And what shall we call the author and the book?I just found out about this book that claims to " unearths the vested interests, corruption, wastage and negligence in arms procurement and alerts us to the growth of the domestic military-industrial complex. Malaysians are called upon to seriously consider the question of war and peace; the justifications for arms procurements; procedures of accountability and the choice of alternative socially useful production." will have a London book launch.
In the same manner, it advocates an alternative defence policy that positions itself " to purely defensive rather than offensive purposes. Such a defensive policy is eminently preferable. In the event of aggression by an outside force, having decentralised, dispersed people’s militia forces in small units armed with precision-guided, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles would be the way to wage a protracted people’s war against the aggressor. As has been proven by people’s wars in history, eg. the Vietnam war, such a defensive strategy will render useless all the tactical weapons of the aggressor, including nuclear warheads. Most importantly, such weapons of self-defence will be many times cheaper than the offensive high tech jet fighters, tanks, submarines and other vessels in the arms race we cannot hope to win anyway."
Very laughable defeatist position from somebody who advocates we surrender our country's independence without a fight and then engage in an asymmetrical warfare with the hope that we regain our independence some time in the future, conveniently forgetting the last time we did that in 1511 we only regained our independence in 1957. Why do you think our southern neighbour invests so much into their defence in "a poisoned shrimp" posture and we in "a bloody nose" stance so as to at least let our potential adversary think twice before they really consider invading our shores!. Yes we may be defeated but hopefully we have inflicted the most amount of damage to our enemy that their supply trains will not be able to re-provision their force's needs quickly, and that will be the time our people's war will strike back to inflict more damage that hopefully dis-entrench their forces.
But never ever shall we entertain any thoughts of giving the enemy a walk-over to merrily wade ashore, and I call anybody who dares to think so a traitor! Never will we purposely become "gorillas" while the fat rats desert the ship. Allegations and spin does not a research make, more so when a not so well disguised politically motivated book commits the act. Come to think of it, it becomes more transparent why this book needs a launch in the west. An invitation mayhaps?
In the same manner, it advocates an alternative defence policy that positions itself " to purely defensive rather than offensive purposes. Such a defensive policy is eminently preferable. In the event of aggression by an outside force, having decentralised, dispersed people’s militia forces in small units armed with precision-guided, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles would be the way to wage a protracted people’s war against the aggressor. As has been proven by people’s wars in history, eg. the Vietnam war, such a defensive strategy will render useless all the tactical weapons of the aggressor, including nuclear warheads. Most importantly, such weapons of self-defence will be many times cheaper than the offensive high tech jet fighters, tanks, submarines and other vessels in the arms race we cannot hope to win anyway."
Very laughable defeatist position from somebody who advocates we surrender our country's independence without a fight and then engage in an asymmetrical warfare with the hope that we regain our independence some time in the future, conveniently forgetting the last time we did that in 1511 we only regained our independence in 1957. Why do you think our southern neighbour invests so much into their defence in "a poisoned shrimp" posture and we in "a bloody nose" stance so as to at least let our potential adversary think twice before they really consider invading our shores!. Yes we may be defeated but hopefully we have inflicted the most amount of damage to our enemy that their supply trains will not be able to re-provision their force's needs quickly, and that will be the time our people's war will strike back to inflict more damage that hopefully dis-entrench their forces.
But never ever shall we entertain any thoughts of giving the enemy a walk-over to merrily wade ashore, and I call anybody who dares to think so a traitor! Never will we purposely become "gorillas" while the fat rats desert the ship. Allegations and spin does not a research make, more so when a not so well disguised politically motivated book commits the act. Come to think of it, it becomes more transparent why this book needs a launch in the west. An invitation mayhaps?
4 comments:
a slanted ,myopic view of a political writer talking cock , who feel that,a London book launch will add weight to his all ready bankrupt political arguments.
Salam to you sir,
This traitor will never stop undermining us from the inside.
I'm asking for your permission to 'cut and paste' your article in my blog.
Thank you
salam and evening to Kalam and anon! Carry on if you want to cut and paste my postings! I do the same as per my fair use notice, so why should I stop others from doing the same! Cheers!
Kalau dorang ni rakyat Sg atau Taiwan, hal2 macam ni dorang takkan sikit pun ambik pusing berapa banyak arms spending.
Post a Comment