On 1/31/2013 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig):
I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just don't see a way
to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire power. I wish that wasn't
the case, but what
On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig):
I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I
just don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium
based on fire power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way
out?
I don't think there is
Hi John Mikes
It didn't feel good.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Mikes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 17:45:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
Roger: it is obvious that you have not understa
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John Mikes
>>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SU
ving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
> Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe
> a "
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:47:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>>
>> Hi John Mikes
>>
>> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength
>> induce
On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi John Mikes
That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on
defense spending. And any defensive ac
sonal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
> likely to deter them.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-28,
gt;> it doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests
>>>>> have
>>>>> less incentive to lobby for war.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either
>>&
n the
>>> arms dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the
>>> illusion of inventory.
>>>
>>
>> Which is precisely what both the USA and the USSR did during the cold
>> war. They used all sorts of tricks to create an exaggerated est
ut my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Mikes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument a
gt; dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the illusion
>> of inventory.
>>
>
> Which is precisely what both the USA and the USSR did during the cold war.
> They used all sorts of tricks to create an exaggerated estimation of their
> own fire power
the other side.
Peace,
Telmo.
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Telmo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>
>&g
that the killing power of the infantry
> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:
lling power of the infantry
>>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>>
>>>
>> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist
>> po
On 1/28/2013 10:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and
ideological.
Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just don't see a way
to survive and be free witho
>>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>
>>
> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist
;
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> *From:* John Mikes
>> *Receiver:* everything-list
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>> Roger -�
>>
g-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
> Roger -�
> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men
> for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
Roger -?
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to
general draft only the female input is hopeful.?
John Mikes
O
Roger -
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men
for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring
to general draft only the female input is hopeful.
John Mikes
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> The "unfairness" ar
The "unfairness" argument for allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus hard to defend against, so that regrettably
I fell for it. The argument is that not allowing women into the
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
at fighting, and not allowin
22 matches
Mail list logo
