was a sad one. Ashurst and the rest of the Embassy Guard were soon made prisoners of war, and at Tientsin Sergeant Robert A. Smith's eyes began to tear as the Stars and Stripes came down to be replaced by the Rising Sun flag of Japan. When the ceremony concluded and the Marines prepared to enter captivity, Smith turned to a nearby comrade and pointed to the circle in the center of the flag's white field. "Look at what's there now," said Smith, "a flaming red asshole."

An era had ended. Why were the Marines allowed to stay so long? Their position was militarily untenable by the summer of 1940, when the British withdrew all their own forces. Some might argue it was hopeless to leave troops there even before that date. But a combination of inertia, isolationism, national pride and the stubborn belief that the Japanese would not risk war had made Washington blind to the situation until it was almost too late. Sixty years on, the issues and underlying causes can be debated, but there is no question that the China Marines performed an impossible mission with the Corps' customary courage and dedication to duty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article was written by Eric Niderost and originally appeared in the November 2005 issue of World War II magazine. For more great articles subscribe to World War II magazine today!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Find this article at:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3036456.html?showAll=y&c=y
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please Forward!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
(The Original "Gunny G")
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!

GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069

GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/

GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/

The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
RSS Feed-GyG's FURL Archive
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg/rss.xml
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Add Gunny G's FURL RSS Feed To YOUR Site!
http://www.furl.net/shareSite.jsp
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial, Politically Incorrect, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
(The Original "Gunny G")
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437-PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Add Gunny G's FURL RSS Feed To YOUR Site!
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
USMC, Military, History, Unusual/Controversial, Politically Incorrect, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

---

*****

---

...Defends His "Bomb The Hell Out Of Them" Statement...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/01/14/daily14.html

Miller defends 'bomb the hell out of them' comment, calls for action against Iraq
Atlanta Business Chronicle - January 15, 2002
by Walter Woods

In a rousing speech Jan. 14 that he himself described as "angry" U.S. Sen. Zell Miller defended some of the most controversial positions he's taken since being elected, including his comment that the U.S. should "bomb the hell" out of those responsible for Sept. 11.

"So far 12,000 tons -- 24 million pounds -- of bombs have been dropped on our enemies. If that's not bombing the hell out of them, I don't know what is," the former governor said to loud applause. "I received some criticism [for the remark, but] the criticism did not come from any who, as I just a few days after the attacks, had stood on Ground Zero amid that smoldering pile of rubble that had become the graveyard for thousands of innocent Americans."

Miller's speech also called on the U.S. to "go after" Iraq and Saddam Hussein, reinstate the military draft and drill in the Alaskan wildlife refuge to reduce dependence on foreign oil, among other proposals.

Miller spoke to a crowd of about 1,000 business and political leaders at the Georgia World Congress Center Monday night, including his colleague, Sen. Max Cleland and many members of the Georgia General Assembly.

The speech, for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce annual meeting dinner, was the first major address Miller has given in his home state since being elected just over a year ago, said a spokesperson, "and he wanted to make an impression."

His remarks, which Cleland described afterward as "great," were reminiscent of Miller's thunderous speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1992.

Miller blasted the Congress and federal government for its political partisanship, its waste of taxpayer money and the soft money from special interest groups, which he called "nothing short of bribery."

"One of these days someone smarter and younger and more articulate than I is going to get through to the American people just how really messed up it has become [in Washington]," Miller said. "And when that happens, the American people are going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both teams off the field."

Miller was referring to an unruly Cleveland Browns football game in December when fans threw beer bottles on the field after some questionable calls by the officials.

"As Churchill said, `Democracy is based on reason and a sense of fair play,'" Miller continued. "And there is nothing reasonable or fair about this system."

Miller also insisted that he would continue to buck the Democratic Party line and support ideas from both parties and President Bush, whom Miller described as the "right man" for the job.

"We have the right man in the White House," Miller said to loud applause. "George W. Bush has been magnificent."

Miller also spoke highly of Republican Congressman Johnny Isakson and said he enjoyed working with North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms.

Miller has been criticized for being a sponsor of Bush's tax cut and for being the first Senator to publicly support the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general.

Comparing Sept. 11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which he remembered as a boy, Miller said he supported a "wider war" against terrorism.

"And as far as I'm concerned, it means at some time -- maybe not next, but some time -- going after Saddam Hussein," Miller said. "We don't have to prove he was involved with Sept. 11 or with Al Qaeda. We know he hates the United States."

Miller also said he will be a co-sponsor of a bill with Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman to set up a powerful investigative panel to look into intelligence and diplomatic failures that may have lead to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I also think we should give serious thought to resuming the draft," said Miller, a former Marine. "It is clear that we're going to have to restructure our military as we prepare for this new kind of war."

Miller said drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would upset only three square miles of land in an area the size of South Carolina, while it would yield more than 16 billion barrels of oil -- "the equivalent of 30 years of Saudi Arabian oil imports."

Miller closed by promising to fight the status quo in Washington.

"I just don't think I'll ever be able to accept the way things work up there," he said. "Perhaps Washington will never change, but you know something, neither will I."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

The Failure Of The All-Volunteer Military

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boston Globe
January 21, 2007

The Failure Of An All-Volunteer Military

By Andrew J. Bacevich

"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.

The essential guarantor of US national security is the all-volunteer force. In its hey day -- the 1990s -- the all-volunteer force underwrote America's claim to global preeminence. Its invincibility taken for granted, the volunteer force seemed a great bargain to boot. Maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen. No wonder Americans viewed the volunteer military as the most successful federal reform program of the postwar era. What was there not to like?

In fact, questions of efficacy or economy did not figure significantly in the decision to create the all-volunteer force. Back in the early 1970s, the object of the exercise had been quite simple: to terminate an increasingly illegitimate reliance on conscription. During the Vietnam War, thanks in no small part to the draft, the armed services had become estranged from American society. The all-volunteer force creation severed relations altogether.

This divorce had large implications. After Vietnam, citizenship no longer included an obligation to contribute to the nation's defense. Military service became a matter of personal preference, devoid of political or moral significance. Although providing for the common defense remained a primary function of government, federal officials no longer possessed the authority to command citizens to bear arms. Henceforth, they could only encourage young Americans to enlist, offering inducements to sweeten the invitation.

Historically, Americans had viewed a "standing army" with suspicion. After Vietnam they embraced the idea. By 1991 they were celebrating it. After Operation Desert Storm -- with its illusion of a cheap, easy victory -- soldiers like General Colin Powell persuaded themselves that "the people fell in love with us again."

If love, it was a peculiar version, neither possessive nor signifying a desire to be one with the beloved. For the vast majority of Americans, Desert Storm affirmed the wisdom of contracting out nation al security. Cheering the troops on did not imply any interest in joining their ranks. Especially among the affluent and well-educated, the notion took hold that national defense was something "they" did, just as "they" bus ed tables, collected trash, and mowed lawns. The stalemated war in Iraq has revealed two problems with this arrangement.

The first is that "we" have forfeited any say in where "they" get sent to fight. When it came to invading Iraq, President Bush paid little attention to what voters of the First District of Massachusetts or the 50th District of California thought. The people had long since forfeited any ownership of the army. Even today, although a clear majority of Americans want the Iraq war shut down, their opposition counts for next to nothing: the will of the commander-in-chief prevails.

The second problem stems from the first. If "they" -- the soldiers we contract to defend us -- get in trouble, "we" feel little or no obligation to bail them out. All Americans support the troops, yet support does not imply sacrifice. Yellow-ribbon decals displayed on the back of gas-guzzlers will suffice, thank you.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?

The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty.

After the Cold War, Americans came to see war as something other than a human enterprise; the secret of military superiority ostensibly lay in the microchip. The truth is that the sinews of military power lie among the people, who legitimate war and sustain it.

For the United States to remain a great military power will require a genuine reconciliation of the military and American society. But this implies the people exercising a greater say in deciding when and where American soldiers fight. And it also implies reviving the tradition of the citizen-soldier so that all share in the burden of national defense.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "D1ck" Gaines
The Original
"Gunny G"
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/sites.html
~~~~~~
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069
~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~
GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
~~~~~~~
The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
RSS Feed-GyG's FURL Archive
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg/rss.xml
~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
~~~
Send: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boston Globe
January 21, 2007

The Failure Of An All-Volunteer Military

By Andrew J. Bacevich

"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.

The essential guarantor of US national security is the all-volunteer force. In its hey day -- the 1990s -- the all-volunteer force underwrote America's claim to global preeminence. Its invincibility taken for granted, the volunteer force seemed a great bargain to boot. Maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen. No wonder Americans viewed the volunteer military as the most successful federal reform program of the postwar era. What was there not to like?

In fact, questions of efficacy or economy did not figure significantly in the decision to create the all-volunteer force. Back in the early 1970s, the object of the exercise had been quite simple: to terminate an increasingly illegitimate reliance on conscription. During the Vietnam War, thanks in no small part to the draft, the armed services had become estranged from American society. The all-volunteer force creation severed relations altogether.

This divorce had large implications. After Vietnam, citizenship no longer included an obligation to contribute to the nation's defense. Military service became a matter of personal preference, devoid of political or moral significance. Although providing for the common defense remained a primary function of government, federal officials no longer possessed the authority to command citizens to bear arms. Henceforth, they could only encourage young Americans to enlist, offering inducements to sweeten the invitation.

Historically, Americans had viewed a "standing army" with suspicion. After Vietnam they embraced the idea. By 1991 they were celebrating it. After Operation Desert Storm -- with its illusion of a cheap, easy victory -- soldiers like General Colin Powell persuaded themselves that "the people fell in love with us again."

If love, it was a peculiar version, neither possessive nor signifying a desire to be one with the beloved. For the vast majority of Americans, Desert Storm affirmed the wisdom of contracting out nation al security. Cheering the troops on did not imply any interest in joining their ranks. Especially among the affluent and well-educated, the notion took hold that national defense was something "they" did, just as "they" bus ed tables, collected trash, and mowed lawns. The stalemated war in Iraq has revealed two problems with this arrangement.

The first is that "we" have forfeited any say in where "they" get sent to fight. When it came to invading Iraq, President Bush paid little attention to what voters of the First District of Massachusetts or the 50th District of California thought. The people had long since forfeited any ownership of the army. Even today, although a clear majority of Americans want the Iraq war shut down, their opposition counts for next to nothing: the will of the commander-in-chief prevails.

The second problem stems from the first. If "they" -- the soldiers we contract to defend us -- get in trouble, "we" feel little or no obligation to bail them out. All Americans support the troops, yet support does not imply sacrifice. Yellow-ribbon decals displayed on the back of gas-guzzlers will suffice, thank you.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?

The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty.

After the Cold War, Americans came to see war as something other than a human enterprise; the secret of military superiority ostensibly lay in the microchip. The truth is that the sinews of military power lie among the people, who legitimate war and sustain it.

For the United States to remain a great military power will require a genuine reconciliation of the military and American society. But this implies the people exercising a greater say in deciding when and where American soldiers fight. And it also implies reviving the tradition of the citizen-soldier so that all share in the burden of national defense.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "D1ck" Gaines
The Original
"Gunny G"
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/sites.html
~~~~~~
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069
~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~
GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
~~~~~~~
The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
RSS Feed-GyG's FURL Archive
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg/rss.xml
~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
~~~
Send: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

GyG: YER DAMN RIGHT! - OUR "NANNY PATROL" IN RETREAT ON THE BORDER IS! BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!

By Gunny G!--CLICK-HERE!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

THE MAN WHO WARNED OF AN AMERICAN NAPOLEON BECAME THE AMERICAN NAPOLEON

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman66.html
Utopia? Hardly

by David Dieteman

The title of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's jam-packed one-volume history of the Civil War is Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. Hummel's title is connected to an ongoing debate between those who profess to love liberty, namely, between conservatives and libertarians.

In particular, those libertarians who advocate not only the separation of powers into three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – but the additional decentralization of power in such competing levels as municipal (city, township, and county), state, and federal, known as "states' rights" advocates for short (and, perhaps, these days, for scorn), are routinely lampooned, rather than debated, by conservatives.

Well, at least lampooned by so-called "neo"-conservatives...who are so neo, they don't very much resemble the conservatives of not so long ago. This is an oddity in itself. From the very nature of the term, one might think that self-described "conservatives" would tend to remain ideologically consistent – indeed, conserved, or unchanged – over time, at least with regard to the eternal questions, such as the best way to divide governmental powers so as to protect individual liberty.

Nope.

Perhaps it is because there is a war involved. The neo-cons appear entirely too much in favor of war as a tool of social policy. They appear to ignore the terrible evils – the genuine and unavoidable human suffering which comes with war. Bombing Belgrade, Sudan, and other places – and shooting down planes over Peru – kills men, women, and children. Killing should never be treated lightly. In other words, those who advocate militarism must do so only on the most serious grounds.

The above paragraph, of course, is at best a surmise, an exercise in psychologism. Whatever the reason, those who otherwise understand the separation of powers recoil from a robust concept of federalism. Worse, they label those who defend the American constitutional system of federal power as "utopians."

Hardly. Back to Hummel.

Although the title of Hummel's history of the Civil War may be perplexing to some, the title comes from a speech by Abraham Lincoln to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838. As Hummel writes, "The young Lincoln was warning about the potential danger of a future Napoleon subverting the United States Constitution." (p. 366, n. 1). Napoleon's armies tore up Europe from 1799 until he was poisoned in 1821 (by French monarchists), so when Lincoln spoke, he was speaking about recent history. This is like those of us today speaking about the 1984 Olympics. Yes, that's 17 years ago.

Here is what Lincoln said:

Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. (Hummel, 366)

Disturbingly, the man who warned of an American Napoleon became the American Napoleon.

Which brings me to a personal confession: Joe Sobran has softened my thinking on Lincoln. When I came to study the Civil War, and study it in-depth, over eight years, it occurred to me that, truly, the conflict is more properly named the War for Southern Independence. The Northern view of the war which I had been spoon-fed in school parrots the earlier English view of the colonial (American) War of Independence – right down to laughing at the notion that the relevant rebels could possibly claim to be fighting for freedom, merely because of the issue of slavery. By the way, the English figured things out the second time around – and rooted for the Confederacy. In that regard, see Sheldon Vanauken's The Glittering Illusion.

This Anglo-Northern myth is exactly that – a myth. Because it is false at worst, biased and incomplete at best, the telling and perpetuation of this counterfeit tale merits correction. In short, this descendent of a Federal army soldier was enraged to find injustice hiding behind a veil of justice. Sobran, however, has a point in arguing that, rather than see Lincoln merely as a villain, it may be appropriate to view Lincoln as a tragic, Oxfordian (you might say Shakespearean) figure.

But back to Hummel's essential point: the war against the Confederacy fundamentally changed the USA. The prosecution of the war turned the USA from an unobtrusive, small government into an intrusive, bloated monstrosity. When the USA forcibly re-absorbed the CSA, this "wonderful" system – now beyond reproach to "neo"-conservatives (maybe "conservatives" should be in quotation marks, rather than the neo) – became not only mandatory, but, according to the Northern theory still dominant today – inescapable.

No part of the USA can ever leave.

Hence the "pledge of allegiance" written by a Massachusetts minister – a self-proclaimed socialist, who was so far to the Left with his social gospel, he was kicked out by his own congregation. Welcome to the United States. You are now here forever, no matter what.

Say, what is the neo-conservative view of federal taxation with respect to those who renounce their US citizenship? More than a few wealthy Americans – many of them from prominent families – have renounced their citizenship in the last decade to escape punitive levels of taxation. Should Uncle Sam confiscate everything owned by such "disloyal" people?

A further question: if an individual citizen may freely renounce his US citizenship, is there a logical reason why an entire state of individual citizens cannot renounce its citizenship? The standard Northern line is that, hey, self-determination is fine in Nicaragua, Vietnam and the Balkans, but absolutely out of the question on the American continent.

The Canadians had better keep their rifles handy – oh, wait, their government is in the process of melting them down for worthless scrap metal. The Fenians, it seems, were a tad early.

And what to make of Texas. The USA backed Texas in its drive for independence from Mexico. The Republic of Texas, which won its independence from Mexico in 1836 – remember the Alamo? – spent perhaps 10 years as an independent nation. It was then annexed by the USA on December 29, 1845.

The annexation, by the way, led to a war – the Mexican War. California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming were taken from Mexico by the USA.

Sixteen years after the independent nation of Texas had been annexed by the USA – in 1861 – the USA refused to let Texas leave the USA. Sorry. There is a piece of paper, known as the Constitution, which means that although areas like Texas may declare their independence of nations such as Mexico – with the backing of the USA – an area like Texas may never declare its independence from the USA. We have different rules, and we don't allow that.

You signed away your independence permanently, and if you care to disagree, we will kill you. Forget the Supreme Court. As President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed, the highest tribunal available to mankind is the force of arms. And so Texas – which, the Northern myth proclaims, had never left the union via the heresy of "secession" – was forced to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in order to be "re-admitted" to a Union that it supposedly had never really left.

Notice how the Northern view of the Civil War mirrors the typical Department of Motor Vehicles view of your attempts to renew your drivers' license. It is the nature of behemoth governmental bureaucracies.

By the way, following the Northern approach to the question of secession, should we outlaw divorce?

Of course, the Northern view is merely an incoherent attempt to justify a war, and to defend the morally indefensible – the idea of a compulsory, involuntary, permanent "union" held together by force of arms, against the will of the citizens. On the Northern view, is it possible to ever dump the Constitution of 1789 for a new Constitution – even by way of Amendments or Constitutional Convention? Or are we stuck with it?

And, of course, the Northern view is wrong. The Constitution of 1789 – a document of delegated powers – does not prohibit secession, and the 9th and 10th Amendments must be interpreted to allow for a constitutional right of secession – to say nothing of the natural right of secession so eloquently described in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (a belated Happy Fourth of July to you).

But back again to Hummel, whose Chapters Nine through Thirteen (and Epilogue) make his case rather strongly that the war – allegedly fought for "freedom" – significantly reduced American freedom.

As Hummel notes, "The national government at the time [of the war] had only two sources of revenue: a very low tariff and the sale of public lands." (p 221)

Utopia! But I digress.

"Adjusting for population, the government in Washington was spending approximately $2.50 per person in 1858, or the equivalent of $44 per person today [Hummel was originally published in 1996]. This was less than 2 percent of the economy's total output." (p 221)

Utopia!

How did people survive from the founding of the first European colonies in the New World until 1858, some 200 years (roughly)? By private initiative – also known as work and good works.

Those, such as myself, who advocate genuinely limited government, the separation of powers, and federalism (i.e., "states' rights") recognize that on questions of social policy, there are two questions which must always be answered

1. Is the suggested policy a good idea?

2. Should the government enact the policy?

The answer to the first question will depend on the facts. The answer to the second question is never "yes."

Although I agree with conservatives such as Charley Reese that genuine freedom does not include the abandonment of commitments to family, faith and country, the historical record of mankind's experiments with limited government is not encouraging. By and large, the State – logically distinct from the social order, society, and populace – whenever it has been limited by human design, whether in Venice, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, in England under Magna Carta, in America under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, or in ancient Athens and Rome, has managed to usurp and destroy such limits over time, all the while cooing that such usurpations were "for the better" or "for the common good."

In the USA, this mistake has been repeated. After the Declaration of Independence and the war of secession from England, those men who crafted the Declaration of Independence and fought the War of Independence crafted the Articles of Confederation – which were detested by those who longed for a powerful, centralized state, namely, the nationalists, the misnamed "Federalists," i.e., statists such as Alexander Hamilton, and also by those, like Robert Morris, who financed the War of Independence and who wanted to be repaid – by a Confederate government (as in "Articles of Confederation;" Confederate, then, is the proper term) that could not compel its member states to pay up.

The US, then, voluntarily abandoned the – utopian! – really limited government of the Articles of Confederation for the less limited government of the Constitution. Of course, to the neo-cons, the Constitution as written is, you guessed it, utopian. And so men like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR had to come along to show everyone what had been so misunderstood since 1789, and by men like Jefferson – who advocated the right of secession.

As Hummel writes of pre-Civil War America,

Most Americans paid no taxes whatsoever to any federal officials directly, and their only regular contact with any representatives of central authority was probably through the United States Post Office – if they had any contact at all. Indeed, in New York City, the government delivered only one million letters in 1856 as compared with the ten million carried by private companies. (p 222)

A government post office that isn't a monopoly? Utopia! How dare libertarians suggest a private postal service – you must be against delivering letters at all! Neanderthals! Racists! Homophobes!

Ah, almost forgot to mention that Hummel also notes that the Civil War introduced paper money, which led to counterfeiting (and the Secret Service)(p 226). The private minting of coins was outlawed. And Abraham Lincoln used federal troops to break union strikes – in the North (p 234).

And yet, and yet...these are historical facts.

The USA enjoyed 90 years of independence without government control of every aspect of human existence. And yet if you dare to question such government control today, you are branded as a utopian, a fool on an ivory tower, unwilling to confront the "practical realities" of politics. Here's a practical reality: Americans today are not very free by historical standards, and certainly not by the standards of the Sons of Liberty, who staged the Boston Tea Party.

Utopian my eye.

Roll back the state. It is bloated beyond any reasonable view of the Constitution, and is an affront to the principles of the American founding. Here's a challenge to the neo-cons: dare to imagine a different world than the status quo. There is no reason to conserve the usurpations of the Constitution which were perpetrated by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR – to name but a few. Americans today face a moral imperative: the state must be contained within the limits of justice.

July 14, 2001

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2001 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.

http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=14942379
~~~~~

Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

CLICK-HERE!!!!!

Editor, FlyoverPress.com"
date Jan 3, 2007 10:47 AM
subject Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

A subscriber sent a cut and paste of a post on an Internet forum by Pat Rogers. For those of you who don’t know, Rogers is a double dipping (retired Marine Corps Warrant Officer AND retired NYPD cop) stereotypical Yankee statist jerk. His post has been lightly edited for grammatical clarity. (What do you expect from a jarhead-cop?)

”I make 5-7 long walks with the pup daily, and while strolling through the 'hood I see a lot. Lately the crop of 9-11 year olds has been out on the street with plastic guns, rucks and patrol caps.

“Understand I live in a nice place, and mostly everyone is gov or military, with a mean rank of 0-6/ GS15.

”Today I heard the kids along a stream that runs past the back of my casa—orders, the ratchet sound of the plastic guns etc. I went out on the back porch in time to see a patrol assaulting through a linear ambush.

“After consolidation they took a break and sorted things out. A young voice cut through the forest. ‘THIS TIME YOU HAVE TO BE THE HAJI'S...’

”Yeah, the kids are playing Cowboy's and Haji's. Things just may be getting better....”

End of Post:



“Getting better?” Hardly! This incident is nothing but crystal clear confirmation of the effectiveness of the awesome Yankee occupier’s propaganda machine. That should not be news to anyone, much less the latest crop of victims currently risking life and limb “serving” the interest of the imperial State and its benefactors in the sand pile. All that Rogers has said is that the State is busily preparing another crop to take their place.


Garet Garrett, in his 1952 pamphlet, The Rise of Empire declared "We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire." And went on to conclude…



“It is our turn.

“Our turn to do what?

“Our turn to assume the responsibilities of moral leadership in the world,

“Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere—in Europe and Asia and Africa, in the Atlantic and in the Pacific, by air and by sea…

“Our turn to keep the peace of the world.

“Our turn to save civilization.

“Our turn to serve mankind.



“But this is the language of Empire. The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy. Yet the more that may be added to it the more it is the same language still. A language of power.”



Randolph Bourne rightfully referred to war “the health of the State" and that alone is ample justification for advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy.



As Murray Rothbard put it in For a New Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp):



“War has always been the occasion of a great—and usually perma­nent—acceleration and intensification of State power over society. War is the great excuse for mobilizing all the energies and resources of the nation, in the name of patriotic rhetoric, under the aegis and dictation of the State apparatus. It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morals—as the libertarian Albert Jay Nock once phrased it—of an ‘army on the march.’



“It is particularly ironic that war always enables the State to rally the energies of its citizens under the slogan of helping it to defend the country against some bestial outside menace. For the root myth that enables the State to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The facts, however, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the State, it is also its greatest danger. A State can only ‘die’ by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically mobilizes its subjects to fight for it against another State, under the pretext that it is fighting to defend them.”



It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent individuals buy into such crap as Rogers has to peddle.


thegunny, 419
--
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...

Here is Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...
CLICK-HERE!!!!!

FURL RSS Feed Below...
Post To Your Own Site, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

The Marine Professional Private

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook1207.htm
~~~~~

U. S. Marines In Action: Tales of the Old Corps, 1773-1953

Ten major wars and two hundred minor actions comprise the history of the United States Marine Corps, and parallel the history of America itself. "U.S. Marines in Action" provides a comprehensive and stirring account of the activities of the military corps that has become synonymous with guts and glory. Fehrenbach dramatizes the incredible heroism of the leathernecks over two centuries of peacekeeping missions in every quarter of the globe.

FOREWORD

This book does not purport to be a history of the United States Marine Corps, which has served in twelve major wars and more than two hundred lesser actions.

It is, instead, the record of certain significant Marine actions which illustrate Marine history as a whole. These incidents and battles do not have significance for Marines alone, but for all Americans.

They are part of our own history, our national story. However, they have largely been forgotten, because Americans have an imperfect sense of our past.

The men in these pages run curiously to type, as that splendid communicator on U.S. Marines, Colonel Thomason wrote. Most of them are professional soldiers; many are of that ubiquitous type without which no standing military body can exist: the professional private.

The gallantry of Marine officers is well-documented. The efficiency of Marine NCOs is indisputable. But still, without the professional private there would be no Marine Corps. He is the man who gets and does the dirty jobs. He is the man who carries them through, without much pay, with little recognition.

He is the Marine who sweats on the rifle range while the drums are silent, and the fires of patriotism not yet lit. He is not the gallant volunteer who rushes into the grandeur and tragedy of war, then, when the war is done, says to hell with it till next time.

He knows, as surely as the sun must rise, there will be a next time, and he prepares for it.

He likes the comradeship of the men around him; he likes the close-knit, parochial community of arms. If war is his occupation, the service is his home. Above all else, the most important thing in his life is the Corps. The Corps gives his life meaning; in return, he gives it his life. And it is a fact that many men, reservists and sometimes Marines, find their service as the defining moment of their lives. Once a Marine, always a Marine.

The men in these pages generally are not imaginative, nor are they sensitive to all the currents around them. Political correctness passed them by. Those who constantly visualize their own blood staining the earth rarely become professional soldiers. Since war is their occupation, most of these men do not much wonder at the tasks they are asked to do. They do not muse over the metaphysical or the meaning of it all, nor does combat come to them as a shock. Their eye on the enemy, until he is proven dead.

When this book was researched most of the Marines depicted in these actions were still living. Most--this was a different age and culture--for various reasons had no wish to be named. Therefore many names were changed. For example, the man identified as Corporal Cherry Reed in the Okinawa action, was the Honorable Blair "Bruzzy" Reeves, last Justice of the Texas Court of Appeals. When the book was first printed, he was entering on his political career and asked me to change his name, so that no one might think he was trading on his heroism. Aurtre temps, autre moeurs.

In the Old Corps few men got medals for doing their job--unlike today, when a soldier who has never heard a shot fired in anger may sprout rows of ribbons.

The names of officers, company commanders and above, which are recorded in history, have not been changed.

Few of these men are now alive. However, Lieutenant Colonel Ray Davis, now General, USMC-retired, was still erect and hearty when I saw him at the proceedings of the United States Naval Institute where I spoke in March, 1999.

Yet, the breed survives. Old and new, the country and the Corps have always needed this breed of man throughout our past.

We shall need him again.

--T.R.F.

June, 1999

~~~~~

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook1207.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Southerners And Wars of Yankee Imperialism...by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Southerners and Wars of Yankee Imperialism

http://www.flyoverpress.com/southernersandwarsofyankeeimperialism.htm

by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

On the 27th of November, 2006 FlyoverPress.com carried the essay “Death by
Government: The Missing Chapter” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo114.html).

In the essay DiLorenzo points out that history records the extent to which
governments have committed mass murder of their own citizens during the
twentieth century—U.S.S.R.: 20 million; China: 65 million; Vietnam: 1
million; North Korea: 2 million; Cambodia: 2 million; Eastern Europe: 1
million; Latin America: 150,000; Africa: 1.7 million; Afghanistan: 1.5
million; Nazi Germany’s 21 million civilian murders and many others. After
reviewing the literature covering these mass murders, he notes that:

“The glaring omission is the 300,000 (Southern) Americans who were killed
by the Lincoln regime from 1861–1865. According to some conservative
estimates, some 50,000 Southern civilians were also killed…For (attempting
to leave the union) they had to be invaded, killed by the hundreds of
thousands, conquered, occupied, and re-educated over and over again.”

My editorial comment was something to the effect that one can not deny the
effectiveness of that "re-education." How else do you explain the fact
that young, peach faced, Southern kids have died in gross disproportion to
their numbers in the over all population in all of the Yankee occupation
government's imperialistic wars since then?

Smokey offered an answer:

“It is the urge to eat at the same table.

“It is something I have wondered about for most of my life. Nearly every
relative I have still has strong emotional ties to the Confederacy. And
yet, they (we) enlist at the first opportunity. I would posit that human
nature is more likely the root of such contradictive behavior than
re-education, or at least part and parcel to the phenomenon.

“The South was, and to an extent is, a warrior culture. Young men raised
on the values of warriors look for an outlet. They will look for the good
to justify the cause, and ignore the contradictions. And once your
grandfather or father or uncle or cousin does it..... it's that much
easier. The urge to follow in the footsteps of heroes is strong, even when
your heroes later say, "don't do it, it's a fool's choice."

“When you grow up in a family full of veterans, dead and living, there is
a hell of an urge to be able to eat at the same table and talk as an equal
among men/warriors.

“Until those values that make Southern culture worthwhile are dead and
dispersed, Southern men will answer the call, and ignore the
contradictions at the heart of the matter—or, until the call is sounded
again, by their own nation, for true freedom.”

This seems to be a case of old Smokey just not being quite ready yet to
admit that the whole damned clan has been duped.

In all seriousness (although chiding Smokey is great fun) this raises
questions that are much to important to be so flightily brushed aside.
Besides, I too feel honored to sit at that table. In fact, the only men I
care to associate with are from that mold. Smokey’s take is not
necessarily incompatible with mine—it just does not get to answers for the
ultimate question. Where did the clan get the idea in the first place?
What was ultimately responsible?

Before attempting to get to the bottom of those questions, I need to
clarify some of the terms. “Culture” and “values” are NOT a part of “human
nature?” Race and culture are commonly confused and, as a result, are
improperly used as synonyms. Race is genetically determined. Genes
determine the morphology and physiology of the organs of the body. That,
of course, includes the brain which influences certain fundamental
behaviors (basic intelligence and the propensity for crime, for example).
In much the same way, “human nature” (or call it nature’s law or the
nature of man, if you will) is universal. It applies to all men at all
places and in all times. Murder and mayhem are violations of “nature’s
law.”

On the other hand, “culture” and “values” are learned behaviors. Culture
is the sum total of everything (art, music, language, literature, etc)
that characterizes a group of people. As such, it is learned. Again,
history supports this hypothesis with regard to “Southern culture” and
military service to the Yankee occupier. Serving in the Yankee occupier’s
military was NOT a part of Southern culture in 1865. (How many Southern
males were willing to voluntarily join the genocide of the Plains Indian
using the same tactics that had been suffered upon them and their
families?) Apparently that “value” (or “cultural trait”) has changed as is
evidenced by the fact that Southerners have died in much greater
proportion than their representation in the general population in all of
the Yankee occupier’s modern imperialistic wars.

So, if the “warrior culture” is not genetic but learned behavior, and if
it is passed down through generations, then at some point in time, a
(some) member(s) of the clan had to be persuaded-taught that somehow
sacrificing himself in the name of Yankee Imperialism was a good and noble
deed. How did that happen?

The key has to lie somewhere within the apparatus and nature of the State
itself. Every State to have ever come into existence did so through
conquest, expropriation and exploitation—history records no exception.

Coercive exploitation creates victims (malcontents). Yet on the other
hand, the existence of the State ultimately depends on public opinion. It
is impossible to quell resistance with force alone, especially in the
normal cases where small minorities expropriate and exploit much larger
groups of people than themselves. Obviously, such an operation (as State
sponsored robbery and murder) must have public support in addition to a
coercive force capability.

Most of the population must believe that the State is legitimate. Public
opinion in support of the State acts as a counterbalance to the resistance
of victimized property owners and leaves the appearance that resistance is
futile. So, the State’s goal is to maximize wealth and income acquired by
exploitation. And to do this it must create favorable public opinion as to
its own legitimacy.

There are two primary methods that the state uses to accomplish this goal.
The first is ideological propaganda. The State spends a great deal of time
and stolen resources on persuading the public that things are not really
what they appear to be—e.g. It must exploit its subjects in order to make
(or keep) them “free;” Taxes are really just “paying our fair share;” The
“social contract” is a real one—even though nobody will put it into
writing; “We” are the government and, therefore, rule ourselves; There
would be no law and order or security in the homeland if it were not for
the State; Without the State the poor would all starve and minorities
would never be able to find a job; etc etc etc ad nauseum

Another technique the State uses to create favorable public opinion is
redistribution. Instead of being strictly a parasite, the State
redistributes a portion of its extorted property to people outside its own
apparatus. Of course, doing something nice for people is NOT the idea. The
idea is to corrupt them into being supportive. This is done for the
purpose of securing the existence and expansion of exploitation and
expropriation. These redistributive measures are applied to the production
of security (police, military, and the judicial system), transportation,
communication, affirmative action, health and welfare, and so fourth.

But most important to this thesis is education. As above, the State
depends, for its very survival, on public opinion with regard to its
legitimacy. Therefore, it absolutely must eliminate any unfavorable
ideological competition and insure that statist ideologies are propagated.
Thus, the loop is closed as this is accomplished by the State’s
redistributive provision of educational services.

So where, exactly, did the clan get the idea that “service” to the
occupier is noble and good? The process began somewhere along about the
loyalty oath that was forced upon a tired and defeated people during
reconstruction. But the Yankee propagandists soon discovered that less
coercive means were more effective. Thus, the forming of State-favorable
public opinion is the sole purpose for the existence of the government’s
schools—turning out little lock-step payers of “their fair share.” It is
the only reason those schools have elaborate playing fields and athletic
facilities—to produce strong male children willing to charge headlong into
machine gun fire on behalf of the lenders of blood money and their
benefactors. It is the only reason kids say the “pledge of allegiance.” It
is why war is glorified in all manner of media. It is why history books
are, at best, a collection of half-truths and often outright lies—all of
which aggrandize the State.

If we are ever to stop the robbery and murder, we must withdraw our
“public support.” In other words, we of the clan must UN-reconstruct
ourselves.

--
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~