--- Sponsor's Message --------------------------------------
Does your ISP pay you to join, give you up to 50% off in a
mall & give you a $22 shopping credit each month, for user
fee of 21.95 month? go to:
http://click.topica.com/aaaaVMb1dhdKb1tdRUa/connectandcollect
------------------------------------------------------------
Darn we had so many agreements, I was really feel good and then the
disagreements came up.
> I think it makes us more likely to go to war. If we can totally
> eliminate collateral damage, the politicians who send us into harm's
way will
> be more willing to resort to force because it's more surgical.
>
> reply- I agree with this possibility, and think we need to keep this
mind. This concern
needs to go with a concern of who controls our military. I suggest
this be the single
subject for a discussion.
> So an untrained, undisciplined group of citizens is going to defend
> our nation against a highly trained, highly disciplined invading force?
> Even with the home-field advantage, I think that's a last resort. An
> important one, but I wouldn't want to depend on it for our only line
of
> defense.
reply- I am not suggesting they do so. I said they did it, when our
troops were over
seas. In the past, civilizations fell when the citizens turned over
defense to trained
professionals. Do you enjoy history? I would like to treat the
subject of citizens
defending their country separate from other subjects.
> > We agree on this statement "we have become offensive, and this
offensiveness is
about economics". However, we have not fully stated what this
means. Do we want
to say more about how war and economics go together? This could
lead to
discussing alternatives to war and bleeding our tax payers too
death so we can
support the world, while our own people loose industrial jobs to
other countries.
How do we get off the path of economic disaster and war?
>
> But this (military aggression) is a policy question, and the
military doesn't make
policy. We do what the civilian government tells us to. So it's
not the military that
uses force for economics, it's the government that decides it's in
our national interest
to use the military for that purpose.
reply- this is a control issue. This subject is so huge! What do
you know about
mobilizing for war and how military technology has changed our need
for patriotic
citizens to support military action? Do you know about Michael New
and the
struggle to keep national control of our armed forces?
Before we discuss the coming population/resource crisis, do you want
to explain
what you know about water, fertile soil, minerals and population
growth? I don't think
we are working with the same information, and this can lead to
futile arguing.
Would you like the address and/or phone number for ordering
"GeoDestinies"?
It really isn't a distribution problem, but having more people than
essential
resources. Why do you think people go to war? Why do think Japan
bombed Pearl
Harbor?
I thought I posted an explanation of Hegel and militarialism, but
haven't seen it come
up. You might check him out and Tocqueville too. "As the role of
government in
economics has increased, so has the role of military in government".
Power Elite by
C. Wright Mills. If you need military force for social order- you do
not have a
democracy, and can not possibly achieve democracy with either military
nor economic
force. The only way democracy is possible is through education- just
as the only way
Christianity is possible, is through education. CS
___________________________________________________________
To Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=126357
referrer name = john_t Check it out! It works!
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
