“Oh, yeah, the Homeland Security issue. Well, look who set it up! look at the regime. Properly maintained it has potential. I just wonder how it will integrate with the existing police and military units.…” – CB
All of this is known. This said, to suggest that the person who ‘set it up’ (I’ll guess you mean Bush) is the problem with the organization and then suggest that if it is properly maintained it has potential is not coherent. Again, when a deep analysis of it’s origin, structure, function, standards is done, an objective review would say that it not only shouldn’t have been created but now that it exists, the country is less secure and a bigger, more expensive, unwieldy and ineffective organization now exists in place of a system that was light years ahead of the way it is now. Again, the way it integrates (not) is well known. I hope you look into it. Oh, and I wasn’t criticizing it based on how it started out nor the corporate media. A new president will have no effect on it, both of the main party candidates voted for it and will not attempt to disband it now. Sadly. “I for one am going home to vegitate on the couch with my own personal soldier and daughter, eat pizza, and drink Guinness.” - CB I’m glad you have found a way to compensate for the issues we are discussing. Drugs, sensuality, gluttony and sentiments can do wonders there! : - ) (Don't let the bed bugs.....) On Nov 4, 1:53 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, yeah, the Homeland Security issue. Well, look who set it up! look at > the regime. Properly maintained it has potential. I just wonder how it > will integrate with the existing police and military units. There is > enormous potential in it to maintain immigration standards. I have no > problem with immigrants as long as they pay taxes. Bring us more:) > > Just because it has started out rotten according to the media, does not mean > it will stay that way. Who knows what a new presidency will hold? > > I for one am going home to vegitate on the couch with my own personal > soldier and daughter, eat pizza, and drink Guinness. > > Oh, yeah, good night to you. > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
