You are kidding about the Coast Guard mostly for use on Drug Wars? You really think that? So, coastal and waterway search and rescue is not important....
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > CB, when I used the term cancer, it was an analogy in response to your > (also hyperbolic and comparative as truth) post: > "…I know this little note is a spoof, but in a global society how can > we Not police the planet? that is like letting the guy down the street > corner beat the shit out of his wife and kids in his front yard and > watching without response. Oh, yeah diplomatic > relations...sanctions...." – CB on 10-28 > > Looking at my post in context, I didn't say that I was 'against > anything military'. In general, I accepted the reality of the > situation. "I do not deny that today, yesterday, tomorrow, a year from > now as well as a hundred years ago there were, are and will be those > who wish to do harm to other people including the people currently in > the USA. When this 'truth' is 'solved' by becoming State Terrorists in > a perpetual war, a greater 'truth' arises and that is that 'we' > perpetually are attracting an even greater amount of ire. This 'truth' > has always been known." – Orn – 10-28 > > I do find the Orwelian notion of perpetual war against a method rather > than people for political purposes with obvious and well known results > to be as close to 'sin' as one who does not embrace the notion of sin > can find. > > Also, my direct observation about the two methods of: > 1. Agreement > 2. Force > …would seem to be reality based in this context too. > > You continue with a list of organizations including Homeland Security. > Here, since even many within the organization think it was at the very > best ill-conceived, and at the worst an impediment for response, a > bloated and grossly expensive bureaucracy that in fact does nothing > better, same people in functions etc. I question why you even > mentioned it. > > The Army Corp of Engineers are well known to emulate beavers. They > have built bridges for decades, many of which were not necessary, many > of which were poorly conceived and implemented. [see: New Orleans > among a legion of other places] This is all well documented and > available for all to know. So, at least in this way I am against this > group. > > I don't know much about the National Guard, other than it is not only > being grossly abused and misused, leaving the 'nation' at risk to > 'homeland' issues from natural disasters to the omnipresent 'invasion' > across our boarders. > > This leaves the Coast Guard. Again, since it is mainly being used for > the 'War on Drugs'….. And, how is that war going? (irony) > > Little of the above criticizes the individuals in each organization. > More to the point the different group functions, methods, > administration and leadership as well as how each is directed by the > current regime, are more of what should be examined. > > When it comes to the Arctic, sadly this area is on the way out. Oh, do > you reject global warming? If so, I'll have to support this I guess. > When it comes to the Antarctic, see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/ > A WONDERFUL and informative movie. The clips alone are worth the time. > > You say that deep-sea mapping wouldn't exist w/o the military. While I > don't know for sure, my guess is that either it would be done by the > educational system, 'publish or die', scientific community, other > countries or by the private sector IF it is in fact worthwhile in any > objective sense. > > You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite technology. Again, > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in academic > settings. The original deployment system for North America was going > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. Of > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use today are for > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology. > > When one does a review of US history, we did quite well without a > standing army for quite a while. In fact, it was proposed by Jefferson > to explicitly outlaw one in the Constitution. A good overview of the > situation and foundational ideas can be found here: > http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm > > Next, you ask the Faustian question of "…Sanctions only work if they > are backed up by potential force. Would you privatize all of it?.." > > First, we can do an analysis of 'sanctions'. However, since there are > thousands of 'em, I won't take the time to do so now. IF you have > specific ones you are interested in, we can do that. As to privatizing > the military, that has already happened. Well, not every last person, > but everything from the mess tent to toilet paper, from Blackwater to > Haliburton. And, of course, the private sector is always more > expensive. Articles about the cost of the war are ubiquitous. Here is > one from a year or so ago: > http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/the_cost.html > > As I've said, IF I could, I would reinstate the draft. And, for other > views about the military industrial complex, I'll assume you are > familiar with Eisenhower's last speech about it. > > Your question, "What would happen to civilian flight all over the > planet without the constant threat of military airbases strung > throughout?" perplexes me, so I won't address it now. > > Your next question, "The world would be plunged in petty dictatorships > and out the window with globalization don't you think?" seems to > tacitly include many assumptions. Shouldn't we begin with these first? > > When you said "It is more complex that just spending money on "the > war" in Iraq.", you state the obvious and in no way would/could I > disagree. > > However, "The whole machinery is inextricable from our lives.", > appears to reject free will or at least a more detailed and holistic > analysis and understanding. > > And, in this and most situations, I don't look for the dichotomy. Your > wish to find 'balance' between two sides reduces most things to polar > opposites. As effective as this is in simplifying issues, I find it > seldom brings about wisdom or knowledge. > > "We agree the military was misused in Iraq. What were better options? > More sanctions?" - CB > > This is an enormous question that can even be traced back to when the > Britt stumbled out of his tent drunk one night and said the border of > Iraq would be 'there' as he stumbled and fell on the sand in a > stupor. > > Quickly though, 'better options' were to leave a sovereign nation > alone as global law dictated. OR, once occupied, get out! The > sanctions were draconian and caused the suffering and loss of life to > untold numbers of citizens. Perhaps, after 10 years, recognize the > quagmire? Perhaps, elect a president with an IQ higher than a plant? > Perhaps accept the intel acquired as 'true'? Perhaps, not pit Iraq > against Iran for over a decade? The list of much better options could > reach the moon. > > "I would fight for ideals displayed at Tianamen Square and The Wall, > and would personally prevent someone from lopping off a peaceful > demonstrator's head so he could sit for hours undisturbed, making his > own point." – CB > > What exactly did you do/are you doing to support and/or fight for > these ideals? I'm not privy to your personal life. > > > On Nov 4, 7:42 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Orn, been thinking on this conversation and the root of it. Are you > against > > anything military? you mentioned it as a "cancer"... What of the Coast > > Guard, Army Corp of Engineers, Homeland Security, and National Guard > > sections? For instance, research in the arctic would be more than > difficult > > without the support structure of the military. Deep-sea mapping would be > > non-existent. What of Satellite technology? What would you propose > instead > > of a standing army you consider a cancer? Sanctions only work if they are > > backed up by potential force. Would you privatize all of it? What would > > happen to civilian flight all over the planet without the constant threat > of > > military airbases strung throughout? The world would be plunged in petty > > dictatorships and out the window with globalization don't you think? It > is > > more complex that just spending money on "the war" in Iraq. The whole > > machinery is inextricable from our lives. No, I am not picking on you > > because I think you are a peace-nik. I just want balance in the issue > and > > one side of the story is not enough. > > > > We agree the military was misused in Iraq. What were better options? > More > > sanctions? > > I believe in the peaceful demonstrations of Ghandi and others like him. > I > > would fight for ideals displayed at Tianamen Square and The Wall, and > would > > personally prevent someone from lopping off a peaceful demonstrator's > head > > so he could sit for hours undisturbed, making his own point. It is > > inextricable, this war and peace. > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "...I am sorry to be distracted but I am trying not to laugh my derier > > > off in response to the Thorn Clone and may have jumped about too much > > > - my communications problem again:) apologies..." - CB > > > > > Accepted. That particular sort of flame warrior is best ignored. A > > > good analogy in the courrent context is Tar Baby. > > >http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/tar+baby > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:55 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I brought up return on investment trying to figure out if there was > any > > > > positive side to the innovations brought about by the military > machine. > > > I > > > > asked for specific innovations anyone could trace to the military. > It > > > would > > > > be better to have used a positive inflection and say "what positive > > > results > > > > have been achieved? I am sorry to be distracted but I am trying not > to > > > laugh > > > > my derier off in response to the Thorn Clone and may have jumped > about > > > too > > > > much - my communications problem again:) apologies... > > > > > > Okay, where were we? yes, what innovations of a positive nature have > been > > > > directly produced in relation to the military machine? composites? > MRE's? > > > I > > > > mean anything? > > > > > > Yeah, crossbow wasnt a positive creation was it? I mean the > application > > > had > > > > one intent...oops:) > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, ornamentalmind < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps you can expand more beyond the cross bow? I found you > started > > > > > out dealing with finance (ROI) and now appear to have shifted to > > > > > 'innovation'...and then to something that is 'solely military'. So, > > > > > sorry, no, I can't help here. I know of nothing that is 'solely > > > > > military'. > > > > > > > And, the list I presented had only one purpose, to fill in the few > > > > > examples of contractors I had typed, nothing more. > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I posed a question only of what innovations given by the crucible > of > > > > > > war...I feel you still taking the tack that I am pro-war thus > perhaps > > > > > > too defensive! Guess I should go further back to the original > Roman > > > > > > standing cross bow to make my question clearer. Is there > anything > > > you > > > > > > can separate out that is solely military? I am asking for help > here? > > > > > > regardless of ROI...:) > > > > > > > > YOU got to be kidding on the "research claimed" though? That list > of > > > > > > Army contractors tells us where they get thier supplies > commercially, > > > > > > not where the research originated. So, in essence, you say > Skunkworks > > > > > > itself gets thier designs from a publicly funded university? That > I > > > > > > can't wholly believe. Sure, some of it is shared, no one disputes > > > > > > that, much innovation has always been commandeered by military > for > > > > > > military use. Much of it is funded/started by the military after > they > > > > > > have leveraged the scientists doing the research into a corner, > > > afraid > > > > > > to lose their jobs if they don't capitulate. That does not mean > they > > > > > > don't work directly for Skunk on skunk property, paid by Skunk. > > > Scaled > > > > > > Composites is on the NYSE, but I don't own stock in it:) Skunk is > > > much > > > > > > sexier stock... > > > > > > > > If you can drop the anti-military set for just a moment and > scrape > > > > > > through to the innovations - separate them from the killing > machine? > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 1:58 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "…War is a crucible of innovation…" – CB > > > > > > > > > Having been a CFO, ROI is of little value when doing a full > > > > > > > situational analysis. > > > > > > > > > And, when it comes to R & D, almost all 'research' claimed by > > > Boeing, > > > > > > > Lockheed Martin, GE, etc. (see: > > > > >http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ > > > > > > > ) is in fact produced in publicly funded Universities and then > > > taken/ > > > > > > > given to the private sector. Since 'we' have to pay for > everything > > > the > > > > > > > private sector makes with no credit for our initial funding, I > > > don't > > > > > > > see how much 'benefit' can be claimed, at least not in a > material > > > nor > > > > > > > financial way. > > > > > > > > > Overall, the military budget is seen as being bloated and > wasteful. > > > > > > > While a political reference and only a very quick overview, > some > > > > > > > information can be gleaned at: > > > > >http://www.votenader.org/issues/military-budget/ > > > > > > > > > As to Burt Rutan, perhaps he influenced the BD series that > found > > > it's > > > > > > > way into Budwiser commercials as well as James Bond films. And, > of > > > > > > > course, Scaled is owned by Northrop Grumman. Since this company > is > > > on > > > > > > > the NYSE (NOC), perhaps one can get a great ROI by purchasing > > > stock? > > > > > > > > > Of course, you would be owning a lot of waste too. Cases in > point: > > > > > > > "Based on year 2002 data, researchers at the Political Economy > > > > > > > Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts > identified > > > > > > > Northrop Grumman as the 17th-largest corporate producer of air > > > > > > > pollution in the United States; according to their study, > Northrop > > > > > > > Grumman facilities released more than 520,000 pounds of toxic > > > > > > > chemicals into the air in that year." > > > > > > > "The corporation has also been linked to 52 superfund toxic > waste > > > > > > > sites." > > > > > > > "In 2003, the company was among 84 parties with which the > United > > > > > > > States Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of > > > > > > > Justice, and the state of New York reached an estimated US$ 15 > > > million > > > > > > > settlement for the rehabilitation of the Mattiace Petrochemical > > > > > > > Company Superfund site in Glen Cove, Long Island; in the same > year, > > > > > > > Northrop Grumman agreed to pay $33,214 after EPA inspectors > found > > > > > > > hazardous waste violations at the Capistrano test site." > > > > > > > > > "Northrop Grumman has had to deal with multiple scandals during > its > > > > > > > history. The company was sued in 1999 for allegedly knowingly > > > giving > > > > > > > the Navy defective aircraft. This suit seeks $210 million in > > > damages > > > > > > > and is ongoing. Then in 2003, the company was sued for > allegedly > > > > > > > overcharging the U.S. government for space projects in the > 1990s. > > > > > > > Northrop Grumman paid $111.2 million to settle that suit out of > > > > > > > court." > > > > > > > > > You can also see how they figure into the purchase of political > > > > > > > power.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman > > > > > > > > > So, yes, I agree, the full story may include a lot of different > > > issues > > > > > > > and the 'bottom line', in this case deemed to be financial, > > > continues > > > > > > > to appear to be a big loss. > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:26 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I did not suggest we should ever start a war to promote R&D. > My > > > > > > > > question better put was, if anything, what innovative gains > have > > > we > > > > > > > > made? I just wonder how it rolls out on paper...it is an > aspect > > > that > > > > > > > > is interesting. War is a crucible of innovation. Nasty for > > > sure, > > > > > but > > > > > > > > it happens. > > > > > > > > > > I'm just glad folks like Burt Rutan are going to the outer > limits > > > of > > > > > > > > the atmosphere with private funding, sans military. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:20 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - all I can see is a huge defecit. R&D can be > > > performed in > > > > > > > > > many locations. We don't need to start, and try to control, > a > > > civil > > > > > > > > > war to practice on. > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:04 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Wonder how all that spendage relates in a return on > > > investment as > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > to military research and development? what is the return > on > > > > > investment? I > > > > > > > > > > know of some: composites, computer security...can anyone > else > > > see > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > positive return on military R&D? > > > > > > > > > > > > wonder if anyone has numbers on that side? [?] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Clogtowner < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - yes, it is almost as much as I lost last > month > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
