It's the Hamster

Hamster Time

We then visited the 504th from Fort Lewis, who had detailed instructions on one of the doors on how to “Turn a Hamster into a Fighting Machine.” Basically, just select a hamster and tape a knife to its back. It was recommended not to tape firearms to its back. Mellinger burst out laughing and walked away, and I stood there laughing uncontrollably while reading the whole set of instructions:

Exercepted from Michael Yon's latest dispatch.

This is how Hameru won the battle, he became a lean, mean, hamster fighting master.

UPDATE:
Michael Yon's Inside Info
I found the link where Yon informs us of how the media really operates in Iraq, and what their "1.5 million" is actually going to.

Bill Keller of the Times

"JOURNALISM OF VERIFICATION." "Most of what you know, you know because of the mainstream media," Keller said. "Bloggers recycle and chew on the news. That's not bad. But it's not enough."

Keller pointed out that it cost the Times around $1.5 million to maintain a Baghdad bureau in 2004. (It cost one Times freelancer much more last month: He was murdered.) "This kind of civic labor can't be replaced by bloggers." The Times' assets: "A worldwide network of trained, skilled [observers] to witness events" and write about them, and "a rigorous set of standards. A journalism of verification," rather than of "assertion," and maintaining an "agnosticism" as to where any story may lead. And, borrowing a key buzzword of the day, he said the Times practiced "transparency," or, in math-teacher terms, "we show our work."

I would beg to differ, most of what we know is from government sources, expert officials, or just spokesmen and press releases.

Whenever the media reports about something from Iraq, they knew about it only from government sources and press releases. The media didn't find out about Abu Ghraib, they got the pictures from the parents seeking to divert attention from their undisciplined offspring, and they got the official details from the Military Investigation already being conducted.

It would have been hard to prove those pictures were true and not hoaxes, had there not been an investigation, and there would have been no reason for the parents of the indicted National Guardsmen to release it to the media and get their children in trouble.

A coverup would have been easy, since the media only knows what it knows from government and military sources after all.

The media only serves as a filter, to be a convenience application like a microwave or gas stove. Something to ready our meals for our digestion. The media is not a gourmet chef that prepares our meals for us, to the delectation of our desires and tastes. Rather, it is more like the dietician that tells us what to eat, when to eat it, and how much enjoyment we will derive from it.

Such as it is, the media is a filter, and a very clogged up one at that. The gatekeepers need keepers themselves. Keller does not recognize this fact, for a news organization, one wonders if Keller cannot recognize this fact, what other facts has he been getting wrong?

As for Keller's much grand quote of 1.5 milion, I refer you to this link

The information provided by Michael Yon, touring Iraq in his beat up boots and his sand encrusted Nikon digital camera, is a small fraction of 1.5 million. But the information is a billion times better. How can this be? Unless, that 1.5 million is the same 1.5 billion the UN spends on social parties, food for sex, and other various decadent actions.

But of course, Keller, would not recognize that.

The "proximity delay" seems to be bi-directional. The higher-ups also seem to have a disconnect with what the media eventually does with Coalition successes. I kept silent for days on the Zarqawi-letter dispatch, ready to post what was probably the single most important piece of insider information to drop into our hands in quite some time. I requested clearance several times per day, each time being asked to hold back. I complied.

But then, without even giving the leaders at Deuce Four a heads-up, a typically enthralling military press release went out to major, mainstream, media outlets. We all learned of it on CNN. The Zarqawi-letter story was almost unrecognizable. Because, in the hands of a network that hasn't had a body in the field in Mosul long enough to get their bearings, the best the media could do is paraphrase the military press release. So what should have been a front page banner headline story ended up buried on page 6.

Even CNN couldn't grasp the importance of the letter. They ended up giving more coverage to the impending E-Bay auction of Jennifer Aniston's old love letters than to the missive in which the top Al-Qaeda leader in Mosul writes to the second most wanted man in the world, and describes in amazing detail the weaknesses and impending collapse of the terrorist network in Mosul and surrounds. Only then did the military ask if I wanted to write about the letter.

The Z-Man letter is just another example, where the media's claims that they are the "gatekeepers" and the "blood hounds" of facts is totally preposterous on the ground.

An Objectivism Debate: Or is it?

This technique of dissimilation is very familiar to me. It may not be to some of the audience here, but that is by no means of crippling status after all.

Look, I can describe it in not so many words. Although more words provide more clarity.

If a person wants to know, that's fine. A lot of people are ignorant, and knowledge can benefit people and allow them to make decisions based upon what is true and not what is false.

But I have to warn people not to get twisted in psychological attacks using the natural inclination of reasonable people to give knowledge and help to people. A propaganda technique is something that is a tool to accomplish a goal, and the most effective propaganda is about 9/10ths the truth.

My analysis of the situation is thus.

If you read Kheldar's words carefully and his intentions, you will see the thesis is that he only wants to understand Objectivism and why it "appears" to be inconsistent.

That, is the guise of reason, and therefore any person of moderate good will might feel a need to help a person acquire an understanding of a subject they are versed in.

But, somewhere and somehow along the line, while you are explaining the subject in question to a person, something goes wrong.

I will tell you why.

The reason why any attempts to explain Objectivism in this situation is, well, fated to fail is simply that it was only a pretext that the goal was to acquire knowledge about Objectivism.

The real reason was something else, it was to argue something, whatever a person wanted to.

The argument here, is thus.

[b]That this is so, and explain to me why you are right and I am wrong.[/b]

That is the form of a Debate, not a teacher-student relationship, or someone asking directions.

Therefore if someone is assuming the teacher-student posture and presenting the burden of proof on themselves, and stating some facts to a student. Then it works well, because the student understands the facts, realizes the truth, and comes to a conclusion that is knowledgeable about a subject.

However, if a student contradicts the teacher, and says the teacher is wrong on this subject. Is it the responsibility of the teacher to prove to the student that the student is wrong, or is it the responsibility of the student to prove the teacher is wrong?

I always knew there was some reason I prefered the socratic method. The Socratic Method does not fall prey to this kind of problem. The teacher asks questions, and the student answers. A situation where the student asks questions and the teacher has to answer... can become problematical.

[quote]Simply put. Please explain to me how Richard's actions are in line with Objectivism. How is his threat to invade "neutral" lands (not an empty threat) wash with the idea that no person has the right to demand the sacrifice of another? What is it about the situation that allows Richard to pre-emptively invade?

I understand the use of force against an aggressor. I "get" the concept of taking actions that are in your own best interest. I don't see how that "allows" one to become an aggressor against someone who is not a threat. [/quote]

This is just an exercise in abstract so to speak. There's two ways to respond to this paragraph.

1. Normal Method

Which is to answer by saying that the neutral lands are a danger, since they have no defense against the Order, and therefore it is in their best interests to join D'Hara.

I propose however, that this won't work. Because the move I predict will be, "Prove how the neutral lands are a danger". Analogous to what was said before, "prove why the Ambassadors should believe Richard about the Order and not the Order".

2. Socratic Method

Why would Richard be insane enough to sacrifice D'haran lives in the pursuit of nations that are no threat to the liberty of D'Haran, when there is a huge Imperial Order army to fight?

Some who are reading this, may have concluded that I am no longer arguing the original subject. Rather, I am arguing burden of proof (does the innocent prove they are innocent?), reasonable standards of debate, and of course, answers and questions.

I seek to prove why the method adopted in this debate is flawed and inadequate to its purpose. That does not mean Kheldar's original proposition, that Richard's Actions were inconsistent with Objectivism, is on its face the wrong question or an invalid one. In fact, it is a very relevant question, with a very relevant answer.

Philosophy is not for the weak of heart. It takes brain processing power, and a lot of confusion. I experienced it, and I assume everyone else experiences it in some degree or another.

The basic fundamentals of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and the basic philosophical core principles of Objectivism, all are required knowledge in a debate.

I mean, come on, it's one thing for a student to be totally ignorant in class, but it is another thing for someone to try to debate a subject in which they don't have the necessary knowledge to do so adequately. It's like a student coming to class without pencil, paper, pen, or book.

It's just... not right, you know. Some standards must be followed. If people want to learn, or debate, or whatever, shouldn't they follow reasonable standards of conduct?


To Kheldar,

[quote]Look, consider this a landmark occassion. In all the time we've interacted at various boards, how many times have you seen me make a statement admitting complete ignorance and confusion. How many times have you seen me sincerely ask someone to explain something to me? [/quote]

[quote][b]No, it's not. [/b]However, it IS forcing a loaded gun at someone's head to tell them that if they don't assist you in a dangerous task you will attack them.

It seems that you're missing what I'm saying. Richard was fine in warning them about what the Imperial Order was like. He was fine in saying that there would be economic repercussions if they joined late. [b]He crossed the line when he threatened to invade them. [/b][/quote]

I hope someone, you, has gotten an idea of the understanding I an attempting to force across the rift of the cellular wall.

Okay Kheldar, one question, and it's not a debate question. Tell me again how this is a landmark occasion given the pieces I have bolded up above?

A simple question, requiring a useful answer.

[quote]You issued an ultimatum in your post[/quote]

This isn't a game, Kheldar. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. Much as Richard tends to do, or even Bush for that matter. When I state the consequence of an action, I am stating my intentions to do something given a particular situation. I do not try to correct your behavior, that is of course against the rules of this board, I only state what my actions will be given possible scenarios.

As such, there is no more debate, Kheldar. I will not answer your questions, simply because I have adequately proven that your questions are both flawed in execution and disengenous in design. Whether you intended it to be or not, matters little given the evidence of the situation as I have presented.

Let me remind you Kheldar, that you didn't state your lack of knowledge concerning Objectivism nor your desires to learn, in your posts addressed to me. Therefore to take offense at something, by placing motives to my words that are not there, is unfortunate in its sadness.

The assumption that someone you are attempting to debate with, has read everyword that you have written in this thread or others, is an incorrect assumption.

And I stand by the fact that I was stating what I believed to be true concerning your motivations and objectives, in comparison with what you had already accomplished (or not accomplished). I presume a person who is being rational at least, would want to help facillitate some understanding or discussion, rather than taking offense and acting on it.

The fact that you felt offended and thought I was trying to turn your stated ignorance back upon you... well that is just, rather, regretable and inappropriate in allowing one's emotions to dictate one's actions irregardless of the truth.

Now, is the time for the requisite recap. For those who get lost in long debates, as if reading a mathematical proof 10 pages long.

Anyone care to guess who said what?

[quote]In essence, this is what Richard threatened.

"I thereby pledge that I will not sacrifice anyone else's life solely for my own benefit, nor will I sacrifice my life for anyone else's sole benefit"

It's still a loaded gun pointed at their head. It's still forcing a decision under duress.

It's counter to my point.

It is not forcing a loaded gun at someone's head, to tell them that fire is hot, that radioactivity is dangerous, or that the sun shouldn't be looked at. It is also not morally ambiguous, irresponsible, or negative to tell someone the consequences of their actions.

You have not shown whatsoever that in the very specific situation under discussion, the Imperial Order was good for neutral or nations that would ally to the Order.

Second, you must prove how Richard is the one interjecting coercion and force into the equation of human interactions rather than the person responding with force to counter forceful aggression on the part of the Order.

Not only does Objectivism justify actions taken for the good of others and of yourself, it also justifies using force to respond to force.

No, you're just not listening to what I'm saying. Try reading it all again. Richard loaded the gun and held it to their heads when he threatened that his forces would invade them, regardless of whether or not they were helping the Imperial Order.

I'm arguing that what Richard did doesn't fit within the limits of Objectivism.

To begin, you must prove why the people of the Midlands should believe Richard's explanation of how events will unfold. Then you must prove why D'Hara is good for the Midlands.

If you can answer that clearly, then I'll bow out and admit "defeat". Mind you, I don't think what Richard did was wrong, I just don't see how it fits into the Objective philosophy. So, please, by all means, school me.

[/quote]

I have a craving to interject comments concerning the above next to each line, but I will refrain from doing so. This post is long enough, after all.

But, I have to recommend that the phrase "So, please, by all means, school me" is... uh.. inconsistent with the rest?

Kheldar:Okay, now explain.

Ymar:Huh? I thought you were doing the explaining...

Kheldar:I don't know much about Objectivism, and neither do you!!
(The militant agnosticism joke is always funny)

Okay, read and interpret what you will, our fair audience. I've done my best to communicate a set of ideas and truths. I take no credit for whatever amusements may result.

Michael Ruben from Iraq with some first hand experience and wisdom of the Iraqi perspective in the War on Terror.

I note the highlights as being that when 1 Iraqi dies from insurgent attacks, that Iraqi has 50 extended families that are mighty pissed at losing a productive and young family member. Multiply this by 2x the American casualties. Do you really want to fight a foe that with everyone one you kill, 50 takes his place?

Another very good info he brought back for us was the fact that Iraqis don't want Americans in their face, much as we don't want the UN in our face, and in New York taking up prime real estate. The Iraqis in Baghdad are bothered by the fact that all our diplomats, reporters, and other civilians in the Green Zone have made traffic horrendous.

Americans are not very good at occupation. At least, we have forgotten much that was learned in World War II, but America is a quick learner, we will preservere.

One of the problems not highlighted much is the fact that Iraq became the problem it has, due primarily to the fact that President Bush in the Gulf War said in a campaign speech that the Iraqis should rise up and overthrow Saddam. Obviously Bush was clueless as to the real influential power of an American president, because the Iraqis did just that, and America not only stood by as refugees begged for help from the Kuwaitti border, but actually allowed Saddam the use of his chopters to spew poison gas. The no fly zones was a lesson of too little too late. The damage had already been done. And I do not refer solely to the loss in human lives, but the loss of trust and faith in American promises of freedom. That, was the far more dangerous blow. So when the insurgency migrated to Iraq, being pulled away from Afghanistan, the Iraqis weren't sure what to do. One the one hand, they have wanted freedom for a long time and the Americans have desposed of Saddam, but they also understand that America might leave really soon. So anyone that helps the Americans now, will face a problem with the terroists once the Americans leave.

Setting deadlines, making promises, and making good on those promises, is the long hard road to redemption that America must take. And it is the road that the Democrats and all pacifists should be ashamed of, for trying to undermine with their nancy pancy wishes for a speedy utopia.

The Sith Explained

Sith resource
Matrix Review relating to the Sith

Star Wars and What George Lucas is Telling Us

I'm writing this right after I've finished watching Revenge of the Sith. So that the details are fresh on my mind, and I won't forget what I was thinking.

Now, the parallels, are obvious. Emperor Palpatine, or "Chancellor" Palaptine, was made to look like George W. Bush. Remember when Padme said that this is how freedom falls, to thunderous applause? He was refering to the Patriot Act, and Congress ratifying it.

Palpatine created a pretense for power, by instigating a separatist movement (Al-Qaeda freedom fighters), and when Palpatine acquired emergency powers and the good guys (The Jedi) tried to stop him, Palpatine unleashed a backlash on the good guys. Analogous to Bush supporters that think of Democrats as traitors for trying to regain power. Democrats aren't traitors, they are just trying to stop an evil man from taking control of government, and converting a democracy to an imperial power.

Along with the nut jobs around, this shows how George Lucas believes that Bush created the AL-Qaeda problem, used the 9/11 attacks to acquire emergency powers, and has no intention of releasing those powers back to a democratic Senate.

Anakin is a speakerphone for Bush, when he says Either you are With me, or you are My Enemy. Obviously, an indication that Bush is being too black and white about Democrats and Republicans. You can obviously, be both FOR the terroists and FOR America... or something like that.

It's an interesting and highly complex, if obscure and sometimes confusing, propaganda ploy. The Left did the same thing in Troy, making the King that Achilles was fighting with/for/alongside out to be an imperialist and a thug. What they obviously think Bush is.

As you can see, not only do the terroists have an affinity for informational propaganda systems and dissimilation, but the Democrats are also experts at manipulating multi-media and mass media.

Osama Bin Laden wouldn't exist if not for AMerica/Bush. The Separatist movement wouldn't exist if not for Darth Insidious...

It is amazingly transparent, but sometimes the two overlap. When propaganda starts to become reality. It is shown in the stupidity, guillibility, and utter recklessness of the Jedi Council in keeping Anakin in the dark. When the coup occured, all the Jedi were caught by surprise, as if they can't read minds, detect emotions, and react 10X faster than a normal human being. Obviously, the elitist philosophy of the Jedi, are no more effective and survival orientated than the elitist lifestyle of Hollywood and academia.

Loyalties are not taught to people. Loyalty is freely chosen, and you can't freely choose if what you value, Padme, is impossible under the rules of the society you live in, the Jedi Order.

The Jedi Order sucks. Anybody with those kind of superhuman powers, and not a clue what the hell was going on, needs to shoot themselves in the head to clear the gene pool for a more evolution based program.

A War Like No Other : The Peloponesian War

One of the first things I see a parallel between that ancient war and the current one is how if two forces are locked in a death and life struggle, with neither side winning overwhelmingly or giving indications that they are willing to give up, then both sides are going to create alternative ways of warfare that is most assuredly more horrendous than the classic forms.

Sparta tried to burn down Athens' farmlands and their agricultural abilities, but Athen's leader, Pericles, had decided that all 300,000 would say in Athens and eat the food imported from their provinces. Athens tried to invade and surround Sparta, but ended up wasting lives and making more enemies.

In the end, Sparta and Athens were trying to force people to be on their side, so as to get an advantage to defeat the other. Burned villages, every Sparta caught by Athens slaughtered, every Athens caught by Sparta mutilated.

This is analogous to this war. Since the terroists can't fight conventionally, so they come up with IEDs, kidnappings, beheadings, and VBIEDs. But we can't fight the terroist's kind of war either, so we come up with predator aircraft, automated robots to check IEDs, uparmored humvees, and so on.

Sparta was a land power and Athens was a navy power, one side would be defeated when the other creates a force and defeats the other's strength. In the end, Sparta acquired a fleet from Persia and used that to defeat Athens. Athens had a hoplite army but they didn't want to crash it against the Spartan elite hoplites.

America has the mightiest convention forces in the history of the earth, Air force, Naval fleet, Army, and Marines. Yet America knows nothing about how to fight with propaganda, and is not doing anything to learn how to. The enemy, however, are experts in informational and psychological warfare. They use intimidation as weapons and propaganda as their bread and butter. The enemy doesn't know how to shoot right, they don't know how to coordinate using light infantry tactics, and they can't even ambush one of our Medical Corp convoys and get away with their lives. We don't know how to snatch people off the streets and break them psychologically to get information without the media crufixing us forget the terroists. We don't want to assassinate any leader, Al Sadr or political or Iran or Syrian. We have nukes but we don't use it to further a propaganda campaign.

In a war, you will eventually become more like your enemy, if only to beat that enemy. Until such a time, the war won't be over cause the other side won't admit defeat unless you defeat them on their terms and territory. To us, we won't admit defeat unless you defeat us politically and on the battlefield. To the terroists, they won't admit defeat unless we prove we are more ruthless, and more insane than they are.

It's a tactic of desperation, since the Athenians and Spartans had been fighting for years, and nobody was winning.

In such a fight, the one that makes the first mistake, or the one that is able to learn the enemy's way of fighting, will change the balance of the war. In the end, it was Athens that made the mistake of invading Sicily, allowing the Spartans to acquire a fleet and defeat Athens.

What mistake will America make in the War on Terror? Remember, we can't be defeated militarily, but we can be on the homefront via public opinion, ala Vietnam. The terroists can't be defeated conventionally, cause they got state sponsors, and they live civilian lives.

The terroists attack our civilians to make us lose our will, because they know they cannot defeat our military and so will not try. Athens tried to hold out using their navy, becaus they knew their hoplite army was no match for Sparta's. We attack the terroists, but not the states sponsoring them or the families benefiting from terroist actions and propaganda, because we aren't familiar with such tactics of guerrila warfare.

Until the terroists know how to wage war effectively conventionally, or America learns how to use our Special Forces to sow terror and destruction among supporters of terrorism, this war is going to go on for awhile.

We, like Athens, could use our proxies to fight some of the battles for us. We can use Iraq and Afghanistan to inculcate the brutality and ruthlessness that we, as a more civilized and more decadent society, are unable to manifest unless seriously damaged.

We want to preempt the terroists, since the only way we could become heartless and brutal and ruthless was to wait for a terroist to attack us with WMDs.

Another thing I see is very simple. And that is how both sides resorted to a kind of mass insanity, destroying people just for the sake of destroying people. They were trying to use terror to get more allies, but terror only works if you do it selectively. That is the problem of the terroists, and I am pleased to say that it is not the problem of the U.S.

There is a certain decadence as people become more rich and plentiful. That decadence is a lack of will, a lack of motivation, and a lack of ruthlessness. People who are rich, do not want to sully their hands with violence and war, instead they either get some cannon fodder poor dudes to fight or they just don't fight at all, thus motivating other people to attack us for their pleasure, killing a lot of us never a lot of the rich.

The Hollywood Left is the epitome of Greek Hellenization. They are rich, they are decadent, they have no interests other than their self-aggrandizement and fame.

A society can be measured by the fighting spirit of their leaders and their soldiers. I am glad that most of the rich people are not in government, we keep them in the private sector where the crazies belong. Although we have decreased a mite, Thucydies thesis that humans lose their veneer of civilization in a war to the knife, does indeed apply to us and hopefully as well. Because when we realize that we are fighting a Total War, a war of annihilation, then we will finally wake up and committe all our energies to our salvation. The prospect of being hanged tomorrow concentrates the mind wonderfully.

Like Athens, even though they lost, they learned from their mistakes and recreated their civilization and democracy. It is true that they lost Pericles, and much of their great officers and leaders, but they recovered even at that. And so will we. Even if we have to use nuclear weapons to psychologically break the Arabs, our enemies, or to kidnap our enemies and execute them to serve as an example to other enemies.

We will recover... if we are alive to have that chance, that is. Unlike the decadent rich fucks in this world, I do not believe it is our destiny and fate to win. No, unlike the decadent rich fucks in this world, I know that defeat is close and on our heels, just like death and foolish are. The rich people in their tea parties and three some fuck parties, may believe that their lifestyle is too superior to be destroyed, but I know better. My perspective is a historical one, it is also a pragmatic one. No one, is exempt from death, violence, and destruction. Not even the decadent rich elites.

When they get done with our soldiers, and our politicians, and the conservatives. The rich people are next. I'd be laughing when they take them away, if I wasn't already probably dead that is.

Horn of Africa: Phase Zero

Transcript

It's a good read, on future geo-political and strategic goals.

American Empire: Nostalgia

Wow Ymarsakar.. I'm truly impressed by your frankness. You have just summed up the imperialist and arrogant thinking that I believe is at the very heart of the current US Administration... and you've done it using the real words and feelings.

Go ahead and quote me if you want. But I do have this to say about American Imperialism. It is not the Imperialism of Europe, or of Rome, or of Athens.

It is a new kind of Imperialism, simply because America is exceptional in the entire history of the world. The destiny of Americans are unique. You may shirk from this fate, but 9/11 will be the result. You may want to surrender, but Sharia Law is the consequence.

This is the same for those who support the War on Terror and those who do not.

The best of Empires are not created from people who want to expand their base of power, it is created from humble people who only want to live their lives peacefully and without undue harm to people and animals.

The American Empire does not tax other nations, provinces, or occupied territories like the Romans did.

The American Empire does not subjugate the people where our military bases reside, as UN peacekeepers do in the Congo and Asia through Food for Sex.

The American Empire does not create puppet regimes with no independence of power, as many accuse us of doing in Afghanistan.

So many people are unable to think outside the box of American Empire=bad and America=good. That is why the idea of pacifism being the tool by which we spread our control, is so alien in concept. Pacifism is the result of civilization. Anyone who wants to civilize the world, and live in sappy happy peace and prosperity, is also spreading pacifism, delusions, insanity, and other inanities on a scale never before seen in humanity. Mass insanity has so far, not occured on a frequent basis in humanity, but in the 21st century, it is booming in frequency.

There are few pacifists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because they are not civilized. There are a lot of pacifists in Germany, UK, Japan, and Australia. Why? Because they are civilized.

This is another of the bizarre but interesting bits. I don't know quite what the author is trying to get at with pacifism as a disease. At least not with it going directionally from the US to other nations.

Since pacifism results from civilization, and America is the center of civilization being the greatest nation in the history of the Earth, it follows quite logically. Don't you think so?

There is a certain element of self-delusion involved with the peace crowd and with some nations (it seems) where it is believed that no one will hurt them if they don't fight. This is dangerous and foolish.

It is dangerous... to them that is. Not to us, we have 10+ Carrier Battlegroups that patrol the world's seas hunting down pirates and other childish behavior. The second largest Navy has what, 3 Carriers?

The American Navy, in terms of tonnage, is larger than the next 17 largest navies in the world. That is the 17 Navy Rule.

Imperial Japan was a danger to us, then we infected them with pacifism, and they went through the disease period in which they lacked self-will, hated America, and couldn't defend themselves.

That was the whole point after all. The fact that Japan is growing stronger, is not because of us, but because of the strength of their culture and national self-esteem. After having come through that disease, they are now immunolized to it so that it won't kill them in the future. The fact that it helps us, is only a side-effect. The primary purpose of American intervention and occupation is to make sure nations are no longer a threat militarily. It can be assumed that Germany, France, Britain, Australia, and Japan are no military threats to America.

I have no problems with an American Empire. I also have no problems with America, I love America, America is indeed the greatest nation on Earth. Who better to rule the world than the greatest group of people that have ever existed? America can be first among equals, if the title of "Ruler" offends some weaklings.

Americans are weird, and anti-historical. Americans will help their enemies, when their enemies would rather torture and behead Americans and innocents. Americans will lift from the depths of ignorance and poverty, a people that they expect no gratitude from. Americans still value the anachronistic virtue of honor, keeping one's word to a person or group of people like the Kurds and iraqi Shias. Americans, however, do not value honor over pragmatism.

It is... insane in some respects, perfectly rational in others. To America, only national security matters, it does not matter that we help everyone in the world begging for help because we do not need their gratitude though we would appreciate it. And yet, it has come about, that if we don't help or begin to help the world out of poverty and stupidity and despair... we ourselves will be destroyed in the end. How's that for the destiny and fate?

A people who do not want to fight, who do not want to be worshiped or given undue respect, charity or generosity, now commands the greatest Army on the Earth, the greatest Air Force, the most experienced and deadly ground combat forces, and the mightiest Naval fleet ever to have graced the seas of Earth.

Who would have thought that such a mongrel of a nation such as the United States, would put to shame the glories of Rome, Athens, and the feudalistic claptrap of Europe.

History is full of underdogs. Most of them get crushed, like Spartacus in the Roman Gladiator/Slave rebellion. But once in awhile, history is fit to grace us with a statistical anomaly.

And when history commands that burden be placed upon the nation of America, for the good of the world and for the existence of peace and prosperity, who are we to say no to history?

Originally posted here

Richard's actions: An analysis

Good, because I'm not here for an explanation from you on how the world works. I'm here to challenge your stance on issues, and make you clearly state your position and defend it. If you can't do that, then no amount of your explaining things to me will ever have a chance of changing my mind about any issue.

Is Kheldar being unreasonable again? One of the requirements to a debate is that you have to understand the answers to your challenges, closing your mind off and being unreasonable does not facillitate clear and ready understanding among proponents and opponents. No amount of "explining" will make someone change their beliefs if their beliefs are so emotionally based that it does not allow rational discourse and comprehension.

Some short comments on opinions before I get to the main subject.

First, all opinions are relatively harmless. That applies to the Nazi that thinks all Jews are whores and untermenschen as well as to all the anti-Americans that think all AMerican soldiers should be put on a short stake and left to die out in the sun. Hate speech, is no danger at all to a free and well informed society. The danger comes when people get the idea that you should agree with them, whether you want to or not, that then does become a problem.

Therefore someone believing Jews are untermenschen is all right, so long as they don't start doing things to make the Jews into untermenschen.

In such a diverse conglomeration of thoughts and free expression, there are some very exotic ones. For example, the militant agnostic, who says that he doesn't know anything about God, and neither do you.

Or the American that says this is American, while this is not American, and anyone else who says different is not American.

While there is such a thing as the right belief, disagreement and tolerance isn't mutually exclusive with being right.

As for Richard and his political diplomacy. What he did was simply smarter and better than what Owen did. Owen did a stupid thing, using coercion against someone that might have agreed to help his people out anyways. Making an enemy out of everyone you meet, simply cause you're scared of being refused help, is a paranoid and not very smart way to live. SInce if you make too many enemies, eventually you will make an enemy strong enough to obliterate you and your people, and then where will you be, huh?

Richard gave the diplomats a choice. Either the diplomats would do what is good for themselves and for Richard, or Richard will make the consequences of the bad choice so much worse that people will be forced to realize just how good the good choice is.

The diplomats get protection and safety and freedom, all they had to do was to join arms and strength with D'Hara. Owen's tactic was both less effective and more stupid by far. There is always a chance that such a powerful person like Richard could get divine intervention through the Creator, Terry Goodkind, and remove the poison from his system. Then where would Owen be, huh?

Owen's choice would not have gotten what he wanted, because people who are motivated by nothing other than fear make poor allies and friends. Richard's choice was so much simpler because the Midland's best interests actually did lie with Richard. RIchard wasn't trying to use force to coerce people to do what is good for Richard and bad for them, but rather what is good for everyone, with the exception of the Imperial Order.

Owen was coercing Richard to do what is good for Owen, only not giving Richard much of anything in return. The fact that Richard nullified the IO's weapon was to Richard's credit, not anything he got as a return on the deal for helping Owen. It was a ripoff really.

Propaganda done correctly

Many attempts at propaganda are done incorrectly, in a half bungled half worthwhile kind of way. The below was not.

Correct
The power of propaganda is many, while the counters are just as diverse. It is the truth, but not the whole truth, but stil the best lies are true.

I remind everyone, that bias isn't the problem. We all have one, even if it is mutually exclusive with others. The danger is in the propagandizing of media bias, they are situated in a critical place where they have the power to project their propaganda easily and effectively over great distances. They get paid to do so as well, by either government, BBC CBC, or private companies, advertisements.

This has got to stop. The only way to destroy a democracy is through propaganda, that is the only way. It is also the best way.

The free press is no longer free, they have shackled themselves with the chains of propaganda. Those who make policy, should be the only ones doing propaganda, those who only report on policy should not buy into, regurgitate, or design their own propaganda projects.