Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

War, War, and More War

by David Yeagley · July 3, 2003 · 12 Comments ·

No one said Iraq was going to be easy, or short. Sure enough, it is neither. Resistance is growing, and prospects of an early peace seem tarnished. President Bush, however, is not intimidated or daunted. “Bring ’em on,” he responded to the threats. Bush says we intend to stay in Iraq until a democratic government is firmly established.

On last night’s TV news, I heard a man point out America does not have control over the media in Iraq, and those that do are urging America to leave. Of course, world media is in a sharkish feeding frenzy, devouring the American image with every bullet fired by our forces. America is the bad guy. Really bad.

Just about the time American forces are facing this depressing but false reality, another call for American troops comes from Liberia. Why? Some minor dictator, Charles Ghankey Taylor has ruined his little country, and the great and powerful UN can’t handle him. Amnesty denounces him. The Liberian people want US “peace-keeping” forces to come in and save them. Opporunists all.

Same old story, actually. We’ve responded to it over and over again. Third world countries and continents are an endless replay of the same scenario. Africa is chocked full of such disastrous conclaves called “countries”.

Pick a country. Any country. Pick Cuba. Why don’t we send peace-keeping troups into Havana, and deliver the miserable, oppressed, abused folk there?

If Bush sends troops into Liberia, I’m afraid it will look like an appeasement of the UN. After all, Bush declared America’s independence from that rotten nest of communist failures. Yet, it’s Koffi Annon, UN Secretary-General, who is asking for the US intervension. Maybe Bush wants to restore a little credibility to the organization. But why? It has always been a wastful operation, actually promoting dictatorships and oppression. It’s always wanted to down-size American independence, while it drains America of its resources. Clinton worked feverishly to accomplish this. But why have any expectation of the UN at all?

Since no one declares war anymore, but we all simply fight at will, what is the point of entering Liberia? Haven’t we learned anything about the permanent instability of some of these third world countries? We’re in the middle of one of the worst, Iraq, and we’re thinking about going into another one? Misericordia!

It’s about time America re-declared Independence! This 4th of July, 2003, is a perfect time. We are not responsible for every country in the world. How is it that we are continually betrayed into such thickets of inextricable waste, costing life and resources? What would it matter if another 50,000 Liberians are slaughtered by Taylor? Probably many more unsafe abortions occur there. Abortions in America alone far exceed the 50,000 deaths caused by Taylor over the last ten years. 1.4 million abortions were reported in America in 1990.

If death and dying are a motivation to send in peace-keeping troops, then I don’t understand why America should have any particular regard for Liberia. Is this an African-American cause in disguise? Is there some sentimental attachment to Liberia, where Americans tried to re-patriate slaves? The Africans of the land there resisted and slaughtered many of the returned “free” slaves. The American government has no historical reason for investing in Liberia now. Liberia was ever only a guilt-ridden, independent business project, perhaps logical, even necessary then, but certainly not the American government’s problem now.

America need not police the world. It is not an inevitable responsibility. At this time in history, I shall have to praise the John Birch Society, the only organization that is dedicated exlusively and consistently to maintaining the country’s fidelity to our Constitution. The Constitution is our guide, our ID, our definition. If we depart from it, we are not America anymore. We are a fat, rich whore, available for world rape on demand. The UN supplies the Johns.

Posted by David Yeagley · July 3, 2003 · 11:52 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal

Read More Journal Posts »

12 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Bodvar // Jul 3, 2003 at 9:16 pm   

    I have read where the Liberians seem to think themselves justified in “calling in a debt” by close to demanding American aid, having screwed up their country. That is our lot, we hapless, feckless international fools, strong but stupid in our strength.

    We wish to be loved, forgetting that Machiavelli advised that it’s better instead for a prince to be feared (one can control fear).

    We forget the jealousy and envy of largely irrelevant Europeans, who today band together to counteract our influence and national wealth, who’ll never love us. Islamists will never love us until our president and all our citizens bow like slaves to the Desert God. Africa, for reasons of brazen self-interest, wish to alternately prey on the “white guilt” of our benighted white citizens and the “brotherhood” and burgeoning power of our black citizens. Latin America can’t bloody stand us. The North Koreans (and their facilitators in the south, as well) daily threaten us with impugnity.

    So much for being loved. Machiavelli is right.

    I say not only should we NOT help Liberia — let them stew in a bloodbath of their own making, again, as when the Tubmans were overthrown by the late Sam Doe — but we intervene INSTEAD in Rhodesia (I won’t call it “Zimbabwe” any more than I’ll call California “Aztlan”) and knock that racist for six!

    If you have power, use it!

    — B

  • 2 David Yeagley // Jul 4, 2003 at 9:14 am   

    On TV last night, one of the retired army general commentators was making the case for terrorism in Liberia. The US needed to root out all these far and way, isolated rat holes where terrorists breed. Entering Liberia was all about the war on terrorism.

    I could scarcely believe my ears. Is this all terrorists have to do to turn the world upside down? Just get the word out that there is a group of Muslim terrorists in a village in some far out country, and the US will commit, however wastefully.

    Truth is, France (Sierra Leone) is afraid the revolt in Liberia will spread, as refugees pour into their country. Is this then a US gesture to reconcile France?

    I’m daily becoming more frustrated with news. We just don’t have the whole story. We have to “figure it out” for ourselves, no matter what is being said, officially or unofficially.

  • 3 Alain // Jul 4, 2003 at 9:42 am   

    Bodvar, I don’t think that europeans are jealous or envious of the US. Personally I’m not, and have lots of penpals there.
    I don’t have the habit to intervene into politic debates, but you split a little bit too often on the europeans and sometimes to the french too.
    I’ve recently read a column from an american colonel (so necessarily a real american patriot and not an anti-american) and he explains why Americans are hated sometimes. I won’t comment on that column because I don’t know who is that guy, and my politic’s culture is too limited… I do love America, but I’m a French patriot and I adore my country…
    This is the first and last time I will intervene in a politic’s debate.

    Here is the column :

    What Can We Do About Terrorism?

    (Reaction to the 9/11 attacks; written

  • 4 Alain // Jul 4, 2003 at 9:59 am   

    I need to add a comment :

    The French are hated too in lots of countries, I know why, I understand why, and I agree with some of the grievances against my country…

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jul 4, 2003 at 10:05 am   

    Alain, never be afraid to comment. You are welcome.

    I think Col.Bowman may be confusing the US with the UN. This is a possibility, anyway.

    As Pilate said to Ben-Hur (in the movie), “Where there is greatness, there is great error.” This is also true.

    There are people who actually believe that for one country to advance, it is inevitably at the expense of another. This works on the national level as well as on the personal level.

    This is called COMMUNISM. This is the world’s response to the success of America. You must never leave out the word “envy” or “jealously” in any forumla or theory about human relations.

    There are many Catholic communists in the world, although the church tends to use whatever political forumla works for the church in any particular situation.

    In the Documents of Vatican II, religious freedom is praised and advocated. Bishop Whalen (deceased) of Harford, CT, told me in a personal letter that this does NOT mean the church fosters any other religion or even democracy. In other words, the church fosters whatever circumstances allow the church to prosper.

    Furthermore, I was not able to find anything on Dr.Bowman himself on the internet.

    However, I did find this:, which does account for your post. I was unaware of this group, which is not officially Catholic, but an off-shoot group. Bowman is indeed noted:

    It is an interesting group, indeed, but not one I would expect to defend the borders of America. I shall now research the group more, and find out what the Vatican thinks about them!

  • 6 Alain // Jul 4, 2003 at 10:57 am   

    David, I’m not sure to understand your whole text, but even If I am an ex-catholic, I have never been, I am not, and I will never be a communist, if that is what you mean.

  • 7 Alain // Jul 4, 2003 at 11:12 am   

    Now you understand why I hate to talk about politics.
    Each time one says something, he’s called a “commie” by the right wing, or a “fascist” by the left wing.
    The world is not made only with “communists” and “fascists” you know…
    When somebody splits on my country, I never call him a “communist” or a “fascist”… Things are a bit more complex I think…

  • 8 David Yeagleyb // Jul 4, 2003 at 11:35 am   

    Alain, forgive me. I was not implying that you were a communist. You are right about “names.” They are like sign posts on a road. In a conversation, they point this direction, or that.

    I have written some articles on my understanding of communism. Look at:

    This should let you know how I feel. Communism is too deep for a label, actually.

  • 9 Bodvar // Jul 4, 2003 at 11:38 am   


    I, like Dr. Y, have never heard of this Bowman fellow before, but I know the type. He and Chomsky and a thousand others have blamed Bin Laden’s prominence and his attacks, Saddam’s perfidity and his existence on the US. We deposed Allende, we deposed Mossadeqh, we deposed Arbenz, blah-blah-blah.

    Sweden, Norway, Candada and the rest don’t get attacked because either they’re too damned small to make a difference — Norway is hardly listened to in Europe, much less in the Middle East, as it’s a quiet, inward-looking country, which is a BIG change from the years when it sent armed “ambassadors” out, to many countries including yours — or they roll over when threatened.

    America can’t do that.

    For good and for ill, the US supports Israel, which is another difference to add to the comparison.

    This is just another “America sowed the seeds of its own destruction” and “America is its own worst enemy” and “America had it coming” screed, which is hard to take. Most lies are. It lets the Arabs and others who’ve attacked us off the hook, giving them a solid-gold excuse for attacking us. We had it coming. It’s our fault. We’re big and nasty, and they’re therefore more moral. They’re freedom fighters, after all. Hogwash!

    Dr. Bowman lists one limp-wristed way of ending terrorism, forgetting the most certain way to: deny them the support not of the indigenious population but of wealthier, more organized foreign and (in the case of the target of terrorism) domestic support for their depredations. As a man with some acquaintance with the methods of terrorism (eight years service in Special Forces), I have a bit more background than an Air Force chaplain to address this.

    You don’t roll over, admit your sins, and play nice, bankrolling your opponents grievances. You are more clever than they are. They’re not very clever in this case, or very subtle, or even very popular…they’re simply the only alternative. You use the press better, you interpose yourself into their environment, you spread cash around, you find the bad guys…and then you fix ’em. You have to be seen to fix ’em, too. The more Shakespearian the bloodletting, the better.

    One of your countrymen, Clemenceau, said that war was too important a business to be left to generals. International relations, particularly when terrorism is involved, is too important a business to be left to diplomats…or to anyone who relies on diplomacy, or who worries about the feelings of others. International diplomacy is about achieving your ends. Ending terrorism requires that you manipulate terror better than the amateurs who’re attacking you.

    The US displaced the Taliban initially with, ultimately, a few bombers and less than a battalion of Special Forces soldiers…on horseback. Then, diplomats and politicians became involved. It’s been shakey since, but the work’s stood up so far.

    In other words, the US knows what its doing.

    Sorry, Alain, but, as nice a fellow as you are, you’re out of touch here. Frankly, the Bowman piece was a bit insulting.

    And, you’re right. Just as with the US, France is disliked overseas, and even in Europe. Strongly. France has been known to neutralize terrorism by acquiescing to it. With the enormous numbers of muslims in France today, many of them quite activist, this might be wise policy on France’s part. Still, it isn’t very admirable.

    France is no longer an international power (except in the realm of arms sales), and hasn’t been since 1945 at least, and one might opine that it hasn’t been since 1918. The US still is. It has different obligations. The rules are different.

    — B

  • 10 Alain // Jul 4, 2003 at 12:28 pm   

    Bodvar, I won’t add anything to all those comments, but if France is the greatest weapon’s seller (it’s your words, not mines), I honestly don’t know about it , I presume it’s not the only one.
    Please cite me at least 1 of the G8 country who doesn’t produce and sell weapons?
    Do you really think that a president will ask his people “oh, please folks, do u allow us to produce weapons?”
    Politics is made with lots of hidden things, I don’t think it’s very democratic…

  • 11 David Yeagley // Jul 4, 2003 at 4:02 pm   

    Alain, you are right about the weapons sales. Even Israel sells weapons, even to China, or so I’ve read.

    I agree we are uninformed of all that is going on. It is hard to know the truth.

    At some point along the way, we have to make a leap of faith. America is a wonderful place to live. Most Americans want to keep it that way, and we are afraid this is all changing now. We are getting in a bad mood, I think. We feel we are being betrayed.

    We may feel like the French felt during the time of the Reformation. Morin destroyed many, many innocent people. Remember January 21, 1535. Francis I lead a procession through Paris, renouncing all disloyalty to the Catholic Church, and buring innocents at the stake. Exactly 258 years later, January 21st, Louis XVI was beheaded during the Reign of Terror, when all religions was declared passe.

    What can the people do? In any country, the government can go bad. Only the people can save the country. We’re lucky if we have good leaders. We should all be strong enough to make sure we have good leaders.

    Usually, we are all too busy trying to earn a living for ourselves. We mistakenly trust our leaders to do their job rightly. They often don’t.

  • 12 Bodvar // Jul 5, 2003 at 12:37 am   


    I never said “France is the greatest weapon’s seller (it’s your words, not mines)”. What I said was “France is no longer an international power (except in the realm of arms sales)”, which it is. France is number 3 or 4 internationally, and number 1 or 2 in some places and with some weapons systems (you guys have always produced some crackerjack fighter planes, and you and the Germans produce the Transall, which is a dandy transport).

    You shouldn’t stop producing weapons…although, if I could convince you, I’d ask you to stop producing cars. French cars are UGLY. But, weapons, no.

    My point was and is that France is largely irrelevant, except inasmuch as the UN charter still treats her as a superpower, based on her colonial holdings at the time when the UN was formed.

    Britain, while it’s had some rocky times since 1945 (thanks largely to the Labour Party) is still an influential world power, and that influence is growing. China — whichever China you choose to regard as China — is a powerhouse. Russia has fallen on hard times. Then, there’s the US. We’re still here…thanks to nobody whatsoever. So, the permanent membership might require some revisions…or simply some exclusions.

    France was ONLY relevant in the late debate on the Iraq matter by being obstructionist…and, given France’s history of adventurism in Africa and nuclear obstinacy in the South Pacific, it can hardly be thought that France was being idealistic vis a vis Iraq.

    I hope that the quotes I have provided make things clearer.

    — B

You must log in to post a comment.