War The world is running out of soldiers - Wars are getting more common and militaries are building up. There’s just one thing missing.

1.png
Young recruits undergo military training at a recruiting center in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 9, 2024. Getty Images

A war between the United States and China would involve the kind of military manpower the world hasn’t seen in decades. As a point of contrast, around 156,000 troops landed on the beaches of France during the Normandy invasion in 1944, which was commemorated by world leaders earlier this month. Some experts estimate that if China were to try to invade Taiwan — the most likely flashpoint for a superpower confrontation — it might need as many as a million. If the US were to defend the island, according to some estimates it might suffer as many as half the number of casualties in just the first three weeks of fighting as it did in 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The last time the US fought wars anywhere close to this scale, many of those fighting were not there by choice: the military draft only ended in 1973, as American involvement in the Vietnam war was winding down. That conflict involved some 2.7 million American servicemembers in total, more than 58,000 of whom were killed — around 30 percent of whom were draftees.

A report released on Tuesday by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a DC-based defense think tank, looked at what might happen if the American government once again felt a draft was necessary to provide for the nation’s security. For military planners, its conclusions are not encouraging.

In a tabletop wargaming exercise — in which experts are asked to anticipate how a given military scenario might turn out — participants including military officers, Pentagon staff, and academic experts were given the task of raising a force of 100,000 conscripted US soldiers in 193 days for a war with China. (One scenario involved a war over Taiwan; another, significantly less plausible one, involved a Chinese attack on the West Coast.) The most “successful” groups in the exercise found they’d likely only be able to raise half as many of the 100,000 needed soldiers; most groups raised far less.

Some of the factors complicating their efforts were simply logistical: The Selective Service System has estimated it will take 500,000 induction notices to produce 100,000 draftees. But by US law, those notices would be sent by mail to the address that draftees — which include all 18- to 25-year-old men living in the US — used to register for selective service when they turned 18. Many of these letters would probably not reach their intended recipients.

There would almost certainly be legal challenges to the draft, as well as significant public protests, while some number of draftees would apply for conscientious objector status or dodge it altogether. (An estimated 300,000 Americans either illegally dodged the draft during the Vietnam War or deserted from the military.) Many, if not most, might simply not be eligible for service: Pentagon studies have found that around 77 percent of young Americans would not currently qualify for military service due to being overweight, using drugs, or having other physical or mental health issues.

The military would also have to ensure that it had the equipment, facilities, and training resources needed to absorb these raw recruits so quickly. This was an issue in the early days following Hamas’s October 7 attacks, when the Israel Defense Forces called up a record 300,000 reservists only to be quickly overwhelmed by complaints about insufficient facilities, equipment, food, and other logistical bottlenecks.

Given the cultural and political upheaval that ultimately caused the draft to be scrapped toward the end of the Vietnam War, a return to mass conscription is not an option most US leaders would prefer to contemplate. But the CNAS report makes a stark case that US leaders need to at least consider scenarios where it would become a necessity: “US lawmakers, policymakers, and military leaders must assume that if a draft were called, it would be absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, it must work.”

“We have been so successful at deterring major power conflict for the past 75 years that we have started to consider them a relic of the past,” Katherine Kuzminski, author of the report and director of CNAS’s military, veterans, and society program, told Vox. “Now, every country is having to think about what happens when you have a no-kidding, existential threat on your borders.”

But while we may live in a world in which the number and severity of armed conflicts are increasing again after decades of decline and in which countries around the world are ramping up their military spending, there’s one resource nearly all major militaries seem to be short of: people to actually fight those wars.

War without soldiers​

In the United States, the Army is slashing its ranks by thousands of positions amid chronic recruiting shortfalls. In Europe, despite military spending increases since the war in Ukraine, the shortfalls are, if anything, even worse: Germany’s military has been shrinking for years despite a major recruiting push, while the UK may soon decommission four warships because of a lack of sailors to sail them. Despite a military buildup prompted by concerns about China, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are falling short of their recruitment goals. Even China, which has the world’s largest military by people-power — with some 2 million active personnel — is struggling to recruit the skilled high school graduates it needs to operate its increasingly advanced weaponry. There’s an active debate among defense analysts about whether China even has the personnel needed to pull off an invasion of Taiwan.

In this context, more national leaders are starting to gingerly approach the issue of conscription. Germany’s defense minister recently presented a plan for a form of limited military conscription based on the systems now used by Scandinavian countries, which conscript some, but not most, eligible young people based on defense needs. Britain’s Conservative Party has included a plan for mandatory national service — with military and civilian options — in its platform for the country’s upcoming election. In the United States, the Washington Post recently reported some allies of former President Donald Trump’s campaign have suggested that some form of national service might be introduced if he is elected.

Whether any of these initiatives will go anywhere is hard to predict. Britain’s Conservatives are widely expected to lose, and Trump himself, who avoided service in Vietnam due to a diagnosis of bone spurs, dismissed the Post report as “fake news.” But in an era of so-called “great power conflict,” the question of who will actually be fighting the wars of the future will only become more important.

Lessons of Ukraine​

The reason for the sudden resurgence of global interest in soldiers and conscription isn’t a mystery. The war in Ukraine, with its trench lines, tank battles, and artillery duels, marks a return to the sort of warfare that many had hoped was consigned to the dustbin of history.

For instance, the year-long Battle of Bakhmut, in which Russian forces — primarily from the semi-private Wagner Group — eventually succeeded in taking a small eastern Ukrainian city, was Russia’s bloodiest battle since World War II. More than 19,500 fighters were killed, according to a recent independent media investigation. That’s more troops killed in a single long battle than the Soviet Union lost in its decade-long war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Finding troops for the “meat grinder” in Ukraine hasn’t been easy for the Russian government. Russia does conscript soldiers every year, but conscripts generally can’t be deployed outside Russia. In the fall of 2022, the Kremlin declared a “partial mobilization” meant to raise 300,000 troops for the military. But more than twice that number are believed to have fled the country to avoid the draft.

Since then, however, Russia has managed to stabilize its manpower situation. It has done this in part by offering large signing bonuses that exceed average annual salaries in many remote and impoverished regions of Russia, and by granting pardons to prison inmates. (Pardoned prisoners made up the bulk of the fatalities in Bakhmut.) These tactics have largely kept the public backlash to the hundreds of thousands of casualties manageable.

The worries about personnel are far more acute in Ukraine, which has a democratic political system and about 100 million fewer citizens than Russia. The long lines that formed outside recruiting centers immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 are a thing of the past. Today, there are desperate shortages of Ukrainian troops on the front lines.

The average age of these soldiers is over 40 — shockingly old by global standards. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently signed a controversial law to lower the age for draft eligible men from 27 to 25. (The average age of an American GI in Vietnam was 19.) The government has resorted to a number of carrots (giving volunteers the right to choose their own battalions) and sticks (highly unpopular street patrols to find young men avoiding the draft) to replenish the ranks. And like Russia, Ukraine is also now recruiting prison inmates to serve.

Another similarity to Russia: Ukraine was in a state of precipitous population collapse even before the war, thanks to a combination of plummeting birth rates and out-migration. Its population declined from 51.5 million when it became independent in 1991 to just 37 million in 2019. Add to that the more than 6 million people who fled the country after the outbreak of war, those currently in the military, those killed or seriously wounded in the war, and those who’ve turned to black market employment in order to avoid conscription, and it’s no surprise that Ukraine’s civilian economy is facing serious labor shortages.

The war has presented Ukrainian leaders with an agonizing choice that goes even beyond the brutal prospect of sending thousands of young people to their deaths: Fighting for their national survival today might require decimating the nation’s already grim demographic future.

Grayer world, grayer wars​

Demography is also on the mind of military planners in rapidly aging East Asia, which is furthest along the global trend toward lower fertility rates. With the ever-present risk of a major war with neighboring North Korea growing, South Korean men have to perform at least 18 months of military service — and at least among democracies, it’s one of the toughest countries to avoid the draft. Even members of K-Pop supergroup BTS have to put in their 18 months.

But the country is also facing some stark population math. To maintain current troop levels, South Korea needs to enlist or conscript 200,000 men per year. But if current birth rates continue, in 20 years there will only be about 125,000 men available per year to fill those spots.

South Korea has one of the world’s fastest aging societies, but it’s hardly an outlier. Two of the regions with the fastest falling birth rates — East Asia and Eastern Europe — are also the places where risk of interstate war or superpower conflict may be highest right now.

In China, demographic decline is further compounded by the legacy of the country’s one-child policy. A high-casualty war — which China has not fought since its conflict with Vietnam in the 1970s — would devastate many families in a society where lone adult children are often expected to provide for their aging parents. Perhaps in recognition of this concern, the People’s Liberation Army amended its policies to allow parents as well as spouses to claim death benefits for a soldier killed in the line of duty.

There might appear to be a bright side to all this. Not so long ago, some theorists were predicting a “geriatric peace”: societies with fewer available soldiers as well as older — therefore, presumably, less aggressive — populations might simply be less likely to start wars.

But the recent actions of Russia — where population decline is only slightly slower than in Ukraine — provide a powerful counterexample to that theory, not to mention the rising tensions and territorial conflicts in fast graying East Asia. The calculations of aggressive leaders like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping might just as easily be explained by what international relations theorists call “power transition theory”: the idea that governments will try to lock in military gains before their power starts to decline.

In other words, looking at decades of population decline to come, China’s Xi might decide that now is the moment to act in Taiwan, while he still has the troops to take it.

Andrew Oros, a professor of political science at Washington College who is writing a book on the security implications of East Asia’s aging societies, suggests that we may be seeing what he calls “dual graying” of conflict in the region: As societies age, they may be more likely to engage in so-called “gray zone” tactics — sabotage, propaganda, hacking, deniable attacks by unofficial militias and dual-use fleets — rather than all-out war. “This kind of gray conflict is something that older states are still very capable of doing,” Oros told Vox. “You don’t necessarily need to be fully able-bodied to fight a cyber war.”

Dulce et decorum est?​

It’s not just that the pool of available soldiers is getting smaller. Those in that pool are less willing to join up than ever. Polls show young people around the world are becoming far less willing to fight for their country. Young Americans have far more negative views of the military as an institution than older ones.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who supervised recruiting as commander of the Army’s Accessions Command, said one challenge is an anti-establishment mood in society at large, one that has even infected feelings about the military — an institution that long had wide support from Americans, whatever their politics. “There’s something of a loss of confidence in institutions across the board — courts, the government, the media, and the military,” Freakley told Vox.

When those feelings are paired with what is now a period of relatively high employment and higher wages in even low-skills sectors in the private economy, and the idea of arduous and potentially dangerous military service can look less appealing. It’s not a coincidence that Russia has been doing the bulk of its conscription in poorer, more remote regions of the country where the private sector can’t compete with military bonuses.

This trend holds even in some countries facing imminent military threat.

Taiwan recently extended compulsory military service for its citizens from four months to a year, but service is widely unpopular among many young Taiwanese and the government has struggled to expand its roughly 169,000-strong military.

A recent Carnegie Endowment poll shows that in Ukraine, a significant generation gap has opened up in attitudes toward the war. Ukrainians over 60 are about 20 percent more likely to say that Ukraine is winning the war and that it should fight until it liberates all its territory than those between 18 and 25 who would be more likely to do the actual fighting if the country began drafting more aggressively.

Jennifer Sciubba, a population demographer who focuses on defense issues, told Vox that “when you have a larger pool [of potential recruits or conscripts] to draw from you have to worry less about cultural shifts. It becomes a great issue in countries where the shift toward smaller populations is more pronounced.”

Uncle Sam wants you​

A range of policy changes are being considered in light of these trends. Some Asian countries are loosening age and height requirements to expand the pool of potential recruits or conscripts. Australia, dealing with its own recruitment woes, is considering allowing foreign nationals to serve in its armed forces for the first time. At a recent panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Gen. James Slife, vice chief of staff of the US Air Force, said his commanders were looking at loosening some restrictions, such as requiring airmen to have driver’s licenses. (Gen Z-ers are far less likely to drive.)

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussion of manpower is gender. Israel may be the best-known example of a country with universal (with some notable exceptions) military service for both men and women. Norway and Finland are among the few countries with selective service systems that draft women as well as men, though Denmark recently joined them. Taiwan only recently rolled out plans to allow women to register for reserve training.

In the United States, where women are no longer excluded from combat roles in the military, the Supreme Court has rebuffed several legal challenges to the all-male Selective Service System.

But CNAS’s Kuzminski suggests that this is an issue for the government to deal with now, rather than when a wartime draft actually becomes necessary.“The legal underpinning for the all-male registration law is on pretty shaky ground,” she said. “It’s not about the social policy side of things. From our perspective, it’s about the fact that you cannot afford to lose a week, a month, two months, while this gets moved up through the courts.”

Then there’s the question of whether the wars of the future will be fought by humans at all. The Pentagon recently announced plans to build thousands of cheap drones as a means to, in the words of Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, “overcome [China’s] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people.”

Gen. Nick Carter, former chief of the UK’s Defense Staff, predicted in 2020 that his country might someday “have an army of 120,000, of which 30,000 might be robots.” (The country currently has 130,000 servicemembers, all human.)

Freakley, who commanded US combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, was skeptical of the idea that “mass” could be achieved through autonomous systems alone, pointing out that similar claims had been made in previous generations by advocates of airpower. “There’s always a balance between manpower and technology,” he said, “but what history has shown us in warfare is that if you want to control another nation, you’ve got to put boots on the ground.”

But finding young people to put into those boots is only becoming more challenging.

Article Link

Archive
 
plus you’d know your neighbors, better for social cohesion!
This right here is why they’d never, at least not for white/actually conservative people. Everything they’ve done in the last near century has been to undermine social cohesion, and their efforts have worked fantastically. The jews’ll think extremely long and hard about the benefits of undoing the work of their parents and grandparents.
 
I am in the UK. The underclass here are white. When politicians and
Non-underclass whites aren’t safe from the draft, but underclass browns are. The 25% of non-whites that make up the 18 to 24 year old age group aren’t going to the front lines. Whether you’re using pozzed language or actually think that non-poor white men are going to be shoved in the meat grinder, I disagree.
There's no discomfort. They're mocking you,
They're always mocking us, but are you telling me October 7th and the resulting fallout isn't causing talmudic distress? The essay and article reflect their concern that the goyim are being pushed too hard. As I'm sure you already know:
tap_tap.jpg
This trap is an opportunity :tomgirl:
 
Non-underclass whites aren’t safe from the draft, but underclass browns are. The 25% of non-whites that make up the 18 to 24 year old age group aren’t going to the front lines. Whether you’re using pozzed language or actually think that non-poor white men are going to be shoved in the meat grinder, I disagree.
How exactly is conscription going to not apply to some kids due to the colour of their skin? You seem really convinced about this point; I think I must be missing something. How would it be possible to differentiate on paper between Calvin Smith, white boy, drafted, and Calvin Smith, one quarter Somali, not drafted? In terms of an actual mechanism, how is the government going to do that? The UK government would be over the fucking moon to draft young black boys and get them shot abroad. The National Service pish has repeatedly brought up "opportunities for urban youth" and we all know what 'urban' is a euphemism for.
 
How exactly is conscription going to not apply to some kids due to the colour of their skin?
The same way it worked during Vietnam and the same way you think it's going to apply to the underclass and not everyone else: medical exceptions, being unfit for service, dodging, outright refusal, and so on. Should any browns be pushed into service, they won't be anywhere near the frontlines where the brave, competent, and pysoped white men are getting ripped apart by drone warfare.
 
Imagine if they gave people land for being a soldier. Take some of that property they’ve stolen through eminent domain, build some cheapo houses on it and every soldier who serves a predetermined amount of time gets one. It’d be a nice benefit plus you’d know your neighbors, better for social cohesion!
The USA used to do this but any of its soldiers today were born too late for that.

From the Bonus Army article on the sometimes controversial and notorious Wikipedia:
In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized. Two years later, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, then the nation's capital, surrounded the State House, where the U.S. Congress was in session, and demanded back pay. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans from Philadelphia.[citation needed] Congress progressively passed legislation from 1788 covering pensions and bonuses, eventually extending eligibility to widows in 1836.[3]

Before World War I, the soldiers' military service bonus (adjusted for rank) was land and money; a Continental Army private received 100 acres (40 ha) and $80.00 (2017: $1,968.51) at war's end, while a major general received 1,100 acres (450 ha). In 1855, Congress increased the land-grant minimum to 160 acres (65 ha), and reduced the eligibility requirements to fourteen days of military service or one battle; moreover, the bonus also applied to veterans of any Indian war. The provision of land eventually became a major political issue, particularly in Tennessee where almost 40% of arable land had been given to veterans as part of their bonus. By 1860, 73,500,000 acres (29,700,000 ha) had been issued and lack of available arable land led to the program's abandonment and replacement with a cash-only system.[citation needed] Breaking with tradition, the veterans of the Spanish–American War did not receive a bonus and after World War I, that became a political matter when they received only a $60 bonus ($1,050 in 2024).[4] The American Legion, created in 1919, led a political movement for an additional bonus, although they took the sides of law enforcement against labor unions and were involved in attacks on Hoovervilles during the Great Depression.[5]

Nowadays you have enlistment bonuses, less then ideal living conditions, dreadful pay and indirect "benefits" through healthcare, housing support and help with education.
 
The same way it worked during Vietnam and the same way you think it's going to apply to the underclass and not everyone else: medical exceptions, being unfit for service, dodging, outright refusal, and so on. Should any browns be pushed into service, they won't be anywhere near the frontlines where the brave, competent, and pysoped white men are getting ripped apart by drone warfare.
It's not going to apply to the middle class, no. The days when Oxford and Cambridge sent the flower of their youth to be slaughtered ended abruptly after World War One.
It will be the poor. This is Britain. It's always the poor. The medics and the vets and the dentists are needed at home, same as they were in WW2. Occupations of national importance and all that. And if need be there will be some occupations of national importance made up, a pretend 'civil contingencies department', where the jeunesse dorée will go for their 'service'.
But [insert enemy of choice] will be allowed to shoot all the shop workers and car mechanics and IT support guys they want.
You guys have your Vietnam experience with the draft. The British ruling class have had a lot longer to perfect the art of getting the poors slaughtered for their economic interests. Also, the British kids don't possess a shitload of guns for 'resistance'.
You might be right, and I might be right, in the end. I don't think either of us will be happy to be right, in any case, since I don't think either of us are in any way in favour of the widespread execution of the unlucky poor. But I promise you, in the UK, they will draft the brown kids. You don't build an empire that spans half the world without knowing how to shove the brown/colonial troops to the front.
(Eternal respect to the Canadians at Vimy Ridge and the Anzacs at Gallipoli for finding this out the hard way.)
This is a depressing conversation, isn't it?
 
Why do you think the Dems are desperate to gain control of TikTok? It has proven to be an extremely powerful brainwashing tool, and they know that if the right somehow stops being retarded and gay (challenge: impossible) they could easily shift the demographic and cultural viewpoints of the new generation. it was never about CHYNA, it was about who can control the zoomers.
TikTok is pushing the troon shit. The OnlyFans shit. The "Vote blue no matter what" shit. If they paradigm changes then everything the left can poured into brainwashing the youth will have been for naught.
And precisely why China is not about to give up this particular weapon and why the Dems are pushing to ban it. Tik Tok is practically fulfilling many conditions within Sun Tzu's The Art of War just by existing. All of which is favorable for China. China understands perfectly to screw over the troonshine abusing crossdressing Uncle Sam, it needs to fuck over its youth along with manipulating the various traitors, idiots and Baizuo festering within the drunk Uncle Sam as well.

The Wu-Flu gambit paid off. As an added bonus, the fact that the disease that locked down the world was called COVID instead of the Wu-Flu showcases how much the media has sold out to China.

Many youths drunk on the Tik-Tok psyop can care less if their country burns (Which to be fair, is also the fault of the traitors that sold the country out) and there's alot of shit brewing within the US that might just take it out of the world stage if the outright disinterest of your average Burger to serve is an indicator.

TL;DR: China is only ahead because Burgerstan is currently drinking itself to death with Troonshine.
 
If the county was being invaded, I would have no issue fighting.
Its being invaded right fucking now and people are doing nothing.
if this country was being invaded i still couldn't be bothered tbh
What difference does it make if its 100% chinks rather then the millions of Africans, South Americans, chinks, Arabs, and who know what else thats rolling over the border today?
What difference does it make to me if the old pedo's and jews in DC are replaced by Xi's men? None at all.
 
As an added bonus, the fact that the disease that locked down the world was called COVID instead of the Wu-Flu showcases how much the media has sold out to China.
This is really stretching it, COVID is the proper medical term and the western media has called it as it should be called. The comparison is that the media sold out to Sierra Leone because it didn't call Ebola "Nigger-virus".
 
Remember how in the last decades of the WRE they couldn't get anyone to join the legions because they got fucking dogshit out of it compared to a few centuries ago where they got a bunch of land and a Celtiberian qt wife as thanks for their service? Oh also, people would intentionally maim themselves, sell their children to slavery to pay off the recruiter or basically sell themselves to slavery to some rich faggot in his villa to avoid having to serve in the Legions? Remember how people were taxed so fucking heavily that they really didn't give a shit that some bearded and long-haired shithead from Germania just fucked their wife and daughters and took a bunch of his shit because when a barbarian sacks your town your shit gets taken only once while when the Roman tax collectors come and fuck your wife and daughters and take half your shit it happened on the regular? Remember how they had to recruit those same bearded and long-haired shitheads from Germania as the army because it was a good deal for them especially since they didn't have to be loyal to the shithead tax collectors and legion recruiters who fucked your ass on the reg and instead they were loyal to their own warchiefs?

Good thing nothing like that can ever happen again haha we have iPhones and TikTok and sexual reassignment surgery now we know better.
 
It's the same Israel that won more wars between 1947 and 1973 than America did in the entire 20th and 21st century.

Americans can't even secure their own border, they're merchants, not fighters. They manufacture arms for other nations who fight for them. Like the Land-Lease program in WW2, or like Ukraine right now.

The only reason why people think Americans can fight is because of their stranglehold on the entertainment industry.
They say a man and his dog are alike. Can the same be said for the Merchant and its golem? Israel is playing on easy mode against civilian insurgents with a huge technological and economical advantage. It has the Mic, Wef, Imf all in support.
How exactly is conscription going to not apply to some kids due to the colour of their skin? You seem really convinced about this point; I think I must be missing something. How would it be possible to differentiate on paper between Calvin Smith, white boy, drafted, and Calvin Smith, one quarter Somali, not drafted? In terms of an actual mechanism, how is the government going to do that? The UK government would be over the fucking moon to draft young black boys and get them shot abroad. The National Service pish has repeatedly brought up "opportunities for urban youth" and we all know what 'urban' is a euphemism for.
Any blackie called Calvin Smith is too much of an uncle tom to be spared. Most are called Tyronio Letoy Ooga.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melee Bouquet
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but, if you live anywhere in 'The West' it is being invaded, it has been invaded, and it is already under hostile foreign occupation.
Yup. It's good that people are conscious of the possibility, but they're still deeply afraid to consider it in whole.
This is a depressing conversation, isn't it?
Oh it gets even more depressing.

So - the disarmament of most countries, and citizens, has fucked over technological development for everyone. In the same way that drones are a "new" development with Russia - no, the USA spent the last 80 years trying to make everyone play by their rules, against their actual interest.

Our weapons are seriously outdated - every single piece of it. The state has spent so much time on spying on its own citizens, and trying to harvest as much from its own population as possible, that they've completely failed in their duty, in whole.

They say a man and his dog are alike. Can the same be said for the Merchant and its golem? Israel is playing on easy mode against civilian insurgents with a huge technological and economical advantage. It has the Mic, Wef, Imf all in support.
Israel is one of the few countries which takes it seriously, to be honest. The USA is a mirage, but Israel isn't. The only real propaganda around Israel is "they need our help to fight" - in reality, they fucking don't, they're more than capable of handling their own affairs. They are the South Africa of the Middle East - surrounded by inbred retards, with "allies" who claim to support them while stabbing them in the back at every opportunity.

Hence, the attempts at boycotts - it worked for Rhodesia and South Africa, so they want to do it to Israel, too. Being small, they need more resources than they have access to.

They don't have much of an "economic" advantage. The Israelis have actual exports, while the Arabs have oil money and a shallow gene pool.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rei is Shit.
This is really stretching it, COVID is the proper medical term and the western media has called it as it should be called. The comparison is that the media sold out to Sierra Leone because it didn't call Ebola "Nigger-virus".
I'd agree with you but diseases that come from a country tends to be named after as such. When the outbreak from Spain hit, it was called the Spanish flu. China however, because its bankrolls much of Western media, they decided to call it Covid instead to not piss off their investors. Notice how the media at the start was quite hesitant to even report on China during early 2022. You are correct its the proper term. However, calling it Covid was purely political... especially when we're living in the woke era.
 
Back