Orn, this is an interesting review, however, I am glad Jefferson did not succeed in that proposal, that high ideal, but it is not practical nor would it ever have worked. Too much history goes again
<<<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>>>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
