Re: Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 rclo...@verizon.net 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
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *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 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *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 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 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.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: 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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *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 rclo...@verizon.netwrote: 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
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
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 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *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 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *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 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 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.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
