Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 16:07 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b536b$4574bf11$49ecf4e$7540(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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"? Yes, people have the choice of breaking the law I suppose. > It's a socialist thing, don't cha know. :-) Quite the opposite. The privatisation of transport leads to this change in charging. Socialism would be the other way round.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 16:10 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:el43uj$83n$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <el3tjb$8qk_004(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <200612051249.kB5CnKxU005870(a)ipp.mpg.de>, >> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: >>>Typical of right wingnuts to >>> >>>1) turn this to a thread about Hillary >>> >>>2) focus on her minutiae (and slick willie's) while ignoring the >>> magnitude of what came after >> >>The US is in danger of having those two in the White House again. >>We apparently never learn from previous history, especially recent >>history. >> >> >>> >>>The difference in the scale of the corruption is at least three orders >>>of magnitude, people. In lives as well as in money. >> >>I think you listen to Hillary's speeches to the Palestians >>to get a handle of what she would be willing to cede. >>Isarel was one of those things. >> >>/BAH >> > > OK, official idiot alert! Your alarm system is broken, it is taking weeks to trigger.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Dec 2006 18:18 On Tue, 05 Dec 06 14:00:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <qrc9n25pv8c1emhv84kpqn03e1rcvkgc3p(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:16:43 -0000, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><snip> > >>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. ><snip> > >You should also read a book, _The Navy, A History The Story >of a Service in Action_, Fletcher Pratt, Garden City Publishing, >1938, 1941. Why? Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Dec 2006 18:32 On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:03:20 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:qrc9n25pv8c1emhv84kpqn03e1rcvkgc3p(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >It is an interesting twist and you are correct it certainly was one I hadn't >considered. It will be interesting to see if the debate on this brings >anything out but my instinctual reaction is that it is not right and it is >not a way of protecting the people from the abuse of the military. We differ on the hunch, then. But I don't count mine for all that much. >As an example, even in a conscript military it will (I assume) still be >possible to find units formed of people from different social, ethnic or >religious backgrounds to the particular group you wish to put down. Perhaps. I haven't investigated this side of it. But in the US, I think I recall that people are moved around pretty freely here (it's common to expect to go somewhere pretty far away.) I think you may be right in some ares of the world. But in the US, I think the mixture is pretty thorough. But I'm working on vague recollections, granted. >Another problem of conscription is you force the undesirables into the >military (right wing extremists, left wing extremists, religiously >intolerant bigots etc) and even provide them with military training. Now this one I completely disagree with. As it is RIGHT NOW here in the US, we are finding (news is reporting it) that some extreme groups (skinheads for example) are actually writing to encourage others in their mob-groups to join up. We also find a large percentage of Mormons, for example. The self-selection is quite clear here. See this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserlan Jon
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 18:48
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:0vvbn218je2altfdeenegl3hrgdr6k61lj(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:03:20 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:qrc9n25pv8c1emhv84kpqn03e1rcvkgc3p(a)4ax.com... <snip for brevity> >>> I'm still considering this aspect. But it sounds right. >> >>It is an interesting twist and you are correct it certainly was one I >>hadn't >>considered. It will be interesting to see if the debate on this brings >>anything out but my instinctual reaction is that it is not right and it is >>not a way of protecting the people from the abuse of the military. > > We differ on the hunch, then. But I don't count mine for all that > much. No reason why it is any better or worse than anyone else's hunch at this stage. >>As an example, even in a conscript military it will (I assume) still be >>possible to find units formed of people from different social, ethnic or >>religious backgrounds to the particular group you wish to put down. > > Perhaps. I haven't investigated this side of it. But in the US, I > think I recall that people are moved around pretty freely here (it's > common to expect to go somewhere pretty far away.) I think you may be > right in some ares of the world. But in the US, I think the mixture > is pretty thorough. But I'm working on vague recollections, granted. People do move around freely but unless every unit went to great lengths to ensure all possible variations of social and ethnic backgrounds were included, there is still a good chance that (for example) a unit with no native Americans could be found which could then be used to oppress native Americans. >>Another problem of conscription is you force the undesirables into the >>military (right wing extremists, left wing extremists, religiously >>intolerant bigots etc) and even provide them with military training. > > Now this one I completely disagree with. As it is RIGHT NOW here in > the US, we are finding (news is reporting it) that some extreme groups > (skinheads for example) are actually writing to encourage others in > their mob-groups to join up. We also find a large percentage of > Mormons, for example. The self-selection is quite clear here. > > See this NY Times article: > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserlan Actually, I don't think we disagree but I think I expressed myself badly. Currently with a volunteer army, extremists and other undesirables will always _want_ to enlist. Uniforms and military discipline have always drawn right wing extremists like moths to a candle. In a volunteer Military, these undesirable elements can be identified and barred from enlistment through various procedures (for example, in the UK military membership or overt support of the BNP is prejudicial to military discipline even though it is not an illegal organisation). In a conscript army this is not the case. You could, for example, refuse conscription to "undesirable" elements but then you create a loop hole in which anyone who doesn't want to serve can claim support for [insert organisation] and therefore not serve. It also polarises the problem about making sure the Armed Forces are sufficiently diverse so as to not be able to oppress any one organisation. Self selection has the same problems, but in a volunteer army people can be turned down without the same repercussions. Hopefully, this is what the US military will work towards. |