Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Change Update: Obama increases the number of US wars

Cheney and Bush only had two major wars between them, plus a score of more minor ones. Obama's ongoing idiotic 'Socialist Change' policy is now trying to up the count from two to five, plus doubling the number of other minor 'warlings' to include most of the non-western world. So to Afghanistan and Iraq, we can now count Yemen and Pakistan - the targets of deadly hellfire missile drones, special forces, and cruise missiles - and shortly the western taxpayer will be murdering people in Iran too.

Whoops, I don't want to go too far. I might get banned by the British government, for daring to have a non-fascist opinion.

I do hope all of you pinko Obama-lovers out there are loving his body-bag count of women and children. He should have Bush beaten by next Christmas.

For a decent detailed background, check out the latest think piece from Eric Margolis:

=> Osama: 10. The US: 0.

The Southern Avenger has a few thoughts on the subject, too:

HT to Paul


not an economist said...

I believe Rand Paul (Ron's kid) is in favour of the Afghan war. I was quite surprised by that.

I do wonder how the US could afford a bigger war effort. If their economy does worsen all I can see ahead for that country is humiliating defeat and withdrawal from these various theatres of war. I am just relieved it couldn't happen here (if only because we have a determined, sound govt that would never let itself get drawn into a pointles conflicts by being goaded on by one of its major allies).

Jack Maturin said...

That's actually impossible. Government will always involve itself in war, because war is the health of the state. It is the major tool they use to increase their power.

Just take the income tax, here in Britain. It was instituted to 'fight' Napoleon. Once Napoleon was defeated there was no longer an excuse for it, so the people of this country destroyed it.

For fifty years the government tried to come up with a preposterous war to try to re-introduce the income tax.

Eventually they managed it with the utterly preposterous Crimean war.

By then democracy had taken such a hold that after the Crimean war was over, it proved impossible to put the snake of income tax back into the box.

Even so, the British state kept finding its growth blocked by the people, to about 10% of GDP or so.

Finally, to grow this amount, they hit upon WWI with Germany, another utterly stupid and virtually pointless war, to rack this up to 25%.

WWII was then used to rack this up to 40-50%, where it has been ever since.

The only way to limit government is to limit the sizes of the territories they control. That is why secession is vital.

It is no surprise that the Swiss cantons, the UAE Emirates, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtensten, Singapore, et al, are the wealthiest least warlike places in the world.

It is because their governments are limited by the physical size of the land masses they control.

That is why we must break up the European Union, and also separate England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and even Cornwall, if we can.

The smaller government is, the better it is, and the more wealth, peace, and freedom we will all have.

not an economist said...

"That's actually impossible."

Good reply.

I would add I was trying to be ironic in what I said about our current govt not being led by the nose into a war by its key ally. Apologies if I only sercved to confuse.