Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)

The Tom Woods App

Awesomest Country Ever About to Embark on More Awesomeness

26th August 2013      by: Tom Woods     

The neocon headline on Drudge is “US Ready to Follow on Syria.” The idea being that the Awesomest Country Ever should be ready to “lead” on Syria, which means launching another idiotic war with murky consequences, while exploiting people’s love of country to lure them into supporting another fiasco.

The real problem is not “leading” (neoconspeak for irrational bellicosity) or “following,” but the policy of intervention itself, which has been destructive for everyone concerned (American citizens included) except the profiteers.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/ Anand Venigalla

    Thanks for another wonderful post as usual, Tom. Now I will add my own sarcasm to the picture (meaning that the following words are the opposite of my true beliefs).

    America is the awesomest country and all other countries suck, and I don’t give a damn as to whether we kill other civilians and prop up terrorist regimes all over the world, because we are AWESOME!!!!!

    The Islamic terrorists hate us for our freedom!

    Ron Paul and his fans are Paulbots and non-violent terrorists!

    Lincoln and his followers are awesome, and any libertarian who doesn’t agree with us is a neo Confederate, supports slavery and is not a libertarian (even though neocons don’t really know what libertarianism is)!

    FDR was awesome! He saved capitalism by destroying the evil laissez-faire regime of the nineteenth century!

    We must always have nukes, but we shouldn’t let others have nukes!

  • guest

    Third Annual Message to Congress by Thomas

    We have seen with sincere concern the flames of war lighted up again in
    Europe, and nations with which we have the most friendly and useful relations
    engaged in mutual destruction. While we regret the miseries in which we see
    others involved let us bow with gratitude to that kind Providence which,
    inspiring with wisdom and moderation our late legislative councils while placed
    under the urgency of the greatest wrongs, guarded us from hastily entering into
    the sanguinary contest, and left us only to look on and to pity its ravages.
    These will be heaviest on those immediately engaged. Yet the nations pursuing
    peace will not be exempt from all evil. In the course of this conflict, let it
    be our endeavor, as it is our interest and desire, to cultivate the friendship
    of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and of incessant kindness;
    to receive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the sea,
    but to administer the means of annoyance to none; to establish in our harbors
    such a police as may maintain law and order; to restrain our citizens from
    embarking individually in a war in which their country takes no part; to punish
    severely those persons, citizen or alien, who shall usurp the cover of our flag
    for vessels not entitled to it, infecting thereby with suspicion those of real
    Americans, and committing us into controversies for the redress of wrongs not
    our own …

    Washington’s Farewell Address

    The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in
    extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political
    connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them
    be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of
    primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she
    must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially
    foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
    ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or
    the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know Founders or Ron Paul
    Point-by-Point Doctors Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman Deconstruct Jeffrey Lord’s Slander of History and Ron Paul

  • guest

    The Islamic terrorists hate us for our freedom!

    When Islamic terrorists attack civilians, it is not at all clear that they don’t hate us for our freedoms.

    You expect those with legitimate grudges to attack the actual problem.

    You can’t simply ridicule this thought away.

    We must always have nukes, but we shouldn’t let others have nukes!

    Same principle. The Islamic terrorists are willing to kill civilians, so a nuke in THEIR hand is a very bad thing.

    It’s not like your knowledge that their reason for attacking us is because our government sends our troops over there is going to save you when they set the nuke off.

    The only way to reach the Neocons on this issue is to show that our government has instigated hostilities IN VIOLATION OF the Constitution (so that you don’t come across as opposed to the principles of individual liberty found in the Constitution – and yeah, I understand our Founders were not consistent, here, and actually made things worse than the Articles of Confederation):

    Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?

    Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous
  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    to say that it’d be foolish, but the American mercenary, I mean,
    military commanders might see the situation through their usual
    hubris and go forward with yet another insane racket. All the
    while generating tremendous political dividends to those whose sons will
    never spill their own blood on foreign lands. After all, the American
    foreign policy is actually part of domestic policy, or however propping
    up racketeering politicians is called.

    So, I’m sorry, but there’s just too much for some to gain from creating another killing field, the constitution be damned.

  • John Minehan

    The fundamental question is: “What end-state do you hope to achieve?” The secondary questions that subtend the conclusion are: “Is military force an appropriate means to that end?”; “Do we have the resources to achieve that end-state?; Are the resources expended worth the end-state?; Is this end-state in the greater national interest?; Is whatever we set out to do worth the sorrow of the parents, children, spouses and neighbors and worthy of the memory of those who are brought home on their shields in the process of achieving this end-state? and Will what we do really improve the lot of the people living in the country we intervene on behalf of?
    Some interventions (World War II, arguably Korea, arguably Bosnia and Kosovo) met these criteria, others (Iraq in 1991 or 2003) didn’t.
    Great powers, particularly great economic powers with strong navies maintain international peace and trade, have since Athens and later,Rome and, later still Spain, the United Provinces of Holland and England. There is (or should be) a difference between a stabilizing great power and an international pariah state and aspiring global hegemonic power.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    You would think they would try to avoid the same old lie and try something original. But, try to push a lie onto us they must!

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    Then: “Bush lied!”

    Now: “We always believed Bush!”

  • davet

    Think of this Awesomeness. We spent a trillion dollars to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda. Now we will waste another trillion dollars to fund Al-Qaeda remove al-Assad. If nut case Obama does this we will know he is a terrorist since he is supporting a terrorist group. Would this be another case of Obama breaking laws. Wonder if they will impeach him for this high crime.

  • Franklin

    Nothing but irresponsible ambiguity.
    Who is the “you” in your fundamental question?
    Who is the “we” who owns these resources?
    Which person’s interest is a “national interest”?
    Specifically which persons’ lives among the “lot of people” are being improved?
    What is a “great” power?
    How did they, and do they, acquire the means and the wealth to become allegedly “great”?

  • kirk

    the awesome nation is ready to embark on another awesome crime.

  • Bob

    Respectfully, I didn’t get that neocon message from Drudge. Drudge’s links on Syria have been quite fair, even liking to nutter sites like Infowars. Have not at all gotten the impression Drudge is FOR intervention in Syria.

  • Tony

    This will not end well. We will never learn. We will pay for our mistakes

  • Harold

    If you yellow-bellied Libertardians can’t get behind your country then get OUT of it.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Good one! The neocons sure do say stupid things like that. They think the government is the country. How leftist and stupid!

  • Rani J Pabon

    How about you leave, please! Were not the ones screwing up everything.

  • JP

    Better not be doubting our awesomeness.

  • Anonymous

    Let me guess, your first recommendation would be to move to Somalia? Har har.

    Maybe it is *you* who should move! Give me a good reason why you shouldn’t. You’re the one that apparently supports criminality, murder, violence, and arbitrary force and aggression, after all. Why is it that I –or any other peace-loving individual– should move just because we are surrounded by people like you who have a twisted sense of morals and an illogical lust for blood?

    Sure, let’s solve the problem of people killing other people by … well, killing lots more people (and more efficiently, at that), because our military is freaking awesome, and we’re America, so we’re always right. ‘Merica! /s

    That’s the problem with neo-cons and socialists, they have no sense of property rights, or any rights at all, it’s all an abstraction upon an abstraction upon an abstraction, thus any action becomes justified just so long as it is politically feasible by the state.

    Then when it comes to humanity, society, country, nation, government, etc; they never recognize that these things are nothing more than numerous individuals, all with their own lives, families and friends, property that they own, future plans, dreams, and lots more of just regular peaceful people stuff that we all enjoy as humans.

    Instead, people of your thinking always talk about “us”, “them”, “we”, “they”, and all sorts of collectivist mumbo-jumbo, all in order to convince others to stoop to their sadistic desires and policies of killing innocent and *real* people (in large groups and numbers, no less).

    So no, I won’t move, not unless you come up with a logical reason for me to do so. Sorry, but you wanting to kill masses of people isn’t a very good reason (for me to move), though if your beliefs get too much traction, I just may be forced to move (out of fear for my life).

  • Luke

    Our country isn’t waging war, the government is. I don’t want to be rooting for the the government. Stop lumping what the government does in with me. As for leaving its been tried once and Lincoln just murdered everyone.

  • Robert Russ

    10 to 1 says that Harold can’t point out Syria on a map.

  • Robert Russ

    Joseph, I say this with all due respect, but you’re casting pearls among swine. Mr. Harold has the attention span of a gnat, and has moved on to being outraged by Miley’s twerking. So outraged in fact, he has watched it 3 or 4 times just affirm his outrage.

  • Paul

    So, if you disagree with anything your government does, at any point in its history, you should leave?

  • Mike

    So you think agreeing with everything politicians say and do is “getting behind your country”? Just because you like being a slave doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Some of us want to FREE the American people’s minds from the tyranny of their government. Government is not God…well…at least to us it isn’t.

  • Luke Sunderland
  • John Minehan

    In a Republic, “we” is “us.” If the government sends kids off to die in an unjust war, why did you elect this government and how did you attempt to influence it NOT to do so? It is never “Not in our name” in a representative government.
    Asking who is a “great power” is to muddy the water. If nothing else, it is pellucid that we are, at least currently. However, power is never used lightly, as there are always consequences in its use. On the other hand, there are times, World War II certainly, where the consequences of not using power would be worse. The rest of your questions reflect your consummate failure to understand the issues.

  • Harold

    If Libertardians hate America so much they should leave. If they stay here and keep biching, they should be DEPORTED.


  • JFF

    Now you’re just being a trolling mutant.

    Everyone ignore, let’s make him earn his fee to sit on a computer in a cubicle somewhere bothering everyone.

  • Tanya The Tranny

    Harold, you be quiet and come back to bed. I’m not done with you and your dirty parts…now put your leather mask back on lover.

  • Anonymous

    So you had a whole day to try to top your inane comment of yesterday, and this is what you came up with?

  • Harold

    Sorry, but we can’t just sit by and allow murder to go on.

    I, for one, am HAPPY to pay taxes to stop Bashar The Butcher from murdering Syrians.

  • Mike

    Yeah, this is beginning to look like yet another bored teenager playing around.

  • Mike

    You know what’s scary though JFF? I know people IN PERSON who talk like that and are dead serious. You’d think these people with an internet connection could at LEAST figure it out in, say, 5-10 years time? So many idiots and so little time.

  • Franklin

    On the contrary. You failed to answer the questions and instead flailed away with sustained circular ignorance. And WWII was your citation?! Embarrassing.

  • Harold

    Stand aside liberal-tardian coward and let the troops save the day AGAIN!

  • Anonymous

    I hope this makes Tom Woods angry and disgusted. This is the source of his best speeches.

    Meanwhile, a nice little article on America’s judicious use of intervention:

    America helped Saddam gas Iran: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,0

  • Chris

    I hope you are equally happy to murder Syrians in order to stop the murdering of Syrians.

  • John Minehan

    Ever been involved in this kind of process? I’m not disparaging you, I’m just curious.
    Sometimes, the US does not intervene militarily in some obscene bloodbath, because military intervention will not matter. You can’t there fast enough with enough people and equipment to matter. Sometimes, to put in enough of a “footprint” would collapse the country in question’s infrastructure. Sometimes, a lot of US Troops introduces what the UN types call “White Car Syndrome.” Sometimes, we don’t necessarily have the military skill-sets needed to have any palpable effect. (For example, a Marine Expeditionary Unit operating in Central Africa, far from the Sea.)
    Sometimes, as bad as people involved might be, they may be connected to the people they are persecuting in such a way as to make any intervention horrendously difficult. Sorting things out on the ground is nearly impossible (in the Darfur in Sudan for example, the Fur and the other agricultural tribes were heavily intermarried with the Arab pastoral tribes that were pushing them off their land, which was not widely reported).
    Sometimes, interventions are required by geopolitical issues and are militarily feasible.
    Bosnia and Kosovo involved a part of the world that has been a flashpoint. The Serbian government had a deliberate policy of active ethnic cleansing and had disavowed the tendency towards “Yugoslav” nationalism that had followed that country’s independence after WWI and continued under Tito. The issue affected the US’s number one trading partner, the EU, and it presented a serious crisis to the EU’s stability. It also affected opinion in the Dar-al-Islam due to the presence of the Bosnians and Albanians, who were being actively persecuted for their religion. NATO allowed us to focus on providing what the US does best (intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; air support/interdiction; Special Operations Forces; and command, control and communications) while we could “outsource” conventional infantry, armor and artillery to other NATO allies.
    Now if you are a pacifist or an isolationist (neither of which are intrinsically bad), none of this will be justifiable to you. However, there has to be some means of deciding if use of force is 1) feasible; and 2) justifiable. Again, how could you NOT act in WWII? Why did we act as we did in Vietnam? There has to be a logical way to make those decisions, especially where dominant naval powers, going back to Athens and Rome have kept the international peace and have dealt with hostile non-state actors.

  • Mike

    Pay not attention it’s just some bored teenager whose got nothing better to do with his life trolling.

  • jeromel

    I saw this movie some time ago and I still don’t like the ending.

  • davet

    If Obama attacks al-Assad, he is supporting a terrorist group Al-Qaeda. This is a high crime, an impeachable offence.

  • davet

    This is all a smoke screen to have the news media focus on something besides obamacare. He must be losing the public opinion battle on obamacare. It worked for Clinton when he bombed the aspirin factory.

  • Anonymous

    Saving the day from what? There’s no threat.

    So really, you aren’t capable of thought at any higher level than this?

    I’m sorry that those who taught you, and those who raised you failed to teach you rational thinking.

  • Anonymous

    Rome? Really?

    The peace brought about by Rome came from the killing and enslaving of entire nations.

    The stability this brought about was that of a cemetary,

    Spain did much the same, and England’s exploits in India and Africa cannot be ignored, or honestly defended.

  • Anonymous

    In a Republic, the we is certainly not the us. The government is separate from the people, acting in its own best interests, and using the “government is us” lie to justify their atrocities. Snce the foreign policy of both parties has been indistinguishable for the better part of a century, its disingenious to claim that “you” made the choice.

    As for World War II, it never would have occured without the intervention in the needless World War I.

    It’s you who fails to understand the issues, falling victim entirely to the propaganda.

Find me on Google