Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 07:42 T Wake wrote: > For example, in a 40mph zone, what speed do you have to be travelling to be > stopped by a police man and at what speed will you lose your licence? This > is one are where the spirit of the law is much more adhered to than the > letter. (some forces will fine at 44mph, some at 47mph, some will only fine > if the driving is dangerous in another manner etc). As low as 44 ? I thought 46 was the minimum. ( 40 + 10% + 2 mph ). Graham
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 08:18 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <1ad2f$45aa7fb7$4fe76e9$22623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [....] > >>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra to >>>make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain how >>>they make anything better. >> >>I've said before, disarm the population, seal the border, and we >>can leave. > > > Good plan, but with 20K more troops, there is no chance of doing so. With > a few 100K perhaps it could be done. 20K can easily seal the borders in fairly short order. Then it becomes a combination of clearing the worse areas of weapons and attrition of weapons because no new ones are getting in.
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 08:20 Ken Smith wrote: > It is funny the places where a quip can land us sometimes isn't it. You > are right that I would have a great deal of trouble pressing the "launch" > button. Also, however, as I have pointed out here before, it is a well > known and completely uninteresting fact that I can't spell. Just so you know, there are two words, affect and effect.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Jan 2007 08:54 On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:55:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and >> the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is >> 'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by >> no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the >> day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not >> constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city >> here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether >> or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another >> question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders >> that are Constitutional. > > Read and learn about the "Bonus Army", where President Hoover ordered >the US military to fire on a group of assembled Veterans. They were >there asking for what had been promised to them, but the "Commander in >Chief" > ><http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bonus+army&hl=en&newwindow=1&rls=GWYA%2CGWYA%3A2006-31%2CGWYA%3Aen&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=VA.gov&as_rights=&safe=images> > >President Hoover knew he had to curb the escalating violence. He gave >the order for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur to forcibly >remove from the city the approximately 3,500 veterans, many with their >wives and children, who refused to leave. No shots were fired, but many >were injured by bricks, clubs and bayonets. Although there are >conflicting reports on which side started the fires, some of the >marchers' shacks burned down. In the end, the presence of federal troops >effectively ended the bonus march. Thanks. I vaguely remembered this story from people I've spoken to, here. Note that the article says, "In March 1932, a small group of veterans from Oregon began marching to Washington, D.C., to demand payment." I was born here in Oregon! It's not exactly the same thing, but a situation not too disimilar arose both during and after our revolutionary war with Britain. In the case you mention, this came to a head during the earlier part of the depression period when the money was desperately needed and when the those in control of gov't were unable to agree on what to do. In another case I'm thinking of, the situation was a confederation of states that was without any power to force those in control of states to send tax revenues for payment of their collective confederation debts -- either to foreign countries or to the soldiers in the field. The soldiers had been promised something and given literally almost nothing at all. They had to pay for their clothes and bullets, etc. And there were promises, aplenty, but no delivery of anything by the confederation of the States -- even after so many trials, loss of life and limb, and personal and family suffering for some seven years of war. You can start at my web page here: http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/hfcusa07.html January 6th, 1783 is where it starts, with an address from Major-General Macdougall and Colonels Ogden and Brooks, sent to Philadelphia for their purpose. The address was: "To the United States in congress assembled: We, the officers of the army of the United States, in behalf of ourselves and our brethren the soldiers, beg leave freely to state to the supreme power, our head and sovereign, the distress under which we labor. Our embarrassments thicken so fast that many of us are unable to go further. Shadows have been offered to us, while the substance has been gleaned by others. The citizens murmur at the greatness of their taxes, and no part reaches the army. We have borne all that men can bear. Our property is expended; our private resources are at an end. We therefore beg that a supply of money may be forwarded to the army as soon as possible. "The uneasiness of the soldiers for want of pay is great and dangerous; further experiments on their patience may have fatal effects. There is a balance due upon the account for retained rations, forage, and arrearages on the score of clothing. Whenever there has been a want of means, defect in system, or neglect in execution, we have invariably been the sufferers by hunger and nakenness and languishing in a hospital. We beg leave to urge an immediate adjustment of all dues. "We see with chagrin the odious point of view in which too many of the states endeavor to place men entitled to half-pay. For the honor of human nature we hope that there are none so hardened in the sin of ingratitude as to deny the justice of the reward. To prevent altercations, we are willing to commute the half-pay pledged. And in this we pray that the disabled officers and soldiers, with the widows and orphans of those who have expended, or may expend, their lives in the service of their country, may be fully comprehended. "General dissatisfaction is gaining ground in the army, from evils and injuries which, in the course of seven long years, have made their condition in many instances wretched. They therefore entreat that congress, to convince the army and the world that the independence of America shall not be placed on the ruin of any particular class of her citizens, will point out a mode for immediate redress." Keep in mind, despite the use of the phrase "United States" above, this was 1783, which is __before__ our Constitution was even begun to be written, let alone passed by the States. Negotiations for peace with Britain had only begun on May of 1782, in Stockholm. I don't think even the provisional articles of peace were known until around December of 1782, perhaps early 1783. So keep this in mind. Around mid-March of 1783, you can read about an anonymous letter circulating among the soldiers, partway down on: http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/hfcusa08.html There see: "My friends! After seven long years your suffering courage has conducted the United States of America through a doubtful and a bloody war; and peace returns to bless -- whom? A country willing to redress your wounds and reward your services? Or is it rather a country that tramples upon your rights, disdains your cries, and insults your distresses? Have you not lately, in the meek language of humble petitioners, begged from the justice of congress what you could no longer expect from their favor? How have you been answered? Let the letter which you are called to consider to-morrow make reply! "If this be your treatment while the swords you wear are necessary for the defence of America, what have you to expect when those very swords, the instruments and companions of your glory, shall be taken from your sides, and no mark of military distinction left but your wants, infirmities, and scars? If you have sense enough to discover and spirit to oppose tyranny, whatever garb it may assume, awake to your situation. If the present moment be lost, your threats hereafter will be as empty as your entreaties now. Appeal from the justice to the fears of government; and suspect the man" [here Washington was meant] "who would advise to longer forbearance." This note being passed around to soldiers everywhere was like lighting a match to gasoline and General Washington knew it, as soon as he discovered the letter on March 11th, the same day that the note suggested a gathering of soldiers to discuss their next action. General Washington took very quick action, luckily, as this almost certainly would have led to actions leading to a serious and disasterous confrontation. The bonus army's complaints remind me of this other time, a bit. Jon
From: jmfbahciv on 16 Jan 2007 08:48
In article <eogioe$9v7$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>>>required >>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >>>>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>>>> >>>>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official >>>>>>by >>>>>>a duly recognised authority. >>>>> >>>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>>> >>>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>>>declared by the US? >>> >>>You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>>the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>>reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >> >>I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>be nation against nation. >> >><reluctant snip> >> >>/BAH >Like the war on drugs? The war on poverty? The war on inflation? Sigh! No. /BAH |