---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
dear Salyavin, now what heresy would that be?!
Just a little joke my dear, aimed mostly at Buck who gets upset about these
things. The idea that someone in his midst who thinks it hubris that people can
affect the world might invite a drone strike! Oh well, it amused me anyway...
When I said power, I meant a political power. I still believe that life itself
is the power that gives rise to all events.
And no need to worry. We witches learned a lot about staying safe during the
last Inquisition (-:
Cool, some of my best friends are witches. Dancing round fires in the woods is
a yagya I can get into any time!
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:39 AM, salyavin808
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Ah, Mike the hubris of us humans. To think we can control global events.
Shhh, don't tell Buck about your heresy!
For proof to the contrary, I see the ebola tragedy. That is far from being
over. The world now is too complex and too interconnected to think with any
validity that a power can control the whole world by controlling one aspect of
it. That delusion is based on dead Old World thinking.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:38 PM, "Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@...
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Share, when I say "push the hardest" I'm meaning putting forth the most
effort to control global events. Doesn't have to be militarily, can be economic
or political. We don't need to be invaded, we can always be isolated and
marginalized economically. As of right now, anyone that controls events in the
middle-east can lead the rest of the world around like it has a ring in it's
nose. Too many economies depend on the oil, the middle-east supplies, and will
be beholding to any power that exerts dominance in that region.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:05 AM, "Share Long sharelong60@...
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is
when you say "whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence." I'd
like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the
world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the
most influence?
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, "Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@...
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a
back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east
and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that
believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works.< Like it
or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not
return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the
world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing
the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian
or any other kind of totalitarianism?"< To those that are given much, much is
expected." What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the
unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can
have a chance at a piece? <The US, with it's values and resources, is the
obvious choice as a leader of the free world and should always seek assistance
from like minded nations and that is the responsibility of a strong leader.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, "'Richard J. Williams'
punditster@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@...
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were
developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the
confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust
or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders over
seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We left
too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits
Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this
very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend
even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something
worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General
David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully
with a greater coalition.
>
In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S. funding
for military self-defense, not health care reform or immigration. The question
is, how long will the U.S. be willing or able to fund the Western world to
defend itself from Russian aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America
be willing to have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all
about money and where to spend it.
>
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife]
mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Richard,
As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air
power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the
militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American
soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their
country and they should be defending it.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
mailto:punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@...
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently revealed
to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why Russians were
there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because Al-Qaeda and a new
boogeyman to get the American people in a "war mood" and support spending
heavily on defense which of course profited the military industrial complex.
Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian government. Now they
are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense spending. Best way to defeat
ISIS was to not support them in the first place.
>
The past is already gone, you need to face the present. The best way to defeat
ISIS is to vote for the political candidate that will be willing to fund the
U.S. military. The the only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. military air power.
That's what President Obama is already doing. Without U.S. military air
support, the European and Middle Eastern governments will NOT be able to defeat
ISIS. It's not complicated.
>
On 09/08/2014 07:34 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO,
this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the necessary
support from world governments to defeat ISIS.
https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
Romney *was* the man for the job but the poor and naive are not noted for
making wise choices
otherwise they wouldn't be poor or naive. Maybe he'll run again
as buyers remorse sets in, but don't count on it.
