Anti-Subjugator

Some people wonder why I think I know more than supposed military experts. This despite the fact that supposed military experts come up with ludicrous claims that it would take 600,000 troops to invade Iraq, and there would be tens of thousands of casualties etc. Actually, all those "experts" are doing is quoting from standard military doctrine. That's what normally happens. Reality is it's all a pile of crap. The fact is you can knock over an enemy in 3.5 weeks for the loss of 100 allied lives, or if you make use of locals and play your cards well, you can do it with 200 troops and zero loss of life. If you want to. It's totally up to the US how it CHOOSES to play it. I would have made the same choices Bush made. There's no need to reduce US troop loss to such a minimum that you insist that no more than 200 troops be allowed to be deployed in Afghanistan, and you insist on the locals doing absolutely everything themselves. The option is there, but it's a stupid option. Just as the full conquest with 600k troops (which were supposedly needed in Afghanistan too), is another crappy option (but was also available if necessary).

I get my information from discussions/debates between people with a knowledge of military history and current military capabilities. I watch how the debates go, and I make an assessment of what is logical. I also listen to ex-military people on TV. I've seen people say that multiple people have tried to win a war totally from the air and failed. Even this very fact that people try, means that military experts themselves are divided. Some think it should be possible. Some think it is impossible. Reality is that even if it hasn't worked up till now, even that doesn't mean it's impossible. Who's to say you can't pound the right people into submission? And then what happened? Kosovo in 1999. The war was indeed won from the air. The supposedly impossible had been achieved. This is why I don't trust any supposed military expert. Standard doctrine is simply wrong.

Even the published war manuals are wrong. E.g. I saw someone quoting from the Small Wars manual about how once an insurgency had 2% of the population active, it would succeed. Simple logic was able to counter that. If the government forces have 1.99% of the population in the armed forces, and a modern military with aircraft and tanks. If they are faced with an enemy with 0.5% more combatants, with no heavy weaponry, the government forces will keel over and surrender, will they? It's crap. It's all crap. How anyone can publish this crap and get away with it, I'll never know. If it's part of a psyop, it would make sense. Get the enemy to believe this crap. For what purpose? To make the insurgents believe that they've got a hope in hell of winning? For what purpose? To make the rest of the world believe they have nothing to fear from the US, given that even lightly armed insurgents can beat off the US military? Maybe. That makes some sort of sense.

But if you instead get your information from open discussion forums, the truth comes out. The truth is that if we stick to conventional weapons, the entire world has lost to the US already. All non-US equipment can be systematically destroyed by the US and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop it. That leaves the locals to duke it out with pea-shooters. And that's where the psyop to make people believe that pea-shooters can win wars comes in. So long as people believe, REALLY BELIEVE, that pea-shooters can win wars, and all these fancy aeroplane thingos are just an optional extra kind of thing, no-one will create a hostile alliance against the US. If the US was planning on sucker-punching the world, it's done a damn good job of it.

Even I personally want to eventually have protection against the slim chance of a sucker punch from the US. Currently it is only the threat of nuclear retaliation that could stop the US conquering the world. The REAL thing stopping US global conquest is the ideology of the American people - being anti-subjugators. Unless it's all a complete scam, and the American people I talk to are all pretending to be isolationist, anti-subjugators, humanists etc, but beneath that pleasant exterior they have world conquest in their hearts. Technically, there is no way to tell for certain. If you're really paranoid, there could well be a massive conspiracy of 300 million Americans, pretending to be bickering and divided, but in reality they have conquest on their mind. If God suddenly spoke to you one day and said "all this internet/TV etc is all a scam controlled by the Zionists - you've been suckered", what would YOU think? Who would you believe? God or the internet?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. How to conquer people. Why does anyone imagine it is so difficult? Hitler did it with ease. The conquered people stayed conquered until liberated by a superior military (with great difficulty and a great deal of luck I might add). The USSR conquered Eastern Europe with ease. The revolts in Eastern Europe were put down with ease in short order. This was only ended in 1991, purely because the Soviet Union CHOSE to let them go. They weren't remotely beaten. Has there been a dramatic change since 1991 to make conquest impossible? Not a chance. The gap between the military and civilian goons has only widened. The military has had 16 years of technology added to its arsenal, while civilian goons have added precisely nothing. Conquest, always a walk in the park, just became a stroll.

I was trying to find a message from a Russian I read some time back saying that the Americans were so stupid they were scared of their own shadow. I couldn't find that, but I got something close.

Here we have "bestdefence" writing at "3/12/2004 12:23:06 PM" about what is required to occupy Pakistan. Here is the money quote:

"Occupying force is going to employ the local force to control and rule. That is what British did. It all depends on how you handle it. We see many divisions within Pakistan. Dividing and ruling Pakistan is easy and possible."

And he also explains how Musharaff is ruling Pakistan currently. If Musharaff can do it, why can't America? Saddam ruled Iraq fine. The Iranian dictator rules Iran fine. It doesn't matter a damn what the majority of the country thinks about it. What matters is whether you've organized your armed forces properly. And there are always people who will do whatever you ask of them, so long as they are paid. The Soviets found such people, and the Americans can find such people just as easily. And this is even if you want to shove some horrible doctrine down the throats of the conquered people. The US merely wants to spread rational, humanist, non-subjugating (in that order) government. It's a doddle. A complete and utter doddle.

Unfortunately no-one has collected all this stuff and put it in one spot. So that you can find the reality of warfare. The person I would like to do this with is "ableiter". He used to inhabit the Iraqi blogs. He actually confirmed what I said, that my prediction of Iran being conquered in 4 weeks for the loss of 100 lives was pretty close to the mark. Unfortunately that was done on the Road of a Nations Forum (as opposed to blog) which was hacked and is no longer available. I'll try to regain contact with both ableiter and the Forum owner to see if we can get things clarified for the average citizen to understand military reality.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this quote from ableiter, on what to do about the US Democrats determined to sell America down the drain:

"I have a solution. A Trade. Mass., Vt., Maine and Conn., N. H., R.I, and N.Y. for Saskatchwan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. The USA gets more Land the Peoples Republic of Canada gets more people." - ableiter