Mister Moobs Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars > > Ralph Peters > > the most troubling aspect of international security for the United > States is not the killing power of our immediate enemies, which > remains modest in historical terms, but our increasingly effete view > of warfare. The greatest advantage our opponents enjoy is an > uncompromising strength of will, their readiness to ?pay any price > and bear any burden? to hurt and humble us. As our enemies? view of > what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self- > limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties? > hostile, civilian and our own?continue to narrow fatefully. Our > enemies cannot defeat us in direct confrontations, but we appear > determined to defeat ourselves. > > Much has been made over the past two decades of the emergence of > ?asymmetric warfare,? in which the ill-equipped confront the > superbly armed by changing the rules of the battlefield. Yet, such > irregular warfare is not new?it is warfare?s oldest form, the stone > against the bronze-tipped spear?and the crucial asymmetry does not > lie in weaponry, but in moral courage. While our most resolute > current enemies?Islamist extremists?may violate our conceptions of > morality and ethics, they also are willing to sacrifice more, suffer > more and kill more (even among their own kind) than we are. We > become mired in the details of minor missteps, while fanatical holy > warriors consecrate their lives to their ultimate vision. They live > their cause, but we do not live ours. We have forgotten what warfare > means and what it takes to win. > > There are multiple reasons for this American amnesia about the cost > of victory. First, we, the people, have lived in unprecedented > safety for so long (despite the now-faded shock of September 11, > 2001) that we simply do not feel endangered; rather, we sense that > what nastiness there may be in the world will always occur elsewhere > and need not disturb our lifestyles. We like the frisson of feeling > a little guilt, but resent all calls to action that require sacrifice. > > Second, collective memory has effectively erased the European- > sponsored horrors of the last century; yesteryear?s ?unthinkable? > events have become, well, unthinkable. As someone born only seven > years after the ovens of Auschwitz stopped smoking, I am stunned by > the common notion, which prevails despite ample evidence to the > contrary, that such horrors are impossible today. > > Third, ending the draft resulted in a superb military, but an > unknowing, detached population. The higher you go in our social > caste system, the less grasp you find of the military?s complexity > and the greater the expectation that, when employed, our armed > forces should be able to fix things promptly and politely. > > Fourth, an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic > theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of > bloodless war. In pursuit of billions in profits, defense > contractors made promises impossible to fulfill, while think tank > scholars sought acclaim by designing warfare models that excited > political leaders anxious to get off cheaply, but which left out > factors such as the enemy, human psychology, and 5,000 years of > precedents. > > Fifth, we have become largely a white-collar, suburban society in > which a child?s bloody nose is no longer a routine part of growing > up, but grounds for a lawsuit; the privileged among us have lost the > sense of grit in daily life. We grow up believing that safety from > harm is a right that others are bound to respect as we do. Our > rising generation of political leaders assumes that, if anyone > wishes to do us harm, it must be the result of a misunderstanding > that can be resolved by that lethal narcotic of the chattering > classes, dialogue. > > Last, but not least, history is no longer taught as a serious > subject in America ?s schools. As a result, politicians lack > perspective; journalists lack meaningful touchstones; and the > average person?s sense of warfare has been redefined by media > entertainments in which misery, if introduced, is brief. > > By 1965, we had already forgotten what it took to defeat Nazi > Germany and Imperial Japan, and the degeneration of our historical > sense has continued to accelerate since then. More Americans died in > one afternoon at Cold Harbor during our Civil War than died in six > years in Iraq . Three times as many American troops fell during the > morning of June 6, 1944, as have been lost in combat in over seven > years in Afghanistan . Nonetheless, prize-hunting reporters insist > that our losses in Iraq have been catastrophic, while those in > Afghanistan are unreasonably high. > > We have cheapened the idea of war. We have had wars on poverty, wars > on drugs, wars on crime, economic warfare, ratings wars, campaign > war chests, bride wars, and price wars in the retail sector. The > problem, of course, is that none of these ?wars? has anything to do > with warfare as soldiers know it. Careless of language and anxious > to dramatize our lives and careers, we have elevated policy > initiatives, commercial spats and social rivalries to the level of > humanity?s most complex, decisive and vital endeavor. > > One of the many disheartening results of our willful ignorance has > been well-intentioned, inane claims to the effect that ?war doesn?t > change anything? and that ?war isn?t the answer,? that we all need > to ?give peace a chance.? Who among us would not love to live in > such a splendid world? Unfortunately, the world in which we do live > remains one in which war is the primary means of resolving > humanity?s grandest disagreements, as well as supplying the answer > to plenty of questions. As for giving peace a chance, the sentiment > is nice, but it does not work when your self-appointed enemy wants > to kill you. Gandhi?s campaign of non-violence (often quite violent > in its reality) only worked because his opponent was willing to play > along. Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany, > Stalin?s Russia , Mao?s (or today?s) China , Pol Pot?s Cambodia , or > Saddam Hussein?s Iraq . Effective non-violence is contractual. Where > the contract does not exist, Gandhi dies. > > Furthermore, our expectations of war?s results have become absurd. > Even the best wars do not yield perfect aftermaths. World War II > changed the planet for the better, yet left the eastern half of > Europe under Stalin?s yoke and opened the door for the Maoist > takeover in China . Should we then declare it a failure and not > worth fighting? Our Civil War preserved the Union and abolished > slavery?worthy results, surely. Still, it took over a century for > equality of opportunity for minorities to gain a firm footing. > Should Lincoln have let the Confederacy go with slavery untouched, > rather than choosing to fight? Expecting Iraq , Afghanistan or the > conflict of tomorrow to end quickly, cleanly and neatly belongs to > the realm of childhood fantasy, not human reality. Even the most > successful war yields imperfect results. An insistence on prompt, > ideal outcomes as the measure of victory guarantees the perception > of defeat. > > Consider the current bemoaning of a perceived ?lack of progress? and > ?setbacks? in Afghanistan . A largely pre-medieval, ferociously > xenophobic country that never enjoyed good government or a central > power able to control all of its territory had become the hostage of > a monstrous regime and a haven for terrorists. Today, Afghanistan > has an elected government, feeble though it may be; for the first > time in the region?s history, some of the local people welcome, and > most tolerate, the presence of foreign troops; women are no longer > stoned to death in sports stadiums for the edification of the > masses; and the most inventive terrorists of our time have been > driven into remote compounds and caves. We agonize (at least in the > media) over the persistence of the Taliban, unwilling to recognize > that the Taliban or a similar organization will always find a > constituency in remote tribal valleys and among fanatics. If we set > ourselves the goal of wiping out the Taliban, we will fail. Given a > realistic mission of thrusting the Islamists to the extreme margins > of society over decades, however, we can effect meaningful change > (much as the Ku Klux Klan, whose following once numbered in the > millions across our nation, has been reduced to a tiny club of > grumps). Even now, we have already won in terms of the crucial > question: Is Afghanistan a better place today for most Afghans, for > the world and for us than it was on September 10, 2001? Why must we > talk ourselves into defeat? > > We have the power to win any war. Victory remains possible in every > conflict we face today or that looms on the horizon. But, for now, > we are unwilling to accept that war not only is, but must be, hell. > Sadly, our enemies do not share our scruples. > > The present foe > > The willful ignorance within the American intelligentsia and in > Washington , D.C. , does not stop with the mechanics and costs of > warfare, but extends to a denial of the essential qualities of our > most-determined enemies. While narco-guerrillas, tribal rebels or > pirates may vex us, Islamist terrorists are opponents of a far more > frightening quality. These fanatics do not yet pose an existential > threat to the United States , but we must recognize the profound > difference between secular groups fighting for power or wealth and > men whose galvanizing dream is to destroy the West. When forced to > assess the latter, we take the easy way out and focus on their > current capabilities, although the key to understanding them is to > study their ultimate goals?no matter how absurd and unrealistic > their ambitions may seem to us. > > The problem is religion. Our Islamist enemies are inspired by it, > while we are terrified even to talk about it. We are in the unique > position of denying that our enemies know what they themselves are > up to. They insist, publicly, that their goal is our destruction > (or, in their mildest moods, our conversion) in their god?s name. We > contort ourselves to insist that their religious rhetoric is all a > sham, that they are merely cynics exploiting the superstitions of > the masses. Setting aside the point that a devout believer can > behave cynically in his mundane actions, our phony, one-dimensional > analysis of al-Qaeda and its ilk has precious little to do with the > nature of our enemies?which we are desperate to deny?and everything > to do with us. > > We have so oversold ourselves on the notion of respect for all > religions (except, of course, Christianity and Judaism) that we > insist that faith cannot be a cause of atrocious violence. The > notion of killing to please a deity and further his perceived agenda > is so unpleasant to us that we simply pretend it away. U.S. > intelligence agencies and government departments go to absurd > lengths, even in classified analyses, to avoid such basic terms as > ?Islamist terrorist.? Well, if your enemy is a terrorist and he > professes to be an Islamist, it may be wise to take him at his word. > > A paralyzing problem ?inside the Beltway? is that our ruling class > has been educated out of religious fervor. Even officials and > bureaucrats who attend a church or synagogue each week no longer > comprehend the life-shaking power of revelation, the transformative > ecstasy of glimpsing the divine, or the exonerating communalism of > living faith. Emotional displays of belief make the functional > agnostic or social atheist nervous; he or she reacts with elitist > disdain. Thus we insist, for our own comfort, that our enemies do > not really mean what they profess, that they are as devoid of a > transcendental sense of the universe as we are. > > History parades no end of killers-for-god in front of us. The > procession has lasted at least five thousand years. At various > times, each major faith?especially our inherently violent monotheist > faiths?has engaged in religious warfare and religious terrorism. > When a struggling faith finds itself under the assault of a more > powerful foreign belief system, it fights: Jews against Romans, > Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Christians and Jews. > When faiths feel threatened, externally or internally, they fight as > long as they retain critical mass. Today the Judeo-Christian/post- > belief world occupies the dominant strategic position, as it has, > increasingly, for the last five centuries, its rise coinciding with > Islam?s long descent into cultural darkness and civilizational > impotence. Behind all its entertaining bravado, Islam is fighting > for its life, for validation. > > Islam, in other words, is on the ropes, despite no end of nonsense > heralding ?Eurabia? or other Muslim demographic conquests. If > demography were all there was to it, China and India long since > would have divided the world between them. Islam today is composed > of over a billion essentially powerless human beings, many of them > humiliated and furiously jealous. So Islam fights and will fight, > within its meager-but-pesky capabilities. Operationally, it matters > little that the failures of the Middle Eastern Islamic world are > self-wrought, the disastrous results of the deterioration of a once- > triumphant faith into a web of static cultures obsessed with > behavior at the expense of achievement. The core world of Islam, > stretching from Casablanca to the Hindu Kush , is not competitive in > a single significant sphere of human endeavor (not even terrorism > since, at present, we are terrorizing the terrorists). We are > confronted with a historical anomaly, the public collapse of a once- > great, still-proud civilization that, in the age of super-computers, > cannot build a reliable automobile: enormous wealth has been > squandered; human capital goes wasted; economies are dysfunctional; > and the quality of life is barbaric. Those who once cowered at > Islam?s greatness now rule the world. The roughly one-fifth of > humanity that makes up the Muslim world lacks a single world-class > university of its own. The resultant rage is immeasurable; jealousy > may be the greatest unacknowledged strategic factor in the world > today. > > Embattled cultures dependably experience religious revivals: What > does not work in this life will work in the next. All the deity in > question asks is submission, sacrifice?and action to validate faith. > Unlike the terrorists of yesteryear, who sought to change the world > and hoped to live to see it changed, today?s terrorists focus on > god?s kingdom and regard death as a promotion. We struggle to > explain suicide bombers in sociological terms, deciding that they > are malleable and unhappy young people, psychologically vulnerable. > But plenty of individuals in our own society are malleable, unhappy > and unstable. Where are the Western atheist suicide bombers? > > To make enduring progress against Islamist terrorists, we must begin > by accepting that the terrorists are Islamists. And the use of the > term ?Islamist,? rather than ?Islamic,? is vital?not for reasons of > political correctness, but because it connotes a severe deviation > from what remains, for now, mainstream Islam. We face enemies who > celebrate death and who revel in bloodshed. Islamist terrorists have > a closer kinship with the blood cults of the pre-Islamic Middle East? > or even with the Aztecs?than they do with the ghazis who exploded > out of the Arabian desert , ablaze with a new faith. At a time when > we should be asking painful questions about why the belief persists > that gods want human blood, we insist on downplaying religion?s > power and insisting that our new enemies are much the same as the > old ones. It is as if we sought to analyze Hitler?s Germany without > mentioning Nazis. > > We will not even accept that the struggle between Islam and the West > never ceased. Even after Islam?s superpower status collapsed, the > European imperial era was bloodied by countless Muslim > insurrections, and even the Cold War was punctuated with Islamist > revivals and calls for jihad. The difference down the centuries was > that, until recently, the West understood that this was a survival > struggle and did what had to be done (the myth that insurgents of > any kind usually win has no historical basis). Unfortunately for our > delicate sensibilities, the age-old lesson of religion-fueled > rebellions is that they must be put down with unsparing bloodshed? > the fanatic?s god is not interested in compromise solutions. The > leading rebels or terrorists must be killed. We, on the contrary, > want to make them our friends. > > The paradox is that our humane approach to warfare results in > unnecessary bloodshed. Had we been ruthless in the use of our > overwhelming power in the early days of conflict in both Afghanistan > and Iraq , the ultimate human toll?on all sides?would have been far > lower. In warfare of every kind, there is an immutable law: If you > are unwilling to pay the butcher?s bill up front, you will pay it > with compound interest in the end. Iraq was not hard; we made it so. > Likewise, had we not tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap, Osama bin > Laden would be dead and al-Qaeda even weaker than it is today. > > When the United States is forced to go to war?or decides to go to war > ?it must intend to win. That means that rather than setting civilian > apparatchiks to calculate minimum force levels, we need to bring > every possible resource to bear from the outset?an approach that > saves blood and treasure in the long run. And we must stop obsessing > about our minor sins. Warfare will never be clean, soldiers will > always make mistakes, and rounds will always go astray, despite our > conscientious safeguards and best intentions. Instead of agonizing > over a fatal mistake made by a young Marine at a roadblock, we must > return to the fundamental recognition that the greatest ?war crime? > the United States can commit is to lose. > > Other threats, new dimensions > > Within the defense community, another danger looms: the risk of > preparing to re-fight the last war, or, in other words, assuming > that our present struggles are the prototypes of our future ones. As > someone who spent much of the 1990s arguing that the U.S. armed > forces needed to prepare for irregular warfare and urban combat, I > now find myself required to remind my former peers in the military > that we must remain reasonably prepared for traditional threats from > states. > > Yet another counter-historical assumption is that states have > matured beyond fighting wars with each other, that everyone would > have too much to lose, that the inter-connected nature of trade > makes full-scale conventional wars impossible. That is precisely the > view that educated Europeans held in the first decade of the > twentieth century. Even the youngish Winston Churchill, a veteran of > multiple colonial conflicts, believed that general war between > civilized states had become unthinkable. It had not. > > Bearing in mind that, while neither party desires war, we could find > ourselves tumbling, à la 1914, into a conflict with China , we need > to remember that the apparent threat of the moment is not > necessarily the deadly menace of tomorrow. It may not be China that > challenges us, after all, but the unexpected rise of a dormant > power. The precedent is there: in 1929, Germany had a playground > military limited to 100,000 men. Ten years later, a re-armed Germany > had embarked on the most destructive campaign of aggression in > history, its killing power and savagery exceeding that of the > Mongols. Without militarizing our economy (or indulging our > unscrupulous defense industry), we must carry out rational > modernization efforts within our conventional forces?even as we > march through a series of special-operations-intensive fights for > which there is no end in sight. We do not need to bankrupt ourselves > to do so, but must accept an era of hard choices, asking ourselves > not which weapons we would like to have, but which are truly > necessary. > > Still, even should we make perfect acquisition decisions (an > unlikely prospect, given the power of lobbyists and public relations > firms serving the defense industry), that would not guarantee us > victory or even a solid initial performance in a future conventional > war. As with the struggle to drive terrorists into remote corners, > we are limited less by our military capabilities than by our > determination to pretend that war can be made innocently. > > Whether faced with conventional or unconventional threats, the same > deadly impulse is at work in our government and among the think tank > astrologers who serve as its courtiers: An insistence on constantly > narrowing the parameters of what is permissible in warfare. We are > attempting to impose ever sterner restrictions on the conduct of war > even as our enemies, immediate and potential, are exploring every > possible means of expanding their conduct of conflicts into new > realms of total war. > > What is stunning about the United States is the fragility of our > system. To strategically immobilize our military, you have only to > successfully attack one link in the chain, our satellites. Our > homeland?s complex infrastructure offers ever-increasing > opportunities for disruption to enemies well aware that they cannot > defeat our military head-on, but who hope to wage total war > asymmetrically, leapfrogging over our ships and armored divisions to > make daily life so miserable for Americans that we would quit the > fight. No matter that even the gravest attacks upon our homeland > might, instead, re-arouse the killer spirit among Americans?our > enemies view the home front as our weak flank. > > From what we know of emerging Chinese and Russian warfighting > doctrine, both from their writings and their actions against third > parties, their concept of the future battlefield is all-inclusive, > even as we, for our part, long to isolate combatants in a post- > modern version of a medieval joust. As just a few minor examples, > consider Russia ?s and China ?s use of cyber-attacks to punish and > even paralyze other states. We are afraid to post dummy websites for > information-warfare purposes, since we have talked ourselves into > warfare-by-lawyers. Meanwhile, the Chinese routinely seek to > infiltrate or attack Pentagon computer networks, while Russia > paralyzed Estonia through a massive cyber-blitzkrieg just a couple > of years ago. Our potential enemies believe that anything that might > lead to victory is permissible. We are afraid that we might get sued. > > Yet, even the Chinese and Russians do not have an apocalyptic vision > of warfare. They want to survive and they would be willing to let us > survive, if only on their terms. But religion-driven terrorists care > not for this world and its glories. If the right Islamist terrorists > acquired a usable nuclear weapon, they would not hesitate to employ > it (the most bewildering security analysts are those who minimize > the danger should Iran acquire nuclear weapons). The most > impassioned extremists among our enemies not only have no qualms > about the mass extermination of unbelievers, but would be delighted > to offer their god rivers of the blood of less-devout Muslims. Our > fiercest enemies are in love with death. > > For our part, we truly think that our enemies are kidding, that we > can negotiate with them, after all, if only we could figure out > which toys they really want. They pray to their god for help in > cutting our throats, and we want to chat. > > The killers without guns > > While the essence of warfare never changes?it will always be about > killing the enemy until he acquiesces in our desires or is > exterminated?its topical manifestations evolve and its dimensions > expand. Today, the United States and its allies will never face a > lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third > party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking > but are hesitant to annoy: the media. > > While this brief essay cannot undertake to analyze the psychological > dysfunctions that lead many among the most privileged Westerners to > attack their own civilization and those who defend it, we can > acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media > practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven > innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven > guilty). The phenomenon of Western and world journalists championing > the ?rights? and causes of blood-drenched butchers who, given the > opportunity, would torture and slaughter them, disproves the notion? > were any additional proof required?that human beings are rational > creatures. Indeed, the passionate belief of so much of the > intelligentsia that our civilization is evil and only the savage is > noble looks rather like an anemic version of the self-delusions of > the terrorists themselves. And, of course, there is a penalty for > the intellectual?s dismissal of religion: humans need to believe in > something greater than themselves, even if they have a degree from > Harvard. Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who > dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists? bloody altar. > > Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for > centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam . More > recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of > conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat > the U.S. government in Iraq , video cameras and biased reporting > guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel > and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from > destruction in Gaza . > > Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn > to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely > ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require > censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the > partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, > journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species > combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our > soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain > today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of > sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow?s conventional > wisdom. > > The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else > matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories > are ultimately in humanity?s interests, while our failures nourish > monsters. > > In closing, we must dispose of one last mantra that has been too > broadly and uncritically accepted: the nonsense that, if we win by > fighting as fiercely as our enemies, we will ?become just like > them.? To convince Imperial Japan of its defeat, we not only had to > fire-bomb Japanese cities, but drop two atomic bombs. Did we then > become like the Japanese of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity > Sphere? Did we subsequently invade other lands with the goal of > permanent conquest, enslaving their populations? Did our destruction > of German cities?also necessary for victory?turn us into Nazis? Of > course, you can find a few campus leftists who think so, but they > have yet to reveal the location of our death camps. > > We may wish reality to be otherwise, but we must deal with it as we > find it. And the reality of warfare is that it is the organized > endeavor at which human beings excel. Only our ability to develop > and maintain cities approaches warfare in its complexity. There is > simply nothing that human collectives do better (or with more > enthusiasm) than fight each other. Whether we seek explanations for > human bloodlust in Darwin , in our religious texts (do start with > the Book of Joshua), or among the sociologists who have done > irreparable damage to the poor, we finally must accept empirical > reality: at least a small minority of humanity longs to harm others. > The violent, like the poor, will always be with us, and we must be > willing to kill those who would kill others. At present, the > American view of warfare has degenerated from science to a > superstition in which we try to propitiate the gods with chants and > dances. We need to regain a sense of the world?s reality. > > Of all the enemies we face today and may face tomorrow, the most > dangerous is our own wishful thinking. > > Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer, a strategist, an > author, a journalist who has reported from various war zones, and a > lifelong traveler. He is the author of 24 books, including Looking > for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World and the forthcoming The > War after Armageddon, a novel set in the Levant after the nuclear > destruction of Israel . Thoughts anyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 As for giving peace a chance, the sentiment is nice, but it does not work when your self-appointed enemy wants to kill you. Gandhi?s campaign of non-violence (often quite violent in its reality) only worked because his opponent was willing to play along. Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany,Stalin?s Russia , Mao?s (or today?s) China , Pol Pot?s Cambodia , or Saddam Hussein?s Iraq . Effective non-violence is contractual. Where the contract does not exist, Gandhi dies. This is especially true. And something that it seems so many DO NOT grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 As for giving peace a chance, the sentiment is nice, but it does not work when your self-appointed enemy wants to kill you. Gandhi?s campaign of non-violence (often quite violent in its reality) only worked because his opponent was willing to play along. Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany,Stalin?s Russia , Mao?s (or today?s) China , Pol Pot?s Cambodia , or Saddam Hussein?s Iraq . Effective non-violence is contractual. Where the contract does not exist, Gandhi dies. This is especially true. And something that it seems so many DO NOT grasp. ahem see corruption thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 This article is written by someone who advocates winning war by any means necessary (i.e. throwing the Geneva Conventions out the window), censoring things at home, and the killing of unsupportive war journalists. Just sayin'....... Why is that a problem? It's the way of the world. The UN and the Geneva Conventions are a farce. The only ones who haven't figured that out already are the self flagellating give peace a chance crowd of leftists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 If all the world were a level playing field, the GC and the UN would be great things. Alas, such is not the case and the whole thing is a sham. The great powers of the age use and ignore them as they see fit. The lesser powers use them not at all. And the Joe in the trenches gets screwed by it all. They're simply more rules designed to keep the elite in power with their foot on the neck of the prostrate masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Well, I agree with you there to an extent...I don't know if you've heard of (marine) Major-General Smedley Butler. He was the most decorated marine in US history at the time of his death in 1940. Very ironically in a way, his view at the end of his long career was that war itself was a scam: ''I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of this country?s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to major-general. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.'' ''War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.'' -from his book, ''War is a Racket''. On the topic, I find the American bankrolling of Pakistan rather interesting. They fund the Pakistani Government; the Pakistani Government fund the notorious ISI (Pakistani intelligence) -- who are also likely are the ones who really control the country -- and guess who the ISI fund? Yep. The Taliban. Even sources in NATO have noted this with suspicion ... while the US Government turns a blind eye for reasons unknown. There was also, get this: a top secret British plan exposed in December 2007 to build a training camp for the Taliban. LOL! Oh, God. Now what was the excuse for this one after it was discovered by the Afghan secret police? Ah, this was for the ''good, reconciled Taliban fighters''......... yes, I'm sure it was. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/uk-planned-training-camp-for-taliban-in-southern-afghanistan_10016172.html I guess the thing is, if our minds aren't kept occupied with fabled enemies like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (whoever they are), people might stop and realize who the real enemy is. I agree 100%. What I think is funny...no hilarious...is the folks and esp. the Liberals on this board who think that Europe is any better or that anyone else is going to be any better. OH America is bad. OH....AMERICA BAD BAD America Look to your left and your right. It's all a scam and it's always been a scam. The only true freedom. The only true liberty...IS in Anarchy. Society. Civilization. It's a facade drawn over the masses to keep us down and to keep us quiet as we are used to amass treasure for those above us. One guy on here. I won't use his name. He states that he won't allow the US Military to purchase his software because it would be against his principles. Whoopty doo da dee.... Someone is going to get it and use it. Does this fellow think that if the US wanted his software badly enough that they wouldn't have a proxy purchase it and then use it under a different name. Does he think that China would have qualms about ripping his code. lol It's why I laugh at these folks and their high and mighty virtue. It's worth nothing more. A few laughs. "We learned long ago how to use diplomacy to settle our disputes." Or something to that affect. From A german no less. Now that made me laugh for hours on end. I only wish I had some booze over here to enable me to laugh a little harder and maybe piss my pants laughing. Smedley complained about being no more than an enforcer. The Gov't for which Smedley worked learned it's tactics from Europe. Europe learned it from others. This same dynamic has been in effect since "civilization" was dreamed up and forced on the masses of antiquity for just that purpose. So I sit and I read and I laugh. And do it all again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterH61 Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 ''Curiously, the European Union says the programme did not exist and there were no EU funds to run it.''Simply unbelievable. lol A good mate of mine was a contrator (communications) for the US military in Kuwait until recently. He tells me they even have globalresearch.ca blocked as ''extremist''... I agree with you about pinning it all on America as so many do - it's a red herring. Amerika is but the most perceivable manifestation. For anyone associated with the Bush gang to call anything short of Al Quaeda "extremist" is itself pretty extreme - extreme irony. BTW, the original article makes no mention of Clausewitz "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Nowhere in recent years has that been more true than in the neocon Republican world view first put forward by Paul Wolfowitz and practised by Reagan, "Bush the First" and "Bush the worst". Let's hope that Satan's imps have the fires really stoked up ready for both the Bushes when they go there - and the sooner the better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterH61 Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 ''Curiously, the European Union says the programme did not exist and there were no EU funds to run it.''Simply unbelievable. lol A good mate of mine was a contrator (communications) for the US military in Kuwait until recently. He tells me they even have globalresearch.ca blocked as ''extremist''... I agree with you about pinning it all on America as so many do - it's a red herring. Amerika is but the most perceivable manifestation. For anyone associated with the Bush gang to call anything short of Al Quaeda "extremist" is itself pretty extreme - extreme irony. BTW, the original article makes no mention of Clausewitz "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Nowhere in recent years has that been more true than in the neocon Republican world view first put forward by Paul Wolfowitz and practised by Reagan, "Bush the First" and "Bush the worst". Let's hope that Satan's imps have the fires really stoked up ready for both the Bushes when they go there - and the sooner the better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Paul Wolfowitz and practised by Reagan, "Bush the First" and "Bush the worst". Let's hope that Satan's imps have the fires really stoked up ready for both the Bushes when they go there - and the sooner the better Don't worry. All of you Euros will be sweating right beside them for profiting off of every venture and for joining in on every venture in one form or another. You reserve your ire and your spite and your fangless meandering sarcasms for the American Presidents. The leaders of Europe rode the same horse and profited from the same pools of blood. There are no innocents and very few blameless. Especially not the people of Western Europe with all those beautiful crystal houses funded by the blood and toil of the third world. Thank you for the laughs old fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty ? and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.H.L. Mencken This describes 99% of the West. Most would rather be civilized slaves than free men. Especially Europeans whom I have met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oo.Cloud.oO Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Bush is also related to the Queen and they say hes also loosely related to Bill Clinton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oo.Cloud.oO Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Exactly. All these people are distantly related to each other.http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=obama+related+bush&btnG=Search&meta= i got a few better links when im on my pc ill send em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count_Jason Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Paul Wolfowitz and practised by Reagan, "Bush the First" and "Bush the worst". Let's hope that Satan's imps have the fires really stoked up ready for both the Bushes when they go there - and the sooner the better Don't worry. All of you Euros will be sweating right beside them for profiting off of every venture and for joining in on every venture in one form or another. You reserve your ire and your spite and your fangless meandering sarcasms for the American Presidents. The leaders of Europe rode the same horse and profited from the same pools of blood. There are no innocents and very few blameless. Especially not the people of Western Europe with all those beautiful crystal houses funded by the blood and toil of the third world. Thank you for the laughs old fella. I invited Peter to post here - he certainly isn't one of the bad guys, lol! Ease up, mate; you actually wouldn't get much of an argument from him about what you said... The mass-murdering elites indeed have many nationalities. I don't think we should even focus too much on national leaders as these people are frontmen. I'm easy, Dude. I find his histrionics concerning Bush pretty sad though. Where is his ire when it comes to his own leadership. It's a double standard on his part. Had he spread his disdain more evenly, I'd agree with him. But as with so many Euros, he puts his head in the sand concerning his own and blames all evils on American leadership. The average European is much like Charles DeGaulle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I find his histrionics concerning Bush pretty sad though. Seems you not only share an ideology with Bush, but also his misapprehension of the english language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 ...The average European is much like Charles DeGaulle. that is SO not true. NOBODY wears those flat-on-top caps anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I find his histrionics concerning Bush pretty sad though. Seems you not only share an ideology with Bush, but also his misapprehension of the english language. For you Oh AssMunchicus: Main Entry: HISTRIONICSFunction: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Date: 1864 1 : theatrical performances 2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect Come talk to me when you purchase a D I C T I O N A R Y. or....just TALK to the hand.... And stop stalking me...it's just creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 For you Oh AssMunchicus: Main Entry: HISTRIONICSFunction: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Date: 1864 1 : theatrical performances 2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect Come talk to me when you purchase a D I C T I O N A R Y. or....just TALK to the hand.... The usual insults of course. :roll: Here you go Mr Oh-why-do-people-think-I'm-such-an-a**hole: A more appropriate word might have been historicity. Your failed attempt at a save is ruined only by the fact that his post did not contain a display of emotion, but did contain a reference to history. Stalking? That's good coming from Ciaran's No. 1 fan. I doubt there's ever been a more specrapular display of stalking on TF. Any further insults will be met by extreme indifference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.