War is coming

Post Reply New Topic

Don't forget who put Saddam in power.

To our eternal shame and shagrin.

The goyim running our foreign policy do not have the slightest idea what is going on in the non-anglo saxon world. They have not got a clue. The snotty arrogant attitudes of the preppies who run our government may well be the death of us.

ruveyn

Why's everything gotta be about Jewish and non-Jewish with you? It's like as if you're trying to be racist/race supremecist but Jews aren't a race.

And if you look at how many dual citizens with Israel are involved and how much Israeli lobbies are involved in foreign policy, I'd dare to say that it's especially NOT the goys' fault.

for which a certain north american government all but gave him the green light. they had the intelligence reports on Iraqi mobilisations (real ones, none of them mobile labs and such like) along the border, a stern look from even a White House aide woul dhave been enough to get their man to change his mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

Don't kid yourself Iraq's Sadam Hussain's reason for existence was to fight a war against Iran as our proxy. Our lapdog got out of control and had to be put down, he picked a fight with Kuwait, and the chemical weapons we supplied him for war with Iran disappeared, Even at that you'll notice the coup de gras wasn't delivered until it was obvious the WMD he was supposed to have weren't there. Iraq and Afghanistan are really about Iran. Iran is used to being the center of attention, the new Pharaohs used to go to Persia and pick a fight to prove to the Egyptians they had the cahonies to lead the nation. Now Iran is really a bit player on the international scene and they will do anything in their power to run with the big boys.

For which the Iranian leadership will pay a price. Many otherwise harmless Iranians will be killed before this business is done with.

Paying for something with someone else's blood is really a nasty business.

ruveyn

As the US Army in Iran and Iraq is well aware.

Read the W. T. Sherman address on the nature of war. He understood it very well.

I want our armed forces to be lean, mean sons of b*****s. George Patton was one of my heroes along with Grant, Sherman, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay. They were stone-killers. My kind of people.

In war, there is no morality. Winners must be ruthless while fighting their wars.

Julius Caesar, in his memoirs of the Gallic wars claimed to have killed a half million Gauls. Given the population levels of those days, that is close to genocide. In their prime, the Romans knew how to fight. Reading about the Romans when they were at their fighting best helps me to get in touch with my Inner Fascist.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 04 Oct 2009, 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

at least the romans were honest about fighting for economic ends I suppose

They were fighting for the Power and the Glory of Roma Eterna. Economics as such did not exist then. Lucre did. Lucias Crassas operated to become extremely rich and he made no bones about it. On the other hand Cicero operated on principle. Marcus Aurelius operated on the basis of philosophical principle. He was an Epicurian. Augustus Caesar was a pragmatist down to his toe-nails. The generals operated to expand their commands and weld power. And everyone was out for Rome and number one.

You will not be able to fit the doings of the Imperium Romanum into your narrow Marxist categories. Marx was bogus. His thinking was bogus. What drove Rome and the Romans was good old fashioned human fear and nastiness. Thomas Hobbes got that part right.

ruveyn

put another way you're an Idealist, I'm a materialist.

the first sentence is ideology, the second depends entirely on what you mean here by 'economics', and the third contradicts your own position and is simply a rewording of mine.

I'm no scholar of Roman history but from what I know rome fought the Latins, the Volscii, seized Veii etc and fought the Samnite wars over the highly fertile farmland surrounding Rome (the Samnites occupying areas of Campania which I'm told could produce up to three crops per year). Up until the time of the first and second Punic wars Rome was an economy based upon free-farmer citizens (liable to military service etc). The taking of Eastern Spain from Carthage was for the huge Silver mines etc in the region using the treaty with Saguntum and some twaddle about not crossing the Ebro as justification. Success in all these wars brought in a flood of slaves but ruined the free-farmers through endless miliatry service, debt to the patricians and, most importantly, the development of the Latifundia which were worked by huge numbers of slaves taken from Africa (modern Tunisia), the Carthaginian colonies in Spain , Macedonia and the Greek city states. The expansion of Rome from this time on was in pursuit of more and more slaves to till the soil and work the mines, in an economy based upon agriculture (hence the fight over egypt after the triumvirate, egypt producing immense quantities of grain etc in the Nile region).

Don't know about Lucius Crassus but Marcus Crassus was more than a little motivated by gold when he blundered into Carrhae, hence why they (edit: they being the Parthians) poured it down his throat.



yeah I get that a lot.

Do you believe that it was a mistake? And so these wars that made so much oil and gave a focus for the public other than the politicians, was really them just screwing up?