"...Apparently the police and national government could'nt synch up to do anything fast enough around Nawlins...." – CB
Much of this remains the same. The structure is mostly just an expensive added level of bureaucracy. [What I was getting about re: coherency, rather than WHO set it up, was your implication that the problem was who set it up and then saying that it might be OK if properly maintained seemed contradictory.] On Nov 5, 7:59 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course it is coherent to lay blame squarely where it belongs. I did not > say a person, I said "Regime" *ergo* many persons. The initial concept, > like much that was defecated out of the bum of the Bush Admin, will be > tossed on it's head and examined, with gloves of course:) It remains to be > seen whether it is changed by the new administration. As for it's > functions, yes, I have yet to see them. Got any good links? > Remember how disjointed and miscommunicated the rescue situations were at > the twin towers when they dropped? The non-response of the Katrina > disaster? Homeland Security could change that If it is used for > coodination, that alone would be invaluable. Apparently the police and > national government could'nt synch up to do anything fast enough around > Nawlins. Could'nt communcate enought to bust out of a wet paper bag! > > compensate for the issues we were discussing? ooooo. I am almost insulted:) > > btw, i was out of Guinness, so I had to compensate with coffee. > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:24 PM, ornamentalmind <[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.…" – 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
