The War That Never Was

The word "War" conjures up images in the mind which are a mix of WWI and WWII as well as guerrilla wars (Vietnam) and even some stuff from the conflicts in the Middle East.

But the word "War" means: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or states, or between parties within a state; a contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defense, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; the waging of armed conflict against an enemy.

Going by this meaning, it is fairly clear to all that war involves weapons (arms). And that you cannot have war without arms coming into play.

Obviously the creators of the dictionary haven't heard of The Cold War.

But what exactly is this Cold War and did it, in fact, exist at all. Or was it all a put on job by the powers that be to help further their power and control?

From the beginning we know it is bogus to call it a war. Because war involves actual USE of weapons. As there were no weapons used against each other, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were technically NOT at war of any kind.

So if there was no "war" then it likewise stands to reason that no-one could have won such a war. You cannot win a conflict which does not exist. Hence, the idea that Ronald Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot is laughable.

But let us move on...

According to this online dictionary Cold War means: a state of political conflict using means short of armed warfare.

Notice is says "political conflict". That thus means, any political conflict is a cold war. So France's disagreement with the U.S. about going into Iraq is a cold war. Russia's disagreement with the U.S. going into Kosovo is a cold war - and would thus indicate that the cold war had not been ended and that Reagan didn't win it. For how can victory be claimed when such conflict still goes on? (Also, as a cold war is a war without weaponry, it is odd to say someone won it without firing a shot.)

Wouldn't it be better to say, for a number of years the U.S. created a bogeyman in the U.S.S.R. what with the "reds under the bed" years and all that entailed? To help further the government's own agenda for a need for nuclear power, defense grids, and the like.

The U.S.S.R. wanted to have some missiles on Cuba. The U.S. jumped up and down about it. While thinking it was only fair and right for the U.S. to have missiles in Europe pointing at the U.S.S.R. Sounds hypocritical to me.

But thinking about this so-called war. I just don't see it.

What I do see is fabricated tension. Nothing real. Nothing other than you would see when any country talks tough to any other country. I certainly do not see anything I would consider life threatening. Or something to be concerned will turn into a full scale nuclear war. I see claims of a war that never really existed.

Much like the race for the moon never existed. It was all a government hoax to make us think the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were racing each other to the moon. When that just wasn't the case. The U.S.S.R. was never trying to get to the moon first. That was all make-believe from the U.S. government.

Having said that, look at North Korea these days. Listening to the western press you would say there is political conflict going on. Hence, there is a cold war going on with North Korea right now - after all, a cold war is described as "political conflict." But no-one is calling it a cold war.

And The Winner Is...

In lieu of the Emmy awards, I felt a need to pen (key) a few thoughts about award shows in general. Namely, about how they are a leftist "no-one is better than anyone else really" spin-off thing.

In the real world, success is based on your results.

And NOT someone else's opinion about your effort while you were trying to achieve your results (whatever those results actually were).

For example: Tennis competitions (in fact all sporting competitions) are based on beating another player. They are not based on how hard someone else thinks you tried - whether you won or lost.

And yet this - it doesn't matter what results you achieved we will award you based on your effort - is how the entertainment industry award shows are.

The best picture doesn't necessarily go to the one that pulled in the most money at the box office or the one which broke box office records. It goes to whatever picture the stuffy old farts of the Academy reckon it should go to - for whatever reason, which they never reveal. And thus they give awards to movies - and all the people connected with those movies - not based on real world results, but based on what they reckon.

Look at the best actor Oscars from a year or so back. Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won best actors. It just happened to be the year the blacks were jumping up and down about not winning Oscars.

So were Berry and Washington given awards because their performance was actually the best - or - were they given awards because they were two well known black actors who happened to be nominated at a time the black lobby were crying foul?

See it. A lobby group cries foul and an award goes to people that lobby group support. It wasn't about talent - if you have seen Halle Berry act you would know she is an ordinary performer and certainly not of the caliber to be called "best". It was about politics. Being "fair" (whatever that means) despite true talent and real world results. You could almost call it Affirmative Action Awards. And is that what the award shows will end up becoming in the future?

IF those awards shows would be based on results and not bull shit back room politics, then all best pictures would be those that made the most money, best actor awards would go to the actors in the best pictures (after all, it is the actors' ability to sell the part as real that makes people keep coming back to see the movie and recommending it to their friends). And, in fact, most awards would go to the highest grossing films. They would also need new categories and to drop old ones...

Best Musical score would go to the film whose soundtrack sold the most units.

You would have best sci-fi instead of best special effects - as most special effects are in sci-fi films anyway. And that would also be based on highest taking for a sci-fi film.

Best comedy. Best drama. Best remake. Best "existing book to film". And so on. All of those category winners would be those whose films made the most money within those categories.

When approached in this manner, all politics would be pushed aside. All bull shit opinions would be null and void. All that matters would be real world results as determined by the box office - as determined by the public voting with their wallets. And no longer would you see a travesty like Gladiator winning everything except Best Director - while it is as good as it is only because of the director.

Of course, this could never be. For it would quickly show a flaw in the leftist theories about everything - and remember, Hollywood is rampant with leftists. It would reveal that people LIKE seeing movies with guns and violence in them (as long as there is a bit of comedy in it too). It would stop the "politics" of giving awards to balance things out and make it "fair."

The music awards should also be given based on sales and not opinions.

Yes. There are awards shows based on the public voting. BUT these are likewise rigged as the public can only vote on a select few things which have been chosen for them.

For instance. One year some Aussie awards thing which is decided by the public (I think it was the Logies), had a category with Kylie Minogue and four unknowns. Minogue won, of course. But not because she was the best overall. But because she was the only known one in the selection. There were far better performers/songs out there that were not even up to be voted on.

This can also be overcome by basing the awards on sales figures.

Number of weeks at number one doesn't work. It has to be overall sales. Money made. It cannot be units sold because some people would lower the sale price just to sell more.

If the awards shows were based on money made - a.k.a. real world results - it would end the farce the award shows have become. It would end the leftiness of the shows. And it might encourage entertainers to actually do a good job, every time. As they would be forced into more direct competition with each other.

If you want to let the public vote, then let them vote twice. Once with their wallet when they see the film and then again once the top five have been selected. But this second time they vote by dialing a 1900 number or texting (SMS) their choice.

For example: To have "Best Actor" the main characters from the top five grossing films would be up for nomination. The public would then vote on who they think did the best acting job.

Not only would the show's producers make more money (from the phone votes) it would get the viewers involved - and getting them directly involved increases viewership (this is the success model of the Idol shows).

This would eliminate the controversial awards that always happen. And would put the results firmly into the hands of the public.

Is this a perfect system? No. But it sure beats the heck of what exists - awards given not on results but someone's back room opinion. And we all know opinions can be bought.

Poll Reveals Conservatives Win In Landslide

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA - The results of an independent poll just undertaken reveal that 100% of the people will NOT be voting for the Labor party in this year's upcoming election.

In an astonishing turn of events, the public has totally rejected their support of the socialist leaning Labor party, headed by known socialist and adulterer Mark Latham. And many believe it is because they have tried to dilute their socialist links by pledging an exchange of preferences with the Greens and their leader Bob Brown.

What they failed to take into account is that free thinking Australians hate the Greens, their leader Bob Brown, and everything they stand for. So joining forces with the Greens has been a nail in the coffin for Labor.

When asked about the shock poll results, Prime minister Howard said, "Yipee!"

Opposition leader Mark Latham said, "We will give more money to people who vote for us and will tax the rich bastards until they bleed. We will take money away from private schools and increase unemployment welfare payments. We know what is good for you. All the extra money I claim to be spending will not come from extra taxes. I'll just print the money, which, by our careful fiscal management as shown in running Liverpool council, will miraculously NOT increase inflation. I am not a socialist even though everything I say and do is the very same thing a socialist says and does."

Greens leader Bob Brown said, "Children overboard. Asylum seekers. Detention centers. Save the trees. Screw the people. I love Peter Garret. I want to have the love child of Kim Jong-il - North Korea's head of state and not to be confused with Kim Il-sung their Great Leader who has the title of President reserved solely for him forever."

The leader of the Australian Democrats, whose name we do not have as they change their leader on a weekly basis, said, "I hope Pauline Hanson doesn't get into the Senate."

A statement from the Socialist Alliance reads, "Emergency Speakout. King George Square, Brisbane. Tuesday 21 September. Merlin from Big Brother will be there."

Pauline Hanson, Goddess of Politics in Australia, said, "Please explain."

The BBC released the following, "Capitalism is NOT the best system for prosperity. Socialism is the only way to enable poor people, who are too lazy to do anything for themselves, to get ahead in life, despite the 70 year failed experiment with it in Russia and despite that it impoverishes every country it is tried in."

The US Democrats said, "This proves there were no WMDs. Bush is a liar liar pants on fire."

Michael Moore said, "Pass the cheese sauce."

Darth Vader said, "You don't understand the POWER of the Dark Side."

C3PO said, "Oh my."

R2D2 said, "Beep beep doot."

My cat said, "Me-o-o-o-o-ow"

CNN closed down broadcasting for the day in mourning.

And Sky News Australia newsreader Leigh Hatcher said, "Yeah BUT, Latham is still ahead in polls taken of five year olds at my son's kindergarten of who would make a better clown."

Based on the results of this poll, the Labor party might as well pack up and go home and the coalition should keep doing what it is doing.

Disclaimer: All quotes are bogus but the results of the poll are real!!!

Kidnapped In Iraq (or France, or Europe, or ...)

A line of a song by "The Scared Weird Little Guys" goes, "Come to Australia, you might accidentally get killed."

I'd like to reword it to... "Go to Iraq, you might accidentally get kidnapped."

Shocked, seems to be the order of the day. How dare these insurgents, militants, terrorists, rebels, freedom fighters, resistance fighters (take your pick) kidnap someone and hold them to ransom. Why, that's just not cricket.

I gots news for ya. It is cricket. In fact, it (kidnapping the enemy for ransom) is an old old strategy. The English and the French used to engage it every time they fought each other. This was part of the reason coats of arms were taken into battle - to help identify one's self as a noble who was worth a lot of money, so please don't kill me.

And that is what used to happen. The nobles would capture each other and hold each other to ransom for large sums of money.

Yes. It is horrid to admit. But our history is steeped in War For Profit via Kidnapping.

It was partly this reason why so many French died when they outnumbered the British, in one of their more famous battles - the name of which alludes me for the moment and I cannot be bothered looking it up. The French had given up expecting the "Nobles don't kill nobles, just hold them to ransom for large sums of money from home" thing. But what happened was, they gave up to the peasants. Peasants did NOT play that game. And so killed the French nobles.

The thing with this kind of war is that the ransom was always paid. And if it wasn't, then you could NOT let the prisoner go - otherwise that defeated the point of capturing them and holding them to ransom in the first place. So if no ransom was paid, and letting them go was no option, that left feeding them forever (using more of your precious resources) or just killing them and selling their equipment to get some money from your efforts.

We are now seeing the exact same thing going on in Iraq... capture an enemy and hold them to ransom - for money or actions. Either way, it is in the interests of the kidnappers to keep their word and free the person when the ransom has been met, because if they don't, no-one will meet their demands, ever. (After all, if the person is killed either way, there is no point meeting demands.)

So by freeing people once their demands have been met, they are teaching people that they keep their word. And that to free people who have been caught is a matter of doing what is asked. Simple.

Of course, the STATE cannot do that. They have different motivations.

Look at it. A person is kidnapped. Demands are made for $100k. The state would say "No" but a person, a family member or loved one of the kidnapped person, would pay. And get their loved-one back.

The state will not do that because it would show an undermining of their "authority" and power. And if they ever did grant such a demand, then all people back home would likewise understand the powerlessness of the state and tell it to go jump. People would stop paying taxes. The government would run out of money and collapse - which might not be a bad thing, if you ask some people, because it would allow free enterprise to reign.

But the kidnapping issue raises another point... money laundering.

Consider the Australian "cleric" that went to Iraq (for some reason). He got kidnapped. Held for ransom of $140k and was released when the ransom was paid.

What if he wanted to give them the money to help their cause? He would be labeled a traitor if he just up and gave it (and besides, where would he send the money). This way, he finds out where the money needs to be sent and to whom, and the money is gotten to its intended target while it looks above board - after all, it was ransom money to save his life, wasn't it?

I am not saying this is what happened. Just that, this is one way it could be done and it is a way that fits these recent events. You draw your own conclusions. And that kidnapping people for some kind of ransom is a practice dating back hundreds and hundreds of years, and was something the oh so evolved English and French nobles used to engage in without guilt. So we really shouldn't be surprised by it now that it is happening in Iraq.