Vietnam and Afghanistan: A Comparison

The U.S. left behind approximately to 2.2 billion dollars in equipment in Afghanistan. The equipment, however, wasn't discarded as some media outlets would have you believe. Instead, the equipment was "given" to the Afghan military and police force, who we spent the last 20 or so years training and working with.

However, as soon it was announced that we would be leaving Afghanistan, the Afghan military and police forces seemed to have started planning their exodus from the scene too. It appears that the old adage about leading a horse to water but not being able to make them drink is applies to the Afghans. We can train them. We can equip them. We can hold their hand (metaphorically speaking), but, ultimately, we couldn't give them the will to fight for their own country.  We couldn't instill willpower.

Instead, the Afghan military and police (or security forces), simply threw down their weapons, changed clothes, and walked (or ran) away, leaving the Taliban to walk in and take whatever they wanted, which, in this case, included helicopters, Humvees , tanks, drones, rockets, artillery, and thousands of assault rifles, small arms, Kevlar vests, communication equipment, medical supplies, and millions of rounds of ammo. That doesn't include "brick and mortar" assets like buildings, roads, runways, and the necessary infrastructure to set up either a top class military or government.

Meanwhile, in the capital of Kabul, the government, known for its corruption, and which we "helped" to install, packed its bags, looted what they could, and high tailed it out of town in private jets as thousands of Afghans do everything in their power to board U.S. and allied transports out of the country while risking their lives in the process as the Taliban's noose around the airport tightens.

The whole scenario is reminiscent to older Americans of the collapse of South Vietnam and the ultimate Fall of Saigon, complete with images of helicopters evacuating embassy personnel from roof tops but there are some notable differences which deserve exploring.

America seemed to stumble into Vietnam, unlike Afghanistan, which came as a direct response to the cowardly 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. In the case of Vietnam, a territorial "possession" of an imperial France, it was an ideological war to stop Communism and potential new front against the USSR and China.

The Vietnamese People had been waging a guerilla war for independence against a imperial France since around 1887, when it was forcefully incorporated into French Indochina, which included Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, which didn't end until 1954, with a brief inter lieu of Imperial Japanese occupation from 1940 to 1945.

After the war ended in 1945, France reneged on its promise of independence a second time (claiming that the Vietnamese weren't "ready" to govern their country), but it was exhausted and broke from the war, as were the British. The USSR and China began sending weapons and supplies to aid Viet Minh, as the nationals, led by Ho Chi Minh, were called by 1950. President Eisenhower, fearful of the so-called "domino" effect of Communism, sends "advisors" to aid the French in response.

Following their defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1953 the French threw in the towel, and withdrew (it was 1947 for India when Britain agreed to India's independence). In 1954, Eisenhower used America's new role as a global leader at the Geneva Conference to publicly support a democrat republican South Vietnam, while the north was under the control of the Communist. The conference divided the country at a demilitarized 17th Parallel with a communist North and republic South.  

As an aside, in 1919, following the end of WWI, the Vietnamese sent a delegation to the Versailles Conference to ask France, and the nations attending, to add them in obtaining independence (and to expose France's pre-war promise of independence). Instead, they were ignored and ultimately walked out. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh sent a letter to President Truman asking him to support their demand for self-determination. Their letter went unanswered. 

It's worth noting that North Vietnam, which called itself the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was Communist, had been unaligned with the USSR and China prior to 1954.  After the U.S. officially threw its support behind South Vietnam, known as the Republic of Vietnam, the North officially aligned with Soviet Russia and China in response to offset the weight of the U.S. economically and militarily.

The French had lost 75,581 military personnel. 64,124 were wounded, and around 40,000 became POWs. The insurgent Viet Minh lost approximated 191,605. Financially, the war cost three billion francs, of which the U.S. picked up 30% of the tab as part of its war against the spread of Communism.

Up to 1954, the war was largely seen as a war of independence from Imperial France. After that, it became a civil war. The U.S. refused to sign the Geneva Accords and demanded an election supervised by the UN, along with the South Vietnamese Government. An election as a peaceful resolution to the current, and possible future hostilities in Vietnam, however, the President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, refused.

With a propped up government in the south, America found itself involved in a civil war, whether it wanted to be or not by 1955. In 1959, the North began a guerilla campaign in against the Saigon Government in the south. In 1960, President John Kennedy authorized additional advisors to be sent, including 400 specially trained Green Berets along with the use of "Agent Orange".

 In 1963, Kennedy approved the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who was highly unpopular and openly corrupt, and the overthrow of his government which was carried out by the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) with aid from the CIA.  By this time, U.S. troop levels had reached 16,000.  He was replaced by General Duong Van Minh (a military junta continued to control the government until its fall in 1975). America's role in Vietnam's civil war increased under President Lyndon B Johnson, following the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963.

1964 marked the jumping off point in the war. In what became known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", the USS Maddox reported coming under attack from three North Vietnamese torpedo boats for allegedly violating their territorial water (the captain of the Maddox maintained they were in international waters). The Maddox returned fire after a warning shot failed. Planes from the USS Ticonderoga joined the fray along with the USS Turner Joy.   

It was reported that one torpedo boat was sunk and the other two were damaged (one heavily). Later, a second attack was reported with the Maddox and Turner Joy firing at radar indicated targets. No debris or bodies were found and it was determined that a second attack did not occur. Following the incident, President Johnson increased troop levels to just over 23,000. By 1967, that number had reached 485,600. 

Despite official claims that the war was virtually won and the North was on the ropes, 1968 saw the bitter fight for Khe Sanh, the My Lai Massacre, and the Tet Offensive, along with the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King and Senator Bobby Kennedy, both of whom opposed the war. Support for the war at home all but evaporated . Accepting that reelection was all but impossible, Johnson announced on national television that he would not run for president again.

Richard Nixon, however, saw an opportunity, and despite running (and winning) on promises to bring U.S. involvement to end, saw American troops numbers reach 536,100.   The next few years saw brutal fighting while American's saw nightly on television the mounting futility of the war. Meanwhile, Nixon disconnected the dollar from the gold standard, resulting in rising inflation and an increase in prices and unemployment. A new economic term, "stagnation" was introduced to the American public.

In 1972, while the U.S. increased its bombing of the North, troops were reduced down to 24,000 amid negotiations with the North. In 1973, the draft ends as America "officially" enters a recession (the expression at the time was that "a recession in Washington and a depression in the heartland") and OPEC triggers an oil embargo. America's attention to the war was increasingly being diverted.

1975 saw the last American troops, embassy personnel, members of the South Vietnamese Government evacuated, and ordinary civilians jumping fences, breaking through gates, and do everything possible to board U.S. planes and helicopters, often from roof tops of official buildings. Meanwhile, Soviet made tanks rumbled into Saigon as North Vietnamese troops spread out everywhere. These are images people today recall when comparing our exit from Kabul to Saigon.

The war resulted in 58,220 men and women dead or missing.  For those who care about such things, the majority were white, 49,830. 7,243 were black. 349 were Hispanic, 226 were Native American, and 139 were Asian.  Most were men, or to be more honest, young men; boys really. Drafted at 18, some weren't old enough to drink or vote and have a say as to what became of them and their lives.

Financially, the war cost American Taxpayers $168 billion dollars (that's equivalent to $1 trillion in 2019 dollars). Of course, that doesn't include the millions in military equipment left behind, nor does it take into consideration the dozens of planes and helicopters dumped overboard on Navy carriers to make room for the hundreds of refugees.

The cost of the war in Afghanistan is still be tabulated, but estimates are over $2.231 trillion. Even the final count of the dead and wounded remains unfinished. We can say that 7,067 died at as direct result of the war, which doesn't include our coalition partners, whose deaths number over 110,000. It also doesn't include the 30,177 service men and women who lost their lives to fighting personal battles as a result of suicide. We may never know that final figure. We are still adding to those numbers daily from Vietnam veterans. It also doesn't take into accounted the wounded or disabled, which is in the thousands.  

The world as well as many at home saw Vietnam as America's first military defeat. Some are starting to claim that Afghanistan is our second. However, there are some key differences. Vietnam was in truth a civil war that we had no business in, but the mindset of the time was one of stopping the expanding influence of Communism.

Western foreign policy was built on the premise of the so-called "domino effect".  As one nation fell to Communism, so would its neighbor and so on.  Well, it never really happened. Ultimately, the USSR fell. Now former Communist nations are largely democratic and engage in capitalism, albeit in a limited form, including a united Vietnam, Russia, and China.  

We willingly failed to see Vietnam for the civil war it was, and chose to see it as stopping the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. We assumed that everyone wanted to be like America. In that we were wrong. Not everyone wants or is ready for democracy or capitalism. We have repeatedly failed in that regard.

 Afghanistan was different. It was run by a religiously radical Taliban who protected those responsible for the cowardly attacks of 9/11. Our goal was to capture or kill those responsible. It that we were successful.  Al Qaeda was decimated. It's leader, Osama bin Laden killed along with most of its leadership. The Taliban too removed from power and a more modern government installed. However, as in Vietnam, it provided to be largely inept and corrupt.

In both wars, politicians increasingly dictated the course of the war. In Vietnam, it was more direct with politicians second guessing generals. In Afghanistan, it was the military leadership which had become more political. Certainly, they were much more media savvy.  Public perception made our returning Vietnam vets into "baby killers" thanks to the media. Today, thankfully, those veterans, as well as those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are much more respected and appreciated.

For our rivals, which includes China, Afghanistan represents a second defeat. Naturally, the Taliban, along with Iran and militant Islam, see it as a victory, not just against the "Great Satan", but for their radical ideology, whose ranks are sure to growth along with their boldness. Whether the world, and more importantly, average Americans, see it as a defeat or a victory, or something in between remains to be seen.

 

Vietnam War Facts, Costs, and Timeline

The Assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem

Politics And The Vietnam War

Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

June 6, 1944: The Greatest Moment of the Greatest Generation

Tuesday, June 6, 1944. It was perhaps the greatest moment of the greatest generation. The weather was miserable. It had been rainy and windy off and on for days, and when it wasn't raining, it was gloomy and overcast. Weather reports at the time said the weather was more akin to Fall than the Summer. However, there was expected to be a brief break. It wouldn't be much of one. It would still be overcast and the waters choppy, but the rain would stop and the wind over Northern France would be relatively calm. The invasion had already been postponed once because of the weather. The next anticipated break wouldn't in until early July at best.

Meanwhile, there were some 156,000 men ready to go. Many had already been loaded onto ships three days prior. The majority of them were seasick from the choppy water rocking the ships back and forth and up and down. At the same times, planes---bombers, fighters and transports---sat on the ground; fueled, armed, and awaiting their green light to load up and go. Scattered at sites all over England millions more waited for the order to go. Some were civilian while others were military; reserve and auxiliary, both men and women. They were on ships, at airfields, sitting in radar, communication, or command stations, air raid and observation outposts which scanned the skies looking for any hint that the Germans might preempt the pending invasion. The tension was palpable. It was like thousands of rubber bands twisted to the breaking point just waiting to be released. This was Operation Overlord, the code-name for the invasion of France by the Allies. Some 15 nations were taking part in this, the largest invasion ever attempted in history.

Just across the English Channel lay France. On a clear day, you could just make out its shores. But these weren't welcoming shores awaiting its liberators. These shores were the first visible signs of Hitler's Fortress Europe, and the soldiers behind its more than ample fortifications knew the Allies were coming; they had for many months and they were waiting.

Waiting for the Allied troops on those not-so-distant shores was sixty combat divisions, which made up approximately 850,000 German troops and ten panzer divisions. including the famous 21st Panzer Division which was one of the two divisions which made up the Afrika Korp. This was Fortress Europe, designed by Organization Todt starting in 1940 with the Fall of France, using thousands of mostly forced labor alongside highly skilled German engineers, craftsmen, and builders.

Fortress Europe ("Festung Europa" in German) was the name given to the Atlantic Wall; a vast series of massive gun emplacements housed near impenetrable bunkers, observation posts, miles of barbwire and an estimated six million landmines were laid along the beaches and roads near Normandy, angled and sharpen telephone poles like giant pongee sticks designed to destroy gliders and other aircraft (nicknamed "Rommel's asparagus"), and 200,000 steel barriers made up of railroad tracks all along the beaches, designed to be hidden at high tide and would ripe the bottoms of landing craft open like a can of sardines. In addition, there was a myriad of concrete enforced trenches and underground rail lines to quickly move men, ammunition, and other material. Beyond that were numerous barracks and other fortifications, often camouflaged as haystacks, barns or houses. Lastly was overlapping communication lines.

The Atlantic Wall itself ran from Brittany in far Western France all along the Northern coastline to include Belgium and Holland. In addition, German troops had fortified the coastlines of Denmark and Norway. This truly was a "Festung Europa". As an interesting aside, German troops had painted in minute detail everything within view from their gun emplacement on the inside walls of their bunkers right down to every bush. If something appeared which wasn't on that permanent map, it was destroyed.

So, what do you do when the enemy knows you're coming? You distract them, and that's exactly what the Allies did months ahead of the planned invasion (code-named "Operation Fortitude). The Allies used everything trick in the book, and then some, to make the Germans believe, not that there would be no invasion, but that the invasion would take place several miles away, at the Pas de Calais. What was significant about this particular area is that it's the closest point between France and the UK. It's also where Hitler had previously considered invading England from. Thus, the Allies played on Hitler's ego by convincing him that his idea for using Calais was the correct one.

The Allies did everything from planting false plans, notes, and letters on individuals (and even once used a corpse) knowing that they would be intercepted by the Germans which would only fed their preconceived notions. Meanwhile, unknown to German intelligence, all of the spies had been captured. Many were "convinced" to work for the British, and thus would send false reports back to Berlin. The Allies even built up an entire fake army around General George Patton, whom the Germans believed was the best Allied general and the man most likely to lead an invasion. They even created inflatable planes, trucks, tanks, and false radio traffic for the Germans to monitor. On top of this was around the clock bombing by US and British bombers.

Just prior to the invasion, the Allies stepped up their bombing campaign over France to further weaken the Germans. Finally, after months of planning, delays, setbacks, and mounting pressure from Stalin, it was decided by overall Allied Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower and his generals, composed of senior Allied officers, late in the evening on June 5th to go the next morning. The invasion was on. In private, Eisenhower composed two messages fir broadcast. The first to announce the success of the landing. The second for its all too real potential failure.

The Allies amassed the greatest armada of ships the world had ever seen. Some 5,333 ships and landing crafts were prepared to sail. Ahead of the land assault was the aerial assault by approximately 23, 400 US paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne along with British 6th Airborne and RAF Pathfinders silently coming in by glider. Their jobs would be to seize key bridges, rail points, and crossroads in order to prevent German reinforcements from reaching the beachheads.

In addition to being the largest naval armada in the annals of world history, there were also 3,455 operational heavy bombers, 989 operational light and medium bombers, and 3,824 fighters available on June 6th. However, due to a shortage of aircrews, not all of these flew on D-Day. Nevertheless, some 7,774 planes did fly that day (that number jumps to 9,000 if you include transports and gliders. By contrast, the Luftwaffe had available just 815 assorted planes). The sight and sound of all those planes must have been mind numbing.

Unfortunately though, the landing took place at low tide causing the men to wade to shore from further out than anticipated since the landing craft couldn't get closer in to shore. As a result, hundreds of men drowned; the weight of their equipment dragging them down. Tanks, jeeps, and other vehicles also sank as the water was to deep or to rough. However, the low tide exposed the beach barricades which would had destroyed the landing craft had they tried to land at high tide. They also provided a measure of protection for the men to hide behind, saving who knows how many lives.

The Allies were lucky in other ways too. First, many of the heavy gun emplacements were either still empty or manned by smaller caliber artillery pieces. Of the sixty combat infantry divisions and ten Panzer divisions, including key SS units, which comprised the 850,000 troops and 1,555 tanks in France at the time, the majority---the most experienced---were stationed at Port of Calais, there were only 80,000 troops at Normandy on June 6th and element of just one Panzer division. To make matters worse for the Germans, of the 80,000 or so troops in Normandy, the majority had little or no combat experience. In fact, most were Auxiliary and conscripts (many as young as 16) from the Eastern territories. Also, many of the tanks on hand weren't yet combat operational; needing repairs or refitting. Those which were working hadn't been brought up the front at previously instructed.

Finally, the top command of German forces, including the commander for Army Group B, which covered Normandy, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, were away. Some had decided to take some extended leave time (not expecting an invasion due to weather), while Rommel had returned home on a surprise visit for his wife's birthday---June 6th. Meanwhile, Hitler was so convinced that the invasion would come at the Pas de Calais, that he had given strict instructions that no units---men, tanks, artillery, or plane---could be released without his personal approval.

As a result, the Germans were poorly prepared for any attack, but the cherry on the top was than when it was confirmed that the attack was indeed underway, Hitler was asleep. Suffering from bouts of insomnia, Hitler had taken a sleeping pill just hours before and his aides were afraid to wake Hitler up, and so the Allies were able to establish a foothold while Hitler counted sheep. Although the battle for Normandy lasted until August, by the time Hitler finally awoke, the damage had been done. In fact, while it should had only taken about six hours for Hitler's Panzers to make the journey from Calais to Normandy, French resistance fighters were able to delay them nearly three days, giving the Allies more time reinforce their positions.

Finally, to give some additional weight to the overall complexity of D-Day, besides the 150,000+ soldiers to participate in the landing and the 5,333 ships which got them there (including 200 warships which participated in the bombardment) or the 9000 aircraft which flew a total of 11,085 missions, 200,000 vehicles plus 1,550 tanks landed on the beaches that day along with 1,695 tons of material. Meanwhile Allied bombers dropped 7,616 tons of bombs that night before the invasion followed by 10,395 tons of bombs during the day of the invasion. 27 amphibious tanks were sunk at Utah beach, 120 Allied ships were damaged by German shelling, plus another 59 Allied ships which were sunk.

D-Day, June 6th 1944 marked the beginning of the end for the German occupation of France, and for the Nazi "Thousand Year Reich". By May 1945, the war in Europe would be over, and by August the war in the Pacific would come to a close too. There's another matter we must take into consideration too. Field Marshall Rommel remarked, about a pending invasion of Fortress Europe, that whenever and wherever it happened, it would be the "longest day" of the war.

For approximately 5000 men it was indeed their "longest day" because for them that day never ended. They were the ones who died on that day. In addition, some 15,000 French civilians living in and around Normandy also died, mostly from Allied shelling. On the German side, around 9000 soldiers were killed and some 200,000 were killed, missing, or taken prisoner including 28 generals. When calculated for the entire Normandy Campaign, which lasted from June 6 to August 30th, there were 209,000 Allied casualties. For the Germans, it was roughly 200,000. As an aside, the average age of a GI at the time was just 19 while the average age of an officer (excluding senior officers) was only 23.

While it's hard to believe that these old men with their walkers, canes, and wheelchairs accomplished these feats for which have all but been consigned to history books and the movies, there is no doubt that 75 years ago these were men of unbreakable will and character. They were a physically strong as they were sharp as knives. They lived through a depression, fought a war, and came home to remake a nation. The same can be said of all the women who served as well. While we're losing on average 300 of these individuals a day, make no mistake that these were the greatest generation and we should feel blessed that they existed.



D-Day Causalities: Total Allied and Axis Numbers

Figures of the Normandy Landing

Atlantic Wall

Normandy Landing

Operation Fortitude

Another Gas Attack in Syria: Truth or Consequences?

Well, it looks like it may be on. What may be "on" you ask? The ruling elites have been looking for a way to get us directly involved in Syria's civil war for years. President Obama tried several times to push America into a direct intervention with the objective of putting "boots on the ground" repeatedly. Instead, all that he could do was implement a plan which came out of the Pentagon and State Department to support ISIS ...err...I mean the "freedom fighters" in Syria. These same...uh..."freedom fighters" are the same folks we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades now.

Their objective has been to create a reactionary caliphate centered in Syria. These are the fine folks who've been launching terror attacks in not just the Middle East, but Europe and even the US. There are also the ones who love filming and posting beheadings, indiscriminate mass executions, hangings, and crucifixions. They also seem to enjoy selling women and children into sex slavery, gang raping them, and so forth. What a mighty fine good of group allies we have here. These individuals are a part of a larger group, comprising several all Muslim paramilitary groups collectively known as the "Free Syrian Army". To be sure, there is a small element of pro-Western individuals, but they are outnumbered and lack any real influence.

Since Syria has long been a key Russian ally in the region going back to the late 1940's, the US has long been interested in destabilizing Syria, which would affect Russia's influence in the Middle East (especially after Egypt left its orbit). However, that would still leave with one other key regional ally, Iran, and the US has had plans to topple its theocratic government since 1979. It also just so happens that Syria, and especially Iran, controls vast quantities of oil and gas. It also doesn't hurt that Syria has never accept Israel's right to exist, plus Iran has repeated threats to "blow Israel off the map" or "push Israel into the sea".

Iran has also trained, supplied, and underwritten terrorist organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, and Hezbollah. Oh, did I mention that our main oil supplier and military ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Iran happen to despise each other? Of course, there's no love lost regarding their opinion of Israel, which is not only a essential regional US and Western ally, but the only democracy in the Middle East who happens to also have a very powerful lobbying effort in Washington.

Yelp, Saudi Arabia and Iran have had a long simmering feud going on for nearly forever over religious differences. In recent years, these differences have become increasingly "hot" and boiled over into a few skirmishes. Given this, and the threat Iran poses to Israel, as well as to the stability of Lebanon and Egypt, it's no wonder that the US has wanted a more directed say in the region, especially after the first Gulf War and our liberation of Exxon and BP...oops, sorry...I mean Kuwait following Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of the oil rich country.

So, the British, French, and US naval forces stationed off the Lebanese coast have launched an overnight missile strike to take out a "military chemical" manufacturing facility and other supporting infrastructures. This follows an alleged chemical gas (chlorine) attack on a small community in Syria. However, early evidence showed that the attack, which was supposedly rocket launched, may have been staged. Also, preliminary chemical analysis also shows that the gas residue wasn't of Russian manufacture (Syria buys its chemical components from the Russians). Early evaluation showed that the chemical residue originated in the West...just like in the last two previous gas attacks. Huh.

Yelp, this wasn't the first time this has happened. There were two other occasions, and in each, there was the hue and cry from war hawks in Washington and even the weak-kneed Obama, to invade Syria. However, Russia immediately denied that the Assad government launched any chemical attacks, followed ( as one would expect) by Assad's vehement denial that he authorized any chemical attacks against the Syrian People. Interestingly though, was that in both occasions, "Free Syrian" groups, comprising mostly former/current ISIS fighters, were operating in the immediate vicinity, had withdrawn just prior to the attacks (they had been in a losing fight with government troops).

Nevertheless, the US and allies hit government military installations hard, including airbases. Unfortunately, in our overzealous need to respond, we inadvertently killed Russian military and civilian advisors and destroyed Russian equipment. Later, UN inspectors were able to confirm that, on both occasions, the chemical signature were not of Russian origin. In both incidents, its appeared that the chemical were of a Western manufacture. Now, there has been a third gas attack, and instead of waiting to confirm, the US and its French and British allies struck Syrian targets.

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has warned the US that any strike may result in serious consequences. Now, what he meant by that is open to interpretation. He could have meant that if any Russian personnel or equipment was destroyed, there would be a direct Russian reprisal. He could have meant a economic response, or perhaps a response with full Russian backing from the Syrian government's military. It is known that Russia support personnel, equipment, and ships were moved, so there may have been some back channel talks ahead of time. However, with the US backing groups to overthrow Russia's key regional ally, and the occasional direct air attacks, it's only a matter of time before Russia is forced to respond in-kind if, for no other reason, than to save face internationally and domestically.

What kind of response could this be? Well, it could be an indirect response such a putting pressure on allies in Europe, like cutting back or off the flow of gas and oil which is critical to certain nations like Germany, France, and the Balkans. This could, in turn, force them to put pressure on the US, UK, and France to knock it off. Obviously, it could try to affect the US in other economic ways such as attacks on our data grid---which could affects data networks everywhere, but especially in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

The Russians could step up its air defense system using strictly Russian personnel. Thus any attacks by the US or its allies would receive a direct response and any attempts to take out these installations could and would be viewed as a direct attack on Russia. That just has nasty repercussions written all over it. There's even the possibility of Russia flying regular interference to prevent future air attacks over Syria including instructions to engage any non-Syrian aircraft and/or missiles.

Now, I'm not going to get into any discussion about who's military can beat up the other guy's military. Frankly, I don't care, and the reason I don't care is because this is the kind of situation which can easily spiral out of control fast. Any escalation could and would likely end badly for everyone on the planet, not just in America or Russia, or even in Europe or Asia. I don't profess to be an expert, but I've studied history (especially military history) and political science my entire life. My education is in economics, and I've been fortunate enough to received several national awards in economics. I also served in the military in the area of intelligence gathering (albeit just as a peon). But, all the same, I smell a wet rat here folks.

We are backing the "Free Syrian Army", which consists of foreign fighters, almost exclusively Muslim, with a large component made up of active ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Taliban fighters. These are literally the same people we've been and are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people are dedicated to establishing an extremist Muslim caliphate in lieu of the current Syrian government. They have left their calling card all over the region in the form of thousands and thousands of graves and destroyed lives.

This war is about denying Russia one of its strategic regional allies. It's about securing another source of oil, but most importantly it's about setting the stage to destabilize and eventually overthrow the Iranian government (of course, access to its vast oil and gas reserves would certainly be a bonus). Iran is also an ally not just of Russia's, but also of China's. This would deny Russia and China of a key ally in the region. Can you see where this is going?
Yes, the Iranians overthrew the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom we installed fair and square after overthrowing their previous government in 1967. They then took over the American Embassy and held US personnel hostage for 444 days. They were released once Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, perhaps in retaliation of President Carter allowing the Shah to come to America for medical treatment (he had incurable cancer) and for attempting to launch an ill fated rescue operation. However, despite freezing banks accounts and the usually worthless economic sanctions, Iran went "unpunished".

Of course, we can't and must not forget that removing both Syria and Iran would bolster the prestige and influence of Saudi Arabia, who has never been on particularly good terms with Assad, and is mortal enemies with Iranians. Of course, Saudi Arabia was the home country of Osama bin Laden, and his family still remains there; very wealthy and influential. 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia (of the remaining four, two of them were from the United Arab Emirates and the third was from Lebanon and the fourth was Egyptian). Many of Al Qaeda's and ISIS's leadership has hailed from Saudi Arabia as well. Just saying.

So, who benefits by replacing the Assad government? Well, Israel first. Syria and Israel has had a pretty contentious relationship Israel's creation in 1948. Syria has been involved in every war against Israel, and for years, operated as a safe haven for terrorist groups such as the PLO and Black September. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war, which Israel has kept as a buffer. With the Assad government gone, Israel loses an strong enemy and would likely keep the heights.

Second, the US wins. First, it removes a strategic ally from Russia's arsenal. It gains access to Syrian gas and oil reserves, plus it gains territory which borders on Iran. That gives the US a near circular containment of Iran, with direct or indirect control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a useful ally in Saudi Arabia. It allows to the US and Saudi Arabia to put more pressure on Iran to moderate its support of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Of course, the US influence in the region grows tremendously. Now, we can't forget the Oligarchy back home which just loves the perpetual and highly profitable "War on Terror", which keeps our pseudo-wartime economy chugging along and provides an outlet for our "excess" population of high school and college graduates in need of a job (combined with an influx of illegal immigrates, drives down the availability of jobs and wages). Countries like the UK and France also benefit for pretty much the same reasons except they are dealing with more or less "legal" migrates.

Who loses? Well, interestingly enough, Israel does. While it wins on one hand, an extremist Muslim caliphate in the region, especially so close to Israel, would likely result in either a protracted war aimed at bleeding Israel dry and disrupting its economy, or (if Iran is to believed), a short nuclear and/or biological war. Certainly elements of the "Free Syrian" coalition have shown a proficiency and willingness to use biological weapons, at least on unarmed civilians. I can't see Israel ever accepting this. Plus, any attack from the caliphate, would include aggressive support from Iran and its surrogates, Hamas and Hezbollah (I wouldn't be surprised to see Muslim mercenaries from the entire Arab world join in too).

Another loser would be the US for pretty similar reasons. I think the planners of such things believe they could convince the caliphate to "work with them" with the usual economic bribery, and in case that doesn't happen, overthrow them. Personally, I think that would be like chasing cockroaches like we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years. I think we would also find ourselves serving as a magnet for every religious fanatic out there, and those choosing not to come to Syria, would get busy in Europe and elsewhere. However, our ruling Oligarchy would still benefit since war is a very profitable business.

Russia, and perhaps China, would naturally lose. Syria has been a strategic ally since around 1948/49. It's also been a important economic partner with Russia, as well as China. Russia would lose military bases as well, and (in the grand scheme of things), there would be a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region, which also just happens to be close to Russian territory. From the Russian perspective, the US and/or its allies, could take over or build bases in Syrian territory which would like Russia having bases in southern Mexico.

Lastly, are the "incidentals" (and I really hate having to use that term). By that I mean the ordinary civilians; people who are just trying to stay the hell out of the way of geopolitics. The lives of these people has been nearly destroyed by years of brutal war. Cities, towns, villages, and entire communities simply eradicated. Hospitals and schools leveled, not to mention the loss of fresh water, food sources, electricity, sanitation, and even basic shelter in many cases. of course, there is always the indiscriminate snipers and unexploded ordinances to consider. It's no place for any living creature, let alone children.

We mustn't forget the Assyrian/Chaldean Christians, who've been in the region since the 1st century, who are now gone; in many cases forever. They have been among the thousands butchered. There's the Yazidis and Kurds who've been forced from their communities and murdered by the thousands. Then there's been hundreds, if not thousands, of young girls, and even boys, who've been sold in to a world of brutal sex slavery. Again, it's the children who pay perhaps the worse price of war. These are who I see as the biggest losers of this or any war; the ones with no vested interest in the war. They don't benefit. They don't profit. They gain nothing but loss, grief, and for many, hatred.

I have no doubt this most recent chemical gas attack was staged like the previous two. We are being lured or maneuvered into a conflict we have no business being in. When you get down to it, this isn't about ideology, religion, or even "humanitarian" reasons. This is about geopolitics. It's about power, influence, money, and ultimately, control. It's about igniting a new cold war, even if it has to get briefly hot. However, that could spark a nuclear powder keg just as easily. The enemy isn't the Syrians or even the Russians. It's the Oligarchs who are behind it all. As long as we remain divided and fighting each other, we are powerless. But if united, we can focus our strength on those seeking to do us so much harm and put a stop to it.

Understanding No-Go Zones: What Are The Outcomes?

We've all heard or seen the term. It often shows up on the news and "talking head" political shows, and even on our social media sites from time to time. It's often used in conjunction with stories about war zones, and more recently, in places where it's simply to dangerous for ordinary people to venture (and just as often, too dangerous for even the police to patrol). But what is it really? What does it mean to have a "no-go zone" in your community, and where are these forbidden zones starting to become more prevalent?
As I said, "no-go zones" are typically found in war zones. They are often referred to as "exclusion zones", meaning that there could be unexploded ordinance hiding in the rubble, as well as landmines (which are the single deadliest weapon when it comes to civilian deaths).

It also means that the area is likely unsecure, with a high probability of roving enemy combatants lurking about (especially snipers).
As in years past, these area were often marked with warning signs (like with a large "Warning" in various in various languages, accompanied by a skull and crossbones---never a good sign). Entry into these zone are done so at one's own risk. There is no guarantee that anyone entering these zones will be provided with any type of assistance, be it due to getting lost, captured, injured, or wounded (and if killed, it's very unlikely anyone is coming for your body).

Of course, not all no-go zones are in places of conflict. In fact, most aren't located in or near a active war zone. The majority of no-go zones are actually found in various cities and towns where divergent (and unassimilated) populations attempt to enforce their own laws; independent of existing local laws. This includes roving patrols who harass, detain, and fine anyone who fails to comply. They are attempts to apply their own traditions, culture, and religious restrictions. In some cases, they may even attempt to "arrest" an individual and bring them before a religious tribunal where some type penalty of is applied. It's also common that these communities expand the tribunals into a de facto government.

In addition, this application as described above, usually have the support of the local population. These zones come about when individuals from either the same country or with a similar culture, religion, etc. settled in a certain area and begin to tacitly apply their cultural and/or religious values on their own street, or block, and then join with others to expand it to cover blocks, and eventually entire sections of a community. Typically, this begins subtly; with polite requests and calls for inclusion, tolerance, and openness.

As their numbers increase, these "request" begin to take a change in tone. They start to become more assertive. As the numbers continue to grow, so the growth of likeminded individuals, who bring with them their extended families, their businesses, and (naturally) their biases, traditions, and values. Often, at the same time, as these numbers grow, native populations begin to leave; not feeling safe or disliking the changes they are seeing. At some eventual tipping point, terms such as "tolerance" and "inclusion" start losing their original meaning, and are replaced with words like "compliance" and "dictate".

Somewhere during this transformation, the emerging population becomes unsatisfied with just those within their own community abiding by their value systems, and begin to apply it to others. Again, this usually starts as a "suggestion" or "request" in the name of "tolerance", but after a while, escalates to becoming compulsory, to the point where it supplants local law. Attempts by law enforcement to apply local law, or even conduct routine patrols in these communities, is view as an intrusion; an attempt to impose "foreign" laws on them!

As a result, the migrant population often responds violently by harassing the legal authorities, from verbal or physical threats (and, perhaps some general pushing and shoving) to becoming increasingly belligerent, up to and including open attacks, riots, destroying property, throwing rocks, "Molotov cocktails" or other homemade bombs, and so forth (it's not uncommon that afterwards, these same groups will demand the government clean up the mess caused by the rioters and restore their damaged property).

At this point the area is generally declared a "no-go zone", although governments often attempt to soften the obvious negative connotation of an area uncontrollable by the local authorities and use terms like "sensitive urban area", "vulnerable area", "exposed" or extreme exposed" zones, a "sundown area", as well as "closed zones" (which, by the way, all these apply to the native population, not to the migrants inside the area So when they say "stay out", they mean you). As an aside, there have been several attempts by journalists to cover these areas from the inside. Many who do are often meet with the same hostility unless they first obtain permission from the tribunal, and then only with an assigned escort, who also censor what is and what isn't covered.

So where are these so-called "sensitive" areas to be found? While they're are pretty much located just about everywhere, they are quickly popping up throughout Europe, especially in Western Europe. The idyllic country of Sweden has some 53 of these areas (with 15 of them classified as "particularly exposed" by the Swedish police). Germany has at least 40 such areas according to some police reports; perhaps more. Paris has approximately 25 such no-go zones, with dozens of others scattered about in France's major cities and towns such as Toulouse, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Avignon (one French police officer described crime as a "leisure activity" in these zones).

In the Lowland countries of Holland and Belgium, they too have their "no-go zones", although the Dutch are a bit more sensitive about it and often vigorously deny any such zones exist, though locals will likely beg to differ. The same for Belgium, though locals will nonchalantly suggest outsiders might want to skip the tour through Molenbeek (one local taxi cab driver said felt like a "seething North Africa ghetto" as author Robert Chamlers wrote in a article for the British edition of "GQ Magazine" on June 21, 2017 ).

Norwegian officials also deny they have any "no-go zones", though they might want to check with the local police and citizenry. Police officers have reported several cases of being attacked and "aggressive" responses to their presence (one police officer reported that Gonland, a district of Oslo, was "more Muslim than Morocco". Locals report of roving gangs, often targeting unaccompanied females and gays, amid rising violent crime (sexual crimes are perhaps the most serious issue, and are not just here, but reported throughout European countries with high migrant populations).

Denmark too has its share of growing "exposed" areas as well as what the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rassmussen, calls "parallel societies"; unintegrated communities with their own laws and language. However, the Danish PM insists that he will not allow Denmark to suffer the same fate as Sweden and other European countries, and has refused to permit any majority migrant neighborhoods, and if necessary, will forced integration into Danish society (which I'm sure it will be...kicking and screaming all the way).

Of course, of the countries with the largest number of "exposed zones" is the UK (in terms of dozens through the country). England has perhaps the largest growing non-native populations of any country in Europe, outside of perhaps Germany. In the industrial city of Birmingham, the native population will make up just 48% of the population by 2019 (an entire decade than originally predicted). The same trend includes cities like Leeds, Manchester, York, London, Luton, and others. In fact, at the current rate, somewhere around the year 2040 or 2050, native Britons will be a minority throughout England due to low native birth rates, an increasing external immigration with matching high birth rates (this is known as "population replacement"). As an aside, unlike its fellow European neighbors, at least 2/3 (68%) of the migrants entering the country are Asian, principally from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and not the Middle East.

While this issue of "no-go zones" seems to be primarily a "European problem" at this time, there is no reason to assume it will remain one. Both Canada and the United States has had issues of immigrant populations refusing to integrate. This ranges from the influx of illegal immigrants, to refusal to learn the native language and adapt to local laws. It also includes criminal complicity of individuals, businesses, and organizations (mostly religious) who are intent, for their own gain, to aid and abed these individuals (as an aside, other countries such as Australia, are experiencing a similar problem too. Mexico and South America have had less problems with illegal or unintegrated populations due to strict immigration laws and enforcement).

Although there are existing punitive laws for this, they have rarely been enforced, especially during the eight years of the Obama Regime. As a result, taxpayers have been stuck with the bill, which amounts to some $113 billion dollars annually (some figures are slightly higher and some lower, depending on how its calculated. But regardless, it's still a substantial figure which could be avoided). Europe's "open door" policy has proven to be more than a mere mistake or miscalculation. It has proven to be national suicide. The great Teddy Roosevelt (my personal favorite president) once said that while immigrants, with all their energy and innovation were welcome, this country has no room for divided loyalties. If you came to this country, you did so a future American; hyphenated Americans need not apply.

I agree with ole "Rough and Ready Teddy". If you come here with the intent to learn our laws; adapt to our collective traditions, values, and learn the language, then great. Come on in! If, on the other hand, you intend to recreate your country with perhaps a different climate (and especially at taxpayer expense), then I suggest you keep on going. If you're here just to make a buck or two, that's fine too. Just do it legally and get a "green card". We must not become a "Balkanized" America, complete with border checks and "sensitive zones" within our own country. This is the same mistake which has befallen other nations down through history (usually in the name of altruism and tolerance). Let's hope it division is never allowed to take root here.


Germany No-Go Zones: Police Afraid to go into lawless areas after open-door


Inside Germany's No-Go zones: Part One-North Rhineland-Westphalia

Are there police no-go zones in France? The police say yes


Europe's no-go zones: Inside the lawless ghettos that breed and harbor terrorists

Stealth Jihad is alive and well in Canada

Danish PM Warns of No-Go Zones