dear salyavin, now what heresy would that be?! When I said power, I meant a political power. I still believe that life itself is the power that gives rise to all events.
And no need to worry. We witches learned a lot about staying safe during the last Inquisition (-: On Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:39 AM, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events. Shhh, don't tell Buck about your heresy! For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, "Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Share, when I say "push the hardest" I'm meaning putting forth the most effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, "Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is when you say "whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence." I'd like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the most influence? On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, "Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works.< Like it or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian or any other kind of totalitarianism?"< To those that are given much, much is expected." What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can have a chance at a piece? <The US, with it's values and resources, is the obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader. On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: >>That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully with a greater coalition. > >In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all about money and where to spend it. >> > > >> >> >>On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >>Richard, >> >> >>As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their country and they should be defending it. >> >> >> >>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote : >> >> >>On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: >> >> >>>>The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a "war mood" and support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first place. >>>> > >>>The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power. That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's not complicated. >>>> >>> >>> >>>>On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO, this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > Romney *was* the man for the job but the poor and naive are not noted for making wise choices otherwise they wouldn't be poor or naive. Maybe he'll run again as buyers remorse sets in, but don't count on it.
