Anti-Subjugator

Eugene asked me to comment on this, which is a response to Bush's speech. What is it that all the nutcases don't get about this war? You do NOT open an unnecessary front against Islam. If you do that, you have to kill all of them yourself. Currently you have Muslims killing other Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. What more could you possibly want?! Are they not being killed at a rapid enough rate for your liking or what? No options have been closed off. At any point in the future, Bush can simply tell a democratic Iraq, "either close down all the mosques, or Basrah and Baghdad get nuked". A democratic Iraq is likely to choose to save itself. Saddam didn't give a toss about the well-being of the Iraqi people, but a democratic government should. Even if the democracy doesn't respond in a sane manner, there will be those who are sane. You simply need to empower them, and let them kill all those who want to retain mosques. It's like shooting rats in a barrel.

And as for the pullbacks in Fallujah and Najaf, you only think that was wrong because you AREN'T AS SMART AS BUSH. When Iraq was being liberated, no-one had any idea whether the liberators would be welcomed or reviled. There was only one way to find out. The lefties were convinced that all Iraqis spoke with one voice and all goose-stepped to Saddam's tune. The answer was exactly the opposite. The Iraqis didn't speak with one voice. There was a full range of opinion, from those suicidally anti-American, to those completely pro-American. That then raised a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Why were some in favour, some against? Why was Al Sadr (Shiite) against, Al Sistani hedging his bets, and long queues forming to join the new security services? This question needed to be answered. It was vitally important to know the answer to this, so that a political solution could potentially be found for the rest of the Middle East, instead of having to use the military all the time. Fallujah and Najaf were part of the experiment. The insurgents did not understand that they were completely outgunned and could easily be defeated. Pullbacks were done so that we could find out exactly what they were trying to do. Simply crushing them would have meant that we LOST THAT INFORMATION FOR ETERNITY. I don't know if the US government was analyzing the situation as much as I was, but I was TOTALLY ENGROSSED in solving this enigma. I formed a conclusion. The conclusion is that in the event of chaos (the limited US forces in Iraq meant that people had no-one controlling them, so it was pretty chaotic), a subjugate-or-be-subjugated genetic instinct in humans is invoked. Try it for yourself. It probably only works if you're male. Clear your head of empathy, imagine you're in a smallish tribe and the tribal leader has just died with no successor, and everyone is looking around, wanting to know who is going to be in charge now. It's subjugate-or-be-subjugated. The word "subjugate" is not in our genes obviously. It manifests itself in a desire to reach out your hands and CONTROL ALL MOVING THINGS. There is a wonderful power rush that comes with having all moving things under your control. I was able to experience it once when I concentrated hard and tried to imagine that situation. There is NOTHING YOU WON'T DO. It is a life-or-death situation. In our liberal democracies, we don't get to experience this, because there are limits on everyone's power, throughout the system. It manifests itself in rapists though.

Anyway, Bush has done everything exactly correctly. If anyone has any specific complaints about Bush's policy, please ask me, and I'll give you my answer as to why I think it is the best tactic to do. Perhaps the complaint is how expensive Iraq is. Well, that's a valid complaint, except that it's a VERY HUMANE thing to do, to give the Iraqi people the BEST SHOT at living in a modern first-world liberal democracy. While it is expensive, America can afford it. If you want to save money, stop pouring money down a rathole in Africa. If you're not prepared to recolonize Africa, then just forget about it. This is the last country that you need to do such expensive nation-building in. All the remaining countries can fend for themselves. They just need their dictators replaced so that they have a shot at building their own wealth. Replacing a dictator takes 3 weeks and costs 100 allied lives. Do the maths. Reuse the old security forces instead of disbanding them. It was necessary to disband the extremely tainted security forces in Iraq to give the Iraqis clean western-standard institutions. For the remaining countries, just settle for something less, and look to improve it over time, instead of all at once.

At the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the most prominent religious figure in the world, Pope John Paul, came out in favour of the state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis - in favour of indefinite continuation of what was possibly the worst holocaust of the 20th century, which even included institutionalized rape, something that not even the Nazis or the Communists stooped to. What exactly was the religion of the Pope that made him not have empathy for the rape victims of Iraq? Was he a sociopath? Or was there something missing from his religion? The religious leaders in Australia were also in favour of institutionalized rape. And in a bizarre new development, the Anglicans have decided to persecute Jews in the hope of getting praise instead of vitriol from the Islamofascists. Let's analyze some of the major religions to discover "what went wrong".

I won't bother with boring religions like Buddhism, where priests seem to sit around doing nothing instead of trying to indoctrinate children before it's too late and they become rational. And the practitioners themselves seem to burn incense, nod their head, and ask God to give them money. It's men of violence who shape the world, and for that we need to look at Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Let's start with Judaism. They have a barbaric book called the Torah, which competes with Mein Kampf for cruelty of man on man. However, after thousands of years of persecution for calling themselves "God's chosen ones" and putting everyone else in an out-group bound for Hell, they appear to have toned it down a bit. But their barbaric book, which includes horrible torture such as being stoned to death, remains as-is. They don't appear to want to change it to something more suitable for the 21st century. In fact, all the Jews need to do is teach their children about CURRENT Israeli law, and how it protects human rights and doesn't discriminate against citizens on the basis of race/religion/sex. The solution is obvious. Ditch the Torah, start teaching the tolerance of Israel's liberal democracy (which is rational and humanist and always subject to change with new understandings). Why do they persist with keeping their Torah, unwilling to delete the violent passages, or at least add some sort of disclaimer to the front of their grisly book? I don't know. Perhaps they're sociopaths.

Next we have Christianity. And would you know it? Same deal. In Matthew 5 verses 17-20 (New Testament), Jesus clearly instructs people to follow the Old Testament. Which is presumably why Christians continue to publish the Old Testament, instead of deleting it and replacing it with "Wow, I hope that never happens again". Or they could replace it with "God says that slavery is wrong, sexism is wrong, racism is wrong and that we should use our brains to figure out what is right and wrong instead of relying on the alleged wisdom of some ignorant goat-herders who died centuries ago". But they don't. Instead they continue printing this vile, cruel book, which even teaches people to stone their own children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And once again, the Christians have all the European, American and Australian liberal democracies from which they can learn about tolerance and generosity from. The answers (rationalism and humanism) are staring them in the face. In fact, despite his errors of omission and his authorizing of the cruelty in the Old Testament, Jesus seems to have been a humanist, basically following Aristotle's Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have others do unto you). So why do Christians refuse to update their nasty book? I don't know. Maybe they're sociopaths.

Next we have Islam. This took barbarity to a new height. E.g. how would you like to be a woman captured in a war that Mohammed started, turned into a slave, raped, and then be told by your rapist "what are you complaining about woman, God says this is my right, go and read 33:50 if you don't believe me"? If that isn't adding insult to injury, what is?! God not only authorizes stoning your own children, he authorizes rape as well. That's what led Al Sadr in Iraq to announce that any female British soldiers that were caught would become sex slaves, and it is what authorizes the Iranian regime to rape girls who are protesting for their human rights. Now before I question why the Muslims don't update their holy book with something a bit more humane, let's see something interesting.

There has been attempts by Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders to come together to resolve their differences so that everyone can live together in peace and harmony. Sound good? Sure. But how do you trust someone who continues to indoctrinate children with a respective book of hate, and who refuses to adopt your particular book of hate because he thinks he'll go to Hell if he does? All these religions teach of a vicious vindictive God, and if you are unlucky enough to choose the WRONG RELIGION (or even wrong sect!), it's ETERNAL DAMNATION for you. How do you trust people? You can't. It's not possible. It's a failure. There's no meeting of the minds, no compromise, no new "combined" book with the good bits of each. There's just suspicion. And status quo. I do concede that modern Christianity is quite progressive (ie although the Pope supports holocausts, he didn't actual create any new ones). But not to the point where anyone would dare update their book and specify under what circumstances (if any) that Muslims, Hindus and atheists would be allowed into heaven. So these people remain in an out-group, with no "legal" protection of their human rights. How can you possibly trust someone who is so non-humanist that they're unwilling to give you religious guarantees, in writing, ie in their holy book, that you're not going to be sent to Hell? Would you trust someone who thinks you're one step away from Hell-fire? Not in a million years!

Ok, so now back to the question of why the Muslims won't update their book. Guess what? They have! That's what Sufism is. Some Muslims could see how inhumane the book was and did something about it. This is why the Indonesians and ex-Soviet Muslims aren't fanatics. Unfortunately in the Middle East, Sufism was defeated by war, and the Sunnis took over. And there was one other major step in Islam. The Mu'tazilah realised that the Koran was written by Mohammed, not revealed from God. They pledged loyalty to their brain above all else. And with this important step, they were able to rewrite anything they wanted. Nothing was sacrosanct. Everything was open to scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Mu'tazilah were also defeated by war.

And that brings us to the latest precipice. The Muslims don't appear to realise it, but practicing Christianity has almost been wiped out in the west. There are more practicing Muslims in Britain than there are practicing Christians. Secular/rational humanism, as represented by our liberal democracies, has taken over. But the Muslims don't realise that religious wars finished centuries ago, and are essentially banging their head against a brick wall (the science-based western military), trying to get their prophet recognized by all. They don't understand the strength of the western military. They think that because the USSR supposedly lost in Afghanistan, and the US is supposedly weaker-willed than the USSR, that the US is a pushover. The US is essentially paused at the moment, contemplating whether to wipe Islam from the face of the earth or not. Iraq was an opportunity to watch the behaviour of Muslims in a free environment. To see what they would do. And what was found was that Iraq was a very diverse nation, and with a lot of people behaving irrationally (in the west we assume that everyone else is as rational as us, an incorrect assumption). What we also found was that there were Muslims just like us! Via the Iraqi blogs. The very best of the Iraqis, the one who is IDENTICAL to secular humanists in the west, is Ali. E.g. he applauded the assassination of Yassin, a Palestinian terrorist. His religion? Mu'tazilah.

We now have the answers we need. If you had a gun, and a poor IGNORANT lion saw you and wanted to eat you for lunch, would you shoot him and prove how tough you are, or would you have empathy for it, and climb a tree to avoid a clash? This is the choice we are faced with now. It is the greatest test Christians will ever face. Do they listen to Jesus, more-or-less a humanist, or do they just continue to watch lions being chewed up and spat out by an invincible US military? What would Jesus do? Climb the tree! Convert to Mu'tazilah. Let the poor, abused, confused Muslims "win". Bush should convert to Mu'tazilah and declare the US to be an Islamic State under Mu'tazilah - which it already is in all but name. This will defuse the problem, and we will have an opportunity, over the coming decades, to teach Muslims that organized religion has been replaced by secular humanism via liberal democracies. And that religion is a personal matter, that no-one really cares about, or should care about. And that if you leave Islam to become a Buddhist, the response should not be "you deserve to die" but "good for you!". September 11 was God's test of Christians. And to a man they have failed it. Not one of them followed what Jesus would have done. I'm the only convert. And I am a convert from atheism.

So Christians, go back to your book of hate. Go back to your pretensions of being better than Muslims. And the same goes for Jews. You people should know better. The Muslims I can forgive. They don't know any better, having lived under brutal dictatorships with no freedom of speech (don't forget, all given Papal blessing). But there's no such excuse for those raised in an environment of (secular) humanism. I have nothing but contempt for anyone still calling themselves Christian or Jew, watching fellow human beings, beautiful but confused monkeys, getting slaughtered on TV.

Open letter to General Peter Cosgrove, Chief of the Australian Defence Forces.

Dear Sir,
I am writing to you about a HORRIFIC EVENT. Some Australians have been charged with exercising their freedom of speech. I only found about this yesterday. I don't follow Australian news, I'm more interested in the spread of freedom in the Middle East. I didn't even believe it when I was told about it. Australia is a free country. You can say whatever you damn well want. It's our birthright. We're Australians! But I did a google search, and he was telling the truth. My first reaction to this was that I decided to go to Melbourne and repeat what they had said, so that I could go to jail myself. The fascist Brax government can't arrest all of us.

And then I thought to myself - what's this "all of us"? Why aren't 20 million Australians ALREADY in Brax's gulags? And that's when it dawned on me. Australia has lost its soul. That's why at the time of the Iraq war, 36% of Australians supported holocaust/state-slavery/institutionalized rape in Iraq. We've turned into cowards unwilling to even stand up for our freedom of speech. This isn't the country that stood up to the Japanese in WWII, who were on their way to introduce us to the quaint concept of "comfort women". No. This is the country that frogmarched millions of South Vietnamese allies off to commie gulags against their will. The Australia that I once thought I lived in, has died long ago. But let's see what we can salvage from the wreckage.

You know, for years I have argued with the whacky Americans, who insisted that their constitution made them "more free" than the rest of the world, as they boasted about being the "land of the free and the home of the brave". They had this whacky concept that the Australian Government had the right to grant itself unlimited powers and abrogate our freedoms, while their constitution and Bill of Rights limited what the government could do. I argued with them, told them that they were nut jobs who had simply never met any Australians, and that the Australian Army would never allow the government to do that, they would stand by the people. You can't imagine how much it pains me to have to admit that I was wrong all along, and they were right. You really can't trust the government. The Marxist Brax appears to have aligned with the Islamofascists and by doing so his parasitic party could continue the only policy it knows, ie steal as much from the rich as you can, while you can. The left-wing has long ago sold out human rights and principles.

But, Brax is not the Australian Prime Minister. The Australian Prime Minister, once realising that the fundamental human rights of Australians to freedom of speech had been abrogated, should have called an emergency referendum to install a Bill of Rights, as the Americans have. So that we're no longer dependent on a whacky constitution that gives us no explicit rights at all, and instead, people desperately have to say it "implies" rights. Yeah, right. I don't know what game John Howard is trying to play. Maybe he's trying to show that it's Labor that abuses the trust we give to governments to do the right thing. However, by doing so he has cooked his own goose. He is now complicit in the abrogation of our human rights. It's not just 2 Australians who have lost their rights. It's 20 million. As we have shown that Australians have no constitutional protection of their rights. Governments really can take them away. And you know what the worst thing is about it? YOU let them.

My grandfathers fought in World War 2 so that I would be free. They passed on this precious gift of freedom to YOU. Freedom was a gift that they ENTRUSTED to you, which you were to DEFEND WITH YOUR LIFE and then PASS IT ON TO OUR GRANDCHILDREN. You have violated their trust. You have let our freedom slip away ON YOUR WATCH. It is OUTRAGEOUS. Regardless of whether the majority of Australians have turned into cowards, or adopted the siren song of Marxism, MINORITIES HAVE RIGHTS TOO. Those 2 men, who stand alone, are the best Australians we have. They weren't even born here, and they're more Australian than you. They are standing up for freedom while you stand idly by and watch them go to jail. Have you watched "A Few Good Men"? The "just obeying orders" excuse DOESN'T CUT IT. You have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect the weaker members of society. And if the Australian Prime Minister sells out our human rights for whatever political games he is trying to play, he FORFEITS HIS RIGHT TO GOVERN.

Given that people make up any old crap that is "implied" by our constitution (in the absence of actually having a sensible constitution), I'll tell you what's IMPLIED by the constitution. What is implied is that when you wear the uniform of the Australian Army, you HONOUR THE UNIFORM THAT MY GRANDFATHER WORE. What is implied by our constitution is that you DEFEND WITH YOUR LIFE the human rights of Australians. What is implied by our constitution is that when you see the Australian Prime Minister ignoring human rights abuses of Australian citizens, you REPLACE HIM SIR. YOU REPLACE HIM. It is your DUTY to enact a coup and fix this problem by installing a Bill of Rights by force of arms, exactly as the American Revolutionaries did. This experiment of "trusting the government" has FAILED. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to retake our lost freedoms. Freedoms which YOU lost. They were lost on YOUR WATCH SIR. The longer you delay the more you dishonour your uniform. I refuse to live on my knees any more Sir. I'd rather be shot as a "traitor". If you aren't willing to do what needs to be done, then RESIGN and let someone who still remembers what freedom means take your place.

Hell, I'd rather Australia become an American colony. I don't care if I don't get to vote. I trust the Americans to install a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government. I trust them to protect my freedom of speech. I trust them to hold it as sacrosanct. What I don't trust is Australian politicians, the Australian Constitution, or the Australian Defence Force. I used to naively trust all 3 institutions, but all 3 have broken my trust. You should be ashamed of yourself, Sir. You have dishonoured the blood of all the Australian soldiers that have died to give you your freedom. You lost the freedom they ENTRUSTED you with. Entrusted you with to give to our children, Sir. It was meant to be for our children. It's NOT YOUR PROPERTY to lose, Sir. It's your grandchildren's property, Sir. ON YOUR WATCH SIR. How could you do this Sir? How can you look your children in the eye, Sir? Resign sir. Resign with whatever little dignity you have left. Or try to find the courage necessary to stand up to John Howard who has sold us out. The ADF can rip through Howard's pathetic collection of bodyguards like a hot knife through butter. You know it and I know it sir. It is your DUTY to stage a coup, Sir. As implied by our constitution (at least if you ask the right person).

Open Letter to John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia

Dear Sir,
I would like to bring your attention to something horrifying and insidious that has happened in Australia. Some Australian citizens have been charged for exercising their freedom of speech. This is the sort of thing I expect from a tinpot dictatorship, not Australia. Even if what these citizens had said was completely untrue (which it isn't), they have an ABSOLUTE HUMAN RIGHT to say it, without being locked up by a cruel intolerant society. In fact, if you're going to lock them up, you can lock me up too. I'm happy to repeat whatever it is they said that was supposedly illegal, regardless of whether it is true or not. Our ancestors spilt a LOT of blood to ensure that Australia remained free. I'm not about to give up my freedom of speech and cower in silence. It would destroy my soul. Just as this law against freedom of speech is destroying Australia's soul. My philosophy is "live free or die". I thought this philosophy was held by all (or at least, most) Australians, but apparently not. This is why we need a bill of rights, the same as America and Iraq (the most free country in the world) have.

I am very sad that we actually need such a document. I previously thought that I could trust the Australian government. It never occurred to me that we might be living in an intolerant police state. I must admit that I was suspicious when David Irving was denied an entry visa, on the grounds that someone might take offence at his ideas. Well GUESS WHAT, Mr Howard? I'm ALSO happy to repeat EVERYTHING that David Irving has EVER said, regardless of whether it is true or not. You can't silence IDEAS. If you can go to jail in this horrible police state because of an IDEA, then you can start by locking me up. Why don't you make a list of everything that is illegal to say in this country? I'll say ALL of it, regardless of whether it is true or not. Although I was miffed about David Irving being kept out of Australia, he was after all a foreigner, and I do agree that we have a sovereign right to discriminate against which foreigners are allowed in. It never occurred to me that any government in Australia would DARE deny freedom of speech to its own citizens. Spitting in the face of all those who died valiantly for this country.

Not that I consider it at all relevant, but let's have a closer look at what these Australians are getting locked up for saying. "These suggested that the Koran promoted killing and looting, that Muslims wanted to take over Australia and terrorists were true Muslims". Hell, have you actually READ the Koran? It says a lot worse than that! Take a look at 33:50. It says that when you capture prisoners during war, they become slaves (that Allah provided), and that you can have sex with them. Basically it authorizes slavery and rape. You see, Mohammed didn't know that slavery was wrong (just like America's founding fathers didn't either, who are similarly aped by similarly backward people). Actually, I personally am a Muslim (but I belong to a little-known sect called Mu'tazilah - see www.moatazilla.org). And I believe Mohammed was a prophet. I believe he was deliberately sent by God so that we could find out what that natural state of humans was. Which isn't pretty! And that's what we need religion for - to overcome our natural state. This is an extremely important lesson. However, the Mu'tazilah believe that the Koran was written by Mohammed, not revealed from God. And the Mu'tazilah are right. God would NEVER EVER EVER have authorized slavery. The Mu'tazilah were an enlightened period of Islam history. In my opinion, all Muslims should convert to this sect, instead of the horrible Sunni sect that thinks that the Koran is the word of God and perfect in every way, beyond question, and that Mohammed also was a perfect example of a human being to be emulated for all times (despite the fact that Mohammed converted innocent people into slaves and raped them, and married a 9 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 12).

If you want to ban something, I'll tell you what to ban. You should ban the indoctrination of children. The Koran is a book of hate, similar to Mein Kampf. Putting "God said" in the front of Mein Kampf doesn't make Hitler's rantings some sort of religion that is beyond question. EVERYTHING needs to be open to question. E.g. where's the gynaecology report that says that Mary was a virgin? In the absence of such a report, Jesus was technically a bastard. But what is insidious, is indoctrinating children to think that a particular book, any book (or even the US constitution for that matter), written centuries ago, is the word of God, beyond question, so-called "these truths are self-evident". Did you know that the Christian bible tells people to stone their own children to death if they are disobedient? Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Not even SADDAM stoned his own children!!! I don't have a problem with people publishing these books of hate, so long as they don't ACT on them. The Australian government should guarantee that the laws of this country are rational, humanist and non-subjugating. Sick books of hate that promote slavery (or stoning), should remain legal. But indoctrinating children with these horrible books, in my opinion, should be illegal. Children have rights. They have the right to not be told that they will go to Hell if they don't believe that these sick books are true. They have a right to not be indoctrinated that non-Muslims will go to Hell and drink boiling water (see Koran 14:17). Teaching children about such cruel vindictive gods is unacceptable in my opinion. If adults wish to believe such fairy tales, that's their freedom of choice, but once again, so long as they don't ACT on it. Sunni Muslims should be free to peddle their doctrine of hate, so long as they don't indoctrinate their children with this hatred of non-Muslims.

And although I think that Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali who "praised suicide bombers and claimed the September 11 attacks were God's work against oppressors" is a horrible racist bigotted fascist, he's got an absolute right to say it, so long as he doesn't ACT on it (or indoctrinate children with this hatred). The Australian government has a responsibility to respond to this hatred by teaching people (via schools and via parliament) that all humans are equal, regardless of race, religion or sex. If the Australian government wishes, they could promote tolerant versions of Islam, such as Sufism or Mu'tazilah. And the Australian government should be condemning what this Sheikh says. Just as I have NO PROBLEM with the Australian government condemning David Irving for being a holocaust-denier. Hell, I have no problem with the Australian government condemning me if I repeat David Irving's words. I deserve condemnation if I do that! But this is a free market of ideas. My ideas will stand or fall on their own merits. The Australian government shouldn't be silencing me, they should be debating me.

Anyway, I think that these men would be turning in their grave if they knew that the current Australians had given up their freedom of speech in order to appease some Sheikh who has no concept of what being an Australian actually means. What a disgusting perverted country I live in. Such a proud history of fighting for freedom and now surrendering to 400,000 Sunni Muslims armed with sharp tongues. Mr Howard, I don't know what sick religion you follow, but can I suggest you convert to Mu'tazilah? The Mu'tazilah value freedom of speech and human rights. The Mu'tazilah captures the ideology of the Australians who died valiantly in many wars to keep our country free of subjugation. What does your sick religion preach instead, that made you stand by and watch Australians go to jail for exercising those cherished freedoms? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should resign before you embarass this country any further. Oh, and don't forget to come and arrest me, you sick Nazi.

Oh, and one more thing. Don't try to say "that's the Victorian government, nothing to do with me". The fact is that you can hold a referendum enshrining freedom of speech in this country, just like in Iraq and USA. We are clearly in desperate need of such a bill of rights, before we totally sell our souls to the Devil. The next time there's a referendum for a republic, I'm going to vote "no", until we get a bill of rights to go alongside it. I'm kicking myself for being so naive as to think that you pricks could be trusted.

Open Letter to Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa

Dear Sir,
I would like to draw your attention to your statement where you asked "why (is) the West is so concerned by Zimbabwe but makes relatively little noise about other African emergencies, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some three million people died in a civil war, and where armed bands kill, rape and loot with impunity in some areas?". Good question! I will answer that question for you in a moment. But before I answer it, I'd like to ask you a question of my own. Why are you NOT concerned about Zimbabwe? Why do you think that problems in DR Congo mean that Zimbabwe's horrible Marxist thug Mugabe gets a free pass? Would condemning him and ostracizing him take too much of your valuable time? You seem to have time to support him, but not condemn him. Why is that? Is it because you feel the need to support Marxists worldwide (ie even Aristide in Haiti), regardless of the horrors they inflict on their own people? Any amount of human rights abuse is acceptable in "the cause", right? You don't give a damn about the human rights of blacks, except as a means to promote your sick twisted Marxist dogma. When it comes down to it, you just like the idea of being able to steal money from the rich, and if it's a rich white, so much the better. I'm not sure why people expected any better from a racist Marxist terrorist organization like the ANC. That even burned down schools so that blacks would remain ignorant Marxist-supporters instead of learning about modern economic theory.

Mugabe's holocaust even includes instititutionalized rape. A better question you should have asked is why the left-wing in the West cared so much about the capitalist white South African regime when there were FAR WORSE regimes in the Middle East. But we both know the answer to that, don't we? Anything for "the cause". But we're onto you now. One way or another, we're going to remove the Marxist thugs that you support. We're going to replace them with rational humanist regimes. Then I hope that we will have the fortitude to replace your own racist Marxist regime. Minorities have rights too. The white South Africans have a right to not live in fear because the racist ANC is secretly smiling at the rampant racist crime committed against whites. "Payback time", right? Sir, may I ask what religion you are? Because whatever it is, you should change to a religion where people are born equal and without sin, regardless of skin colour, guilt is not transferrable, and people are judged by their current behaviour, not past bad behaviour. This philosophy is what makes Australia and America the successes they are. And it's what allowed America to turn the Japanese and Germans from enemies into friends. Anyway, the religion I would recommend to you is Mu'tazilah.

Now, I promised to answer your question about DR Congo. First of all, what makes you think we aren't concerned? Why do you think UN troops, French troops, NGOs are already there trying to solve the problem? There has been multiple peace agreements signed. What exactly is it that you want the West to do? What are you proposing to solve the problem? And why do you need us to solve the problem anyway, why aren't you solving it yourself, if you believe you have a solution? If a government needs to be toppled, or one side in a civil war needs to be supported, the West has the forces required to achieve this. Is this the situation in DR Congo? It IS the situation in Zimbabwe. We can SOLVE that problem by toppling the government. In fact, I call on the Australian Prime Minister to stop issuing words of condemnation against Zimbabwe and show a bit of backbone for a change and do exactly that. As an Australian, I'm embarassed that our Prime Minister portrays us as a country that only condemns human rights abuses and is too scared to actually DO something about it lest our armed forces have to face sharpened bananas. However, I digress. We're trying to solve the problem with DR Congo. You are quite right. Women are being raped in DR Congo. We have to stop it. In the same way that Debbie and her 11-year-old room mate have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to not be raped and have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to expect their government to do all in its power to STOP rape instead of COMMITTING rape and have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to expect the international community (or the subset that aren't racist sociopaths, anyway) to come to her aid, so too do the women and girls in DR Congo.

The problem is, DR Congo is full of racist sociopaths. I don't know what their religion is, but it sure as hell isn't Mu'tazilah. It's not the government that is committing the atrocities, it's thugs all over the country. In order to solve this problem (and the women in DR Congo have a RIGHT to expect this problem to be solved!) you need to do several things. You need to teach the people of DR Congo, via both religion and education, to NOT BE RACIST and HAVE EMPATHY FOR OTHERS. This is a LONG process. In addition, you need to have the government assert control over the country and get rid of the weapons in the hands of civilians. The trouble you're finding in DR Congo is that the multiple ethnic groups don't trust each other, for good reason. They don't trust the government to protect their rights. They don't trust the African Union to protect their rights either, with good reason - just look at the instititionalized rape in Zimbabwe that the African Union doesn't give a rat's arse about. And thanks to the archaic Treaty of Westphalia, they think that foreign countries won't forcibly intervene to protect universal human rights. And they're sort of right about that too. I wouldn't give up my weapons to an untrustworthy government like that either.

However, the good news is that there is a solution. DR Congo needs to become a French protectorate. France is a first-world country with a top-notch military. It can easily install a rational humanist government in the DR Congo by force of arms. It can then EMPOWER the non-racist Congolese, by allowing HUMANIST Congolese to join the new army (under French command). Any military personnel who show ethnic partisanship should be sacked. The same applies for all other elements of the government structure. We know how to create good government. Karl Marx doesn't have the answers. Science has the answers. The longer we wait to give France the green light to do what needs to be done, the longer the rape of Congolese women continues. I don't want that on my conscience. I know it's hard for a racist sociopath like yourself to understand, but I care about all humans, regardless of race. Well, admittedly I care less about racist sociopaths than I do about innocent 11 year old girls. But I would not want to see even a racist sociopath like you being raped. You have rights too! Even though you don't care about the rights of others, I care about your rights. That is why I want to use minimum force required to restrain you, and I do not seek revenge on behalf of the Debbie's of the world who you condemn to a life of horror. When the Australian Prime Minister finally shows some spine and liberates Zimbabwe, if you attempt to interfere, the Americans will destroy your military. So I'd advise you to keep out and let the humanists do what needs to be done. In the case of Zimbabwe, there's even a humanist opposition waiting in the wings. Probably no need to create an Australian protectorate. We can simply empower Morgan Tsvangirai instead.

The solutions are all there. What's lacking is political will. Personally I blame the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, for being a spineless sissy, unwilling to commit troops to protect Debbie et al, because he's scared he might upset an assortment of racist Marxist African thugs. I think he should resign. But I'm pretty sure he isn't a sociopath. He seems genuinely upset about the horrors in Zimbabwe. So, his heart's in the right place, but he has no backbone. He will go down in history as a spineless Australian who eternally embarassed the whole country by turning a blind eye to institutionalized rape. Or maybe not turning a blind eye, but delegating responsibility for fixing the problem to you. And when you delegate responsibility for fixing a problem to a racist Marxist sociopath, you know it's the same as not doing anything at all. Just a pathetic attempt to absolve himself of responsibility. When history came calling, Howard chose to hide under his (comfortable) bed. It's times like this that I wish I was born in a different country, e.g. e.g. e.g.. Hmmmmm. Maybe a different planet. One where rapists aren't allowed to run countries. Or racist Marxist (ex?)terrorist sociopaths either for that matter. Or spineless western leaders such as Howard who have the technical ability to stop holocausts but simply CHOOSE not to do so because they might be called nasty names by some scary African thugs with sharpened bananas. Good grief. Good day Sir. You're on the wrong side of history, and the day will come when your name sits alongside Stalin. Although you don't even think that's an insult, do you?

Open Letter to Jacques Chirac, President of France

Dear Sir,
I've been wanting to write to you for some time now, but better late than never. First of all I'd like to thank you for France's contribution to the free world. Especially in WWI, where more French died protecting the free world than all the Anglophones that died in BOTH World Wars! And let's not forget that one of the Anglophone countries didn't even bother turning up until they were personally attacked and didn't have much choice after that. Let no-one ever say that France has not paid its dues. It has paid an enormous blood price and France has a right to expect that others should shoulder the bulk of the burden after that astounding contribution. Do you hear a word of thanks from the Anglophones for this effort? Nope. Defeaning silence. But let me thank you on behalf of ungrateful Anglophones everywhere. Merci France!

Next, I'd like to thank you for standing up to Hitler in WWII. While certain Anglophones were hiding under their beds, it was you that stood up for the Poles. Some Anglophones like to pretend that the French surrendered at the first opportunity. But it was simply the fact that the Germans had invented the concept of massed armour in mobile warfare. France didn't so much surrender as was beaten. And it wasn't just France that was beaten - British forces were also. Britain was only saved by its moat. And once again, France lost more people in WWII than all the Anglophones together. Do you think Anglophones are raised to be thankful to the French for our freedom? Nope. Silence. Anglophones stole all the credit for everything. At kindergarten, I can remember singing "We won the war, in 1944. We won the hive, in 1945". Although admittedly I don't remember the teachers singing that. Come to think of it, I also don't remember the teachers singing "Jingle Bells, Batman smells, Robin ran away. Wonder Woman lost her tits, flying TAA". But I digress. Where was I? Oh yes. Although I wasn't raised to sing the praises of France for my freedom, I have since learnt the hard facts, and I'd like to thank you belatedly. Merci France!

Then there's the American War of Independence. Do you think that Americans teach their children that it was French heavy-lifting that won the war (much like it was the US, not the Northern Alliance, that beat the Taliban), or do you think they are taught that it was a spontaneous glorious "popular" (1/3) uprising? Three guesses. This folklore even persists today, where many Americans insist that if people don't like living in state-slavery/holocaust that even includes institutionalized rape (sheesh, didn't anyone teach these people to protect women?), they should have a glorious spontaneous revolution "just like we did", and if they don't stand up for freedom themselves "just like we did", women DESERVE to be raped. Of course, professional soldiers know better. It was a military on military clash resulting in a FRENCH MILITARY VICTORY, the highlight being the naval battle off Yorktown which clinched it (combined with the fact that the British simply CHOSE not to return, in much the same way that America simply CHOSE not to use its aircraft to decimate the NVA tanks invading South Vietnam in 1975).

Anyway, this French victory created independent Anglophone powers for the first time. With a common culture. Along with the American civil war, the internecine Anglophone clashes eventually allowed a common ideology to emerge that allowed the Anglophone powers to unite instead of fighting each other. That common ideology was FIGHT SUBJUGATION, along with a rational, humanist government, expressed in the form of liberal democracy which gradually emerged, and which also enabled us to finally, and wonderfully, unite with France as well - with the Entente Cordiale. Basically liberal democracies don't fight other liberal democracies. They instead unite in opposition to subjugators. So, once again, thankyou France for moving the world forward towards liberal democracy. A single Anglophone power may have caused worldwide dictatorship. We'll never know. As a freedom-loving Australian, having multiple Anglophone powers to call on for help gives me more options. In case one of them has a left-wing government in power that decides to abandon their Australian allies the same way the left-wing governments in all Anglophone countries decided to abandon South Vietnamese allies. Also, while I don't have a problem with the Queen being our ceremonial head of state (although I voted for a republic at the recent referendum), I sure as hell wouldn't want that dysfunctional family to actually have any power! Thankfully the anti-subjugation reforms happened before I was born. Merci France!

However, can I make a small suggestion. Next time you liberate a territory, can you make it conditional on them not, in their revolutionary zeal, reverting back to the "good old days" of the 11th century so that they could unwind the spelling of the words which the French had changed, e.g. "color" had become "colour", "honor" had become "honour" etc. After EIGHT FRIGGIN' CENTURIES I'd kind of GOT USED TO THE NEW SPELLING. Now all the google search queries are screwed up because of the inconsistent spelling. I mean, what other group of people romantically idealizes some period of time CENTURIES AGO? Can you think of any? Also, make the liberation conditional on them adopting the rational metric system you created instead of swearing eternal allegiance to King George's You-Beaut System of Weights and Measures Designed to Smash Mars Probes to Smithereens. Merci beaucoup.

Also, I'd like to thank you for standing together with America after she was attacked on 9/11. I noticed that your forces were in Mazar-e-Sharif at a tense time, and that your forces set themselves up as walking targets on the streets of Kabul, taking bullets for Americans so that they don't need to do the much-hated task of peacekeeping - especially in a country that has historically been a nightmare for foreigners. Your contributions to the cause of freedom don't make the news here. On behalf of all those who don't give thanks where thanks is due - MERCI FRANCE.

However, a horrifying thing happened since then. I don't know if it is because you were sick of the ingratitude and lack of recognition from Anglophones, but there was an opportunity to free 27 million Iraqi slaves from a holocaust which even included INSTITUTIONALIZED RAPE. I was expecting a great country like yours to jump at the opportunity to liberate more people and advance the cause of freedom. Maybe there was some sort of gigantic misunderstanding. I assume you realise that America is restrained in being able to simply blurt out "who gives a damn whether there's WMD there or not, this is a chance to end institutionalized rape". Because America can't prematurely open a front with other human rights abusers when it still needs their help! But France is not constrained in the same manner. France can be the spokesman for liberty. This is France we're talking about. The same country that created the Statue of Liberty and the eternal flame! Liberating Iraq from what was in some ways a worse holocaust than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (those places didn't rape women or feed men to lions while zealously promoting their respective dogmas). I know you did send your forces to near Iraq, and said you would deploy them if Saddam used WMD, so your heart was clearly on the side of the free world. But making your deployment conditional on use of WMD implies that you weren't considering the beautiful sight of freeing 27 million slaves from a holocaust. It implies that you weren't part of the team that said "Never Again" after liberating Auschwitz. Is there something I'm missing? France. Liberty. France. Liberty. France.

I understand that you've done your fair share of liberation, and that if you chose not to liberate anyone ever again, it is your right. But I would respectfully ask if you could rally your forces for one final campaign. To rid the rest of the world of dictatorship. There is an opportunity at the moment. The remaining dictators, besides China, are weak and not in an alliance. If the free world acts now, we can snuff out state-slavery once and for all. Then we can enshrine the illegality of state-slavery into the UN Charter and have a workable UN. I don't expect you to do this on your own. You can go to countries such as Australia and tell John Howard to show a bit of backbone and join you. I saw him on TV just today (2005-06-24) saying that realistically he wasn't going to invade Zimbabwe and end the institutionalized horror happening there. What's he afraid of I wonder? Sharpened bananas? He seems to be waiting for Marxist ex-terrorists in South Africa to do the right thing and end the reign of another Marxist terrorist, when South Africa's history is supporting Marxist terrorists such as Aristide of Haiti. I know this sounds insane to you and me, but it presumably makes sense to John Howard. Go figure. But first things first. Iran is my preferred candidate for liberation. It is even more lucrative than America was 200 years ago. The Iranians are ready to revolt, if we can just ground their air assets. You've got an aircraft carrier that can do this. And Australia has the SAS that could be dropped into liberated-via-revolution cities to ensure that they stay liberated. Together we could be a great team. Just as we were in WWI - France is saturated with the blood of Australians. Allies for freedom. When I look at the happy lovely smiling FREE French faces today, I know every drop of Australian blood was worth it. But I am equally desperate to see happy lovely smiling FREE Iranian faces. And so to for the rest of the world. And in today's world, it would be great having a non-Anglophone leading the way, as it would confound the enemies of freedom. I beg you sir. Please do this one last thing for freedom. I expect that the liberated countries will carry the torch after that, but you need to liberate them first. I've already asked the Australian government to do this, but they didn't commit to the liberation of Iran. Maybe they want someone who actually has an aircraft carrier to take the lead? Someone like France, perhaps?

I was hoping to translate this letter into French, as I know French people have great love of their language, unlike in Australia where elocution lessons involve teaching people how to slur sentences so that you don't need to open your mouth and let flies get in, while still conveying most of your message. However, there's presumably something wrong with the Australian education system, as after 2 years of learning French, the only thing I can remember is "savez vous plantez les chouz, ala monde, ala monde, savez vous plantez les chouz, ala monde de chez nous", which translated means "how do you plant cabbages, in the fashion, in the fashion, how do you plant cabbages, in the fashion of our land". And would you believe that when I visited your lovely city Paris, this didn't help me score even ONCE. It's a sad indictment of the Australian education system. They should be ashamed of themselves.

So, I instead asked a French friend of mine to translate this letter for me. He just replied "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternity". I don't know what this means. Do you?

I almost exclusively get my news from the BBC. The reason for this is that it has an international outlook instead of obsessing over what some US senator said, or the completely mad "Murder in Modesto" fiascos. I mean, with so many murders in the US, why pick out Lacy Peterson's for endless theorizing over?! And whenever I turn on Australian news, I get to hear about the latest crash on the Hume Highway. I swear to God that they've just been showing the same car crash for the last 30 years, they don't bother wasting their time to actually take footage of new mangled wreckage. So, BBC is it. Only one problem. It's controlled by left-wingers. While they don't actually lie, and I am an expert in "unspinning" left-wing reports to extract the actual facts, it does get tiresome. For example there is this report, which has an introduction of "Summit setback - Gloom increases for Abbas as Sharon plays domestic politics". What "playing domestic politics" means is Sharon is insisting that he's not going to withdraw troops LIKE HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED IN 2000 AT THE INSISTENCE OF IGNORANT OUTSIDERS unless the Palestinians are going to provide better security for Israeli citizens than the IDF are able to provide. As the BBC has noted, this policy has widespread support in Israel. Fancy that? Israelis support policies that make them less vulnerable to being blown up by yet another racist Arab Muslim stuck in the 7th century.

Then in the article we have "They also want Israel to release their prisoners". Ok, so the priority of Palestinians is not to save lives or improve living standards, it's to get more terrorists onto the streets. Yeah, like that will work. Why the Palestinians insist on turning their region into "Escape from New York" is beyond me. They murder Palestinians who help fight terrorism as "collaborators" and then ask for more terrorists to be released, and then people have the gall to insist that these Palestinian leaders be treated as "peace partners"? I've seen it right here in Australia. With a completely straight face, people support the Palestinians as they endeavour to compete with North Korea on who can create the most bizarre state in the world. Well, there was strong competition from Afghanistan at one point in time. But some idiot put an end to that. I thought the Indonesians were on track for lunatics of the year at one point, as they blew up their OWN TOURIST INDUSTRY. Someone has apparently taught them about economic warfare, but neglected to mention that it's supposed to be directed at OTHER PEOPLE's (preferably the enemy's) tourism industry! But Afghanistan was a place apart. It was very difficult for the US to respond to 9/11 when the enemy had ALREADY RAZED THEIR OWN COUNTRY TO THE GROUND. I think Afghanistan is a lesson from God. You should not engage in carpet bombing of the enemy. It doesn't have any effect. Hitler did something similar. Razing Germany to the ground so that "we" would "inherit" a wasteland. Um, yeah. Right. And where were the Germans meant to live exactly?

So what else does the article tell us? "They say the attacks against Israel are a result of almost 40 years of occupation of Palestinian lands". And "Palestinian lands" are what, exactly? 2005 borders? 1967 borders? 1948 borders? 1938 borders? Whatever territory that Israel is stupid enough to hand over to known terrorists? "After the meeting Israel put a positive spin on the day". The BBC is lecturing people about spin? "Indeed there are those who wonder if the current violence was actually what set the agenda for today's meeting". Ok, so journalism is now reporting what some unspecified people "wonder"? Honestly, if it weren't for left-wing journalists, and news was instead just the objective truth, would the world actually be as colourful as it is? I'm beginning to think that left-wing nutcases should be treated as part of the native flora and fauna.

And all this is happening while the Palestinian Authority is spewing out unbelievable propaganda. I'm pretty sure that this crazy world is deliberately crazy just for entertainment purposes. There is a God and this is his plan. He wants to see how we react to the moonbats. Honestly, if it weren't for the human rights abuses, it would be incredibly funny. Watching illogical thought processes in action. And watching logical people attempting to deal with the illogical people, knowing that if they're going to get a rational government, they somehow need to convince the moonbats, who have equal voting rights. To quote ableiter "On the Positive side Roasann, Hillaery and all the other femi-nazi's will look good in burlap sacks. And Hollywood will be razed, with all the movie stars having their money confiscated to build new Mosque's. All us regular guys have to do is learn to bang our heads on the floor 5 times a day and pretend that an ignorant goat f*ck was privy to all the secrets of the universe". This was when he thought that Bush was going to lose the election and the moonbats would stand down the US military - AGAIN.

The Australian government has responded to my request for a declaration of war on Iran! Here it is in full (I just deleted some blank lines and my ISP email address):

22 June 2005
Mr Paul Edwards

Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your e-mail to the Prime Minister of 29 May 2005 expressing your concerns over Iran. Your e-mail was referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

The Australian Government shares your concern about the human rights situation in Iran. We take every opportunity to encourage the Iranian Government to implement its obligations to promote and protect the human rights of all people in Iran. In December 2004 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a further resolution on the human rights situation in Iran. Australia voted in favour of the resolution. Its adoption underscores our concern, and that of the international community, with the human rights situation in Iran, including suppression of freedom of expression, ongoing discrimination against women and minority groups, including the Bahai community, Christians, Jews, Kurds, and serious deficiencies in the administration of justice.

Thank you for bringing your views to the attention of the Government.

Yours sincerely

Octavia Borthwick
Director
Middle East Section


I'm quite happy with this response! It outlines the fact that the Iranian government is on their shit list too, and in no way excuses them. As for the declaration of war, see what they DIDN'T say. They didn't say "we can't attack a country without provocation". They didn't say "any declaration of war would have to be made by the UN to be legitimate". They didn't say "we must respect cultural differences, sovereignty and the right to self-determination". They instead did the STRATEGIC thing to do which is keep mute until such time that Iraq is no longer tying up the resources that are potentially required to topple Iran. And I know exactly what will happen if the Iranian government tries to get security guarantees from the Australian government:

Q. Would you consider attacking Iran?
A. Australia prefers diplomatic, not military solutions to conflicts. (ie avoiding the question).

Q. Are you planning on attacking Iran?
A. Australia has no plans, I repeat, no plans, of invading Iran. (ie you can't plan things like this too far into the future, you need to react to the current enemy (Iraqi insurgents) and formulate a plan at the appropriate time - this strategic ambiguity also means that nothing can be leaked that would give away the long-term underlying strategy).

So, I'm pretty happy with that. Mullahs look out. Your days of terrorizing and enslaving the Iranian people are numbered.

I'd like to thank Mr Wood for confirming that Australia and US policy on Iraq was correct, as soon as he was able to SPEAK FREELY, a concept that terrorists don't seem to think is important when they make their ridiculous videotapes. Yes Mr Wood, I would have been TOTALLY SCATHING of US/Australian policy if I had a gun held to my head as well. But when I'm EMPOWERED, the terrorists will find out what I REALLY THINK. We got to see what Iraqis REALLY THOUGHT about democracy as well, when they turned up in large numbers and told the terrorists to take a hike. Who would have imagined it, eh? Iraqis have a PERSONAL OPINION and are KEEN TO EXPRESS IT. Yes, it was wonderful to see. Sure, they didn't vote for who I was hoping that they would vote for (ie the IPDP), but the fact that they have voted for parties we can do business with means that Iraq will required NO RESOURCES into the future in order to keep them neutral/allied. How wonderful is that?!

This Iraqi is intent on looking for conspiracy theories as to what America is "really up to" in Iraq. How difficult is it to understand? There were numerous reasons for toppling Saddam. There wasn't just one reason. The most important reason was as stated - an opportunity to question the Iraqi WMD people in an environment where they didn't have to risk having their wives being raped and killed for saying the wrong thing. But AFTER the decision has been made to topple it, the strategy was to create a secular capitalist liberal democracy, just like any other western country. It was always strange that there were no Arab countries like that, and as good scientists, we sought to determine if there was something genetically different about Arabs such that democracy couldn't work for them. So, it's quite straightforward. You give Iraq the best chance of having democracy work.

You first of all go in with a light force, not enough to conquer the country and assert control. That way you can find out what Iraqis really want to do if they have no-one controlling them via rule of law. What we learnt from that is that they were more interested in stealing things than attacking infidels. That was a great start! Far less bloodshed than the worst-case scenarios. Basically the Iraqis were materialistic animals like the rest of us. Capitalism should work.

Then the institutions were set up. New police and new army, that aren't tainted by the sins of the old security forces. Yes, there was a bit of chaos because of this. The military is capable of dealing with that, eventually. You must understand that this is a long-term project. If there's a bit of short-term chaos, so be it. Ok, so new laws protecting the rights of minorities, new security forces to enforce those laws. New government ministries where corruption is not allowed. Then transition from a US administration to SELECTED Iraqis, so that everyone can see an example of Iraqis running a modern liberal democracy themselves. Then transition from a SELECTED government to an ELECTED government, and hope that the Iraqi people will be smart enough to vote for honorable Iraqis who will not be corrupt. Preferably by electing Allawi. Ok, so the Iraqis didn't elect Allawi, but nevermind. The people that they did elect don't appear to be tearing down the institutions that were built up.

Why was there a "rush" to war? First of all, 12 years is not technically a "rush". Secondly, we were convinced that in the long term, that democracy in Iraq would work. The security forces would be trained up and the war would be won. The longer it goes on, the better the result (ie more reconstruction, more security forces). So the more time between the start of the war, and the next US presidential elections, the more likely it was that we could point to success in Iraq, and not jeapordize the long-term campaign.

Why was only the oil ministry secured? Because it was the only thing that factored in to the neocon nation-building strategy. It was important that Iraq had a source of income so that it could afford a large number of security forces without relying on external aid. This was one of that factors that made us think that democracy in Iraq would be successful. Another factor was that Iraq had few Islamic radicals. Yet another factor was that the bulk of the country, ie the Shiites and the Kurds, should welcome a change that ended their status as second-class citizens, and there would be lots of people willing to volunteer for the new security services.

On the economic front, heaps of US taxpayer money was poured in to kickstart a robust economy. Oil money also now being spent on the people instead of Saddam's palaces. Theoretically, it should all work, unless as some (usually racist left-wing westerners) postulated, that Arabs are incapable of democracy. Abu is spending all his time deriding the short-term chaos, caused primarily by his country having a higher percentage of nutcases than was originally hoped, instead of concentrating on the long-term benefit of transferring from what was arguably the worst tyrant of the 20th century (not even the Nazis raped women and fed them to lions and dobermans) to a modern democracy.

If Abu wants to do something useful, I'd suggest joining the security forces where he will be empowered to help end the chaos, instead of just whinging from the sidelines. Or perhaps spend his time talking to all these allegedly sceptical Iraqis he knows of, explaining to them the long-term benefits of not having a government that can abduct your daughter at gunpoint, rape her, feed her to animals, and you can't report the crime to the police, because it ISN'T ILLEGAL. Abu also seems to have a problem with freedom of speech. He deletes all my comments from his website, as he'd rather believe something sinister about America than hear the in-your-face truth.

Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda

Dear Sir,
I have watched with great interest the response to 9/11, and it has gone exactly as I predicted. I thought you might be interested in "what went wrong" so that you can have a sporting chance of winning.

Ok, the first thing you should know about warfare is that it is a SCIENCE. The reason we (the free world) keep on winning is because of the enormous amount of thinking that we do. There are two aspects to this. One is the science of battle, where weapons systems are employed against other weapons systems. The other is the science of geostrategy, which is building up alliances. Basically combining weapons systems. The Anglophones are the masters of both of these things, which is why Anglophones haven't been beaten, except when they fight each other, for nearly 1000 years. Let me explain to you what the UK has been up to for centuries, and the US has been up to since it took on the role after WWII.

The ultimate goal of the UK/US is to convert the rest of the world into countries like Australia (and maybe Poland). You see, Australia turns up to help with a fight ON ITS OWN. Australia uses its own resources to do this. It doesn't need to be forced or bribed by the US. I'm not sure exactly why you think Australia turns up to so many fights. Maybe you've never thought about it at all (first big mistake). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly white (true, but wrong reason again). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly Christian (nominally true, but less than 1% practicing, and wrong reason yet again). There are 3 things that Australians (or at least, a significant number, including the current government) fight against. One is dogma. One is non-humanist behaviour. One is subjugators. Most Australians will not use these words though, they'll probably just say "we fight for freedom". But my analysis is that it is those 3 things that Australians fight against.

Ok, so the TECHNICAL (scientific - remember, everything is done with SCIENCE) problem facing the US is how to convert the rest of the world into countries like Australia. The world has been full of dictators for a very long time, so it's not easy to get a shared ideology of freedom. But that is what has been done in Europe. Almost all of Europe is free, and that means their ideology is common, which is what NATO represents. NATO is a collection of anti-subjugators and non-subjugators, NATURALLY ALLYING for mutual protection. This is a very good situation for the US. Once again, no resources need to be spent to get these countries to come together in mutual DEFENCE. Getting them to actually join in an ATTACK is harder. But even if they refuse to join the attack, they at least remain NEUTRAL, which is also OK.

Now about the dictators. So long as they aren't hostile to the US, and instead are either neutral or allied, it is AGAINST SCIENCE to attack them. It is better to use the limited resources to attack a HOSTILE REGIME. The US military spends its time analyzing WEAPONS SYSTEMS of HOSTILE REGIMES. Since Afghanistan didn't have much in the way of weapons systems, it was largely ignored. Terrorism is normally a relatively minor problem compared to hostile regimes. Your attacks on 9/11 were very clever in so far as they did a lot of damage. But it was largely a strategic blunder. You should have held your punch, and waited for the nice Mr Khan to give you some nukes. As it is, all you did was activate a more robust geostrategic policy.

You see, terrorists don't normally have access to major weapons systems. As such, they can do limited damage, and it is mainly a job for the police. After 9/11, the US SHOULD have been able to simply ring up Interpol and have you arrested. But why wouldn't this work? Because of two problems. One is that there is territory in the world that is not under the control of the rule of law. The second problem is that in some territory, terrorism is not against the law. The SCIENTIFIC goal of the US is thus to ensure that terrorism is against the law everywhere, and that there is nowhere in the world that is outside of the law. This then feeds back into GEOSTRATEGY, which is to make foreign governments "more like Australia". So Afghanistan was one place where it wasn't against the law to have a terrorist group. The solution therefore is to CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT.

The US makes best use of RESOURCES by using the minimum amount of force required to change the government of Afghanistan. And basically completely ignore the POLICE job of CATCHING YOU. The police in Afghanistan or Pakistan should be in charge of catching you. It's not a job for the US military. It's a waste of resources. Manhunts are not what the US military is trained to do, or good at doing. What the military is good at is changing the government. Now there was no need to change the government in Pakistan. The government in Pakistan was smart enough to realise that it was too dangerous to continue supporting terrorism. So they have stopped doing so. And Pakistan is using its OWN RESOURCES to bring the law, "terrorism is illegal", across all of its territory. Again, this was a wise (scientific) move by the US. Make use of other people's resources.

Now when it came to Afghanistan, the US had another OPPORTUNITY. Instead of using its own forces, it could use the Northern Alliance. Under the Northern Alliance, terrorism was illegal. All they needed to do was assist the Northern Alliance to victory, and the terrorism problem in Afghanistan would be solved. This was a job for the military, and it was accomplished. Then there was a different geostrategic problem - ensuring that Afghanistan remained stable. For that, the Northern Alliance needed to be replaced with a more representative government. This change of government was achieved diplomatically. Fahim and Rabbani weren't very happy about it, but they relented, gradually, without needing to use US forces against them. And the most stable that the government can get is with a democracy. Because then you have the majority of people on your side, and you should have maximum stability. So this task was achieved, diplomaticaly, also. This did pose a risk though - what if the majority voted in favour of terrorism? Then the US military would have installed a dictatorship instead. Fortunately, democracy worked! Now there is no need for the US to spend resources to keep Afghanistan under control. The people themselves keep it under control. It's wonderful!

Now after a brilliantly-successful campaign in Afghanistan, which used the minimum amount of resources required to change Afganistan from a pro-terrorist country to an anti-terrorist country, what else could be done using SCIENCE? Well, Iraq was bleeding RESOURCES every year, because of the maintenance of the no-fly zones. By eliminating this problem, it means paying a ONCE-OFF COST, thus SAVING RESOURCES in the long-term. In addition, it would mean that there is one less HOSTILE REGIME in the world, and using democracy (remember, no resources), it would remain stable and be either an ally or a neutral.

Now, in geostrategy, you can't afford to be compassionate. You need to be COLD, HARD and RATIONAL. However, there is an INDEPENDENT strategy of bringing HUMAN RIGHTS to everyone in the world. Thus, whenever we can GEOSTRATEGICALLY JUSTIFY an action, our reaction is "wonderful, human rights are going to be spread!". There are terrible human rights abuses happening in places like Saudi Arabia too. But it is GEOSTRATEGICALLY SUICIDAL to open a front against an ALLY, when there are still ENEMIES who remain undefeated. That is why we CAN'T AFFORD to attack Saudi Arabia. Instead, we have to do our best using DIPLOMACY to get Saudi Arabia to change. Maybe after all our enemies are defeated we can force the Saudis to stop their atrocious behaviour. But until then, we must not act against them. You presumably thought that by using so many Saudis on 9/11, that the US would cease being an ally with Saudi Arabia. No. That's not how it works. It depends on whether the government is hostile or not, as it is the government that controls the RESOURCES.

So, who's next? There's only a handful of "hostile regimes" remaining. Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. Iran is the one that is most likely to give the MAXIMUM BENEFIT for MINIMUM RESOURCES. The regime can likely be toppled with the amazing success of Afghanistan. The infrastructure is already in place for democracy to work. There are already security forces that can be reused - no need to do nation-building. And of course, don't forget the independent goal of spreading human rights. Iran is a horrible violator of human rights. It even rapes its own citizens. By toppling Iran, we kill 2 or more birds with 1 stone.

Now you may be wondering why the US government never says any of this in public. Well, part of GEOSTRATEGY is STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY. They can't give away their whole game-plan, because otherwise they may SCARE ALLIES such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Remember, it is SUICIDE to open a war front with an ally or neutral! They instead do their best to concentrate on an issue such as WMD that more people can agree with. Most people will not agree to toppling Iraq so that the US can save money by not patrolling the no-fly zones and not having to deal with a hostile regime. Others don't care how much money the US has to waste on things like this. It's not their money that's being wasted! And many people won't accept the "human rights" argument either, because they can see that there is inconsistency between US allies and US enemies. As a human rights campaigner, I find this attitude horrible - basically saying that because the US doesn't fix ALL human rights abuses, it shouldn't be allowed to fix ANY. This is condemning people to holocaust for no reason at all. I personally prefer to bring in human rights on the back of US geostrategy. Once again, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Maximum benefit for minimum resources.

Iraq wasn't all about geostrategy and human rights. There was another benefit. It is a chance to ask Muslim Arabs IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF FREEDOM what they REALLY THINK. This gives us a chance to understand them, so that hopefully we can figure out a way to make Muslim Arabs be more like Australians and less like terrorists. Part of the environment of freedom was to go into Iraq with insufficient forces to control the country, so that we could find out what they would do if they had no restrictions on them at all. This is why Al Sadr was allowed to take over Najaf and the terrorists were allowed to take over Fallujah. You see, according to modern economic theory (SCIENCE) there is no better system of government than secular capitalist liberal democracy. But we don't claim to know everything. There are people who seem to think there's an alternative, something called an "Islamic Paradise". We don't know what this is. We know what an "Islamic Holocaust" is - we watched you create it in Afghanistan. We also noticed that you wouldn't allow people to freely dissent against this form of government, nor vote for it in a democracy, presumably because you knew that the only people who benefitted from the Islamic Holocaust were people like you - it did nothing to help the ordinary people. Ok, so we give the people of Najaf a chance to teach us for a change! The people of Najaf soon got sick and tired of this, as Al Sadr turned out to just be a common thief, robbing local businesses. And the terrorists in Fallujah turned the city into "Max Max - Beyond Thunderdome". They managed to produce some car bombs, but not actually do anything that improved people's lives. So, no lessons for the Anglophones as far as "paradise/Utopia" is concerned, but hopefully some lessons for the residents of Fallujah. Oh, if you think the democratically-elected leaders of Iraq are "puppets", you're also wrong. The elections weren't rigged. It was AGAINST SCIENCE. The only way we can STUDY Arabs/Muslims is to see what they REALLY THINK when they can VOTE IN SECRET. That way we can see if what they say in secret matches what they say when answering opinion polls. Also, if the people of Iraq had democratically elected to support terrorism, we would react to that in due course. Potentially with economic sanctions. Potentially by simply toppling the democracy and installing a liberal government as existed under Allawi.

So, there you have it. We're busy trying to make friends with places like Russia, so that we can have a broader alliance. 9/11 brought Russia closer to the free world, and Beslan gave Russia no other choice but to be allied with us in order to defeat a common enemy. We're also trying to make friends with China, while at the same time protecting Taiwan. You on the other hand are merely appealing to the "Arab Street". These people don't have access to resources, so it's not much of an alliance. In fact, those people are likely to be jailed if they're not careful, as those governments are allied with the US. That is what happens when you concentrate on ANGRY HUMANS instead of WEAPON SYSTEMS. It doesn't matter how angry someone is, what matters is what sort of weapons they have access to. This is SCIENCE.

Another thing you should know is that we don't fight for honour, glory or to prove how brave our soldiers are. We're only interested in WINNING. And when we fight, we don't use ANGER. We instead use CALCULATED VIOLENCE. All all levels from the soldier on the ground to the President of the US, everyone is using their BRAIN, not their emotions. Well, people have emotions too obviously, but it is part of SCIENCE to not let the emotions cloud our judgement. Acting emotionally instead of rationally is a recipe for disaster. Instead, the proper thing to do is get your emotions, then FORMULATE A PLAN. You seem to think that God is going to help you win battles. None of the western battle plans involve God coming to the rescue. All the plans we use are based on the assumption that all the weapons systems will operate according to the laws of physics and that God, if he exists at all, will not intervene. How many times do you need to lose before you realise this yourself? In actual fact, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are worshipping the WRONG GOD, and that's why you keep on losing? Just a thought! Also, do you want to know why Mr Bush keeps on insisting "Islam is a religion of peace", even while Islamic militants are murdering innocent children every day, with Beslan probably being the most stark example? It's because it's NOT STRATEGIC to open a war front with every Muslim country simultaneously. It's better to fight them one at a time. You haven't yet seen the WRATH of the US. So far all you've seen is some minor battles, part of a research project into Middle Eastern behaviour. At an appropriate time, the US will make a concerted effort to wipe out the ideology that looks upon non-Muslims as "kaffirs" and "najis". Now is not the time to do that. The time for wrath is after the geostrategic battle has been won. The wrath may involve complete genocide of Muslims as an appropriate response to 9/11. It depends on who is in charge and what they REALLY think about the "religion of peace". At the moment, this is all "strategic ambiguity".

Oh yes. You've got an additional problem in that you think that you beat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that you think the US is weaker than the Soviet Union. This is another misunderstanding of warfare, combined with a misunderstanding of culture. First of all the Soviets were easily able to maintain control of Afghanistan. There was simply a change of management that CHOSE not to assert that control any more. And the same applies to the US in Vietnam. The idiotic Democrats believed that the Vietnamese communists were some kind of great humanists and CHOSE to WITHDRAW SUPPORT from the South Vietnamese. I'm not surprised that you got confused - a lot of people in the west are similarly confused. But the MILITARY is NOT CONFUSED. The MILITARY knows they could have EASILY WON.

So how can you win? Well, you can try what you're trying in Iraq, which is to drag out the war for as long as you can so that the US CIVILIANS will get sick of the war and withdraw the troops. But you really blew the PR campaign by calling the Shia and the Kurds "infidels". There is an endless stream of volunteers there, who will be able to take over the job from the Americans in due course. You're in a pretty bad situation, because the US has still got another 3 years of Republican rule. That's a LOT of time for the Iraqi troops to be trained up to take over the job. It's a losing proposition. The Iraqi army has all the heavy weapons. Even if the US pulled out now, I don't believe you would be able to defeat the Iraqi army. They would just use different tactics, such as cordoning off Sunni cities, or arbitrary arrest of all Sunnis of military age.

Anyway, as an Australian, I'd like to thank you for giving me two new allies - Afghanistan and Iraq. It likely wouldn't have happened this fast without your help. We would instead have been concentrating on trying to secure Europe. Specifically the very long task of trying to get cultural changes in Russia so that Russia becomes a NATURAL ally with us. Your action has instead created an OPPORTUNITY to liberate an unspecified number of countries and watch them turn into neutrals or allies, and watch human rights take hold in each of them. Thanks for that. Much appreciated! By the way, the images of innocent American civilians jumping from the WTC is an image that is likely to make large numbers of Americans patiently persevere until all enemies of the free world have been defeated. That includes your favourite cause - the Palestinians. Were you surprised that there was no reaction to the Palestinians celebrating the towers falling down? Did you think it was a sign of US weakness? Did you think that Israel withdrawing from Lebanon was a sign of weakness? You really need to understand the culture of your enemy if you hope to defeat him. Actually, I don't know of any technical way for you to defeat your enemies. There may be some way, but you'll have to think pretty hard to find one. From where I'm sitting, it appears that it's the other way around. The US has a clear path from here to final worldwide victory. All the alliances are in place. All the weapons systems are in place. Everything is set for a blitzkrieg to topple the remaining enemies and then the remaining dictators, with the exception of China and maybe North Korea. But those countries can be hit hard economically. And China is not really hostile. It is changing from within and probably doesn't need either military or economic warfare to fix.

And I'd like to make one request please if you don't mind. The US are our allies. Our mates. The attack on the WTC made me feel that we'd let down our mates, by failing to protect them. If you have any further plans for terrorism, can you hit Australia instead of the US. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has gone to a lot of effort in an attempt to divert your attention to us. We're in this fight to the bitter end. By the way, did you know that Israel would not even exist if it weren't for the Australian Lighthorse charging Beersheba in WWI? Just thought I'd mention it in case it was of some interest to you. If you could spare Israel and Iraq, that would be nice too. They've had enough. We're just getting warmed up. Do you know where to find us? We're just south of Indonesia. West of New Zealand. Can't miss us. In actual fact, Australia was part of the effort to take some "Muslim land" (East Timor) and convert it into "infidel land". You might want to factor that into your deliberations too. I personally live in Sydney, in case the rumours of you having a suitcase nuke are true. Bless you.

Update: And here is why crimes are not punished straight after they are committed. Criminals (such as you, Osama), get punished on OUR timetable in OUR way.

The June 12, 2005 entry here brings up a major point. Basically the Sunni are trying to get an amnesty for past crimes in return for ending the current terrorism. This is something that has long been necessary - deciding who is persona non-grata. Neither the US temporary administration nor the appointed Iraqi temporary administration could do anything about answering this important question. There's no right or wrong answer. But the democratically-elected government is in a position to decide on this tough question.

In my opinion, it is far more important to ensure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN, so that this tough decision never needs to be made again. Rather than prosecute every person who did his best to survive under a terrible dictatorship. If I had been a Sunni under Saddam's Iraq, I'm pretty sure that I would have done whatever I was ordered to do, rather than have my fingers cut off and my wife raped. I wouldn't have been as enthusiastic about it as some of the Sunni were, but then again, I probably wouldn't have wanted to appear unenthusiastic in front of my peers and have them think that I'm secretly against Saddam. The one thing I want to be sure of, is that I'm never in that situation EVER. I also want to help ensure that no-one else is in that situation for any longer than can be avoided either.

Probably what I would do is make everyone guilty of crimes explain on video how much they were in fear of Saddam and that they were no better than slaves and that their victims had human rights, and that they want to do everything they can to ensure that this never happens agains. This video can then be shown to their children, so that hopefully the children will be brought up understanding the need to support human rights for all humans.

If the Sunni aren't willing to do this, and want to pass their actions off as "legitimate actions against people who deserved everything they got for speaking against our glorious leader", then fuck 'em. Don't give in to terrorist demands. Ever. The war will be won in due course regardless. Freedom and justice both have a price. Giving in to terrorist demands is giving up your soul.

But personally I don't believe in the death penalty, not even for Saddam. I believe that there is a POSSIBILITY, just like the possibility exists with our own moonbats, to figure out the right combination of words that will make Saddam say "Oh my God! No-one ever told me what empathy is. What have I done? I'm so sorry. Please just kill me, I don't deserve to live.". Saddam is a monkey. I think one day we will understand monkeys completely, and be able to eliminate all crime from our societies. Basically the exact reverse of getting 100% of Incas to agree that sacrificing virgins makes the sun rise.

First of all, thankyou to everyone who posted a nice comment on my blog or other blogs, or who sent me an email in response to my "Thanks America" post. I didn't reply to the good comments, because I wanted to reply in one go, which I am doing now. There was very little negative feedback. I had to go out of my way to find the reaction of the left-wing loonies, and sure enough, they found the most bizarre things to fault.

E.g. one of them tried to deny that I was an Australian, because I used the word "butt" instead of "arse". ROFL! I didn't even know that this word had crept into my vocabulary. For your information, English is a growing language. It is defined by common usage. No-one owns it. I can remember an Australian (of Italian descent) insisting that in Australia we don't use the word "jail", we use GOAL. That's right, the word "gaol" is so archaic that he didn't even know how to spell it. When I went to the UK, I made a point of asking someone how they spelt "jail" and yep, even in the UK they use "jail". They don't actually teach us at school which words are Australian, so the people in the UK had no concept of what a "dole bludger" was. In actual fact, I was about 10 years old before I even figured out by myself that "gidday" was a shortened form of "good day". Don't say "good day" to someone in Australia. It is weird. Just say "hello". I noticed that the NSW Police now have signs out saying "NSW Police targeting speeding". We normally spell it "targetting" here. I wonder if the language police are going to report this to the real police?!

Another thing the lefties tried to say is that Australians don't thank others. Yeah, right. We've got a population of 20 million, and not one of them has any manners. In actual fact, several Australians posted entries echoing my thanks. THANKS GUYS - THAT WAS A BIG HELP. This also eliminates some of the spurious arguments about me personally being a nutcase due to other things I have written about. The fact is that these sentiments are shared by other, presumably "more normal" Australians. Regardless, in this sort of pissing contest, you can't really judge based on individuals, you need to look at opinion polls. I don't actually have an opinion poll showing "who appreciates America saving our butts?", but I'll give you some other opinion polls. During Gulf War I, we had around 90% supporting the liberation of Kuwait. During Gulf War II, we had a peak of 57% supporting the liberation of Iraq. The country is generally on the right track, although obviously has room for improvement. This country even has sick twisted individuals who supported the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War. God forbid we have people who want to thank America for ensuring their gulags never arrived on our shores.

And would you believe that some people managed to pick apart one of my paragraphs, where I was talking about America giving stuff away for free, and saying that the third world shouldn't have to thank America for the Mars rover images since they're not that useful. Ok, what about all the others free stuff, like money, food and medicine, that America gives? And that the Soviets did most of the fighting in WWII. Yeah. With American weapons. And only after the Soviets STARTED WWII in the first place, along with their Nazi allies. And the Soviets didn't liberate Eastern Europe. They just changed who was enslaving them. Do you moonbats have any grip on reality at all? Or is it all "for the cause"?

Ok, next thing is that everyone wants to buy me a beer. While I have the traditional Australian ethos of freedom-loving coursing through my veins, multiplied 1000-fold, I don't share the majority view on alcohol. Every time I've tried it it tastes like shit. I prefer chocolate thickshakes. In my entire life, the sips of alcohol I have tried add up to maybe half a glass. So thanks for all the offers of beer, but I'll have to turn them down. I made the same mistake when I had builders over. I bought some beer for them. It never occurred to me that maybe Lebanese-descent builders don't like beer. They didn't want it and I didn't want it either. Fortunately they drank it anyway.

And finally, some people misinterpreted my thanks for America as being an abandonment of Australia. Um, no. I could have written an equally glowing thanks to Australia. First time the supposedly-invincible Nazi land forces were beaten was by Australians at Tobruk (Libya). First time the supposedly-invincible Japanese land forces were beaten was by Australians in Papua New Guinea. Israel wouldn't even exist if the Australian Lighthorse hadn't done the supposedly impossible feat of charging machine-guns at Beersheba in WWI. No, Australia traditionally pulls its weight. But that doesn't alter the fact that America has done more for world freedom than anyone else since 1941. Both as a country and on a per-capita basis.

Also, since some people asked - all my posts here, both past and future, unless otherwise stated, are hereby released to the public domain. You don't need to seek my further permission if you want to reproduce them somewhere. I'm trying to spread world freedom. I'm not trying to be an opportunistic blood-sucker like Martin Luther King Jr's relatives.

UPDATE: Another Australian has gone on public record to echo my sentiments.

Could some American please write to this dickhead and tell him we don't need a repeat of Vietnam, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The sacrifices made to date need to be secured. The timetable for withdrawal is "when the Iraqi forces are able to do the job on their own". Which bit of this do you not understand or not agree with? Training up a new Iraqi army, to defeat the remnants of the old Iraqi army, is a straightforward technical task that the US military is quite capable of doing, if you just leave them alone to DO THEIR JOB. They know what they are doing and they didn't ask for you to prevent them from protecting those who are too weak to protect themselves which may I remind you included Iraqi women who were subjected to government-ordered rape. War doesn't go according to timetables, it goes in reaction to the enemy. When the enemy is sick of losing badly, the war will be over. Until then, why don't you go and look at some photos of road accident victims. Innocent American children are being killed and maimed every day because their irresponsible parents are not putting a seatbelt on them. Go and burn your bra about this. Demand some checkpoints and jail sentences for such parents. Or start a campaign to get Janet Jackson to show us her other breast. Anything to keep your mind somewhere other than interfering with the military.

If you've really got your bee in a bonnet about timetables, why don't you go and demand a timetable for transferring the troops in South Korea over to Vietnam? Do you know what happened in Vietnam because of people just like you? Hundreds of thousands of people were sent to commie gulags. Even victims' children were persecuted. Can you imagine that? Being born as an innocent child and having people accusing you of being a greedy capitalist running dog? And you know what else happened? Lots of people drowned trying to escape this communist nightmare in boats. Not only that, but the poor boat people had to face pirates. Guess what the pirates did to girls they seized? Do you care? Look, you're of absolutely no help in the cause of freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with what you call potato chips. Why don't you join the Democrats instead? We don't expect any better of them. Or migrate to France. Look, no-one's asking you to sign up. There are braver men than you or me who have already signed up and are quite capable of winning. All that you need to do is keep your filthy mouth shut. Or better still, open it, and apologize for abandoning the innocent people of Vietnam, and promise to transfer the troops in South Korea to rectify what those who think like you did. The South Koreans can look after themselves. The North Koreans aren't going anywhere.

Which brings me to another point. This war will be won or lost by civilians. The US military is easily capable of winning. Not just in Iraq, but over all remaining dictators, in short order, with the exception of China and possibly North Korea. Anglophone soldiers haven't lost a war, except against each other, for nearly 1000 years. It is the civilians who simply choose not to deploy them, or pull them out early, for bizarre reasons. E.g. in Vietnam, South Vietnam had been secured and was capable of looking after itself, except from an external aggressor. NVA tanks rolled across the border, and could so easily have been wiped out by US air power, but the US forces were STOOD DOWN. By Democrats. And we saw the horrific spectacle of Democrat supporters cheering on the NVA fascists. The Democrats had fallen victim to Soviet agitprop, and they remain in this delusional Orwellian state even today.

We need to start treating this problem with civilians as a war. The liberation of the entire world, bringing freedom and safety, rests in the hands of US civilians. US civilians who are seemingly desensitized to holocaust. We need to figure out how to win this war of the civilians. Mr Bush controls the US education system. How about we make watching the Iraqi terror videos compulsory viewing? How about giving Fox a US terrestrial broadcast frequency? How about sacking all the people at NPR and replacing them with someone who gives a damn about ending holocausts? You know those ads that appear on TV about children living in poverty in Africa or India? How about relaxing the US broadcast restrictions so that ads can be run saying "Look at this Iraqi man having his fingers chopped off - please help end such horror in the world by donating to the US military - liberation department"? For whatever reason, many people have been desensitized to reports of Iraqis being fed to lions. It's no wonder the poor Iraqis think we don't care about them and are somewhat suspicious of our motives. Fortunately Saddam took the liberty of videotaping this. Show the videos. Shock therapy is required to get people back to the reality. And to remind them of the "Never Again" pledge after Auschwitz. The freedom of the entire world is dependent on winning the civilian war. Saddam even took videos of those he had raped. How about getting some pro-war feminists to introduce and show the videos, and then call on "sisters to unite"? Although that assumes there is such a thing as a pro-war feminist. Judging from feminist reaction to the ending of institutionalized rape in Iraq, all the feminist organizations appear to be fronts for the communists. Ok, so what we need is a pro-war humanist instead. Like George Bush. And instead of getting "sisters" to unite, we get humans to unite instead.