ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Have Americans Been Manipulated Into Giving up Their Privacy? [F5 091]

Updated on June 17, 2019

This article was first written over three years ago

Now over three years later, things have not gotten worse, except that now we have examples of that breach in privacy from not only the Internet but any communications made by phone through all the devices that put us on the Internet.

We have seen how FACEBOOK while free in monetary terms, is very costly in terms of the loss of privacy, and the use of not only our identity but in duping us into giving up what little of it we have left. That is after the government monitors most of what we do, the portion that is left is a trophy for the hackers, and scammers.

What is your thought on privacy today? Remember they in the government not only didn't avoid snooping on the president of the US, they made him a prime target.

Click thumbnail to view full-size

Do you believe that you still have a right to privacy?

  • The NSA doesn't follow the constitution, they have been snooping and pooping on our privacy for decades. After the 2016 presidential election, it even came out in public. The FBI and the rest of the government protection agencies are boldly invading our privacy.

Private corporations are also collecting and distributing are personal information. They use everything from our social media, to our purchasing and credit information. The US is no longer a product or manufacturing giant. Today the US is an incestuous service industry. Giant global corporations like Google, Amazon, and corporations that use the club membership to gather are buying habits. They then sell this to those annoying companies that mess up our computers, cell phones, and other devices.

This is like the old time snail mail direct marketing system. Only, they can send out millions of marketing ploys instead of thousands because the cost is so cheap.

  • Everything good that the cyber world offers, can be offset by the damage it can do to us and is doing to us. Identity theft is one of those very bad things that happen since the cyber world became real.

Right to privacy via Attorney Client Privilege

Thanks to the democrats and Robert Mueller your conversations and information that used to be protected by the long established Attorney Client Privilege NO Longer exists today. What is next confessions to a priest?

2106 Election Update July 30,2016

There is a lot of talk on hp questions about WWIII, who would you trust to defend our country, and Terrorism. Some even think we are at War now, but if that is true who is the enemy. Why hasn't the Congress constitutionally declared war since WWII.

We didn't even win that war, and we failed in the War on Drugs, and the War on Gangs, and we are losing in the War on Terrorism.

  • Was the war in Iraq, we gave up on Iraq, and now ISIL has moved into Iraq?
  • Was the war in Afghanistan, the Russians gave up and left, and we are doing the same

Then president GW Bush got congress to pass the Patriot Act, but who was the enemy. Would we know them if we saw them. Remember, the Patriot Act is to control the people in the US. It doesn't give any definition of who the enemy is and if you look at who it applies to, it is all of us.

  • So apparently 330 million Americans and a handful of Unknowns are the Enemy.
  • In 2011, President Barack Obama extends the Patriot Act for four years. So that would be a total of 14 years under the Patriot Act. So once again, who was the enemy, and why wasn't this so called "War" declared by Congress.
  • What is the use of having a constitution, if we don't follow it? Are the US presidents now free from the burden of following the constitution. If so, then they should be renamed as dictators.

Wars are like driving high performance , high maintenance gas hogs

Time to get the newer more efficient vehicles, that means in relation to war lets backup and customize our government.

  • If its old, retire it,
  • if it doesn't perform retire it.
  • If it spends too much money for what we get in return, then retire them.

Bye Bye

We have deferred Wars, instead of Winning Wars.

  • This article will show why even though you thought we won wars, we really didn't win them.
  • The wars that we didn't totally lose, we just deferred it causing the next war.

We win military battles, but not the War.

President GW Bush won the battle when he had the US Military bomb, and then invade Afghanistan, and Iraq with ground troops,

but even today over a decade later, Iraq and Afghanistan are still a problem. A problem that wouldn't exist, if we won the war. And there would be no ISIS holding geography.

  • And that makes the bombing and invasion of Iraq under GWs father when he was president, also a loss. The purpose of that war had loss on it before it started. You don't put American lives at risk to not win the war. Letting Saddam Hussein remain in power then was patently a failure.

The US military is great at winning battles, and the US congress and president are equally talented in putting defeat in the jaws of victory.

What is winning a War?

The Last War that was won by United States was the Spanish American War in 1898.

  • On 25 April 1898, congress declared war upon Spain.
  • This would be known as the Spanish American War which resulted in a decisive victory for the United States, and served as a transitional period for both nations.
  • Spain saw its days of empire fade, as the United States saw the prospect of overseas empire emerge.
  • The Treaty of Paris ended this war on December 10, 1898.

What does it mean to WIN a WAR?

There is more to winning a war than just winning military battles. Now, for the most part the United States has won a lot of military battles, but they didn't really succeed in winning the wars,

The Revolutionary War was won both in battles and in the goal of why the war was fought. The goal was to get out from under the tyranny, and control of England. This was accomplished as we won our independence. We did it by winning military battles, and most importantly we didn't compromise on what why we fought the war.

The Civil War was between the North and the South, and the North was the winner. Now this is just a technical win for the United States, as it prevented the country from becoming a confederacy. The Confederacy had its own constitution that would have replaced the one created after the Revolutionary War.

These are the two biggest examples of defining what it means to win a war.

  • Although, the reasons for the Civil War never really got resolved in favor of the North, the alleged victor. Even today we are still living with the remnants of that war, in the recent banning of the Confederate Flag.

The anatomy of winning wars, starts with the reasons for the war. Then the battles of the war follow, and the war ends when the other side surrenders. It is at this latter stage, that we can determine whether we have really won the war, or just deferred it to fight another war.

World War I

The name itself indicates that the war wasn't won, otherwise it would have been called the Big War. The World War to end all Wars is what it was described to be when it was going on. The twenty years later there is another war with basically the same enemy countries. This proved that the World War didn't live up to its end of all wars goal.

So, now we have a second World War, and we go back and name the previous war as World War I. World War II is now a continuation of World War I as the nomenclature designates it.

World War II

You say for sure this is a War that we won, and the proof is that there has been no WW III. This is where the definition of winning may help decide how we did in WWII.

Yes, we did win the military battles, and the enemies did surrender. So far so good, but what happened to the goal of the war. Europe got into the war a few years before us. Germany had invaded Poland, and then swept across Europe all the way to the English Channel. At the end of the war, the United States, its allies, and Russia took Germany down and removed the German occupation of Europe.

But, let us see how Europe fared after the war. Eastern Europe was now free of the German occupation, only to have it occupied by the Soviets. Germany itself would be split, and Eastern Germany would be part of the USSR. Western Germany would be free.


Wasn't both wars fought for freedom, and did Eastern Europe get free as a result of the war. The answer is they just changed occupiers. Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union occupying Eastern Europe is not freedom, is it?

The result of WWII was to subdue the world aggression of countries wanting to take away the freedom around the globe. The goal of restoring the freedom taken by Japan, Germany and their allies Italy, and the Soviet Union.

  • It was only because Nazi Germany turned on the Soviet Union that they became on our side against Germany. The Soviet Union lost millions of lives in their battles against Nazi Germany, but does that give them the right to take the spoils of the war?

The answer should be NO, but the US politicians and the US people will give in to them, as they will give in on the many wars that will follow.

Even though today that Japan and Germany are no longer our enemies, the Soviets and China have become our constant threats to world peace. It is ironic that the United States helped both of these countries during the war, and now they have been our foes of many sorts since the end of WWII.

How we ended WWII is the root cause of our subsequent wars, and world problems.

World War II

Did we really win WWII?

See results

The end of WWII becomes the seed of future wars lost

The object of this article is to show the root cause of why the United States is in wars that it can't win.

The main factors that contribute to this war losing trend are Politicians, and the People.

  • WWII was the last war authorized by the US Congress as required by the Constitution. We continue to call them wars, but they are more technically Police Actions.


After five years of a brutal Global war, the people of the United States were tired of war. With victory in Europe and Japan they said it was time for peace. So the US politicians started to give away the farm. No one seemed to care about Eastern Europe, we got France back to freedom. There were no sanctions given to Italy for their part in the war against us.

All in all this had all the attributes of victory, but the jaws of defeat would be strong, and stronger than mere military victory. The Soviet Union and China also devastated and horribly treated by Nazi Germany, and Japan wouldn't roll over like the United States. They would have the perseverance to demand concessions from the US and its allies.

The Cold War

These concessions would be the emblems of our weaknesses, and both China and the USSR would capitalized on them. A big weakness was the American people, and their politicians who would be mentally incapable of continuing any future war without giving up in spirit. This would be especially true when the wars didn't affect our domestic lives..

I understand that people don't want to go to war, and they want to leave as soon as possible, but the enemy looks at this a big weakness. They have taken advantage of this weakness ever since the end of WWII.

  • The United States is the epitome of freedom, and its citizens are free to voice their opinions about war. The problem is that once the country is at war, then freedom should be replaced by patriotism.
  • The people that have become the pacifists, and the opposition to wars are the root cause of why the US can't win a war. We send our military out at the peril because of a decision made by the politicians. These politicians are ostensibly carrying out the will of the people. Well, in actuality, probably not, but that is another issue. The point is that once we go to war, we have to be United as our name implies.

We either hang together, or we hanG separately, the former is more patriotic.

The enemies like China, and Russia will take advantage of this discord in the American People. That is why we can't win a war, and why we are always finding ourselves in a new war.

Cold War

Did we win the Cold War?

See results

The Cold War

The Cold War with USSR started after the end of WWII.

  • The US and the Allies gave away Eastern Europe without a single shot being fired. The USSR wanted to capitalize on the weakness of the US and try to get the rest of Europe under its control. The US and other countries resisted this intention of the USSR, and the Cold War was born.
  • This war would continue under Ronald Reagan got them or contributed to getting them to take down the Berlin Wall. This just changed the obvious and visible cold war to the more subtle but equally cold war with Russia. Today the USSR is gone, but Russia itself is building itself up.

Russia and China are still are global foes with differing ideas about democracy. I believe this whole evolution of wars could have been nipped at the end of WWII. But it would have taken a resolve that we don't have compared to them.

  • Life is cheap in China and Russia, and we have a higher value in US, and the free world. This is our weakness, and one that has been exploited by our enemies thanks to the people and politicians in this country that don't stand tall with the country.


Did we win the Korean War

See results

Vietnam War

Did we win the Vietnam War

See results

Korean and Vietnam Wars

The thread on both of these wars, and their failure to be won by the US stems from the Chinese and Russia Communism.

  • Both of these wars were military failures caused by the same reason that we didn't win WWII. China and Russia backed Korea, and Vietnam communists. The politicians prevented the Military from stopping the Chinese and Russians are they militarily supplied the communists with weapons, and support. The politicians didn't want to deal with China and Russia in these wars. Yet, this would only fuel future wars because the US weakness of not crossing the necessary lines would allow enemies to take advantage.

You can't as evidenced by the US failures to win wars, actually win a war, if the people and the politicians are not dedicated to actually winning a war. The politicians have no problem engaging the country in wars, but they have little fortitude to do what is necessary to win the wars.

The Korean and Vietnam wars didn't affect the everyday lives of the American people so they didn't really get involved in them as they had in WWII. These were ideological wars, and not wars that would escalate to an invasion of the US.

The Korean war saved South Korea who became a good Allie of the US, but North Korea even sixty years later poses a threat to the US, and the free world. At the same time China and Russia are still players devoted to felling the US.

The real weakness of the US became magnified during the Vietnam War.

  • This is when the tail started wagging the dog. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the liberals go to Canada. Even the future two time president of the US, made sure that he didn't go fight for his country. Congress didn't do their job either, they penny pinched the supplies and resources desperately needed by our troops. The rifles given to the soldiers were prone to failure in the heat and humidity of Vietnam.

The failure in Korea was a military failure caused by the politicians that didn't allow the military to do what was necessary. They weren't allowed to pursue the Chinese and Russians beyond the Yalu River. This gave them a great advantage. In addition, US General Douglas MacArthur bit off more than his supply line could chew. Instead of taking control of the one hundred mile wide Korea below the Yalu River, he sent his troops to the 400 mile Korean Chinese border.

In Vietnam, we lost the entire country and the war. This was another military loss caused by politicians, and the now the liberal pacifists who caused the congress to waffle on the war, at the expense of the military. The men and women who the liberals would treat as criminals, even though many of them would die or get wounded defending them.

The focal point here is that the American Citizen's patriotism of WWII had become so jaded that the country was in another civil war, and one that continues even today. If the people that were in the Revolutionary War were like these people, we would still be apart of the Crown.

I understand that war is bad, but we shouldn't go into a war unless we are united, and determined to win the war, however long that it takes to do it. This has not been the case, and it has only gotten worse over the decades. Today, even the lonely terrorist feels comfortable in taking on the most powerful country in the world. These liberal continue, and today they don't mourn the loss of life, and the wounds of our military, nor do they seem to care about the innocent civilian men, women, and children that have been killed, maimed, wounded, and left homeless by these terrorists. Instead these people worry about how we treat the captured terrorists.

  • It is this thinking that has corrupted the United States, and made it a continuing target for the bad guys in the world. The tail that now wags the US is continuing to put the country and its people into harm's way.
  • If we had taken the necessary measures to win the Korean War, there might have been no war in Vietnam, or at least a different better outcome.

We didn't lose these battles because of our military, we lost them because the people and the politicians didn't have the will, courage,and fortitude to Win.

IRAQ the weakness continues

We continue to make the same mistakes as we did in Korea, and Vietnam, in Iraq with Desert Storm. This was another UN blunder saving war . This time the UN wants to protect Kuwait against the invasion from Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

The US and the UN, mostly the US start the freedom process one more time. It will have basically the same results, and once again remind the bad guys of the US weaknesses. There is no real intention by the president and congress to win this war. The definition of winning should have meant taking down Saddam Hussein, and making sure that Iraq wouldn't be able to take advantage of their neighbors through military force.

  • So the US starts Desert Storm, and the military their soldiers are once again put in harm's way to be pawns for the politicians. We took down all of Saddam's defenses, and we took control over Iraq, and restored Kuwait freedom. Then we slap Saddam on the wrist, and say bad boy.
  • Like the Vietnam War the liberals, and pacifists weren't behind this war either. They lost no steam in their political effectiveness to make sure the war ended quickly whether it was won or not. Once again the US put its military in harm's way, only to have their efforts be neutralized by the liberals, and the politicians.

The US seems to have no resistance to getting the country into a war, while at the same time having no real objective of winning the war.

  • The result of this ideology found us back in Iraq a decade later to do the same thing we did in Desert Storm, only this time it wasn't for Kuwait. It was now against terrorism. The merits of this war, nor of the other wars mentioned here is not the issue. The issue is the failure of the US Congress, president, and most importantly the people to take these wars as serious as if failing the win the war would be tantamount to being invaded domestically.

Today the weakness continues

Today we have the new Vietnam War, but it is not a simple war of physical borders as was the previous wars. Today the war is ideology of terrorism that know no physical boundaries, and no real country that is responsible for the terrorists acts.

In the Middle East, the Arab Nation, and Iran have tried unsuccessfully to get rid of their religious enemy, Israel. And because the US has treated Israel as a friend, the religious group in the Middle East want to blame us for their failure to get rid of Israel.

  • These religious ideological terrorists that reside now in the Middle East, and most of the world have physically, and physiological attacked us for several decades. As our weaknesses have grown, and our failures in war have increased, these terrorists are becoming more bold and more dangerous.

Unfortunately, source of our weakness is the American People, and the government. This has resulted in a civil war, and a disorganized rather than united states. It has become a progressive disease since the Vietnam War, and it is even more powerful today.

The US Constitution has also been watered down to allow these weaknesses to gain traction. The Supreme Court has made many bad decisions in the last one hundred years, and today it appears to be moved by political forces. This was not the intention of the US founders, as they make the Supreme Court one of the checks and balances of the government.


Today, the congress of the US is impotent, and creates more weaknesses for the country , and its people. Ironic, that the people are part of the reason that the government is impotent. The world see the discord, and the chaos in the US Congress, as well as the lone wolf president.

Now, it is common today for the people that like President Obama to view any criticism against him as an instance of hatred, bigotry, and dislike of him on a personal basis. I don't dislike, hate, or anyway treat president Obama on a personal level. That doesn't mean that I don't have the patriotic right to criticize his actions.

  • Yet, the supporters of President Obama like you to believe that everything is personal. They want of use his color as a defense against attacks, as well any other attribute like citizenship, It is interesting that that they don't remember all the personal attacks they made against president George W Bush.

President Obama is half black and half white. yet to them he is the epitome of Black. I really don't care about his color, as I would rather focus on his actions, or in many cases his inaction.

As an Illinois state senator, the favorite vote of Senator Barack Obama was Present, which is the polite but non judgmental Nay. The focus is on congress after 911. Everyone is patriotic, and united as they should be in going after the terrorists.

We commit troops to Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists used as their home. That was OK with Congress, the president, and the people. But several years later, a decision on invading Iraq was going to be have to made by the congress.

Finally, it is agreed that we invade Iraq, based on the intel report to president George W Bush. Everyone had an opportunity to vet the evidence before making a decision.

  • For the purpose of this article, the veracity of that decision is secondary to the action taken and the subsequent use of the voting. Those who objected to the vote would be using it as a political leverage to oppose president Bush.

This would put president Bush's second term into chaos over the Iraq War. The democrats didn't vote for the war, not because it was right or wrong, but that it would gain a political advantage later.

  • This was a tactic found after the Vietnam War. That war was so controversial that any incumbents that favored the war, were politically attacked by the opponents.

This is the point of this article.

We the voters made a decision to elect the people that would represent us and our goals into office. Then these elected officials should have put their country before their political party, and the political aspirations. Instead, they put the government into chaos and spotlighted the weaknesses of our country. They signaled our enemies of all types, that they could beat us with our own political system.

And that is what is happening today. as our own constitution is being played by the enemies of this country.

The Iraq war decision was later followed by the mantra heard throughout congress, I was for the war, but now I am against the war. Is this IHOP serving waffles, or is it Congress?

The worst of them all, are the ones that are proud to say that they were totally against the war, and continued to do everything to stop it. This was the reason we lost the Vietnam War, and have lost the war in Iraq, as evidenced by ISIL, and ISIS. This was also the reason why are military was not supplied by congress to be effective and safe in battle.

Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton

When they opposed the law as Senators, did they have an ulterior political reason. Perhaps, they would be able to use it as a political advantage when they would run for president. The second part were those Americans that are the weakness of this country. Their predecessors from the Vietnam War. Such as Bill Clinton who would rather abandon the country rather than fight for it. Ironic that later he would become Commander and Chief of the Armed Services who years ago he fought so hard to not join.

Senator Obama didn't support the war, or more accurately didn't make any commitment either way, would then use it against his Vietnam prisoner of war opponent, Senator McCain. Obama and the rest of the democrats used the war for their political advantage. But they should actually be seen to be along with their like minded voters be held in why we keep losing these wars.

To sum up this article, I would like to use the classic HG Wells movie version of the War of the Worlds.

  • The aliens from Mars have landed in Southern California. They started as looking just like an Asteroid that dug itself into the earth. The object was very hot and smoldering, and three people were left at the site to keep an eye on it.
  • Within hours, the alien flying saucer emerged with lights,and sounds. An object attached to the front it began to move. It was a little metal hood with three lights, like that used on old color TVs. It was on top of an articulated stem.
  • The noise and lights became noticed by the three men. As the lights, and sounds continued and seemed to focus on the men, one of the men had an idea. He would put a white handkerchief on a stick, and that should send the universal message of peace.
  • He approached the alien craft, and talked about how they came in peace. His speech was cut short when the alien hood fired some sort of destructive beam and literally vaporized them.
  • Later in the picture the Army is confronting three of these alien crafts that were now mobile. The aliens worked in threes. A minister thinking that his God would be a peace keeper here decided to go with bible in hand to the aliens.
  • The minister approached them and started talking in verse. Initially, as with the three men the aliens had no immediate response. Then, I guess that the aliens had heard enough, and proceeded to vaporize the minister.

The moral is that talks of peace, and the words from the bible are not enough to secure peace from those that are dead set against it.

This is the world we live in today. Yet, the congress and the people don't get the picture. They would rather continue the path that has produced failures, and emboldened our enemies even more.

Not supporting the war could be patriotic, but to use it to make the war fail feels more like treason, as aiding and abetting the enemy.

The Reason that We Don't WIN the WARS

The reason is simple, the Politicians and the People.

The politicians get tired of the people complaining about the war, and they want to get reelected so they cave in to this Minority and give away the farm at the negotiating table.

  • Vietnam was the Primo example of this give away.
  • The politicians get us into the War, and then when things take too long, and people start to complain, the politicians let the US go belly up.
  • We should really hold these politicians for the needless deaths, and injuries to our armed forces. We shouldn't be in a war that we are not in it to Win.
  • The big problem with the people is that the Civil War was the last war that was fought on our homeland. Because the rest of the Wars were not even close to us, people that didn't go to war, complained about it.
  • Politicians, and a minority of bellyachers, mostly people from the far left.

We can't even win the War on Drugs!

The Muslim Terrorists are right, they just have to wait until the US gives up, because the people can't stomach the War.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      2 years ago


      I didn't change the title, but the wars were meant to show how especially the Patriot Act was used to give authorization to the government to spy on Americans. They had already been doing that by capturing all the phone communications.

      I agree there is no expectation of privacy online especially FACEBOOK.

      As for phone calls, my mother-in law won't discuss anything on the phone, because she thinks they are listening. Who can refute her on that.

      Thanks for your comment

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 

      2 years ago from Yorktown NY

      Just curious, did you change the title of this hib?

      I thought it was a bout wars and now it is recast to talk about privacy...

      My advice to all is don’t post anything on line that you want to keep private.

      Anything put on facebook or blogs are available to the general public.

      Privacy is in your hands and should be your own responsibility.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      2 years ago

      updated April 22, 2018


      Need Some Goals?

      Articles with these attributes typically get 300% more traffic.











      5050 words in this article

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      I agree, and even though you and I know it, there are too many people that either don't know it, or worse don't care.

      Thanks, Have a great weekend

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 

      4 years ago from Yorktown NY

      I agree. War is part of our human experience unfortunately. The power that be wants it that way. I also believe they are the ones pulling the strings and keeping us divided. We seems to elected one party after another and yet they do what they want.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      Thanks for reading and commenting on the hub.

      I think we are closer than you think, and it may be wording that separates us.


      Was not just Germany and Japan, It also in Italy, but like Germany and Japan they worked out OK, well except for the Black Hand.

      We lost Eastern Europe, China and Russia. So, we did OK with 2 out of 5. Russia became a superpower. This was a failure to negotiate the end of a war, and it is the common thread, in why I say we didn't win them. So we got rid of Fascism, and replaced it with Communism. A win would have been to have stopped both of them. My point is that if we dealt properly at the end of WWII with Russia and China, as we did with Japan and Germany we could have prevented the deferred wars that followed.

      This failure just deferred the war, while ending WWII, it setup the conflict for the Korean, and Vietnam Wars. We deferred the Korean War but it emboldened Russia and China to back Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because of what you mentioned, but also because Russia, and China learned from the Korean War how to play US Congress into backing down.

      The theme continues as I mentioned in the hub.

      The Muslim Terrorists also look at our deferment of war, and play the limits on the US getting tired, and unfocused which is what has happened.

      The people, especially the ones on the left are OK with going to War, well actually WWII was the last declared war, but want to give up early. They don't care about the US military that are fighting abroad. And calling them back, only to have to return again, there or somewhere else is another form a failure.

      If liberals were part of George Washington's government, we would still be a British Colony today.

      The War on Drugs, I agree with you. And that is one of the big reasons why so much money is spent on preventing the wall from ever happening.

      The US couldn't do worse if we legalized and taxed all drugs. It would put the drug cartel out of business, as most of their customers are here.

      It is like when CA gave illegal aliens driver licenses. What the illegals don't know is that they are now being tracked. This would also work by legalizing the drugs and requiring tracking of the users. But still make the criminal sanctions for DUI, and other misuses of it, where it affects the public safety.

      As for ISIS, it is another deferred war.

      When we went into Desert Storm to protect Kuwait against Iraq we made a mistake to do it with the UN limit that we don't take down Saddam. This is the classic example of deferred war.

      When we put the US military in harm's way we need to give them whatever they need to protect themselves and to win. Congress didn't do this in Vietnam, and all the ones that followed.

      It is criminal and deadly to have congress play war politics at the expense of NOT properly budgeting the military to fight the war.

      Sure they spend money on the air and sea, but they cheap up when they send in ground forces.

      Finally, my point about NOT winning the WARS is based on the Fact that we have been continually at WAR since beginning of the 20th Century. Had we won the wars, there would have been NO deferred wars, well maybe a few little wars, but nothing of the scale that we have seen in the last 100 years.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 

      4 years ago from Yorktown NY

      Very interesting take on history. I see your point but disagree on your conclusion. As to the war on drugs, I think we lack the will to win. There are too many people making money including large banks and the US government. They don't want to win. You know who won the war on drugs? Singapore. It shows that it is possible but you have to pay a price and we are not willing to pay that price as a people and politically as well.

      To me, we did win the war in Japan and Germany. Those countries are flourishing today because we removed a fascist movement and changed the course of history. I can say more about the other wars as well. You are right about the Vietnam war.

      The current war on ISIS is another example where kurt Administration lack the will to win.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      During this election campaign, some people have gone dark, and they are boasting about a WW3. We haven't won a war in over a century, chances are not good for the next one.

      Stop talking about WW3 or Hitler, and try to elect some people to office that will help the country, and not more of the people already in office. They have shown their level of incompetence. Time to pension them out.

      New people new ideas..

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      Then, I have to disagree with you on both the Gulf War (I) and Both Bush presidents.

      The fact that there is a Gulf War "I" indicates failure. We already spent lives and blood in Desert Storm, did it make sense to have to do it again? Taking care of Iraq 15 years earlier would have saved us from ISIS today, and maybe we could have done something to prevent 911.

      There is only one definition of winning, and going from one war to another war is not it. I gave detailed analysis in both this hub and my last comment, and you only talk about the Gulf War. But the Gulf War makes my point, as we only deferred it for 15 years. This is the same thread that went from WWI to WWII and so on.

      Both Bush presidents were one trick ponies, and their tricks weren't very good. The sad part about this is that war is only politics to these presidents, and politicians, and they could care less about what happens to all of these war veterans, and their families. They learned nothing from the total failure of Vietnam.

      This is the century where the homeland of the US is under attack and yet the politicians refuse to do anything to protect us. Look what happened to the UK and France because of their liberal immigration policies.

      Do we want the US to be attacked by an IRA type of war, only replace one religion for another of the attackers?

      Thank you for at least reading the hub, which is more than the rest of the hub community.

    • lions44 profile image

      CJ Kelly 

      4 years ago from PNW

      I have to vehemently disagree on Gulf War I. Taking out Saddam would have brought us the Iraq mess 15 years early. That's all. We never had to take out Hussein; waiting him out would have have saved a lot of lives. Bush 41 was a leader. He knew his limits and did the right thing. Had he been reelected, things might be different.

      One thing we don't do anymore is encourage the overthrow of bad regimes. We have supported some regime change in the past decade, but nothing that would help our strategic position in the world. Letting the "locals" take out somebody does save American lives.

      Our definition of winning is quite different.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      Peace wasn't my premise. My premise is that we can win military victories, but we don't resolve the issues that got us into the war.

      WWII could have been totally prevented, but the Treaty of Versailles wasn't a win, it merely deferred the war. And that war we called WWII. Germany and Japan were beaten, so why let them grow back up to start WWII.

      My other point is that we shouldn't be in wars that we don't intend to win. Because of the way we ended WWII, we did what we should have done at the end of WWI, at least for Japan and Germany. But, we created a Russian Threat that exists today. That is a clear loss.

      Sure we didn't want to continue WWII, but we already saw how ruthless Russia was, and we let them have Eastern Europe, another Loss. We had the Atomic Bomb, we could have set the terms. Fortunately, Italy never came back as a bad guy, at least not the military.

      Korea was lost for the same reason that we lost WWII. Russia, and China backed North Korea and we again backed away from dealing with Russia. China turned communist after the war, but they would have been under Japanese occupation if we didn't help them in WWII.

      Because of our poor ending of the Korean War, we just deferred it, as the main players, Russia, and China backed Vietnam. And this time we lost it all because we didn't do the right thing after WWII, and after the Korean War.

      My point is the we didn't win the war, we just deferred it and waited for the next war. Russia couldn't have won anymore than Japan did because of the A bomb. The Russians didn't get it until 1949.

      Again, my point is that we didn't WIN, we deferred by backing down.

      Desert Storm was another WWI scenario, we take down Saddam Hussein, and then leave him in power. Was he going to be good??? Of course not, he did exactly as we expected him to do.

      Also like Vietnam, our results in Afghanistan helping to rid the Russians from the country backfired on us. This was the beginning of the terrorist uprising, as they were emboldened by their win against Russia. Then they started testing us, and president Clinton while having the opportunity to nip OBL in the bud didn't make the correct decision.

      911 is still a war that the terrorists are winning. And 911 was no different than the failure to stop the Attack on Pearl Harbor. And 911 was even more embarrassing as it only took 19 terrorists to successfully attack the US at home, and not some distant geography like Hawaii.

      Not a single defensive action was taken during the attack.

      The war by GW Bush on Afghanistan had some legs, but we should have never went to Iraq without finishing Afghanistan, which even today could be deemed the winner.

      Had we taken Saddam out in Desert Storm what would have been the chances of having to invade it a second time?

      President Jimmy Carter failed us with Iran, another failure that embolden the bad guys in the Middle East.

      How can anyone think in terms that we won any of these wars, when we see what we are having to deal with today?

      We still have the best and most powerful military in the world, but we also have the politicians, and the same weak whining voters we have had all along. Thanks to them, we can't win a war, we only defer them.

      The Vietnam War was a tragic example of these politicians and the whining voters. They think that all we have to do is bring back our troops and peace will magically appear. History has proved them wrong every time.

      In these wars, especially starting with Vietnam, the politicians, and their voters that were against the war, made their protests in many ways. The worst of which was not to properly arm the military ground troops. They did this by not funding the war adequately. They did the same thing during Iraq with GW Bush. The equipment was not the best, nor what they needed for that war.

      When the parties and the voters divide like we see them this presidential campaign, that is exactly how they acted during these wars. The foreign enemy was less of a challenge than the enemy within.

      The China problem could have been handled back at the end of WWII or Korea, or Vietnam. Now like the financial industry, they are too big to handle.

    • lions44 profile image

      CJ Kelly 

      4 years ago from PNW

      Brad, I understand your premise is that we win the conflict but lose the actual peace. We can only deal with the information we have at the time.

      Take WWII. Was the outcome at Yalta ideal? No. FDR and his admin were hoodwinked. He was very ill and it's not surprising. But if we lost on the battlefield, the outcome would have been much worse. So yes, Eastern Europe and many other nations had another 40 years of struggle ahead. But had the Axis powers won, the future would have been disastrous. Even if the war dragged on another year, could you imagine how many more would have been killed? In the camps. Or invading Japan.

      The same goes for Korea and Gulf I. They had limited objectives. We kicked the North Koreans out of the South. We kicked Saddam our of Kuwait. What more could we have done. Go into a conflict with China further? We have seen what invading Iraq did.

      My point is that there never really is literal "peace." There's just limited conflicts and worldwide conflicts. Problems never go away, they just change.

      Saddam is gone. Now we have a new corrupt regime. The Soviets are gone and now we have Putin. We could not really have prevented that without taking over all of these nations with a million troops. China is growing more aggressive. How could we have prevented that? We can only prepare and try to contain the problem. I'm not an idealist.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      The reason that we lose the war is the same reason why we go from war to war. We win military battles, but don't win the war because the politicians take defeat out of the jaws of victory.

      The second WW was the result of not actually winning the first WW. Allowing the AXIS countries to rebuild their war machines and rely on a paper treaty is a consistent thread of deferring a war instead of winning it.

      WWII would have never happened, if we would have prevented the build up of the axis power war machine.

      Deferring a war instead of finishing apprises the war torn citizens of the US. They think that bringing the troops back will bring peace. But history has shown that not to be true in most instances.

      Think about it and let me know what you think.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      Really, doesn't someone want to refute this article?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      What say you?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      Larry Wall

      Another agreement, and they said it couldn't be done.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 

      4 years ago

      We are in agreement on your conclusion.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      I agree with your first sentence.

      And, I also agree about congress, and that is where we lose the wars.

      In Vietnam, and in Iraq, the people in this country and the officials in congress had a controversy about the wars.

      Congress was not functional and they didn't pass the necessary funds and support for the troops. It was the boots on the ground that took it in the neck, because of politics, and conflicts. We didn't act like a country that was United. My point is that when WE decide to go to war, there should be no internal conflict. We the people and the government need to not sacrifice the lives of our military because of internal disagreements, or the voices of the people who don't like it.

      The people in the military are not to blame, they are under orders. It there is an internal conflict among the people and the congress, they need to use the processes of the government to resolve it , and not take it out on the military.

      We should always think and protect our military over the enemy.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 

      4 years ago

      We should go to win and to protect. Sometimes a complete win will cause more deaths. I have never been in the armed forces. I am not an expert in military strategy and I do not claim to have all the answers. Unfortunately congress provides the money and therefore, it has to be involved and party politics has too much influence.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      The real issue is that for whatever reason that we do go to War, we should go for the win. At the same time, we need the congress and the people to support the military. Starting with the Vietnam War both congress and the people let the military down.

      In the wars since 911, the congress really let the military swing in the breeze by not properly funding them. Just because congress can't get along is no reason why the military should take it out on the military

      The rest of this is in the hub.


    • profile image

      Larry Wall 

      4 years ago

      How do we make the decision to say no. The U.S. is not going to be in the next war? I do not like wars. Isolationism is not practical any longer. I do not have an answer or solution. You laid out the problem, but as long as people make the decision to fight, oppose and protect, I think we are going to be at war. I have a nephew who graduated from the Naval Academy and is on a ship somewhere. Another nephew by marriage, has been in the Air Force for years, and he tells me that our presence is needed. He is in the fray. I am not. I have to give merit to his conclusion. Both are officers.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      Yes, that is true, but I also think that there must be a real goal for the war.

      Military victories, and battles don't win a war, they just defer the war until later, as you have mentioned.

      There is also the problem when the war is run by the government but not supported by the people. That was the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War.

      WWII wasn't won because Eastern Europe was still held hostage, it only changed from the Nazzis to the Russian. The US Allie of Russia then becomes our enemy, and it exists today 70 years later. That is the definition of not winning a war.

    • laidexsols profile image

      Olaide Agbolade 

      4 years ago from Akure

      I'm confused myself. After the Nigerian civil war ended in 1970, the federal government rolled out the slogan "No victor, no vanquished" and it all looked good. That particular war was a battle for a united Nigeria and against Ojuku led republic of Biafra's insurrection. Today, Biafra remains a treat to the essense of the Nigerian civil war. Biafra today has a radio station in eastern Nigeria. They even have their currency. Another insurrection or sedition is just around the corner. Many lives may still have to go for the "no vanquished part of that war". I think in every war, there must be a victor and a vanquised otherwise we'll keep running in a circle.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      To All

      Is no comment just apathy, or is it a silent agreement?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago

      To All

      If you think that the US has won a war, then please give us your definition of winning in the particular war.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      You missed the point of this hub, sorry.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago


      Which war do you think we won?

    • wilderness profile image

      Dan Harmon 

      4 years ago from Boise, Idaho

      It sounds like your premise is that the only way to declare victory is total annihilation of everyone on the planet except us, because sooner or later there will be another war otherwise.

      WWI could only be won by completely destroying Germany, or they might repeat the war. WWII could only be won by removing not only the axis powers from the face of the earth but our own allies as well because they might start a war in the future.

      Victory at Desert Storm could only be won by glazing Iraq into glass, or it might start another war sometime.

      I disagree - victory does not need the total destruction of the enemy. Whether they start another war in the future is irrelevant. It is perhaps only a matter of definition, but I have to say that I'm pretty happy with the thought that we can win, and stop the fighting, without total destruction.

    • Nell Rose profile image

      Nell Rose 

      5 years ago from England

      Interesting hub, I don't think anybody wins wars, we just win them for a while then others take over, and off we go again. While there are warlike countries around the world then the US and Britain will always have to step up to the mark and sort it out, nell

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      5 years ago


      Hindsight appears to be the default sight, and yes, the question is how much do we learn from it?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR


      5 years ago

      I want to make it clear that none of this is the fault of the military. They are doing a good job, but the politicians are the ones holding them back.

      Congress, and the presidents, along with the people that work adversely to the military are the real problems.

      Don't pull the political party card, both political parties are at fault at one time or another.

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 

      5 years ago from Olympia, WA

      An interesting premise and an intelligent argument. I'm not sure we will ever learn from our history as a country. There is no evidence that we have learned so far.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)