How to avoid getting into a Quagmire

To know how to avoid getting into a quagmire, we must study how a nation might get into one in the first place, and there are two ways to conduct such a study.

The first would be to examine all of human history, identify the moments when a nation got into a quagmire, and try to determine how it happened. The second would be to look at the advice that the Jews and their supporters were giving America, urging it to get involved militarily in an Arab or Muslim country.

There are thousands upon thousands of moments when day in and day out, article after article were written and published in the North American media and elsewhere, urging the United States to take one stance or another with the ultimate view of invoking the war option that never left the table. A fraction of these articles were analyzed and discussed on this website, forming a kind of index that should help identify some of the authors who gave such advice to America.

And now that the current American Administration has rejected that advice in favor of negotiating a deal with Iran, the writing on the subject by the same authors continues … this time to lament that the war option was sidestepped, which means that the Vietnam style quagmire that humiliated America four decades ago was avoided this time. One such article stands out above the others in that it is motivated by the typical Jewish mentality of turning logic upside down.

The article was written by David Gelernter and published in National Review Online on July 16, 2015 under the title: “Iran Is Obama's Vietnam”. The puzzling part, of course, is that the author draws a parallel between a Vietnam War that happened and an Iran War that did not happen. How can that be? That's a good question, and the answer is that Gelernter views the negotiations that just ended between the (P5+1) allies and Iran as a kind of war where America and only America, not the other 5 members of the alliance, “collapsed in abject, humiliating failure,” as he put it.

But why would he view the negotiations as being a war? He does so because he considers the Iranians to be the enemy. Thus, according to the mentality powering him which says: “if you're not with us, you're against us,” any interaction with the Iranians is considered a combat that aims to defeat them and bring them into the fold, or kill them and go to the next assignment. But instead of America doing this, he views the current Administration as having begged “for the friendship of the bloody ayatollahs in the treaty of 2015.”

It is easy to see how that mentality works when you stop and reflect at the point where he begins to argue the case. This is how he does it: “In Iran, we caved gracelessly on our key demands.” That is, to the Jewish mentality which powers him, you begin negotiating with the enemy by making demands. Whereas normal human beings seek to find points of commonality, agree on them and go from there to compromise on the points of disagreement, the Jew expects the opponent to cave in. If not, he walks out of the negotiations and works on ways to destroy the enemy. That's because the alternative will be considered as having caved in gracelessly.

That setting being his background, he starts painting the background of the current president, Barack Obama, by asking the question: “How could this have happened to the world's only superpower?” To answer the question, he goes back in history to Lyndon Johnson from where he traces the history, and analyzes the character of presidents that came after him to compare with that of Obama.

Not surprisingly, he finds fault with all the Democratic presidents he mentions, based on what he sees as being “(1) a president's natural, human desire to be loved instead of feared, (2) the delusions that come from isolated grandeur, (3) the arrogance of power,” (4) and so on and so forth.

By the time you are finished reading the details of what he says about these people, and from his description of the Republican Ronald Reagan, you cannot help but conclude that he sees the Democrats as the enemy. This explains not only his attitude toward Barack Obama but also the attitude of those like him who have declared war on Obama and his Administration, as if they were the enemies of the Jews and of Israel.

He ends by calling on the candidates now running to be president to show a Reagan-like character if they have it. The trouble is that Jews began to dislike Reagan when he visited a site in Germany they consider to be taboo.