NATO, the finger of death

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 9/28/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at odewijk.nl> wrote:
> 2015-09-27 22:55 GMT+02:00 Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net>:
>
>> Common sense also dictates that you do not intervene in
>> highly complex societies with thousands of years of tradition and lore
>> intricately mixed up in a myriad of ethnic and religious mosaics
>> cemented together by a Governing body that understands where the point
>> of equilibrium is to be found and which is kept in its position by the
>> players in the society which it governs.

> Okay, so, satire aside, the author does not enter into specifics. Should
> NATO have left the dictators, kings, etc to it?

Well it looks like Russia learnt 'the way' of NATO in Libya (and
Afganistan, Iraq, Egypt ... and most other CIA-led coup
'opportunities') - that is to destabilise then followed by cross
fingers. And in Syria, it seems Russia has decided that Russia's
relationships and interests are going to be protected (like Russia's
leased naval base). So at this point, I don't think it matters much
what USG in the guise of NATO want or 'should' do.


> Should we have seen
> overmuch of our wealth flow whence the oil comes?

I think this is the primary question - the world was split up (roughly
speaking) in oil terms, after WWII, and now USA is saying they want to
resplit the world - as in, control more than what they have for so
long. Personally I'm very happy with the arrangements with Russia, but
on the other hand I'm not a European oligarch, so what would I know?

As it so happens, I'm also not an American oligarch (oil or banks),
but as a very humbly living Australian looking on, I breathe a sigh of
relief that Russia is finally asserting itself - putting its global
foot down and saying enough's enough. As I've said clearly in the
past, the CIA's (and USGov's) actions in the world, for decades, and
the consequences and fallout from those actions, is not f!@#$ng ok!

And so I would rephrase your question like this: Should we consent by
acquiescence (by doing nothing) to our collective "western"
"demoncratic" governments spearheading coup after coup in foreign
countries - with a quarter million civilians dead in Syria already,
let alone Lybia, Iraq, Afganistan etc?

In dignity, a human's first position must always be "is mass killing
ok" and never "is the current balance of trade equation ok".


> There's also throwing
> around words like "war criminals" which is just propaganda, as the word is
> unde(rde)fined. There's a good grasp of world-leader-geography, but little
> of anything else. There's no real point made, except "it's a mess where
> NATO went".

Well now that Russia (with now China and...) is supporting the current
democratically elected government in Syria, let's see if the outcome
is less of a mess than the CIA's last 30 attempts...

Perhaps the regime in America needs a change towards democracy.


> Ultimately, I think given the same axioms people should end up making the
> same conclusions. It's pretty rare for people to unify their own arguments
> correctly, so this is not always true. I can confidently say that men can
> maintain a level of composure even when a woman uses a fork, and that most
> religions keep out-of-date notions of cleanliness. (dear all, we can
> reliably sterilize pork now. It's no worse than other foods.) (dear all, we
> can reliably combat sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy without
> abstaining. By now abstinence is causing far more harm than it is solving)
> (dear all, besides alcohol, there's a range of safe-enough recreational
> potions) (dear all, heavy punishment may not be the best way to deal with
> crime. Heavier punishment may be completely ineffective, depending on the
> crime and its motivations.)
>
>
> I keep thinking back on Bitnation and wondering whether something like it
> would be of any help. The situation is so complex, the technology, the
> people, the ideologies, the status quo, I cannot say.

Sadly, whilst fear and acquiescence rule the majority, they sheeple
will continue to acquiesce in fear, and therefore be shorn. Political
anarchist 'state' requires at least a threshold % of people who are
not in fear, or who at least are willing to live in self sufficiency,
in 'true' freedom, and in 'faith' that we can handle rogue individuals
and rogue factions who here and there will attempt to dominate others
individually and or collectively.

I would dearly love to see the day where humans can truly be worthy of
typical 'founding fathers' claims and statements.

Zenaan