"So, give me the link if you have the goods." - CB Nope, I'll let you enjoy your own search, if it is important to you.
Same thing for deep sea mapping. (we hadn't discussed waterway mapping until now, had we?) Please reread how I said I didn't know for sure, and my judicious use of the term "IF". Your examples now presented are of a different order than what your original claim was based upon. IF you wish to include them into the mix, I won't oppose it. I just find expanding the topic to include other things mostly muddies the original discussion. And, the obvious attempt at using this tactic to nullify my words is troubling, even though you do it with ‘a smile’. On Nov 4, 1:07 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, give me the link if you have the goods. > > Also, give me any link on deep sea or waterway mapping that is'nt > Important? mine discovery and difusion, underwater communication cable > installation, the freakin huge tunnel under the sea between Britian and > France, Bridge pylon repair, potential volcanic eruption studies...the list > is huge:) > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > > "... so, how can you blame results from Katrina on old work that was > > state of the art at the time it was implemented? ..." - CB > > I have researched it. > > > On Nov 4, 12:55 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > before I get to the bottom, please remember the corp of engineers do not > > > have authority to just walk into a town like New Orleans and start > > digging. > > > It has to go through proper channels, meaning government correct? so, how > > > can you blame results from Katrina on old work that was state of the art > > at > > > the time it was implemented? > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
