Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Dec 2006 19:02 On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:16:43 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:73101$45730543$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> snip >> >>>>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real world >> >>> IMHO. >> >>> Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they >>> were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. >> >> >> One of the beauties of universal military service. > >In principle, National Service is a good idea - although I think people >should be "conscripted" to "social" type work (and I suspect this will be >heckled as being "socialist" by many knee-jerkers). > >Conscript soldiers nearly always undermine the militaries effectiveness. A >modern army needs willing volunteers who are prepared to do the bad, harsh, >things. Armies with conscripts have (in my personal experience) always been >inferior. I will take this in an entirely different direction. One that you may not have considered. (I'm not arguing whether or not conscript military is better or worse, as far as winning goes. That is a separate issue.) One of the things that was strongly debated when the US Constitution was debated in the various States, was the concern about a trained federal military being used improperly. At least one of the federalist papers addresses itself squarely to this. They early on agreed that there would be no standing military system, at all, at the federal level. This was _because_ of that concern. They wanted sufficient equality of skills and force so that no federal military would consider the idea, at all. Of course, that's long since been set aside, with the US now having and maintaining a constant and well trained military force. In addition, since a US Supreme Court decision in 1938, there is no possibility of appropriate arms being held by private citizens. So without weapons that pose any serious opposition and without adequate training outside of the federal military here, what protection remains to guard us against the ultimate use of a military against it's own populations? (Something that comes to mind as a more-present question, with this administration and the recent removal of even the modest protections we had against it until a month or two ago.) An insight that comes from what took place in China, in Beijing, with the uprising where many were killed. I remember the picture of one man that made the news here, standing in the middle of the street and appearing to challenge the tanks rolling towards him. If you remember, the earlier responses to the uprising there by the Chinese gov't was to field their nearby military -- those who were from the area and spoke the same language well. But they wouldn't really engage in taking orders for indescriminate killing. So they had to bring in troops from the southern areas, where the spoken language was different and the soldiers were willing to take extreme orders and obey them. If our military is composed of random selections from across the country, and if we must also accept that fact that we have a standing military here that is well trained and FAR BETTER equipped, this may remain our better insurance against their poor use against civilians here. No matter how you change the laws and so on, if the military is built up from all of us, from all walks of life poor and rich, and if it is not reasonable to sort them out in some fashion, then we may have at least that protection from their use against the population here. A volunteer army is a self-selected one. And to the degree that it does NOT represent the population at large, to that degree we lose some protection against the abuse of their powers. Maybe. I'm still considering this aspect. But it sounds right. Jon
From: John Fields on 4 Dec 2006 19:30 On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:29:24 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you >> > just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV >> > commercial.) >> >> Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than >> anything else though. > >And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. --- Don't you know how to say "No"? -- JF
From: unsettled on 4 Dec 2006 19:36 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:29:24 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you >>>>just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV >>>>commercial.) >>> >>>Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than >>>anything else though. >> >>And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. > > > --- > Don't you know how to say "No"? It's a socialist thing, don't cha know. :-)
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 20:12 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >> > > >> > Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you > >> > just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV > >> > commercial.) > >> > >> Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than > >> anything else though. > > > >And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. > > --- > Don't you know how to say "No"? I know, but it seems that all the political parties have some general agreement about the need for 'road pricing'. I saw an interesting piece of info earlier that showed how revenues from motor taxes some decades ago balanced almost exactly with expenditure on transport but now it's a ratio of 10:1 already ! A big problem in the South East of England is the absurd concentration of population here and especially around London, yet it's still being encouraged ! Clearly this will make intolerable demands on the existing road network ( well it has done already ), yet almost no major new roads are planned. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 20:13
unsettled wrote: > John Fields wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: > >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >>> > >>>>Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you > >>>>just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV > >>>>commercial.) > >>> > >>>Combination of both :-) The drive was more taxing on my patience than > >>>anything else though. > >> > >>And now 'they' want us to pay even more for the pleasure. > > > > > > --- > > Don't you know how to say "No"? > > It's a socialist thing, don't cha know. :-) Far from it. Graham |