War on terroism

The following are a collection of my experiences on the war on terrorism.

It is inconsistent to claim that America is being attacked based purely on it's love of freedom. On NPR today (2006-08-31) it was quoted that Canada and France are equally free-loving, and yet are not targets of terrorist activity.

It is inconsistent to claim that America's opportunities are a target of covet.. Consider the Arabic kings who are wealthy beyond imagination.. Then consider the fact that Osamma Bin Laden is a decendent of this same class of opulance.

It is inconsistent to claim that Democracy is a political instrument that gives fear and anxiety to what are called Islamic extreemists or Islamists. Palistine and Lebanon had democratically elected "states" and yet those elected bodies had an overwhelming mandate of militant opposition to the neighboring state of Israel. While one could argue that Saddams 100% voter turnout and poll results were less than honest, coerced and manipulated, it is hard to believe that the west bank (Palistine) and Lebenon's support of Hesballa represented something other than the popular opinion (which is the essense of Democracy - for better or worse).

It is inconsistent to claim that America's original goals in Iraq were the Democritaziation of it's people.. The liberation from tyrrany and fear-mongering.. The removal of the world's most worry-some wart (considering the current state of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela).

It is inconsistent to claim that an American colonial occupation of a country that (in majority) wants nothing more than the removal of a sacrilegious presence in their holy land is justified in some way.

It is inconsistent to target an international organization of millitancy and ignore its leadership. To claim that no country that harbors [this type of organization] shal be left unsettled, and yet to completely leave Pakastan untouched (who homes the base of operations for America's Enemies)

It is inconsistent to be a political party of Christian Morality and yet support a doctrine of anti-Christian wealth-oriented/poor-rejecting government policies (Government is either Agnostic or Religious.. But to win the Religious vote and reject the teachings of that same religion with respect to it's own people is sacrilegious).

It is inconsistent to claim accountability for subordinates of the country (corporate accounting, public school systems, science which would hurt the economy (global warming), science which competes against religion (evolution)), but at the same time leaving absolutely no checks and balances for violations of civil liberties and international humanitarian activities... Case in point, Guantanimo Bay is a moral black hole.. Perhaps the detainees are moreless murderers, but the Democratic principles of the US bill of rights have no presense. If these [rights] truely are principles worth "dying for", then why are they unapplicable to non US citizens? Shouldn't unalienable rights mean that even the all powerful US can not deny these rights to peoples of the world? Alternate case in point, the US position of Israel v.s. the Arab states: The US has never made an admonishing comment towards Israel even when Irasel has unjustifiably attacked US land an spied on US organizations.. But Arabic countries can do no right by us. They are all backwards, harberors of terroism, an part of the axis of evil. Can there be no account of truth and consistency to these nations and creeds? Can one liken unto us do no harm, and one deviant from us do no good?

The above being said, it is completely understandable why the above is true.. As with the Lord of the Rings: The two towers, when you are the King, your primary responsibility is the well being of your subjects.. And sometimes the well-being means their very lives. As King of the US, your responsibility is to keep the public spirits up. It is to rally your armies with pride and nationality. It is to demonize your enemy so that your soldiers can press their blades into their hearts with conviction. This is the making of an effective King.

Other kingly duties involve keeping the classes content with their station in life.. The middle class needs to continue feeling upward mobility, while the lower class need to be taught the American dream (a phrase ironicly originated in the 1930's during the great depression as a lament on the lost dream of American upward mobility). The pyramid scheme that is the US economy relies upon an irrational growth scheme which needs to be supplied either by ever-record-breaking baby-booms, or ever-record-breaking personal-debt-levels. The role of the US King is to glorify this scheme and to keep people content with the economic model. Supress thoughts of the hang-over-days of tomorrow when the pyramid comes crashing down.. Suppress thoughts of environmental back-lash.. Suppress thoughts of our over-drugged food-supply and how it will biogically weaken us tomorrow. None of these things can help us today - at best they can only facilitate a shock-to-the-system.. One which would quantify the King's reign as the end-of-a-golden-era. It would be better to prolong the dream; Technology has a way of bailing us out.

I say US King because a aristocratic King is a devinely appointed blood-line, while the US elected officials are a super-star elite who's devinity is hard to ignore.

Now, an important question is "Why would a follower of Islam be willing to give his life to hurt US citizens?". Perhaps this question is unimportant to the US King. As the king must view all enemies of the state (both foreign and domestic) as a threat worth irradicating. The situation is rearranged to: A man inclined to hurt innocent people is an immoral man. An immoral man must be illogical. An illogical man is not to be reasoned with. An unreasonable man must be ignored and dealt with as a child.. A child must only be shown disciplinary strength. An undisciplined child must be punished with no bounds.. This lack of boundries includes death.

So we can see that the innocent deaths of American citizens can logically be used to justify the deaths of the followers of Islam. At least by the Kingly powers and defenders of the US. It is certainly part of their job descriptions (irrespective to their political affiliation).

But as a citizen, not charged with the keeping of the US public well being. I do not have the constraint of defending my own people.. I have to answer to my own moral conscience. And I have eyes and ears to the facts of the current events.

My ears have informed me that the US has a long standing Imperial standing in the world.. This standing largely replaced England after World War II and as a direct response to the power of the Russia Soviet Union during the US coined Cold War. It became necessary to hypocritically support one suppressive governemnt while denouncing another based purely on the allegance of those in power. Our government has become so comfortable with enforcing it's will on governments that are not directly opposed by other super-powers that Iraq, Israel, the west-bank and Lebonon are a direct result of our cold-war policies. The process of keeping puppet states (which we exclusively teach in US history books as the role of Russia for the Satelite states of the Soviet Union) is a powerful motivator for guarilla war-fare... If you are a proud national of a country, and some other ultra-country topples your government, replacing it with one with no direct power (only a yes-sir authority to the imperialist power), would you not feel a sense of duty to recover autonomous identity? Isn't this what the founders of the United States went through? Is it consistent to deny our own past?

Now the means by which these nationals taken on their charge is of historical interest.. What was the worst that the US patriot of old took on? Dumping Tea? How about commiting guarilla warfare - the likes the civilized world had never seen? Sure sub-saharan Africa presented uncivilized war-tactics, but what of these Anglified Americans? Were they not high-society? Were they not God-fearing? Why would you attack the higher in rank over the enlisted? Why would you attack cowardly via sneak attacks? Why would you ambush instead of letting God decide an honest and fair battle of two opposing Armies? The answer, is obviously darwinistic survival of the fittest.. The American Collonials did whatever was necesary to win their freedom.. And with the US so much more well funded than the British of the 1970's, why would anyone assume that defenders of a modern day era would do anything less?

"But we are trying to help, why are the Iraqi's being so ungrateful?" To paraphrase soldiers of the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. Why do we assume that the soldiers of the British Army were being any less considerate of the needs of the American colonies? "No taxation without representation" was the motto of the day.. It wasn't "our churches are being defiled by infadels" - something more easily believable if Atheists ran our country and willfully repossessed ALL US churches out of some bogus proclamation that churches support anti-education and science reform. No, we were upset because we had visible frustrations with the control of our own destiny.. How much more frustrated must a country seeing it's own demise under an alien foreign power be?

Now Iraq is a complete digression of the overall problem. This problem is that there is a US presense in the world that extends beyond the US borders.. Most US citizens are unware of this presence and thus can not response intelligently to it's concerns. US citizens my trust that all activities of the US are for the benifit to the rest of the world, but such thoughts are naive. What is good for Enron are good for Enron - NOT the people of California. It is within the power of the Californians to rise up against Enron when the feel the need. Likewise, Canada, France, Mexico and indeed the Islamic nations of the world do not share a common well-being with the US. Our well being is to keep the rest of the world poor, as that means there is little competition for our labor force. Our well being is to take all the natural resources from the world at a very low uncontested price.. We can do this because we are a stable and reliable high-volume customer. We can do this because we collude with the Kings of the oil-rich countries of the world -giving them special promises of power within their own countries.. In essense, we are buying off organized crime to get a reliable deal on their natual resources (though this may be an extreme interpretation of history).

So, why does an Iranian, Syrian or even North Korean feel compelled to competed against America? The simple answer is that we're there. We are in the faces of everybody - waiting for our next opportunity to squander (as does a good faceless corporate entity). Watching this historical squandering of opportunities (both political and natural) leaves a healthy distaste and memory. It becomes natural to oppose the golliath - he is so easily flawed. But the concept of taxation without representation comes back into play here... In the UN, there are serious matters of international consequence that do not affect the US, because we have the power to successfully reject anything that is not in our own interest. But smaller countries do not have this same power.. They have the threat of sanction.. The threat of new international law.. Of forceful extradition.. Of international flight restrictions.. Of uncontested public defamimg by other countries. Of having border disputes resolved by 3'rd parties that have nothing to do with the outcome (and thus feels arbitrary to the involved parties). In short, being a 3'rd world country sucks big time. One would quickly find themselves synical. And the leader must necessarily reflect the will and sentiments of it's citizens. Thus the leader expresses public outrage for the politicals powers of the day.

So when the US King declares the most outspoken to be an axis of evil, the stage is set for a party.. A rough and tumble party, where nobody will come out without a hang-over. An alternative might have been to ignore.. To leave alone.. To quietly suppress those aspects of ill repute (such as the bombing of Iranian Nuclear facilities by Israel in the 1980's - long since forgotten).. But the current Kingship has chosen to demonize the potential outcropping of political bad-guys. Doing so has set the stage.. We have defined our opponents.. Not as victims, but as oppressors.. And they need only open their mouths to fullfill those roles.. The US kingship need only follow up with it's own delusions of grandure to wage war against the world (for surely the entire world must eventually oppose the one true leader - as there can be only one). The world is thus devided into 3 camps.. Those that have nothing to gain/lose (classical sweeden, and currently Russia), those that stand to gain by supporting the Giant, and those that can gain local popularity by opposing the Giant.

Somewhere in the middle are we citizens that find the actions of all parties immoral.. How can you stand on the side-lines.. How can you side with an oppressor who pre-emptively attacks those that they fear (Nero presumably feared people and had them executed purely on a whim). And finally how can you commit suicide of yourself and children in opposing a Giant head-on.

With each actor acting on his own behalf, it is difficult to lay blame, but more difficult to outline a path-to-peace. Can the US pull out of Iraq? Certainly. We did it in Vietnam.. The detractors took over power and many innocent people were slaughtered.. We took 15 years of shame and pain.. Military recruite levels were horrendous because people feared another senseless war.. Thankfully history repeats itself and volunteer levels were high enough to repeat the entire debacle....

No, US soldiers are for defending the home-land.. NOT land abroad which is intrinsictlly undefendable. The only possible alternative is an uber military force - the UN.. Something in which we all countries surrender our autonomy over to. If the US military is the monopoly on force within our countries, the local police force can do without machine guns.. If instead the UN represented a similar umbrella of force throughout the world (presumably with an uncorruptable accountability system) then we could drastically reduce our international defence-keeping forces. We could rely instead on international disputes being settled purely by legal system (as do 99.99% of all US domestic disputes).. Police gun incidents are so rare you can watch every one of them on TV.

Now certainly there are a lot of ethnic risks at stake in a UN body, so we are currently not in any condition to hand over domestic autonomy.. Adverse selection would demand that those with the greatest interest in taking away from us would eventually come to power - leaving us with little to defend ourselves with.

But logic dictates that reliable processes do exist - that incentive systems are gradually working us towards centralization. That regional instability dessipates as countries and regions become more inter-connected. As poverty is slowly deminished (or at least as wealth is exposed to one-empoverished regions).

It is hard to deny that brute-force erradication of extremists will inherently fail.. It is as vexing as the war on terrorism where the feedback system promotes further dissodence.. The restriction of supply of drugs necessitates a scarcity which increases the price of drugs, thereby increasing the reward incentives for supplying more drugs.. If a gram of an illegal substance approaches a million dollars, then what resources would be spared in trainsporting such a substance.. Likewise, a war on terrorism is predicated on the perfect eradication of such a supply.. But as the erradication process generates further motivation of vengence and acts as proof of a need to counter-balance an immoral imperialism, you will find yourself in a positive-feedback system which grows exponentially from any temporary decline.

Instead the war on drugs and the war on terrorism need to have the pride of original mistakes removed (the forgiveness of original Sin). The war on drugs needs to have a recognition that supply needs to level out and that regulation of supply needs to occur in a way in which the most demandful are not impeeded - thereby stabalizing the price and removing all incentives for organized crime to participate. Likewise, the war on terrorism needs to silently have all underlying encouragements removed.. An entire generation has been empowered by Israel and the standard US administration-line.. We need to remove all evidence of support of immoral activity against Islam for a whole generation... People may linger to historical addages of the imoral decand west, but we can not provide proof of their disdain.

While the personal lives of our citizens is beyond the control of the politics of a free society (one of the direct calls-to-arms of Alkiada), we can certainly cieze control of Arabic resources.. This means ciezing telling local officials what to do, and of course removing military presence (both physically and economically - including Israel). With America out of the picture, surely militants will arise.. But our new challenge will be in defending our interests in countries that welcome us.. But certainly it is cheaper to define a convoy of US tankers across the atlantic by the primitive use of radar, than the paid-salaries of 150,000 troops in Iraq.

This is not a statement of isolationism, but a statement of double-coincidence of wants. If a country wishes our presence, then it is in our interest to be there.. But if we have to defend against the citizens of a foreign country, then what is the cost-benifit of living in that country.. To say nothing of occupying them.

Pulling out is always costly, but almost always cheaper then continued generational training of our evilness.

Can the King admit defeat? No.. It is unlikely.. Rome was sacked when it started acquiesing to it's previously conquered countries... Instead all that we can do is change the subject.. New administrations can quietly withdraw troops under locally distracted causes (say temporary humanitarian relief efforts - which never get restored).. Public interest is critical - both for the chatty US and for the occupied / malrepresented nations of the world. But while lies can get us into a conflict, they can most certainly restore the status quo... It is not what we say, but how we say it. It is not what we intend, but how we portray it. It is not what we conquer, but how the history books are written of it.

Bush is correct to not give time-lines or to say anything less than "not on my watch". From a Kingly perspective, he will be a failure by doing anything less. And a King is concerned of nothing other than his own legacy - and thereby the legacy of Kings. But again, as a citizen, there needs to be an exit strategy in Iraq - and indeed on the war on terrorism (and drugs and the cold war). Perpetual unwinnable wars are like public entitlements which can never ultimatly be payed.. Pyramid schemes that benifit today at the expense of the day of reconing. Bush made a half-hearted attempt to resolve Medicare expendatures by privatizing medical drugs (meaning, like home insurance, not everybody is guaranteed, but at least we don' t have to foot the bill anymore). Eventually these military expeditions that the US has lead since WWII will catch up to us.. 9/11 is just one symptom of the larger problem.. Perhaps major super-powers like China and Russia will never game a confrontation with us.. But those without a state are becoming more capable and prevalent. It is only a matter of time before the David takes down the Golliath. All that we can do is prove to the world that we are not a Golliath.. That we are a wise Sollomon, fairly dividing the land such that while people may feel short-changed, they can not find the justification of immorality in us.

Such leadership is lamented.. I have seen no contenders.. But perhaps this is the essense of faith and prophecy.