Cover Stories For Territorial Conquest

[Flanders]

Ancient China, Greece, Rome, etc., made no bones about why they invaded their neighbors. They wanted to control the territory. Clearly, conquerors did not need an excuse. Tribute, slaves, came after conquest. Colonizing the NEW World was also about territory first and wealth second.

The Axis Powers in WWII waged war for territory. Nazi Germany called it lebensraum:

lebensraum (noun, often capitalized)

1. territory believed, especially by Nazis, to be necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency.

2. space required for life, growth, or activity.

Jews, Gypsies, etc. were used as an excuse to be sure, but Hitler’s war was fought for territorial conquest. If Nazism was only about killing an “inferior race” there was no reason to invade a foreign country after the Jews were eliminated in Germany. Going to war simply to eliminate a targeted group in a foreign land makes no sense, whereas, lebensraum justified conquering foreign lands. Note that ancient empires had no need for more living space in a world that was sparsely populated.

The Soviet Union did its conquering under the banner of Communism while Nazi Germany was purifying Nordic stock, but taking territory was the bottom line in both cases. Putin is not using Communism as an excuse, but he is after territory just the same.

Muslims fundamentalists are spreading the garbage about a worldwide caliphate, but it’s everybody else’s territory they are after. I do not know of a war that was fought specifically to wipe out the entire population of a country. That’s exactly what would happen if Muslims overrun Israel. Muslim hatred of Jews makes me think Muslims would follow in Hitler’s footsteps if every Jew packed up and left Israel. In other words, if Muslims got the land known as Israel without firing a shot they would justify conquering foreign lands so they could cleanse the world of Jews.

Conquer and Convert

In the future every war fought for territorial conquest will require a cover story. With the exception of the Muslim war against Israel, contemporary wars are basically about converting a conquered people to the political-religious beliefs of the conquerors. Conversion dictates mercy rather than eliminating the enemy à la Muslim plans for Jews; ergo, civilized rules of war guarantee wars ad infinitum.

NOTE: A race war is the exception to the conquer and convert rule. How does one physically convert a person of one race into a person of another race?

Populations

The population controls crowd act as though drastic reductions in population will eliminate the danger of wars for territorial gain. I am not certain if the people running a global government will own all of the land just as the people in our federal government assume they own all of the land and water in the United States.

The rest of the world adopting and strengthening America’s property Rights is the way to end wars fought for territory. If that ever happens the religious/political warmongers will face opposition from a vast majority of property owners in every country fighting for themselves —— not for somebody else’s beliefs. Indeed, no government dare suggest a purely ideological war when a majority of their people own land.

Finally, the recent unpleasantness in the Golden Temple was a result of a separatist movement (territory):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rayZTLJAPn4]Sword Wielding Sikhs Face Off At India's Golden Temple - YouTube[/ame]​

Several people have been injured after Sikh groups brandishing swords clashed at India's Golden Temple as special prayers were held to mark the deadly military offensive there in 1984.

Reports said the fight at Sikhism's holiest shrine was over who would speak first at the ceremony and that a scuffle broke out over a microphone.

XXXXX​

The Indian government says 400 people and 87 soldiers were killed during the 1984 military raid to flush out Sikh separatists from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, codenamed Operation Blue Star.

6 June 2014 Last updated at 05:01 ET
India Sikh groups clash at Golden Temple

BBC News - India Sikh groups clash at Golden Temple
​

I do not know if Sikhs are fighting India for individual property Rights in a country of their own, or simply fighting for a country of their own. Living in an independent nation ain’t worth squat without real property Rights for everyone. Whaling on each other with swords is not the way to go in either case.

America would not have become the great nation it once was without property Rights after the War for Independence ended. Think about that in relation to the EPA.

 

[TheIceMan]

Ancient China, Greece, Rome, etc., made no bones about why they invaded their neighbors. They wanted to control the territory. Clearly, conquerors did not need an excuse. Tribute, slaves, came after conquest. Colonizing the NEW World was also about territory first and wealth second.

The Axis Powers in WWII waged war for territory. Nazi Germany called it lebensraum:

lebensraum (noun, often capitalized)

1. territory believed, especially by Nazis, to be necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency.

2. space required for life, growth, or activity.

Jews, Gypsies, etc. were used as an excuse to be sure, but Hitler’s war was fought for territorial conquest. If Nazism was only about killing an “inferior race” there was no reason to invade a foreign country after the Jews were eliminated in Germany. Going to war simply to eliminate a targeted group in a foreign land makes no sense, whereas, lebensraum justified conquering foreign lands. Note that ancient empires had no need for more living space in a world that was sparsely populated.

The Soviet Union did its conquering under the banner of Communism while Nazi Germany was purifying Nordic stock, but taking territory was the bottom line in both cases. Putin is not using Communism as an excuse, but he is after territory just the same.

Muslims fundamentalists are spreading the garbage about a worldwide caliphate, but it’s everybody else’s territory they are after. I do not know of a war that was fought specifically to wipe out the entire population of a country. That’s exactly what would happen if Muslims overrun Israel. Muslim hatred of Jews makes me think Muslims would follow in Hitler’s footsteps if every Jew packed up and left Israel. In other words, if Muslims got the land known as Israel without firing a shot they would justify conquering foreign lands so they could cleanse the world of Jews.

Conquer and Convert

In the future every war fought for territorial conquest will require a cover story. With the exception of the Muslim war against Israel, contemporary wars are basically about converting a conquered people to the political-religious beliefs of the conquerors. Conversion dictates mercy rather than eliminating the enemy à la Muslim plans for Jews; ergo, civilized rules of war guarantee wars ad infinitum.

NOTE: A race war is the exception to the conquer and convert rule. How does one physically convert a person of one race into a person of another race?

Populations

The population controls crowd act as though drastic reductions in population will eliminate the danger of wars for territorial gain. I am not certain if the people running a global government will own all of the land just as the people in our federal government assume they own all of the land and water in the United States.

The rest of the world adopting and strengthening America’s property Rights is the way to end wars fought for territory. If that ever happens the religious/political warmongers will face opposition from a vast majority of property owners in every country fighting for themselves —— not for somebody else’s beliefs. Indeed, no government dare suggest a purely ideological war when a majority of their people own land.

Finally, the recent unpleasantness in the Golden Temple was a result of a separatist movement (territory):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rayZTLJAPn4]Sword Wielding Sikhs Face Off At India's Golden Temple - YouTube[/ame]​

Several people have been injured after Sikh groups brandishing swords clashed at India's Golden Temple as special prayers were held to mark the deadly military offensive there in 1984.

Reports said the fight at Sikhism's holiest shrine was over who would speak first at the ceremony and that a scuffle broke out over a microphone.

XXXXX​

The Indian government says 400 people and 87 soldiers were killed during the 1984 military raid to flush out Sikh separatists from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, codenamed Operation Blue Star.

6 June 2014 Last updated at 05:01 ET
India Sikh groups clash at Golden Temple

BBC News - India Sikh groups clash at Golden Temple
​

I do not know if Sikhs are fighting India for individual property Rights in a country of their own, or simply fighting for a country of their own. Living in an independent nation ain’t worth squat without real property Rights for everyone. Whaling on each other with swords is not the way to go in either case.

America would not have become the great nation it once was without property Rights after the War for Independence ended. Think about that in relation to the EPA.

Odd you left the US out of the bag. We've been using gunboat diplomacy for over a hundred years.

 

[Flanders]

Odd you left the US out of the bag. We've been using gunboat diplomacy for over a hundred years.

To TheIceMan: Odd that you didn’t mention that the US won two world wars and never gained one inch of territory in over 100 years. In fact, America peacefully gave the Philippines its independence and Puerto Ricans can have it anytime they want it.

Please don’t confuse a respect for independence with separatist movements orchestrated by America-hating vocal minorities.

If you want an example when sovereignty was not respected try the Civil War where the Confederate states had every Right to secede from the Union.

 

[Flanders]

A fabulous article by Michael Bargo, Jr. provides another approach to the importance of territory throughout mankind’s history:

The least understood but most consequential characteristic of government is that it operates on and derives all of its influence from its real estate roots. Governmental organizations of all sizes have been based, since they first were organized over ten thousand years ago, on control of real estate. Whoever controls a piece of real estate controls all of the activities conducted upon it.

You gotta read Bargo’s rules for Monopoly if you want to put government control in perspective:

I propose that one way to understand the interplay of governmental power and real estate investment is to play the popular game of Monopoly, but with a new set of rules. The traditional game of Monopoly involves several players buying property and charging rent to the players who land on their property. But the traditional rules of the game only use the rules of the private sector.

June 11, 2014
Understanding Government's Real Estate Monopoly
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

Articles: Understanding Government's Real Estate Monopoly​

 

[jwoodie]

On the flip side, what is so holy about territorial integrity? Why should we defend Ukraine's (or any other country's) right to exercise jurisdiction over areas where it is against the wishes of a majority of the population? What ever happened to self-determination?

 

[Flanders]

Why should we defend Ukraine's (or any other country's) right to exercise jurisdiction over areas where it is against the wishes of a majority of the population?

To jwoodie: Sometimes it’s necessary, but only when doing nothing ignores a credible MILITARY threat to this country.