--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "seekliberation" <seekliberat...@...> wrote: > > > > Obama just sent in the Marines. 3 years after Bush was asked for 22,000 > > more troops by generals in Afghanistan, Obama is the one to fulfil that > > request, while the Republicans refused it. Obama was given a sinking > > ship on all fronts (war and economy) and he is doing the right thing on > > most things. Stop the ship sinking, then change things slowly and > > carefully. Of course no-one can save the mess that Bush made (by > > diverting troops and treasure to the illegal war in Iraq), but Obama has > > to try and this new surge will work. But it will not solve the problem > > completely. Obama knows that. He is smart. Not like the last bunch of > > crooks. So he will make headway, and then slowly pull back from these > > wars. He will do it slowly and meticulously, He is the best Commander in > > Chief for decades. > > Obama's done nothing good or bad in terms of military. Most guys in the military don't like him, but i've argued with others that he's done nothing wrong. He listened to Gen Mchrystal. He lowered the # that Mcrystal asked for, but in these economic times it's understandable. Obama at least acknowledges that there is a problem. He understands that the real problem is in Waziristan (region in Pakistan that is out of control). The problem is that Obama is pushing a lot of air strikes in that country right now, just like Clinton did during his time. >>
I know, but that's not Obama doing those air strikes. That's the Generals and the stratagists for the most part. He doesn't tell them how to fight it, he may have some influence here and there, but he doesn't totally dictate, and overall he seems to be listening to the generals etc., which is why alot of people on the far left (and far right) are pissed off. <<That's where all the civilian casualties come from. If you don't have troops on the ground to control the aircraft, you have no way of controlling collateral damage.>> There are not enough troops in America to police the world, and yes, I agree, bombing that kills a lot of civilians just makes the population more angry. << I can't say I agree Obama is the 'best' commander in chief yet, it's too early to tell. A couple of decisions in conjunction with his advisors doesn't necessarily qualify him as that. But when I think of his competition, you're probably right......Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy.....not much competition there. As long as he doesn't make any extreme rash decisions, he'll come out on top easily. >> I think he will listen to the generals, try to weigh that up with what is practical and financially possible, and I really do believe that he is actually passionate about preserving military lives where-ever possible, except when there seems real chance of progress with some risk. That to me is a very smart commander in chief. > > > That was not a conspiracy theory I cited. That was to rectify 200 years > > of revisionist history and brain-washing in America. Those were facts. > > I didn't mean that you were stating a 'theory' in regards to what you were talking about. I was rather stating my awareness of other theories similar to the facts you pointed out. I'm aware that we won our revolutionary war because England wasn't really trying to win, they had bigger fish to fry at the time. I can't confirm this, but supposedly England didn't even want to continue the war, but America kept pushing. >> King George was against the war, some in Parliament reasoned for it, and won the debate. > > > The Marine Crops ultimately work for the Queen of England according to > > some theories ;-) > > Really? the only way possible is if the Navy was working for her too. There are times, no doubt, that we've been OPCON (Operationally committed) to English command at times, so it wouldn't surprise me. >> Well, I was just joking, but I wonder if the Royalty in Europe ever really gave up power. > > > > With the exception of a few minor conflicts and reaction to terrorism, > > I believe WWI and WWII were probably the only true honorable wars we > > fought in. However, there are even conspiracy theories out there that > > WWII could've been avoided as well. I don't have time to get into them > > though.> > > > > Yes, and the historical fact (not theory) that GW Bush's grandfather > > helped fund the rise of Hitler would make a GREAT movie. The whole thing > > could be fascinating - but would need to be at least 3 hours long and a > > lot of historical research including how some bigwigs in America plotted > > to overthrow the US government to stop a move towards humanity - I mean > > caring about others - I mean socialism. > You're right, it goes really deep into the Rockefellers and other bigwigs back in the 30's. I personally don't have time to do as much research as i'd like to. Regarding socialism, most I know in the military hate the idea of it. But I've argued we have no right to argue, military IS socialism. Everyone gets a job, uniform, paycheck and medical care ISSUED TO THEM by the GOVERNMENT. That's socialism in its purest form. >> Yes, and their kids get public education, etc. > > The only reason I don't think socialism would work in America is because it only works if everyone is contributing to the system. The military works out because everyone works, and pays taxes. They are all contributors. I saw a show about the happiest countries in the world, and Denmark comes in 1st place, a socialist country. They all pay very high taxes, but their Govt. takes care of them. >> Yes, but they don't pay as much as Americans pay in taxes. As a society you pay it in other ways, and far more, and America is a very socialist state already. <<But if you look at the people, they're different from Americans. They all are happy to do whatever it is that they do. They don't expect the world to fall at their feet if they're a doctor, and they don't feel inferior if they're a garbage man either. In America we're rather bi-polar.>> Yes, I realise that, that's why I live in Vermont, which is less contentious, but there is a love of contention in America, and many other places, but it seems more obvious in USA. However, Americans are very smart and creative too, and that is why people around the world still have hope for great things to come. Everyone is either trying to be on top of the world, or they're too lazy to get off the couch. I know that's a little out of proportion, but somewhat true. As long as most people are either greedy or lazy, socialism, IMO, won't work here. Europeans are more balanced, and therefore it works.>> Well, its far from prefect there, and there is corporate criminality there worse than here, its just hidden. > > > Just tell your superiors to learn TM and teach the troops the sidhis. > > Don't take no for an answer. > > Believe it or not, Marsoc (Marine Spec Ops Command) has already started teaching meditation at their schoolhouse. If I go to the schoolhouse as an instructor, I was already planning on suggesting transitioning from whatever Pseudo-meditation they're practicing to MMY's TM or Ravi Shankars meditation, which I hear is the same as TM. Before I ever make the suggestion, i'll have to do some research and talk to someone higher within the TMO. >> The only argument you should make is that they should only teach a meditation that has dozens or hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals. It doesn't matter what it is. But just becasue one or two methods seem to work that doesn't verify that all methods work. The military should not be experimenting with unproven techniques. That's not what our tax dollars are for. They should implement only scientifically validated techniques (and of course, anyone can question the validity of any science anywhere - that's freedom of speech, but it is not scienitific method. Look at Vaj and Turq, they are all for science in climate change, but against science showing the benifits of TM. The US National Institutes for Health - and others - seem to disagree with them, having given millions of dollars to the research based on the fact that the previous research was robust and significant.) But the main point is that the military, using taxpayers money, should only implement techniques that have been widely published in respected peer-reviewed journals to have statistically significant benefits. If they do the searches themselves then they will find whatever is the most well-evidinced method. Its a very simple logic, and as long as they do the search of research methodically, and act methodically on the results of that search, then that is all that needs to be done. No mention of any specific technique even needs to be brought up, although you might as well, because there is only one that falls into the above category (and that won't change for at least 20 years, if it does change - which I don't think it will.) OffWorld > > seekliberation >
