BlogWonks

5 Responses

1. anti armchair generals Said,

   When I read Felicia Benamon’s first story it made good points. Then I clicked on her second story and the byline was Mike LaSalle.I don’t know hat happened.
   But Bush is being pushed even into wider war by William Kristoll, Editor of The Weekly Standard and sc “Prince of Darkness”Richard Pearle and other neo conservatives.
   I don’t know what the ultimate answer is, but President Bush, like his father is stubborn and casualies rise among soldiers.
   http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19303337.htm

   Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

2. amfortas Said,

   In three years in Iraq, America has lost fewer troops than in the first 30 seconds of the Normandy Landings. In WW1 there were more troops killed on the Somme in the first three days than are currently in the whole of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was unprecedented in its efficiency and effectiveness, moving attack warfare to an entirely different level than ever known before. The Iraq war has been comparatively bloodless.

   It is keeping the peace that’s the issue. Armies are not designed to keep the peace. Their job, their ethos, their training and skills are geared to the waging of war. America has developed fighting ability to its highest ever point. But the enemy it went there to fight was vanquished only to be replaced by an enemy that is unseen. (maybe they need an expert in seeing the unseen. I think I know of one).

   In the book “The Pentagon’s New Map” the author outlines the need for two quite distinct types of Armed Forces. One to fight and win a war; the other to restructure a country and maintain the peace. The skill sets, equipment, methods and personnel would be quite different and distinct. America has one only of these and needs the other.

   Posted on July 13th, 2007 at 2:46 am

3. Ray Blumhorst Said,

   IMO, If we can keep the Democrats (enemies of America) in check at home, the situation in Iraq will eventually be controlled, although not fully for a long time. Superior technology and superior, American military personnel will eventually dominate the insurgency, if allowed to. We certainly haven’t, as yet, broken out the Terminator series of robots on a level depicted in Hollywood films, but the level of sophistication being daily adapted to situations on the ground is truly revolutionary from a tactical perspective.
   Future Weapons

   SWORDS

   gun toting robots

   Urban street fighting in densely populated areas has been the Achilles heel of current, military strategy and tactics, but it appears robotic weaponology and advanced technology layered onto existing weapons and strategies are meeting the challenge satisfactorily and will even be improving. True, the Iranian government with its vast arsenal is the primary supplier of the insurgency, but if allowed the American military will prevail. As we all know, primitive American weaponology (by today’s standards) won the Vietnam war on the ground, but the American military was not allowed to achieve military victory as a result of the political campaign of treason by Democrat party war protestors (traitors) in America.

   As Amfortas pointed out, anyone who knows anything about military history, knows America is winning the war in Iraq with one of the lowest casualty rates in the history of warfare. As happened in Vietnam, it is the Democrat fools and their peacenik traitors who are losing the war politically.

   Posted on July 13th, 2007 at 6:59 am

4. Ray Blumhorst Said,

   Here are the links that didn’t work above:

   SWORDS
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SWORDS_robot.jpg

   gun toting robots
   http://www.gizmag.com/go/5098/

   Posted on July 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am

5. Artfldgr Said,

   this came out as a mess.. there really is so much to say on this subject that a book would be better… however, i dont have time for that… i dont even have time to go through this and make it a better piece… its one of my worst, but because there really is too much to cover. which is why i am throwing this intro up.

   from not understanding the “nature” of war (or nature of nature for that matter)… to not understanding what actions lead to what… to cultural problems in motivation… and on and on..

   hopefully someone with more fortitude and time will take what i start here, and try to section it better….

   it was too big a bite for me to do in one shot with the time i had, and we no longer have the commonality in education that i can just refer to somethign and have people know what i am talking about (see how deep the problem goes?)

   for those that want to skip to the punch line.. its at the end… its the bottom line and the request for a real article that would actually do somethig, if the authoress could actully answer the questions…

   in fact her failure would go far to explain the situation.
   ==================================

   You seem to have a very unrealistic view of war, warfare, and things surrounding it.

   While the West likes eastern philosophies and has banished westerners from comment, I would suggest a thorough reading of Clausewitz. After you’re done, you will not look at conflict again in the same light at all. In fact you will see the mistakes that got us in, and the mistake that will get us out.

   when I hear President Bush speak to the American people as he tells us to expect heavier fighting (as if casualties on our side expect to rise)…I wonder, why are we thinking in that mentality?

   Well, that’s easy. A war has to be funded and it has to be funded by the people who never want war, even when its necessary. So to quote Heinlein, “never appeal to a mans better nature, he may not have one, appealing to his self interest gives you more leverage”.

   Your next comment shows how unequipped you are for the attempted analysis you make.

   When we go on an offensive operation, shouldn’t we have the mentality that it is our enemy that will suffer the consequences of heavy losses? The American people need not worry, right?

   What your not getting is that we are fighting a war in which we have no hatred for the people of the country in which we are fighting in. we are not willing to demonize the Iraqi people as a position to maintain the war. And so we cant make the assertions that we win by hurting the people more and more, we win by higher ideals and higher ideas, which are more costly to obtain.

   If the issue were as simple as bringing about compliance without regard – the pragmatism of the soviets and such socialists, then carpet bombing them from end to end for a couple of years would be our tactics. If imperialism was our point, we would have started with Mexico way before we went overseas. The point you cant get around with your mind is that we only hate the few that act, not the many who just want lives left alone (no matter who is leading).

   The war started not for oil, but for the simple explanation Clausewitz gives, which is that one side asks the other side to do something that it refuses to do. After all, that’s what politicians do that cause wars. In order for there not to be wars any more, politicians, and by connection, people, must be willing to look away and not make demands on others. in this case it was and is connected to oil as the countries involved were asked by other third parties (than the western democracies), if they could have exclusive rights rather than have the oil put up on the open market where it could be purchased by people who wanted or needed it. we asked a different point. saddam was asking another point. no one was willing to concede on it, and so what Clausewitz teaches us comes true.

   That war is a continuation of politics by other means… yes it was Clausewitz that said that, and also that wars will stop when the politicians resolve the issues that they were not willing to bend to before conflict.

   And again… your whole article smacks with total naiveté.

   The US has sophisticated means of collecting intelligence, no doubt aided by satellites. We can pinpoint a wanted terrorist in no time. Once we have established that we have in sight the enemy, why not take him out?

   The first naiveté that you make a mistake on is that technology superiority is equal to “magic”. While Asimov defined why someone like you thinks like this, its thoughts like this that don’t permit you to have a grasp of what’s really going on here. to a useful idiot with only enough information to get them riled up and in action, you don’t have enough to actually form a valid mental image of what’s going on.

   First of all, to start answering your question you would need to go back to the laws that were put into effect by other socialists before you. particularly the ones in which we dismantled our humint areas of our spy organizations and as well, shifted to the mantra “technology is our god (after man and the state of course)”.

   You imagine that we can look from a satellite and just wipe out groups of people that we find collecting together in remote areas. well we can… but then we would have to be willing to accept that we will be killing groups indiscriminately, and accept that outcome.

   What your asking is why don’t we “kill them all and let god sort them out”, but you don’t know that that’s what your asking for. So no matter what happens your have something to complain about.

   A satellite can tell you that a person is standing outside. Now what? You can send a helicopter to shoot them… then a team to go in after and identify them… but ultimately, there is no single place, like a bunker in Germany, in which the enemy can be known as the enemy and can be seen as residing in.

   A better question to ask is “why is that”? Because when you answer this, you start to understand what’s going on here. The reason is that the US and most have a 3G concept of war, and a schoolyard concept of safety.

   Study war and you will see the writing easily. study strategy and tactics, and you will understand what’s going on (but you will also be much more afraid).

   Lets bring it to your level though. You want the school yard to be safe. So you do what simplistic useful idiots do, and you hire a huge man/woman to stand there and be the defense. This one person is VERY expensive. They come with lots of bells and whistles and such, and have so much that their cost is hard to justify in the absence of an attack on your school yard. They are large and they are able to deter those who are not serious about their end results. Eventually, their costs are so wrong to the left, that the left forces a choice on the state. find a use for them or we will take their monies and give them out to our pet causes, since they arent doing anything.

   And so they make them too busy, too spread out, and too far from their purpose. And to make up for it, we spend and spend on better and fancier things. and what we don’t do is study tactics and such.

   Well… your big bruiser of a protector one day doesn’t show up. the school yard is unprotected. And everyone inside gets hurt or injured. Everyone is pointing fingers. They go down lists that this protector has… they ramble off how superior their weaponry are, their cameras are everywhere… etc. when it boils down to it, you find that someone sent the person on a mission to the high school to recruit more. so a small phone call, was able to misdirect the force, and therefore it was useless.

   This comes from seeing superior technologies as the key to winning. there are similar dangers to using statistics to tell too (as we learned in Vietnam), as well as problems with not freeing the military to act in accordance with their enemies actions.

   All this comes together to create a situation in which we have now arrived. And the comments and such are so interesting in how far removed from any sense of how things work they are.

   A satellite could only track someone if that someone was known when the tracking started (and they stayed sufficiently apart from others so that the image doesn’t get mixed up). so in order to track osama, we had to know and track him before things happened. However, that’s no how sattelites work. they don’t work like in the movies, you don’t repoint them and have them float over the areas. what they do is they pass over the areas every few hours and such, and that everyone knows when they are passing (unless they change their tracks).

   So, in this case, you then build up a time table of when you can go out and when not. and it doesn’t take but a few of these and you no longer know who you are tracking. To have the capability you are insinuating we should have would mean billions and billions more for lots more satellites which would crowd out the communications and other needs.

   America has infinite moneys, so just throw that at it. right?

   Then comes the scariest question so far.

   This question needs to be asked…why are we limiting ourselves in this global fight on terror?

   Ah… no, this question needs not be aksed, and it also beggars belief and proof that you have been lobotomized. We are limiting ourselves because each state is not under the one supreme soviet… that states have sovereign rights that they are empowered by either the people or themselves to uphold and defend.

   But as a pragmatist socialist you see no problem kicking other peoples doors down when you think you have the power to do so. this is the effect that the conservatives warn about and the socialists say dosnt exist in their morals. That just because you are big enough to kick down doors, and its easier to do that, that its immoral to do so!!!!

   Phrased in the modern lexicon… an emergency on your part does not equate to an emergency on their part.

   What if I kicked your door down, went through your howm and property at gun point, and such? the question is not would I get away with it, I would. The question is as simple as a sesame street edumacation skit. “what happens next?”

   Well, a unfailing piece of logic women seem to miss and not understand constantly is “if I am damned if I do, and damned if I don’t, better to do, than don’t!”. if I am going to have my doors kicked down for others witch hunts and things, then I am going to defend myself…

   Basically the whole arms race of the past 1000 years was in response to the thinking that you are promoting and don’t realize it. right now, American seems to have the strength to keep others from kicking her doors in and rifling her closets. And true to form of socialists thinking some are more equal than others, the turn around is not fair play, and using our strength to wander in and kick doors down is the other side of the coin.

   We are limiting ourselves because we don’t want a world war where the odds are America on one side, everyone else on the other. It’s a war we would lose.

   In the game we are playing, there are no larger entities we can appeal to. There are no real laws at that edge. There is nothing but us. That’s what socialism has made you ignorant of.

   Something else that has bothered me…the fact that we are charging our troops with supposed “war crimes” against civilians. No war will be painless…we’ve been more brutal in the past and civilians caught in the heat of battle have suffered far greater.

   You don’t understand socialist leftist propaganda? What you don’t “get” is that the socialists here WANT us to lose. They feel that if we lose, then the soviet union will win, and we would have a one world communist government. technically that’s their definition of peace, to quote “ a world in which there is no opposition to socialism”.

   So what you are seeing is a cadre of useful idiots, fellow travelers, etc. all coming together like termites eating away at the foundations of everything. They wish for that thing to fail, and fail in a way that it cant get up again. THIS is why so many who are older than you are upset at Hanoi Jane.

   However you shoud go through and see what laws made this possible. they came in after the mcarthy era when the socialists won on painting him as an irrational person who was after unreal ghosts. Well, turns out that mccarthy was right! But that didn’t stop the left from dismantling the laws that would make us effective. In essence they removed the things that would have given us warning of osama, or given us alternative actions.

   For instance, you are hinting at “why didn’t we just assassinate him”?

   Well then you would have to look at the laws that changed, specifically congress changing the rules and stating that assassinations are a no no. this removed our ability to just kill saddam and just knock off osama….

   American leftists removed our teeth in that. but don’t worry, the FSB, GRU, and SMERSH is still alive and well, and never stopped using it. like some good guys in a movie, we no longer had the power to do what you now would find pragmatic.

   They also removed laws in which outside ideologies were forbidden.. so we no longer could eject people for being communists… or anything really… which is why we don’t just gather up illegals and such and take away their citizenship (if they bothered), and ship them off home… the socialists wanted their destructive policies protected by laws. Since America was not created as a socialist democracy, but as a republic…

   Freedom, and Socialism, are thesis, and antithesis…. They cant exist in the same place together. You may argue all you want against this, but by definition socialism has to force people to act against their wishes. And in order to do this, it used the power the state has to kill to enforce its top down policies. Though this is a talk for another day.

   You see… without these laws and these old cultural points… we cant make the hard choices we need to make to defend ourselves. we are like a pacifist thrown into a battlefield war without a gun. The other side didn’t get the memo, and sees no reason to listen to such stupidity as would deliver their enemy to their doorstup trussed up like a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.

   A soldier is trained to kill. He is to identify the enemy and go after them to kill.

   WRONG!!! shows how simple you are at this. a soldier is trained to defend, and within the scope of defense that soldier must also learn to take life. However, the main goal of a soldier is not to take life, but to injure greatly. A soldier does more for his side if he can injure an enemy than he does if he can kill them. an injured soldier is a moral drag, a physical drag, and just a plain old resource drag on a war machine.

   This is why war has become more and more brutal, we long ago moved away from the he who kills most wins. In fact, that was only true when you had soldiers who were committed.

   Which brings me to the other side you forget. All this childish views and ideology and secular promotion makes us ripe for a constant state of war. So we think of war as the acts of pomposity, and children, and the desperate… and not the actions of the pragmatic, the calculating, the secular…. We arent commited to ourselves, and that makes us easy targets. We catn act as a population, and so we don’t act effectively at all. the very points the socialists put in place to stop war fulfilles the quote that the state accomplishes the opposite of what it sets out to do.

   Why is there no outcry from humanitarian groups to terrorists to cease using women and children? No, the fault always lies with our troops. It’s a disgrace!

   Your dumbfounded that humanists don’t have the moral qualities that they claim to have?

   Humanitarian groups want misery!!!! They exist for misery!!! How could they hate the mother and father that begets them? religious groups had the job to want no war, and they were not perfect at that. so they have no more power… after all, the secular have won out, and so we have nothing but nihilists, and sociopathic pragmatists making the choices, and you wonder why things are the way they are? again.. they are communists socialists, and they WANT us to lose. You are trying to reconcile the words which grants them power from useful idiots that help them, from the actions to which the power is actually used.

   Lipservice vs reality… you have believed the lip service, and the lipservice of critical theory is deconstruct culture. you haven’t gotten or decided not to read all the memos that they have sent out pulling the game on America that worked so well in destroying American manhood! In other words… just as American men are the problem. America is the problem. that these humanists and these secularist, the globalists, the islamics, the socialists, the communists, et al. ALL have their sites and fingers pointed to America as the blame for all the worlds ills (and their helping jooos is just icing).

   And before you get on my case about secular humanism… well, lets see what popular culture has to say.. that we often miss. Here is Milton from the devils advocate.

   Kevin Lomax: “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”, is that it?
   John Milton: Why not? I’m here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I’ve nurtured every sensation man’s been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections, I’m a fan of man! I’m a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.
   [the rest of this scene reads like a humanist trying to convince a religious person that god doesn’t love them. and the unloved don’t care what happens to them]

   We are following a soviet plan laid in place way before they collapsed, and its still going on. arounjd you are masses who have eaten at the table of marx and engels, and have grown fat on envy, jealousy, and more… and now feel that the only way for them to make good, and not be seen as evil, is to rise up and destroy America. Even if they live here, they are a termite eating at her foundation.

   However the key to your mental dissonance is in the next paragraph… while you accept so much that is around you, you flounder (as intended) when you start drawiong from that well

   War is necessary to remove the threat of evil, to confront and defeat evil. We must not play around with evil. We should never treat terrorism as if it were some law enforcement issue. Defeat it and move on.

   When god died, evil died with him. your older, your operating on moral momentum. God is dead, and with him went the fight between good and evil. You no longer can even use those terms!!! The reason you don’t hear from the humanists in a sensible way is that they have accepted what their ideology teaches them, and that everything is evil. There is no good. though they couch it differently this is what they end up with. this is why they taught you that a soldier is trained to kill… if he was, then how come we do so good on collateral damage as you mention? Your contradicting your own self in your own article and cant see it.

   I would also suggest you reading “just war” and get an idea of how pacifist philosophers who don’t do the dirty work imagine things.

   What is evil? Is osama evil? Was saddam? Well, your finding out that saddam may have acted the way he did because of how his people act, and the level of civilization his state was in. America is finding out that they have to be as ruthless and nasty as he was in order to have any order.

   We are so used to thinking that the strong one is the oppressor and the weak one is the victim, we tend to see it all this way. we no longer can look at this situation as a realistic dynamic. Maybe that’s why they pushed this feminist conceot to the public. It removed our reason to see situations. While I don’t condone violence, we no longer can discriminate and see that it comes in many shapes, forms, and such. we no longer can see that there isn’t always a clear line between victim and oppressor… but there is also no ability to see that the two entities of state and people are also a synergy. That a peoples who act poorly cause the state to grow mean to control them… we only see the strong as being victims, but the state or the strong can be victims of the policies of the weak too.

   While I don’t agree with osama’s points, his actions fall neatly into Clausewitz’s ideas.

   And your analysis, as all political analysis, has no room in it for the machinations of other states. Your whole view is based on only the open view. that behind the scenese there are not other states and forces at play. This dispite things like venona, and the mitrokin archives, and others.

   For this you might want to read the Chinese work on 4G and 5G warfare… we are entering 5G and we are not prepared as a state, or as a population for it. we still believe that fear actually means something because they have been controlling us with fear for a while. And because we are secular, and selfish, we also think that pleasure and quality of life are the only things that count. And as such we cant understand the actions of the other. well, lots understand it, but the left is so far in la la land and the general population is also so far out, that no one will listen to anything that would help because to them its all the stuff that they have been trying to get rid of!

   4G warfare is what happens when a large state has nuclear ability. It also is what happens when a state develops overwhelming force that cant be countered by means with in the current warfare scope.

   We have been fighting 3G and 4G conflicts since the cold war. These are false flag operations in that third parties do the dirty work of players that cant be seen acting. So in essence the islamics were first pushed forward because they are useful idiots. They are expendible and convenient.

   Who funds them? who supplies them? who teaches them?

   Russia, china, and other communist states… except that’s a verboten thing to bring up. and so we conveniently ignore that new things on the field are stamped “made in utopia”

   False flag conflict allows the large states to wage biological, terrorist, nuclear, etc warfare withot repurcussions.

   5G which the Chinese are now waging, makes every action war. Hows that for patooties. In that it doesn’t declare war, and that every action you can get away with is part of the warfare. So if you can add crap to the food and many Americans die of cancer, that counts. If you can do anything that effects your enemy negatively, it will be done, and the situation maintained as long as possible so that the situation can be extended without retalitation.

   In this concept women, feminsits, and such are the 5th column. They are the ones that are fighting the enemies fight from within the walls.

   In essence all these groups are sawing on the branch that supports them oblivious to the outcome that is inevitable if they don’t stop.

   Considering the position I am now taking, I am not protesting war for the sake of it; I truly feel we need our troops home to protect against any future attacks against this country and to fortify, increase, and strengthen our troops. Some of them have done a number of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and are no doubt weary. I do not advocate that we make our troops abandon their presence in Iraq right now; I really believe we need to employ a different strategy so we CAN exit sometime in the future. I really hope that we step up offensively and with a vengeance; the way we are going now seems to drag on.

   We cant. Period. we cant do any of what you say. Too many in our state are solidly communist in their thinking. They want us to lose as they are revolutionaries for the new world order. (hey, go to the dnc and read their words on the “third way”… )

   We are not allowed to act in a way in which we can defend ourselves. we are not willing as a people to hold other peoples accountable as in the past.

   So we are not willing to call a curfew at night, and then kill anything that moves in violation of it.

   We are not willing to put the blame on the Iraqies for harboring the enemies, and put them on the same footing as the enemies till they do differently. Its unfair, but effective. Right now, they are hunkered down and are not making any bets. They know the way it will go the minute that the force is removed from above, and so they are doing nothing. but if you caught them between the two points, then it is in their self interest to act or be exterminated by either side.

   This is the behavior that makes their actions possible. If you shot everyone that was outside and moving around in a certain period, and so on. then you would create pressure on the civilians to throw out the weaker of the two. Even if just to get rid of the bigger one. We are not able to use such actions as we are not able to consider the population as being a part of what they live in.

   We are also not able to let loose with tons of those put in to take jobs at night. We cant go in and assassinate them. we cant put soldiers in secret in places and have them take out what they need to, in fact, soldiers no longer get to make kill choices… they can only kill with radio confirmation. Like dogs on a chain, they are not effective.

   Iraq needs to step up and govern their country, same for Afghanistan. We came to help in those countries (and in other countries throughout the globe) and that’s all.

   Kind of reminds me of a shira queen of the jungle cartoon. Part of the new cartoons created…. (yes that was derogatory). In this one, or the new ordered re-imagined ones, the main story is what we pay attention to, and the incidendtals are now ignored.

   In one episode I remember, sheera needed help from some tribe. so she looked to their situation and she figured that fi she helped them, then they would help her. the point that was missed is that the people don’t want help. got that? they liked what they had. Got that?

   What you don’t get is that they don’t like what they have now. they are in worse shape as a population than before. They want the despot back because under the despot tons of tribes with their ownleades don’t vie for leadership. They knew the score and how to stay out of trouble. Now, they cant even figure out how to live.

   Meanwhile, saddam was taken out not for any points that you or anyone was or has brought up. he was removed because he decided to side with his own over American interests. Read to his participation in the crypto ag situation where he blew the whistle that America was reading the teletype communications from the embassies!!! So much for oil, it was about information.

   And its kind of funny that you call for soldiers to return to protect our borders… shows how much you know… we have had them open so long for a reason… it fits the communists to have enough people here of the low end to cause or help their revolition against the successful. Unless you can change the mentality to one that free market economics is good, you wont get them to close the borders.

   The idea is to break Americans backs by multiculturalism, relativism, and lots of other things… like feminism. read the orders of the commitern in the 50s. they SAY that feminism was their baby and their 5th column. As are other fringe groups.

   Al-qeada has been mounting attacks on US soil. If you read FAS, you will find out that attacs on soil have nearly doubled after communisms fall, and have gone up after 9/11.

   This is why al qeada specializes in the double attacks. You see, if one plane hit a building, its an accident. When two happen at the same time, its hard to manipulate the outcome. this is the reason for their schizo duality. Single actions are being denied.

   Gang rapes are being denied as having to do with Sharia. Multiculturalists refuse to allow the word muslim or such to be used… a current moniker is south Asians… well Indonesia is almost as large as the US and is mostly muslim (though they are taking more actions against their mullahs than we are!)

   Across america there have been incidents which are questionable. Many people are upset that they are not using the terms to describe whats going on. all to preserve the communist group think we have nurtured here.

   Nafta, and other treaties, are treaties that make terrorism easy!!! Ideology created a false door in which everything moves over borders as if it was the same. so if you have the free movement of people, you also have the free movement of terrorists… if you have the free movement of ideas… then you are open to be co-opted by communism, totalitarianism, or its combined term communitarianism…

   The terrorists are a 6th column. They will get us to change without outside force. We will make the changes to ourselves since those changes are whats needed to have such a state. so we no longer accept the freedopm of a citizen and open that up to all, we then have to become a police state to go through everyones papers…

   The key to the game is “what happens next”, and I will point out where what you are talking about will lead to next.

   Withdrawal will give the enemy a place to base without opposition.

   You are assuming an awful lot and those assumptions are not validated by history. Ask anyone that knows history… what happens to withdrawing forces when they withdraw? Well, the winners, those that drove them out, go after them to finish the job.

   The minute that you remove the forces in iraq, the insurgents will, with funding from Moscow and Beijing, wage a civil war. The war then is a cover to distribute more material than they currently have. it lets them stop planning how to protect themselves, and how to hurt America more.

   We lose if we pull out. we will have to accept the next 50 years of moral hits. Look how losing Vietnam has clipped us from proper action that got us to this place…

   You don’t take them seriously as opponents which is yours and most others biggest mistake. You don’t assume that they are being helped.

   Want to know why we cant get osama? Cause is isn’t in a country we can touch. Duh. Take a look at the map, what country does no one hear about in this whole thing? well there is where he is. china, or Russia is keeping him nice and warm just over the border. Close enough to deny they allow it, and far enough that we cant touch him.

   Want to know how he gets information from point a to point b? government attaches. Its easy to have them deliver things in pouches… even if all they are delivering are one time pads. you can still go onto short wave and hear the spy orders being given out and messages exchanged.

   Tactically speaking these are the only ways that things can go on like this indefinitely. He cant be caught because even if we say we know where he is, where he is cant be approached. (he may even be in Iran). Short of him leaving and entering another place, we cant get him.

   And I think you should take a long time and start to read up on tactics and strategy, and how to asses things. it would help a lot. While tsun tsu is interesting, he is not for amateurs, so most people get him wrong. Clausewitz is much better, as he doesn’t just tell you what works, and such, but tries to tell you why it is the way it is.

   Your assessments have to take more in than what your taking in, which is mostly wishful thinking held together with baling wire made from cotton candy.

   First of all, the communist/socialist/secular revolution of the 60s and beyond has to be taken account of. We won Vietnam, but we left the battlefield when we won!! (the tet offensive didn’t work, if we stayed after that, we would have been able to claim victory. However, we won that offensive, packed up, and took off… leaving everyone that we helped and promised behind. Even now, the leaders in iraq arent too keen on us given we did that, and we did that due to socialists)

   This revolution of the selfish, painted as a moral revolition for the disenfranchised, mentally removed all ability for us as a population to protect itself.

   A vast majority of the population wants us to lose every conflict (and finish the revolution).

   Nihilism has taken root… secularism is rampant… perverted hedonism is the norm… and more.

   So we no longer have a population that can protect themselves… they look to the state to protect them, but the state gets its people from where?

   We cant field enough troops. We cant get people to join up and defend their homes, after all… we cant even say “and the American way” any more (unless we are with amway).

   Our troops are increasingly being fielded by malcontents, and fringe groups, that will more likely be the new enemy here once they come back! check out whats happening with swastikas in iraq… check out about gang members…. Etc.

   All of them are getting great training in how to make a small force take control of large areas of public.

   So while good people only have to do nothing to lose. We have fielded nothing but fringve groups, malcontents, pacifists, and more… we have lowered our military standards… demoralized men to make women who don’t fight feel better… we have allowed gangs, and special groups to get training.

   Basically, we bring them back, they stop serving, and they will teach others here how the Iraqis, and such are doing it. and they will get outside fujnding.

   You bring up china… and I laugh… china already has the wearwithal to crush us, the only reason they don’t is that they wnt to do it more painlessless and pragmatically.

   China, thanks to those birth control policies, have a large army that can field against the US and crush it. they have 30 million men of army age with no prospect for wives. That is unless they wipe out the men of the west…

   China has already said its wiling to use nuclear arms in a conflict and that it will take back Taiwan.

   America only helped win wwii, because of our manufacturing capability… well? we don’t have that… and we cant ramp up and get it. we not only don’t have the factories, we no longer have the supply lines, the repair shops, the small machine shops that supplied tools, the raw materials, etc.

   Politically we only have fascism, and communism… facism, being corporatism… we don’t have free market economics and such, not with the state having their fingers in everything, and redistributing socialist programs…

   After all, you take a free state and you combine sociliasm with that, you get fascism. And the concept of freedom is now off the whole spectrum. this is how far we have moved in 40 years. Freedom isn’t even on the ticket anymore. And the “third way” is openly touted. Unless we get rid of socialism, we cant be a free state… we are either fascist, trying to balance what cant be balanced, and do it on the edge of a razor blade, or what?
   You would have to revive nationalism… but nationalism with socialism and free market is what the nazies have… but that’s ok… black national socialists have their backs.

   We are in a VERY bad place. what your talking about cant be done since it would have to unwind 40 years of backwards thinking (which imagined itself as positive ands till does).

   In order to do anyting to help, you would have to express some forbidden ideas and concepts….

   Let me know how you get nihilists or pacifists to defend themselves?

   Let me know how you get Americans to fight for an American way that doesn’t exist any more? define it first… truth, justice, and the American way, died with the baby boomers socialist dreamers.

   Let me know how you get people who hate themselves and want to see the final revolution to stand up and prevent losing?

   Let me know how you get men to want to defend whats here when whats here don’t want them?

   Let me know how you get a bunch of incomplete, and untrained men who are stunted to even begin at thinking of standing up for themselves?

   Let me know how you get the secular to defend what they belive in since they believe in nothing… (at least not enough to impact themselves – which is why they all want other peoples money).

   Let me know how you intend to have the military, which WAS forbidden from being used on american soil (posse commitatus), to be used on American soil to defend itself from terrorists? Will you deploy them on corners… have them march en masse into neighborhoods?

   Your answer never asks. What happens next.. it just attempts to paint you as a conservative (meaning not leftist), and all the tiem you are a leftist working towards a bad end.

   You don’t get it. you’re a useful idiot. Your basis is faulty, so no matter what solution you wish to bring up, if it adheres to that base, your going to do the wrong thing.

   In other words your core premises, are false. So whatever you derive from them, will not be effective bcause you will not adjust those core premises. Your article is an example of twisting things around to the point of absurdity with the purpose of appearing to be beholding to all the ideals.

   We lost this before it started because the majority of our population has been compromised ideologically. They no longer agree to the American ideology, but more to the ideology of the soviet union. Centralize, centralize, centralize. From medicine, to ideological humanist games of social experimentation, we have had all the pillars we need to stay whole, healthy, and such… eaten out by termites.

   Whats funnier is that the premise that everyone comes from is that if bush listened to the masses that want communist socialism (albeit under another name), we would all be in utopia by now.

   Here is what wins wars. Occupation, Time, and Resources…

   A war against others in other lands can not be won remotely. It cant be won by others, even if they are made to believe that the fight is for their own good. they will resent anyone that pushes them out of the nest, even for their own good. so if you cant occupy, you cant control, if you cant control, you have no say, if you have no say, well then why are you there getting shot at?

   Time is the weakness that socialists democracies don’t have. they are SECULAR, and the SECULAR are impatient. They cant stick with something, unless that something is a pillar of some moral code that they made up and is a prover of something that it doesn’t prove. Then they will hang on to it no matter that its failes 100% of the time in 100% of the cases. This is their keeping with socialism, which is nothing but the acorn of communism, which is the world communist totalitarian (communitarian) utopian dream.

   From communes (shakers vs others), the seculars pillars are not sound. They don’t stick with much of anything. they are very very sensitive to discomfort, as they equate that with sacrifice. And since humans are gods, gods need not make any sacrifices. Needless to say they are mostly nihilists who cant feel anything any more other than discomfort. They don’t stick up for their children, they don’t even have children in any great numbers. they certainly don’t believe in the land they live in, and they don’t believe in the politicians. They don’t even believe in a way of life. They are vacant, and don’t know it. which is why they don’t understand the islamics, who are not tallying up lifes value on a ledger of personal pleasure and selfishness (with self agrandisment added in).

   So we don’t have time… we cant tolerate a long war… we cant tolerate injuries… we cant tolerate the costs… and in a world made not absolute by them, they treat this with absolutes!!! No cause is good enough to go to war. Go ahead, look it up, see where it leads you.

   This in a nutshell answers why we are using 3G still (we hope to use blitzkrieg to do what needs to be done since the secular will not allow time to work). and the other absolutes they tought also prevent us from acting in kind. So we will not fight fire with fire, and instead meet it with nothing.

   In fact, we believe that those with fire, are crazy. Well, be prepared to be run over by crazies.

   The west has already lost this fight… even if we went in there with guns blazing and such, so many other things are rotted out that we cant recover. The islamics will either outbreed us, or the south Americans will vote an American chavez in.

   We no longer have an army large enough to field our defense. We haven’t had enough children to defend ourselves, and what children we have had we have made incapable of functioning in a real world with real enemies and people not crippled!

   Watching all this is like watching teletubbies, and rainbow brights, with a my little pony corps going up against napoleon… while colorful, it doesn’t last long.

   We no longer can manufacture what we need to… we no longer even have the everyday mechanical ability in our men as we did in the past. think of it… men today cant change a light switch… while men in the past could do that and tons more. the men are shadows here.

   They are so far removed, that the men here wouldn’t even know who to side with in a crisis!!! They would stand around and argue and try to come to a populist answer rather than the most effective one.

   After all, isn’t what your solution is the same thing? populists group think without regard to the situation or enemy or anything? why, yes it is!

   Your trying to find the compromise, as women do. but women don’t usually deal in situations where there is no compromise. In THEIR world, their enemies are part of their community, and so compromise is key to community.

   Men have dealt traditionally with the concepts of in and out… those outside of the community are not envious (as they are painted in our femspeak now), and jealous and nasty because we wont let them play with our toys…

   They are not disgruntled members of our community… the world is not and cant be one community… (civil wars show that!)… they either want to be a part of the community and are willing to follow its rules, or they are outsiders.

   Women don’t get that, and this author doesn’t either. She is going through all the feminine stages of conflict. First tell them what to do… expecting to be listened to… that’s what starts the wars… then let the men go in and fight… but since feminine is in control, we wont let them do the job the way they know how. We will hamstring them with a bunch of rules in which they not only have to win, but have to win wearing a tutu, balanced on a pole, with a clown face on, laughing and singing happy tunes, while wining. They think that by doing this, we seem fair and the other side will see that…

   But true to women vs men, they don’t see that doing that, makes the other side pissed off!!! every guy can see it… I come in and play pool for high stakes, and rather than take my shot and be quiet, I am a clown… I look away as I shoot… and so on… I not only beat them, but I belittle them too while I do it. so, no, they don’t want to ever join my side, in fact, they tend to then want to destroy such a side…

   Ah… but the other side true to THEIR natures doestn give up. now what? we try to make all kinds of stuff… try to find common ground… all with that assumption above, that they are part of the group, and if we find the right magic, they will join us.

   We are now at the point were the female thinkers realizet hat they cant stop a war by whining at a determined president… and they didn’t cripple the military enough… and they didn’t turn their own people around enough… and they, etc…

   So now, here is one that wants to sound clever and moderate. She wants to quit and sound like it’s a tactic!!! That’s a female thing… to claim a win and walk away when they lost. It only works when you do that against a man who is a gentleman, a person in your group. They weigh the situation in the group and then say… its not worth going there and showing them, and cut the loses.

   But this doestn work in the world where the stakes are so high. In fact women don’t even get that the stakes are this high. If they did, they never would suggest what this author is suggesting!

   So now the idea is to pull back and be safer. Well, yeah… if you’re a woman you curl up and give up and the fight stops. So yeah, that seems like a good idea… but it isn’t. the men fighting this fight on the other side have women too. And those women will not let them give up when their enemy curls up into a ball.

   Lets look at this from the other side. the other side sees the west as mortal enemies. That means that there is no compromise to be found. that is until you defeat them to the point of eradication and the choice is compromise or cease to exist.

   So any female type concept (or soviet socialist type concept), of dialoging to consensus will not work. all the things your going to suggest will come from the weak wanting to survive among the strong. And this makes sense in the wild with men and women.

   After all, the whole consensus thing works for women in war because only the most demanding and uncooperative will be put to the knife. And so they are used to dealing from the bottom holding a trump card. They know that when they fold, they can just be absorbed as a valued part, so there really is no reason for them not to be this way.

   However, the mens reality is much different. When the men lose, they all get the knife. Maybe some smarties don’t, but they are never trusted fully, though they are allowed to live. There is no saving grace that gives them a bargaining point. its all or nothing.

   And its this latter thing that wars are fought under… and what she doesn’t get.. the recent actions of the US when we had an AMERICAN WAY… was an aberration in history… however, our WAY is poisoned… we are no longer strong enough to afford that behavior. We also don’t have an enemy that is tired of the fight.

   The germans were ultimately tired of the fight. Coming out of wwi, and now wwii, they were getting tired after so many years. After all, in similar time to the iraq war, they nearly took it all… and we forget that stalin was there from the beginning… and was busy grabbing lots of land… the betrayal of germany was costly to them… so they too weren’t wanting much more of a fight…

   Here its different… the fight is different… the war is one of attrition… one in which the one that can keep fighting longest wins! Got that? the one who can keep their heart in it longest will win the war… this means that the west, which is now secular, will lose. At the very least it will leave the enemy in one piece someplace to grow back again.

   The last crusades were to preserve the west against islam. Contrary to leftist dogma, the crusades and such were not some monetary grab in the east against peacefull peoples. Islam had already taken 2/3 of everything known then…

   And if you know your history, you will know that this is just another chapter in that fight. That this is a fight that has gone on between the west and the east for more than a millenium.

   And this is also what the neo socialist man/woman doesn’t get. that the old reasons for fighting that they think they are so smart to give up, are not old reasons, are not issues that are resolved, and are still going on.

   Long before marx, engels, Lenin, and stalin, et al, asked who would save the world from the west, the islamics have been fighting that battle. Which is why the communsits have been funding and supplying them.

   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   In case you didn’t know… the date of the last crusade in which the west was almost crushed, and along with it the renneasisance, and the enlightenment, and more…

   Was started on September 11th 1683.

   Time to wake up and take a reality pill. They will not stop when we are down. they have not worked themselves through the enlightenment, and poisioned themselves to the ploint were they cant protect their own ideals. They will HAPPILY have slaved under dhimmi… and many of the things that you do to convince them your nice, is seen as tribute and promotion that they are right.

   Whats worse is that those behind them. the communist states. Are helping them. just as they did in wwii, they see this whole thing as a great way to win more converts and tie the US up. that they are showing their colors now that they have strong military equipment and numbers and finance on their side, is clear.

   They will keep funding and pushing the islamics as useful idiots till we are too weak to fight.

   The things that limit us, do not limit them. your thinking that a state that killed 100 millino of its own on purpose with malice and forethought would consider it wrong to break a few eggs to get what they want. You also forget that if America falls, the limits of the court of public appeal also goes with it.

   We cant leave.. there are 100 year oil contracts ready to cut us out of the future…

   If you can accept all that that entails.. then fine… but if we don’t get our share of what we can buy… you can guarantee starvation, and sickness, and lots of nasties… until we were there fighting anyway. cept we wouldn’t have been doing it as healthy as we are now, but much sicker.

   We are in serious trouble. The fighting will come to the states, and there is no way to stop it. wahts worse is that we have been trained to respond with converting ourselves to a police state. so when it comes, it will lock us down more than it will them. in fact, the lock down will turn many of our own to their side.

   There is no way to defend ourselves since we no longer have a superior culture to refer to. We are culturaless and mostly morally vacant due to our new secularity.

   We would rather live in a world that was horrible, than not live.
   They would rather die than live in a world that to them was horrible.

   Ergo
   Ipso facto
   They have more behind them than we do..

   We don’t even have a way of life to defend… or a nation… or that ‘piece of paper’ we arent defending ourselves either.

   You wont get anyone to actually do whats right till you can define what they are defending… and right now… the men see feminism as communism (which is what the feminists said it was! from simone de bouvier, onward to greer, and others: Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State)

   What will the men fight for now?
   For family? They don’t have any families
   For culture? they don’t have a culture that wants them
   For religion? They don’t worship except at the altar of the state
   For the women? their women don’t want them
   For the colleges? They don’t want the men either
   For the state? state is against them
   For our way of life? What way of life?

   Better quickly define what they are fighting for… because what the feminists and the state has been cramming down their throats and such is not what they will fight for.

   In fact, the feminist have pushed it so far, that many young men would rather see a totalitarian state get in control and make it truly equal!!!!!

   How about writing an article as to what we are fighting for?

   Personally, I don’t know what that is either…

   Posted on July 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Add A Comment