Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 13:17 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e3860$45acd0b4$4fe713a$26561(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>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. > > > It is a big border and that would need a lot of mines and surveillance. IR from space is pretty easy these days. >>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 13:19 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eoin84$8qk_004(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >><snip> Do >>you think they are lying? They don't have to lie. >> > > > Interesting concepts. It is assumed in the west that pretty much all > politicians lie and when ever they make public statements there is at best a > small kernel of truth surrounded by a husk of spin and PR. > > Why do you assume that Middle Eastern politicians and political leaders are > any different? > > In Iran's case, lying may well be in their best interests. > > It is my guess that Baghdad Bob is standard fare for the middle east.
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 13:30 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:8ee2$45ad1434$49ecff1$28200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> >>>>In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil >>>>>War >>>>>etc? >>>> >>>>No. >>> >>> >>>Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the >>>sense you rail against. >>> >>>Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. >> >>If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have >>any constitutional constraints. > > > What does this have to do with the above? You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Jan 2007 13:40 continuation of reposting in parts again..... 79 lines.... On Tue, 16 Jan 07 13:47:53 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <pukkq2185vepsnbtv534gipv6m2k14eipg(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> ><snip for bah's reader> >> It serves us >>better, for example, to distinguish the idea of a feather from hair on >>animals rather than, say, just calling it all a 'coat.' We can speak >>more precisely and deal with questions far better when the terms are >>disambiguated cleanly. >> >>(2) They were aware of more vague situations than just nation on >>nation. > >I'm trying to consider the assumptions that have to be made >about civilization against civilization. Would these assumptions >be different than country and against country? My gut says yes >but I don't know why..yet. Then nail it down. Vague hunches are notorious for being wrong or worse. They can be right, too. But without careful thinking, you cannot tell. Let me take a tiny start on that question you pose. 'Civilization against civilization' conjures up something in my mind different from 'country against country.' Civilizations may imply different levels of advanced social achievements (or even different epochs of time), to me. Personally, I think what might do to abate conflicts between civilizations might be somewhat different than what one might first attempt when dealing with conflicts between countries who have very similar civilizations. So we may agree here. But we'd need to explore some examples and think closely about it to know, for sure. That takes effort. But if you are the one with the power to fashion solutions, this kind of thinking may make the difference in many, many deaths and struggles to come. >> I don't have the time/interest right now to go track down the >>specific statements made that point this up, but there has already >>been some recent talk here about the Barbary Coast situation and that >>was proximate to the Constitution formation. > >That was dealt with by declaring war on Algiers according to the >source I cited. I have not checked the author. >> >>(3) Are you becoming a Constitutional Revisionist, now?? > >Sigh! No. I'm trying to reexamine the basis on which the >assumptions were made. What does that have to do with what was intended by those who signed our Constitution and thus admitted a shared understanding of its terms and agreed to them? My reason for bringing up (3), is because I was heading you off at the pass, so to speak. I could imagine you may be wondering if our current circumstances might actually justify setting aside the original intent of the Constitution, in favor of a modern recognition of our differences from that time and a willingness to then finesse the words a bit in order to get people to accept change, even when perhaps telling them that there is no change. Or just doing it bald-faced like, perhaps. Either way, it's revision. I was wondering if you might think it is justified to now put so much power in the hands of the President, even though it is clear from original intent analysis of diaries, debates, and the language as well, that no such power would ever have been allowed back then -- not even likely had they seen our modern situation. And it is certain, regardless, that it would never have been successfully signed under the idea that it would amount to what exists today. The votes just would not have been there, at all. So I was just wondering if you were starting to have revisionist thoughts. ;) Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Jan 2007 13:45
continuation of reposting in parts again..... 78 lines.... On Tue, 16 Jan 07 13:47:53 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <pukkq2185vepsnbtv534gipv6m2k14eipg(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> <more snippage for bah's reader...> >> >>Are you now >>granting the idea that Activist Justices on the Supreme Court make >>good sense to you?? ;) > >I have not come to this point yet. I'm still thinking about >the beginnings. There has been long debates by Constitutional scholars on a variety of issues related to this. I can refer you to some of them. Let me give you another thing to toss into your mental hopper, just to make you hiccup some more, if I may. The 2nd Amendment was intended as an additional nail in the coffin of any President or federal cabal that might possibly consider the idea of offering the spoils of war to soldiers with the idea of encouraging them to take over a State or any group within a State. Part of their strategy was to restrict the powers of the President so that he couldn't create an army. That was Congress' job. In addition, they also set things up so that there could be no standing army. If there was one, then the President would have a well-trained militia at his command and the Congress wouldn't need to act, because it would already exist. So making it only last at most a couple of years after some specific need was another way of ensuring that Congress would be required often enough to make sure that the temptation would be low. Further, they created the 2nd amendment. It wasn't supposed to be about owning pistols, so much as it was supposed to ensure that the populations found within the states would be armed and this would be yet another limitation upon temptations. There were so many tiers (planks, if you prefer) in this stage, that you cannot help but see what they were concerned most about here. It was a federal executive willing to exert military power over citizens. And they concocted quite a few barriers to assure themselves of some level of comfort. In one of the Federalist Papers, I forget the exact one right now, this whole discussion is taken to its extreme. The author discusses in great detail that the only ultimate protection anyone has against tyranny is the ability to kill. When all else fails, when all the checks and balances have not measured up to their tasks, when an executive decides to use military force on his own people, their only true protection is their ability to fight back. That's the last barrier -- the final moat -- the last ditch against tyranny. And to make that last ditch worth anything, it must also be the case that those living in the states must have arms and must have somewhat equivalent training. This is partly why the two year limitation on the militia, in our Constitution. They knew about the risks of a perpetual and well-trained militia, because being well trained they would be __too__ effective against a relatively untrained populace. Similarly, the 2nd amendment was there to ensure that the populace would have weapons sufficient to 'strike fear' into the heart of any would-be potentate. Where is the 2nd Amendment today??? It's original intent has long been destroyed by a 1938 Supreme Court decision, made upon 'prudency' grounds. Our 2nd Amendment, if original intent were our modern guide, would allow all of us the same fire power and weaponry that is found in the federal militias. This means automatic weapons, wire guided grenades, surface to air missles, etc. You get the idea. The original purpose is to make it unthinkable for a President to even consider the idea of using force to take over. However, as things sit today, we have as people none of that capability at all. It would be a very rational possibility, in fact, to use federal military to take over and it would be quite able to be successful, if attempted. But does this argue that we still need to be equally concerned about this risk, as our founders were? Wouldn't it be worse to consider the idea of a population holding such weapons? What trade-offs would you make? Jon |