Archive for January 2006

Comment to Silence of the Lambs

January 31, 2006

To Neo,

But this progress has had has the unintended effect of lowering the bar and raising expectations. Now there are many people who want (and expect!) that civilian (or “innocent”) casualties in war, or in targeted terrorist assassinations, become zero. And that seems impossible.

This progress has also had the unintended effect of promoting and giving rewards to people that endanger civilians and use civilians as a weapon in war. Because they are counting on your lack of attacks on their families and those they hold precious, and so long as they suffer no negative consequences for using a tactic in warfare, they will continue to do.

Because the terroists live in a win/win scenario, but not the exact one you describe. If we kill civilians, the terroists win propaganda among the civilians. If we don’t kill civilians, terroists get safe havens and show the impotency of the occupation/imperialist/zionist entity.

There are ways to break this guerrila tactic balancing of murder. Instead of operating combat strikes, Israel should operate psychological warfare. Psychological does not kill people, it does not put bullets in people or maim them, it only destroys people’s minds and will. Destroy their mind and their bodies will follow.

With the proper counter-protections, Neo, the terroists go from win/win to lose lose. In Iraq, if terroists launch a mortar from a village and the U.S. counter-mortars the position, a proper propaganda counter will put the blame on the terroists. And give people incentive to NOT allow terroists to launch mortars from their villages if they can help it, BECAUSE they know that the weapons of the terroists are not helping them, but Americans with their reconstruction, baby tools and food, and etc are. Given a choice between terroists blowing up their children clustered around the lovable and dovable Americans in their cool looking armored humvees and the lovable and dovable Americans, they will always choose the Americans even without the fear of retaliation. It just tends to take longer, like with the Sunni Insurgents. There’s a very good reason Sunnis and Kurds treat AMericans better than the Shia. The Shia have never seen the iron fist of America, nor what backed our political promises. They didn’t see it in the Gulf War and they sure as heck don’t see it now when their American appointed British occupation forces let Muqtada Al-Sadr run around murdering and killing people.

If terroists don’t endanger civilians and the host population, they lose again, because their tactical mobility goes down to zero and their potential to initiate combat strikes against civilians and military personnel decreases, signifying weakness on the part of the terroists to all who may not have yet opposed them.

Proper psychological counter-tactics turns a terroist win-win scenario into a lose-lose scenario. Many things in war are variable and mercurial like that, where one tactic that might have worked in one set of circumstances do not work in a changed environment. The inability to adapt to new enemies, changing weapons and tactics, and a lack of mental agility is the cause of why Generals are said to always fight the last war, never the future one. How long a General takes to master the tactics of the current war, rather than the previous one, determines victors and losers. As it does in Iraq. We are adapting faster than Al-Qaeda, we are winning the propaganda war in Iraq. We are not winning the propaganda war in America. The internet barely holds the President at 40% approval ratings, without the internet, it would be below 30%.

Iraq is not about taking territory, it is about winning over the mind of the Iraqi man, woman, and child. The US holds to a conciliatory manner of doing things, not an iron fist one, but perhaps an iron fist in a velvet glove. There is always the military backing whatever political operations the diplomats seek to impose in Iraq. The military itself does not want to involve itself in civil reconstruction and occupation, and it has cost us, to everyone’s detriment. Paul Bremer knew it himself when he took charge, that the military did not train the Iraqis cause the military thought Police would just pop up out of no where, and that military training police to do internal security is wrong. It’s not wrong, it’s just fighting the last war, not the current one.

Israel’s policy and national character towards terrorism is very different from the American one. And it shows in the length and breath of the terroist threats facing them. In Palestine, the terroists truly do have the win-win scenario Neo talks about. Yet it need not be that way.

Or kill those terrorists, and understand that some innocents will probably die also, despite the fact that you are doing the very best you can to minimize the killing of innocents in the process.

The choice is not between killing terroists or letting them go. The Democrats understand this at least, you can’t kill all the terroists. Because terrorism is an idea and a tactic, but just because you can’t kill a person does not mean you cannot mentally cripple them, into a 5 year old retard on a monkey swing.

There is war, there is guerrila war, and then there is politics. Politics happen after wars, and wars happen after politics. But guerrila wars happen all the time, war or no war, politics or no politics. The infamous “asymetrical warfare”, without political symetry or the rules of war symmetry. What fearful symmetry.

But what is the proper response?

It has to be psychological war.

Why do some observers persist in seeing no difference? Why do some insist on holding Israel and the US to a standard that is both impossible and dangerous, a standard by which no self-defense would be possible, and by which “the cruel” would end up triumphing?

Because they don’t understand guerrila warfare. They don’t understand Israel’s tactics nor the reason for them, simply because the people who oppose Israel do not truly care whether civilians or not if they were at the helm. They would panic and blow up a city, like New Orleans, and then blame it on some else. They produce more casualties, not less due to their lack of understanding and willful ignorance. They also don’t understand the terroist’s tactics, they believe terroists are just like themselves. No, they are not like Western intellectuals in the least, though they are just as good at propaganda. Perhaps therein lies the confusion. The intellectuals see in the Palestinians, a people as well versed in human propaganda as they themselves, and therefore they jump to the conclusion that these are their brothers…

Humanity: Good and Evil

January 28, 2006

In response to Bookworm’s post, link’s in title.

First half to the subject of Evil or Goodness inherent in Humanity.

Second part is directed to Bookworm.

The idea that humanity is evil and that the only thing that restricts its morality is societal pressure, is close to the truth but still flawed.

Most fake liberals do believe humanity is evil, that is why they believe that government for the people, not by the evil people, is a Good Thing.

The True liberal idea that humanity is either good naturally or potentially good or evil, has been modified by the fake liberals to mean that everyone else is good while people in the United States (with the exception of the anointed ones like Kerry and Let’s Drown A Woman Kennedy).

Personally, I am not a believer in Original Sin, because Free Will requires the knowledge of Good and Evil. Without that, yes no evil would have been committed, but then no good would have either. To separate from the religious issue, let’s say humanity was inherently evil. Then what would happen to a bunch of Marines sent to another world, free to do whatever they pleased with no fear of punishment?

If humanity is inherently evil, then why don’t Good People revert to evil when they know they won’t be punished for it?

Good people like that do exist, if not in the majority. People who do what they do because they adhere to a personal standard of conduct, one apart of yet independent of society’s.

I have always wondered, if humanity is evil inherently, then how do individuals surpass their societal constructs (like inter-racial marriage) and other generational taboos. My answer is simple.

Each person’s nature is related to, but independent, of the human commonality. A person is good or evil based upon his mind, his personality, and his actions. Not based upon his father’s mother’s, or his society’s.

Something deep inside us yearns for the Good, others fall to the Dark Side. The majority of the human race, is indeed as the poster noted. The majority of humans do what they are rewarded for and avoid doing what they would be punished for.

There is good and evil in all of us. You don’t have to believe that humanity is inherently evil to also believe that how a person is brought up influences their decisions.

But that should not blind us to the fact that an inner strength exists in some, if not all, people and whether that strength becomes manifest is the question in the end.

Anne did not get a chance to show the world what would have became of her spirit and wit. Would she have favored Peace Through Superior Firepower as I do? Would she have been a conscientious objector? A supporter of Israel? If she had come to America, what would have became of her, I ask myself. I, and others like me, will never know.

Because Anne did not have the power to survive, and without that power, GOod and Evil is a meaningless consideration.

A man that has to protect his family, is not worried about Good or Evil, because if it means doing what is considered evil to protect his family, he will do it. In that manner, genetics still rule our will.

To Bookworm,

I liked how you tied in Western value systems into the Anne Frank subject. I myself have analyzed some of the trends, and came to a few conclusions.

Much of European society came from the Feudal System, which was a effective system to take over the power vacuum left by the Roman Empire. These men and women had to protect their people, given Rome’s powerlessness to do it for them. And the barbarians WERE at the gates, as well as plague and all manner of apocalypses.

I tend to believe that mass depopulation and high infant mortality rates due to the loss of Roman technology, produced a society that valued, cherished, and sought to protect women over men. In the greater genetic sense, that makes sense, since 90% of the men can die off and the women can still continue the blood line. Realistically, this produced a lot of usurpations and chaos. But it still didn’t change the fact that men were just more EXPENDABLE than women in those days. A society can survive with only 10% of the men due to wars, but it cannot survive with 10% of the women. Birth rates go to zero and the barbarians come through the doors outbreeding you in motion.

That’s actually what sort of happened to Briton after 500 A.D. Saxon barbarian invasions. And it is happening even now in Europe.

Is it so surprising to realize that a society that values their women over the men, would produce effiminate males, high crime (Britain) and low birth rates? Not to me it isn’t. Technology means we can now harness the 50% part of the human race, the female population, to power our military. Old habits die hard, and they should, simply because old habits are OLD for a reason.

Not everything new is better.

In today’s world, chauvinism is described in all its vices but never its virtues. It was the males that inherited, because in the old Feudal system it was the males that fought to protect their honor, family, and people. A lot of power, but also a lot of responsibility and sacrifices.

Feudalism didn’t encounter problems until well after the 12th century, when the knights and barons got RICH as all hell and corruption occured. Sort of like the SouthWest border of America compared to Los Angeles and New York.

This goes back even to the Greeks. Since I will defend the Western-Judeo-Roman-Greek Culture.

The Greeks basically settled their wars with hoplite clashes. No, burning the city. Although that did happen. Usually just a clash, and whoever shows their tail and runs (thereby showing their lack of courage and henceforth lack of will and right to victory) surrenders and everything is all right.

This Western culture of surrender with honor, of limited warfare, of gentleman’s “agreements” started to fray during the Peloponessian War, written about by victor davis Hanson. But even in Cromwell’s age, limited warfare with set rules still held sway.

The Islamics and the Mongols and the Persians, all descended from steppe tribes and other barbarians, do not have this cultural background. They believe victory gives them the right to impose whatever conditions they want on the loser. They see America’s refusal to do so, as a sign of weakness. A misperception that will kill more Muslims than Americans in the end.

In some senses, it is Persia vs Sparta all over again. Except we’re Persia and Iran is Sparta. Except Iran is also Persia and Sparta is also the United States Marine Corps.

Persia didn’t win even when they outnumbered the Spartans and Thebans at the Gates of Fire. Unlikely that they will win now when they were outnumbered.

The reason was simple. Spartans prided themselves not on INDIVIDUAL SKILL, but on teamwork and group discipline. Your honor and your duty came about by standing in the rank and file, never flinching, and doing your job to plow through the enemy regardless of the consequences. This is why the armor of a Hoplite was 3 months wages, this was why heavy armor was near 100 pounds in all. And also why the average American infantryman Combat Loadout is also near 100 pounds.

We value our soldiers. But we value our families and people more, enough to risk those soldiers, yet not wasting their lives and sacrifice.

Persia on the other hand (Battle of Thermopylae) had no armor, sucky weapons, and were all cavalry. Cavalry without armor, is light cavalry, and it doesn’t do dick against a phalanx full of spears.

Persia prided themselves on their horsemanship, archery, and individual combat skill. Like a barbarian.

Why does that sound familiar when looking at the Mid East?

The terroists with their cutting knives and terror camps, they are great individual fighters, full of fanaticism and endurance, but as a team they are nothing but cannon fodder for the US military. Many civilians see them as a throw back to the Dark Ages, but it wasn’t our Dark Age they are trying to throw us back to, but theirs.

This fight between West and East has been going on for thousands of years. No reason why it has to stop now.

Talking about the Crusades doesn’t go NEARLY far enough back in time.

The funny thing was during the Crusades, the Templar were a bunch of freaking fanatics that used brute strength to cut through a man with cold iron while the Muslims had Damascene WATER STEEL for God’s sake.

Good thing we wiped the Templars out, cause their “No Hostage policy” might have looked courageous, but it definitely was not Western.

And one last thing. The Muslims loved taking hostages and so did the West, cause it was free money. Somehow the West gave it up while the Muslims kept at it. Weird. Wonder why we don’t return the favor.

L E Modesitt The Forever Hero Trilogy

January 28, 2006

Wars are fought because someone can generate the impression of loss, or the impression of gain. Take away that impression, and you make it that much harder to generate support for war.

Wars can only be fought with popular support or with centralized government control. Centralized and strong governments arise because of the perception of unmet needs. They maintain power because they generate new perceptions of needs which are unmet or by fueling the impressions which lead to war—or both.

Take away the perception of unmet needs, and strong governments find it increasingly difficult to maintain power without becoming ever more tyrannical.

Who are the men who own the skies?
A tall man, a thin man, a mean one.
A man who has no heart, and one who has no eyes.
A man who laughs, and one who never dies.

Do no women own the skies?
A tall one, a thin one, a mean one?
A woman who has no heart, one who has no eyes?
A laughing woman, or one who never cries . . .

. . . you cannot own the skies and stars.
You cannot prison them with bars . . .

And yet, a steel-crossed heart,
with ports that never part,
with daggers from his eyes,
has let the captain hold the skies.

And who will melt the steel away?
Who will steal the daggers’ day?

Who will split the clouds in two,
and with her heart the stars pursue?

Fragments from The Ballad of

the Captain (full text lost)

Songs of the Mythmakers

Edwina de Vlerio

New Augusta, 5133 N.E.C.

Each man expects his day in the sun. Each god raised by a culture may expect not days, but centuries in the brilliance of adoration and worship.

On men and gods alike, in the end, night falls. For men, that darkness comes with merciful swiftness, but for gods and heroes, the idols of a race, the darkness may never come, as they hang suspended in the glow of an endless twilight, their believers dwindling, but unable to turn away, their accomplishments distorted or romanticized, and their characters slowly bleached into mere caricature.

Under some supreme irony, the greater the hero, the greater the power attributed to the god, the longer and more agonizing the twilight of belief, as if each moment of power and each great deed requires more than mere atonement . . .

Of Gods and Men

Carnall Grant

New Avalon

5173 N.E.C.

Very beautiful words in a heart rending story, spanning the centuries in the life of one man, immortal yet human. The poems and the exercepts head new chapters, and whenever I read them, I noticed how strongly they connected me to the life of the main character. Eternal sadness covering eternal triumph, a very bittersweet trilogy. I know not what effect the words above might have on someone that has not read the trilogy, but for me it touches my serene core.

The Will to Achieve and the Indomitable Determination

January 27, 2006

As an analysis of a point Bookworm brought up. How do poor generations get out of being poor in only one generation, when so many other groups of people are forever mired in poverty, despair, and government handouts?

I base my conclusions and precepts on human nature. Ever since humanity evolved, it’s been through a constant testing process. Much as a piece of steel must be refolded again and again, and put into a high carbon quenching process, or it isn’t good high carbon steel that cuts through bones and armor like butter. There are many ways to temper wrought iron, but there comes a point when wrought iron just can’t get any stronger. The basic chemical matrix just isn’t strong enough potentially. So how do you change the nature of a man? Is it as easy in principle as changing a low carbon steel to a high carbon steel, in getting rid of the impurities? I tend to say yes and no. The secrets of changing the nature of objects, has not been easy to come by. Regardless of the demand. However, purifying steel of impurities and then adding more impurities, is an interesting way of looking at things when you relate it to human nature.

The obvious object is to make people stronger, smarter, better educated, and more happy. One way to do that is military discipline, is to instill a purpose or to get people already with a purpose, and basically grind them down to their constituent parts and then reshape them through a fiery forge. What comes out, then is as sharp, as deadly, and as well crafted as high-carbon Damascene steel, with a water edge. But what if you don’t want to make someone that deadly and proficient, what if instead you wanted that person to become strong in a endurance sense? A servicible blade instead of a razor sharp one. A blade that can take to a tree without breaking as well as cutting down a man.

Just as the history of the Earth is the history of the remolding and the reshaping of landmasses, mountains, and plate crusts, the history of Mankind is the history of how we are shaped by our will, by our environment, and by just plain luck. Over the Eons, we have been pitted against whatever nature may throw at us. And the end point of all that evolution, all those trial through combat and survival, was a creature that had the physical abilities of every single lifeform on this planet. We do not have natural poisons or claws, yet we can fashion weapons of steel, iron, bronze, flint, and obsidian. We can coat our weapons with natural and unnatural poisons. This is the basic nature of man, an ultimate ability to adapt and an ultimate ability to both conform to a heirarchy and not conform to a heirarchy. Because deep in our genes is a requirement not to do like the former generation have done, but instead to do it better. The rebellion of the 60s, was a split not in genetics, but in ideology. Marxism pitted against Capitalism and Conservatism, when the new generation did not believe in working to make capitalism better at all. Thus like vectors that don’t converge, they start to cancel each other out, the old generation giving way to the new.

It’s almost a genetic imperative not to do the same things as everyone else has. This kind of racial panic, serves the purpose of making sure at least some people will survive. But it does not factor into effect luck, skill, or determination.

If that is the basic nature of humanity, then of course we come back to the original question, what exactly makes people go from rags to riches?

The motivation is already there of course, genetically speaking. Ideologically speaking, that is also present given that it had to be an immigrant’s choice to risk all they had and ever will have, to go to America. So you had both genetic motivation and personal determination. This supplies some of the will, but what of the other qualities?

Who were they, what did they want, and where did they want to be. Obviously, the immigrants wanted to provide for their family, to ensure that their children lived better lives than theirs had been, to provide security and peace as their duty, and to succede at their goals while never breaking a promise.

This is a form of personal integrity, a never-ending will to survive.

And it was these people, who melded with the Irish and the Scots, with their warlike tribalistic Appalachian customs, that made that culture into the bedrock of America.

Because we have outgrown the need for humanity to rank itself based upon personal battle prowess and muscles. We have outgrown that. No longer can humanity afford to determine the best of us based upon simple trial by arms.

Engineers, warriors, soldiers, scientists, politicians, and civil protection are now the standards. The new professions.

Therefore, the Testing has never stopped. It has only changed its prerequisites and what it was Testing for. But the goal had never changed.

The inner strength of a person, their willpower, their determination, and their intelligence has been tested and found worthy in America’s history.

So why do future generations fail in this test that many people less fortunate than them, had already succeded in?

Simply because, as a culture grows richer, more peaceful, and more prosperous it also grows more decadent. In our High Society, what do they value except physical beauty, plastic surgery, and cultural snobbery? I tend to see those aspects as waste byproducts of human nature and success, not the intended goals here. Others might differ. It is true that America is far less progressive than Europe, and I tend to think this is because we have been tested far beyond the normal standards applied to the rest of the world. We have been given many chances to win and to fail, yet we have succeded far in excess of anyone’s purported odds. This has bred a hardier people, a people that have not forgotten either the End Times or their Painful Beginning. Therefore, without the hardship, without the breaking and purification, without the impurities necessary to strengthen the core of a person, that person will never realize their potential.

The parental desire to protect our children is at odds with our intellectual understanding that if we protect them too well, then they will be less than what they may have been.

This stems from a desire to see our children live a better life, yet how will a human being live a better life without purpose, without a chance to test their will, integrity, and determination? It need not be tested in the cauldron of brutality as their parents had faced, yet it still needs to be tested, tempered, and challenged. Because without that, humanity is nothing but a mindless, destructive, beast.

It is no wonder that Europe and Gansta Rap/Hollywood/Gang cultures do not produce any black/Muslim people of worth or value. How could sinking a bar of metal into a garbage dump, make it into either a useful tool or a weapon? We can understand how to shape raw materials in abstract and in applied reality, but when it comes to human nature, we tend to vascilitate and to think that Language is the tool to mold human nature. Language is not the tool to mold human nature, Lanague is the tool to mold human thinking, which is only fraction of our natures.

A person need not think, to understand their purpose, their power, their duty, and their determination. Thinking, would sometimes interfere with those processes. It creates doubt, it creates fear and hesitation. To act without thinking, is to act without hesitation, with purpose, and without doubt. Those without purpose, may only act recklessly.

It is all pieces of a part. Gangs try to emulate the militancy of the military without the discipline, values, or challenge that is necessary to become a Weapon. Hollywood culture and Democrat ideology, is too weak to appeal to the males and offers nothing of value to the great majority of young humans, nothing that would take a young human and make him into someone with useful tools and a good attitude.

So, no, I cannot really say that despite the Great Society, African-Americans are still in deep poverty. It is rather because of the Great Society of FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and other Democratic handouts that these humans full of potential, are treated as if pricelss porcelain and never allowed to break or to improve. The one basic principle of America is that you should be free to fail or to succede, this is anathema to the welfare system and the Great Society in which failure is unacceptable and unthinkable. They think failure is injustice, perpetrated by some God or some rich dude up high. They never realize it is they themselves perpetrating injustices.

You will never grow stronger, you will never become a better person, and you will never discover just who you truly are, until the moment you are faced with a challenge that requires everything that ever was you, ever will be you, and ever is you to overcome.

This is no different for a man or for a woman, simply the means are different, not the goals.

Aristotelian Virtues exist, independent of whether someone knows about them or not. Because those virtues and vices, are part of the very fabric of our human existence and condition.

It is the secret to success and the fault for failure.

To Europe and to the ME, they do not understand what success truly is. They never will the way they are. And because they do not understand themselves, they have become mindless tools of others, such as the Palestinians and the Islamic Wahhabis.

Europe has nothing to offer that a human being requires. Riches, political correctness, reliance on police to protect your family, and British/French institutions do not have the impurities that a human being needs. But Islam does, it has all the impurities anyone would ever need, so many impurities that the raw material becomes twisted, bent, and ultimately broken. On one side in Europe, you have Order and Decadence turning into entropic decay. On the other hand, you have the ME, with chaos and violence, becoming as predictable as election cycle politics. Only here in America, do you see violence tempered with discipline, peace tempered with vigilance, and prosperity tempered with a drive and ambition to become even more prosperous. We have just enough barbarian traits to keep us safe, and enough civil traits to keep us at peace and prosperous. Neither tilting towards Europe nor tilting towards the ME.

There has always been an underlying reality to things, that cannot be changed by spin and distortions and lies. Yet, we should ask ourselves, why is that? If human nature is as malleable, as ductile, and as diverse in potential as I have said, then why cannot it be made into what Utopians want it to be?

My answer, is simple. Because you cannot turn iron to steel nor gold to iron, by reciting poetry or ritual phrases. It takes fusion, fission, a breaking and a making.

Lord of the Rings Arwen and Aragorn

January 26, 2006

A music video composed from the Lords of the Rings trilogy. A pretty good thing to see if you’re totally into the Lord of the Rings, and even for those who aren’t so like me.

That’s gotta hurt

January 19, 2006

Al-Qaeda and diplomacy

January 13, 2006

I think it’s part of the plan. Asymetrical war isn’t like usual war. It take subtlety and real nuance. Not New York Times nuance.

The Sunni resistance is the Baathists, criminals, and anyone else that would benefit by a Sunni return to power. It’s not just the average Sunni citizen on the ground.

It’s not a diplomatic contacts. It’s fear. When people fear AMerica more than they fear the terroists, they start to understand that fighting the terroists benefits them less than fighting us.

The image of the terroist or Arabs as fanatical to the hilt, obscures the truth that they are still human.

The term isn’t anger, it is terrorize. And it would have worked. If the US acted like other nations, i.e. Britain in Basrah.

Washington isn’t competent enough to split the Iraqis. Most of the State Department people still believe that Sunni and Shia won’t work together, that a secular Saddam would never work with Islamic terroists, and so on.

Most of the work may be attributed to the Iraqis. Specifically the Kurds and the Shia. They’ve done most of the reconciliation and the separation of the soft-core insurgents from the hard core.

Washington bureacrats tend to want to take the credit for everything. And disavow anything that goes wrong.

The AMerican military tries, but their grasp on local politics isn’t nearly as intuitive as the local Iraqis are. And the military leaders know that. Besides, they have been ordered “Not” to interfere in political matters.

The Sunnis will turn on the jihadists completely when we initiate the Phoenix Program in Iraq.

The game plan works for all insurgencies. Find out what the factions are and then separate the soft-core from the hard-core. The people who just want to live in peace and protect their families from the people who want to destroy. Then you assassinate and get rid of the hard core, while providing rewards for the people loyal to your side.

The CIA even has a book on the internet for this. Which is how Al-Qaeda is so expert in the use of propaganda. CIA methods are on the internet, readily accessable.

The Sunnis will never turn completely on the terroists, because America has not raised the cost of aid to the enemy high enough nor have they increased the rewards. The way it works today, most of American money is filtered to corrupt bureacrats. The Sunnis definitely know how to make money “disappear” from experience. And Sadr’s goons are learning as well. Therefore the bulk of the Sunnis, may feel some gratitude towards Americans, but not enough to kill all the terroists. It makes sense, nobody’s going to have their family assassinated by terroist head chopper squads, if America is seen to be as weak, fearful, or unable to provide us protection. Terror tactics are the same whether outside the US or inside the mob. And the countermeasures are the same as well.

Nor will Bush order people in Iraq assassinated or even summarily court martialed and then executed. He operates by “civilized” international law, as embodied in the Status of Forces Acts we have across the globe. Which determines criminal jurisdiction. This puts the ball into the Iraqi’s court, which takes a lot longer obviously, to get into the hoop.

Bush is gambling that we’ll win out in the end, because we won’t need a Phoenix Program or anything that might interfere with local matters. This means that more people will die, more people will have their reconstruction funds stolen from them, and more time for IEDs to blow up Americans and Iraqis.

Bush has the power to win this war decisively, he just thinks it shouldn’t be used. I suppose he thinks the risk is greater than the rewards.

The popular portrayal of US heavy handedness as making people angry and more America haters, is a false one. It was the lack of US interference, that led to looting, destruction of evidence, and stupendous chaos that hurt a lot of people, made them think we were as dishonorable and weak as we were in the Gulf War, and so on. It reinforces the Osama image, that AMerica is a paper tiger, and therefore you just keep your mouth shut and let my terroist buddies hide out in your home. Cause we’ll be here a long time after America has run away.

After 100 terroists have been executed by firing squad in the middle of Tikrit, how many people would still think America is going to cut and run? After a nuclear bomb has been dropped unto captured suicide bombers in the middle of nowhere, as a demonstration execution, how many Sunnis would think to fight America or let the terroists do whatever they wanted in front of them? Would they not fear being bombed as well, and therefore would that not provide a strong motivation for Sunnis to fight terrorism in their cities?

Guerrila movements cannot function without the support of the local population. And the local population will NOT support America’s enemies, if they see America as stronger, more ruthless, and more generous than our enemies.

We got the generosity down, but a lot of peeps in Iraq think we are soft and ineffectual. Our allies and our enemies.

We are winning, but only because we have 1/2 of the solution.

A lot of Americans fear using the power so many Americans have died to secure. They are under the mistaken assumption that military force=people dieing. Executing people that have already been sentenced to die, does not kill any innocents. But it demonstrates will, and strikes fear into the enemies of innocents, and reassures the innocents. And that saves a lot of good lives.

If we had demonstrated this by reducing the city in which Iran held our hostages, to rubel, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

Bush can fear being heavy handed, but any future deaths will not be on my hands. That’s why he gets paid the big bucks.

I define diplomacy as getting people to do what you want without fighting a war with them. Bush defines diplomacy as getting along with others and talking things out. What world does he think we live in, a Yale Fraternity meeting?

The reason why diplomacy doesn’t work anymore in this world, is not because humans have become immune to diplomacy, it is because the Western governments are incompetent at diplomacy.

In response to

Out of curiosity what do you think of the apparent Al-Qaeda/Iraq-Resistance split? It has been well known that the terrorism/resistance in iraq has been carried out by two groups of people so far- the jihadis who wish to throw out the Americans and re-establish the Muslim Caliphate in Iraq- and the (mostly Sunni) resistance which simply wants the Americans to leave. Evidently due to American diplomatic contacts there is increasing stress between the two groups. Al-Qaeda is angering the native populous and the native resistance with the killing of so many Iraqis, plus they have much wider goals that the sunnis do not embrace (the sunnis wish to keep this government that has been installed for them as evidenced by the recent elections). American military, intelligence, dept state agencies have evidently been contacting the sunni resistance in an attempt, successful for the most part, to splinter the jihadis. The main splitting point in negotations so far has been a timetable for American withdrawl. Recent successes of the negotations can be seen in events such as the Sunni resistance groups refusing to attack the voting polls, and in some isolated cases protecting them from jihadis. How long do you think it will be until the Sunnis turn on the jihadis completely?

As a side note- i find ironic how America is always judged to a failure in its methods. I cant but help remember the Cold War.