2005-05-29

 

Declaration of War on Iran

Open letter to John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.

Dear Sir,
As an Australian citizen, I am requesting you to issue Iran with a formal declaration of war. Inform them that their human rights abuses, as depicted here:

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352747&TOCID=2083225413

and the institutionalized rape, described here:

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352848&TOCID=2083225444

have rendered the ruling regime's authority null and void, and that you intend to replace Iran's dictatorship with a democracy.

I then ask you to go and assemble as broad a coalition as possible for the purpose of liberating Iran. First ports of call should be India, France and Russia.

I also ask that you do not discuss this with the Americans or British at all. This will confound the enemies of freedom, as it will force them to confront the fact that the ideology of freedom, freedom from subjugation, is not just some sort of British/American plot to rule the world. Obviously we'll eventually want American firepower available, but let them join the coalition towards the end. And if anyone asks "what about country xyz, are you going to liberate them too?", simply reply "no comment".

Mr Howard, I do not wish to live in a world where some human beings have less rights than Australian dogs. I believe we have come to the "end of history", where state-slavery will be just a horrible memory, and our children will ask us questions such as "Are you seriously saying that Iranian girls were being raped and you actually had a debate as to whether it was right or wrong to topple their criminal jailers?". I want to be able to look my children in the eye and say "As soon as we had the technical ability to free the world's slaves, we acted". Sir, that time is now. As soon as Iraq has settled down, the US forces will be freed up, with no other active enemy. All that is missing is political will. A formal declaration of war now will let the world know that we are serious about putting an end to holocaust, or in the words of the liberators of Auschwitz - "Never Again".

Iran is a particularly lucrative target as some people will join the coalition out of fear of their nuclear ambition, while others join because Iran sponsors terrorism. But I want you to be the voice that says "human rights". Human rights violators that are nominally allied or neutral, will hopefully not form a "dictator's alliance", because they know that it is probably outside of Australia's capability to topple them all, and coalition support is required. America is limited in how much it can say "human rights" because it is still in the unfortunate situation of requiring support from human rights violators to win other battles. Australia has the luxury of not having such restrictions on us. This is why Australia should take the lead, and provide moral guidance.

From my discussions with people all over the world, it appears that Australia is more trusted by others than America. Although I personally think that labelling America as untrustworthy is vile bigotry, for tactical reasons, it is simpler to just switch the public face of the war to Australia, taking pressure off Blair and Bush. Australia has a LOT of friends, and now is the time to start calling in favours.

Also sir, I would request that instead of just attacking Iran with all guns blazing, you instead find out exactly how little force is required to topple an odious regime such as the Iranian Mullahs. I believe that if the regime's air power is grounded, that the Iranian people are capable of overthrowing their regime in a revolution. Please ground enemy aircraft and then call for the people to rise up. Tell them that we are in the TRIBE of rational, humanist anti-subjugators, and that if they are in the same tribe as us, they should overthrow their rulers, who are in the tribe of irrational, non-humanist subjugators. Depending on how much success the revolutionaries have, coalition troops can be sent in to liberated towns to provide a bridgehead with which to liberate more territory from, and for defecting (or ex-) Iranian conscripts to join. Of course it is necessary to adapt in war, so increase the force used until the tipping point has been reached.

I am confident that we will not have the problems with the aftermath that Iraq had, and it will instead look even better than Afghanistan. The key difference being that in Afghanistan the old army was not disbanded (or rather, was disbanded over a period of years). I realise it was necessary to disband the Iraqi military since it was tainted by human rights abuses and dominated by a single Iraqi sect (Sunnis). But in Iran, the army consists of conscripts who are a reflection of the population as a whole, and who are not tainted. All that needs to be done is make the army pledge allegiance to a slightly modified version of the Iranian constitution, which eliminates the Guardian Council. Also, the political infrastructure is already in place in Iran. We already know the names of the reformers, and they can be put in charge of a temporary administration while waiting for non-fraudulent elections to be held.

If Iran is the spectacular success that I expect it to be - even more spectacular than the victory in Afghanistan - then I hope you will liberate the rest of the world. In some radicalized countries, such as Egypt, I expect a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government to be installed rather than immediate democracy, so that there is a chance for the population to be de-Nazified with education. But most countries, such as Vietnam, are not radicalized, and the same way that NVA tanks defeated SVA tanks in 1975 to implement communist rule, this time it will be our tanks defeating the Vietnamese Communist tanks to implement freedom, and finally wipe the scar of Vietnam from history - where Australia, amongst others, abandoned millions of South Vietnamese allies to be frogmarched off against their will to communist gulags.

As Paul Keating said, Australia has never really had much in the way of great statesmen. Now is your chance to be the first. This is the time. This is the place. Instead of playing a supporting role, take a leadership role for a change, taking some of the pressure off our great allies America and Britain. We owe it to our allies, we owe it to humanity, but most of all, I want to be able to look my children in the eyes and know I never tolerated holocaust on earth. Please don't let me down. The Australian Armed forces are under your control, and they are fully trained and equipped. If they are not being unleashed, it is entirely down to civilian responsibility. I voted for you because you supported ending the Iraqi holocaust, unlike the left-wing opposition Labor party.

I would like to remind you that the Australian polls (see www.newspoll.com.au and search for Iraq) reached a high of 57% in favour of liberating Iraq, versus 36% in favour of indefinite institutionalized rape.

I would also like to remind you that our ancestors have already done the heavy lifting for freedom:
http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/3671
and that you owe it to their memory to finish the task.

I would also like you to note that these:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/06/why-we-fight.html
American soldiers never asked to be held back from ending the suffering of others and instead live by the crede of "Never Again".

I would also like to remind you of the extraordinary ability of the Australian armed forces of today:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-asad.htm
And I am confident that they will be able to repeat such success in Iran.

Please Mr Howard. Don't turn your back on humanity. Don't expect that it is someone else's job to care. It's yours as much as anyone else's. Can you look your own children in the eye? I hope one day I can look you in the eye, and see an extraordinary man who did everything he could to end the suffering of others. The clock is ticking and Iranians are suffering.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Edwards, proud Australian citizen.


UPDATE: I got a response.

UPDATE 2: Letter slightly modified to correct ambiguous English so that others can copy it.

|



2005-05-25

 

Liberia

Bryan emailed me with a suggestion that Liberia was a golden opportunity. I agree. They're already pro-US and they've now got international oversight to ensure that the institutions are set up to modern standards. But they don't have much opportunity in Liberia. There's nothing much more than subsistence farming. On the assumption that the free world is going to put an end to the horrors in Africa once and for all, we should start recruiting Liberians. The free world has generally looked to South Africa to do something about Africa. But this one-party Marxist state has shown that it prefers to go WELL out of its way to supporting worldwide Marxism. Even as far away as Haiti, it was trying to pop up Aristide's thugocracy. And of course Zimbabwe gets a free pass also. Marxists need to stick together - they're running out of allies. South Africa has no interest in doing anything for humanity. Nelson Mandela rubs shoulders with dictators like Gaddafi while slandering the US (the greatest contributor to the free world in the world today). Did you expect any better from a terrorist?

So I recommend that we ignore/isolate South Africa, and start turning Liberia into a kick-arse military that will take the bull by the horns and topple every African regime until they are all rational, humanist and non-subjugating, ie secular capitalist liberal democracies. This will also mean that aid money will be spent on the people instead of tinpot dictators. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to eliminate the horrors in Africa completely, but we can certainly try the "world's best technology" as a starting point, instead of allowing Marxist dictators to run riot unchallenged when they can SO EASILY be toppled. And all these countries need to have international oversight until such time as they have shown that they can run a government with corruption levels and human rights records on par with the rest of the free world.

|



2005-05-22

 

Flushing the Koran

The recent riots in response to a Newsweek article about some US soldiers allegedly flushing the Koran down the toilet, highlights the scope of the problem the free world is facing in respect to Islamofascism. The people of the Middle East have been radicalized with gross intolerance. This is the most telling piece of evidence, and I quote "Insulting the Koran or the Prophet Muhammad is regarded as blasphemy and punishable by death in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.". How one human being can kill another human being just because he has an opinion you don't like, is beyond comprehension in first world countries. We instead have a principle "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

Being able to question the so-called "Holy Books" is a human right. Also, being able to question the US Consitution, specifically the bits that are self-proclaimed as "self-evident", is a human right. Nothing must be sacrosanct. We must be able to question everything. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of thought. Our first world countries have made enormous advances in part due to our ability to question everything. That is why I am most impressed with the sect of Islam called Mu'tazilah, which declared that the Koran was written by Mohammed, not revealed by God. The same thing applies to the bible, which proclaims that God said to stone people who worked on the Sabbath, along with various other perceived offences. But modern Christians have learnt to write off anything that disagrees with rational, humanist principles as "symbolic", "lost in translation" and "doesn't apply any more". The mainstream Muslims are still largely stuck in their belief that the Koran is 100% perfect, which is where most of the problem lies.

So what can be done about this? Especially the gross human rights violation of killing blasphemers. Well, I think that depends on the individual country. One thing that our militaries can do is open up freedom of speech, including internet access, so that people get exposed to differing opinions, from those of us living in environments where it is protected. Assuming a democracy is installed, it is possible that a majority of a country would vote in favour of restricting internet access to avoid "western infidel thoughts" being spread. But the advantage of a democracy is that we can easily make the people pay a price for voting that way. No foreign aid, no trade, for people who don't respect freedom of speech. Basically I believe that this is an ideological war, and we need to fight it, but we need to be pragmatic and adjust to what the enemy is doing. In some cases, such as Egypt, where the people are way too Nazified, I believe a moderate government needs to be installed rather than allowing the people to vote for an intolerant regime that reflects the prejudices of the people. Otherwise you suddenly have state resources at the disposal of Islamofascists.

But there are a lot more countries, such as Burma and Vietnam, where the people are not radicalized, and full-blown democracy is of no threat. I believe we should "clear the decks", by toppling all these tinpot regimes where the people are not Nazis. These regimes will likely become allies, and that will help when it comes to pursue the ideological war against Islamofascism. The more allies we have, the more ability we have of putting pressure on democracies (such as Afghanistan) that don't respect human rights including freedom of speech. I don't think a war against the Afghan people (where likely a majority support killing blasphemers) is an appropriate course of action. War against their dictators was appropriate, but the war against intolerant religious bigots can be fought more slowly and diplomatically. Each country needs to be independently analyzed. There is not "one size fits all". Europe's ideology of "tolerating intolerance" is I think morally bankrupt and dangerous. It's the same ideology that saw them supporting Saddam's "right" to be cruel and sadistic to the Iraqi people.

But let's start with the easy, no-brainer stuff first. Any country with an enemy dictator should have the dictator taken out. You can't lose. Even if the people democratically vote to be an enemy, there is nothing strategically lost, and it is very unlikely that a people are going to democratically choose to be enemies of the free world and expose themselves to economic sanctions. But if they do, we at least have that new option available to us. Economic sanctions on Iraq under Saddam simply made the people suffer, through not fault of their own. It was technically impossible for them to overthrow Saddam. So why make them suffer for something beyond their control? It was actually something within OUR ability to fix. By rights we should have put economic sanctions on ourselves until we took some action to topple Saddam!

Also, check out this.

|



2005-05-19

 

Indians on the warpath

Last weekend I went to a party full of Indians (from India). I don't have conversations with people, I debate people. Or interrogate them. Whatever. This is what I did again. I separately interrogated an Indian man and his wife. Basically to find out why India wasn't joining the free world in wars of liberation. The man told me that India wouldn't ally with someone unless they helped with defeating Pakistani-backed militants. I told him that America needed to take care of the bigger threat at the time, the USSR, and that India was of negative help there too. I also pointed out that Pakistan has been cracking down on terrorist groups under US pressure, and that they were even attempting to conquer the frontier provinces (that the British never conquered). It wasn't enough to move him. Ok, what about if Australia was leading the coalition? His eyes lit up - yes, India could join that.

Then onto the separate interrogation of his wife. Yes, she agreed that Saddam was a terrible dictator and it was good that he was overthrown. But what is America still doing there? America only looks after its own interests, so what is it doing there? I said that they can't leave until the Iraqis are trained up to take over the task, and that that is being done as fast as possible. Why is it taking 2 years? It should only take 6 months to train. I was on unfamiliar ground here. This is a technical matter for the military. I don't know what it takes to get soldiers trained up. I thought basic training was 10 weeks or something. I pointed out that America is there with a light force and is still busy fighting, I expect they don't have the resources to train people that quickly. But her suspicions remained. I can't remember if I pointed out that America has sunk billions into this "project" and that oil costs the same regardless of whether Iraq is a democracy or a dictatorship. I remember I pointed out that the US did the heavy lifting since 1941, saving Australia's butt at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and winning the Cold War so that we were never invaded by the Russians. She asked me if I was an American. Nope. "Good".

Ok, so what about if Australia was leading the coalition? Her eyes lit up - yes, that would be OK. Would India join? Definitely! Australia is trustworthy, unlike America. I said I didn't see any difference myself, both are trustworthy. No, Australia doesn't just look after its own interests. Australia is trustworthy.

I despair at this attitude. But, there is a convenient alternative available - Australia needs to take the initiative instead of waiting for America to take action. Tony Blair tried to be the public face of the Iraq war, which was great, but I don't think a left-wing politician is going to carry us the rest of the way. Someone else needs to pick the ball up, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be Australia. Besides which, America does deserve some of its reputation. E.g. Colin Powell saw nothing wrong with watching 200,000 people die in Bosnia. It apparently wasn't in America's interest, so that's all there is to it. And we witnessed the ugly spectacle of conservatives opposing the Kosovo war, which led to Serbia becoming a democracy, and you can now see it listed as "free" at www.freedomhouse.org. Oh yeah, I do remember I pointed out that Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo weren't seen to be in America's "interests", but America went there anyway. But she just said she wasn't familiar with them.

Either way, the solution is obvious. Howard needs to pick up the ball and run with it. History will record that America did the heavy lifting in keeping the free world free since 1941, but until it is fait accompli, we're going to see endless criticism from the left-wing and the Eurotrash, who still see dictators as the moral equivalent of democracies. One day in the future, people will look upon dictatorship the same way as slavery, which is exactly what it is. Until then, America needs to ignore the squeals, and just push on.

|



2005-05-16

 

Moral Equivalency gone mad

For those who missed it, in the previous post, 2 left-wing loonies decided to engage me. Over 200 messages later (it reached the limit of my haloscan), they appear to be AWOL. A pity, really. One of them had actually reached the point of agreeing that institutionalized rape was probably a bad thing. The other one, however, was still asking what proof there was that our ideology (rational, humanist, non-subjugating government) was better than the enemy ideology (dogmatic, non-humanist, subjugating government). By exporting our ideology by force of arms, we are using "might makes right". So, do we have proof or not? Or are Australia's liberal democracy and Saddam's dictatorship equal?

Before we begin, I want you to take a look at Saddam's terror videos. I know some of you would prefer not to, but I think it is only fair. These people actually had to EXPERIENCE FIRST HAND these atrocities. The least you can do is watch what it was that was ended with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bear in mind that these things are COMPLETELY LEGAL. The government that is meant to be defending your rights, is actually chopping off your fingers or cutting out your tongue. Neither of the 2 videos shows a rape, but try to imagine what it must feel like to be raped by your own government. With no-one to turn to. The UN doesn't care - it's considered an internal matter. Well, there are some people who care. Unfortunately they're normally kept on a leash.

Anyway, a non-raping government like Australia, looking upon a raping government like Iran, is just an extension of exactly the same logic when applied between two individuals. If I'm a non-rapist, and I'm looking at a rapist, do I have a right to stop him or not? How do I objectively know that it is wrong to rape? I know under Australian law, I'm allowed to stop him. But how do I know Australian law (ie Australia's ideology) is better than the opposing ideology (ie Iran's ideology)? Is it, or rather, should it be, a universal law, that rape is wrong?

Let's try to analyze this. We could take a survey of women and find out if they like being raped. We can be pretty sure that we'll get close to 100% against rape from them. But just because they're against it, does that make it wrong? A minority of men think it is fine, the Mullahs of Iran included. Who's to say that the minority isn't right in this case? Well, the closest I can come to proof of that is that, as apes, we are genetically programmed to smile when we are happy, and frown when we are unhappy. We are genetically predisposed to be careful when someone is frowning, as it is often a warning that the other party is about to become violent. Thus, we have a survival instinct to not make people unhappy. But even that assumes that self-survival is the correct ideology. Who's to say that is the correct ideology? To that I would argue that anyone who thinks otherwise, shouldn't be thinking at all.

Isn't it amazing how far the Soviet agiprop moral equivalency has gone that some people won't even accept that institutionalized rape is an inferior ideology that should be wiped off the face of the planet? Who knows? Maybe Iranian girls like being raped by their government. I've yet to see a survey of them suggesting otherwise. Anyone got a more objective argument than me, or does everyone else besides the left-wingers just take it as a given like I used to before I was challenged on it?

|



2005-05-01

 

50 years from now

In 50 years from now, when the whole world is liberal democracies, what sort of militaries will we require? There is going to be a lot of soul-searching, as we probably don't need any. But the free world has been caught off-guard before, by Hitler. There will be a general reluctance to disarm totally. The greatest threat that I can see is from a military coup. When a tyrant comes to power, the ideology he brings with him is unpredictable and thus a threat. We need to be able to guard against this eventuality.

What I propose is that in the eventuality of a coup, the remainder of the free world automatically goes into action against the tyrant. There should be checks and balances in the system such that no country is immune to liberation. You can further assume that a percentage, most likely the vast majority, of both the citizens and the military, want to have their democracy reestablished. But they have no ability to beat the security forces under the control of the tyrant. They need outside help. How should the remainder of the free world's security forces be structured in order to provide the outside help?

I believe that this is the future of warfare. The free world will be able to establish air superiority, by weight of numbers. After establishing air supremacy, special forces go in and liberate one enemy base at a time. The enemy base will be given the option of defecting, going home or being annihilated. Note that in that link, the special forces were able to take the base with no loss of allied life. I don't expect that to happen every time, but do expect that this process will be repeatable. The liberated defecting bases, operating under allied air cover, will be able to reassert control over the rest of the country. So instead of needing large, expensive standing armies, we instead just need air supremacy and special forces

That's the theory. In 50 years from now, we will never know for sure whether this is possible or not. We need to try it out to see if it is possible or not. And the opportunity will probably never arise. So we will never know whether we can stand down our armies or not. We will be in desperate need of the experimental data that will prove it one way or the other. That is why NOW is the time to test that theory. Instead of using a 500,000-man army to conquer Iran (which we know will work), we should instead try repeating what was done at Al Asad airbase. I propose that the liberation of Iran should be done by Australian SAS operating under American, British or French air cover, coming in from aircraft carriers. The beauty of a war of liberation is that there is no need to occupy territory, as the people are free to do whatever they want - we're not trying to ram some ideology like communism down their throat. All we need to do is take out the heavy equipment in the hands of regime-supporters.

It needs to be tried. And the Middle East, Africa and Asia have provided us with an abundance of opportunity to test this theory. Another win/win situation.

|



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?