"... Flight delivery? ...not practical and not used until after cold war a bit.... " - CB
I don't know what you are apparently criticizing here, sorry. And, when it comes to sputnick, I still remember the headlines. I even bought a Revel model of it. And, in the late 50s, I was most likely one of the very few in Indiana to purchase and read magazines from and about Russian rockets. Everyone else was afraid to be called a 'Red' if they even picked them up, let alone read them. On Nov 4, 1:30 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<<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>>>> > > Satellite delivery and deployment at that time was rocket based mostly > because everyone was worried about missile development and using rocketry > just made one more workable link in the test system. Flight delivery? > ...not practical and not used until after cold war a bit.... > > this was the method similar to Russia's sputnik delivery... > > http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
