Comment to Silence of the Lambs

To Neo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what is the proper response?

It has to be psychological war.

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

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

Humanity: Good and Evil

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

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

Second part is directed to Bookworm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Bookworm,

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

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

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

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

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

Not everything new is better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L E Modesitt The Forever Hero Trilogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fragments from The Ballad of

the Captain (full text lost)

Songs of the Mythmakers

Edwina de Vlerio

New Augusta, 5133 N.E.C.

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

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

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

Of Gods and Men

Carnall Grant

New Avalon

5173 N.E.C.

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

The Will to Achieve and the Indomitable Determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord of the Rings Arwen and Aragorn

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

That's gotta hurt

http://www.savvy.com/videos/amazing/3rd_world_bomb_squad.aspx

Al-Qaeda and diplomacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

In response to

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

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

Links R Us

Palestinians go crazy after Israeli withdrawal

Operation Merlin was commissioned by Clinton and there is evidence to show that it gave Iranians nuclear technology.

French tests to show how you can tell if you are French.

Mesopotamia and America

A comment to an Iraqi blog post.

A lot of Americans want a more ruthless and efficient policy towards the foreign enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, we only have President Bush to work with, and while he is better than the available options, he lacks hate. And he is too beholden to his weak kneed diplomatic State Department advisors. Bush might have the guts for a harsher policy, but the bureacracy certainly doesn't.

Our military can implement programs like the Phoenix Program to put the fear of God and annihilation into the terroists, rebels, and insurgents both in iraq and OUTside Iraq, but the military cannot do that if the President does not tell them to.

And the President will never do that, unless Americans are dieing by the millions.

Things would be a lot more stable in iraq if there were puppets and agents and covert CIA programs like many American weaklings want to believe. But because Americans don't like conquest, and fear to do anything that looks like conquest or British colonialism, we place most of the initiative on the local population. This has the effect of creating a power vacuum for terroists, insurgents, and Iranian-Syrian foreign agents.

The reason for this is simple. Americans are used to having the locals having the best knowledge of what to do. We did it doing Hurricane Katrina, we do it through our local state governments as outlined by the Constitution of each State and guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. This works fine if the locals are smart, knowledgeable, and motivated. It does not work so well in cities that are corrupt, weak, and stupid. Nor did it work so well in Iraq, where fear, intimidation, outlaws, criminals, and injustice were the norm.

The reason why Americans still chose to want to uplift the Iraqis to the role is even simpler. It is because AMericans do not fear violence, chaos, and terroists in Iraq so much as we fear ourselves. Because America is a sleeping giant, and our government bureacracies do their best to contain that power. Because they are greedy and want the power for themselves, for one thing, and another being because if the American people ever awakened and exercised the full power of our 50 states united in Empire, then the bureacrats would be deprived of both life and power.

It is this irrational fear, of AMerican power, which is the reason why you see Americans in Iraq hedging and hawing, emphasizing diplomacy. It is not because we fear using force, it is because we do not want to return to the times when we did have to use force, like WWII. America is a young nation, our traditions are not warlike or empire builders. We are unsure of our place in this world.

The terroists believe this is a weakness, and indeed it may very well appear to be one. But Osama Bin Laden needs to understand something, which is that one of the ways to remove the fears Americans have towards our power, is to kill more Americans. It is a geometric progression. If you replace our fear of ourselves for fear of you, then you're going to die.

Because while the fear is real, so is the Power. The world has not seen the iron fist within the velvet glove, our allies the Japanese have. And they have never forgotten it. In some respects, America is a mask and an onion. It has layers. There is our popular culture, there is our military culture which is the foundation of our society, patriotism, economic vitality, and so on. Deep inside the onion, there is a core of ruthlessness, and it is covered up and hard to get to.

One of the reasons why Americans want to ally with the Iraqis is not because we are lazy and want the Iraqis to do most of the dieing and fighting, it is because we fear that there will be nobody alive in that region if we do all the fighting. Some of us in America embrace that fear and conquers it, others of the fake liberal bent, are subsumed by it.

The American military recognizes that the fury and the hate and the ruthlessnes in Iraq is a lot closer to the surface, and because of that we can get to it easier than we could get to our own core strength.

Americans doubt their own control over our power, our Superpower status came about because we annihilated and defeated every enemy in the course of history itself. No nation could ever claim that except the Roman Empire.

The American philosophy is to conserve our strength, until the time we need it. Different from the history of Rome, which was to exercise power in order to strenghten themselves.

Thus America is capable of high bursts of speed and power, because we don't flitter it around the world. Yet that is only the strength prepserved, it is not truly the essence of our core power. We only tap that core power when our outer reserves are depleted. In Iraq, nobody had any reserves since Saddam didn't allow anyone to hoard power and strength for themselves and their family. In Iraq, the core strength is being tapped. And Americans feel safe because of that, because if the Iraqis can tap their core strength, then America would not have to.

Iraq is unsure of themselves and fear being alone because they think they will fail. America is unsure of ourselves and fear being alone because we think we will kill everyone and succede.

Al-Qaeda doesn't understand this, even after 9/11. And neither do most Americans and 95% of the citizens of other nations. Hitler didn't understand the secret of American power either, in fact. Only the Japanese understood even a glimmer of the inner power of the United States. And even they miscalculated in some respects.

Iranian death sentence

Hate

has a reason all of its own. I would have done far worse to the Iranians than hang them. They would have been quite lucy to be hanged in the first place.

Links and More Links

Found an analysis of historical times and clauses here.

Then there was a good patriotic and historical letter about the Declaration of Independence and the fate of the signers.

These are the lists of quotes of the people who are the domestic enemies of the United States, the quotes that form the fundamental philosophy for their actions and the justifications of their aid of the enemy.

WMDs and Patriotism

Some comments I wanted to save that I've wrote in response to a post in Neo's site.

The UN is in New York. Bush gives Kofi mister I want to "steal from the poor to give to me" and "I pay my Peacekeepers with rape, pillage, and looting" a free place to live, on American tax money.

We don't show our allies the Japanese, the Iraqis, the Afghanistanis, the Polish, or the Australians such favor. They don't got UN seats next to us, yet we expect them to risk their people to bolster American prestige? What kind of idiocy that is, is unknown to me.

Siccing Bolton on Kofi Annan with plenipotentiary rights of trial, judge, and executioner along with revoking of diplomatic immunity, might mean Bush is forever in enmity to the UN. But keeping the status quo, as with Saddam and Iran, is to be a friend and a foresworn one at that.

The world sees America and judges us according to who our friends are and who our enemies are. If they see Osama "Mister I have food to feed your starving child" Bin Laden, and if they then see America as an enemy of Bin Laden, then America is their enemy as well.

When they see, experience, and feel the abuse and the utter degradatin and extermination of the human spirit that is SOP to the UN, and witness the location of the UNited Nations headquarters in America, what would any sane human being think of the United States of America and our prestige? They would spit upon it, and justly so.

For only the just have unjust enemies, and only the unjust may live in the land of the unjust without sanction, warrant, and execution. (Iran, Syria, North Korea)

Bolton speaks the tough talk of erasing from the face of America, the institution of the United Nations. But he has not the power to execute the UN bureacrats, and his boss has neither the will nor the desire.

It is infuriating, but I suppose Bush has more important things to do than to raise the prestige of the United States across the world.

And that is why we don't have Presidents for life. And it is only a glimmer and a sight unfelt of the experiences of Iraqis under Saddam and the UN protectorates.

Using Neo's refereal to Tough Love, if America loved the just, the innocent, and our loyal allies, just to what extent are we willing to tolerate the fiendish betrayal of a stranger, of those that we love?

What was it Jefferson said? Oh yes, he said something to the effect that he declared perpetual enmity to tyrannies across the globe. While he is not my favorite among our ancestors, he was the most eloquent.

Imagine an upstart nation declaring hostility against the ruling supremes of this world, for theirs is the way of tyranny and cruelty. Now imagine the power we have today, the power we fear to use, and for which there is no better time and no better place to use it. There comes a time when you have to use them or lose them, and there will never come a time where America has as much of an opportunity to reshape the world as we do today, in the early 21st century. Soon China and India will become competitors, and we will have to trust in their wisdom and their frugality concerning power, to uplift this world. Soon Iran will have nuclear weapons and use fear to triumph where liberty fears to tread.

For a nation that has relied upon itself for survival and the Enlightenment for our wisdom and guidance, we are currently a nation shackled to the will of others, and tyranic others at that.

It would be a fit rendering for a Shakespearean tragedy, except not even Shakespear had the fortitude to describe the utter loss and triumph of such a many as it exists here and now.

I feel gratitude that I know not a slightest glimmer of the true suffering of the world, of the six billion in perpetual slavery. For such knowledge breeds hate never ending, and such is the tragedy and the triumph of all slave races in rebellion, that only one nation ever lifted itself above such hatred and revenge, to getting ahead.

It truely is an open-world, and amidst the assumption is the heart rending truth. It only takes one failure, one stumble, to collapse the path of best results. And thus is born this fact, that Bush going to the UN matters far more than many realize.

He will not be the one to correct that mistake, instead like his Father, he shall leave it to future generations. As WWII to ours, and so on.

There is also the golden oldie [quote].

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

"'He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desert is small,
Who fears to put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.'

Such is the philosophy of the warrior and of the military. And being immersed in such an intellectual realm, produces curious thinking and even curiouser characters.

Those who have gone before, fought for us here today. We owe them a debt that is hard to repay.

"- Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered and his estates in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners though the efforts of Congress she died from the effects of her abuse."

"- Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry."

"Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes.

Twelve signers had their homes completely burned.

Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Take such misery, put yourselves in their shoes, and multiply the pain and the anguish by 6 billion human souls. You will either go mad or you will destroy yourself with hate.

I do not believe the fake liberals when they say that America is responsible for every soul on this planet, we are not that powerful.

But I also believe that Americans have a duty to not just liberate ourselves, but whoever our power may touch. We are not saints to protect everyone, but we are not trash either that would allow evil to exist because of fear.

At least, we who are not indebted to the tune of trillions in the popular culture of decadence, stupidity, and gratuity.

The Nature of God

The way I look at it is that man obtained free will, and then just went out on the road to sights unseen. God is not a personal God to me, worried about every personal good or bad event in town. He is far more distant. Omniscience would require a certain distancing given Heisenberg's Principle. As much as one would gain, one would lose as much in the bargain. To the extent where his perspectives and thinking would not be easily knowable or learned by man. Which is why I doubt humans back in 25 A.D. could write down the words of Jesus Christ or God himself, with such scant understanding of humanity and the universe at large. They were children compared to what we are today, and yet they were supposed to be the prophets who wrote the books of the Bible? There is a possibility that the vice a versa is possible and applicable, God may understand humanity but humanity would not understand God in the same way.

If humanity is imperfect in our design, I attribute that imperfection as an opportunity given to humanity. Giving humanity something better, would not serve a purpose, if humanity had not earned that. This way we can temper ourselves and our descendents by our own hands and minds, to know that we alone are responsible for our failures and successes. This would not have been so without the knowledge of good and evil, without free will, and yes without telling God that we must be free to succede or die independent of the power of God. Regardless of whether he is the God in Revealed Religion or whether he is the impersonal God of Deism.

Man cannot be evil for the very purpose that something of free will cannot be either wholly good or wholly evil, therefore the classification rings false. Evil, in fact, is only present because of free will and choice. A dog that kills is not evil nor good because instincts chose for him, genetics did a long time ago, what his actions would be given certain stimuli. FOr humans, that is not the same. The general label cannot be very accurate, if evil and good is based upon individual choice and actions.

There's a motivation in emphasizing evil in mankind, in order to show the rarity of good, but the definitions are pretty strict and if you redefine the definitions then evil isn't evil anymore, Phil.

As for the shaking of faith, that was the plan of the MSM in the first place. One of the most effective ways to demoralize humans is through false hope. That shatters belief in a brighter future, and thus allows a population to be more easily controlled and harnessed.

What I don't get is how you can say God hasn't given us what we earned. To use a string of logic, if we have to have knowledge of good and evil to be free, and to be free we have to rely upon our own powers and not God's, then how is it God's place to give humanity anything that we have earned? It is definitely not. If the personal God of Christianity wants to give humanity something, that is the choice of the omnipotential that is God. Not a human decision or wish at all. And any gift by God, is still a gift. Not something earned at all. Either we are apart from God, in your view Phil, or we are not apart from God but instead are working for him and recieving a salary. Can't be both at once. In that sense, God cannot choose to arbitrarily give out whatever he decides and still be called what has been earned. What we obtain is ours by right of action and knowledge.

I don't attribute man's imperfection to the Fall, which sounds faintly fantastic and science fiction (Wheel of Time had the fall, John Ringo had the fall, etc). Rather, if man pulled himself up from the mire, it was because of his own actions. Not something that God decided to withdraw or implement. If it was something of the will of God, then it wasn't Man's fall by man's actions, but God's fall by God's actions. The epistemology doesn't seem congruent concerning how you tie in the Fall, man's imperfection due to it, and God. Assuming the Garden of Eden setting, that which was given by God unto humanity, then if we fell from that state, it was a falling from things unearned. Humanity might indeed frown upon charity.

The thing with Redemption, of course, is the fact that Humanity may not be the one that needs redeeming. God started out as perfect, so he has no understanding of imperfection. This is diametrically opposite. If he created imperfection, it may only be to study it and to learn from it. But an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotential being cannot learn from imperfection. What makes us human is free will, mortality, and imperfection. God, being what he is, doesn't have free will. Nor is he imperfect, which means he cannot improve. And he certainly does not have mortality. This would be the same were he the God of Deism or Christianity. In the end, for his plans to succede, he would have to understand humanity as humans understand humanity. To know the position and velocity of mass at the same time, to circumvent Heisenberg. In that vein, there is a distinct possibility that the redemption is not for mankind but for some greater extent and/or purpose. Perhaps he is seeking managers for this galaxy, and hopes to create the best and most well suited race for the job of galaxy rennovation by pitting the galaxy's races through a stringent interview and test. The lesser it is, the better we could see it, but my odds say that it leans toward the greater in scale.

Redemption would then be reached only by human means and efforts. Since it would not be a return to the state of grace under God, but a similar situation but that which was not given as a gift.

As for God's designs going awry. That does not make a lot of sense considering God is omnipotent. He could not fail unless he chose to fail to accomplish an unstated goal. And if he chose to fail a stated goal, that would be to further a higher purpose. Again, God doesn't appear to have free will, he cannot choose an imperfect solution when he could choose the perfect one.

Therefore it follows that whatever designs of God or Chaos, it is derived from the fact of humanity's imperfection. God must have needed humans to be imperfect and the way we are for a reason, and that reason probably had something to do with the fact that humanity possesses the opposite traits of God.

Whatever Fall may be responsible for humanity's current state, it surely did not have the power to thwart God's will. God could change the physical parameters of the universe to fit in paradoxes and contradictions, there is no Fall born of human free will that could thwart such power and knowledge.

Man would not be man and women would not be women had we not done as we did, whether we walked away from God as you state or anything else we did to accomplish the current end result of time.

What purpose is in that causality chain, is still manifest. Since no Fall or action of man could thwart the will of God. A Fall could thwart the will of man against man, and that's exactly what I think happened. Whatever age of prosperity once existed, it was shattered because of humanity's actions.

I think it is patently obvious humanity could have been designed better. But the point is we weren't, we did not evolve that way, no meteroids landed to give us superpowers. It is simply obvious because it is within humanity's power to uplift our bodies to prosthetics, to steel, to plastic and regenerative limbs and organs. The micro-purpose of God appears to be whether we can succede or not. He watches and waits, and helps or hinders on his own plan as per Christianity, or does not help or hinder at all per Deism. Or it could be even that he could help and hinder at will, and also at the same time not help or hinder at all. Such contradictions do exist when considering omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotential immortal entities such as God.

The double standard probably does apply to Christians. For me, I always understood that there were two types of events. Those that were under my control and those that were not under my control. I feel responsibility for the former and frustration at the latter. This frustration produces a motive for improvement, power, and a desire for knowledge.

Thus it seems, the basic impetus is there for every human. How people choose to use that impetus, is their decision. For good or evil, shall they act.

The beauty of God is that he is all powerful and all knowing. The beauty of humanity is that we are weak and lack total knowing. Our strengths have no limits and our knowledge has no bounds either, whereas God can neither improve nor degrade, can neither succede nor fail. As such, God's perfection is the beautiful while man's pain is combined with our questing natures to create the sublime. I can only imagine what purpose or will such a being would craft, but that purpose exists.

Dog vs Porcupine

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/porcupinedog.asp#photo

Junichiro Koizumi

I was watching a CSPAN press speech with Junichiro Koizumi. It was very enlightening. I only caught the end bit, however. From what I was able to see, Koizumi's focus, concerning domestic policy, was the children of Japan and a sense of self-worth in the Japanese people. He mentioned, "when there is a will, there is a way". And he spoke about the well being and willpower of Japanese citizens under his new economic policies. The will being was par for course, but he specifically said willpower first, putting the emphasis by placing that description first of all. And given Japan's emphasis on putting things first, (cultural importance of Ichi), that tells me some things. Gives me a feeling for the man's soul. Most Americans see Japan's election of Koizumi was a reaffirmation of Japanese-US alliance, but I think it is a bit more than that. Koizumi is a powerful leader, with traits and flaws as any human may possess. I learned about Japanese culture first, without touching the politics, so that was why I was extremely interested when I happened upon this segment by accident.

I mean, if Bush said "when there is a will, there is a way" instead of his "stay the course", one might be shocked at his vernacular versatility. Others, detractors in their main, might propose that Bush was acting like a real Nazi, with real Nietsche Nazi rhetoric. So in some ways, it is surprising to see that in the rhetorical style of someone like Koizumi. Or perhaps it isn't, Koizumi may indeed be just as much religious and a faithful follower of the Japanese tradition, as is Bush himself. A straight talker, although Koizumi is quite phlegmatic where Bush looks really agitated in press conferences. The religion may contain different names, Shintoism and Christianity, the values are not so dissimilar as many would think however. I picked this up from the questions the reportered asked about Shinzin zumi** Shrine. I remembered something about that incident, the Prime Minister visited the Imperial Shrine to pay his respects. The shrine, that all the ancestors of those who died in battle for Japan resided. China and NK, from the hints I picked up from the questions, closed off negotiations based upon this pretex Presumably implying that the PM was warlike for visiting a religious shrine as per the guarantees of the Japanese Constitution. Regardless, this shows to me that Koizumi is quite religious and believes in Shintoism. I was not familiar with Shintoism by far, but one of your links to Japanese suicide bombers and their personal letters, portrayed some of the very best of Japan. And gave me a very enlightening perspective on Shintoism, not the religious dogma or the traditions, but simply the pragmatic reality of such faith. Some of that is portrayed in Japanese anime, such as Bleach and Naruto, but still, the actual practical applications in the current Japan cannot be directly derived from depictions in Japanese anime.

I am not sure how much you are familiar with the more militant virtues of Japanese culture, but from what I've seen, the Japanese military virtues are almost indistinguishable from their civilian virtues. In America, it is rather spread out. Civilian virtues like the work ethic, honesty, compassion, producitivity, creativity, obedience to the law, and so on. Military virtues, discipline, pride, self-sacrifice, indomitable drive to succede, physical courage, moral courage, loyalty, duty, and so on. All that translates to different things and different kinds of people. I have a limited selection to choose from however, and I wish I had a more systematic resource on Japanese culture than what I currently have access to. Much of the information I want is actually First hand, a Primary Source in historical lingoistics. And Japanese ANime is the closest I can acquire. But from that source, I notice a few trends. The newest anime are quite popular with the younger generation, the 10 to 21 age group. They are the ones that are shown on Japanese TV, and are subtitled by English fan groups that can then be downloaded. To get to the point, many of the hero characters in these animes are the mirror picture of a United States Marine, Soldier, Airmen, and Sailor. How can this be? To give you a specific example. The main character in Bleach has these qualities.

Loyalty to those who have saved his life. Compassion and respect for the dead, as per Shintoism and its traditions. A sense of duty to family, comrades (even friendship in Japan is more about mutual support in battle than peaceful aid), and others. A sense that one is "trash" if they don't pay their respects to those who have gone before and the duties of all Japanese people, and a sense that one would have to be a saint to be able to take on the job of protecting everyone. The main character in Bleach is a death god, one of many, in which the job is to destroy monsters to protect innocent souls from being devoured. Given Japan's take on their afterlife, ghosts and their environment is almost exactly like the material plane. A sort of AD and D tradition in that. Physical courage against daunting odds. Japan is a culture centered around the Sword and the Chrysanthemum, and much of their pop culture cues seem to be taken from Martial Arts and tournaments. Dragon Ball Z does not base much of its plot on tournaments for no reason. Given that, there is a lot of understanding about what I call "the Power Gap". The difference between the powerful and the weak. In practical terms, it is the difference between the United States and Somalia. Haven and Manticore (David Weber). The murderer and the victim. So the New Anime, geared for young people, automatically shows this. The very real fact that no matter how powerful you may be, there are always someone more powerful. Just as there are brown belts, red belts, white belts, and black belts. And even for the black belts who think they are the shit, there are 9th degree black belts and 1st degree black belts. And there is a world of difference between them. So what happens when the main character, who is young, faces someone older and more powerful that is able to defeat him in the blink of an eye to leave him breathing his last? Why, the main character triumphs in the end, by one act alone. The act of sheer willpower. What a coincidence, eh? It is no wonder that such themes resonate in America, and why Steven Den Beste seems to want to watch any anime he can get his hands on. But it seems to me, that these themes were not present in the older anime. In the anime after the war period, and during the reign of the "pacifists" in Japan.

Is not a Marine someone with a sense of loyalty to country, family, and peace? Is not a Marine someone who must push past physical pain to achieve victory? Is not a Special Forces operator, a master of pain and dread, masters at taking it and masters at giving it to the enemy, and yet do they not also realize that their power for all its vaunted dread, is matched by the sheer insanity of the enemies they must defeat? Does not the military believe in the traditions of America and those who have gone before? Did you not hear a Marine say of the WWII generation that such as their courage was what kept America free and that the new and younger generation of Soldiers strive to do their duty just as well as have those who have gone before? Is this not a tenet of Shintoism, to do your duty to the nation and to respect the sacrifices of people who have fought and died to make this nation what it is? And yet, for all the similarities, what we see only in the military in America and in special individuals, Japan sees it everyday on television for their children and teenagers.

For our popular culture is centered around music and hollywood and fashion. It is decadent, weak, and mired in human decay. Yet Japanese culture in the New Japanese Anime, is not only vibrant in Japan (Naruto and DBZ phenomenon like Star Wars, with all the toys too) but it is actually exported to other countries as well. That is why I say that Japan's military virtues as hard to distinguish from their civilian virtues. Because Japan's standard for civilian virtues, is our standard for military virtues.

And now we get back to Koizumi and his visit to the Imperial Shrine. The Shrine of all those who have died in the service of the Sword, in defense of Japan. Reading the notes of the suicide bombers of Japan, I felt a great irony. Because they believed that they had to uphold the honor of Japan, in order to safeguard Japan and its citizens. Yet to continue on with their traditions of honor, that said surrender was dishonorable always and punishable by cruelty, would have resulted in the utter annihilation of the Japanese people and the nation itself. They were at an impasse, do they fight on in honor of their traditions, or do they surrender and lose all that was and will ever will be? Luckily, that choice was never made, for the Emperor must have seen that through surrender does not lie dishonor and destruction, but honor and salvation. Or perhaps he was willing to take that dishonor upon himself, in return for the salvation of his people. Just as a military officer might take a court martial offense on himself, when interrogating a terroist in order to obtain information leading to the salvation of his men. Just as much as the main character in Naruto who said, "those who disobey the rules have dishonored himself, but those who leave their friends to die are nothing but trash". Perhaps one of the truely great and honorable things that the Emperor Hirohito did in his life. I have sympathy for leaders who have lost and must now surrender to America. Robert E. Lee, Confederate President, Japanese Emperor. All former enemies. All current friends if they were still alive. It is because they were men who cared for their people, who wanted to do good, and were courageous enough to do the right thing, regardless of how history might have labeled them. This wisdom comes from reading books, written by David Weber. To see through the eyes of the enemy, and to recognize who are the honorable enemies and who are the dishonorable ones. Japan made a great mistake in classifying America as a dishonorable enemy, a mistake that had it been true, would have resulted in the annihilation of Japan. Japan thought that American soldiers that surrendered were slime, trash, those who were too cowardly to fight to the death. But that was untrue, the Marines on WACO island were quite ready to fight to the death. And they were winning too, until their "officers" surrendered. Same in Polynesia. The point is, if America had viewed surrender as dishonorable and a cowardly act, we would have not have allowed Japan to survive in its present form. Europeans know all about revenge and the destruction of a nation.

To the Japanese, it must look like a ninth degree Black Belt fighting a beginner. Why would the weaker fight to the death when he could surrender? What did he have to protect other than his pride, if his people might be saved by his surrender? And yet, giving up is not in the Japanese national character. Which is why the two policemen who "ran away" from a crazy guy with a bat, was embarassed (to put it lightly) when Koizumi himself censured them on national news.

The fact that Koizumi visited the Imperial Shrine regardless of political ramifications, is one thing. The fact that he said soon after that, that United States-Japanese relations should not only be strong, but that it could not be replaced in times of disenchantment, different regimes, or bitterness. Because as he said it, "there is no other nation that would see an attack on Japan as an attack on itself". Quite well said. There is no other nation who would honor such a pledge, or who would have the power to enforce it. For a weak person, the best thing to do is to find a stronger guy, and to cement an alliance that becomes a symbiosis. An imbalanced alliance based upon mistrust and hate, such as the one between the US and France, becomes unreliable, diseased, and a tool for the enemy. A balanced alliance, between brothers in arms and comrades in friendship, is a true alliance. And it is that singular fact combined with Koizumi's visit to the shrine, that resulted in the instant creation of the idea that perhaps Koizumi sees it as his duty to Japan, his father, his family, and all who have died to protect Japan, to do everything in his power (including seeking true allies) to protect Japan. Because as one nation which has been defeated knows above all else, there is always someone stronger than you. So it is best to get the strongest ally possible, the 800 pound silverback so to speak, on your side.

In America, seeking allies is not a matter of survival. It is a luxury, and a decadent one at that. Something politicians can mouth off about and get a feel good reaction from the polls, without using any real political capital. With hundreds of coalition partners, America still does the majority of the fighting, dieing, and killing. Our contribution to the alliance is great, and our benefit small. But that is the result of having great strength, you have greater responsibilities, and more people blame you for problems. A Japanese older brother in a family of 5 would understand that perfectly.

I think Koizumi understands that, in some degree. I think Koizumi is the kind of man that is has deep roots sunk into Japanese tradition and history. And I think that is the primary reason he was reelected. It certainly wasn't because Bush bedazzeled the Japanese population with his rhetoric. Bush can barely impress his own constituency, I don't think he has my understanding of Japan. Even though he has far more personal experiences in Japan. But there is a chance, since I don't believe I've seen a speech given just to a Japanese audience, of how Bush speaks. He might speak as he does to our military, in virtuous and courageous tones like that of Koizumi. And if he does that, then it would certainly resonate. So there is a chance, but a slim one.

Bush, with his deep roots in American history and traditions, was also reelected based upon those traits. He had a solidness that other candidates could not equal in their vacility and vacuousness.

This has been rather longer than I intended, but I think it says what I wanted to say to you about my thoughts concerning what I saw on CSPAN. I've welcome any comments you see fit to reply with.