Letting the Monkeys Loose

Our President has taken fear-mongering to a whole 'nother level:

US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III."

That is asinine. The only reason that Iran's acquisition of nukes is considered a bad thing is because our leaders know that they'll no longer be able to bully around Iran. Let Ahmadinejad flap his gums about destroying Israel all he wants; he doesn't command Iran's military.

Iran is in no position to behave as we do. For so long, the US has relied on a foreign policy of aggression. We have nukes, we're willing to use them, so do what we say and we'll allow you to live. I think The Kids in the Hall summed us up best...

Stumble It!

Ooh Rah.

Here's a tribute to the Second Generation US military. For you civilians, "Ops/Intel" is a synonym for "drop everything you're doing and come listen to the same useless, boring crap you listened to yesterday at this time." It's what you get when you mix large quantities of PowerPoint with hot air.

Stumble It!

Blahggers

The other day I was blog-hopping, and came across a site that belongs to one of those people who believe that all Muslims are Nazis, that all Muslims are out to slaughter all Westerners, etc. A reply I made to a comment left on his blog by someone who was intensely thrilled about the ability of US firepower to destroy Muslims touched a nerve in the fellow who runs the blog. After simultaneously cussing me out and ordering me to not be "abusive", he then edited and deleted my remaining replies. This post is for his readers.

First of all, his accusation that I was trolling for readers and trying to "stir" things up is simply untrue. I write about it here because he is incapable of defending his own thoughts, and deletes anything he's never heard before or personally disagrees with. Had I not left an email and web address when filling out the comment box, I'm sure that I would now be accused of being a troll in that respect as well.

I'm also sorry that your host is so intellectually dishonest, and completely unable to debate like a civilized adult. He would be a better entertainer if he worked out those kinks.

He accused me of spouting "revisionist history", yet could not quote one single example of it. He denied a point I made in my last post - that "Israel" would not have been invented without anti-Arab ethnic cleansing carried out by the Jewish Palestinians. When I provided him with an example of just such an event, he scrambled to justify it. He argues, with this website as his reference, that when "the British pulled out it was clear that the Jews were being thrown to the Arab wolves by them, so a little army of only 600 Jewish fighters got together and routed all those snipers along with 90,000 other brave, courageous, Palestinian cowards." Yes, the first two paragraphs on that site do talk about sniper attacks and the British withdrawal. Unfortunately, your bumbling host didn't read past them and paid very little attention to what he did read. The Battle of Jaffa, in April of 1948, did not take place after the British withdrawal. Had your host possessed an elementary knowledge of this highly-important battle, he would have known that the Irgun fought the Brits at Jaffa, and at times, just as intensely as they fought Arab militants and civilians. Please feel free to use the reference he provided, because it explains all of this. It also explains why the Jews wanted to take Jaffa; there's way more to it than your host will ever care to learn about. None of it matters though, as in the end, just as I originally said, the fact is that there was an ethnic cleansing carried out by the Palestinian Jews. I'm not judging what they did as either right or wrong, just pointing out a fact. The Jews wanted to conquer Jaffa, which was mandated as an Arab possession by the United Nations, and so they attacked. The Arab population went from more than 70,000 to 4,000. That's an ethnic cleansing. Your host was wrong as usual, and you should look into things for yourselves if you don't want to be wrong all the time like he is.

Based on his interpretation of this post, which could easily be considered a defense of Christian martyrs from both Islamic conquest and misguided US foreign policy, your host came to the conclusion that I am a Muslim. We'll just say that his research skills are less than stellar. He also determined that I am a woman, due to my "feminine style of writing" (this "insult" was to be the crown jewel of his retort). I had no idea that he was a trained psychologist. And I'd never heard of a "feminine style of writing", so I looked it up. Lo and behold, a college professor named Mary P. Hiatt wrote a book about it in 1978 entitled "The Feminine Style: Theory and Fact". After conducting a "study of 100 books, 50 by women and 50 by men," Hiatt found "clear evidence of a feminine style of writing which is conservative, structurally sound, logical, and balanced."

Good call, ace.

To sum it up, your host is a half-wit and a coward. His entire presence on the internet is based on the premise that all Muslims are Nazis. Apparently they never really were trying to do that Caliphate thing - they're just trying to bring back European-style nationalist socialism through good ol' fashioned Prussian militarism.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that vast Islamic fleet to assemble and begin steaming this way with its invasion forces on deck. Our perpetually-impending doom isn't really as gloomy as your pro-intervention, pro-big government, fear-mongering host makes it sound, and would be even more of a fairy tale if our government stopped pissing off the entire Muslim world all the time. I realize that point will forever be lost on your ignorant host, who can do nothing but beat dead horses in his pasture of misinformation. And so I'll simply do what all people eventually will, and forget about him.

Stumble It!

Forgive Us Our Trespasses

Later this month, on June 28, the Serbian Orthodox Church will be observing the feast day of Saint Lazar. The feast day is held on the anniversary of Lazar's martyrdom at the Battle of Kosovo, an epic fight waged between the forces of Christian Serbia and the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1389. It was Lazar, a Serbian prince, who led the Christian forces against the Muslims in the infamous battle. The Serbian force, outnumbered more than two-to-one, consisted of nearly every knight and prince of Serbia. Legend has it that the night before the battle, an angel came to Prince Lazar in a dream, offering him a choice between two kingdoms: one on Earth, and one in Heaven. Prince Lazar, knowing that the choice of an Earthly kingdom would result in victory over the Ottomans the next day, and that the choice of a Heavenly kingdom would spell defeat, declared: "Perishable is the earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is the Kingdom of Heaven!" The words he offered his soldiers before joining the Ottomans in battle the next day were simply: "We die with Christ to live forever!"

And on June 28, 1389, at Kosovo Field, the Christian armies of Serbia were wiped out, along with the Serbian political elite - including Prince Lazar. But the Ottoman victory came with a heavy price. Before the battle, the Ottomans were in a position to expand even further into Europe, conquering and converting as they went. At Kosovo, however, the Serbs had inflicted such losses upon the Ottomans -- including the death of Sultan Murad I -- that they had no other choice but to retreat back to home turf. Over the next few hundred years, the Holy Ground of Kosovo -- where the Christian West was saved from the Islamic Caliphate -- would be overrun by Albanians, a conquered people who were forced to convert to Islam by their Ottoman overlords 500 years ago, and have remained a Muslim nation ever since.

On June 10, 2007, it was reported that United States President George Bush received a "hero's welcome" in Albania.

"Sooner rather than later you've got to say 'Enough's enough - Kosovo is independent,'" Bush said, telling Albanians what they wanted to hear. He said independence was a certainty.

Independence for Kosovo is, of course, absolutely none of President Bush's business. Unfortunately the issue was thrust upon all citizens of the United States by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990's, when Yugoslavian (Serbian) forces began to crackdown on Albanian separatists in Kosovo. The dispute was an internal matter of a sovereign state, and atrocities were alleged on both sides, but when the international community -- led, of course, by the United States -- finally inserted itself into the matter, it erred on the side of the Muslim Albanian separatists. A brutal air war was waged on the people and infrastructure of Yugoslavia by the United States under the guise of NATO, and on June 11, 1999, Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic backed down. The Albanians returned to Kosovo, Yugoslavian forces retreated, and the region has been ruled by the United Nations ever since.

Contrast this episode with the situation in the Middle East. As Kosovo has always been a sacred part of the Serbian Nation, Palestine is historically recognized as the fatherland of the Jews. Roughly 100 years ago, the Zionist movement began to pick up steam. An attempt to reverse the ancient Jewish diaspora was made and by 1948, the State of Israel was recognized across the world. Most Christians in the United States believe that the establishment of the modern Israel was ordained by God in some way; this is reflected by the unconditional diplomatic and military support given to Israel by the United States' government. Of course, the reclaiming of Israel could not have been achieved without an ethnic cleansing of Muslim Arabs, and the efforts of those that we would easily label murderers and terrorists - if they hadn't happened to have been Jews.

The circumstances between the Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine and subsequent reclamation by the Jews early last century, and the Muslim Albanian conquest of Kosovo and attempted reclamation by the Christian Serbs later last century, are virtually the same. Yet, for whatever reason, the United States backed Israel, and threw the Christian Serbs to the dogs. Imagine a few years from now when the demographics have lined up, that the Mexican populations of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas vote for independence from the United States. Then the Russian, Chinese, and European heads-of-state fly into Mexico City to pledge their support for the Mexicans in the US Southwest. That's pretty much what just happened with President Bush in Albania (save for the fact that -- unlike the US Southwest -- Kosovo is regarded a holy ground by an ancient people that -- unlike the US -- actually have fought a war of survival against the spread of Islam).

Despite the circumstances leading up to the 1999 NATO campaign, and the consequences it will forever hold for Christian Serbia, millions of US citizens are still wildly deluded into believing that their country is some sort of "Christian Nation". The brutal fact of reality is that the Kosovo War was just one more episode in the United States' long, rich tradition of destroying Christians. The staunchly devout Southerners were overrun and "reconstructed" when they peacefully and democratically left the US in the 1860's, with tens of thousands of civilians killed in the process. Forty years later, more than 200,000 (mostly Christian) Filipino civilians were murdered by US forces in a pointless bid to conquer the Philippines. After World War One, the Protestant and Catholic Kaisers of Germany and Austria-Hungary were forced to abdicate, and the Allies' constant demand on the Tsar to keep his nation in the war led directly to the demise of Orthodox Russia. Without these ancient, Christian monarchs in power, the US and its allies had delivered Europe and Russia to Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The idiotic Treaty of Versailles that made this possible was championed fiercely by the United States. It led directly to the Second World War -- which wasn't allowed to end until the United States' military had finished its science project in "the oldest and most influential Christian community in Japan" -- and subsequent struggle with international Communism in which tens of millions of innocent civilians would be murdered by their godless governments. The bloodiest century in the history of the universe was made possible by the unwarranted meddling of the United States' government, which for some reason prints "In God we trust" on its currency and forces its youngsters to pledge allegiance to its flag, which is touted as the symbol of a nation "under God". This same "nation" went on to kick off the Twenty-First century with a quixotic bid to erect a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of Mesopotamia, an ancient region with absolutely no heritage of liberal government whatsoever. Typically, the debacle in Iraq is poised to accomplish that which no other empire ever could - the complete and total annihilation of some of the most ancient Christian communities in the world.

As our president mingles amid throngs of happy Albanians, let us remember the historic events of June, and never forget the hypocrisy exhibited by our leaders and the atrocities perpetrated by our government on Christians all around the world.

Stumble It!

Streamlining the Empire

Bush creates new military command

U.S. President George W. Bush Tuesday approved creation of a new military command for Africa.

The Unified Combatant Command for Africa is designed to secure cooperation with African nations and bolster the capabilities of allies.

For those of you who may be unaware of the fact that the US Government has divided the entire planet up into military districts from which to project its grand designs upon all creation, African Command should mark the final chapter of this conquest.

The US Government has a longstanding tradition of drawing lines on the maps of places where its military doesn't belong in order to prop up the puppet governments of its failed or failing lackey states. Until now Africa had been allowed to exist due to the benevolence of the European and Central Commanders. Two too many for one continent perhaps, but one more bureaucratic morass on which to bestow our hard-earned tax dollars in order to carry out responsibilities not delegated to the Federal government by The People of the Several States is cool beans in Dubya's 'Merka.

Stumble It!

Hillary Will Save Us

All shareholders please report to the killing fields on the double.

Stumble It!

Effing It up Old School

So if -- according to plan -- oil was the end all along, was civil war the means?

Stumble It!

The Rest of the Story

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

As evil as it is, it's almost relieving to think that our leaders really meant to take us into this war for oil, and not because they were stupid enough to believe that it would cause the entire world to transform into Jeffersonian democracies.

Stumble It!

Here Come the Cavalry Part 2

When the US officially declared support for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia, I wondered if the UIC would hold their ground as Hezbollah did against Israel last summer. They did not (which isn't surprising, considering that Hezbollah's defeat of Israel seemed to shock most "experts"). Instead, they've taken a more Afghan approach to the invader - when it became more profitable, warlords shifted their alliance to the Baidoa government, away from the Union of Islamic Courts, which has now fallen back from its strongholds. A full-scale Fourth Generation War is now possibly on the horizon, and the UIC can be happy to know that reinforcements are on the way.

As Justin Raimondo recently put it:

If al-Qaeda is credited with reversing the threat of a complete social breakdown in Somalia, and the gangster warlords we once held responsible for the country’s torment, in league with a foreign invader, is held up as the only alternative, then surely the terrorist leader [Osama bin Laden] is smiling somewhere in a deep dark cave, rubbing his hands together and chortling at his extraordinary good fortune.

Stumble It!

Re: Hang'em High

I still say that Saddam Hussein was the best thing the US had going in the Middle East after 9/11. No looking back now, though. I just happened to be traveling -- in uniform -- the night he was executed. Happy people were slapping me on the back and shouting their congratulations to me for "killing the son of a bitch". It's amazing the blind hatred people will show to someone if their government tells them to hate him. Yes, Hussein was a son of a bitch, but he was our son of a bitch. I wish I could have reminded those people in the airport, but that would have been too much trouble.

Stumble It!

Here Come the Cavalry

U.S. backs Ethiopian attacks in Somalia

The State Department signaled support Tuesday for Ethiopian military operations against Somalia, noting that Ethiopia has had "genuine security concerns" stemming from the rise of Islamist forces in its eastern neighbor.

Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos also noted that the Ethiopian military acted at the request of Somalia's internationally-backed secular government, which has been resisting with little success the spreading influence of the more powerful Islamist forces.

It was only a matter of time before the US government officially hurled us into this domestic affair of a sovereign territory that is none of our business. As if vocal support isn't bad enough, we may very well end up supplying Ethiopia with the guns and funds it will need to attack the Islamic Courts militias, for the entire world to see, thereby provoking a response from yet another bunch of fundamentalists. We may even join the party, launching our own attacks from Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, where the US military's Horn of Africa command and control assets are situated.

(If you've ever stood at the Djiboutian/Somali border, you will know that it wouldn't take a whole lot of logistic coordination for a thousand or so Islamic Courts militiamen to make that 10 minute drive to Camp Lemonier. Whether or not they could successfully overrun the FOB depends entirely upon their initiative and determination, but those two elderly Djiboutian guys in that "guard" shack halfway between the border and the base probably won't do a whole lot to stop the incursion.)

It's too early to tell whether Ethiopia (and we, when applicable) will learn the same lesson Israel learned last summer, or simply "back off" after a few more days or weeks of pissing in the wind. But the weak, "internationally recognized" (whatever that means, these days) Baidoa "government" is doomed to fail, whether third parties continue to meddle or not.

Stumble It!

Inshallah

1st Muslim congressman thrills crowd in Dearborn

"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.

Many in the crowd replied "Allahu akbar" -- God is great.

I'm still not too sure what to make of this. I have no other reason to concern myself with the type of person that the people of Minnesota choose to represent themselves, other than the fact that federalism is broken in the US and now this guy will join the choir of bureaucrats who don't know me but feel like they need to tell me what's best for me. There have been some knee-jerk reactions to his election, not unlike the reaction to John F. Kennedy's election. The Vatican still hasn't completed its conquest of the US.

At one point I bought into the hype like most everyone else in the US who knows next to nothing about Muslims - convinced that they're all orcs who won't stop until the rest of us are dead. After I spent a year living amongst them in their own land, however, I've let that bit of hysteria go. But they are different than run-of-the-mill citizens of the US, so what happens if our government is eventually packed full of them?

I don't suspect it will be any worse than it is now. Our current crop of "leaders" tend to be post-modern socialists devoid of any coherent philosophy. They don't have the slightest bit of respect for the principles that our Revolution was fought for, and I don't like any of them. At least Ellison has religion, though. Something tangible to guide him through life, other than an unbridled lust for power like all the other politicians. Sure he had his crazy college days, like a drunken frat boy or a Girl Gone Wild, in which he dabbled with the Nation of Islam, espousing outrageously racist views that -- if reversed -- would murder the career of a White guy. But he seems to have settled down.

All in all, Keith Ellison is just your average Minnesota Marxist, and he'll try to steal all your hard-earned money as soon as he gets a chance. I reckon it could be worse, though. At least he's not a Republican -- who'll rob you blind while masquerading as a "conservative" -- and knows just what he's about.

Stumble It!

Legio Patria Nostra

George Washington, at the onset of the Revolutionary War, derided the British/Hessian invaders as "hirelings and mercenaries". While it can be argued that this description could do for any all-volunteer military, there is a profound contrast between such a force, and one made up of homogeneous defenders of an organic culture whose call to serve is a matter of duty and honor - and not due to material prizes offered by the state. At first, the latter description characterized the armed forces of the United States. Over the last century and a half, however, the situation has deteriorated. And anyone who's ever seen a small teenage girl laboriously toting an M16 around an overseas FOB because she's been promised truckloads of money for college, or a group of overweight Blackwater goons bellying up in the DFAC while riding out their $80,000 tax-free contract, knows full well that the state of our military is now largely no different than King George's, circa 1775. As if the emulation of one belligerent empire wasn't enough, our leaders are now poised to throw our military onto the path of France's failed July Monarchy by turning it into a foreign legion.

Stumble It!

What a Deal

A new front in the War on Turr just opened; instead of blowing up everyone in line at the police and military recruiting stations, the turrists can now target those at the WPA.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a "New Deal" that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

Just as the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and the Global War on Terrorism has made terrorism much, much worse, we can fully expect President Bush's brilliant new strategy to blow up in his face just as all the others have done.

Stumble It!

Anchors Aweigh

Whether or not we aim to attack Iran, it looks like a build-up in the Gulf is nearly at hand.

Stumble It!

How Did I Miss This?

I like Chuck Norris. In fact, for some reason I naturally tend to gravitate around other people who don't mind loading up on his films at the dollar-DVD bin and making a night of it (you know you have a good friend when someone doesn't mind sitting through 'Hellbound' just to pick out all the plot inconsistencies over a few beers with you).

Apparently The Chuck has been supplying a column to WorldNetDaily for a few months now. I had no idea. And while I don't expect him to write anything especially deep and profound (and he hasn't so far), I don't mind seeing what he has to say from time to time. He's good people.

Stumble It!

Raskin's Wager

A high-schooler from New Jersey named Max Raskin has written a persuasive article aimed at getting Minarchists and other assorted Libertarians to adopt Anarcho-Capitalism. While he makes several good points, I'm still not completely convinced. I do agree with the "State's Crisis of Legitimacy", as Lind puts it, and therefore am not compelled to believe that government is a "necessary evil", or even necessary. We could do just fine without it. But examples of self-restraining government abound in history -- a good one being Switzerland -- and if men do see fit to institute one amongst themselves, it's not always going to be a bad thing.

Though I suppose the only thing I have left to shed, before I join the Raskin camp, is my admiration of the Founding Fathers.

Stumble It!

When Their July 4th Comes

Saudis report Shi'ite 'state' inside of Iraq

Iran has effectively created a Shi'ite "state within a state" in neighboring Iraq, defying both Iraqi Sunnis and neighboring Sunni nations, according to a Saudi security report.

"Where the Americans have failed, the Iranians have stepped in," said the report by the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, a Riyadh-based consultancy commissioned by the Saudi government to provide security and intelligence assessments.

While most people easily draw parallels between this war and Vietnam, in my opinion it's beginning to play out like the American Revolutionary War - and yes, this time, we're the bad guys.

Though we're nearly four years in, we're still in the very opening stages of this event. We're holed up on our FOBs like the Brits during the siege of Boston in late 1775, still confident that the "rabble" will easily be put down. But as we randomly dispatch "patrols" and convoys outside the wire that make perfect targets for IEDs -- just as British scroungers were for those Pennsylvanian riflemen -- many important things are happening behind the scenes. People are organizing, drawing lines in the sand, and it probably won't be that long before statehood and independence are formally declared. All I can wonder is what the US and its coalition will decide to do at that point. Most likely we'll sail for New York.

The news of Iran's meddling shouldn't surprise anyone. Iraq is an artificial country, but the sectarian bond between Shiite Iranians and Shiite Iraqis is very real. So it is with the Saudis and the Sunni Iraqis. The US government would be wise to step back and let it all play out, because one day it will play out, whether we like it or not. We simply won't be able to compel these people to recognize our powerless puppet government in the Green Zone forever.

Stumble It!

Culture Shock

While we're on the topic of gender and its role in society (see below), Steven LaTulippe has written a timely article on the subject that is well worth taking a look at.

Stumble It!

This Just In

Some of you may or may not be aware of it, but the Global War on Terrorism is going to be a "long war". This groundbreaking revelation was revealed today by Air Force Brigadier General Mark O. Schissler, the "deputy director for the war on terrorism within the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff."

Good work, General. Let's get you another star, ASAP.

Stumble It!

Yawn

Bush Text on Baker-Hamilton Report

I told the members that this report, called "The Way Forward," will be taken very seriously by this administration.

Translation: "Thanks, but no thanks."

We all know good and well that President Bush has no time to listen to the groanings of these peasants. They said his strategy doesn't work, but what do they know? They're not "deciders".

Stumble It!

Remember When a Piece of Gum Only Cost $4.00?

US setbacks see dollar plunge to near 15-year low

The dollar continued its slide against the euro, dropping to $1.3194 after the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, said the housing slump "would be a drag on economic growth into next year". Mr Bernanke said official figures did not pick up the "sharp increase" in cancellations on house deals and might understate the inventory glut.

"Any significant effect on consumer spending arising from further weakness in housing would have important implications for the economy," he said.

I figure there isn't a whole lot of time left before folks lose everything they're worth - if they keep their wealth in dollars. I put my savings into gold nearly a year ago, and couldn't be more satisfied.

Stumble It!

Irony

I like to take a look at FrontPage Mag every now and again just to see what's gotten the Neoconservatives riled up that particular day. Usually it's the standard "THE TIME TO ATTACK (fill in the blank) IS NOW!!!"; whether it's a third-world backwater in Asia, a third-world backwater in Africa, or even a third-world backwater in South America, somewhere there's some little dark people needs killin' or something bad is going to happen to...ranchers in rural Wyoming. At least I think that's the gist of it.

One of today's articles wasn't funny because it was outlandish, but because of how ironic it was. Here's part of Congressional Witch-Hunt, by Joseph Klein:

Many of Democrats who are about to take control of both houses of Congress have no interest in preserving the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

Yeah. Well. "Many of Democrats" who are already in Congress have no interest in checks and balances. Nor do the Republicans. But then again this author -- who's an apparent fan of King George the Decider, Issuer of Signing Statements -- isn't worried about checks and balances so much as he's worried about the outcome of any investigation that a Democrat-led Congress could launch into the doings of the Bush Administration. But the Congress was the GOP's to lose, and they did so with brutal efficiency, so now it's the Democrats' turn.

To sum it all up, -- in the words of Patriot Act supporters everywhere -- "If he didn't do anything wrong, he's got nothing to worry about!"

Stumble It!

The Lessons of War

From today's Stars and Stripes:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be leaving under a cloud of criticism over his handling of the Iraq war, but his invasion plan -- emphasizing speed over massive troop numbers -- consistently has been held up as a resounding success.

With Iraq near chaos three and a half years later, a key Army manual is being rewritten in a way that rejects the Rumsfeld doctrine and counsels against using it again.

The truth of it is that there never was a "Rumsfeld doctrine", because -- as William Lind has pointed out -- doctrine is how to think, not what to do. Rumsfeld never worried so much about the "how to think" variable of the equation, instead he left that up to the conquered. United States troops were to simply sack Baghdad, then it would all be over. A Jeffersonian democracy would spring from the rubble overnight, shiny happy Iraqis would dance to Toby Keith's greatest hits while throwing rose petals at each other, and we'd all be one step closer to a "New American Century".

Unfortunately, the Rumsfeld plan -- which was nothing innovative -- was a complete failure. Sure it looked solid when the goal was simply to topple Saddam Hussein. But when we were kindly re-informed that the goal had been to "spread democracy", it was indefensible. As far as the brilliance of low troop levels goes, the simple fact of the matter is that the Army never had enough to send in anyway. And while the Air Force whines about having to augment Army missions with their poor little Airmen, there are currently more Sailors with their boots in the sands of the CENTCOM area of responsibility than there are at sea. But hey, maybe the idea of a Boatswain's Mate kicking down doors in cordon and search ops in Ramadi was part of Rumsfeld's plan all along.

On the subject of this new manual -- which I've written about here before -- I have not yet read it so I have no comment. Though one quote in the article does cause one to cock an eyebrow:

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the new Army doctrine, citing the manual's draft status. But he pointed to a November 2005 directive that established "nation-building" as one of the military's core missions.

I have no clue which particular directive Whitman is referencing, but I reckon this means that Army directives are now on par with Acts of Congress and Supreme Court verdicts; superior to the responsibilities delegated to the Federal Government by The People as outlined in the Constitution.

HOOAH!

Stumble It!

Damned If They Do

U.S. wary of Iran, Syria role in Iraq

The Bush administration cast a wary eye Monday on signs that Iran and Syria were taking a more active diplomatic role in Iraq...

Now this, after nothing but incessant clamoring from Washington that the two do just that.

Stumble It!

Our Holocaust?

How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries

John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. He spent 13 years in the agency. He gives a short history of CIA covert operations. He is a very compelling speaker and the highest level CIA officer to testify to the Congress about his actions. He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's.

Nothing like a little bloodshed for short-sighted political gain.

Stumble It!

Re: Rumsfeld Fired - Nice Start!

I won't miss him, either. And like El Cid, I don't know that Rumsfeld's termination will change anything. I can't comment too much about the other services, but Rumsfeld's Navy has many inherent problems...

For instance, the Navy Times ran a piece last month about Bob Woodward's State of Denial, in which Woodward claims that Admiral Verne Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, was turned down for a gig as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Rumsfeld, because he was too skeptical about neoconservative aims at world domination. Whether or not that's true, ADM Clark was succeeded in his office by ADM Mike Mullen, who from day one has been after a "1000-ship navy". Not a thousand US ships, mind you, but a maritime coalition that simply deployed as the US directed, all over the globe (or as the Founding Fathers would call it, an "entangling alliance"). Due to the fact that "the terrorists" could never launch any mass invasion, one can only wonder what good would come out of such a project. Besides harassing fishermen in vessels flagged from the countries which our leaders are telling us are our enemies at that particular time, The Grand Navée would probably just serve to undermine unstable governments and create power vacuums for the "bad guys" to thrive in like Iraq, or, like Somalia, undermine the power vacuum so that the "bad guys" can create an unstable government. Good luck with all that.

Of course most problems were inherited. Those of us who joined the Navy thinking it was the same one in which our grandfathers had served were in for a rude awakening when we showed up to find it was a sprawling bureaucracy with more admirals than ships, where you will waste more time watching power-point presentations -- on any touchy-feely subject from "equal opportunity training" to the "Right Spirit Campaign" which informs you that alcohol is bad and drinking it is even badder -- than you could spend on qualifying in something that was actually worth your effort. This was no longer an organization of rough men who worked hard and partied harder, but the recruiters don't tell you stuff like that.

In the end, I'd have to agree with all of El Cid's recommendations. The civilians who run the military are bought and paid for by the politicians who are bought and paid for, and the officers who get promoted tend to be those who will do whatever it takes, no matter what it takes, just to be advanced. Few are honorable, and the ones who are "dedicated to the mission" never have the guts to question it.

Nowadays an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of those appointed over you kinda cancels itself out, and is therefore meaningless.

Stumble It!

Hussein's Dilemma

Now that the kangaroo court, whose authority Saddam Hussein has repeatedly disacknowledged, has handed down its verdict, the former dictator finds himself in quite the predicament. His options are to either accept the verdict and hang, or reject the verdict and appeal.

But an appeal would mean that this man who still claims to be the President of Iraq henceforth accepts the authority of the court, and the government it represents.

Stumble It!

Rattle Rattle

Yesterday, on spooky Halloween, Neoconservative fearmonger Micah Halpern was scared silly. Scared because Russia has the nerve(!!!) to get along with Iran:

Iran and Russia are in cahoots. Iran wants nuclear capability and Russia has the capability to make it happen. And unless they are stopped, it will happen. It is up to us.

What, exactly, is "up to us"?

Well it appears that in 1953, it was "up to us" to send in the CIA to overthrow Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister. It was then "up to us" to train the dreaded SAVAK how to torture and murder willy-nilly. The Iranians just loved that. They showed us how much so in 1979 when they overthrew the Shah, and rounded up as many SAVAK as they could for execution.

I suppose it was then "up to us" to disband NATO when the Warsaw Pact crumbled. Nope! We pushed NATO forward, and now it surrounds Russia.

Yes...it's a mystery why these two ancient nations, who have existed hundreds and thousands of years longer than us, would be in cahoots against our aims at global hegemony.

They say that a baby rattlesnake is the most dangerous, because it hasn't yet learned to control its venom. Unfortunately, the baby rattlesnake is the easiest to crush. Russia and Iran existed before the US, and will probably exist after the US. Our baby-rattlesnake foreign policy may seem like something to fear, but they know what they're doing. They've watched empires come and go.

Stumble It!

Throw Him a Bone

Al-Maliki wins pact with U.S. to lift blockades

U.S. forces, who had set up the checkpoints in Baghdad last week as part of an unsuccessful search for the soldier, drove away in Humvees and armored personnel carriers at the 5 p.m. deadline set by Mr. al-Maliki.

Fear not, Patriotic Citizens of the US: this was a stunt. That Maliki has any power over our forces -- or over the stateless terrain we used to call "Iraq" -- is funny, in a way, but let's just hope that none of them died while setting up the checkpoints just so Maliki could "order" them away.

Stumble It!

Re: Act III

I read Lind's article earlier and was trying to play out, in my mind, what Iran could do if the US really did attack them; not only to annihilate us in Iraq - but in the Gulf. Bottom line is that it would not be hard for them to end our Middle East adventure once and for all.

First they could mine the Straits of Hormuz. Of course the US has mine-hunting capabilities in the Gulf, but the resources that may need to be diverted to protect those capital ships might derail other maritime security operations. Namely, the oil platforms. The US has pretty much made it clear that if those are destroyed, the jig in Iraq is up.

And so a tactical defeat for the US would then be compounded by a moral defeat, once the straits are cleared, and the Big E gets turned around to join the Little E in the full-scale carpet-bombing of Iranian population centers. All Iran would have to do is wait it out like the Serbs.

Of course before they ever began mining the straits, they would have missiles staged along their western shores, standing by to annihilate the US shore installations along the opposite coast that would be used to refuel and replenish the Fifth Fleet. Once the fleet had expended its vast arsenal, and with no handy means to restock, the fleet would need to pass south through the straits again. Sinking a dozen or so oil tankers in the lanes might keep the US fleet bottlenecked long enough to help Iran regroup its land-based forces and assault the ships directly. And so the extermination of US forces in Iraq would be joined by the destruction of its prized fleet at sea.

Sounds pretty far-fetched, but the history of war is full of surprises...especially for those who are sent into battle by idiots.

Stumble It!

Voting Is Stupid

"Double-digit unemployment, TVA be shutting soon,
while over there in Huntsville, they're puttin' people on the moon." - The Drive-By Truckers

Government, by nature, is a wild animal that is passionately obsessed with its own growth. It is simply not concerned with our well-being. Sure, it will give us lip service; by either telling us that it's safeguarding our freedom, or by handing us the redistributed wealth of hard-working people. This generally works to keep us at bay.

Good citizens of the United States are conditioned from the very beginning to consider nothing more sacred than voting. We're told that people died to secure us this great right, and that it's our duty to exercise it. Unfortunately, voting solves no problems. It does one thing, and one thing only: it grants legitimacy to the government. As long as we continue to feed the beast with our ballots, it will continue to grow, and it will do so at the expense of our liberty.

I didn't used to think this way. I registered to vote as soon as I could, and even used to fly home from wherever I was stationed just so I could vote in my hometown. This was before I realized there was no difference between the two parties, and that even if there was a real difference, it wouldn't matter anyway. Before I arrived at that conclusion, I even managed to go through the "lesser of two evils" phase, which holds that it's better to vote for limited-evil than to not vote at all. But evil is evil, and "voting" is not a magic goose that only lays golden eggs.

The Democrats and Republicans are not opposed on one single important issue - in principle. They're both for unchecked government growth and power. They're both for quixotic, foreign wars of aggression. They're both rabidly socialist. Of course, the Republicans will say they're not, but let's remember that President Bush's big plan for Social Security wasn't to abolish it - he wanted to streamline it.

The system is broke and it will not fix itself. The People would have to fix it, but we'd never do that. Most of us are too happy with the status quo, or just don't care. We can tell each other to vote for a third party, but the system doesn't allow this to be a truly viable option. We can tell each other that if we don't vote, we have no right to complain, but the exact opposite is true. If you vote, you give your personal blessing to the system. You agree to its terms - mob rule. Even if you back the wrong horse, you still backed the system. There's no room for you to complain. Meanwhile, if you don't agree with the system or with its rules and outcomes and therefore don't participate, you have every right to complain about each and every consequence of the election, each and every illegitimate mandate imposed upon you by a system that you don't acknowledge in the first place. Especially when the tax collector points a gun to your head and confiscates a big chunk of your paycheck each month.

As we draw closer to November, folks are getting nervous about the prospect of the Democrats taking Congress back. Just remember that in the long run, the outcome of this election is meaningless. Independent of either party, government will still be here. Growing, stealing, and consuming all that it can, just because it can.

Stumble It!

Re: Appeal For Redress

Ironically, I first heard of this last week when I was in Iraq. I hoped El Cid would've come across it and put it on the blog, and like clockwork...

The Neoconservative vanguard over at FrontPageMag has even gotten a hold of it, calling it "Soldiers For Surrender". That we've bogged ourselves down in an unnecessary and endless series of battles against an enemy that doesn't exist (we certainly make enemies anytime and every time we venture onto foreign soil, but there is no Islamic-Imperial Navy or Army capable of sailing up to our shores and "fighting us over here") is lost on these people. You can't "surrender" to something that isn't there.

If you joined the military before 9/11, or before Mr. Rumsfeld revolutionized the way we do business, and if you're outraged at the way your oath to support and defend the Constitution has been perverted by those in charge (though I suppose that was going on long before the War on Turr started), please take a few minutes to sign onto the Appeal for Redress.

Stumble It!

We Aint Sacred!

U.S. Vows Not to Be Intimidated by North Korean Threats

NEW YORK - The U.S. vowed not to be intimidated by North Korean threats Tuesday after Pyongyang reportedly said it could fire a nuclear warhead if Washington did not act to resolve the standoff.

Sounds like we've come a long way - after having spent the past five years being intimidated by all sorts of "threats", whether real or imagined.

Stumble It!

It Was About Time

Much thanks to zefrank for pointing out this story:

The United States Army and Marines are finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine that draws on the hard-learned lessons from Iraq and makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy.

The doctrine is outlined in a new field manual on counterinsurgency that is to be published next month.

I've linked to an introduction to the Fourth Generation War Field Manual before; it's been available for months. Brilliant men have been developing it for years. It's a must-read for anyone interested in military history or doctrine.

It seems that the Pentagon is just now catching on. I cannot wait to read their field manual next month. It will be interesting to see whether or not the top brass is truly prepared to relinquish the amount of command and control to those in the field that it takes to effectively fight a counterinsurgency (and whether or not they're prepared to abandon scorched-earth tactics and emphasize winning on the moral level).

Stumble It!

Re: Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism

El Cid's post on what Fascism is has reminded me of a recent FrontPageMag article which attempts to one-up the notion of "Islamofascism" by going so far as to imply that Al Qaeda is also Leninist. The author, a "counterterrorism strategist" named Jim Guirard, bases this theory on the facts that Fascism is similar to Communism, and that the religion of Osama Bin Laden promises divine rewards for participation. I will not beat a dead horse by explaining why Al Qaeda is not Fascist, but allow me to comment on this new addition to the Big Lie.

First of all, it's ironic to note that it was in the mountains of Afghanistan, fighting Communists, where Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth. Although Guirard clearly didn't stew over his analogy nearly as hard as he should've, such consideration isn't necessary when playing this written sleight-of-hand.

In fact, the less the reader knows about any of the subject matter, the better. Not only can Guirard insist that Osama Bin Laden is Hitler (and that Bush = Roosevelt, Blair = Churchill, the War on Terrorism = World War Two, etc), he can now invoke Lenin's name in order to place imagery into the mind of the reader which would suggest that winning the "War on Terrorism" is as crucial as winning the Cold War (and that President Bush embodies all the virtue of our Cold War presidents, Bin Laden represents the evil of Lenin/Stalin, etc).

This is, of course, absurd.

As I noted previously, Al Qaeda was formed in order to aide an organic resistance movement in Afghanistan. They have since gone on to support other organic resistance movements throughout the world, the extent of which is largely unknown. In fact, nowadays you will rarely hear news of a terrorist attack (outside of Israel) without the talking heads automatically suspecting that it was Al Qaeda. Most insurgencies -- Sri Lanka and Chechnya, for example -- have "possible links" with the group. The underlying theme of it all is that Al Queda embodies resistance. Resistance to foreign rule and foreign ways of life.

That the mujahideen of Afghanistan were fighting Communist expansion isn't nearly as important as what Communist expansion represented - Western Imperialism. The locals simply had no use for it. Like Communism, Fascism and Nazism are both products of Western Civilization; ideas with which the "terrorists" whom the US fight have expressed no fascination. They have stated their goals. They are opposed to foreign rule, brutal puppet regimes imposed on them by the West, and the presence of Western military in their lands. To label them Communist, Nazi, or Fascist is to entirely miss the point. And as long as we keep ignoring the problem, and telling each other that the "terrorists" have suddenly come out of nowhere and simply want to kill us all, we'll never be able to fix the situation. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. The Brits failed in Iraq. We're failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As with World War Two and the Cold War, the moral disease spreading across the Earth today is a Western "ism" - but it's not Nazism, Fascism or Communism. Like Stalin's "People's Paradise" and Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich", this one also promises Heaven-on-Earth in return for devotion to its cause. And years from now, when the dust has settled and the names have been all but forgotten, the world will reflect on the Neoconservatism of the Bush Administration, and remember its agents as pitiful hangdogs who tried to change the world, and failed.

(End Notes: I realize that the Liberal-Internationalism of previous years is more at fault for stirring up hatred of the US than the relatively newer Neoconservatism. But unlike Liberal-Internationalism -- which holds that although the world must unite to solve "problems", the US is still its leader -- Neoconservatism comes right out and declares that if the world does not conform, it will be destroyed...and Neoconservatism is the ideology of the day. I have been told that I sound as though I support Al Qaeda, which is hard to imagine for a whiskey-guzzling Southern boy such as myself. I think I simply understand them [don't make me quote Sun Tzu]. If one merely puts themselves in the shoes of another, it's easier to grasp their angle on life. If a "coalition of the willing" arbitrarily decided that the US required "regime change", is it plausible that the citizens of the US would accept it? Yes "the terrorists" do bad, evil things to innocent civilians. But so do we. The moral of the story is that until we stop trying to conquer and control, they will not stop murdering us where they find us.

And if you're truly worried about the emergence of a global Caliphate, then you seriously need to get a grip.)

Stumble It!

Get a Clue

'Sensitivity training' for U.S. troops in Iraq

"I am disturbed by a trend here that is occurring as we serve here in Iraq," one Army major told the premium online intelligence newsletter edited by the founder of WND. "I am a Christian and so are most soldiers here, as they would probably identify with that religion if not practice it."

He tells the story of one of his men, performing the duty of guarding civilian Iraqis working on a U.S. military base. When it was time for lunch, the soldier was told he could not eat because the Army wanted to be sensitive to the fasting Iraqis.

"I understand the concept," said the officer. "But isn't that forcing us to learn about Islam and even practice its principles? Who cares if Muslims want to fast. We don't force a guy not to eat. This is the equivalent of forcing our soldiers to practice Ramadan fasting."

Luckily, crazed-Neocon David Horowitz commandeered this story from World Net Daily, where one would have to pay a subscription in order to read it. Sounds like the perfect story to piss off the "conservative", rah-rah-war section of our political arena. "Sensitivity training" for US troops? We're too tough for that!

Maybe...maybe not.

I once had the opportunity to spend a year of my life, living, and working, in an Islamic Kingdom. Believe it or not, my neighbors really were human beings who lived and breathed just as us Western folk do. Yes they believed in weird things that I would never consider for a moment - but that was a two-way street. As long as I played the game, and didn't pull this "I'm-an-American-and-I'll-do-what-I-want!" crap, I was good to go. I was, after all, in their land.

The West, long ago, emasculated itself. We teach each other to have pride in nothing, and to respect other ways above our own. Some of us don't buy into it, but it is the prevailing way of life. Europe will never again produce a Charles Martel, and America will never again produce a Thomas Jefferson. That's just the way things are. And so we grow up hating the idea of ourselves, as instructed from the curriculum of a public school. And naturally, we're shocked when we find out that people in faraway lands actually do expect us to play ball by their rules when we come into their land.

To sum it all up, the "Army major" interviewed in this story has no friggin' clue. Some of us, who actually do care about the military and its being thrown into an un-winnable "war" on "terror", know full well about the parable of the strategic corporal. It's very clear that if our brothers and sisters are to be sent into a foreign land, they best be prepared to win at the moral level. Respecting the traditions and customs of the natives is very important. One guy being told not to eat in front of Muslims during sun-up is not a trend. And even if it becomes one...OH WELL. Until the politicians quit sending them into Muslim lands, that's just a small sacrifice the troops will have to make.

Stumble It!

Down by the River

Foley Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.

ABC News reported Friday that Foley...engaged in a series of sexually explicit instant messages with current and former teenage male pages. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote to one page: "Do I make you a little horny?"

In another message, Foley wrote, "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed."

Might as well be talking about Matt Foley, as bright as his future in Congress looks now.

Stumble It!

Monarchy Rules

I will not pretend to have a firm grasp on the ins-and-outs of Thai politics, but the story unfolding in the Kingdom seems very interesting to me.

The army commander who seized Thailand's government in a quick, bloodless coup pledged Wednesday to hold elections by October 2007, and received a ringing endorsement from the country's revered king.

This coup could easily turn ugly, but for the sake of the Thai people, lets hope it remains "quick" and "bloodless".

What's interesting -- to me -- about this event is that it underscores the positive aspects of monarchy. Allow me to enter a caveat with that statement: the type of government our Founding Fathers created was extremely minarchist in its nature. It was founded on the notion that men should have no ruler, but a limited, night watchman state was necessary to secure our natural rights.

Minarchy is a sub-genre of anarchy. Unfortunately, that term has been hijacked by people who don't see it as a political philosophy, and so most people now assume that it's synonymous with "chaos". It's not. It simply means "no ruler", and I personally prefer to be ruled by no one. I see nothing wrong with two or more people willfully entering into a contract without having a politician standing by in order to arbitrarily yea-or-nay said contract.

So there's anarchy...what's the next best thing?

For some reason, most people think it's democracy. But democracy is simply "mob rule". It's an idea our Founding Fathers abhorred. That's probably because most people are idiots.

Think of it in terms of Pop Music. Pop, of course, is simply "what's popular" at the moment. So what's popular right now? Total crap. I guarantee you that the "music" on more than half of the top 10 songs of the Billboard "Hot 100" was neither written nor performed by the "artists" it's attributed to. And the music on the ones that were -- as boring and unimaginative as they are -- will not stand the test of time. In a year they'll be forgotten. People will make fun of each other for remembering them.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy. It's any poorly-conceived idea that happens to appeal to the masses at any random point in time. And it's just not for me. I'll take an Appice, Bruce, or Iommi; you can have Timberlake.

To sum it all up, I just can't understand why anyone would go from one extreme to the next. If the best thing is to be ruled by no one, why would the next best thing be the rule of millions? As Bill Bonner recently put it:

What gives people the right to rule one over another...merely because at that particular moment, in those particular circumstances, there are more lumps on one side than the other?

No thank you, dear reader. We are not democrats. Instead, give us a good king. Put him on the throne and tell him to mind his business. And if he taxes too heavily, spends too much, or dares to drag the country into war or absurdity – off with his head!

Thailand, Anarchy, Monarchy, Democracy, Carmine Appice, Jack Bruce, Tony Iommi

Stumble It!

Do As He Says, Not As He Does

Bush fights GOP revolt over terror bill

President Bush fought back Friday against a Republican revolt in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation and rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.

Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which set international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

"Flawed logic" is assuming you're above the law and acting as if you indeed are, while simultaneously lecturing the rest of the world on the importance of obeying it.

Stumble It!

Dazed and Confused

Bush urges US to unite against terrorism

US President George W. Bush solemnly marked five years since the September 11, 2001 attacks and urged a US public deeply divided over the war in Iraq to unite to defeat terrorism.

He also defended his frequent appeals for spreading democracy as an antidote to terrorism at a time when fragile US-backed governments in Iraq and Afghanistan face bloody insurgencies that caught Washington by surprise.

"Spreading democracy" -- or, more narrowly, meddling -- is exactly what causes terrorism in the first place. I'm pretty sure that President Bush is aware of this fact, and is simply preying on those whose knowledge of world history began on this day five years ago. Or maybe he has no clue. A quick glance at the havoc wreaked in Europe two centuries ago when the same idea materialized as action might put it in perspective. As Robespierre said: "The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies."

To those who might fall for such lunacy, and heed his call to support war in Iraq simply because of what happened to the World Trade Center, I will offer these ancient words of wisdom. Figure it out.

War on Terror; Robespierre

Stumble It!

Re: Anti-War? Not Entirely

I guess I'll take this opportunity to clarify my own position. War is something that has always existed, and will continue to exist until the very last human being is dead. I don't believe it's a matter of whether or not war should exist; the question lies in how it should exist.

The topic of war, as it stands in the US, tends to go from one extreme to the next. We have those on "The Left" who are, at present, the most vocal against the debacle in Iraq, and we have those on "The Right" who tend to crave this war, want even more of them in Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and actually believe that the United States can re-make the world in its own image with a constant flow of bombs and blood. A fine example of this insanity can be found in the writings of Ann Coulter, a self-styled "Christian" and "Conservative", who believes that nuclear genocide is a legitimate substitute for diplomacy.

(She's to writing as Britney Spears is to music: people listen because she's pretty, but the sound is horrible. One can only wonder why her and her fellow "pundits" -- let alone the "Right-Wing" echo-chamber here in the blogosphere -- don't form up an equivalent to Britain's Artists' Rifles if they're such true believers. I can only imagine how it might affect their writing.)

Meanwhile, there are those of us who tend to take a more principled approach to these matters - those of us who believe in the (truly) Christian idea of Just War, who do not excuse the death of innocent civilians, or unnecessary wars of conquest. Right now the US is ruled by those who believe that it's the tax-payers' job to supply the blood and funds it'll take to re-make the world. Of course this is an impossible mission, but they will kill us all before they ever awake from their silly dream.

There used to be a word in our vocabulary: filibuster. When someone got a wild hair and decided to go conquer whatever country for whatever reason, they raised their own army, their own funds, and did it themselves. Just imagine what kind of funding the Neoconservatives could throw together by themselves. Just imagine the army of mindless barbarians -- who think that God needs their help to protect Israel -- that they could raise on their own. They could all buy an island somewhere and use it as their base of operations. George Bush could even call himself "The King", and wear a funny hat.

I'd be alright with that.

Instead, these people choose to waste the lives of our friends, our friends' little brothers and sisters, our little brothers and sisters, etc. The kid from down the street that you used to play catch with...yeah, he took one in the head in Fallujah last week. Why? Who knows.

In short, I'm against useless wars launched by useless people. If it were 1776 or 1861, I'd fight. But Iraq never posed a threat to us. No one does. We should just be happy about that and leave everyone the hell alone.

anti-war; filibuster

Stumble It!

Think About It

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq - even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

There are some who will never bring themselves to believe that they were lied into supporting this war. Nevermind that. Let's examine the second point Rockefeller made - that Iraq would be better off if we never invaded.

Iraq is an artificial country, consisting of several ethnic groups who have hated and warred with each other for more than a thousand years. The only reason Iraq exists, as an entity, is because an Englishman arbitrarily drew lines on a map less than a hundred years ago. The only time Iraq has ever thrived has been under the despotic rule of a tyrant.

Let's imagine what would have happened in the Middle East after September 11, 2001, if the US hadn't attacked Iraq. (Disclaimer: I do not agree with our meddling in the Middle East to begin with, as all it ever does is make everything worse. I'm simply placing myself in the shoes of a Bush Administration official for this mental exercise.) Imagine what Iraq would be like today, if a secular regime was still in place. Imagine if the US had offered to lift all sanctions on Iraq if Hussein would only agree to play ball. Yes, this would put the US in cahoots with a madman (again!), but most people our government allies itself with are maniacal dictators anyway. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the philosophy of the secular, pan-Arab socialism of Saddam Hussein was in diametric opposition to the faith of Osama Bin Laden.

The alternative to helping this former-ally, of course, is what we have today. Iraq is now a breeding ground, and training ground, for people who hate the US. At best, Mr. Bush's adventure has only resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. At worst, a hundred thousand. How ironic that Hussein was only tried for the murder of 143 right after his capture.

You tell me which is best. A secular haven amongst a sea of fanaticism, or a meatgrinding cesspool of extremism?

Iraq; Rockefeller

Stumble It!

Johnny Anonymus

About:
Allow myself to introduce...myself. My name is Johnny Anonymus, and no, my pseudonymous surname is not misspelled. The inspiration comes from a historian called Gallus Anonymus; I will not elaborate too much on who he was or what he did, as that is the duty of the permalink. Suffice to say, he's credited with advancing the idea of liberty in an age when liberty wasn't all that common. We call him "Gallus" because we think he might have been French. I call myself Johnny because I'm a Southerner.

I joined this blog at the urging of my good buddy El Cid. I was a little reluctant because this is not the first blog I have participated on. I began blogging in 2002, but left the blogosphere many months ago. The reason I stopped speaking my mind here on the net is because I had an epiphany. It took me a while to realize it, but my paradigm had done a 180-degree turn. I used to have a modest, yet loyal following. Many people knew who I was, but I never got a big head about it. Blogs are like opinions, to put the old saying nicely - everybody has one. I was just another guy with too much time on my hands, and so I blogged. But more about that epiphany...

I used to be a typical Red-Stater, having registered with the Republican Party as a teenager. After high school, although my family could have easily afforded to send me to college, I enlisted in the military. It wasn't too long before the tragedy of September 11, 2001 occurred. Like most people, I hopped on the War on Terrorism bandwagon. When it came time to invade Iraq, I wholeheartedly supported it. Saddam Hussein, after all, was equipping Al Quaeda with all kinds of nasty weapons, and was moments away from becoming a nuclear powerhouse.

But when the reason for going to war began changing, my support for it began changing as well. And so I eventually stopped blogging, lest I be locked up by the Thought Police for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or some such. But here I am again; a man whose boots have been in the sand, whose eyes have seen the senseless death and destruction, whose conscience could not have allowed him to renew his contract in the US military. Here I will add my perspective to the countless voices sounding out in protest against the wars, and the short-sighted politics that brought them about.

Blogger Profile

League of The Scarlet Pimpernel Posts

Other Blogs and Sites:

Johnny Anonymus

Stumble It!