Let's Surrender

This state of affairs is now beyond ridiculous. Russia is completely right when it says
"No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.".

NATO is expanding and Russia is being isolated. There is no need to be isolating and humiliating Russia like this. There is no possibility of Russia mounting a successful invasion of NATO member countries while US planes are available to demolish anything that moves. Nor is the intent there. The last thing Russia did was WITHDRAW from territory. The only reason the Baltics are in NATO in the first place is because Russia VOLUNTARILY withdrew.

It is now time to just hand over the reins of NATO to the Russians. They can't possibly do any damage. The nature, and beauty, of the free world is that it can instantly reconfigure against any rogue actor. No-one needs to control these democracies. They naturally ally due to shared principles.

The Ukranian leader said
"I don't want the basic, fundamental principle... of open doors to the alliance to be changed for the veto power of a nation that is not a member of the alliance,".

Yes, that was a fine attitude while getting the Baltics in. We should have stood up to Russia's bullying of its small neighbours and told them that we stand for freedom, which we do, and did. That's fine. However, that's already been done. The point has been proven. Ukraine is a hell of a lot different from the Baltics. Half of Ukraine actually wants to be allied with Russia, and NATO membership has little support.

Ukrainian membership at this point in world history will not enhance the security of the free world and/or allow us to achieve our goals. It will do the exact reverse, by delaying Russia's switch to our side, which is the ultimate prize (along with China doing the same thing).

I think we have more chance of getting Russia to make that ideological change if it could have some experience of actually being head of the war machine that defends that ideology! So long as the US planes are only a couple of hours away, there's no danger, only a potentially stronger free world.

It will be as interesting to see what Russia does with ownership of NATO as it was to see what on earth the Iraqi people would do once Saddam was off their back.




The Real War

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

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

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

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

Paul Edwards: peace? you mean non-combat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arab israeli: jews are extremely racist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*** [or race]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*** as in, following Hitler exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




End Game Tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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