Anti-Subjugator

I had a online chat too good to not post in full because of it's total and utter relevancy and honesty. I've only changed the name and fixed some spelling mistakes and some messages that were out of sequence because we were both typing at the same time. The person I am talking to is an Arab Israeli (20% of Israel is ethnic Arabs) who I have been chatting to for years. This guy is relatively reasonable. I've chatted to lots of Arabs and few of them would admit that their source of news isn't definitive as this guy does. However, it is pretty scary that this guy, who supports a continuation of Hitler's policies, is the top of the pile.

But the best thing is that this guy clarifies where the real war is. People like Foddy like to pretend that there's no war, and that we should all stick our heads in the sand like him. But this Arab knows there's a real war, and he's trying hard to win that war. What I have done is clarify what the war is, or should be. A simple Christian & Jew vs Muslim war was no good to me. It didn't give me, as an atheist, an opportunity to blow someone's brain out to make the world a better place. Nor did it give Alaa, Sarmad etc the same opportunity. Nor did it make Australian rapists a target. So below you will find this Arab Muslim's perspective of the war, plus my own perspective.

Paul Edwards: what would you like to talk about today?
arab israeli: US election.
Paul Edwards: ok. who do you support?
arab israeli: Barach Obama,because he wants peace and supports evacuation of thr US`s troop from Iraq.What about you?

*** Here he pretends to want peace. Note the endorsement for Obama here. A bit like endorsing Chamberlain, hoping that Hitler gets the green light to gas Jews. Literally. (see below). Remember that - terrorists support the Democrats.

Paul Edwards: peace? you mean non-combat

Paul Edwards: why do you want US troops out of Iraq?
arab israeli: Because they aggravate the situation there.
Paul Edwards: what makes you think they are aggravating it?
arab israeli: watching TV ,reading newspaper and listening to radio you will find out that US troop humiliate Iraqis and kill innocent people.
Paul Edwards: rubbish. how many innocent people were deliberately killed by US troops?
Paul Edwards: did you get their names? did you report it to the Iraqi police and media?
Paul Edwards: did they have their day in court?
Paul Edwards: were they convicted?
Paul Edwards: Or did in fact YOU make up a LIE about the US?
Paul Edwards: Or repeat a lie from the Arab media?
Paul Edwards: I bet the Israeli TV didn't make that false claim
arab israeli: I did not lie, I just said what AL Jazeera reports.
Paul Edwards: yes, you repeated Al Jazeera's lies
Paul Edwards: even after i told you that it was pure propaganda
Paul Edwards: you prefer to live in a world of Arab lies
Paul Edwards: rather than watch Israeli TV

arab israeli: they obsecure the facts.
Paul Edwards: who obscures the facts?
arab israeli: Israeli TV channels
Paul Edwards: rubbish
Paul Edwards: it's al jazeera that does that
arab israeli: they report that they want
Paul Edwards: it's al jazeera that reports what they want - complete lies
Paul Edwards: and because you're a racist, you prefer to stick with the racist Arabs

arab israeli: If it lies why US doesn`t convict them?
Paul Edwards: convict who?
arab israeli: Al jazeera staff
Paul Edwards: which law did they break?
Paul Edwards: and did they break it while on US territory?
arab israeli: freedom of speach
arab israeli: ok
arab israeli: but that`s not
Paul Edwards: how did they break freedom of speech?
arab israeli: that`s distortion
Paul Edwards: what's distortion?
arab israeli: not freedom of speach
Paul Edwards: is it illegal to distort?
Paul Edwards: many americans say that the US government did 9/11
Paul Edwards: should those americans be arrested?
Paul Edwards: something like 30% of the US population

arab israeli: so what about the real pictures they exhibit?
arab israeli: They also deniable?
Paul Edwards: tell me what you see EXACTLY?
arab israeli: US troop shooting toward a car ,allegedly the claim that they are terrorists.
Paul Edwards: ok, and how fast was the car going?
Paul Edwards: and what sort of warnings had the US given?
Paul Edwards: was that shooting actually warning shots?
arab israeli: real shot
arab israeli: and killing a whole family
Paul Edwards: you saw them shoot into the car and then in that exact car you saw the dead people?
arab israeli: No
arab israeli: I saw the corpses when they were carried by people going to cemetary
Paul Edwards: how do you know the corpses belonged to the car that the americans were shooting at?
arab israeli: I have no proof

*** An extraordinary admission from an Arab. Willing to question their own beliefs.

Paul Edwards: well, that answers your question about "what about the real pictures they exhibit"

arab israeli: But it is irrational for Al Jazeera to lies
Paul Edwards: it's not irrational
Paul Edwards: the only way Al Jazeera can sell it's position is to lie
Paul Edwards: they string together an American shooting, with any corpse anywhere, and put across a message that racist Arabs like you love to hear
arab israeli: It is natural to be LITTLE racist

*** Here he has admitted that racism is natural. He can feel it coursing through his body.

Paul Edwards: yes it is
Paul Edwards: however, people like me and most in the west have adopted an IDEOLOGY of being anti-racist
Paul Edwards: that ideology is overriding our natural tendency to be racist
Paul Edwards: and that is what allows us to ally with all sort of people
Paul Edwards: Japanese, South Koreans, Turks, Iraqis, Afghans
Paul Edwards: and that is why you have difficulty creating allies
Paul Edwards: and why you will ultimately lose

arab israeli: jews are extremely racist

*** Now he is projecting his own racism onto Jews.

arab israeli: and they are not
Paul Edwards: rubbish
Paul Edwards: Arabs are the ones who are racist
Paul Edwards: you are projecting your own racism on to them
Paul Edwards: that's why you support Palestinian terrorists instead of the IDF

arab israeli: read this
arab israeli: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6912B81B-AB7B-4B30-8D26-03E8C259A15B.htm
Paul Edwards: i've read the first bit of it
Paul Edwards: what about it?
arab israeli: Bin laden support waging war against Israel
arab israeli: And I support that
Paul Edwards: yes. most racist arabs support that
Paul Edwards: yes, because you are an evil racist and religious bigot, you support attacking jews
arab israeli: Look
Paul Edwards: you will be defeated
Paul Edwards: i will personally put a bullet in your brain

arab israeli: It is right that israel has invaded palestine is force?
Paul Edwards: it did no such thing
Paul Edwards: that's your lie
arab israeli: 1948
Paul Edwards: 1948 it did not invade anyone
Paul Edwards: it seceded from the UK
arab israeli: US(New land) was once a land for red indians right?
Paul Edwards: by the way, if you think invasion is bad, what do you think of all of Mohammed's invasions?
Paul Edwards: there was no country called the US until 1788
Paul Edwards: Columbus more "immigrated" rather than invaded.
Paul Edwards: regardless, even if it was an invasion, so what?
Paul Edwards: do you equally condemn all the Arab and Muslim invasions?
Paul Edwards: including Mohammed's
Paul Edwards: Iraq was certainly invaded by the US

arab israeli: Why colombus and other poeple invaded america while it belings to other people?
arab israeli: why it seems terrorist action to Bin laned to invaed Israel by force and establish and Islamic country?
Paul Edwards: answer my question
Paul Edwards: do you equally condemn all the Arab and Muslim invasions? including mohammed's
arab israeli: no
Paul Edwards: why not? double standards?

*** The Arabs/Muslims love to talk about double standards, while completely ignoring their own.

arab israeli: If you are strong enough you will tend to invade more land

*** Look at this. He has correctly identified human's natural tendency - it's coursing through his blood. This is nature at it's purest. Predatory. That's how we evolved. (or at least, that's what the simulation is designed to look like, and where you will get the best clues).

Paul Edwards: so why are you complaining about columbus and israel?
Paul Edwards: double standards?
arab israeli: I compain why you think that bin laden is terrorist because he wants to invade israel
Paul Edwards: he's not a terrorist for invading israel
Paul Edwards: he's a terrorist for killing american civilians on 9/11
arab israeli: it is the islamic land and arab land
Paul Edwards: it's Jewish land
Paul Edwards: actually, it's Israeli land
Paul Edwards: regardless of religion

*** [or race]

arab israeli: we should collect our power and to retrieve it

*** This is why we need to act now. We won't necessarily be stronger than the enemy in the future, but we definitely are now. Chamberlain could have defeated Hitler when he was weak too. This is their real plan. Mohammed's plan. Build up strength and then attack. And the same way that Churchill was outnumbered by pacifists, we may be outnumbered today too. It's difficult to tell.

Paul Edwards: I think we should collect our power and kill all racist Arabs like you
Paul Edwards: kill all Muslim religious bigots like you too
arab israeli: Osama bin laden have the right to invade israel
Paul Edwards: I have the right to kiill you
arab israeli: you never
Paul Edwards: i have more right to kill racist religious bigots than bin laden does to attack a non-racist democracy

*** Here's a fundamental part of my philosophy that the enemy would not accept. They instead accept the reverse.

arab israeli: one day palestine will be again established and jewa will be discriminated and humiliated as we are now.

*** He imagines he is discriminated against and humiliated. What he plans for Jews is REAL discrimination ...

Paul Edwards: no. one day racists like you will be wiped off the face of the earth
Paul Edwards: and religious bigots like you
arab israeli: We, and I specially, will punish him harshly if I can, as hitler did.

*** as in, following Hitler exactly.

Paul Edwards: and I will punish you harshly first
arab israeli: We will see who will be the winner
Paul Edwards: yes we will
Paul Edwards: let's see your OOB

*** I was hoping he would ask what an OOB was (Order of Battle) and then have a good laugh at what the racist Arabs/religiously-bigotted Muslims were going to put up against the free world.

arab israeli: Iran and al Qaeda and muslim or the israel
Paul Edwards: anti-racists or racists
Paul Edwards: anti-religious bigots or religious bigots
Paul Edwards: subjugators or anti-subjugators
arab israeli: name them as you like and as you think
Paul Edwards: non-humanists or anti-non-humanists
Paul Edwards: i did

*** I redefined the war on MY terms rather than his simplistic (but natural) terms.

arab israeli: I think Israel should be wiped out of the map
Paul Edwards: and i think racists should be wiped off the map
Paul Edwards: this is why we have war
Paul Edwards: let's see your OOB
arab israeli: Bin Laden: 'Not a single inch of Palestine will be given up as long as there is one true Muslim on earth' [EPA]
Paul Edwards: Paul: not a single racist will be allowed to walk on earth so long as there is one true anti-racist on earth
Paul Edwards: God: no religious bigot will be given a single inch of Heaven. Or Earth.


Brutal honesty. That's why we have wars folks. The most peacenicks will give you is temporary non-combat and ultimate enslavement of your children. Don't let it happen. Declare war, at least amongst the citizenry. It is not strategic for our governments to declare war. But we can tell it like it is and vote for a government that manages to trot out some excuse for the next invasion.

After war comes true peace. If you really want peace, and I really do want peace, then kill the enemy first.

Back in 2003-2004 I was trying to determine what was going wrong. Why weren't 99% of Iraqis overjoyed to be freed from a cruel tryant, and the other 1% presumably people with a genetic defect. The great benefit of having 50% of Iraqis behaving irrationally meant the ability to diagnose the problem. I sought to find out what was in my genes that was making me want to fight so hard for the other side as Al Sadr/Bin Laden. I assumed that we all had near-identical genes, evolved from the same amoeba. I sought an answer in science, as I was highly confident that there was nothing supernatural in the world.

And by Sept 11, 2004 I had isolated the instincts causing the problem. The natural state of humans is the tribe, and we have evolved by learning to write agreements where one tribe doesn't attack another, as war reduces the survival probability of both tribes.

Fast-forward to 2003 and we suddenly had one tribe (the US) violating what appears to be to many people such an agreement (the UN). This setup matches the genetic pattern that we have grown to recognize. If you don't fight a rogue tribe, you will end up being enslaved. So, our instincts tell us to fight. And these Iraqis more-or-less can't help themselves but to fight the "US subjugator". It is totally alien to them that a conquering army could actually be an army of anti-subjugators. Their mind cannot process such a concept. It's totally against their own instincts, and they've never ever been exposed to the ideology that the free world uses (don't subjugate) that is overriding that instinct. So they don't know what's happening, and they MUST FIGHT.

The solution to this problem is my pledge. Teach them the pledge that the US military operates on, without being elaborated.

But another part of the solution is just to make things right "tribally". ie the US can take steps within the tribal genetics to placate the insurgents. What it needs to do is sign an agreement where it will not use force outside the UN, *if*, the members of the UN in turn agree to certain things. The certain things being that they don't subjugate their citizens.

Once that agreement is in place, the genes will be satisfied. Otherwise, the insurgents will literally fight for what they believe is their lives. If they lose, and get enslaved, they will die out. This is what they understand, and it is confirmed by their genes (and after a lot of effort, I was able to find it in my own genes - and also figure out how it was seemingly being overridden).

This gives the US something to actually contribute to the process. It needs to elaborate what needs to happen in order for it to be satisfied that the UN will ensure that the US is adequately protected and thus have no need to act outside it. Rather than "we aren't going to follow any damn rules, we're going to do whatever WE feel like, ie we're a rogue actor". That is setting off the primitive genes around the world.

It was actually the realisation that the insurgents were not evil, but simply reacting to their genes, and that we could fix this problem, but weren't, that was causing me so much distress in Sept 2004, as I tried in vain to get the government to do certain things to end the war.

Since then I've gone back to my pre-Sept 2004 hardened self. Just wanting to win the war. I've given the anti-Americans the information they require to help themselves, but they're not interested. So, given the choices available, I choose to let the realities of steel do the talking until this conflict is resolved in our favour. That remains the least worst option - kill 'em all and I'll sort it out at the appropriate time.

I'd like to comment on two comments from the last comment section. Another case of the left-wing unable to see the forest for the trees, while to the right-wing the forest is so damn obvious they wonder if the left are faking an inability to see.

Represent the left, we have Proff, with "should we bring the whole world to civilised thought even if by doing so we loose our own sense of humanity in the process? Becasue to me it's seems like you're already half way there".

From the right, we have Batman, with "Al Qaeda and Sadr have been a major hurdle for getting Iraqi democracy off the ground, but their limited reigns of terror have been a tremendous boost in the longer term ideological war between democratic self-rule and Islamic clerical rule, in Iraq and throughout the entire ME. I have read a number of reports about growing numbers rejecting Islam altogether as a result of their shame of self-proclaimed religious leaders."

Actually, admittedly these plays are too subtle for most on the right-wing too. Many/most on the right were extremely upset about withdrawals from Fallujah and Najaf not being able to see past the "bomb them all". And when the numbskull Iraqis voted for religious dictatorship, I'm not sure they have a plan for that. They going to bomb a democracy? Who in the democracy? Everyone? That's actually the biggest threat the US faces - what to do about a hostile democracy. You have to impose a government on the people (bit like imposing a government on Nazi Germany), and I have seen very few Americans proposing that that should be done if required.

Basically, it's all a case of not being able to think very far ahead.

The end-game is a world where every country in the world is a clone of Taiwan (as Finland, US etc already are (or are close to, anyway - I consider Taiwan to be number 1 - the crime rate keeps the other countries down)). The only thing that changes is the skin colour(s), language and total population of the various countries.

If you dispute this end-goal, and would prefer instead to see sadistic dictators like Saddam abusing people so that you can satisfy your bondage fantasies (at other people's expense), then we have nothing to debate. We will meet on the battlefield (both of us via our respective proxies no doubt - the US military is my main proxy, so you're going to lose so long as we can get the battle initiated with the current respective OOBs).

Now we need to get from here (half the world with sadistic dictators) to there (Taiwan writ large). There are a number of paths to get from here to there. One of those paths would take about 10 minutes (nuke all dictators off the planet, and allow dictators with nukes to nuke a good portion of the free world in the process - but in the end, whoever survived would be living under more-or-less identical laws to Taiwan.

Another one of those paths could take 1000 years. Maybe after 30 generations of a dictator's family, they'll end up with someone like Gorbachev who frees the country.

Alternatively, the dictators may end up finding a way to reverse their fortunes and the end state would be permanent dictatorship, and that whole democracy thing will be seen as an abberation in world history (much like the last time it was tried).

So which of these paths do we take? The 1000 year one, with no guarantees, requires the least effort from us. We simply do nothing and "pray to God to sort it out" (nevermind when God does try to sort it out, you end up opposing him, so in reality you don't want it sorted out at all).

To me the answer has always been obvious - you take the LEAST WORST OPTION. You consider the worldwide cost of dictatorship (thinking about Uday raping women and the victim not being able to ring the police), plus all those mass grave things. You think about the cost of war (limbs being blown off - but at least not deliberately), and you weigh all these things up and make a stab at the best solution. It is totally impossible to guarantee that you've found the best path, as there are so many errors on the way. How much is institutionalized rape worth? How much is a limb worth? In some cases, such as Iraq, it's pretty easy, as Saddam was already murdering people, so even the accidental deaths from war would be offset by his deliberate murders. But in some cases, like China, the state isn't actually murdering anyone, and the cost of war is extremely high. And this is only one set of errors. We have an additional problem that we can't rerun history to find out the cost of an alernate path.

An anti-war person once asked what would have to happen for me to declare Iraq a mistake. There is such a circumstance. If Iraq prevents Iran from being toppled, and we end up with a Democrat who allows Iran to develop nukes, and half the free world disappears, then Iraq would be a mistake. We should have done Iraq after Iran.

Now back to the lefty confused by trees. Apparently by choosing the least-worst option to spread Taiwan's ideology (equal rights for women, freedom of speech, rape not allowed, tongue-chopping not allowed etc etc) across the globe, I am apparently half way to losing my humanity. Quite frankly I'd be half way to losing my humanity by doing anything OTHER than choosing the least-worst option! That is what these anti-war types fail to understand. That by choosing something other than the least-worst option, ie by choosing a path that ensures that Saddam gets to chop out tongues for longer, as seen on the video on my blog, THEY have lost their humanity. So long as it is other people's tongues being cut out, there's no sense of urgency.

Also, this extends to tactics. If we have to allow a dictator like Suharto to overrun East Timor during the Cold War, or we have to send weapons to Stalin during WWII, SO BE IT! We can't solve every problem at the same time. We have no way of rerunning history to find out if the sacrifice of East Timor was necessary or not. All we know is that we did prevail in the end. Even if we could rerun history and prove definitively that East Timor didn't matter, that still doesn't prove that we were at fault. Because the decision that was made at the time was made without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. War is a difficult environment. And no decision is made with perfect information. Even "scientific facts" which are infinitely observable, such as the fact that the sun goes around the earth (look up in the sky if you don't believe me), can turn out to be wrong. What we do know is that then, as now, we are making decisions with good intentions, with imperfect information, and we are succeeding a hell of a lot of the time. The good guys have been winning most wars for centuries now. And that is great. Iraq is the latest feather in the cap. Well done people of the free world. Keep up the good work, and use whatever tactics are required to win the war. And also be willing to use the same tactics as the enemy, if that is what is required to win. Because losing is very very unlikely to be the least worst option.

When I was about 9 years old, another 9 year old kid was telling me that if I didn't get "confirmed" (as a Christian), I would go to Hell. I didn't know what confirmation was, and I still don't, because it presumably wasn't part of the Uniting Church. I was baptised though. However, whatever disgusting stuff they are teaching Christians, I didn't want to have anything to do with it, and a few years later I was an atheist. And free. If there was a cruel sadistic god who was going to send me to Hell because I hadn't been confirmed, and with no clear instructions that I needed to do such and such or else I would face that punishment, and on top of that, no explanation of why it was so important to do that, I didn't want to have anything to do with the prick.

Fast forward 30 years.

During that 30 years I spent a lot of time figuring out who really deserved to go to Hell, and instead of waiting for something supernatural to happen to those people, get real action done to them now. Australian rapists were an obvious target. I wanted the death penalty for them, and pretty much most other criminals too. It's bad enough that I have to pay them the dole, and I don't begrudge them that, but to add insult to injury and actually harm those who provide that is beyond the pale. Elimination with extreme prejudice was the solution.

Unfortunately most Australians don't appear to care about solving crime, and just blindly vote for whoever their parents voted for. I thought that independents holding the balance of power might change that, and we actually achieved that for a short time in NSW, and I was so happy, until I wrote in to the independents and told them what we urgently needed to do to protect people, and they were even less interested than someone like the Liberal Party. Bloody hell.

So the challenge remained - how to get a bullet in the brain of every rapist in Australia. That was only one small part of the problem. More people who needed bullets in the brain were the Soviet commies enslaving both Russia and Eastern Europe. And many more. THESE were the people who needed to be sent to Hell, but since there "obviously" wasn't one, needed to get some very rough justice in this world.

So with people like Saddam, there was no question. An opportunity came up to put a bullet in his brain, and it fed perfectly into my long-standing ideology. The ideology that I couldn't get NSW independents to implement. Basically it's not much more than a worldwide extension of a law & order platform. It's a bloody obvious ideology to adopt for someone who is truly non-racist and non-nationalist. Who would have believed there were so few such people?

Moving on. Foddy asks:

"So how are you going to decide who is guilty and who is innocent? Line 235,000,000 people up against a wall ask them what they support, and then shoot those who don't agree with you? Or how will you do it? Let's have the answer."

It's taken several years, but we've finally got something sensible out of Foddy. A sensible question. A good question.

As with everything I do, I take the least worst option. From message 666 you know who I'm against. However, not even I live up to message 666 100% of the time. If it were to be implemented in the extreme, there would literally be zero people left on earth. I never suggested that being dogmatic deserved the death penalty. It's actually a human right to be dogmatic! And a human right to be racist too. And a religious bigot. If you take away people's freedom to be these things, you are basically taking away freedom. People should CHOOSE to be non-racist, after being taught that by their education system and religion and social pressure. However, at the end of the day, they can stand against all that and say "white people are arsehole exploiters of blacks" and "God damn America" if they wish to. I wouldn't want it any other way.

So? Who gets the chop then?

Simple. Those who violently resist the setting up of an education system that teaches children how bad racism, religious bigotry etc. Those who violently resist the installation of a government that allows someone to say "Mohammed was a horrible pedophile and anyone who follows Islam is both brain-dead and immoral". Those who violently resist the closing of religious institutions that advocate hatred. You can still have such speech, but it needs to be expressed in writing somewhere (like the Quran) rather than in an actual place where people physically gather. I'm not quite sure where the line should be drawn, and I'll take submissions closer to the time it would actually be submitted. I'd like people to explain why they desperately want the right to have a religious centre where they teach hatred of so-and-so otherwise they would have their own human rights violated.

Regardless, we're miles away from there at this point in history, so it's a moot point. Let's learn to crawl before we learn to fly.

So let's start with something that no-one would dispute. Killing those who violently object to a cruel dictator like Saddam being replaced by a democracy. That will allow the worst of the worst scum to come to the surface to be eliminated. ie those who are so racist, so religiously-bigotted, that they would support a rapist rather than have anything to do with a white boy protecting human rights. These are the same sort of scumbags who did 9/11, so it's an opportunity waiting to happen.

So round 1 would be doing something along those lines. And quite frankly, I want to see what happens there on its own accord before reinvading Iraq for round 2 where we start teaching them to stop be religious bigots. Round 2 may never even happen. There's a bloody good chance that freedom of speech will do everything automatically, a sort of fast-forward through the Reformation. Rounds 3 and 4 etc may not happen either. But we start with some obvious things like freeing Eastern Europe, freeing Iraq, and then reevaluate.

When it comes to Pakistan, we similarly kill all those who resist having their nukes taken away. And if 200 million people decide to pick up arms, then 200 million people will die (assuming the US military prevails, which as far as I can see from the respective OOBs, is likely to happen). And the free world becomes that much safer with 200 million of the enemy dead. That's a good thing, Foddy, for people who wish to protect the free world. It's a bad thing for your plan of worldwide fascism/socialism/anti-American/racism/terrorism to take effect, but a good thing for people like me.

So, no need for people to be put against the wall YET. It's much easier than that. Just wait for them to show up with a gun in their hand. If we still have terrorism from people, despite the fact that they have had freedom of speech forced down their throat from the day they were born, and the scientific process etc, then we may well get to a stage where people are up against the wall. If the Pakistani children are somehow going down a path, e.g. let's say there's something in their genes (which we don't know about), that makes them genetically hate any country (tribe in gene terminology) that has a name that starts and ends with A, e.g. Australia, or America, and despite careful education (which we installed by force of arms), they still use their freedom to somehow plot against the above-mentioned countries (they can't help it, it's in their genes, not their fault), then we may need to protect ourselves from these rogue genes.

If we do some experiments e.g. getting some Pakistanis alone with an American and finding out whether they attack him/her or not, so that we can identify who they are, and then we try interrogating them later to see if there is a way we can find out that from questioning (e.g. they admit that they hate Americans), then we would have a correlation between people admitting they hate America with a propensity to attack Americans, and then a strong case could be made that we simply put every Pakistani against the wall and say "do you hate America", and if he says "yes", then shoot him (or her, I'm not sexist). But you need to do the scientific test of correlation first, to show that this technique produces the results you are looking for. Or we could simply isolate these people, not allow them to have children, and let that genetic strain die out, just as smallpox did.

So long as you can make a case that this is the least worst option, ie X guilty people die saving an estimated Y innocents (similar stats can be made about rapists and future rape victims), then I'd seriously contemplate protecting those Y innocent. The X should have a chance to state their case though, explaining that the Y deaths should be tolerated because ... (they need to provide that ..., I'm not going to make up something on their behalf).

I hope that answers your question.

And I bet you the likes of Foddy huff and puff about me being a genocidal maniac, instead of acknowledging that it's pricks like them that cause those Y innocents to die, or be raped, year after year.

Because Foddy sticks up for tyrants and criminals and reserves his venom for decent Americans etc. He probably wrote that guy's "God damn America" speech. He'd probably change his mind if it was his daughter being raped by Saddam, but hypocrisy comes naturally to people like him. Like breathing.

Anyway, there's the plan, in formulation for decades, and I was not actually aware that the rest of the world didn't have a similar plan for essentially cloning Taiwan to usher in peace and prosperity at even higher levels than we already have. There's very little standing in the way of that. Only China is half-heartedly standing in the way. All that's required is for Bush or McCain to nod their head and it will be done, in short order.

Meanwhile, we have the Democrats living in their fantasy world. Literally. Where snipers snip at you while you're collecting flowers, where it's seared into your brain that you spent Christmas in Cambodia in a super-secret mission that no-one in your chain of command, or anyone else for that matter, even knew about. Or where grandma is as racist as Mr God Damn America who wants blacks to be fighting whites instead of other blacks, all part of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy", so long as you use the appropriate spin that is part and parcel of "interpreting" the bible.

And you wonder why there's a need for a second coming of Jesus to actually explain how to interpret the real message of the bible instead of using it to justify horror, whether it's encouraging blacks to attack whites, or encouraging slavery, or whether it's to encourage doing nothing while Saddam rapes women. It's 40 years in the making, but you now have the answers you need. So long as you don't try to do the usual spinning on saying "fight rapists" to mean "be a rapist", the answers are all there. The most important stuff is there anyway. The most difficult thing was getting that word "subjugate" to complete the picture of what needed to be fought against.

But trying to get humans to actually understand something that doesn't seem to be all that complicated is a whole nuther story. Even when it's explained in detail. But when you can't even get people to recognize the difference between being under sniper fire and getting flowers from children, it isn't really that bizarre.

I found another great link describing the 2001 liberation of Afghanistan. I especially liked the way that Karzai managed to get a collection of 35 well-wishers that was able to hold back the Taliban attackers once US air power and special forces were added to the equation, and how he eventually grew his 35 cheerleaders into a mob of 800 armed goons that were effectively able to win the war.

I think the "armed goons" backed by US air power is a serious doctrine that needs to be considered. Yes, of course armed goons by themselves are no match for the Iranian military. But they're not going to be by themselves. They're going to have US air power behind them. So long as the moronic air force can get its act into gear anyway. Why do I call them moronic? Firstly because of the way, prior to 2003 anyway, they used to fat-finger JDAM coordinates in, without even having the basic intelligence to go and triple-check the coordinates with the guy who called them in before they started blowing up random friendly/neutral/non-existent targets. And these are the same numbnuts that managed to hit the Red Cross in Kabul twice in one week. The same numbnuts who were taking potshots at friendlies in Albania when they were supposed to be attack Serbs in Kosovo. The numbnuts that blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade because they had an old tourist map that showed it was some government building. The numbnuts that during Desert Storm launched missiles into Iran. And if you read that link above, after doing so well in the rest of Afghanistan, in simultaneous operations, when it came to Operation Anaconda, when they should have been able to concentrate on one area, they were apparently too drunk to operate heavy equipment. What the hell do you have to do to get busted for deriliction of duty in this army?

Anyway, there wasn't a lot of this happening by 2003. The pricks realised that they had a problem with friendly fire so started quadruple-checking coordinates. They still managed to wipe out some British vehicles with orange markings, and they still managed to wipe out some Kurds, but by and large, they seem to have adopted the makings of a professional force, ie one that concentrates on killing the enemy instead of any old target so long as they get to blow something up. BTW, it's attitudes like that that make me think the US air force pilots should be replaced by commercial airline pilots. We don't need testosterone jocks unless there's an enemy that actually has planes that can get into the air for more than 10 seconds. When the enemy is grounded, we need professionals who use their brains instead of their balls and double-check things in case they made a mistake.

So I was talking to someone yesterday who used to be in the Australian reserves (and would have joined the regulars if the stupid government hadn't taken more than 6 months to process the paperwork - someone should be jailed for that - turning away already-trained volunteers). And I was discussing the particulars of how the existing Australian army, alone, would be able to liberate Iran if US air cover was available. Actually I posed the question a different way. Here is the question.

If you were an Iranian dissident who wanted to be free, and was willing to fight, but knew that fighting the Ayatollah's military was suicide, so you needed to ask for foreign assistance, what is the minimum required? Bear in mind that if you ask for too much, the foreigners are going to say "nup, too difficult, we're not going to help at all". So you really need to figure out the minimum you can possibly get away with. If the foreigners provide more than that, well and good, and that can be considered "foreign aid". Also bear in mind that it is your country, and the onus is on you to play the lead role in fighting for your own freedom.

Also, the objective is very specific. To get to the point where the dissidents have more heavy weaponry than the Ayatollah's forces. In other words, the battlefield defeat. I'm not talking about any following insurgency like Colombia has experienced for decades. India too. It is the dissidents problem to deal with that over the following decades, once they have the balance of weaponry and access to state resources.

In addition, the war should be fought taking into view the fact that there are probably lots of Iranian base commanders and soldiers who wish to defect. If you were one of those defectors, how would you defect? You need to be very careful in case you get shot by the pro-Ayatollah forces. So we don't want to kill these allies-to-be unnecessarily. In Afghanistan we saw a lot of people changing sides. In Iraq we saw most people desert rather than defect (but some defected), but then many of those deserters formed long queues to join the new Iraqi army. We need to play around with all these factors.


Here was what the Australian soldier said he needed and my reply:

Holding facilities for POWs - you don't need them to win. they are an optional extra. You can just tell anyone wanting to surrender to go home. Don't accept them as prisoners.

Transport - you have that already - use your own car. We'll provide money for you to buy more things if you want.

Tanks - we'll give you some of those on the Iraqi border (this assumes that Iraq can be used as a staging post). Not that I think tanks are necessary. Karzai managed fine without tanks.

Ammo and arms - no problem - dropped to anywhere in Iran you want.

Medical facilities - take over a hospital on your own. There's probably no defence of Iranian hospitals at the moment.

Communications and equipment - no problem, dropped anywhere in Iran.

Air support - no problem, provided anywhere in Iran.

Trainers in warfare - you don't have time for that. And regardless, you've already been trained in warfare as an Iranian conscript. Since Iranians have conscription, most men have military training already, even though most are not in the army at the moment.


Another thing to bear in mind is military coups in general. Military coups occur without having the luxury of foreign air cover. So do civil wars. The Ba'ath party in Iraq came to power in exactly that manner. So why shouldn't it happen in Iran too, with foreign air cover making it that much easier?

Anyway, that's just providing air cover to indigenous forces. I asked him what would happen if you added 20k Australian soldiers to that mix. He reckoned the Ayatollah's forces would head to the hills. You mean they would hand over on a platter all the things you previously said you needed - secure bases, heavy equipment? Yep. He wasn't particularly happy about me calling it a walk in the park, but when I pointed out that the Northern Alliance LITERALLY walked into Kabul, he admitted that it would be won with low allied losses.

I'm hoping he will write up some of the nitty gritty. Come up with a plan that is politically palatable. The plan also needs to take into account that possibly as much as 50% of the country will be disgruntled as they were in Iraq. And make it clear that only defeating the fielded forces is on offer, allowing the dissidents to construct a new military using whichever conscripts and ex-conscripts are willing to take up their former roles, this time as volunteers. Not built to US standards. But simply to slot in to their former structure under the Ayatollah, this time reporting to new civilian leaders.

I wish I could contact ableiter too (John Samford from Memphis, CSA (Confederated States of America)). I'm after some war plans that involve the most likely scenario rather than the worst case scenario that generals always like to trot out (that invariably requires 357 million troops all armed with nuclear weapons, just in case, knowing full well that that means the civilians will baulk at the plan, meaning that nothing is done, meaning the country is endangered by the very pricks who are meant to be figuring out ways of protecting it instead of leaving it to some guy in Australia to sort out the mess they created).

UPDATE: I just did a search, and I see ableiter had this to say:

History shows us that Guerrillas seldom win.
It wasn't the extra troops that defeated the Jihadists, but the change in tactics. The extra troops added speed to the process. Without the change in tactics, they would have just increased the boy counts.
As far as why not in '04, '05 or '06, you can blame the previous command structure. Both Franks and Garner wanted the 'ink blot' tactics that are being used today from the beginning. They were 'out politiced' by the JCS and State in the Summer of '03. So both generals are now enjoying their retirement.
The internet played a critical part also. It was due to the internet that the MSM was unable to hand victory to AQ, as they did to the Viet Cong in'75.
The biggest share of the credit goes to the Iraqi's themselves. They refused to lose, so they didn't. Quiters never win, winners never quit.
As far as the local politics, Iraq will NEVER look like the USA, or the UK. That is the best part of the whole deal.

john Samford, Memphis, CSA

I totally disagree with the change of tactics though. What matters is the fact that the Iraqi military continued to strengthen, as it was always going to do, no matter who was in charge, combined with the Sunnis switching sides. These things just take time. It's a bit like claiming that Clinton turned the US economy around, a common claim, taking credit for the sun rising. I agree with the internet though. The MSM no longer has a monopoly and can't replace the truth with their fantasy. I did my part in that internet phenomenon, as much as I could providing a face behind the polls that showed half of Australia supported ending institutionalized rape in Iraq.

Batman asked some questions in the previous comments section that I'm not going to quote in full, but simply use as an illustration.

"Paul, do you know any Iranians to whom you could pose the following questions?"

I know two Iranian exiles, both with polar opposite opinions. Regardless, I wouldn't want to use exiles as a benchmark regardless. Expats have a tendency to glorify their old country and want to preserve it and hold it up as superior to wherever they currently are. The one thing they won't do of course is actually return to live in their superior civilization. But let's leave the racism and hypocrisy aside for a moment. The real problem is simply that they're unrepresentative even if they all say exactly the same thing without racism and hypocrisy. You really need to get the ones who actually live there.

Next problem is the same problem that the Polish communists experienced. Pre-election polls showed that the commies would romp home and they were actually worried that the West would see the polls as legitimate for that reason. They were flabbergasted by the result. If I were similarly polled in Poland, or Iraq, or Iran, I'd be the biggest supporter of dictatorship this side of the Iron Curtain. Freedom and democracy? Bah. A plot by devious westerners to enslave me. I don't even really trust the polls even in a free environment shortly after liberation (e.g. Iraq in 2003). Until I have seen some evidence of a secret ballot verifying those results, it is tentative at best. The pro-war Iraqi bloggers insisted that they weren't alone. In actual fact they were as clueless as the rest of the world. They'd never seen the results of a secret ballot either. Ali Fadhil told me directly that he didn't find out until 2005 what Iraqis really wanted, when he saw the poll results. He had been mistaken assuming that others were like him. Sarmad also told me that he had told his friend that there would be no religious violence in Iraq - that Iraqis were tolerant of religion. And that he had to admit to his friend that he was wrong.

I saw some video of a supply convoy that had taken a wrong turn a couple of years ago and ended up in Sunni territory and suddenly found itself under attack. This sort of spontaneous attack shows that the problem is widespread. It's not just a few ratbags. It's an entire mindset. The sort of mindset that requires genocide to correct. Although admittedly they managed to pull of de-Nazifying Germany. But that's no guarantee that it can be replicated in the Middle East.

All this shows the fact that no-one can tell you definitive answers, even if they live there. Sarmad ended up being totally wrong. And I was totally wrong about Australia. I had always assumed that the majority of Australians supported thumping dictators and liberating people. I thought it was part of our national psyche. It was supported by the polls showing 90% supported Desert Storm. I had no idea that that would turn to a shocking 50% for OIF. I was wondering what I was missing and had to go and ask them why they didn't care even about women being raped. I wanted to know why they were so sure that we shouldn't be doing anything to help innocent women. It took me some time to realise the simple truth - these people were downright sociopaths. Massive numbers of sociopaths. Looking like ordinary nice people but secretly sociopathic and racist and believing the commies on TV more than hard logic.

So, even when people ask me about Australia, which they often do, I have to explain to them that everyone in Australia is an individual and you can't make blanket statements. If you think Australians are beer-guzzling, sports-loving party-goers, there's probably a lot of truth in that. But it means that I'm not an Australian and you shouldn't be asking me anyway. And then you see shocking reports about Australians working the longest hours out of all OECD countries. Putting a lie to the perpetual party we're supposed to be in. And my Japanese ex-student said that she came to Australia expecting to be surrounded by whites, but found herself in Asia. She is staying in an area that is predominantly Chinese/Lebanese. She's right near a huge mosque. I didn't even know it was there (I'd heard of the Lakemba mosque, but didn't know there was one in Auburn). I can't remember seeing any churches that big anywhere in Australia. And after dropping her off in Auburn, I went to an Indian store there to buy some spicy peas. I tried to speak Hindi to the shopkeeper and he didn't know it. He was probably born in Australia (I didn't ask) and had never bothered to learn Hindi other than what he picked up by watching Hindi movies.

So if you want to know about Australia, I would suggest going to the CIA website. And also check out some opinion polls, which in turn can be verified by election results and simply chatting with random Australians. There's no doubt that Australians are free to speak their mind. Although most Australians are apparently afraid to go up against the very noisy and vicious left-wing scum in the media/university etc. Rare to see much opposition to them, although that in turn could simply be because they don't have the ability to get media attention or organize. But honestly, where do you go to see a pro-Bush or anti-Rudd demonstration? But then again, who would go to one of them when the media even covers up that exact thing happening in Iraq in December 2003? But again, ordinary people will rarely go to a demo. They just vote and answer opinion polls.

Anyway, back to Iran. The information is inherently unavailable and won't remotely be available until after secret ballots. I saw a poll recently saying that a majority of Iranians backed getting invaded. It may or may not be true. However, let's move on.

"First, considering that the Clergy is losing power to military rule"

The clergy IS the military. One Clergyman in particular - the Supreme Ayatollah. There is no evidence that his rule is under threat. That would in effect take a military coup. And that is actually what you should be hoping for. More chance of that ushering in a decent ruler than "peeling off the clergy".

Sistani is irrelevant. He has no military capable of defeating the Iranian military. This all comes down to guns. It always comes down to guns. All of your questions belie the fact that you haven't bothered to do the simple military calculus. The same one that you mentioned yourself a couple of weeks ago - about the US doing conventional warfare still. And that the battles were always lopsided, but still there. What you said then was *exactly* correct. And it's the exact opposite of Bruce and his 2nd Amendment fantasy. I'm surprised that Bruce didn't learn about combined arms warfare while he was in the military, but the short story is that goons with guns lose. Every. Time. Unless you can provide a way for the Iranian military to change sides, fairly safely, you aren't going anywhere.

"Will the people of Iran support open military rule"

The people of Iran don't matter a damn. They are easily defeated by men with guns. As they were in 1999. As they always will be. It's sad. But that's reality.

"I assume Iranians living in Iraq are free to organize and oppose the Khamenei's rule"

There's plenty of exiles with their pathetic organizations. Only one guy has an army, and it's a massive army.

"If it does and oil prices take a dramatic plunge, would it cause the Iranian and Venezuelan regimes to implode on the Soviet Union model, or would Khamenei cling to power by brute military force more like North Korea and Cuba?"

This is the silly thing. As you can see in North Korea, a properly organized dictator can ensure that the people will starve to death without rebelling. The Soviet Union collapsed because a nice guy (Gorbachev) managed to hide his true ideology until he reached the top of the dictatorship. Actually, that nearly happened in Iran too. The guy set to replace Khomenei showed his hand just a little too early and ended up in jail instead of being a Supreme Ayatollah who would usher in democracy.

"I could easily draft an extremely simple, seemingly uncontroversial amendment to the Iranian Constitution to make it MUCH more democratic"

I can't even get a referendum in Australia to get a Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech. The Ayatollah is not the least bit interested in your opinion. He doesn't even care if women are raped. Why the hell should he care about democratic changes from a - wait for it - American?

If you care about the Iranian people - which you clearly do, as I do - don't bother trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. There may be a spontaneous uprising one day. Romania got one of those. But you won't be able to predict it or usher it in. It's also not very likely. Romania is the only one that actually worked. All the others were more like the British leaving India, or Gorbachev granting freedom. Or Bremer passing control to the Iraqis. If you've got nice people in charge, you can get "independence" or whatever it is you think you want. But if you've got nice people in charge already, you don't really have much of a problem anyway. And when you've got someone nasty in charge, as is the case in Iran, you need someone with bigger guns to take him out.

This is not unique to Iran. When the Nazis took over Europe, and when the Soviets took over, the people actually living there had no chance whatsoever. Even though 99% of France objected to a FOREIGN enemy having taken over their country, it didn't matter a damn. Their opinion was worthless. Their opinion only becomes relevant if they're given control over their armed forces via democracy (which is the case now). The Iranians are in a similar position. Their opinion doesn't matter a damn. That could all change in less than 24 hours after US planes appear in Iranian skies though. No-one knows. US planes dramatically change the military equation. The impossible becomes probable. The Northern Alliance LITERALLY walked into Kabul. Please don't give the Iranian people false hope - the eternal carrot at the end of the stick - or delude yourself. Just get those damn planes in the sky! Before the good people of America lose access to them as the decent Australians already have.

And Canada - you have planes too. With fully trained pilots. I can point Iran out to you on the map if you like. Can't miss it. It's between the place you turned up to already and the place you failed to turn up to. Don't wait for American approval to send your planes over Iran. Show some balls and do it with or without their help. Stop being some tag-along and show some leadership. Call in some favours from UK and France if you need extra firepower. Hey, maybe that bilingual thing you have going may actually be of some use after all. Maybe millions of people learning the world's dumbest language for decades wasn't the incongruous waste of resources I previously thought it was?

BTW buh - learn to difference between "Anglophone" and "Anglophile". I'm the former, not the latter. Not that I'm anti-British - far from it. It's just that I don't have any particular loyalty to England. Or even Australia for that matter. I am only loyal to a certain ideology, and anyone can have that ideology, regardless of whether it is the protestors of June 4th 1989 or the Romanians in December 1989. They are my family. My blood. My life.

This is exactly what I say that no matter how nice the Americans are, and they normally are very wonderful, generous people, we always need to retain the ability to re-ally against them if they turn bad. Because one day we may be faced with people like "bruce" from the comments section. First of all, the idiot somehow got the impression that the left-wing scum in the comments were Australian, when none of them are. He's also obviously never read this, or if he as, he sees it as some sort of surrendering to American greatness. Hah. Bruce, it's YOU who knows nothing about the Anglophone spirit. You're nothing more than an armed bully who just coincidentally happens to be fighting for the right side. You would have been equally well at home as a member of the SS.

Let's see what "bruce" had to say...

"as an american i don't give a rats ass if other countries hate us ,that's their problem,just as long as they fear us.just as long as you know that we can destroy you with a push of a button."

While your grandfather was hiding under his bed while the Germans were bombing England to the ground, my forefathers were protecting the free world. Surrendering or abandoning a member of the free world was never on the cards. What you can learn from this is how true Anglophones react to someone who has your attitude of wanting others to live in fear. We become wary, that's for sure. And then we sit down, use our brains, and figure out how to get out of this mess. Figuring out which dictators we can ally with, which one is the most dangerous at the moment, and then striking. Been going on for centuries. Surrendering to thus like you and Hitler was never ever on the cards. Live free or die.

"to all you sissy boys and commie lovers you should do your home work before you mouth off about america."

Which homework didn't I do? First of all, I'm not sure which particular bit of mouthing off I was doing. I was in fact complaining about the anti-Americanism in Japan in the message you responded to, and figuring out how to eliminate that. But let's assume I said something offensive. Let's assume that you're some sort of brainless moron who thinks that America can do no wrong, and if America wants to recognize Kosovo, then eat shit and die rest of the world, you'll nuke us if we have a different opinion. Fine, prick. I'll ally with Russia before I ever surrender to the likes of petty tyrants like you.

"surppose we told you aussies your on your own,who do you think would be parked on your door step?"

No-one at all in fact. And that's the tragedy. We have spent an enormous amount of money building up forces that are able to sink any invading fleet. There is actually no-one in the world who can invade us except for America. They have no ability to cross our moat. We have the technology to sink whatever they choose to send our way. And even beyond that, we have a long list of allies to call on for help besides America, although we don't have any formal treaty with them. And actually that's tragic. We have wasted money on providing independent territorial defence when we should have restructured our forces to be totally projection and just relied on the above alliances (mainly America) to ensure no-one ever tries to cross our moat and actually do something useful overseas where the bottleneck is ground troops.

"i am sure buh would be on the beach greeting his new chicom pals."

buh is American. I don't know how many Australians you know. It sounds like none at all. But I don't know of any who would allow the Chicoms to invade us.

"i fought a war against our enemies and if you did what i did you would wet your pants and cry for mommy."

If you did what I did, you would be God.

"i have been to jihad land and seen mosloms for the racist scum that they are."

Religious bigots actually. The racists are the majority of the Arabs. It's all covered by message 666 if you wish to end the war early and save some of your comrade's lives. I don't expect you to care though.

"that's right they hate you because you are not a muzzie. they don't care what you do or do not do they will always hate non mosloms."

That's right. They've been brainwashed to divide the world into Muslims and non-Muslims instead of religious bigots, non-religious bigots and anti-religious bigots. The solution is not that complicated, and like so many things, it's so obvious after it's been written down. But it actually took decades to isolate and even after being explained it's beyond most people's intellectual ability.

"i have been to many countries and found all of them lack real freedom"

You wouldn't recognize real freedom if it bit you on the arse.

"even down under you lack liberty,no first or second amendment protections, and that makes you serfs to your govt."

Have you ever met any Australians and explained your "serf" theory to them? Like so many Americans, you have been brainwashed into believing that the only free country is America, and America is the best at everything. If you actually explain your whacky theory to an Australian, any Australian, he will (correctly) tell you that if the Australian people were concerned about the imaginary issue you raised, that they would simply vote for a party who wanted to adopt the American constitution. He would also correctly point out that in Australia with preferential voting, we can easily start 3rd parties without forcing people to waste their votes, unlike in the US.

As for the various "amendments", perhaps you can point out where in the constitution the protection from being burnt as a witch, hung by the KKK, having to breathe other people's cigarette smoke, right to have an abortion, watch uncensored TV, hire or be a prostitute, right to have sex with whoever you choose, male or female, regardless of your own sex, take drugs, have sex toys, eat vegemite? Given that most of these things are in fact violations of human rights, while the "right" to create a dangerous society isn't.

"if you are not willing to fight for what is yours some one will take it away from you."

We were fighting for freedom in WWI and WWII while you were hiding under your beds.

"you are all a bunch of free riders depending on some one else to protect your sorry asses."

We're not free riders. We pay a lot of money for our military. Not as much as America, that is true.

"any of you whinners from down under ever knew.an other thing you should check your own crime statistics as well as englands since you gave up your fire arm to the state."

Actually, you should go and get that silly site you got your information from, and do a google search for some text from that, and add "urban legend" to the end of it, and see how silly you look.

BTW, since you are or were in the military, you are probably smart enough to know that goons with guns are no match for a professional military with air cover. And that goons with guns are just target practice. You might also note that the American government doesn't give civilians the right to own RPGs, tanks, warplanes or nuclear bombs. You going to fight for your "right" to have USEFUL weapons? Or are you content knowing that goons with peashooters are cannon fodder for your thuggery and you're happy to sell them the lie that they can overthrow their government any time they want?

"where do you think Australia would be with out america?"

We'd hopefully be protecting the free world with or without America, as we did in WWI and WWII when you scumbag cowards were hiding under your beds. BTW, where would you be without Saudi oil?

"what about you please tell me any aussie of note?"

Yeah, the ones with the courage to send our forces (and those who volunteered) into WWI and WWII and Vietnam and Korea and Iraq and Afghanistan, when America, America, Canada & UK, no-one, Canada & New Zealand, no-one (respectively) were hiding under their beds. The fact that you aren't taught about these men at school says more about your narrow, biassed education system than anything else.

"like i said before you,canada,england and europe are just a bunch of free riders.you should quit your bithing and count your blessings"

Like I'm saying now, you are a thug and a bully and an ungrateful arsewipe who needs to be kept away from important weapons, and when you get home we'll probably end up jailing you when you subsequently break the law, but we'll let you go and kill some even worse thugs in Iraq before then. When you get out you can star in "Dirty Dozen 4" or whatever they're up to. You should count your blessings that there were better men than you defending freedom for reasons other than their very narrow "national interests". People like you will never know the spirit of the Digger. You'll only ever know the spirit of a tyrannical thug getting off at being able to harm those weaker than himself.

People sometimes say you should wait a while to cool off. But I actually got madder after waiting a while. Sir, you are my enemy. I will never live in fear of thugs like you. I will do my best to make sure you are countered and defeated. Just like the scumbag racists and religious bigots you fought in Iraq. You are all my enemy. You may or may not have the drop on me at the moment. It will be difficult for you to deploy nukes against me as it means that places like Russia will start providing other countries nukes to contain the American menace. You could potentially invade conventionally too, but once again, that would trigger off an international alliance against you. You lose all your bases and have to fight for every bit of territory. You lose your oil supplies too. You're going to be in a world of hurt. True Anglophones have spent centuries plotting against thugs like you. We know how to contain menaces, and we will contain you. It's only that the American people are not like you, and do not support thugs like you, and will eventually jail thugs like you, that you haven't seen such an international alliance spring up yet. Brainless thugs like you have their uses, but in the end, science will defeat you. You are outnumbered and outgunned by the decent people of the free world. And there are bigger and better and more numerous and better armed thugs than you who will ensure that you are locked up in jail when your thuggish tendencies get the better of you. Using one set of thugs against another set of thugs to make the world a better place? Priceless.

BTW, if thugs like you are actually the majority of America, and the American people are just doing a BLOODY good job of keeping a huge conspiracy going, then, moron, you've just shown your hand too early. Just like stupid Osama did. Osama wasn't in a position to do any real damage to America. He should have waited for a Pakistani nuke. And likewise, America is not in a position to enslave the world YET. We are able to protect against what I guess are now ex-Anglophones, since you don't have the Anglophone spirit of universal freedom. Thank God the Anglophones are not a single nation so that we can protect against those that go feral. Hopefully there will always be at least one good Anglophone nation that can explain reality to the rest of the world and protect freedom and human rights. And actually, at the moment that is America, and reality is that you simply don't represent America. You represent the ridiculously high prison population of America. You just haven't been caught yet. Right at the moment, Australia and New Zealand are the countries that have gone feral. UK and Canada are quivering a bit, but hopefully they will fall on the right side.

For the decent Americans out there - which I believe is a slight majority - thanks for hanging in there in Iraq when the cowardly treacherous pinko Australian government abandoned our Iraqi allies with its tail between its legs, disgracing our servicemen who have a very very long history of fighting for freedom in the world.

And for the Canadians out there - it is your turn to replace Australia as the independent reference for the confused Americans who aren't quite sure whether exporting freedom by force of arms is right or wrong. Be strong. Be Canadian. Speak English (not that Froggy crap I sometimes here from over there - what the hell is that about?!). I bless you. I love you to bits. You will be forgiven for your treachery in Vietnam and Iraq if you guide America into Iran. But hurry up about it please. The clock is ticking.