George Santayana is credited with the following quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It is just as true today as it was when he first wrote it.

Liberals are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and they are right, but not for the reasons they seem to think. What do we hear? We’re stuck in a “quagmire.” We can’t “win.” The war is already “lost.” And every night the news reports every death. The media is stuck in the same rut reporting on Iraq as though it were Vietnam. But it’s not a big deal, right? After all, Iraq is just like Vietnam; even President Bush talks like it is:

President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

“He could be right,” the president said, before adding, “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”

So what are the memes from this? Iraq = Vietnam, and fighting in Iraq = Tet offensive. For the people who are don’t remember the Tet offensive, it was a military victory for the U.S., but it was widely reported and subsequently viewed as a major failure. Let me repeat — the failure didn’t happen in Vietnam; it was created by our press. Walter Cronkite reported that the fighting in Vietnam was unwinnable right in the middle of the Tet offensive, and this depressed President Johnson enough that he chose not to run in the 1968 presidential election. He reportedly said, “If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” We didn’t lose the Tet offensive, but it was reported as a failure.

And the North Vietnamese were closely watching the news. A former officer in the North Vietnamese army, Bui Tin, discussed the American media’s effect on the war in an interview by Stephen Young reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 3, 1995:

Stephen Young: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Bui Tin: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Stephen Young: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
Bui Tin: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Stephen Young: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
Bui Tin: Keenly.

Stephen Young: Why?
Bui Tin: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. [emphasis mine -- CM]

The murderous thugs in Iraq want the U.S. out of Iraq, giving them a free hand to rule and terrorize that country as they see fit. Democrats want the U.S. out of Iraq, and that will give the murderous thugs a free hand to rule Iraq with terror. Liberals scream when we question their patriotism, but why is it their desires so closely match the desires of the people who are actively fighting our military? The Democrats are the party of defeat. If Iraq becomes a peaceful country, only the Democrats lose. If we pull out of Iraq as we did Vietnam, the Iraqis will lose, our military will lose, and Democrats will win. Well, they will have won only until the emboldened killers in Iraq and around the world laugh at the American paper tiger, and they choose to bring fighting and terror to American shores.

Liberals are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and they are right because their reporting and negativity are the same. And their constant negative reporting is bolstering the morale of the people who kill Iraqis and Americans. But there is another area of similarity: our decision to run from Vietnam led to millions of deaths, and the decision to run from Iraq will certainly lead to the same. But since liberals do not learn from history, it’s no wonder that they seek to repeat their past failures.

A while back I saw the following Pat Oliphant cartoon in a Newsweek magazine while I was waiting for a flat tire to be fixed. The political cartoon in question was printed December 11th, 2006.

Oliphant Cartoon

And now my gripes with this cartoon. Oliphant shows the two soldiers as being pretty ignorant about past military history. The military spends much time reviewing past wars and campaigns. A brand-new recruit might be ignorant of military history, but that reflects more on our public education system than it does military training. Ask the next Marine you meet to name the circumstances around the first deployment of the Marines overseas, and you’ll get an earful about the Barbary Wars. The common liberal belief that our military is filled with morons is far from the truth.

I am also annoyed by Oliphant’s take on the Vietnam War. Oliphant has one of the soldiers say we lost Vietnam disastrously, and the other says we should have just “declared victory and gone home.” This is a dig at President Bush standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and telling the sailors, “Mission accomplished!” The U.S. didn’t lose the Vietnam War from a military standpoint, nor did it lose because of Presidential ego, as Oliphant states. Instead, Vietnam was lost “disastrously” when Congress chose to yank the funding out from under the troops. Guess what Congress intends to do now to the soldiers in Iraq. Talk about being doomed to repeat history.

And since we’re on the subject of not learning from history, the Vietnam-era military was hamstrung by Congress and by timid commanders who wouldn’t allow the military to do what it does best: kill people and break things. My father served in the U.S. Air Force as a fighter pilot during Vietnam. He has told me about some of the rules of engagement in that war that hampered the pilots from performing to their fullest. They were not allowed to blow up any enemy planes on the ground; the planes needed to be in the air first before our pilots could shoot them down. In a misguided attempt to lessen civilian casualties, an intended target area would be notified by leaflet drops about an upcoming American mission. This gave the North Vietnamese plenty of warning, so they could bring in anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missile launchers to mangle and destroy American pilots.

But historical realities don’t really matter to cartoonists like Oliphant. Any idea, however misguided, is a good excuse to denigrate President Bush.

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers’ eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y’all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

– Edwin Star, War

I took a two-hour trip to the city recently, and I spotted three cars with bumper stickers that jumped out at me. The first car had “Anti-Bush” on the left, and “Anti-War” on the right. The second car had “War is never the answer.” And the third had “Wage peace, not war!” I wish I could have stopped them to ask them more about the bumper stickers and their thoughts behind them. They were obviously excited enough about the subject to put something on their cars to proclaim their points, so they should be willing to discuss the issue with me. However, people on a highway are not usually willing to stop and chat about politics. And since I had an appointment that I couldn’t miss, I couldn’t stop and chat with them even if they were willing.

If I could have talked to these people, I would have asked more about their anti-war beliefs. Is there anything they would be willing to fight for? Would they fight if someone wanted to take their wallet? Would they fight if someone broke into their home? Would they fight if someone were raping their spouse or child? Would they fight if someone were actively trying to murder them?

I can easily imagine one possible response: “I wouldn’t fight. I’d call the police!” This basically means that they want someone else to do the fighting for them. Being willing to have the police fight their battles means that they would be willing to have someone else do the work to keep themselves safe. But it is also possible that someone who is devoutly anti-war would react to the above hypothetical situations without fighting or calling on someone else to fight in his or her place. The technical term for this type of person is “victim.”

Over two thousand years ago, there were people who were willing to die at the hands of their murderers rather than raise a hand against them. These people had been a bloodthirsty and murderous group, but after their conversion, they turned from their former ways and buried all their weapons as a sign that they would no longer take up arms against anyone else, not even to defend themselves. They stood by their convictions and did not resist an invading force, even though the attackers killed 1,005 of them in one attack, and an untold number in a second attack. The people of peace eventually fled their homes for a new land, protected by the people there, and they never broke their promise to never take up arms again.

About a decade later, the question of war came up again. Moroni, the head captain of the people — their Commander-in-Chief, if you will — had a difficult decision to make. The people’s liberties were being threatened, and he could either submit or lead his people into war. Moroni took his coat and wrote on it, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” He placed these words, his “Title of Liberty,” on a pole to rally the people to him. For Moroni, these things were too precious to lose without a fight. He did not make the decision lightly, and the people ended up fighting for their freedoms for the next thirteen years. It was a bloody fight, with many dead on both sides, but in the end Moroni and his forces won and maintained their freedoms.

I believe that there are some things that are worth fighting, and yes, even dying for. I believe this way because the loss of these freedoms would be worse to me than the loss of my life. Christ said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” He was speaking of Himself and His upcoming death, but the sentiment holds true for the rest of us. And if a man is willing to lay down his life for a friend, is it not nobler to lay down his life for someone he doesn’t know? I am saddened at the thought of each and every serviceman and woman who dies in the line of duty, particularly the dangerous duty in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I also recognize why they do what they do.

On Tuesday, June 28th, President Bush addressed the nation to explain the nature of the heroic service of the Armed Forces in Iraq. This address should never have been necessary, but the media has reported practically every American death with breathless glee: “See?! We told you it was a quagmire over there, just like Vietnam!” The primary rule of the media is “If it bleeds, it leads.” It is very rare that anything positive is reported from Iraq or Afghanistan, but this lack of reporting comes not because there is nothing positive happening there, but because the nature of news doesn’t lend itself to reporting good news. So one American’s death by some roadside bomb is a top story, but a discussion of how many other roadside bombs were successfully neutralized is never mentioned on-screen or in print. But laying aside the nature of reporting, the media would not report good things about the War on Terror because they hate President Bush, and they can’t force themselves to say anything positive about him. If you have never noticed this bias before in the media, the way the media and the Democrats seemed to respond to the President’s speech in near-lockstep should dispel any lingering doubts you may have about media bias. And it is no wonder when members of the media voted between 70-80% for anyone other than President Bush.

Here’s an example of the lockstep response I witnessed. President Bush outlined why we cannot announce a specific end-date for our forces to leave Iraq:

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.

I listened to this speech as I was driving across the state. For hours after the speech, I heard commentator after commentator on the Leftist talk-radio circuit criticize President Bush for not giving an exact date when we would leave Iraq. This is one situation when I regret not having a cell phone. If I could have called in, I would have repeated the paragraph above and asked the commentators what part of it they didn’t grasp. I would have asked how many years it took after the rebuilding of Germany after World War II before the U.S. pulled its forces out of that nation. This is, of course, a trick question because U.S. forces are still stationed in Germany.

Calling for a specific withdrawal date shows both a lack of understanding of human nature and of history, if the desire for withdrawal is genuine, or it underlines the depths to which American Leftists will go in their attempt to harm President Bush. Few things would make Iraq a failure like announcing a withdrawal date before we are good and ready. The military didn’t lose the war in Vietnam; the media won the fight by changing public opinion about the war and pushing for an announced withdrawal.

Jim Quinn of the Warroom radio show finds it interesting and telling how the Leftists in this country are aligning themselves with the very terrorists we are fighting. Who wants an immediate withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq? The Leftists and the terrorists. Who points out every death in Iraq as an American failure? The Leftists and the terrorists. And who wants the U.S. to fail in its goal of helping to create a free and peaceful Iraq? The Leftists and the terrorists. I can safely state that Leftist want the U.S. cause to fail because that is the way they have aligned themselves. They have not stood up for the fight, and there will be no political benefit from their opposition views if Iraq becomes a free nation. The only way the Leftists will get any political benefit from this war is if the U.S. suffers another Vietnam-like defeat. That is why they are yammering for a withdrawal plan — because they wish to make this war into another Vietnam.

Whether you agreed with or argued with the reasons that led up to the liberation of the people of Iraq, you have to agree that it has become a very successful hornet trap for terrorists. They cannot allow a free and successful nation to exist in the Middle East because that would erode their power base and show the bankrupt state of their philosophy. That is why terrorists from all over the surrounding nations are pouring into Iraq. It is far better for the terrorists to fight trained military forces in Iraq than to launch their attacks against civilians here at home. Since the devastating attacks of September 11th, there have been no other massive attacks here in the States. In this, President Bush has been successful in drawing the terrorists to Iraq in concentrated numbers where they may be captured and killed.

We are at war, and it is a war to preserve our way of life, our freedoms, and our families. These things are worth fighting for. And it is far better to fight and defeat our enemies away from our shores. Or would you prefer to hunt these murderers house to house, Fallujah-style, in your own downtown?

I know a boy who lies continually. I could regale you with stories about the many lies he has told, but let me sum it up thus: he lies about small things, he lies about big things, and he lies about things even when he doesn’t need to lie. To top it off, he is a really bad liar. Too often, when he is confronted with one of his lies, his first tactic is to play dumb, muttering, “Uh, what do you mean?” and otherwise trying to dismiss the lie. Then comes the distraction: “I’m sure you didn’t see my car there.” Sometimes this distraction takes the form of a changed and continually changing story. You know the type: “I was alone. I was with my sister. I was with my sister and her friend. OK, I was alone with this girl.” Finally, when confronted with irrefutable proof, this boy (I refuse to call him a man) will sullenly admit that you are correct. This pattern — the lie, the denial, the distractions, and finally the admission — is common with liars.

Two murder cases have been in the news recently. Mark Hacking has been charged with the slaying and disposing of the body of his wife, Lori. Scott Peterson is on trial for the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. In both cases it is apparent that the husband lied to his wife. Mark had lied about graduating from college and being enrolled in medical school. This wasn’t a new development; Mark had told lies routinely and consistently for years. Things came to a head when Lori found out Mark wasn’t enrolled at the University of North Carolina as he had claimed. A few days later she went missing; her body remains undiscovered at the time of this writing. Scott was lying both to his wife and to another woman with whom he was having an affair. The prosecutor in Scott’s trial has played audio tapes of him lying to his girlfriend; these have been damaging to his character as well as to his legal case. While our legal system requires a defendant to be proven guilty, I am not the law and I believe both men are guilty as charged. When they are found guilty, I hope that in both cases the punishment will be death. A death sentence for both would show that our society cannot condone the brutal slaughter of wives and mothers, especially not when the murderer kills in an attempt to conceal his lies.

Murder is the worst possible outcome of continual lying, but there are numerous other social problems associated with liars. New Jersey Governor James McGreevey recently held a press conference to announce his adulterous affair. “And so, my truth is that I am a gay American,” the Democrat governor said. Some people question the timing of this announcement. Governor McGreevey said he would step down on November 15th, making the New Jersey Speaker of the House — another Democrat — the next governor. Both Republicans and Democrats are calling for McGreevey to step down soon, since New Jersey law allows for a run-off between the various candidates if the Governor steps down 60 days before an election. My quick count puts that at September 3rd, and I am predicting that Governor McGreevey will resist the demands of the people and stay in office past the September 3rd deadline.

I am distressed that the Governor may have been adversely affected by his sexual feelings, causing him to do a less than capable job in office. One Golan Cipel has threatened to bring a lawsuit against McGreevey, claiming that “[he] was the victim of repeated sexual advances by [Governor McGreevey].” Something fishy is going on here. Cipel, an Israeli citizen, was appointed to the coveted post of New Jersey’s Director of Homeland Security. Under a storm of opposition from New Jersey lawmakers and claims that he was unfit for office, Cipel left this post for a similar-paying job, and finally left state government altogether. Why would Governor McGreevey pick a nobody like Cipel for this important post, particularly when he could have had former FBI director Louis Freeh instead? Freeh had been approached for the position, and he was willing to accept the post if both acting Governor DiFrancesco and incoming Governor McGreevey made the offer. McGreevey did not do so. So instead of a former FBI director and New Jersey native, Governor McGreevey chose Cipel, a non-citizen who had no real world experience to bring to the job.

While the Governor did not name his lover in his announcement, people close to him have said it was none other than Golan Cipel. I don’t know whether that is true, but it would explain the Governor’s piss-poor choice if he had been thinking with his gonads rather than his brain. His confessed lies and adultery are taking a back seat to the announcement that he was in a gay relationship. I frankly don’t care about the sex of the person with whom he was having an affair; anyone engaged in adultery has broken the sacred promises made at the time of marriage and has lied. Anyone who is willing to break marriage vows, who is willing to lie to the very person he or she should care for the most, is frankly unfit to hold a position of power, whether local, state, or national. This is why a liar such as President Clinton was not a good person to have as President of this nation. It is also, incidentally, why Senator John Kerry shouldn’t be president.

Senator Kerry served his nation for four months in Vietnam. I thank him for his service. But since he has made this tour of duty such a pivotal part of his run for the presidency, it is only fitting that people examine his war record. Speaking of war records, when Senator Kerry and others accused President Bush of being AWOL from his National Guard unit, President Bush released his full military and corresponding medical records. You don’t hear this charge any more from serious news people, because the facts showed that President Bush was never AWOL from service. But although people have asked Senator Kerry to release his records, he has steadfastly refused to do so.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is made up of combat veterans who served with Senator Kerry in Vietnam. They display a picture used by the Kerry campaign to show the “Band of Brothers” who supposedly support him in his bid for the Presidency. But the before and after images show just how many of those “brothers” actually support him — one.

Why do I lump Senator Kerry in with people like Mark Hacking and James McGreevey? Because I can’t help but see him as a liar also. Here is a statement made by Kerry on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986: “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.” Considering how seared his memory is, it seems odd that no one else recalls being in Cambodia. This story has shifted, as lies often do, in the past few days as Senator Kerry and his minions backpedal wildly to try to regain plausibility. He was there. It was winter. It was around New Year’s. It was in the border between Cambodia and Vietnam. He inadvertently strayed into Cambodia. He was on super-secret missions for the CIA.

Remember, when the story starts to change, it’s a good bet that the story is a lie.

If you’re interested in the unfolding Christmas in Cambodia story, I strongly suggest you read the last 2-3 weeks of posts at the Captain’s Quarters, an excellent blog that is on my daily must-read list. Captain Ed has
posted many good questions about Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam. While the mainstream media is mostly ignoring the Swift Vets and others who question inconsistencies in Senator Kerry’s “memories,” blogs such as the Captain’s Quarters have been doing a smash-up job.
To make this easier, I have listed a bunch of the latest posts here:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

There is one simple thing Senator Kerry can do to clear up all the confusion: release his full military and medical records from his tour of duty in Vietnam. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

Addendum (8/24/2004): President Bush has come out denouncing the all 527 organizations, and has asked that Senator Kerry denounce them as well. Since almost 90% of all the money going to 527s goes to support Democrat groups, I doubt Senator Kerry will be speaking out against them anytime soon.


One of the rallying cries during the lead-up to the liberation of Iraq was the oft-shouted “No blood for oil!” This is a cute and snappy slogan, but it has no basis in fact. If the U. S. were really that greedy for oil, Kuwait would have become the 51st State a decade ago. Nor would it take much force to occupy Saudi Arabia. But oil did play an important part in the lead-up to the fighting in Iraq.

In 1996, a U.N. plan was implemented to feed the people of Iraq. For years Iraq was under a trade embargo as a result of invading Kuwait. The plan was informally called the “Oil for Food” program, and it allowed Iraq to sell its oil at dirt-cheap prices in exchange for humanitarian aid, mainly food and medicines. This plan ran for about seven years under the direct control of the U.N. In January of this year, the Iraqi newspaper al-Mada published a list of 270 names of people and organizations whom the newspaper found in Iraqi oil ministry documents. These were the people and organizations who took part in the Oil for Food program. Dick Morris sums up some of the people involved in a New York Post article:

The list of those receiving these bribes includes France’s former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (who’s a leader of Chirac’s party) and Patrick Maugein, the head of the French Oil firm Soco International. France’s former U.N. ambassador, Jean-Bernard Merimee, got vouchers to sell 11 million barrels.

In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the “office of the Russian president.” President Vladimir Putin’s Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers, as did the Soviet-era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov and the Russian Orthodox Church. Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse.

Who were the three biggest opponents to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq? Who were the three biggest beneficiaries of the Oil for Food program? Why, in both cases these were France, Russia, and the U.N. Basically, Saddam had bought their opposition to the war with oil bribes. Oil certainly did play a part in the fighting in Iraq, but oil wasn’t the reason why the U.S. invaded. Oil was the reason behind the people crying out for the status quo. After all, they had a sweet deal going on.

If someone tells you the U.S. invaded Iraq because of oil, congratulations! You have just discovered someone who doesn’t have a clue. Feel free to give them their sign.


In April, news broke of Americans and other Coalition soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. In one photo, soldiers grin behind a pile of naked Iraqis. Another shows a female soldier grinning and pointing to naked Iraqis. Americans and Arabs are understandably upset about this. After all, Americans value human dignity, and the Iraqis in the pictures have had this dignity robbed from them. And Arabs are upset because the photographs seem to show just how evil the satanic American crusaders have become.

I want a full investigation of those involved because I value human life and dignity. But to be honest, I’m not all that torn up by these photos. Regardless of how much is true and how much is fake, the “torture” displayed by the Coalition doesn’t hold a candle to the real torture the Iraqis endured under Saddam’s rule. On one hand we have a pile of naked people, and on the other hand we have thousands shot, starved, macheted, stung, and maimed by Saddam.

America is being blamed for this because we have standards and we clearly failed to live up to them. But Saddam didn’t have any standards, and the world seemed willing to give him a pass. If France, Russia, the U.N., and American liberals had their way, Saddam would still be in charge, and the real torture and rape rooms would still be in full swing.

The Draft

Early this year, Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the military draft. “I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.

Liar. This has nothing to do with making sure the children of the rich serve, and everything to do with forcing people to serve against their wishes.

During the Vietnam War, college campuses rocked with anti-war demonstrations. One main reason was the understandable anger of being forced to serve a cause that one did not believe in or support. Modern liberals like Rep. Rangel hope that by reinstating the military draft, they will foment the same anti-war emotions and demonstrations in which they participated during the ’60s and ’70s. These liberals care less about making sure our military is fully staffed and funded than they do about creating the same kind of anti-war demonstrations they remember from their younger, less informed days.

I cannot support this push for the draft because I can see the cynical purpose behind it. But even if the draft were proposed by conservative leaders, I would still be against it. This is one area where my libertarian feelings rise to the surface, and I agree wholeheartedly with what Robert A. Heinlein said back in 1961:

Conscription is slavery – and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone – no matter what name it is called. We have had a draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

America will go down the drain if it cannot inspire enough citizens to put their lives on the line to defend it. Or as stated in another place:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.