subject:"\"Re\\\: Re\\\: The fairness argument and women in the infantry\""

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Mikes 

You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Roger -?
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful.?
John Mikes


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

?
The "unfairness" argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
at fighting,? and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
?
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work.?
?
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
"will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?"
?
?
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Roger,

I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth without
strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.

The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial
complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong
incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be
allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through
agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.

Cheers,
Telmo.


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Roger -�
> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men
> for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring
> to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
> John Mikes
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
>>  �
>> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably
>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the
>> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
>> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their
>> advancement.
>> �
>> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>> after 18 months because it didn't work.�
>> �
>> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the
>> military ?"
>> �
>> �
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> �
>> �
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> 
> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth without 
> strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>

Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and 
ideological.
 

>
> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial 
> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong 
> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be 
> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through 
> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>

What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an 
availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock? 
Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they 
cannot use?
 

>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>  
>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>
>
That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist 
portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945. 

Craig
 

>  
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Mikes  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>>  Roger -� 
>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>  �
>>> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the 
>>> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
>>> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
>>> advancement.
>>> �
>>> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>> after 18 months because it didn't work.�
>>> �
>>> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
>>> military ?"
>>> �
>>> �
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> �
>>> �
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>> 
>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your 
>> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Craig,


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth
>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>>
>
> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and
> ideological.
>

Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.

I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just
don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire
power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?


>
>
>>
>> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial
>> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong
>> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be
>> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through
>> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>>
>
> What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an
> availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock?
> Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they
> cannot use?
>

They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it
doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have
less incentive to lobby for war.


>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Telmo.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi John Mikes
>>>
>>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>
>>
> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist
> portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> *From:* John Mikes
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>>
>>>  Roger -�
>>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of
>>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without
>>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
  �
 The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
 is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably
 I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the
 infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
 at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their
 advancement.
 �
 This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
 after 18 months because it didn't work.�
 �
 The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
 "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the
 military ?"
 �
 �

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
 googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
 .
 �
 �

>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __**__**
>>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
>>> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
>>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth 
>>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and 
>> ideological. 
>>
>
> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
>

By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are 
automatically pushing a reductionist agenda. Short term instrumental 
thinking and reactionary postures are elevated above long term creative 
collaboration and innovation. The first rule of the game is: the rules 
don't change. That is a conservative ideology.

>
> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just 
> don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire 
> power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?
>

I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's 
experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the 
perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited 
realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level. 
Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out?

>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial 
>>> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong 
>>> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be 
>>> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through 
>>> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>>>
>>
>> What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an 
>> availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock? 
>> Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they 
>> cannot use?
>>
>
> They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it 
> doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have 
> less incentive to lobby for war.
>

I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either have 
to be so high that the arms manufacturers would be covered no matter how 
much they use or else or they will adjust the quality of their product to 
match the rate. If its just availability and not possession, then the arms 
dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the illusion 
of inventory.

Thanks,
Craig

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
  Hi John Mikes 

 You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
 necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
 believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.

>>>
>> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist 
>> portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945. 
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>
>>>   

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* John Mikes 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
 *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

  Roger -� 
 thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
 men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
 resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
 John Mikes

 On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

>  �
> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the 
> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
> advancement.
> �
> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
> after 18 months because it didn't work.�
> �
> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of 
> the military ?"
> �
> �
>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
> googlegroups.com.
>
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-28 Thread John Mikes

Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a
"Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included.
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw
materials) and labor-power abroad.
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?),
allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when
preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington
visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time.
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away
on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil.
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan.
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY
with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Roger -�
> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men
> for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring
> to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
> John Mikes
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
>>  �
>> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably
>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the
>> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
>> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their
>> advancement.
>> �
>> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>> after 18 months because it didn't work.�
>> �
>> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the
>> military ?"
>> �
>> �
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> �
>> �
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> 
> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-29 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi Roger,

 I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth
 without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.

>>>
>>> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and
>>> ideological.
>>>
>>
>> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
>>
>
> By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are
> automatically pushing a reductionist agenda.
>

I think you're overestimating my influence :)

> Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated
> above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of
> the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology.
>

I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game. I try to reach my
own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the liberals on some issues
and the conservatives on others. There are many levels of games and many
levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule like "marriage is between
people of opposite genders", then sure I agree with you. It's just a social
construct that some people like. Money is also a social construct and we
can re-design it. The options here are ideological, because some options
appeal more to you than others, according to a certain view on how society
could be better.

What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth
reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of
agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic
bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're
always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event
happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being
a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the
human population is comprised of sociopaths.

>
>
>>
>> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just
>> don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire
>> power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?
>>
>
> I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's
> experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the
> perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited
> realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level.
> Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out?
>

Ok, I like that idea.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>

 The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial
 complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong
 incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be
 allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through
 agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.

>>>
>>> What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an
>>> availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock?
>>> Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they
>>> cannot use?
>>>
>>
>> They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it
>> doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have
>> less incentive to lobby for war.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either have
> to be so high that the arms manufacturers would be covered no matter how
> much they use or else or they will adjust the quality of their product to
> match the rate. If its just availability and not possession, then the arms
> dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the illusion
> of inventory.
>

Which is precisely what both the USA and the USSR did during the cold war.
They used all sorts of tricks to create an exaggerated estimation of their
own fire power by the other side.

Peace,
Telmo.

> Thanks,
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

 Cheers,
 Telmo.

 On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>

>>> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist
>>> portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>

>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Roger -

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-29 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Craig,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth 
> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>

 Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and 
 ideological. 

>>>  
>>> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
>>>
>>
>> By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are 
>> automatically pushing a reductionist agenda.
>>
>
> I think you're overestimating my influence :)
>

I meant "you" in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game 
theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode.
 

>  
>
>> Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated 
>> above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of 
>> the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology.
>>
>
> I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game.
>

I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok.
 

> I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the 
> liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many 
> levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule 
> like "marriage is between people of opposite genders", then sure I agree 
> with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also 
> a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are 
> ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according 
> to a certain view on how society could be better.
>
> What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth 
> reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of 
> agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic 
> bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're 
> always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event 
> happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being 
> a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the 
> human population is comprised of sociopaths.
>

A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they 
are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell 
whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe 
we should probably disarm. The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the 
chance that any will be used. Game theory doesn't take into account that it 
is not unlikely that the people who are making the decisions are themselves 
paranoid and insane, and that they also see themselves as the only rational 
actors.
 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just 
>>> don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire 
>>> power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?
>>>
>>
>> I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's 
>> experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the 
>> perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited 
>> realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level. 
>> Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out?
>>
>
> Ok, I like that idea.
>

Cool.
 

>  
>
>>
>>   
>>>
  

>
> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial 
> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the 
> wrong 
> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be 
> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through 
> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>

 What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an 
 availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not 
 stock? 
 Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they 
 cannot use?

>>>
>>> They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it 
>>> doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have 
>>> less incentive to lobby for war.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either have 
>> to be so high that the arms manufacturers would be covered no matter how 
>> much they use or else or they will adjust the quality of their product to 
>> match the rate. If its just availability and not possession, then the arms 
>> dealers would just p

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
 Hi Craig,



 On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth
>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>>
>
> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and
> ideological.
>

 Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.

>>>
>>> By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are
>>> automatically pushing a reductionist agenda.
>>>
>>
>> I think you're overestimating my influence :)
>>
>
> I meant "you" in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game
> theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated
>>> above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of
>>> the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology.
>>>
>>
>> I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game.
>>
>
> I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok.
>
>
>> I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the
>> liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many
>> levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule
>> like "marriage is between people of opposite genders", then sure I agree
>> with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also
>> a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are
>> ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according
>> to a certain view on how society could be better.
>>
>> What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth
>> reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of
>> agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic
>> bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're
>> always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event
>> happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being
>> a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the
>> human population is comprised of sociopaths.
>>
>
> A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they
> are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell
> whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe
> we should probably disarm.
>

The invention of atomic bombs is only possible by a sophisticated society.
This level of sophistication seems to come with other things, namely forms
of government where no single idiot has the level of absolute power
necessary to launch a nuclear bomb by himself. That's why the invention of
the atomic bomb wasn't the great filter for humanity.


> The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be
> used.
>

All other things being equal. But you're ignoring balance of power and
imperfect information.


> Game theory doesn't take into account that it is not unlikely that the
> people who are making the decisions are themselves paranoid and insane, and
> that they also see themselves as the only rational actors.
>

I think game theorists take that into account, and possible advise
politicians in the western world to have a zero tolerance policy towards
under-developed nations acquiring WMDs.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

 I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just
 don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire
 power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?

>>>
>>> I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's
>>> experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the
>>> perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited
>>> realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level.
>>> Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I like that idea.
>>
>
> Cool.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

>
>
>>
>> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial
>> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the 
>> wrong
>> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be
>> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through
>> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>>
>
> What is the difference be

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:27:23 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth 
>>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral 
>> and ideological. 
>>
>  
> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
>

 By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are 
 automatically pushing a reductionist agenda.

>>>
>>> I think you're overestimating my influence :)
>>>
>>
>> I meant "you" in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game 
>> theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode.
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
 Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated 
 above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of 
 the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology.

>>>
>>> I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game.
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok.
>>  
>>
>>>  I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the 
>>> liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many 
>>> levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule 
>>> like "marriage is between people of opposite genders", then sure I agree 
>>> with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also 
>>> a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are 
>>> ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according 
>>> to a certain view on how society could be better.
>>>
>>> What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth 
>>> reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of 
>>> agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic 
>>> bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're 
>>> always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event 
>>> happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being 
>>> a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the 
>>> human population is comprised of sociopaths.
>>>
>>
>> A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they 
>> are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell 
>> whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe 
>> we should probably disarm. 
>>
>
> The invention of atomic bombs is only possible by a sophisticated society. 
> This level of sophistication seems to come with other things, namely forms 
> of government where no single idiot has the level of absolute power 
> necessary to launch a nuclear bomb by himself. That's why the invention of 
> the atomic bomb wasn't the great filter for humanity.
>

Now that they have been invented though, it is indeed possible for a single 
idiot to detonate a nuclear device.
 

>  
>
>> The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be 
>> used. 
>>
>
> All other things being equal. But you're ignoring balance of power and 
> imperfect information.
>

If a bomb gets diverted from a stockpile by insiders, then the geopolitics 
won't matter at all. If there aren't any stockpiles - that can't happen.
 

>  
>
>> Game theory doesn't take into account that it is not unlikely that the 
>> people who are making the decisions are themselves paranoid and insane, and 
>> that they also see themselves as the only rational actors.
>>
>
> I think game theorists take that into account, and possible advise 
> politicians in the western world to have a zero tolerance policy towards 
> under-developed nations acquiring WMDs.
>

That wasn't what I was saying though. Sure, no paranoid insane leader wants 
any other country to have WMD - they could be just as insane. Which game 
theory, however, takes into account the you, the architect of the theory, 
and the first world strategist who applies it, is not paranoid and insane 
themselves? Applying game theory outside of the the context of games, may 
in fact be an expression of narcissistic personality disorder and 
sociopathic ideation.

 
>
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>
  

>
> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I 
> jus

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Mikes 

That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
in the past only count against us.  

Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them. 




- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a 
"Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
materials) and labor-power abroad. 
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly 
leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations 
for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli 
PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on 
the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with 
infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 
 
You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Roger - 
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
John Mikes


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

The "unfairness" argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work. 
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
"will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?"
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi John Mikes 
>  
> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
> in the past only count against us.  
>

Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more 
money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from 
services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it 
into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service.

It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to 
increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial 
trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not 
to.

Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined 
(nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a 
time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US?

Craig

 
> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
> likely to deter them. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* John Mikes  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe 
> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
> materials) and labor-power abroad. 
> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), 
> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when 
> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington 
> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away 
> on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY 
> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
> JM
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>   
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Mikes  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>>   Roger - 
>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
>> John Mikes
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>  The "unfairness" argument�or allowing women into the infantry
>>> is emotionally based, thus�ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
>>> I fell for it. �he argument is that�ot allowing women into the 
>>>  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
>>> at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
>>> advancement.
>>>  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>> after 18 months because it didn't work. 
>>>  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
>>> military ?"
>>>   
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>>>

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread John Mikes

Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it
feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was a
victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75
years of active life on 3 continents.
Please try to understand what you read.
John Mikes

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength
> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on
> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made
> in the past only count against us.
>
> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
> likely to deter them.
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe
> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the
> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included.
> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw
> materials) and labor-power abroad.
> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?),
> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when
> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington
> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time.
> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away
> on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil.
> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a
> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan.
> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY
> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
> JM
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes
>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* John Mikes 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>>   Roger -
>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of
>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without
>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.
>> John Mikes
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>>  The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably
>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the
>>>  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
>>> at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their
>>> advancement.
>>>  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>> after 18 months because it didn't work.
>>>  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the
>>> military ?"
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:45:12 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did 
> it feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was 
> a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 
> 75 years of active life on 3 continents. 
> Please try to understand what you read.
> John Mikes
>

Far Left = Hitler, Robert Redford, libraries, Pol Pot, people who eat 
vegetables, Barack Obama, the Bubonic Plague, things that aren't good, dark 
things, women.

Left = Far Left

Progressive = Far Left

Moderate = Far Left

Far Right = Does not exist

Conservative = Heroes, hard workers, patriots, businessmen, wealthy old 
people, anti-communists, God, Jesus.



> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>  
>> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
>> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
>> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
>> in the past only count against us.  
>>  
>> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
>> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
>> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
>> likely to deter them. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>  ----- Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Mikes  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>  
>>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe 
>> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
>> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
>> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
>> materials) and labor-power abroad. 
>> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), 
>> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when 
>> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington 
>> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
>> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles 
>> away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
>> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
>> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
>> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY 
>> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
>> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
>> JM
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>   
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* John Mikes  
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>>
>>>   Roger - 
>>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough 
>>> 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
>>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the 
>>>>  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
>>>> at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
>>>> advancement.
>>>>  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>>> after 18 months because it didn't work. 
>>>>  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
>>>> military ?"
>>>>   
>>>> -- 
&

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-31 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Mikes 

It didn't feel good.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 17:45:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it 
feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was a 
victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 
years of active life on 3 continents. 
Please try to understand what you read.
John Mikes

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 

That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
in the past only count against us.  

Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them. 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a 
"Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
materials) and labor-power abroad.  
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly 
leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations 
for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli 
PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on 
the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with 
infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 

You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Roger - 
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
John Mikes

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

The "unfairness" argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work. 
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
"will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?"
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information