War (politics) at the cost of people’s lives

At the latter part of WW2, the Polish resistance made a great effort to drive away the nazis, hoping to avoid being occupied and ruled by Stalin’s already notorious regime.
Stalin wanted to get his hands on Poland, and so refused to supply the resistance with the weapons it needed, merrily letting them get slaughtered/arrested by the dozens. Only to further his own petty pleasures of being the absolute ruler of a few million more people.

Truman knew that Japan had been beaten, admittedly, Japan itself did not know it yet, but with the Soviets in the north, blocking access over,land, and the American navy blocking off access at all other borders (east, south and west are coastal borders), the Japanese government would not be able to acquire supplies/resources for the war machinery. So, really, all it would have taken for Japan to admit defeat and surrender, was a bit of patience.
Militarily, there was absolutely zero need for the murder of all those citizens with the atomic bombs that Truman did, apart from obviously striking fear in the hearts of every other population in the world, that the new boss in town possessed such very mighty weapons and wasn’t reluctant to use them on innocent people. Showing who was in charge.

And more recently, Bush2 (Dubbya) had zero reason to incade Iraq, because there were zero links to Osama Bin Laden. The trumped up excuses were a sham too: WMDs? (The only ones that were there dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and had been launched at Iran with the help of American targeting data).
But it had been long ago decided by the neo conservatives that a regime change would have to take place (be performed) in Iraq.

And the excuse of terrorism, to justify enslaving the population ever more, is also opportunism. As Macchiavelli wrote re any need a prince might have for a castle: “the only castle the prince needs, is not being hated”. To put that in my own words: the best defense against counterterrorism, is not committing terrorism.

Advertisements

“Defensie” aantrekkelijker als werkgever

Op dit moment heeft het ministerie van offensie 5000 vacatures, de verwachting is, dat dat aantal gaat oplopen. Dat is fijn nieuws! Want het betekent dat de onveiligheid van de burger in het geding is.
Mijn advies,aan Rutte: het enige dat die soldaten verdedigen, is jouw baantje, als je wil dat er meer mensen gaan kiezen om dat te gaan doen, maak je dan zo geliefd dat ze dat graag willen doen.
Dat is wel een heel fijn vooruitzicht voor iedereen.
Dat zal nog een heolle toer worden, want Rutte3 is nu ongeveer even geliefd als Mussert1 (en exact even democratisch tot stad gekomen).
Helaas leert de geschiedenis ons dat het soldaten niet lukt om,het oand te verdedigen:
Hertog van Alva
Keizer van Frankrijk
Oostenrijker van Duitsland
Enz… enz… enz…

probably not a good idea

I osted this in an FB-threat (about gun control?) the other day, and thought I’d repost it here, it seemed useful.

I must say: probably not a good idea to let yourself get drawn into an escalating power struggle. Unless us citizens gain access to cruise missiles that can reach DC, it won’t work, they keep having the power, and as http://freeross.org proves, the regime isn’t above taking political prisoners – using the court system.
It’s up to us to rise above their level, set the right example to the multitudes, and inspire them that way. So become Ghandi jr. and set the entire nation (planet) against them. This may require a clever marketing campaign, because it’s been done before, obviously (by Ghandi himself), and the mood created by the MSM is that anyone going against their opinion, is a paranoid paramilitary nut.

On Hoppe’s”Private production of defense”

According to Hans Hermann Hoppe https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense-0 , Hobbes put it that in a privatized world, there would be permanent underproduction of defense. Which in my own view would mean that a greater level of wealth would be realized, due to reduced squandering of money/wealth, which is what military spending always is
either it fails at being defensive (I have plenty of older posts on this), or it becomes offensive (only Switzerland and post-WW2 Japan & Germany are safe from this, due to the strictly upheld organization of their military capability – in the cases of Japan and Germany, it is strictly a defense force, as a consequence of their defeat at the hands of the allies)
Offensive wars are what politicians start out of boredom, having that army just sitting there, doing nothing.
And by being offensive, they stimulate retalliations, causing a need for defense – which they are forever unable to meet.
In,the end costing the country so much more money than if there would be no military. Since any and all military capacity is an unproductive waste of money, armies only ever empoverish nations. Besides: if (miracle of miracles) they would succeed in fending off an invading nation, that would only mean that the job of the reigning oppressor (whether democratically elected or not) is protected. Imagine anyone wishing to protect the job of such an anti-democratic jerk like Mark Rutte, I would take offense at that, even maje attempts to,stop him from doing that.
It would be best when, instead of armed forces, there would be (uniformed) officials walking about the area, to correct/prevent the mischievous acts of poorly brought up young rascals. Not exactly what you’d think is a job that needs an army, right?

Argument in favor of the counterterrorism-hypothesis

It is my hypothesis that #9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (i.e. the islamic terrorist attacks there) were not terrorism, but rather counterterrorism.
Anyone who disagrees with me is free to get in front of a live TV camera and proclaim that:

#Saddam #Hussayn was a darling of a man! His regime fully deserved all the financial and operational support that #DC gave it.

It is the unending interference in foreign (Arabic, Persian, Latin American, Asian, even Russian) affairs (which I term “#theFourthReich”) that gets countless citizens killed (if one includes the citizens who got drafted or sign up, the numbers get much higher)
Therefore the original terrorism is Christian, not #Islamic. And that possibly inflaming statement is justified by the fact that it is a practical impossibilllity to get elected to any US government office, unless one is a #Christian.

Forse min

1,5mrd extra voor het ministerie van offensie.
Wie is daarmee geholpen? Niet de burger, want de aanvallen (operaties op andere continenten) lokken alleen maar tegenaanvallen uit. Dus: iedere cent extra naar de expeditiestrijdkrachten maakt het Nederlandse volk alleen maar kwetsbaarder voor contraterreur (à la 9/11, Parijs, Brussel, München, Londen).
En bovendien, stel dat dit keer de Russen echt komen: hoe willen “onze jongens” ons dan beschermen vanuit Afghanistan?
Dus: de verdedigingscapaciteit gaat fors in de min. Noem het beestje bij het echte naampje: offensie.

Why it’s #COUNTER-terrorism

…when #muslims do it, but when western regimes initiate activities against hapless Arabs it’s #terrorism (#imperialism, #colonialism, whichever). Unless anyone would care to argue that Saddam Hussayn was really an OK kind of guy and deserving of the US’s support (both #financial and #military (their #WMDs (yes, those!) were fired at #Iran, with the help of #American satellite data)), then really my position will go uncontested, and even if someone would like to try, it will…
#Rumsfeld (the war-hawk), shook hands with Hussayn when meeting to hand over a pile of US tax-victim dollars.
“But if Rumsfeld had met him, he’s the one to know first-hand that Saddam, was dangerous and he’d be right to want to eliminate him.” The statist position becomes more and more desperate.