Significant Military Events

I was asked in the comments about significant military events. Since that is a more interesting topic than debating with buh as to whether rapes in DR Congo are ordered by Bush personally or the multinational corpations or the Vulcan overlords (since we all know that no blacks have ever committed any crime ever in history - except for those in the Republican party of course), I have done some more thinking and here's what I came up with.

First of all, you need to actually settle on a frame of reference. For many/most Muslims, the thing that interests them is not the spread of human rights across the globe, but the spread of Islam. For most westerners however, people's religion is the most mind-numbingly boring topic imaginable. So battles that leave this or that religion better off, are completely and utterly irrelevant. But for Muslims, every time Mohammed murdered some unsuspecting Jew tilling his land, it's like, wow, I wish I had been there to see that! With the conquest of Mecca being like ... the Mecca.

So too, Americans have been raised with a diet of how important American independence was, as America's liberal democracy is so important, and so unique, that all other liberal democracies are well, just liberal democracies and like if you were to accidentally bump into one of them, you might, like, catch some horrible disease or sumfin. So the only things that matter are some stupid battles that no-one else in the world has even heard of, because, like, who cares?

So first of all I have to declare my own mindset. I am a secular humanist and want to live under a secular, humanist government, and as a humanist, I want other humanists to also enjoy the same thing. So rather that battles that force Islam down people's throats, I'm interested in battles that force humanism onto some government (instead of allowing the government to rape, murder, whatever). So if 1000 years ago Iceland, which was likely the closest thing the world had to a humanist government at the time) had used its democratically-controlled security forces to spread its own form of government across the globe, THAT would have been the most significant military event.

But the world is not that lucky. Instead, there was a long struggle, and that struggle continues today. It continues not just against dictators, but sick people like buh who support them from the comfort of the free world.

As we know now, America is the country that is now capable of doing what Iceland was unable to do 1000 years ago. But the European Union could probably pull it off too, if it were that way inclined. It'd be more difficult of course, but their opponents are even more hopeless than them, so it'll still be a cakewalk. But they're missing the political will. But even despite that, it still means that Europe can at least protect its own human rights. And whatever else the Europeans may be, they are still part of the free world. So that part of the free world is secure.

But it wasn't like that a short time ago. A really significant military event was Eastern Europe leaving the Warsaw Pact and joining NATO. It may not be the same as WWII, but the actions of the belligerents in the Cold War, were pretty much the same as WWII. Both sides forged alliances, and both sides developed ever-better weapons in order to prosecute that war. The fact that neither side actually fired their weapons (unless you count the sideshows in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan) is pretty much irrelevant. Firing weapons just means some resources are depleted. Unless borders move, it's totally irrelevant. It's the equivalent of each side boiling some of its own soldiers in oil. Soldiers die, expensive oil is wasted. But both sides are in exactly the same state, even though it's called "peace" instead of "war".

And given that communism, with it's allure of an allegedly better definition of "freedom" (freedom from poverty - and everyone can relate to that, because no-one is ever satisfied with their lot in life, no matter how well off they are in comparison to their ancestors) was of mortal threat to liberal democracy, this is probably the most singular important military event in world history. Without the US military to prevent the Soviets rolling over Western Europe, the world would be a very different place indeed. So just because the belligerents didn't get into a full-scale shooting match, doesn't make it much less of a war. The fact is that the good guys won a lot of territory, the bad guys sort of simply disappeared the same way the Nazis (ie national SOCIALISTS - more left-wing scum) did.

Other things, like the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians going from capitalism to capitalism over the course of a few decades is largely irrelevant. Of course it is terrible for the people living in squalor in India thanks to Ghandi's moronic economic policies, or innocent people sent to commie gulags in China and Vietnam, but as far as the free world's ideological spread is concerned, it turned out to be immaterial. Yes, the Chinese and Vietnamese did manage to kill a small number of people from the free world, and waste some of our resources, but that's about it. No major permanent impact. Could have turned out differently, but it didn't.

Hell, we're in the same position right now with the Middle East. Assad's rise to power in a military coup in Syria could turn out to be the most significant military event in world history if he goes on to develop nukes and uses them to wipe out every major city in the free world, allowing Ba'athism to conquer the globe. But so far he hasn't, so his pathetic little coup which he calls a "revolution" has about as much substance as his son's chin.

As we go back in history we can see some other events like WWII. That's not particularly significant because the borders didn't improve in favour of the free world significantly. Although getting the Japanese out of China was important (because that increased the danger from Japan's ideology - Japanese nationalism) and breaking up German strength was also important in ending Germany's ideology (German nationalism - I don't think Nazism had any traction as an ideology - they nearly went bankrupt before the shooting started).

WWI was more significant as it put an end to some competitors - the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. These large power blocks are a threat as they can act as a single entity with a common ideology (ie whatever ideology the dictator has). We don't have that problem with NATO. You can break NATO into the current 26 components or into 260 components and you still end up with exactly the same thing - the components have an ideology that allows them to come together of their own free will. Not possible to force them to listen to some dictator's ideology. Even if America was a dictatorship, it would have zero clout with the other NATO members. In fact, it would be expelled.

The same sort of thing could exist even if Australia. Even if the UN somehow coerced Australia into splitting up into individual states, maybe by threatening nuclear annihilation or something, the different states would all say something like "fine. yah. we're all countries now. as a country, i hereby wish to engage in a special state to state relationship like australia used to have with new zealand. and we'll have common defence in ANZUS like we used to as well. free trade all round obviously. and we'll probably adopt strikingly similar laws. oh, and we'll have one of those euro currency thingos except called the ozi".

Anyway, the humanist ideology doesn't go back very far. Europe was pretty much wall to wall dictatorship not that long ago. So the next thing to protect is scientific progress. That was threatened by Muslims at one point in time, and by Mongols at another. The Muslim invasion was defeated at Gates of Vienna and the Mongol one was defeated by some Muslims in Egypt. So both of those were significant in allowing the Europeans to develop.

The English beating the French was significant as it put an end to France starting wars with the other European countries for no particular benefit to liberal democracy. Keeping the Spanish out of South America was significant in reducing their ability to do any damage.

I thought that the Roman invasion of England was significant in that it brought England up to first world standards (which later proved useful in spreading my ideology), but perhaps that would have happened anyway in the Norman (French) invasion.

The American war of independence (won by the French) would have been significant if it had actually caused a problem. But it didn't. America never did anything serious to the UK, and when America's resources were actually required, they did turn up, albeit belatedly, so no harm done. And they subsequently took over the job of holding the line, so then it became a question of things like the UK's resources not being used to assist in Vietnam. But America so outclasses everyone else that that particular malfeasance isn't particularly significant.

There are two more significant military events I can think of.

Afghanistan proved that merely providing air power to one side in a civil war is enough to win, so supporting liberal democracy worldwide in the long term will never require much more than some target practice for the US Air Force.

Iraq proved that it is not religion that divides humans, but ideology, and that in the long term, all you need to do is provide air power to the ideology you like.

All those things combined have brought us to where we are, which is to say, be in position to spread Iceland's ideology of 1000 years ago, across the globe, and making it technically impossible for any competitor to take away our choice of government ideology (secular humanism) by force.

Iraq is the singlemost significant military event, because it provided the petri dish that was required to isolate the exact ideology (ie message 666) that our governments were operating under when they fought, which is what is required to usher in worldwide freedom, and thus peace, both between countries, and even between individuals, into the future. Basically anti-non-humanists need to defeat non-humanists in order for the world to be a safe place for humanists. After that war, comes true peace, rather than an armistice.




Sweatshops for the Pope

I saw a great article here about sweatshop labour. It's short and succinct so may as well read the whole thing.

But the thing that really gets me is this line:

"He apparently did not ask, or care, what happened to them after they lost their jobs."

REALLY gets me. REALLY REALLY gets me.

These scumbag union officials are willing to sacrifice teenage girls in the Honduras to increase their union dues. And no-one cares what happens to the poor girls as they wind up in the second-best job that was available to them. It's hard enough getting a good job in the first world, nevermind closing off options in the 3rd world.

And it reminds me of the Pope and assorted Catholics who pretend to care about single-celled organisms. They don't give a rat's arse AFTER they are born and they end up in a family that can't afford them or particularly want them in the first place, and they end up with miserable choices. Sure, some may end up OK, but usually there was a reason for someone to decide that abortion was the option - preventing the question of outcome even being relevant.

And it also reminds me of the anti-war people who pretend to care about the Iraqis who lost their lives during the 2003 Iraq war and any subsequent violence. They don't give a damn about all the ones killed by Saddam. They only care about ones that they think they can pin on a white guy. And the whole concept of Iraqis paying a price for their freedom, as other countries have done in the past (including Britain withstanding Nazi bombing rather than surrender or even sign a peace deal) isn't even an option.

And finally, all of this reminds me of the fact that there's not a single protest going on outside the Iranian embassies or outside the US embassy demanding the immediate liberation of Iran. At the end of the day, there's only a handful of people who genuinely care.

Finally the article concludes with "Someone who intentionally gets you fired is not your friend.". Again, I wouldn't mind so much if people were forcibly fired from one job and this was followed up with better employment. And I wouldn't mind if the Pope forced a child to be born and then provided economic assistance to that person for the entirety of their lives. But the fire/forced-birth and forget ideology is one of the sickest on the planet.

If you don't genuinely care about other people's suffering, fine, be a sociopath, it's your right to do so and I don't want to take it away. But at least make sure that it's considered anti-social and such sociopaths are held in low esteem and at least don't contribute to or be responsible for that suffering by firing people or introducing absurd and untested social experiments like communism onto others.




Bet on Black

At the Height of Hypocrisy awards, I bring you Afghan Lord's latest post. He says that Martin Luther King's dream has come true. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that King was an opportunistic hypocritical filthy racist who thought that yellow Vietnamese people didn't deserve freedom, and that commie gulags were more suited for them, the words that he spoke, and that 50% of white people actually mean - ie people's skin colour should not be relevant, his entire judgement of Obama is based on skin colour!

No analysis of policy required - just look at his skin!!! Cool! Nevermind that it was a Republican that gave him freedom of speech, not a damn Democrat (and I say that to diss all Democrats, not just black ones, and not just Obama - in case any Democrats feel left out or sumfin). When pressed, he talks of Obama bringing change. Actually, it was Bush who brought change to his damned country, and if you want change, you can perhaps simply vote e.g. for an Afghan president who supports Israel, or who is a Buddhist instead of a Muslim (the Afghan constitution requires the president to be Muslim). And when Bush was bringing radical change to Iraq, and indeed the Middle East, by replacing wall to wall cruel dictatorship with a beacon of democracy - Obama OPPOSED the change.

So there we have it. I really had higher hopes for Americans. There's a thing called the "Bradley Effect". White people are so scared of being called racists all the time, that they're afraid to admit that they're going to vote for a white candidate when a black one is available. You'd think that level of intimidation wouldn't carry across to the ballot box - and indeed, it didn't, as Bradley found out on the day. I assumed that with the heightened level of horror that Obama stands for, Americans would exercise their freedom of thought at least at the ballot box. But no. Now they're not only afraid to speak out against a racist black when one stands right in front of them - standing for everything that America doesn't - they're now even afraid to THINK that way. America has truly lost its soul when it doesn't have the balls to even vote down a racist, nevermind use its military to go kick some dictator's arse when they are like 500 times stronger than their opponent, in case some lefty says something nasty. This is where the real cowardice is. Being afraid of nasty words and being unpopular with the nasty socialists.

Anyway, the solution is simple, and obvious. While ever Americans remain pro-black racists, the Republicans should never field anyone for president that isn't a black female. Yes, it's discrimination. But for the same reason the world's first democracy (Iceland) couldn't refuse to trade with any dictatorships 1000 years ago, the Republicans can't afford to stay out of office while America and the free world turns to shit, insisting that they choose candidates in their normal colour-blind fashion. You need to treat this as war. Put your best black female forward. The Republicans can easily find a reasonably decent black such as Condi. It doesn't matter whether she's had much political experience - a smarmy brat like Obama just thumped a Vietnam vet for my sake.

We'll get King's voiced (but not practiced) dream one day. As you can probably tell, that's my dream too. That means no more feminazis. No more blacks getting a free pass for their gross unchecked racism (which ultimately, they end up being the biggest victims of - as they wind up in jail and/or poverty because of this carefully cultivated (by left-wing scum who use blacks as cannon fodder in their attempt to bring down capitalism) hostility). And we'll also have every damn dictator replaced by a liberal democracy, completing Iceland's dream. And my dream too. Very different from Obama and Lennon's dream/nightmare.




Dash of the Australians

Open letter to John Key, Prime Minister-elect of New Zealand

Dear Sir, congratulations on your apparent victory, a bright light in the world today. With the right-wing losing control of the armed forces in both Australia and the US, let's see if the NZer's famed "dash of the Australians combined with the meticulous professionalism of the British" holds true.

You presumably know the stakes. Complete and utter victory in Iraq, just as it was in South Vietnam. And with a racist US president-elect determined to not see brown people in other countries have the same rights he has, presumably so that he has brown suffering in the world which he can "inherit" without the actual discomfort of being locked up in a gulag or having his own tongue cut out. Still, it could be worse. He could be like Foddy, Bruno and buh who get their rocks off at night thinking of the absolute power that a man like Saddam had. Without a real example for them to see, they don't get the same high. That's the REAL REASON (TM) that these slimy pricks opposed the liberation of brown people. But I digress.

As you probably know, Bush is built from the same stuff as Osama Bin Laden himself. Only instead of being a racist, or much of a religious bigot, he's a nationalist. Therefore, he doesn't see this struggle in terms of good vs bad or anti-religious bigots vs religious bigots. He just sees either America involved, or American not involved. And if America pulls out of Iraq, who gives a damn? That's America's decision, as if only American opinion matters.

Anyway, I know you don't have much of a military left today, but you don't need much to maintain victory in Iraq. All you need to be able to do is put down military coups by being able to shoot down any Iraqi planes that are not loyal to the elected government. And to do that, all you need is better air-to-air missiles than the Iraqi Air Force has. And Bush will be happy to sell you those.

So there you have it, sir. Get some missiles, send your entire military into Iraq, and don't let Obama deliberately throw this victory to spite Bush. Get the missiles now while you can. America will be lost as a true ally of the free world in a couple of months and the free world will have to tread water waiting for the return of our heavyweight champion.

You can probably organize some right-wing Europeans too. You'll have to do some arm-twisting, but Germany can provide you with a lot of muscle. They have a right-wing government also, that won't laugh at the Iraqis having their tongues cut out just because they've got the wrong skin colour. You can probably coax the British too. Stress the fact that pound for pound, you contributed more blood to WWI than any other Anglophone country and that you're calling in every favour to keep Iraq secure. I know there's not a lot out there to work with, but try your best. BTW, when I read the wonderful news the first thing that came to my mind was whether I should migrate to New Zealand while riding out the racist regime that came to power in Australia. But that would be like expecting 27 million Iraqis to migrate while living under Saddam's tyranny. It's the wrong solution to the problem. We need people to work within the regime to get rid of the (mostly anti-white) racism prevalent in so many western societies.

Good luck. And let's hope you're a better right-winger than both Bush and Howard, who both let me down.




77 days

Listen up Bush, you half-wit.

You had a chance to win the ideological war. I spelled out all the steps on my blog. Castro was right when he said that America was profoundly racist - over 50% of Americans have just voted for an anti-white racist. What he left out was the sorry fact that the rest of the world is even WORSE.

You have 77 days in which to protect the decent American people. It is your OATH OF OFFICE and MORAL OBLIGATION to protect those people. You said in a speech that you believed that God wanted everyone to be free. You're damn right I do. As already documented, while inside the universe, I don't have supernatural powers to zap that into being, and instead I had the challenge to deal with dogmatic people. Unfortunately the world is wall to wall dogmatic. Even the atheists and skeptics who I had previously had faith in.

Regardless, it is still TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE to solve this problem militarily, which, in the absence of any serious IDEOLOGICAL war (ie Manhattan Project II etc), is the only option left. Let it be known Bush. It's not too late. When a nuke goes off in LA, let it be known, that on 4th November, 2008, you had the technical ability to protect America, and you FAILED, because YOU REALLY ARE A HALF-WIT. You failed America and you failed God.

Your troops can be in Tehran within 7 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Damascus within 10 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Beirut within 14 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Sudan within 21 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Zimbabwe within 24 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Pyongyang within 40 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Cuba within 50 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Saigon within 60 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Burma within 65 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

Your troops can be in Islamabad within 77 days. All you need to do is nod your head.

If this was WWII, you'd be blasting through Europe as you did after D-Day. You're MORE mobile now than you were back then and your enemy is relatively MUCH weaker now than it was back then. The only thing standing in your way is YOU. Your military has this capability, regardless of what some shiny-pants general may say to the contrary. PLAY TO WIN you stupid cretin.

Meanwhile, Republicans are to blame for this urgency as well. Instead of crying crocodile tears for single-celled organisms at every election, and threatening distressed pregnant women with human rights violations, you could have instead shown some REAL concern for REAL people in Iran, Vietnam etc etc. There's so many in genuine need of your protection. And of course, you can even protect YOURSELF you STUPID FRIGGIN MORONS.

One more thing - there is actually one left-wing government in the world that is still halfway decent - that's the UK. Put them in charge of coup-proofing Iraq NOW. Get the US troops out of Iraq NOW to make it clear that the UK is responsible for Iraq. Get the US troops out of Afganistan NOW to make clear that it is NATO that is responsible for Afghanistan. That way these things will continue even after Obama does his best to contain the US war machine to give breathing room to America's enemies to build up strength so that he can build his socialist dystopia, or failing that, at least destroy as much of capitalism as he can.

If you take the first step of this process and run into trouble (ie the unlikely possibility that the shiny-bum generals are right, and that you can't simply blast a path to Tehran), that's fine. Stop and re-evaluate. I'll give you the next step right here.

We all know that Obama is far worse than a Republican president would have been, and that it is the American people who are ultimately to blame for being racist pricks. And that you ultimately got the government you deserved. However, REGARDLESS OF THAT, *LET IT BE KNOWN* that YOU also failed to protect the American people. Those people who jumped from burning skyscrapers expected that something would be done so that this never happened again. YOU FAILED THEM. YOU, Bush. The buck stops with YOU. I sure as hell did everything that was technically possible for me to do. Boy oh boy I tried. And so long as you activate the full weight of your military machine, you can drop ME in Tehran. I'm more than happy to die for the freedom of Iran, for the protection of America, and the protection of the free world. YOU give me the military backing, and I'm happy to be in the LEAD TANK, or LEAD infantry division or whatever the hell you want. Hell, I'll be the damn cook if you want. I don't give a shit, so long as you allow me to serve the free world. That doesn't mean I want you to drop me alone in Tehran to deal with a 500,000 man army on my own. I'm not stupid. I expect the backing of the ENTIRE US military, not just a pointless death so that some left-wing scumbag can get his rocks off at a capitalist freedom-fighter being killed.

Anyway, I've had a gutful of you. I know you're not going to do this. Just as I know that the left-wing scum will never switch from being racist to anti-racist. It's in their genes. And it's in your genes.

I've already told you what's in my genes. Took me 25 years to find the words. And in message 666 on 9/11 I gave you the words.

I've had a gutful, Bush. Goodbye you stupid fucking prick. You know how to contact me if you ever find the basic morality required to activate your military and ACTIVATE ME. I'd rather be shot in cold blood right now than have to face a gutless wonder like you who can't even find the balls to NOD HIS FUCKING HEAD because of NASTY FUCKING *WORDS* from left-wing scum. Of course they're going to say nasty words you stupid prick. If they weren't nasty people, they wouldn't be left-wing in the first place! Moron.

Anyway, with every passing day, for the next 77 days, I'm going to hate your guts more and more. YOU were the one who could have protected the decent Republicans, especially neocons, in America, and the rest of the world. YOU were the one entrusted. YOU were the one who betrayed that trust.

So far you've lost 1.5 months worth of US road toll in your ENTIRE PRESIDENCY fighting wars. That's a WWII river crossing you moron. And a large chunk of that was just accidents - can be considered training accidents (realistic training).

Anyway, go fuck yourself Bush. You let me down when I needed you the most. You let down America when she needed you the most too. I know you'll trot out some lame-arse excuse in your memoirs. I'm not interested. Criminals trot out lame-arse excuses too. Go swap memoirs with other criminals Bush. Because you really are a criminal Bush. It's called NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE when you allow a terrorist to blow up American cities with nukes. Sure, Obama will be in the dock with you too. But that doesn't alter the fact that YOU are in the dock too. Go fuck yourself, Bush. I wanted to protect America after 9/11. Hell, even before 9/11. But especially watching those jumpers. I wanted them to know that I would solve this technical problem no matter who needed to die. But in the end, it needed 77 days of action from you, Bush. I don't have the technical ability to command US troops. You do. Go fuck yourself, Bush. You will destroy America yourself. Obama will just turn the knife. Go fuck yourself. Those are MY allies you killed. Those brave Americans who are willing to go to Tehran to protect America. THOSE are my allies. Not a spineless politician like you who prevents them from protecting themselves. Your second amendment is a pile of shit. That's not what will protect you. What will protect you is being allowed to deploy your military to take down your enemies. THAT is what was taken away from you. Not your stupid bloody pea-shooters which will NOT, repeat NOT prevent a nuke from going off in LA. Ah, forget it. Pearls to swine. Get off my blog, Bush. Your very name sullies it. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE, Bush. Take that and stick it up your arse.


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