Anti-socialist imperialist strategic theorists run before they walk
There is a type of anti-socialist, that is proud of their USA being less socialist than the nations such anti-socialists despise, proud of their contribution to the relative absence of socialism in their USA; yet the nations they despise for being more socialist than the US, do a much better job than the US with its huge trade and budget deficits does, when it comes to the job of producing a truly strong economy, an economy that is more than a mirage based on borrowed money. Such anti-socialists, think of themselves as leading the world into a blissful anti-socialist state of affairs; yet all they are able to produce in a little part of that world, their own nation, is national economic demise and disaster. How can they lead the world into an economic paradise, when the best they can do with a little slice of that world, their own nation, is to produce an economic hell?
Such anti-socialists are active members of groups that disdain even true (as opposed to faddish false) Christianity, due to the populist harshly anti-rich words spoken by Christ, and consider the people of the USA and the world to be subhuman compared to members of their own ethnic group.
Their doctrine, in the event that they are sympathetic to groups such as organized Christian churches, is that there can be no Christianity where socialism is present, and that therefore, the US should economically destroy nations that are "socialist", and economically enrich nations that are not "socialist", even if this means the US economically destroying Christian nations tainted by socialism such as itself amongst others, while it the US goes about economically enriching non-Christian nations that are "capitalist" as opposed to "socialist".
There is something illogical and inconsistent in this kind of Christians putting anti-socialism and capitalism above Christianity; and lack of rationality in leaders is something to watch out for. True Christianity, the kind that crops up in churches when such churches are out of style, has survived ferociously anti-Christian governments. How then could it fail to survive, religiously tolerant governments tainted by so called "socialism"? As if there was some kind of magic thermometer, that provided a number showing the level of "socialism" that is fatal to Christianity, and also the level of anti-Christianity, that is fatal to Christianity.
Similar to the anti-socialists, you have the strategic theorists who advocate that it is impossible for a nation that cannot defend its own borders to defend the borders of a foreign land that it has occupied, and so therefore the optimal course of action is to invade the nations that neighbor the occupied nation. The similarity lies in the fact that the one presumes to produce economic paradise in the entire world while it produces economic hell in its own; and the other, presumes to produce security in hundreds of thousands of square miles of enemy territory, when it cannot produce border security along a few thousand square mile area border in the nation it already occupies.
These aggressive strategic theorists, propound that the inability of a nation to secure its own borders, proves that that nation is unable to secure the borders of a foreign nation it occupies. How then do they not also see, that the inability of a nation to secure the borders of a nation it occupies, shows that that nation is unable to invade and occupy nations bordering the nation it already occupies?
They point to a nation that has been lackadaisical in securing its own border, and say, the border security failure proves that the nation cannot secure borders in foreign nations it occupies. They by their own efforts have been responsible for the lack of border security in the nation they point at, yet they use the lack of border security they have created, as evidence that they claim proves that the optimal course of action is aggressive invasion of foreign lands.
They have come to realize and understand, that the nation that they believe should be an aggressive invader, has a military that fights well in the open but not in the cities. Yet they consider it wise to plunge the military of this nation that they advise to aggress into urban combat in the interiors of occupied nations, while at the same they opine that this nation's military should be kept out border area type open combat of the type it--as they understand--performs relatively well in.
They start out by insuring that the nation they proclaim themselves to be wisely advising, is deprived of border security through negligence; and then they mushroom this into the idea that this nation they advise should be engaged in perpetual aggressive invasion of foreign nations, because the nation's failings in border security (due to a lack of effort) are supposed to show that the nation is only capable of aggressive conquest, which they imagine it can perform even though it cannot perform border security for itself.
@2004 David Virgil Hobbs
Such anti-socialists are active members of groups that disdain even true (as opposed to faddish false) Christianity, due to the populist harshly anti-rich words spoken by Christ, and consider the people of the USA and the world to be subhuman compared to members of their own ethnic group.
Their doctrine, in the event that they are sympathetic to groups such as organized Christian churches, is that there can be no Christianity where socialism is present, and that therefore, the US should economically destroy nations that are "socialist", and economically enrich nations that are not "socialist", even if this means the US economically destroying Christian nations tainted by socialism such as itself amongst others, while it the US goes about economically enriching non-Christian nations that are "capitalist" as opposed to "socialist".
There is something illogical and inconsistent in this kind of Christians putting anti-socialism and capitalism above Christianity; and lack of rationality in leaders is something to watch out for. True Christianity, the kind that crops up in churches when such churches are out of style, has survived ferociously anti-Christian governments. How then could it fail to survive, religiously tolerant governments tainted by so called "socialism"? As if there was some kind of magic thermometer, that provided a number showing the level of "socialism" that is fatal to Christianity, and also the level of anti-Christianity, that is fatal to Christianity.
Similar to the anti-socialists, you have the strategic theorists who advocate that it is impossible for a nation that cannot defend its own borders to defend the borders of a foreign land that it has occupied, and so therefore the optimal course of action is to invade the nations that neighbor the occupied nation. The similarity lies in the fact that the one presumes to produce economic paradise in the entire world while it produces economic hell in its own; and the other, presumes to produce security in hundreds of thousands of square miles of enemy territory, when it cannot produce border security along a few thousand square mile area border in the nation it already occupies.
These aggressive strategic theorists, propound that the inability of a nation to secure its own borders, proves that that nation is unable to secure the borders of a foreign nation it occupies. How then do they not also see, that the inability of a nation to secure the borders of a nation it occupies, shows that that nation is unable to invade and occupy nations bordering the nation it already occupies?
They point to a nation that has been lackadaisical in securing its own border, and say, the border security failure proves that the nation cannot secure borders in foreign nations it occupies. They by their own efforts have been responsible for the lack of border security in the nation they point at, yet they use the lack of border security they have created, as evidence that they claim proves that the optimal course of action is aggressive invasion of foreign lands.
They have come to realize and understand, that the nation that they believe should be an aggressive invader, has a military that fights well in the open but not in the cities. Yet they consider it wise to plunge the military of this nation that they advise to aggress into urban combat in the interiors of occupied nations, while at the same they opine that this nation's military should be kept out border area type open combat of the type it--as they understand--performs relatively well in.
They start out by insuring that the nation they proclaim themselves to be wisely advising, is deprived of border security through negligence; and then they mushroom this into the idea that this nation they advise should be engaged in perpetual aggressive invasion of foreign nations, because the nation's failings in border security (due to a lack of effort) are supposed to show that the nation is only capable of aggressive conquest, which they imagine it can perform even though it cannot perform border security for itself.
@2004 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 2:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home