Offer And Acceptance Form For Raw Land Oklahoma: Fill & Download for Free

Vietnam had four basic advantages that meant it was almost ideally suited to a guerrilla campaign. I have a few quibbles about calling it purely a guerrilla campaign, but we’ll get to that in a bit.Geographic PositionForeign SupportThe Politics of the United StatesVietnamese ExperienceGeographic PositionVietnam: Vietnam, first of all, had an amazing geographic position when it came to guerrilla war.Vietnam itself is (to be slightly glib about it) a strip of land along the coast. It’s long, but relatively thin. That means it, a) has a very long border, and b) has a very long coastline.That border was, for legal and political reasons, a relatively absolute border for the U.S. forces, aside from special forces raids and air raids. The U.S. couldn’t go over it in strength, it had to confine its operations to within the borders of South Vietnam. It was perennially worried, among other things, that a large-scale incursion into North Vietnam would lead to a repeat of Korea and prompt China to intervene.North Vietnam, however, didn’t have that problem. It could operate freely (well, to varying degrees of freedom) in Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam. In short: it had protected sanctuaries in no less than three countries. When North Vietnam was aligned with China, it also had havens in southern China.North Vietnam could essentially just cross the border and be more or less untouchable. It had safe areas where it could resupply, rest, and rearm. It had a set population from which it could draw troops. It bordered friendly countries (more or less) from which it could draw supplies and through which it could get supplies in relative safety to their fighting units. The Ho Chi Minh trail through Laos and Cambodia allowed Northern Vietnam to shuttle close to two million tons of supplies to their units in South Vietnam.The United States could conduct air campaigns against the North and their logistics trails through Laos and Cambodia, but the issue is that history has shown—time and time again, as a matter of fact—that air campaigns of that sort are ineffective. The Ho Chi Minh trail, bombed time and time again, was brought into working order again extremely quickly, sometimes even the next day. The bombing campaign in the North was deadly and horrible, but it didn’t substantially impact the war effort. Nor did the special forces raids into Cambodia materially affect the trail—you need actual occupying soldiers to interdict those supplies, not raids.Let’s put this in perspective. South Vietnam was a little bit shorter than California, but only about as wide as what we might call the “California coastal region,” i.e., the region of land linking Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. If you had basically unfettered access to every piece of land that region bordered, and were secure in doing it, imagine how easy it would be to supply.Yeah, you might say, that’s North Vietnam—but what about the Vietcong! They were in South Vietnam! Bear with me here. I’ll get to that in a moment. As an amuse bouche, however, let me just say I’ll wager that what you know about the Vietcong is wrong.The United States: An insurrection would have nowhere near that level of geographic advantage. Unless there’s a massive sea shift in the next decades, it’s highly unlikely that Canada or Mexico will offer their territory as safe havens for American insurrectionists. Were there any kind of insurrection, I’d put it at about 99% chance that both those countries, even at this point in time, support the established government of the U.S., and that means they’re not going to take too kindly to American insurrectionists operating within their borders. Even if they didn’t like the U.S. Government, countries tend not to appreciate foreign insurgents crossing their borders unless they have an immensely strong ideological imperative, and neither Canada nor Mexico have much love for the brand of ideological politics that the people who talk about an anti-Federal insurgency often hold.Even if they do allow them to shelter in their borders, those countries aren’t well-situated for acting as secure logistics routes unless the insurrection is limited to the American southern or northern borders. In Vietnam, if you followed the Cambodian or Laotian border and entered from there, you were never that far from where any particular unit might be. An insurgency with hypothetical shelter in Mexico might be able to get things across the border to troops operating in southern Arizona or places like Austin, but will it be able to get as far as Mobile? Oklahoma city? Jackson, Montgomery, or Nashville? Shelter in Canada, meanwhile, might let you get things to Seattle, Bismarck, or the general New England region, but it probably won’t get you much further.Meanwhile, those insurrectionists need to get a secure base of operations. That’s what Vietnam did—it had North Vietnam, an entire, internationally recognized independent country. Hell, even the Afghans had a similar shelter in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province. Our insurrectionists won’t have that unless something very strange happens in the U.S. and New England or something gets severed. So they’ll have to establish their own within the U.S., where, by the way, they can be attacked with near impunity.It just so happens that those two neutral countries that our hypothetical supply lines might run through aren’t well-suited for being placed next to a secure base of operations. Most of the land they border isn’t very secure and is relatively easily passable. Probably you’d want to hold up in the mountains like the Afghans did (and do) or the Chinese did in Yan’an, but that limits us mostly to western Montana and northern Washington in the West, or maybe areas like northern Maine in the east. An ideal place might be in the high Rockies, like, say, Colorado, but that’s so far from our neutral havens that our supply lines through there will be tough.All that aside, you don’t just set up in the wilderness somewhere. You need a population base for support and recruitment, so you’re going to have to find a region where, simultaneously, a) it’s hard for the government to find and attack, b) in an area with a sufficiently large population, c) that’s close enough to the border for you to take advantage of supply routes in untouchable neutral territory. That’s a tall—almost impossible—order.Those past suggestions were, by the way, predicated upon the idea that Canada or Mexico would shelter the insurrectionists to begin with, which is almost certainly not going to happen.So Vietnam had massive geographical advantages when it came to waging a guerrilla war—easy resupply routes and a secure and mostly unassailable home base in friendly territory. American insurrectionists won’t enjoy anywhere near the same advantages, because the U.S. simply isn’t laid out that way.Foreign SupportVietnam: Vietnam enjoyed a huge amount of foreign support, given the international context of the Cold War. Socialist nations, with whom Vietnam was aligned, were eager to lend support to the Vietnamese cause. Further, Vietnam was incredibly savvy on the diplomatic field and were able to very effectively play off China and the Soviet Union (who had developed an intensive antipathy) for supplies.Vietnam did not fight their war in a vacuum, and everyone was aware of that. When they fought against the French, Communist China provided them shelter, training, and supplies as part of a policy of Asian anti-imperialism. When they fought the Americans, supplies began to shift toward the Soviet Union who, it need not be said, were eager to support a fellow socialist nation against their primary adversary.By 1968, the CIA estimated that the Soviet Union alone provided $1.5 billion in economic and military assistance, China $1 billion, and the Warsaw Pact nations a bit over $250 million. In 1966–67, that three quarters of that aid was military, and 80% of that military aid, value-wise, was donated by the Soviet Union. China was estimated to have 50,000 troops in Vietnam providing instruction and assisting in constructing defenses and communication lines, where 2,000 Soviet advisers were thought to be operating in the country instructing Vietnamese troops on technical matters and helping them to operate the advanced aircraft and air-defense systems that they had sent to Vietnam.In short: Vietnam got an astounding amount of aid—almost all grant aid—from communist nations. That’s aid in raw materials, weapons, infrastructure and logistics support, training, and general economic aid.Let’s also remember: North Vietnam was a recognized, independent country with whom the U.S. was not theoretically at war. The U.S. was also not at war with China or the Soviet Union. China could send supplies overland, but the Soviets could send cargo ships with weapons and supplies right into North Vietnam and the United States basically couldn’t do anything about it. What are you going to do—sink a Soviet ship? That’s how you get an actual war.United States: Who, really, would be supporting the American insurrectionists on that kind of scale?China or Russia might hypothetically send equipment, but that would be directed at keeping the United States busy with the insurrection, not with fully supporting an ideological ally. For the Soviet Union and China, their goal in Vietnam was a North Vietnamese victory, because that would be a victory for the Communist cause in general. I’m not sure a similar ideological drive would be present in potential Russian or Chinese aid.Other major potential powers either don’t have the resources for that kind of massive aid or would almost certainly not offer it—why would, say, the United Kingdom or France or even countries like India offer supplies to undermine the U.S. Government?Things could change, but those countries have more or less a vested interest as it stands in keeping the U.S. Government in place.And where would these insurrectionists be that they have both a) a secured, major port capable of handling that kind of throughput, and b) a secure enough international position that it would be politically difficult to actually interdict or blockade that port? It was hard to do that during the Vietnam War because we weren’t at war with North Vietnam and a blockade (not an embargo, an actual naval blockade) is an act of war, and we weren’t willing to declare war on North Vietnam. Unless our American insurrectionists have their own recognized, independent country as a supply base, the Navy is going to just be able to blockade those ports and shut off that foreign aid unless it comes through a neutral port and then an overland supply line.In short, Vietnam got a ton of foreign aid, and I don’t see potential American insurrectionists getting anywhere near as much or with anywhere near the intensity and value. Even if they did, the insurrectionists aren’t going to have the secure port infrastructure necessary to bring in tons upon tons of foreign weapons and material without being molested.American Political OpinionVietnam War: The United States is currently a major interventionist power in effective policy (i.e., what we actually do), but politically and culturally, we’re an isolationist power.This sounds ridiculous, but let’s consider American history. We first sent troops abroad in an actual large scale only in WWI—and even then, we had major anti-war elements. We sent soldiers abroad in WWII, which honestly might be the only foreign war America has been a part of that began popular and remained popular throughout the course of the conflict, but even then, a lot of Americans wanted to GTFO as soon as the war was done. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, even Afghanistan beyond the initial years, all were at best wars we were indifferent to or that were full-out politically unpopular.This is a major disconnect between modern American foreign policy and the political proclivities of the American population. The government has, in the post-war era, entrenched the United States in an international system that the population has, traditionally, regarded with suspicion. You can see this as recently as the 2016 election—a major refrain there was, “why are we worrying about international commitments when we have so many problems at home?”The Vietnam War is a good example of this. The United States found itself drawn into the war slowly, over time, but at first was adamant that the Vietnamese do the work themselves. See LBJ’s comment on the matter:We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.In Vietnam, we found ourselves asking precisely why we had sent Americans to fight and die for a country that, prior to the war, most Americans might never have heard of, might not have been able to pick out on a map. There were theories about the ramifications of South Vietnam falling to the Communists, but those theories often seemed abstract and artificial to a population that had traditionally remained skeptical of foreign commitments.In this case, all North Vietnam had to do was wait out American resolve. Politically, the war had never been massively, unquestioningly supported. Even before the major anti-war movements, we weren’t entirely sure about the wisdom of sending American soldiers to die thousands of miles from home, in a land that meant little to most Americans at the time.This is a pervasive pattern with America. Even when we’re gung-ho about entering a war, we quickly turn against it. When WWI ended, we fucked out of Europe as quick as we could. When WWII ended, it took every ounce of political capital (and the machinations of several European powers) for us to be kept in Europe. Lord Ismay, NATO’s first General Secretary, said that the entire purpose of NATO was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Us simply vacating Europe after 1945 was a real worry and a real possibility, as unthinkable as it seems now. Even after 9/11, when we were champing at the bit to get into Afghanistan, we soon found ourselves wanting to get the hell out of there. After all, the common refrain went, why should we be spending blood and treasure if the Afghan government and security forces are incompetent?All of that aside, the United States’s exit wasn’t to simply lay down their arms and admit defeat. Their assumption (or hope) was that the fight—which they had always seen as fundamentally South Vietnam’s fight—would be handled by the ARVN that had been trained and equipped by the Americans should war break out again.The American Insurgency: Our attitudes change—and change quickly—when it comes to a domestic threat.After the Revolutionary War, farmers in Massachusetts rose in rebellion against the government, complaining about issues related to taxes and poverty. They were—with surprising public enthusiasm—crushed by local Massachusetts militias, and the leaders were excoriated in the public press as anarchists (in the sense that they resisted legitimate power).Four years after the Revolutionary War, we not only smashed a rebellion with armed force—after disbanding our military—but we decided after those events that the government needed more power, including the power to maintain a military. Shay’s Rebellion, for such was its name, led in part to the Constitution, the Federal Government, and the concept of a strong, central government.On a longer term, we have the Civil War. Over four years, the loyalist side alone (i.e., the Union) suffered 800,000 casualties and had put 2.2 million men under arms—from a pre-war military of just 16,000 men. In total, those four years resulted in over a million deaths out of a population of just over 30 million—proportionally, it was as if ten million Americans died today over four years while putting twenty million men under arms. Over those four years, the U.S. Government estimated that it had spent $6.1 billion dollars, $2.5 million daily, at contemporary value. Military spending took up close to 90% of Federal spending—if we spent an equivalent proportion today, we would be spending close to 3.7 trillion per year. That is emphatically not a country unwilling to fight insurrection.Claims exist that the U.S. Army wouldn’t fight or fire on Americans, but historically I see no reason to believe that. Close to 100,000 Americans—who called themselves Confederates—died in battle in the Civil War, shot, blown apart, stabbed, and gutted by fellow Americans. Federal armies burned Georgia to the ground, General Sherman promised (with seemingly no small amount of glee) that he’d make Georgia howl. Most of the South’s major cities, by 1865, were rubble and ash—Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile. New Orleans was spared because it surrendered early and promptly to the Federal fleet.In 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire on American college students. In 1914, the Colorado National Guard openly assaulted a camp of striking miners, leading to 20 deaths (including 11 children). General George S. Patton ordered armed cavalry to charge Bonus Army protesters and drove them across the Anacostia. General MacArthur, meanwhile, attacked that main camp—against the orders of President Hoover, who told him to stop. In other words, even unordered, even going against orders, General MacArthur led American troops in dispersing a camp of American civilians.These are spaced out over decades and some of them (like Kent State) may not have been directly ordered, but they show the historical precedent that establishes, that, yes, the United States military will fire upon and even kill civilians under certain circumstances—even unarmed ones. That’s not to say that U.S. soldiers live for the day when they can bayonet a soccer mom, mind you, just that American troops firing on Americans has, time and time again, proven to be within the realm of possibility.In short, Americans are, yes, traditionally suspicious of foreign wars and the Vietnam War resulted in a push for an American exit, but to take that example and compare it to an American war effort in a domestic insurgency is a category error. Sending soldiers thousands of miles overseas to fight for what was, at the time, a country obscure to many Americans is inherently different than calling upon American soldiers to put down a domestic insurgency—and putting down a domestic insurgency is something that the United States, historically, has been willing to expend masses of blood and treasure to suppress.That aside, there’s a difference between the American exit from Vietnam and a Federal Government exit from an insurgency. The Americans in Vietnam turned the fight over to the ARVN, which they counted on to continue the fight if necessary after the Accord. The exit in 1973 wasn’t one that threatened the very life of the United States. A surrender in an insurgency would very much be an intrinsic threat to the Federal Government, because we wouldn’t be handing off that fight to someone else. It would either end with the fall of the Federal Government as we know it or the defeat of the insurrection.Vietnamese ExperienceThe Vietnam War did not begin in 1964—that’s when American involvement began to ramp up.Vietnam had been fighting in one thing or another since 1941—on its own territory.First, Ho Chi Minh founded the Viet Cong (then an umbrella revolutionary group), which fought against the Japanese. Their presence in the fight was such that, when Japan surrendered in 1945, they surrendered much of their equipment and holdings to the Viet Cong. When the Japanese left, they began fighting against the French who tried to reassert control over Indochina.That eventually broke out into full-scale war in the First Indochina War from 1946–1954. That lasted seven and a half years, resulting in close to a half a million deaths.When that was over, North Vietnam and South Vietnam (the results of the First Indochinese War) almost immediately began fighting each other, leading to the Second Indochinese War (what we call the Vietnam War) from 1955 until 1975.For reference, that’s almost constant warfare at one intensity or another from 1941 to 1975. That’s close to 34 years of war. The average American age is 38—if the United States had suffered something like that, the average American today would have known four years of peace in their home for their entire lives.The United States had a significant presence beyond a few assorted advisers for perhaps a third of that. It had a significant military presence in Vietnam for maybe a sixth of that time.So when the United States went into the war, it wasn’t going into war with people who hadn’t experienced war at home or had done a few deployments overseas. It was going to war with people who had made war their business for the past twenty or thirty years. Some of them had fought the Japanese; if they hadn’t fought the Japanese, they’d fought the French; if they hadn’t fought the French, they were trained by men who did and were fighting South Vietnam.The Viet Cong in South Vietnam, prior to 1968, were staffed by South Vietnamese pro-North veterans of Vietnam’s previous wars, bolstered by additional soldiers and supplies from the North. The North’s army had carried over from the previous wars, too—Vo Ngyuyen Giap, after all, commanded at Dien Bien Phu. He learned everything he knew about war from experience, and it was a long experience.The capabilities of the Vietnamese were, militarily, actually immensely impressive. They could transition seamlessly between guerrilla and conventional campaigns. They were masters of logistics, planning, and organization. Years of war had forced them into a lean-running, well-organized fighting force. They had an A+ propaganda and political arm that time and time again outmatched the U.S. and South Vietnamese public relations campaigns.We don’t have that in the United States. We have veterans, sure, but those veterans haven’t been fighting almost nonstop for 20 years. We don’t have those veterans organized in a single fighting organization that has been tried, tested, and improved by decades of war, that already has established hierarchies and command-and-control methods and organization and propaganda arms and established logistics routes and standing units.Keep in mind here that there’s a difference between “well, we could get them together, they know about the army!” and already having that organization. New organizations, even if you’re pulling together people who know what they’re doing, still have to have time to settle, to get everything in order, to set everything up and establish all the organs that such a body would require. Businessmen, for example, often know all the ins-and-outs of how to organize a large company, but it’s not unusual to for their companies to fail.This is, I want to note, not a slight against our veterans or their organizational capacity. It’s simply a statement that organizations are difficult, and organizations for war especially so. The VC-NVA had decades to get it right and make sure that everything was working as it should. Even they came up short a lot of the time, as organizations do. By the time they faced the United States, they had been at it for decades.So Vietnam is fighting against the United States with this tried and tested organization staffed by veterans and men that had been fighting for decades within that organization. We don’t have that. We have men who are veterans and who know how the U.S. Army works, but there’s a difference between knowing how an organization works and setting up a whole new one.Overview so far:On the Vietnamese side, we have: Experienced troops who have been fighting wars for the past two to three decades, in a battle-tested and long-standing organization with loads of institutional experience, that were able to take advantage of highly advantageous geography, safe havens for their home and logistical bases, loads of foreign aid, and were fighting against an adversary that, politically, had little stomach for that fight to begin with.On the American side we have: Veterans perhaps, but working with what is presumably an entirely new, untested organization with little institutional experience, a disadvantageous geography given that the country they’re rebelling against is likely to be friendly with both Canada and Mexico (or unwilling to upset it enough to give those insurgents a haven), with limited opportunities for foreign aid, an eternally unsafe and attackable home base, fighting against an adversary for whom it is either victory or death (for the government at least) and who, historically, has been shown to be willing to accept monumental expenses to put down domestic revolts.Frankly, their situations are simply incomparable. An American insurgency wouldn’t even be playing the same game as the VC-NVA.Additional Notes:There are a few other things I want to go over, because they’re often ignored while talking about the Vietnam War—or people just aren’t aware of them, and that omission leads to a number of myths about the Vietnam War that lead to (no offense) questions like this.The Viet Cong and the NVA: A lot of us think of the Vietnam War as the U.S. versus the Viet Cong, and that the Viet Cong did most of the fighting. “VC,” “Victor Charlie,” and just “Charlie,” have entered our national parlance. They were our adversary, and we mostly fought the VC. The VC, meanwhile, were all rice farmers who picked up an old gun and got fighting. Hence, if the VC could beat us, all insurgencies can!All that couldn’t be further from the truth. Part of all of this comes from the mouth of North Vietnam itself at that time—they were keen to stress that the Viet Minh were a totally independent, autonomous group that had just arose in South Vietnam because everyone hated South Vietnam and backed Ho Chi Minh. As well, it would’ve been politically damaging to North Vietnam for them to openly be going, “yeah, the VC are totally our armed wing in the South.”In addition, it suited the North Vietnamese to be able to say (internationally), “well, all that fighting there is with the Viet Cong, you’re not fighting our guys.” It was one of those legal fictions people adhere to for a larger purposes. These days, the two are seen (at least by the Vietnamese) as working hand-in-glove.In truth, the NVA—regular soldiers—were in South Vietnam in strength. Exact numbers differ, but the US believed North Vietnam had a little under 300,000 NVA troops in the South in 1967. North Vietnam claims it had over half a million. The NVA had full regiments and divisions operating in the South, and clashed often with American forces. The Battle of the Ia Drang Valley, made famous by Gen. Harold Moore’s book We Were Soldiers Once… And Young, was fought between the US and the NVA, not the VC.What’s more, after the Tet Offensive (and other related offensives) in 1968, the ratio became even more lopsided when the VC got mauled—after that, up to 70% of Communist combat troops in South Vietnam were NVA regulars.Even the Viet Cong, though, weren’t simply farmers with random weapons. The Viet Cong—more correctly, the National Liberation Front (NLF)—was founded in 1960, and was manned by individuals from the South who had fought for the Viet Minh during the First Indochinese War, were resettled in the North, and were infiltrated south to fill out the ranks of the new organization. The military leaders of the VC, like Hoang Van Thai and Tran Van Tra, were decorated, veteran commanders.Both groups—the NLF and the NVA—were armed with relatively modern weapons, whether built in North Vietnam or shipped to them by the Chinese and the Soviets. The NLF, as a matter of course, couldn’t deploy heavy weapons, but it didn’t need to. If that was required, the NVA had the men and the weapons to do that. These weren’t men who were armed with anything that came to hand, these were men who were well-supplied and well-outfitted by a sophisticated logistics network.So when you think of the Vietnam War, don’t think of “Vietnamese peasants in pajamas with random weapons,” think about the hundreds of thousands of regular NVA troops in South Vietnam, armed (along with the NLF) with modern weapons and well-supplied through an impressive logistical system.If we want to make an analogy between the Vietnam War and a potential American insurrection, imagine as if the government weren’t only fighting insurgents, but also hundreds of thousands of regular troops infiltrated into the country, armed like modern troops. What’s more, after a certain point, imagine that 70% of the soldiers you’re facing aren’t “insurgents” but rather regular troops infiltrated into the country from a foreign nation.That’s not an “insurgents defeated the U.S.” narrative.What does an insurgency victory look like?Vietnam has, in many ways, wildly skewed our view of what a successful insurgency looks like. We figure that a successful insurgency consists of raids, minor logistics strikes, and that, in general, if you make yourself enough of an annoyance, the power in question will say “no mas” and give in.That is emphatically not what it looks like.The Vietnam War did not end with the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. It ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975. The 80s War in Afghanistan didn’t end with the Geneva Accords in 1988 or the final withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, it began to end with the end of the Siege of Khost in 1991 and the final collapse of the Najibullah government, or even went as far as fall of Kabul in 1996—or, to put it honestly, the argument can be made that the war that began in 1978 never ended, and has simply been one long, irrepressible conflict.Our issue is that we conflate the intervening power’s conflict with the war itself, and we assume that, since that intervening power didn’t achieve a military victory and eventually withdrew, that the war was lost.If North Vietnam had never attacked South Vietnam after 1973, or if the mujaheddin had not attacked the Najibullah Government after 1988, we would probably be able to say that, in the end, we won in Vietnam and the Soviets won in Afghanistan. We were there, after all, to prop up our favored government, and the Soviets were there to prop up theirs. In the face of their continued existence and the absence of those final moves that brought about their collapse, the objectives of both powers would have been largely achieved.In both these scenarios—and many others—the actual victory came about not because the intervening power just left, but because the insurgency was able to shift itself into conventional warfare. It went from having to melt into the hills to being able to take and hold territory, to be able to fight the opposing forces on equal terms.When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in 1975, it didn’t do so as an insurgency, it did so as a fully fledged conventional army with motorized troops, tanks, artillery, air support, and heavy weapons. It was able to seize territory, hold it, and advance to capture new territory against resistance.When the mujaheddin attacked the Najibullah Government, their failure to match the Najibullah’s Government in conventional war led to a major defeat at Jalalabad. It was only when the mujaheddin were able to take and hold Khost as actual territory that the war began to turn in their direction. By the time the Taliban began to take over, they had four hundred tanks and even a small air force of Russian jets to help them extend and enforce their power conventionally.In both cases, the successful transition from an insurgent force to a conventional force—key to their victory—was predicated on the failure of foreign aid to a government that had come to depend upon it. South Vietnam was dependent on U.S. aid to provide munitions it itself could not provide; the Najibullah Government’s war effort was dependent upon Soviet aid for supplies it otherwise couldn’t obtain. When the United States severely cut aid after 1973 and when the Soviet Union began to collapse and ceased aid to the Najibullah Government, both eventually collapsed because they had no other way to obtain supplies. South Vietnamese forces ended up having to ration artillery shells to a single-digit number fired per gun per day; the Najibullah Government ran out of the SCUD missiles it had come to depend upon. When that aid was present, those government forces generally performed acceptably if not amazingly; when it was gone, they collapsed.We can take another example: the victory of the CCP in China in 1949. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the CCP largely husbanded its strength (aside from a few offensives), while the Nationalists undertook the brunt of the fighting and spent their most effective units engaging Imperial Japanese Army forces. When Japan surrendered in 1945, the Soviets (who had invaded Manchuria) turned the cities it held and the arms and munitions surrendered to it by the Japanese over to the CCP. Meanwhile, the United States came to view the Nationalists as corrupt and began severely cutting aid. The CCP went on to use that expanded power base and munitions cache (as well as other aid from the Soviets) to overpower the Nationalists in a conventional war. Mao himself held that the entire point of a guerrilla campaign was not to win a war, but to allow a force to build itself up to being able to conduct conventional operations.This is, by the way, what ISIS tried to do—it tried to make that transition from an insurgent force to a conventional force, and it attempted to take and seize territory. It failed and the movement was basically defeated, but it shows that any insurgent force looking to actually achieve its goals needs to attempt to make that transition at some point.The point here is that, for all the talk of insurgencies and guerrilla raids, those don’t win you a war. What wins you a war, as history shows, is being able to convert your guerrilla force into a conventional military and being able to commence conventional operations designed to take and hold territory. China, Vietnam, Afghanistan—the anti-government forces that won these wars didn’t win it as guerrilla forces, they won it by being able to engage government forces head on and defeating them in open battle.All those three were, by the way, facing very weakened governments. The Nationalists in China were never extremely solid in their hold on much of China and had exhausted themselves against the Japanese. The South Vietnamese government always had difficulty among its own populace and was dependent upon American aid, just as the Communist Afghan government (whether Najibullah or his predecessors) never commanded much loyalty among their people and were dependent upon Soviet aid.What’s the plan for an insurgency against the United States government? More specifically, what’s the plan for an insurgency against the United States government that’s going to actually, realistically, and concretely allow it to transform into a conventional military force fighting a conventional war on the same soil and on the same continent as the U.S. military? Where is this insurgency going to get tanks, airplanes, IFVs, smart munitions, and all the other accoutrements of military power that would allow it to stand against the Federal Army—and, perhaps more importantly, allow it to rebuild those things after they inevitably take losses in the fighting? How is it going to take and hold actual territory, and expand that territory, in the face of assaults by the U.S. military?Without doing that, and that is a tall order for a potential insurgency with almost everything going against it, such an insurgency is doomed to, at best, a terroristic existence on the margins and, at worst, utter defeat.In short: almost every advantage the North Vietnamese-VC faced in their fight against the United States fails to appear in a hypothetical domestic insurgency against the Federal Government.Claiming the Vietnam experience as support for what is essentially a piece of political propaganda is not only deeply insensitive to what was an immensely painful, trying time for an actual country with actual people, but it’s predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding (even ignorance) of the circumstances, context, and course of the Vietnam War.

Good question because global warming is certainly not caused by humans and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. YES - the greatest environmental threat today is from our pollution and from energy poverty in particular.In a finding that confirms the devastating health impact of energy poverty, the landmark Global Burden of Disease study published today tallied 3.5 million annual deaths from respiratory illness due to burning of wood, brush, dung, and other biomass for fuel.Cooking on traditional cookstoves is a far greater risk factor than poor water and sanitation, lead or radon pollution, or smog (ozone) and outdoor soot, according to the study in today’s Lancet, the largest ever systematic effort to describe the global distribution and causes of mortality. The data indicate that respiratory illness from breathing the emissions from inefficient cookstoves causes more than double the annual deaths attributed either to malaria (1.2 million) or to HIV/AIDS (1.5 million).Seven research institutions from around the world, including Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the University of Tokyo, and the World Health Organization (WHO), collaborated on the study, which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Related: “How Healthy is the World?”) The research was much expanded in scope from the 1990 Global Burden of Disease study funded by the World Bank.The new study, if compared to the figures from 20 years ago, marks a decline in global deaths due to cookstove pollution (which stood at 4.6 million in the 1990 study.) But it is roughly double the 2 million annual figure that WHO has been attributing to deaths due to indoor smoke from solid fuels.“These results provide further momentum to our mission to ensure that cooking doesn’t kill,” said Radha Muthiah, executive director of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership that has been working to deploy cleaner, safer cookstoves.Added Kirk R. Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-author of The Lancet article, “One of the most alarming findings is that smoke from cooking fires was found to be the largest environmental threat to health in the world.Energy poverty is made much worse by government action to reduce our carbon footprint and restrict fossil fuels - coal power in particular. A recent UN public opinion poll found 97% of the votes opposed taking action on climate change. The public put much higher priority on clean water, better health care and good education measures. They said action on climate change is the lowest priority. These much needed priorities have been scuttled by the crazy idea that humans can control the climate with carbon taxes.Demonizing Co2 from fossil fuels is terribly bad science. It denies hope for a safer and better life to the 3 billion + living without electricity that need. Here are the references first on non-toxic Co2 -Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere - carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970's Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.Thus, regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'carbon taxes', 'cap and trade' or the EPA will cause all energy prices (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil) to skyrocket. This hits the poor the hardest."CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistryhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.htmlCO2 fertilization effectFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe CO2 fertilization effect or carbon fertilization effect suggests that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the rate of photosynthesis in plants. The effect varies depending on the plant species, the temperature, and the availability of water and nutrients.[1]From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[2]Fertilizing a greenhouse by pumping in Co2 at > 1000ppm 7/24 boosts plant growth.Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%! Next the references that show global warming is not caused by Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. -Isolated for 42 days in chambers of ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations, we periodically document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via time-lapse photography. SEEING IS BELIEVINGCo2 has no effect on global warming.The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming - has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rulcs"Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof - which history offers so many examples - that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science.If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?Paul Johnson, journalist and historian, achieved international bestsellerdom in the 1980s with "Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Eighties," one of the most readable works of all time.Putting cheap energy from fossil fuels as the control lever of climate lacks any scientific proof and is only understandable from its origins as a social justice movement led by Canadian socialist and Father of Climate Change, Maurice Strong.Maurice Strong established the UN?s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP) He was not a scientist.In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.He had a mission like Naomi Klein that depended little on science. He wanted to end capitalism.His imprint continues today with UN science leadership best illustrated by Ottmar Endohofer.Understanding the history of the UN global warming scare helps to digest how truly unscientific is the GHG theory. The theory is old and abandoned by scientists around 1900 yet it fit in with the UN mission. Only by using fudged data of the infamous hockey stick graph was Al Gore able to mount a credible public crusade, but he had to demand that “the science was settled” and 97% scientists agreed with him which was a bald lie.Piers Corbyn; There is No Such Thing as Man-Made Climate Change‘Never mind the heat, climate change is a hoax by gravy-train scientists'C02 has nothing to do with climate.The sun is best indicator of the weather.Wisdom LandPublished on 12 Dec 2016SUBSCRIBE 19KOn Dec. 27, 2010 - Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent. Astrophysicist and meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, has a prediction success rate of roughly 85%...better than any of the "man made" climate change activists and proponents in the field of climate science. He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London....He's not your everyday weatherman: the conspicuously displayed photocopy of a check for £2,291 hanging on the wall. Unique among meteorologists, Corbyn bets on his forecasts. Unusual among bettors of any stripe, he wins regularly. The check on the wall is a payout from London bookmaker William Hill on one of their monthly bets. It is said book makers will not take his bets any longer for fear of losing. Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. On his website http://www.weatheraction.com/ he writes about his views, which include the idea the that the world is experiencing cooling. He says proponents of "man made "climate change theory are using "junk" science and that their theory is "rubbish".Finally if Co2 is not a pollutant and it does not cause global warming what should we fear. The answer is clear we must be concerned about global cooling as solar radiation diminishes with much fewer sunspots. Bad things happen when climate turns cold.We are heading into Global Cooling!! not warming !!Think about how brutal the last mini Ice Age killing millions around the globe and yet under the political Paris Accord governments want to make the climate colder!This is surely foolhardy failing to accept our history that the climate always goes in cycles between a HOT HOUSE AND AN ICE HOUSE. See the last 2 billion years of temperature data -These climate cycles are unstoppable and our puny impact from fossil fuels over the past 200 years of the industrial revolution is irrelevant, but it is killing people today to believe wrongly that it matters. Heat poverty is a major problem today. For example in the UK more die from heat poverty than road accidents.The reason is the 50% increase in electricity costs from subsidies to inefficient renewables. The problem is worse for undeveloped countries avoiding fossil fuels for their grid - “Once upon a time, social justice was synonymous with equal access to modern amenities — electric lighting so poor children could read at night, refrigerators so milk could be kept on hand, and washing machines to save the hands and backs of women. Malthus was rightly denounced by generations of socialists as a cruel aristocrat who cloaked his elitism in pseudo-science, and claimed that Nature couldn't possibly feed any more hungry months.Now, at the very moment modern energy arrives for global poor — something a prior generation of socialists would have celebrated and, indeed, demanded — today's leading left-wing leaders advocate a return to energy penury. The loudest advocates of cheap energy for the poor are on the libertarian Right, while The Nation dresses up neo-Malthusianism as revolutionary socialism.Left-wing politics was once about destabilizing power relations between the West and the Rest. Now, under the sign of climate justice, it's about sustaining them.Left-wing politicians like Al Gore, Obama and Naomi Klein crusading against cheap coal and efficient fossil fuels represent the greatest progressive reversal in history.It’s Not About the Climate -- The Great Progressive Reversal: Part OneLiving in the dark with outdoor cook stoves kills millions every year."Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.We all know how well its access could help lift those without it out of poverty.The UN is more interested in chasing the chimera of “global warming” and its unproven science. The reason, of course, is power. Money and control equal power."http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/22/is-the-focus-on-global-warming-immoral/http://www.providencejournal.com...This is immoral.

UNLIKELY. Good question because climate change or global warming by human emissions of fossil fuels is a hoax. There is no unprecedented warming. The earth is cooling- winters are early and harsh with record cold and massive snowfall.How was the public duped into believing we are heading into a too hot catastrophe? Yes mostly the result of fear mongering with misleading data about dangers of warming becoming an uncritical social movement based more on faith than science.I also think the internet spewing out the fake Al Gore inconvenient truth graphs and videos on the internet played a role.The science blaming trace amounts of Co2 as the control knob of big climate changes is easily demolished as quackery or pseudo-science will in the acceptance speech video of Nobel Laureate Dr. Iva Giaever…Physics Nobel Laureate; "Global Warming" is PseudoscienceProfessor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong". This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates. The 2015 speech by Prof Giaever is here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_U...‘DECEPTION’ is the one word that explains public opinion and yes it has become a social movement based on emotional group thinking just like religious faith. The believers carry in their minds two opposing impossibilities i.e. that we are suffering global warming and global cooling at the same time.The most effective lie that continues today is the claim that ‘carbon pollution’ is the evil to be stamped out when the science is crystal clear Co2 is non-toxic and non polluting as it is the air we breathe out and essential to the marvelous photosynthesis process of plant growth. Reducing you carbon footprint is impossible as Co2 is invisible.You will remember the substance of this graph from your high school days.Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Energy | CK-12 FoundationThe grand pollution deception invoked by most politicians and governments and the basis of the PARIS ACCORD is to lead the public on a false mission of pollution reduction by attacking the so called climate effects of Co2.It is a classic bait and switch trick with pollution the bait and climate change the switch.Think about it when you breathe out, the air is full of invisible carbon dioxide at 35,000 ppm do you think you are breathing out pollution?It is no answer to say well if the amount goes higher than 400 ppm it becomes toxic, medical carbon dioxide uses a 20,000 ppm for baby incubators of surgery and commercial greenhouses use as much as 2000 ppm 7/24. Further submarine sailors suffer no health problems at 7000 ppm 7.24.Historically the earth is starved at only 400 ppm as on average Co2 has for most of history exceeded 1000 ppm.Seeing that life flourished at 5000 ppm CO2, and seeing we could never push it that high, it is reasonable to assume we will never be harmed by CO2. We have 40,000 ppm CO2 in our lungs every time we breath, 24/7. The Earth is greening. CO2 is entirely beneficial - #CelebrateCO2!Dr. Patrick MooreWhat is the most iconic image for climate change and Co2? If you google carbon pollution what images? Answer WASHINGTON POST ST0RY IN MARCH 2019 -"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global SetbackCHRIS MOONEY & BRADY DENNIS, THE WASHINGTON POST27 MAR 2019Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world's growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.What is wrong with this story? Answer: carbon dioxide is invisible - remember when you breathe you do not see lack smoke.The deception of calling Co2 carbon pollution is deliberate and intended to gain support for a broad attack on fossil fuels and blame humans for the weather.Co2 is the air we breathe out at 35,000 ppm and it is non-toxic and entirely beneficial.By high school students knew about photosynthesis.This question exposes a key problem in the climate debates where the lefty political leaders including Justin Trudeau, Al Gore and Barack Obama misused science to mislead the public about the very heart of the alleged climate crisis. They frequently referred to ‘carbon pollution’ when they meant carbon dioxide.Hard to believe that this is just an innocent mistake as from high school days they knew about photosynthesis and Co2 as plant food and that it is the air we breathe.There are many examples of Trudeau, Obama and Gore and others misleading the public by calling Co2 carbon pollution.“Obama says carbon pollution caps will 'protect health of vulnerable' – as it happenedEPA unveils proposal to cut carbon emissions at power plantsGore: 'most important step' on climate in US historyPlants to cut pollution 30% from 2005 levels by 2030Critics say plan too costly – or cuts not deep enough….President Barack Obama will outline new regulations to cut carbon emissions to 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. Photograph: Susan Walsh/APHigher electricity bills and more blackouts: that's what the average American can expect from the proposed new EPA rules, according to one very interested party, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) digs into a press release quoting president ACCCE president Mike Duncan:“Sadly, EPA’s proposed regulations put America’s low- and middle-income families most at risk of paying disproportionately more for energy," Duncan said. "More so, the rule threatens the energy reliability and economic promise we enjoy today. Only by recognizing the importance of an energy portfolio rich in fuel source diversity will we preserve America’s access to stable and affordable power.Ref. Obama says carbon pollution caps will 'protect health of vulnerable' – as it happenedCarbon pollution does not exist in science - it is an invented boggy man to scare the public.Photosynthesis uses the air we breathe out full of Co2 at 35,000 ppm to complete in the fundamental life giving chemical process converting light into energy for plants.Co2 is actually green as it feeds plants and helps deserts retain water. Evidence abounds how the earth is greening from recent increase in Co2.“The Earth has been rapidly greening in recent decades, and CO2 fertilization may explain 70% of the trend (Zhu et al., 2016). A new study finds models have significantly underestimated the greening effect of rising CO2.Image Source: Winkler et al., 2019CO2 is a pollutant?In recent years, carbon dioxide (CO2), an essential ingredient in plants’ food-making processes (photosynthesis), has been unscientifically cast as a villainous pollutant.This colloquial development has been fomented by climate activists like Dr. Michael Mann, an atmospheric scientist who routinely characterizes rising CO2 concentrations as “global warming pollution.”’New Study: The Recent CO2 Increase Has Had An Even Greater Earth-Greening Impact Than Previously ThoughtWhat do scientists say about the reality of Co2 as a pollutant?Have a quick read at how leading scientists explain the non-toxic reality of Co2.“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not PollutionCarbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere - carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970's Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.Thus, regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'carbon taxes', 'cap and trade' or the EPA will cause all energy prices (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil) to skyrocket."CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry”http://www.populartechnology.net...BUT SHAKING THE FALSE REALITY OF CO2 WILL BE A DIFFICULT TASK BECAUSE OF THE ‘SOCIAL MOVEMENT.’What is the most startling fact about climate change?QUORAAlistair Riddoch, studied at York UniversityAnswered Dec 25I have been startled since day one that anybody actually believes humans can cause it.Haven’t we learned from the many times throughout history where some people have claimed to other people that humans can influence weather or climate?All the Gods that have been made up that can cause tidal waves, winds, rain, extreme sea level rise and global flooding.This is at least the 50th instance where humans have been asked to believe. Almost every civilization has had some form of it or another. Chinese, Japanese, Egyption, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, The Norse, the Celts, The Saxons, the Turks, various African cultures, aboriginal Australians, Philippines, Koreans, Vietnamese.Noah’s Ark. Thanksgiving. Rain Dances.Just look up any of the lists of “Sky Deities”, or “Sea Deities” or “Sun Deities”.Each time, the public have been told by their Elders, or Monarchs, or Emperors, or Pharaohs, or Medicine Men, or priests, preachers, ministers, Popes, etc (authority figures), that modification of human behaviour is the way to control the weather, or the climate.Make this offering or sacrifice. Pray on this schedule. Perform this dance, ritual or ceremony.I am startled people don’t recognize this and say “Wait a minute, you expect us to believe this time, plot re-use #46 or #56 or whichever number the current claims are, this time, the claims are supposedly true, even though we know every single other such claim has been 100% false??”I am startled that people are not universally skeptical.Is it just too strong a trust in authority?Or is it the common belief that rich=bad and poor equals the burdened martyr?Is it that everyone wants an opportunity to be saviours?Is it that everyone wants someone to point a finger at?What is it that drives people to be so easily convinced?That is what startles me.Are we still, now, in the 21st century as easy to fool as the people who have believed in “The Great Flood” and gone looking for the remains of the Ark?Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?Have we really progressed so little, that all you have to do is say “science” and people believe as though it is gospel truth?”I give the last word on this to Dr. Tim Ball who castigated the UN IPCC for the false the hockey stick graph of past temperatures and won the libel case brought by Michael Mann trying to shut down Ball’s stinging and valid criticisms.“PREFACE“I’ve studied climate both scientifically and academically for over forty years after spending eight years studying meteorology and observing the weather as an air crew and operations officer in the Canadian Air force. When I began the academic portion of my career, global cooling was the concern, but it was not a major social theme. During the 1980s the concern switched to global warming which he became a major political, social and economic issue.I watched my chosen discipline– climatology– get hijacked exploited in service of a political agenda, watched people who knew little or nothing enter the fray and watched scientists become involved for political and funding reasons-willing to corrupt the science , or, at least, ignore what was really going on. The tail is more than a sad story because it set climatology back 30 years and damaged the credibility of science in general.It also undermines the environmental movement by incorrectly claiming massive environmental damage and setting up a classic ‘cry wolf’ scenario. It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage is yet to be exposed and measured.There have been of course, other sad deceptions throughout history, but all of them were regional, or, at most, continental. The Deceptive idea that human– generated Co2 causes global warming or climate change impacts every person in the entire world, thus it reflects Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the global village. This book shows how the deception was designed to be global by involving every nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will wonder how such a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception. There are several reasons why the public was deceived.1. The objective and therefore the science were meditated.2. The scientific focus was deliberately narrowed to CO2.3. From the start unaccountable government agencies were involved and in control.4. Science and political structures and procedures were put in place to enhance the deception.5. Actions were taken to block or divert challenges.6. The people’s natural fears about change and catastrophe were exploited.7. The public’s lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science, was exploited.8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale couldn’t occur.9. Opponents were ruthlessly attacked, causing others to remain silentSome call the human – caused global warming theme a hoax, but that is incorrect: a hoax is defined as a humorous or malicious deception. The Piltdown man was a hoax for perpetrated by one academic to expose the arrogance and pomposity of another. Its impact was in academia but had little relevance in the real world. There is nothing humorous about the corruption of climate science. Further, a political objective need not be malevolent; however the methods used to achieve the goals are assuredly ugly, malicious and wrong.Some have called the corruption of climate science a conspiracy partly because conspiratorial themes are fueled by speculation on the Internet. But a conspiracy is defined as a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. There is no doubt what the activists have done is harmful, but pursuing a political goal is lawful. What is unlawful is using deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying the scientific method and research. Indeed, it is amazing how they deceived the entire world through using existing laws and societal structures; it fits the classic description of daylight robbery.It is more appropriate to identify the group as a cabal: a secret political clique or faction. This book explains their motive and objectives which were political, not scientific. It explains how in order to do this they bypassed and converted the scientific method–the normal and proper method by which science progresses. They effectively silenced scientist who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skepticsConsider this brave but late admission German physicist meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus:Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data… first I started with the sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what IPCC and the media had been telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by many scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.The Role of Extremists…In the moral vacuum created by the defeat of religion by science many sought a new belief system. Environmentalism fits the bill. It harkened back to the worship of nature, known as animism, of non—Christian societies. Ironically, in becoming the new religion, environmentalism became dogmatic like all religionsSo, in the Western world we moved from the dogmatism of Christianity to the dogmatism of science and then to the dogmatism of environmentalism. It is unsurprising that Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports confronted the dilemmas in an article for The Global Conversation:…At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature– for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism and the puzzling concepts in mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do they come from? Scientist don’t invent; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are Gods laws and the science we do is God’s science.The earth is the Lords and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent that Redeemer of all creation ( John 1: 2 ).A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15) Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to fact—all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.”The Truth about the past -There is no carbon pollution, global warming or global cooling. We are living in the interglacial comfort of the Holocene Period of the Quaternary Ice Age. Get used to colder weather as it could get much worse.Extreme Weather GSMTHE CONTINENTAL U.S. JUST SET IT’S COLDEST-EVER OCTOBER TEMPERATURE, BREAKING THE PREVIOUS RECORD FROM 1917OCTOBER 29, 2019 CAP ALLONThe western U.S. was blasted by a yet ANOTHER brutal Arctic air mass yesterday, Oct 28, with this one delivering the COLDEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.Peter Sinks, Utah –east of Logan– broke the Lower-48’s cold temperature record for the month of October on Monday morning with a staggering reading of minus 35 degrees.The area is know for it’s cold temperatures thanks to its high elevation (8,164 ft) as well as its unique topography, said Chicago meteorologist Tom Skilling.“It is a basin a half mile (804.67 meters) in diameter with no outlet, like a large bowl. Cold air collects in the basin on clear, calm nights,” Skilling said. “Very low temperatures can occur there, especially during outbreaks of arctic air in the winter.”The weather station located at the bottom of the sink took the -35F (-37.2C) reading at approximately 6:15AM on Monday morning, Oct 28 — beating-out the previous record low of -33F (-36.1C) set way back in 1917 (just after weak solar cycle 14, which was similar to the cycle we’ve just experienced, 24).Forgive me but I’d like to type it again, the Lower-48 just broke it’s coldest-ever temperature record for the month of October. And in addition, and perhaps even more astonishingly, the record may not even last that long — another all-time low mark is expected to be reached overnight Wednesday.Brutal Arctic air will continue to be funneled southwards from Canada by a dominant meridional (wavy) jet stream flow, which itself is associated with historically low solar activity.“That dip in the jet stream will slowly migrate eastward late in the week taking the colder air with it,” reports the Weather Channel.In neighboring Colorado, record-breaking cold is forecast Tuesday and Wednesday, with the front expected to expand eastward, hitting the Great Plains on Wednesday, the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys on Thursday, and the East Coast late Friday and into Saturday, according to the NSW — record cold and snow are predicted throughout the vast region.GFS TEMP ANOMALY (C) OCT 28 to NOV 4