ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Winning is not the point

Keoni Galt points out the obvious: winning is not the objective of the various wars being waged around the world:
Not only is War Big Business, it is THE BIGGEST Big Business in the world.

We are not stationed and fighting all over the globe to "WIN" any war, let alone a War on an Adjective.

We are not fighting to win. We are fighting to keep the gravy train rolling...and it's one hell of a giant gravy train. To WIN brings this lucrative gravy train to a halt.

That is the last thing those giving the orders to the guy in the conductor's booth of the Gravy Train want.

This is why so many things are done to stifle, hamper and hinder the supposedly stated mission of our "global force for good!" While Dalrock is certainly correct in his assessment of feminist and elite motives for emasculating the military to socially engineer the culture and society at large, most people fail to ask the right questions as they rage at the supposed madness and insanity of a war machine hampering itself with such social engineering lunacy.

That is because most are still operating under the mistaken assumption that the military is fighting to win the war and "defend the nation."
The good news, to the extent that there is any to be found of late, is that the recent move to make combat troops out of women tends to indicate that either a) the government has no intention of making war on the people, or, b) the government is, ala Stalin, totally uninterested in the professional opinion of its military leadership.

I think Keoni is actually understating things here, however.  I suspect they're not so much trying to keep the giant gravy train going, I think they're desperately trying to keep the entire system from collapsing upon itself.

Labels:

108 Comments:

Blogger Tiny Tim January 27, 2013 10:03 AM  

Fighting wars and fighting cancer, who said anything about winning?

In either case the death of the host is just the last step in a lucrative process.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 10:26 AM  

"Not only is War Big Business, it is THE BIGGEST Big Business in the world."

Oh Christ, are we all the way back to "Mother Courage and Her Children"?

It's a stupid, reductivist thing to say, even if it has smidgens of truth mixed in; just as Bert Brecht became a stupid, reductivist playwright (even with smidgens of truth mixed in) pretty much after Threepenny Opera.



Blogger Amy Haines January 27, 2013 10:27 AM  

I rather agree with Aurini's take, and Eric (who commented on KG's original post): women are compliant, and malleable. Women on the front lines means a force that will do whatever it is told, without questioning orders or the morality of a given course of action. Perhaps even killing American citizens in the name of whatever cause is given.

Military service provides women the authority figure(s) they desire to follow, even into killing, or being killed.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 27, 2013 10:33 AM  

I would man the drone centers with women.

A certain percentage of women can be convinced killing a tiny baby inside their womb is OK, and some will do it repeatedly and it becomes "something they do".

Do you think they will think twice about killing you?

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 10:37 AM  

Keoni, Tiny Tim and Vox have this nailed. Disagree all you wish, but TPTB sure had an enemy ready to put on center stage the second the Soviet Union crumbled.

Note that NATO cannot die even though the reason for its existence doesn't exist and hasn't for 22 years.

What we have is Military Keynesianism that is so widespread and pervasive in the economy that it has become too big to kill without killing everything. The question then begged is that should the horrid host that supports the killing/cash machine survive?

Anonymous dh January 27, 2013 10:44 AM  

the government is, ala Stalin, totally uninterested in the professional opinion of its military leadership.
The leadership was onboard, and driving this change. They are brainwashed by the "successes" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anonymous allyn71 January 27, 2013 10:49 AM  

This one got by me. I don't understand why allowing the fair sex to join the ranks of the global enforcers will keep the system going.

Does "....I think they're desperately trying to keep the entire system from collapsing upon itself." mean that allowing women to the front will maintain the charade, or does it mean that they are not so much worried about the Military Industrial Complex going as much as they are just trying to keep the illusion of the status quo going?

If it is the former question and women in frontline combat are essential to keeping the entire system from collapsing, I don't understand how that will accomplish anything and prevent the collapse. If that is the case, further explanation is requested.

If it is the later question and you mean that the elite is to busy trying to keep all the plates in the air to care about endless war benefits for the afore mentioned Military Industrial Complex and that women in the military is just an ideological side show to appease some of the useless idiots they are using to accomplish their goal of transforming the Unites States into a reliable member of the fold; then I understand that line of reasoning and no further explanation is required/requested.

Personally I tend to view it as a version of the latter although I don't believe that the gravy train and maintaining the system are separate concerns. They are actually synonymous and interconnected. I am of the opinion that the world elite are not communist but instead police state fascist and the use of debt laden spending to their business allies is a critical component to the system they have created. The women to the front is just a different component of the payoff system for another consituency that is necessary for the short term to accomplish the long term goal.

Anyways, sorry for the reading comprehension problem and the request for a spoon feeding. I just cannot figure out the intent of the last sentence in the OP.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 10:58 AM  

Best blog posts that I have read in the last 24 hours are the above linked Hawaiian Libertarian and this one at the Cliffs Of Insanity: Information / Ideology (In regards to 2nd amendment battles and other things

Not high difficulty, but good nonetheless.

-ConanCimmerian

Anonymous Weak January 27, 2013 11:18 AM  

Of course they are ignoring their military leadership. If those ignormauses had any brains, they would have gone to Harvard or Yale or Columbia instead of joining the armed forces. That's for dummies, not elite intellectuals who certainly know better.

Anonymous Mayberry RIP January 27, 2013 11:20 AM  

The Elites are dependent on the cooperation of women at the voting booth, in their corporate cubicles, in our educations systems and now more than ever in the military. This makes sense if they want women to continue supporting their globalist "peacekeeping" missions. It also makes sense if our western masters intend to ratchet up the conflict with the Muslims. Women can be counted on to help wage war on any remaining male dominated society, esp. considering that one of the reasons we're constantly told we need to wage war is so that Arab women can enjoy the fruits of feminism, ie. free themselves from the Arab patriarchy.

In our world where Equality is the state mandated religion, it only takes one member of a victim group to have their desires blocked, for instance a lesbian fighter pilot who wants to show the boys she can be a top gun killer too, to bring in the holy black robed judges and pass sweeping laws that bring unintended consequences. But of course, the majority of females will have the choice to stay in the clear in the rear, far from danger, and still reap the same or better career opportunities in the military. Because, they've been prevented for 200 years from enjoying all the blessed fruits of war. They are certainly MORE equal than others.

Anonymous . January 27, 2013 11:24 AM  

"If those ignormauses had any brains, they would have gone to Harvard or Yale or Columbia instead of joining the armed forces."

Lots of the top brass did go to HYP. You can't have a military leadership that hasn't been properly indoctrinated! If they did they might get their own ideas. Heck, they might even care about their country and their people instead of their careers.

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 27, 2013 11:25 AM  

Universal suffrage was pushed hard by the Progressive movement who learned from the Italian Fascisti that at the very heart of many women, lies a completely subservient creature bent on ruling over fellow citizens. Combine this with what Maj Gen Smedley Butler preached nearly 100 years ago and you have the ingredients for what we are seeing today.

But everyone of The Ilk's old guard knows this.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 11:26 AM  

"Disagree all you wish, but TPTB sure had an enemy ready to put on center stage the second the Soviet Union crumbled.

Note that NATO cannot die even though the reason for its existence doesn't exist and hasn't for 22 years."

You can think that if you like, but I could put you a perfectly plausible alternative explanation...

During the global hegemony of the Europeans, both Continental and British Empire, there were two World Wars in rapid catastrophic succession. In both cases, the United States saw itself as a reluctant last resort, entering these disastrous foreign-caused crises in order to put an end to them. The people of the United States, ensconced in their remote continental fastness in the New World, had basically been invited to the greatest party in all human history, and twice saw the party disrupted by the insane (and arguably infantile) tumults of the Old World.

And so, when the United States became supreme commander of the planet in the wake of its total WWII victory (and it was a US victory, not an Allied victory, we just said that to make the Europeans feel better), the prime directive became: no more crazy world wars. In fact the United States was prepared to fight crazy regional wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) in order to prevent the outbreak of another crazy global war. Consider that during the tensest period of the Cold War, circa 1956-1976, despite the fact that both sides were armed with weapons which were not only world-killing but also technologically unprecedented (meaning that the protocols by which they were handled were brand fucking new, and had to be invented on the spot), which meant (pace "Fail Safe" and "Doctor Strangelove" and the Cuban Missile Crisis) that the world could be obliterated almost by mistake.... it didn't happen. Never forget how astonishing it is that a nuclear war did not break out through simple human error. What this argues for is, a great deal of moral and ethical and political (to say nothing of technical) perspicacity on both sides. In other words, it argues against the cynicism of Brecht.

I would say that the unwarranted persistence of NATO is due not to the Brechtian capitalist calculus of war, but to a) political inertia, and b) the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" -- with "broke" being defined as another global war, which in my view it has been the supreme goal of United States policy to prevent.

Anonymous Salt January 27, 2013 11:38 AM  

Population reduction is one tenant of UN Agenda 21, so added losses of potential mothers is to be incorporated. I'm just surprised its taken this long.

Anonymous . January 27, 2013 11:49 AM  

@Scoobius,

WW1 and WW2 greatly benefited the US because we stood aside while the other world powers beat the shit out of each other. There is not a bad case for going back to that as the basis of our strategy. There is even a Chinese proverb to this effect: sit on the mountain and watch the tigers fight.

Anonymous rycamor January 27, 2013 12:03 PM  

@.:

So true... and now the USA is engaging everywhere, and who is sitting on the mountain watching?

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 12:16 PM  

@.

Hey look, I'm a neo-isolationist, so you get no quarrel from me in the present. But consider your history. It's true that on net, both world wars benefited America, but we also wound up fighting and dying in them, not sitting on the mountain watching, and many people were not pleased by that, benefit or no benefit. On net one could argue that our zany global adventures in the twentieth century did NOT benefit us in the long run, because they led us to the sorry pass we're in today. And besides, back when there was still an actual American people with an actual American government which duly considered their interests and viewed them as really being the American people (instead of the denatured shit-colored morass of grasping mooching foreigners we now call this sorry excuse for a nation), the attitudes were not so smooth about all of this.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.

Until they get sent to the dark house, of course. (If you follow my reference.)


Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 12:17 PM  

Its kind of an FU to the neocons. Because now when the next neocon goes to war and a woman dies the media can play that up and anger the feminist and white knights. It probably would even be better if the woman died because she F'd up because then they can run with the narrative that the military isn't preparing its troops properly.

Blogger ApolloKioku January 27, 2013 12:34 PM  

If women are now allowed in combat roles, does that mean they have to register for the selective service system?

Anonymous zen0 January 27, 2013 12:38 PM  

@ scoobius dubious
Never forget how astonishing it is that a nuclear war did not break out through simple human error. What this argues for is, a great deal of moral and ethical and political (to say nothing of technical) perspicacity on both sides.

I believe more in the Author of History being responsible, rather than some sudden enlightenment of politicians. Do you know how many nuke accidents occured during the cold war? Have you heard the terms NUCFLASH or Broken Arrow?

The movie War Games was based on a NUCFLASH incident within Norad in 1979.

Nuclear war was avoided in spite of politcal ambition and military incompetence.

Blogger ApolloKioku January 27, 2013 12:38 PM  

Found the answer on the SSS website:
"Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register. (January 24, 2013)"

Anonymous zen0 January 27, 2013 12:42 PM  

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.

I heard it was "thrust INTO them."


Blogger Doom January 27, 2013 12:54 PM  

It is always about winning, always. It is just that winning isn't always the war that is presented. How best to defeat one's own troops, get more enmeshed in losing wars with fixed goals and a lousy military, or other such, than putting women in combat.

My personal notion is that, whether intended or not, this will make most women a LOT more interested in marrying and having babies. I guarantee, the first congressman that attempts to put a mother of two or three on the front lines will find himself in some serious trouble, from every quarter.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 1:15 PM  

This tells us why this and previous administrations have committed covert acts of war against Iran.

If Iran can be provoked into attacking, the war machine goes into action again. In addition, Iran is far enough away from China.

Blogger Rantor January 27, 2013 1:23 PM  

@Doom, we already have mothers of young children on the front lines. Driving trucks in convoys that are attacked by IEDs, serving as military policemen on the front lines (the front lines are almost everywhere in a counterinsurgency such as Afghanistan). Most of the military guys I work with are convinced that if women can meet the standards, they should be allowed to do the job. Unfortunately, those of us with a clue about physiology know this won't be a long term benefit for the women. Those of us with an understanding of sociology, not corrupted by feminism, know this is detrimental to society. And finally those of us with military experience know that they always lower the requirements to allow women to meet them. All of the services have lower fitness requirements for women. So yes they recognize the physiological limitations but then declare them unimportant.

Anonymous . January 27, 2013 1:34 PM  

@ryacmor,

Exactly. The Russkies and the Chinks have been laughing their asses off as we flailed around in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years.

@Scoobius,

It's true that on net, both world wars benefited America, but we also wound up fighting and dying in them, not sitting on the mountain watching

The whole point is to throw your weight on the scales last, at the decisive moment, to maximize your political impact. If you stay out completely then your voice in the resolution of the conflict is far less.

Yes it is true that in both WW1 and WW2 we threw our weight on the scales to achive "progressive" (Communist) goals, and thus the opportunities were wasted. Nevertheless, the idea of deriving advantage from the distress of others has merit for all that we botched our opportunities to do so in the past.

@Rantor,

Most of the military guys I work with are convinced that if women can meet the standards, they should be allowed to do the job.

Sigh. What if we let reality (which is that a vanishingly small percentage of women can ever do the job) guide our policy instead of insane ideological convictions?

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 27, 2013 1:41 PM  

The only (slight) quibble I have with Keoni's point is his dating of the phenomenon to 9/11/2001. I expect the "bizniss" aspect of it goes back further. The vampire squids (chief beneficiaries of wars) refined their methodology after WW II, and again after 9/11/2001. The 'no-win' strategy was first tried in Korea (successful), then Vietnam (successful, but it destroyed public enthusiasm for the advantures). Desert Storm (which was "won", but not really) was done to pump up the jingoism for the present worldwide racket to fight "violent extremism" globally. Old Smedley Butler figured out the basic racket decades ago, of course. War is a Racket.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 1:54 PM  

Anon:
the media can play that up and anger the feminist and white knights.


Another possibility it will be disappeared. It will not be reported.
Just like the flood of black on white rape, murder, thievery, etc. is reported in such ways as to disguise what really occurred (think youths beat up random person in random violence).

It will be disguised, covered up, or fully ignored.

-ConanCimmerian

Anonymous HH January 27, 2013 1:55 PM  

Does this mean they will finally require women to register for selective service like they do men...

Blogger Doom January 27, 2013 1:58 PM  

Rantor,

No, those are military baby mothers, often single, not mothers out of the general population. Women were brought in, if I would guess, more as comfort women. Their children, and motherhood, doesn't count. Yeah, I know, there are other actually married women, mothers, in there too. But they, as well, were in when they got pregnant, AND decided to stay. If things are as they were, when a woman has a baby, she is given the option of leaving the service. That is... very different.

What I am talking about is pulling a mother, or at least wife and mother, out of the real stock, the civilian population, and putting a gun in her hand. That won't happen.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 2:06 PM  

Orwell wins again with his prediction of endless war to consume excess resources. The ruling class will if coarse stay very wealthy but the difference between the middle class and the proles will be negligible at best
-Mr.B.A.D.

Anonymous JW January 27, 2013 2:06 PM  

" that attempts to put a mother of two or three on the front lines".

Hey what a great plot for a movie...GI Jane redux..Nursing a kid or two while assaulting an enemy position while screaming Gung Ho or something, ala john Wayne. Slashing, hacking, shooting, bashing, bayoneting...her and her kids covered with the enemies blood, uniform ripped and torn, heavy breathing, breasts heaving, lots of skin showing. Damm. How do I copywrite the script for this?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 2:15 PM  

Uh oh. Night clubs to be banned next.

Anonymous Mike M. January 27, 2013 2:18 PM  

I disagree, Vox.

Most of the DOD budget goes for pay and benefits. Most of the rest for operations and maintenance. Procurement is a very small part of the total budget. And weapons systems have to work. If you're looking for squandered money, look to "green" projects and public works.

As for women in combat, it's been a slow drip over the last 20 years. Of course, with the Democrats, political dogma has ALWAYS been more important than good national security strategy.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 27, 2013 2:19 PM  

There is no enemy to defeat thus there is nothing to win.

They need a real enemy. "Hey you, white Christian gun owning jihadi......"

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 27, 2013 2:24 PM  

"Women in combat" can be seen as a form of bread and circuses for white liberals. Despite being culturally and politically dominant, life really sucks for a lot of liberals. Typically they have no family (ie, spouse and children), few friends, and definitely no religion. In addition, the economy sucks, so many of them don't have good liberal-approved jobs. They are stuck waiting tables and blogging at jezebel about how unfair it all is. They really don't have much going for them in life except that they are a member of Team Progress, and they have to be kept from realizing that Team Progress is not actually doing all that much to help them out (in fact, quite the opposite, Progress is the reason their lives are shit). They need something to feel good about, to keep them on the Team, so, boom, Progress, women in combat.

A huge added bonus (been said many times) is that women are naturally submissive and compliant and will not refuse orders to kill "bad" Americans.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 27, 2013 2:39 PM  

At what month of pregnancy will women be pulled off the front lines?

The leadership of our wonderful nation will probably institute mandatory abortion for women who accept front line positions.

And when front line women are captured and gang raped for several days, should they survive the repeated rape and become pregnant, they must also agree to a forced abortion.

Forget all of that, women on the front lines must be given a D&C at least once monthly, at a minimum, as part of their assignment.

Anonymous thetruthandnothingbut January 27, 2013 2:40 PM  

These conspiracy theories are retarded. There are many reasons for the wars. And the Russians won WW2 not Amuricuh. If it had just been Germany vs the allies they would've crushed us.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 27, 2013 2:45 PM  

thetruthandnothingbut:

How would the Germans have invaded America? Do you know the geography of the Third Reich? How would they have defended against an A-bomb dropped on Berlin?

Sure Russia assured a certain outcome via their presence in the war, but your conclusion is confused.

Anonymous JartStar January 27, 2013 2:45 PM  

Whether it's a or b it is good news for people who value their freedom. I hate to see our mothers and daughters see the horrors of war first hand but if that's what it takes to slow the military adventurism and the threat to the populace so be it.

When Oprah has the female soldiers on with their missing limbs and they are all crying together I think it might, just might make people want to slow down the Empire a little.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 3:08 PM  


They need a real enemy. "Hey you, white Christian gun owning jihadi......"


Bingo. The war on terror will move to the US and Christians who are gun owners are the likely first targets. They will be labeled extremists.

In fact, I have to wonder whether or not Feinstein and family have investments in companies that do counter-terrorism work or make products that could be used as such.

Anonymous bw January 27, 2013 3:21 PM  

"National Security" needs, by necessity, National Insecurity.
It all unfolds from there. Chicken. Egg.
The more conflicts (un-Constitutional) the USSA has been involved in since WWII, the more freedoms were lost/are being lost at "home". Contradiction. More people are starting to see the pattern for what it is.
As the original post notes, it concerns mistaken assumptions.
A belief system. Psych Training and propaganda, from cradle to grave. Mass Marketing.
It's very telling that, following WWII, the "Dept of War" became the Orwellian "Dept of Defense".
Or just for fun, to make the unrelated leap (not really) from the "Birth Control League" to "Planned Parenthood".

Blogger foxmarks January 27, 2013 3:21 PM  

"Most of the DOD budget goes for pay and benefits. Most of the rest for operations and maintenance. Procurement is a very small part of the total budget."

In one of his earlier posts, Keoni clarfied his cynicism. He wrote the Military-Industrial Complex makes its fortunes by *preparing* for war. Actually getting engaged in combat leads to a greater portion of the spending on personnel, which is undesirable to the MIC.

Since women are not as physically capable, General Dynamics and Textron will have to provide entire new classes of equipment designed to compensate for the lessened physical ability of the average soldier. Ka-ching!

Further, when social problems of sexual integration are "discovered", the MIC will be called to provide technological solutions to hormonal and modesty conflicts. Ka-ching!

Anonymous realmatt January 27, 2013 3:21 PM  

Yes women are malleable, etc., but with all that ruckus they just lose their nerves. They can't handle too much going on around them.

No, women are not "naturally more bettererer multi taskers than men". I don't know where this stupid myth comes from, but it's complete nonsense.

Trained, brainwashed, whatever. At the end of the day, they're still just women.

Blogger Amy Haines January 27, 2013 3:31 PM  

@Realmatt,

the joke about how a unit full of women would be the most fierce fighting force ever seen three days out of the month is good for a laf, but in reality, you are correct.

During the PMS phase, women tend to be more easily agitated, distracted, prone to act without thinking (more emotional than usual), and susceptible to stress.

I don't have extreme, debilitating PMS, but I used to notice that around that time I'd be hypersensitive to touch and taste, and get jumpy at lots of bright light or loud noises, much much much more so than usual. Just one woman's experience, but can you imagine having to place your life in the hands of such a person during a volley? I cannot.

Anonymous bw January 27, 2013 3:57 PM  

The war on terror will move to the US and Christians who are gun owners are the likely first targets. They will be labeled extremists.

This has been the "internal threat to the Govt" pattern for some time. It started in the 90's with anti-terror legislation due to OkBomb, and 9.11 simply built fast upon that. Imagine that.

It appears West Point just put out a paper on this threat in the US you are referring to. This has been a theme since OkBomb (pursued most openly under Democrat POTUS for obvious "sell" reasons).

Anonymous Ferd January 27, 2013 3:58 PM  

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."

To paraphrase for our new Feminista Military,,,,

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust into them.

Blogger Doom January 27, 2013 4:05 PM  

I don't have extreme, debilitating PMS, but I used to notice that around that time I'd be hypersensitive to touch and taste, and get jumpy at lots of bright light or loud noises, much much much more so than usual. Just one woman's experience, but can you imagine having to place your life in the hands of such a person during a volley? I cannot.

Are you saying PMS is the actual origins of... rabbit people?

And, no, no one in their right mind would voluntarily fight in such an outfit, which would require a draft and would be prone to desertion. It is a horror story waiting to be watched. Of course, with video being so prevalent, the first slaughter of said troops due to an absolute incompetency at combat would either force the withdrawal from combat or the increase in the force used by the thugocracy to maintain it, along with a media blockout (much harder, now, with smartphones and the rest). Actually, a media blackout would probably cause the rabbit people themselves to riot. They hate being disturbed from their 'network'. Pacifist borgs! Ahahaha Just thought that one up.

Anonymous Red January 27, 2013 4:12 PM  

This combined with the firing of anyone even remotely concomitant in the upper command of the military is a strong indication that they're worried about a coup when they launch the next phase of American communism. They've settled on the DHS as their nation enforcement arm instead of the military.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 4:43 PM  

"And weapons systems have to work."

No, not really - the Patriot, the Osprey, the Bradley, the F-22, the F-35, the B-2, etc. etc. How many historical examples are needed to prove this line of reasoning wrong and to support the existence of the MIC?

Anonymous Sensei January 27, 2013 4:46 PM  

Never forget how astonishing it is that a nuclear war did not break out through simple human error. What this argues for is, a great deal of moral and ethical and political (to say nothing of technical) perspicacity on both sides. -sd

I believe more in the Author of History being responsible, rather than some sudden enlightenment of politicians -zen0

I'm with zen0 on this one. The world does get destroyed, but not until the appointed time.

Anonymous kh123 January 27, 2013 4:59 PM  

Panzerplatten with a vengeance.

Anonymous OCS January 27, 2013 4:59 PM  

Reminds me of Derbyshire over at Takimag on what certain soldiers might be thinking/singing to themselves:

We're here, because we're here, because we're here, because we're heeeeerrrree!

Sung to the tune of Auld Lang Syne. Of course, the puppeteers on top know exactly what game they're playing.

...But yeah, I also agree with Vox that these corrupt and bumbling idiots are trying to keep the status quo and keeping their little world from falling apart.

Anonymous kh123 January 27, 2013 5:22 PM  

"The movie War Games was based on a NUCFLASH incident within Norad in 1979."

To a lesser and more bizarre extent, there was Malmstrom back in the late 60's. One could say it's on the opposite end of the spectrum, since several missiles suddenly became inoperative between two separate facilities a week apart.

Bentwaters/Woodbridge was rumored to have housed nuclear stockpiles in the early 80's, despite then-treaties. Which, as the MoD's Lord Norton Hill put it, either the American staff at a NATO AFB in England were running around hallucinating for several nights, or something uninvited was inspecting their weapons storage facility - all this during the Cold War.

Anonymous Supernaut January 27, 2013 6:05 PM  

Thanks for the Vox-a-lanche, VD.

Really now, the blog post was just coming up with a different way of explaining the good USMC Smedley Butler's indictment of the M-I-C: "War is a Racket."

And yes, I was listening to Pink Floyd, and the "Have A Cigar" chorus tickled my muse as I thought about the topic of what is the ultimate purpose of the social engineering of the military.

It's certainly not to improve combat effectiveness.

Most of the DOD budget goes for pay and benefits. Most of the rest for operations and maintenance. Procurement is a very small part of the total budget. And weapons systems have to work. If you're looking for squandered money, look to "green" projects and public works.


It's not an either/or proposition.

It's ALL squandered. Fiat wars on foreign shores is as wasteful as it gets. And by fiat wars, I mean undeclared, unconstitutional ones.

Oh....and don't you know, the DoD has it's share of "green" projects too. A more environmentally friendly war machine!

Hah.

- "Keoni Galt"
(Supernaut has been my dread ilk handle since '02-'03)

Blogger Joshua_D January 27, 2013 6:06 PM  

OT - Gun Rights arguments

A friend of a friend posted this on a Facebook comment. I don't know anything about correlations, but I knew the Ilk could help. Does this comment make sense?

"... the correlation coefficient between states that have a greater percentage of guns per population (mostly red states) have higher rates of death by guns per population is r = 0.63. The correlation coefficient between restrictive gun laws and gun death rates is r = -0.58, i.e. more restrictive gun laws mean lower gun death rates. Statistical evidence"

Here some of the source data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Anonymous Supernaut January 27, 2013 6:10 PM  

From Butler's "War is a Racket" speech in 1933:

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Anonymous Supernaut January 27, 2013 6:16 PM  

The only (slight) quibble I have with Keoni's point is his dating of the phenomenon to 9/11/2001. I expect the "bizniss" aspect of it goes back further.

Oh no, I agree. It goes way back further. Butler was talking about it going on in WWI.

My statement was that ever since 9/11, the M-I-C has been in permanent expansion mode.

It's 12 years and counting now for the ride of this gravy train named "The War On Terror," and there is no end in sight.

Anonymous allyn71 January 27, 2013 6:36 PM  

Who is really asking for it to end. The Code Pink protesters of Bush's presidency never really cared about ending the war, just wanted to attack the R faction in support of the D faction. Hadn't heard about them in forever until they recently turned up to protest the NRA. Yeah they aren't a political organization.

As long as it is a volunteer army where only 1-2% of the population bears the human cost of his war there will be no mass protest to end it. I have been thinking for years now that the only reason this can keep going on is because it is an all volunteer army. If the draft was instituted there is no way they could keep this going. This is one of the lessons of Vietnam.

World Reserve Currency + Largest Military + Volunteer army = Endless War

Anonymous Heh January 27, 2013 6:50 PM  

No, not really - the Patriot, the Osprey, the Bradley, the F-22, the F-35, the B-2, etc. etc. How many historical examples are needed to prove this line of reasoning wrong and to support the existence of the MIC?

Ummmm... except ALL of those weapons systems work.

Big giant FAIL there, buddy.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 6:51 PM  


"... the correlation coefficient between states that have a greater percentage of guns per population (mostly red states) have higher rates of death by guns per population is r = 0.63. The correlation coefficient between restrictive gun laws and gun death rates is r = -0.58, i.e. more restrictive gun laws mean lower gun death rates. Statistical evidence"


Has he considered Illinois? Especially Chicago and Detroit.

A better correlation will be with percentage of African Americans and Hispanics. The confounding effect here will be those states that have high percentages of whites and are D states.

Blogger papabear January 27, 2013 6:59 PM  

"Ummmm... except ALL of those weapons systems work."

Overpriced, didn't live up to the hype, and some even potentially dangerous to the user(s). You think the MIC is stupid enough to produce something that isn't even minimally functional?

Blogger papabear January 27, 2013 7:01 PM  

For more on corruption and such in weapons procurement, see Winslow Wheeler. For example, http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/wheeler092704.html

Anonymous Johnny Gatorade January 27, 2013 7:32 PM  

Whaaat? No Pro Bowl thread?

OpenID simplytimothy January 27, 2013 7:32 PM  

An unspoken assumption on this thread is the existence of the American nation state. While reading this http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com post earlier it crossed my mind that the long game that is being played is the end of that construct; i.e blur the lines, move the people hither and yon, and then its just conflict by nobody for nobody.


The idea strikes me as correct--the late Bob Bartley boasted as much when he was editor at the WSJ, but there are smart people on Vox's blog who may think differently.

If I am correct, I know that we can beat them. I suspect to see many instances of high command being shot by their own troops, as Panetta narrowly avoided last year.




Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 8:08 PM  

The big problem is that there are too many people on the gravy train.

Some will have to be thrown to the wolves. It will be interesting to see who is, although perhaps the passengers will not figure that out in time and the train will run off the rails.

Anonymous David of One January 27, 2013 8:51 PM  

FYI ...

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20718399/man-arrested-after-nypd-recover-assault-weapons-in-bronx-apartment

Win, Lose there is no draw ... it starts at home.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 9:02 PM  

DHS to be a source of Assault Rifles in an emergency

Anonymous zen0 January 27, 2013 9:31 PM  

@ David of One

Win, Lose there is no draw ... it starts at home.

Should Enrique Santiago have take this advice?

Guns of Brixton

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 9:49 PM  

I think I need to replace the Nikon Prostaff on my .308 with something better.

Any suggestions? I will have to mount it myself.

Blogger Doom January 27, 2013 10:01 PM  

allyn71,

World Reserve Currency + Largest Military + Volunteer army = Endless War

Yes, well you can kiss w.r.c. goodbye. I suppose that can be kept for a while, but they already have 'invisible yellow hands' helping juggle that because they have too many balls in the air. Eventually that show will come to a screeching halt, and much sooner rather than later.

As far as M.I.C., while there is some truth to it, capitalists will... hmmm... capitalize... Most of that is just tinfoilhattery, usually of the left, if sometimes of the further left.

While most socialist (I count communism as merely a form of socialism, same with islam actually) kingdoms, dictatorships, and bureaucracies have denied capitalism for the people, as states, they take it upon themselves to be capitalist. They aren't very good at it, even at that level, which is why their dear leaders scalp everything they can and live as large as they are able. I must assume many of them are almost surprised, internally, every day they wake/woke up not facing a firing squad. In any case, if arming made money, they would have at least tried it. Sure, the U.S.S.R. bankrupted itself trying, but the Norks use it for free crap and attention, like monkeys in a cage throw feces. Iranians are poorly mimicking the Norks. Cuba got cut out of the deal and went into... what... bikes and starvation? M.I.C. doesn't pay. It is a great socialist propaganda tool to attempt to bring down other countries and attempt to not be on an invasion list.

Yeah, sure, war doesn't pay either, unless the rest of the industrialized world is flattened. Is there anything in the Middle East to even bomb into the middle ages, or would that be back to the stones ages, or would you have to try for even further back? Then again, oil is a prime product, the prime product. Even if it isn't taken, keeping it flowing is more important than most other reasons to make war. Ask the Germans. It make sense why a capitalist nation would choose to ensure the thing that capitalism runs on is available, right? Oh, wait, that is probably too tinfoilhattery for many here.

Anonymous Mr. A. Pea January 27, 2013 10:15 PM  

It's not like any of the shenanigans going on today, especially since pre Dial Emergency Boo 9-1-1, wasn't telegraphed. No one was paying attention. No one cares. Because they don't care for the truth. All they know is, that their are 1 Billion Boo-slims in their heads ready to bugger their wives, little children, sheep, goats, an occasional camel, and force the men to cut off their wives clitoris. Don't think for a moment that TP'sTB are blind to Trauma Based Predictive Programming.

Yeah, yeah... I know, you hate those Muslims. So what. That is beside the point.

Resources baby. Resources. That is what makes their world go around.

Anonymous bw January 27, 2013 10:26 PM  

I think I need to replace the Nikon Prostaff on my .308 with something better.
Any suggestions? I will have to mount it myself.


Hunting Rifle? With Optics, you get what you pay for.
Most people believe the scope should cost at least what the firearm is worth. Each brand has low to high end models. ProStaff is a low to midrange model for Nikon.
Get one with the Bullet Drop Compensation reticle, and set it up.
+ Bushnell
++ Nikon or Leupold
+++ Leica or Swarovski or such (German Glass)

Good mounts are equally important.

Anonymous zen0 January 27, 2013 10:29 PM  

@ Mr. A. Pea

All they know is, that their are 1 Billion Boo-slims in their heads ready to bugger their wives, little children, sheep, goats, an occasional camel, and force the men to cut off their wives clitoris.

Who is they? All the leftists are pro Boo-slim. The US military is pro-Boo-slim rights and privileges, the U.N. is a Boo-slim enabler, the POTUS is a "moderate" Boo-slim....Who is "they"?

Anonymous Heh January 27, 2013 10:30 PM  

"Ummmm... except ALL of those weapons systems work."

Overpriced, didn't live up to the hype, and some even potentially dangerous to the user(s).


"Not worth the money" is not the same as "didn't work", which was the original claim. It's not the MICs fault that none of those weapons was used against the enemy it was designed for (the USSR), in which scenario they might well have been worth the money.

You think the MIC is stupid enough to produce something that isn't even minimally functional?

All those weapons are more than minimally functional. Indeed, the problem is that they are TOO functional.

In any event, the MIC *always* gives the government what it asks for.

Always.

Anonymous Glassy-eyed January 27, 2013 10:32 PM  

"+ Bushnell
++ Nikon or Leupold
+++ Leica or Swarovski or such (German Glass)" - bw


A high-end Bushnell is better than a low-end Nikon, and as bw mentioned, this will be reflected in the price.

Also, don't overlook Schmidt + Bender (german, I believe) and Nightforce and US Optics, the latter two made in the good old USA...

Best advice I can give - pick a dollar amount you want to spend, and then compare options.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 27, 2013 10:55 PM  

I shoot at the range only, and only at round targets.

I think I will try the Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40 with BDC next.

That scope is less expensive than the rifle (a Remington 700 with a 16" barrel.) With that length barrel, although some say it does not have the resonances of longer barrels, I don't think the bullets will be given the full potential speed of the round (2700 fps or so.)

I guess I need a chronometer or whatever to check what speed I can get from different loads/bullets from that length barrel.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 27, 2013 11:21 PM  

Who is they? All the leftists are pro Boo-slim. The US military is pro-Boo-slim rights and privileges, the U.N. is a Boo-slim enabler, the POTUS is a "moderate" Boo-slim....Who is "they"?

Seriously? "Oh! Thank G-d for the TSA and those VIPR Teams! Why... I feel so much safer knowing I am being groped and x-rayed. And look at those saviors over there with their machine guns and dogs... my hero's. USA, USA, USA! By the way, Obama sucks!"

Blogger papabear January 27, 2013 11:22 PM  

""Not worth the money" is not the same as "didn't work", which was the original claim. It's not the MICs fault that none of those weapons was used against the enemy it was designed for (the USSR), in which scenario they might well have been worth the money."

I could have elaborated my response, as it may have been unclear to some.

On the Bradley:
http://www.g2mil.com/bradley.htm

Just some links one can find if one bothers to use the internet.

On the Osprey:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html

The B-2:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

And so on.

I dispute the claim that they are too functional. That's just a load of bs, especially given by defenders within the Pentagon and without of these weapons.

Even though some were designed for the USSR, they were approved by the Pentagon with the mindset that technology would beat numbers. And where there's an over-reliance on technology, there is the possibility of puffing up the price tag.

Anonymous David of One January 27, 2013 11:53 PM  

@zenO

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 28, 2013 12:02 AM  

We can really use that "pointing up" or "fingering" ☝ symbol.

Pie


Aliens in the sky


Vagina


Driving, and someone cuts you off

Anonymous David of One January 28, 2013 12:12 AM  

Actually it was a "Publish" while I was repeatedly "Previewing". I wanted to use a symbol to add to my response.

The real irony is that the symbol wasn't what was intended AND it does kinda look like "the finger" ... which wasn't my intent. I was trying to get fancy when the missfire occurred.

Oh well ... anyway ...

@zenO

The article about the arrest in NYC with their new anti-2nd Admendment ban was that the story states the police "discovered" the guns in the home of Enrique based on a "tip". There was no "discovery", it was a targeted police action that highlights the tactics that will be continously used to attack Americans execising their rights.

The other more important point is that security and privacy starts at home and so we can surmise Enrique was excersing one but not the other.

So much for getting fancy! ☺

Anonymous David of One January 28, 2013 12:21 AM  

٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶ __̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.

I borrowed the above from:

http://webdesignbysteve.com/HTML-special-char.html

Anonymous David of One January 28, 2013 12:29 AM  

▂ ▃ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ David of One █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▃ ▂

just a test

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 28, 2013 1:01 AM  

Supernaut:
It's 12 years and counting now for the ride of this gravy train named "The War On Terror," and there is no end in sight.

As Caribou Barbie, late of Fox Snooze, would say - you betcha! The Global War-on-terrrrrr gravy train is like the one in Gomez Addams' basement, going faster and harder with each minute.... with Housenigga Hussein and Curious Jorge pretending to be at the throttle. There is only one possible destination - it will arrive there sooner or later.

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2013 1:16 AM  

zen0:
Who is they? All the leftists are pro Boo-slim. The US military is pro-Boo-slim rights and privileges, the U.N. is a Boo-slim enabler, the POTUS is a "moderate" Boo-slim....Who is "they"?


Mr. Pea
Seriously? "Oh! Thank G-d for the TSA and those VIPR Teams! Why... I feel so much safer knowing I am being groped and x-rayed. And look at those saviors over there with their machine guns and dogs... my hero's. USA, USA, USA! By the way, Obama sucks!"


You never answered zen0's question, who is "they" Who is it that says "USA! Obama sucks!"?

Is it your average republican voter? Who?

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2013 1:17 AM  

Above is:
ConanCimmerian

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 1:29 AM  

"In fact, I have to wonder whether or not Feinstein and family have investments in companies that do counter-terrorism work"

You're asking the wrong question. The true issue is that "Feinstein and family" have 'investments' as it were, in other families with names like, oh, "Feinstein and family." Well whaddaya know, who coulda ever seen that one coming.

Like the famous old saying goes, "What's good for a Feinstein is good for America." Oh wait, I'm sorry, I meant to say GM, but hey, they got undermined a long long time ago, didn't they. Huh. Funny how that works... And what's good for a Feinstein is good for a Feinstein's version of "America".... terra-formed, of course, to fit the needs of what's good for You Know Who.


Anonymous Mr. Pea January 28, 2013 1:33 AM  

Millions of AmeriKans. Some are dumbocrats. Some are repukocrats. Some are just whatever. Some of them are, when the TSA says "FREEZE," they freeze... some of which are thinking, "Oh thank G-d it wasn't ter-er-er-ists!"

Obviously, some of you don't get any further than Vox's blog.

In fact, they just did a random check at a Amtrak Station in Austin a few days ago... "Oh thank G-d, I feel so much safer." Safer from what? WTF do you think? Ter-er-er-ists. Who are the ter-er-er-ists? Boo! Crack their heads open and 1 billion Muslims will fall out with a Bush and Cheney... and a Obama.

Breath. Get out. Get some sun.

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 3:12 AM  

Sorry, papabear, those stories are bullshit. The B-2, for example, has flown thousands of sorties and dropped millions of pounds of munitions in all weather conditions. In short, the B-2 works.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 28, 2013 7:25 AM  

Hilarious addition: Rabbit Hunter Extraordinaire

No, winning hasn't been the point in fighting wars similar to running for president of the US. Women, drones, continued false flag ops and John F Kerry as Sec. of State seems nonthreatening for America's made-up enemies and paranoid fears like Iran. Without the machine in full swing millions more would be unemployed. And Employment is something the leadership doesn't want to discuss.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 7:38 AM  

"In fact, I have to wonder whether or not Feinstein and family have investments in companies that do counter-terrorism work"

Really? What's to wonder about? Her husband (Richard Blum) is one of the biggest Defense Dept. contractors in the world. link

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 28, 2013 7:38 AM  

Edit: Hagel and Kerry for fresh neoconning.

Anonymous Conrad The Crazed January 28, 2013 7:51 AM  

B-2 is a billion dollar airframe that will cease to be useful once the technology to track it is perfected. Why do you think the famous F-117 had an awe-inspiring service career of what, 10 years? Once the serbs figured out how to track it, it became a $100 million flying black pyramid-shaped ornament.

The problems with the M2 Bradley are well documented, but I will defer the particulars of them to those who are familiar with ground-based weapons.

The Patriot is a mixed-bag. Having seen it in action during the 1991 Gulf War, I can tell you it worked about 4 out of every 10 launches. The remaining 6 intercepts usually involved the missile following the incoming scud into the ground, or following a section of a broken up scud into the ground. In these instances the scud warheads still did their job, albeit thankfully off-target...most of the time.

The F-22 and F-35 are both boondoggles, with the F-35 being the worse of the two. This is not to say the F-22 isn't a capable aircraft, but rather more an indictment of leadership trying to take a specific design concept and beating the shit out of it in order to make it do 'other cool stuff too'. For aircraft that contain stealth as a primary component of design, it is complete lunacy to retrofit external pylons to the design in order to make it carry more ordinance (thus killing the stealth edge), and then acting surprised when the airframe comes in 'over max design weight', or when the onboard sensor suites don't act reliably when half the circuitry is of chinese manufacture (currently issues plauging BOTH aircraft).

The V-22 is a flying death trap, and a wonderful example of how big defense contractors have an iron-grip on the puppets in washington. The V-22 has been in development since the 1970's, and here 30 years later the design is still incapable of delivering RELIABLE combat service (engines alone are not even making HALF the expected time-on-wing before requiring replacement/overhaul). Add to that the long list of people who've been killed during the V-22 development, and it puts the picture into clear perspective exactly who helps run washington.

Much of this is incomprehensible, but then again when viewed in the context of who makes the decisions, and for whose benefit such decisions are made.....well then, not so much.

Anonymous RC January 28, 2013 9:20 AM  

"I think I will try the Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40 with BDC next.

That scope is less expensive than the rifle (a Remington 700 with a 16" barrel.) With that length barrel, although some say it does not have the resonances of longer barrels, I don't think the bullets will be given the full potential speed of the round (2700 fps or so.)" - The Other Skeptic

I have a cheap, older short-barrel Remington with a cheap 4x scope and it's been a very fine hunting rifle out to 300 yds. It's loud though for a non-mag caliber, the short barrel I suppose. It's good to have a gun you don't care much about for hunting.

I might suggest looking at Hornady Superformance, got an additional 100 fps to my .308, a much different platform than the 700 though.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 9:56 AM  

Winning was the point through WWII. Seriously, look at the Battle of the Pacific. Since then....not so much. Ike warned of the danger of the "military industrial complex in the '50s...

The "War on Terror" will be with us as long as there is an us. The MIC finally got what they want....neverending war...yet a war that cannot be lost (ie: Muslim hordes aren't going to take over Argentina and invade us through Mexico.... or capture Hawaii and use it to launch an amphibious invasion of the West Coast.)

Anonymous rycamor January 28, 2013 11:05 AM  

There you have it, folks:

New Obama litmus test: will you fire on American citizens.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 11:06 AM  

I think I will try the Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40 with BDC next.

I like mine. The BDC requires some range time to get accustomed to in order to know which marks (or parts of marks since it uses a circle instead of a hash mark) to use for various distances.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 28, 2013 11:32 AM  

Mr. Pea
Obviously, some of you don't get any further than Vox's blog.


Wrong again. The Ilk are of wider breadth than you.

Mr. Pea, have do you score on the Aspie scale?

You've got all the personal appeal of a New Atheist.

Go read the below, feel free to have flame wars with the various authors and commenters at these blog posts.

WATCH: Ted Nugent Suggests He’s Ready For Armed Revolt Against ‘Evil, Dangerous’ Obama

Are You Waiting On the First Five People To Get Crucified?

Freedom Dies With Your Neighbors’ Assistance and Whimpers
Particularly comment:
That’s so true. I remember back in the early 80’s when the native sovereignty movement in some parts of Alaska was peaking. A retired Canadian judge was asked to tour several villages on the lower Yukon and Kuskowim. He later wrote a book called Village Journey wherein there was a quote that sticks in my mind to this day.

I paraphrase, from memory here but the gist of what this one fellow in some village said was, in the old days the government sent in troops to round us up. If they did that today, you might be surprised at how many people would pick up a gun and fight. But now days they send lawyers and social workers. If you shoot them, you’re not a warrior, you’re just a murderer.


Claire Wolfe - Sometimes I am so afraid

And just for your general reading/use:


Western Rifle Shooters Association
If you are reading these words, you are the Resistance.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 28, 2013 12:17 PM  

Mr. Pea

Here too:

Cliffs of Insanity Information-Ideology

Blogger Joan of Argghh! January 28, 2013 12:28 PM  

Er, Conan? Shall I thank you for sending trolls to my blog?!!

LOL!

I see I'm in good company, too. :o)

Blogger papabear January 28, 2013 1:37 PM  

Thanks, Conrad the Crazed.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 28, 2013 3:04 PM  

Mr. Pea,

Do you blog/do you have a blog?
If so, what is it?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 28, 2013 3:34 PM  

Pea,

Many people (Ilk) here with a variety of views.
Anarcho-capitalists to liberatarins to conservatives to traditionalists. Many, many types, with the occasional marxist, atheist trolls.

So here is another from the libertarian site Lew Rockwell:

Walter Mitty's Second Amendment
by Jeff Snyder

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 28, 2013 3:43 PM  

Pea,

In regard to your Boo-slims,
please visit Lawrence Auster's site:

View from the Right

Particularly this:

A Real Islam Policy for a Real America

And keep in mind, most here (as much as I make speak for them) have zero desire for wars with Boo-slims, as you call them.
Simply put:
No more immigration, deport the ones here, pull out of their countries, and only have trade relations.

Anonymous josh January 28, 2013 5:33 PM  

I've never been impressed with Auster

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2013 7:02 PM  

josh,

There are plenty of things he misses, but a few he hits and hits well.
That said, I generally agree.

His Lincoln love and love of all things yankee... and perhaps the most overrated musician Bob Dylan...horrible.

-ConanCimmerian

Anonymous Tad January 28, 2013 7:31 PM  

@Vox Day

The good news, to the extent that there is any to be found of late, is that the recent move to make combat troops out of women tends to indicate that....the government is, ala Stalin, totally uninterested in the professional opinion of its military leadership.

The Joint Chiefs of State (undoubtedly the very definition of "military leadership") recommended that women play a combat role.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts