I am a Vietnam Veteran. After Vietnam, I was ordered to attend the conference where ‘America’s Next War’ was being planned. That conference was held in Germany in May 1977. Today, I am an author. I wrote a book about it in 2006 which my publisher has always refused to publish because politicians who attended that conference were still alive. The last living of those politicians just very recently died. You are just going to have to wait and read my book to discover the truth behind multiple shocking public events that were all directly tied to that conference, not just the American people but the global human race were deceived by those politicians. trump is a fool who is not capable of keeping his mouth shut but at least we always know what he is up too. It is true that “history” is only what people want you to believe. From Vietnam through today everyone chooses to believe the same set of history but it is rarely TRUE. We cannot change history we can only tell its truth. Even presented with the facts; many people will continue to believe a false narrative. At this point, we can correct history books but we cannot convince people to disbelieve blatant lies.
You learned the hard way just as as I and others veterans before have learned, “there’s not been any TRUE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military in a VERY LONG TIME!”
A dear friend of ours just past away, a month shy of reaching his 98th birthday. He grew up during WWII in Liverpool. We began walking together weekly during COVID. At the start of the Gaza bombings after Oct. 7th,he quietly said, " The children never forget who bombed them." I was stunned, not having thought about it that way. His town was bombed on and off for two years when he was a child. I contacted his daughter and said I thought he was experiencing PTSD. We don't think about the impact on the soldiers, their families, and those living in terror on the receiving end of the violence. So many people are damaged. The bombing of the school by the US in Iran was one too many times for him to experience. When I mentioned on March 5th the upcoming No Kings protest I would be going to, he said, "Nothing will work to stop this." He gave up and passed within a week. The bombing of the school brought back too many memories.
Vietnam should have made the government of this country swear off war forever, but it served the opposite purpose. The wealthy get richer, faster, during wartime than any other period, and so they, the ones who write all those checks to congress, love war! Republicans are members of the most corrupt party in American history and they LOVE all that Big Biz largesse, so its: "Want a war? Sure thing! Just sign my check and start makin' airplanes!" [or tanks, humvees, rifles, ammo, etc.]
Well said, Scott. Yes, initiating war and sending troops into harms way, should be the most heart wrenching decision for the commander-in-chief. Over the last 20 to 30 years, our [Republican] presidents have resorted to diplomacy by military force instead of doing the hard work of negotiation in foreign affairs. They have feined support for our troops with a veneer of patriotism. They have failed to understand and acknowledge that mental and emotional injury is just as debilitating as a physical injury. As long as troops can pull the trigger, they are valuable. When their mental or emotional injuries lead them to be combat ineffective, they are discarded and stigmatized as weak. Our military is being exploited and used to achieve the personal agenda of a week, immoral, unethical, illegal, malignant narcissist. It is being used to destroy and not to build up. Has James Mattis recently said, “Excellence in targetry does not make up for a lack of strategy.“ Our troops are paying for the recklessness of this president. And, no amount of superficial praise of their performance will make up for the exploitative harm inflicted upon them.
Quite obviously the leadership, such as it is, in the US is worthless and very, very dangerous. For far too long, as the Captain writes, the US has been overjoyed to go into battle, and fighting a never ending war is part of the American dream... and time after time losing. Even WWII was not an American "win"... it was a win by the Allies. All those other countries that today are telling the old mad man sitting in the Oval Office "NO!" Is it time for the citizens of the US to dump trump and forge a new mindset? Well past time.
Just in case you needed another reason to hate what Trump is doing in the Middle East, my friend is a social worker/nurse for the VA and as soon as Trump started dropping bombs on Iran her phone was ringing off the hook because it is such a triggering event for vets dealing with PTSD. This, of course, while services are being severely curtailed.
It seems your glorious leader can find unlimited funds to start a war, or any other distraction to distract attention from the Trump stein files and fund tax cuts for his struggling, multi billionaire besties. No wonder so many destitute working class people voted for him.
After reading this post, noticed his comment on a problem with values in America. For myself, it’s a problem of virtue, especially now among supposed leaders in the executive branch. Virtue in public life is often a struggle. But in this case it looks like no attempt is made at all.
What if the rest of the world stopped waiting for permission?
*
Let us move one step beyond polite diplomatic language.
A growing number of countries—quietly, and sometimes not so quietly—are beginning to ask whether the current global trajectory is being stabilised or destabilised by the actions of the United States.
This is not a moral judgement. It is a strategic concern.
From military interventions to economic coercion, and increasingly confrontational geopolitical positioning, there is a perception—fair or not—that U.S. actions are, in aggregate, adding volatility to an already fragile system.
At the same time, existing mechanisms—particularly the United Nations—have shown themselves unable to meaningfully constrain or redirect major powers when they choose to act unilaterally.
So, we are left with an uncomfortable question: What happens when the system cannot moderate its most powerful member?
A Different Starting Point
Perhaps the answer is this:
The rest of the world stops waiting.
Not for permission.
Not for consensus that will never come.
Not for institutions that no longer function as intended.
Instead, a coalition of capable and affected states begins to act—carefully, deliberately, and in a coordinated manner—to reduce systemic risk, irrespective of whether full alignment among major powers can be achieved.
This is not about exclusion.
It is about initiative.
A Structured Coalition of Restraint
A group of influential countries—convened by a credible neutral facilitator such as Switzerland—could initiate a disciplined, outcome-focused process.
The objective would be clear:
To identify and implement practical measures that reduce the risk of escalation in key global flashpoints.
Participation would include major and mid-level powers across regions. The United States would be invited—but crucially, the process would not be contingent on its full participation or approval. That is the shift.
Working With Reality, Not Against It, because let us be realistic. Direct confrontation with the United States—economic, military, or institutional—is unlikely to succeed.
But collective positioning can have an effect. If a sufficiently broad coalition:
Aligns on de-escalatory principles
Coordinates diplomatic pressure
Establishes shared red lines around escalation
And consistently signals those positions
…it becomes harder for any single actor to operate entirely unconstrained.
Not impossible—but harder.
And in geopolitics, friction matters.
Discipline Over Rhetoric
The process itself would need to be tightly controlled:
1) Time-limited, evidence-based position papers
2) A small number of clearly defined actionable proposals per participant
3) Structured debate focused on outcomes, not performance
This is not about producing declarations.
It is about building convergent behaviour among enough states to influence the overall system.
An Uncomfortable Reality
Let us acknowledge what many will avoid saying openly:
The international system has always depended—implicitly—on restraint from its most powerful members. That restraint is now under strain.
When it weakens, the burden shifts to others—not to replace the dominant power, but to compensate for instability where they can.
Conclusion
This approach will make some uncomfortable—particularly in Washington.
But discomfort is not failure.
The real failure would be continued paralysis in the face of rising risk.
So, the question is no longer:
“How do we bring everyone into agreement?”
But rather:
“How do enough countries act together to reduce danger, even if agreement is incomplete?”
That is a harder question. But it is also a more realistic one.
We hippies and the student activists in the 1960s tried to tell you, and as you say, you thought we were un-American and traitors.
It's sad that you had to learn from the men and women who came back from a war to find out that we were right all along.
The facts aren't un-American. They aren't patriotic or traitorous. They just are, and the fact is that war is a practice that only invasion can justify.
That's why the Iranians are fighting so valiantly. We have invaded their country.
I am a Vietnam Veteran. After Vietnam, I was ordered to attend the conference where ‘America’s Next War’ was being planned. That conference was held in Germany in May 1977. Today, I am an author. I wrote a book about it in 2006 which my publisher has always refused to publish because politicians who attended that conference were still alive. The last living of those politicians just very recently died. You are just going to have to wait and read my book to discover the truth behind multiple shocking public events that were all directly tied to that conference, not just the American people but the global human race were deceived by those politicians. trump is a fool who is not capable of keeping his mouth shut but at least we always know what he is up too. It is true that “history” is only what people want you to believe. From Vietnam through today everyone chooses to believe the same set of history but it is rarely TRUE. We cannot change history we can only tell its truth. Even presented with the facts; many people will continue to believe a false narrative. At this point, we can correct history books but we cannot convince people to disbelieve blatant lies.
Finally an honest objective opinion.
You learned the hard way just as as I and others veterans before have learned, “there’s not been any TRUE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military in a VERY LONG TIME!”
A dear friend of ours just past away, a month shy of reaching his 98th birthday. He grew up during WWII in Liverpool. We began walking together weekly during COVID. At the start of the Gaza bombings after Oct. 7th,he quietly said, " The children never forget who bombed them." I was stunned, not having thought about it that way. His town was bombed on and off for two years when he was a child. I contacted his daughter and said I thought he was experiencing PTSD. We don't think about the impact on the soldiers, their families, and those living in terror on the receiving end of the violence. So many people are damaged. The bombing of the school by the US in Iran was one too many times for him to experience. When I mentioned on March 5th the upcoming No Kings protest I would be going to, he said, "Nothing will work to stop this." He gave up and passed within a week. The bombing of the school brought back too many memories.
Vietnam should have made the government of this country swear off war forever, but it served the opposite purpose. The wealthy get richer, faster, during wartime than any other period, and so they, the ones who write all those checks to congress, love war! Republicans are members of the most corrupt party in American history and they LOVE all that Big Biz largesse, so its: "Want a war? Sure thing! Just sign my check and start makin' airplanes!" [or tanks, humvees, rifles, ammo, etc.]
Well said, Scott. Yes, initiating war and sending troops into harms way, should be the most heart wrenching decision for the commander-in-chief. Over the last 20 to 30 years, our [Republican] presidents have resorted to diplomacy by military force instead of doing the hard work of negotiation in foreign affairs. They have feined support for our troops with a veneer of patriotism. They have failed to understand and acknowledge that mental and emotional injury is just as debilitating as a physical injury. As long as troops can pull the trigger, they are valuable. When their mental or emotional injuries lead them to be combat ineffective, they are discarded and stigmatized as weak. Our military is being exploited and used to achieve the personal agenda of a week, immoral, unethical, illegal, malignant narcissist. It is being used to destroy and not to build up. Has James Mattis recently said, “Excellence in targetry does not make up for a lack of strategy.“ Our troops are paying for the recklessness of this president. And, no amount of superficial praise of their performance will make up for the exploitative harm inflicted upon them.
Quite obviously the leadership, such as it is, in the US is worthless and very, very dangerous. For far too long, as the Captain writes, the US has been overjoyed to go into battle, and fighting a never ending war is part of the American dream... and time after time losing. Even WWII was not an American "win"... it was a win by the Allies. All those other countries that today are telling the old mad man sitting in the Oval Office "NO!" Is it time for the citizens of the US to dump trump and forge a new mindset? Well past time.
Just in case you needed another reason to hate what Trump is doing in the Middle East, my friend is a social worker/nurse for the VA and as soon as Trump started dropping bombs on Iran her phone was ringing off the hook because it is such a triggering event for vets dealing with PTSD. This, of course, while services are being severely curtailed.
It seems your glorious leader can find unlimited funds to start a war, or any other distraction to distract attention from the Trump stein files and fund tax cuts for his struggling, multi billionaire besties. No wonder so many destitute working class people voted for him.
After reading this post, noticed his comment on a problem with values in America. For myself, it’s a problem of virtue, especially now among supposed leaders in the executive branch. Virtue in public life is often a struggle. But in this case it looks like no attempt is made at all.
A VERY WILD SUGGESTION
What if the rest of the world stopped waiting for permission?
*
Let us move one step beyond polite diplomatic language.
A growing number of countries—quietly, and sometimes not so quietly—are beginning to ask whether the current global trajectory is being stabilised or destabilised by the actions of the United States.
This is not a moral judgement. It is a strategic concern.
From military interventions to economic coercion, and increasingly confrontational geopolitical positioning, there is a perception—fair or not—that U.S. actions are, in aggregate, adding volatility to an already fragile system.
At the same time, existing mechanisms—particularly the United Nations—have shown themselves unable to meaningfully constrain or redirect major powers when they choose to act unilaterally.
So, we are left with an uncomfortable question: What happens when the system cannot moderate its most powerful member?
A Different Starting Point
Perhaps the answer is this:
The rest of the world stops waiting.
Not for permission.
Not for consensus that will never come.
Not for institutions that no longer function as intended.
Instead, a coalition of capable and affected states begins to act—carefully, deliberately, and in a coordinated manner—to reduce systemic risk, irrespective of whether full alignment among major powers can be achieved.
This is not about exclusion.
It is about initiative.
A Structured Coalition of Restraint
A group of influential countries—convened by a credible neutral facilitator such as Switzerland—could initiate a disciplined, outcome-focused process.
The objective would be clear:
To identify and implement practical measures that reduce the risk of escalation in key global flashpoints.
Participation would include major and mid-level powers across regions. The United States would be invited—but crucially, the process would not be contingent on its full participation or approval. That is the shift.
Working With Reality, Not Against It, because let us be realistic. Direct confrontation with the United States—economic, military, or institutional—is unlikely to succeed.
But collective positioning can have an effect. If a sufficiently broad coalition:
Aligns on de-escalatory principles
Coordinates diplomatic pressure
Establishes shared red lines around escalation
And consistently signals those positions
…it becomes harder for any single actor to operate entirely unconstrained.
Not impossible—but harder.
And in geopolitics, friction matters.
Discipline Over Rhetoric
The process itself would need to be tightly controlled:
1) Time-limited, evidence-based position papers
2) A small number of clearly defined actionable proposals per participant
3) Structured debate focused on outcomes, not performance
This is not about producing declarations.
It is about building convergent behaviour among enough states to influence the overall system.
An Uncomfortable Reality
Let us acknowledge what many will avoid saying openly:
The international system has always depended—implicitly—on restraint from its most powerful members. That restraint is now under strain.
When it weakens, the burden shifts to others—not to replace the dominant power, but to compensate for instability where they can.
Conclusion
This approach will make some uncomfortable—particularly in Washington.
But discomfort is not failure.
The real failure would be continued paralysis in the face of rising risk.
So, the question is no longer:
“How do we bring everyone into agreement?”
But rather:
“How do enough countries act together to reduce danger, even if agreement is incomplete?”
That is a harder question. But it is also a more realistic one.
Note: ChatGPT assisted with editing.
We hippies and the student activists in the 1960s tried to tell you, and as you say, you thought we were un-American and traitors.
It's sad that you had to learn from the men and women who came back from a war to find out that we were right all along.
The facts aren't un-American. They aren't patriotic or traitorous. They just are, and the fact is that war is a practice that only invasion can justify.
That's why the Iranians are fighting so valiantly. We have invaded their country.
We are no different from the Nazis.
Thank you for your service and your perspective. I can’t image the site of war close up and personal NOT effect