Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
On 1/31/2013 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig): 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 don't think there is possible way out, but I do believe in slow but genuine harm reduction, And according to Steven Pinker that has been happening; we are becoming less warlike. Brent and that this can become natural when people are encouraged to be confronted with truth. Old tribes were better in initiating the youth to that, but consumerism tend to obfuscate the idea. The problem is not money, as a tool, but money as goal in itself. It is the perpetual confusion of goals and means. I think. Bruno -- 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: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig): 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 don't think there is possible way out, but I do believe in slow but genuine harm reduction, and that this can become natural when people are encouraged to be confronted with truth. Old tribes were better in initiating the youth to that, but consumerism tend to obfuscate the idea. The problem is not money, as a tool, but money as goal in itself. It is the perpetual confusion of goals and means. I think. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: 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 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: 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 > > 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: 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: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:47:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > Umm, the defense budget is, at most, only 25% of the US gov budget. > http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php > > That makes it the largest expense in the entire government, certainly the only expense could be massively reduced and still keep us well ahead of every other country. This is a more informative pie: http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif (from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/japans-about-face/data-global-military-expenditures/1220/ ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg "The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries ) Then there's all of that black-budget stuff too... Craig > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- 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: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 Umm, the defense budget is, at most, only 25% of the US gov budget. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: 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 > *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: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
iders, 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 >>>>> 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 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. >>> >> >> Reminds me of the old Star Trek ep where war had progressed to a >> virtualized stage. >> > > There's also this: > > http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Earth-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/015602814X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359566755&sr=8-2&keywords=peace+on+earth > > War was moved to the moon and is fought by robots. > Cool. Humans could even fight them with each other if they wanted to. I'm only against involuntary violence. > > >> >> Also this... >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Q-VZYbbS4 >> > > :) > > >> >&g
Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
t'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 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. >> > > Reminds me of the old Star Trek ep where war had progressed to a > virtualized stage. > There's also this: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Earth-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/015602814X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359566755&sr=8-2&keywords=peace+on+earth War was moved to the moon and is fought by robots. > > Also this... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Q-VZYbbS4 > :) > > > Thanks, > Craig > > >> 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 -� >>>>>>> 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
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 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: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
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. > Reminds me of the old Star Trek ep where war had progressed to a virtualized stage. Also this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Q-VZYbbS4 Thanks, Craig > 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 -� >>>>>> 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.**co
Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
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. >>>> >>>&
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 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
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. >
Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
On 1/28/2013 10:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 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. But it seems to be possible with families, within tribes, within federations, within nations, and even within many groups of nations. Brent -- 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
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<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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 g
Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
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
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
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: 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 for allowing women into the infantry > is emotionally based, thus hard to defend against, so that regrettably > I fell for it. The argument is that not 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.
