Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
Pages
▼
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Kennedy, Johnson and the Nonaligned World, by Robert Rakove
Evolution of War is Peace War: Advancement and acquisition of Human and Military Technology and Capital vs Breeding of CannonFodder:
In a battle between two armies with the same level of military skill and technology; generally the bigger army wins.
Many of history’s military conquerors have relied on simply breeding more cannon fodder to slaughter on the battlefields to try to win their battles or wars.
Other military conquerors focussed on improving their soldiers skills (psychological, physical, intellectual, spiritual, etc) and technology (better armor, better swords, better chariots, better bows and arrows, better scaling machines, better rams, better artillery, better guns, better tanks, better planes, better bombs, better rockets, better nerve gas, better germs, better chemicals; better subs, better aircraft carriers, better mind readers, better psychotronics, better strategies, better problem solvers....).
Many times small armies with greater technological equipment and/or military tactical or strategic skills won: There are many examples, but two are Battle of Blood River (guns), conquest of North and South America (guns, germs & steel). [ Guns, Germs & Steel: Conquest of America’s | RU-Natasha: Russian State Library]
** How to Subscribe to EoP blog: If you are a signed up Ecology of Peace (EoP) supporter; then you can send an email to the EoP Clerk with the heading ‘Subscribe EoP PRH SQSwans blog’. In the body of the email write the following: “I, [Name] unconditionally recognize the Radical Honoursty culture's right to exist, and its members rights to publicly verbally express themselves in accordance to their honourable problem solving cultural values.” Upon receipt of your email, you will be sent an invitation to be a reader of the EoP blog where you can will be able to access reading all EoP related correspondence.
Our dilemma is that of defining just and unjust actions within our wars and conflicts. It is time to reexamine habits that have come to pass for ethics and ask the sort of questions that are as controversial as they are uncomfortable to the man or woman of conscience. .. We must reexamine our concepts of the ethical and the legal. .. The whispered warning that we do not condone "assassinations" because we do not want our own leaders assassinated is a counsel of unspeakable cowardice. First, if leaders will not risk the fate they ask of their privates, they are not fit to lead their people.
These issues demand serious debate. Traditionalists who decry even the possibility of attacking these sources of human misery in such a manner generally do so from campuses or comfortable offices. They are out of contact with our citizenry and its needs, as they are phenomenally out of contact with the sheer violence of this world. They will immediately push the issue to absurd extremes, crying out that such a doctrine would amount to giving our military, which they see through the eyes of Oliver Stone and their own disdain of service, a license to kill. But the purpose of a military is to kill, and if you cannot stomach that, you should not have a military. The only operative question is whom the military should kill.
The United States enjoys a historically unique position of power, influence, and cultural empire. Whether we find this crown comfortable or not, we bear unprecedented responsibilities--and face unanticipated vulnerabilities. If we truly will protect our citizens, our allies, and (that most anomalous condition of mankind) peace, it is time to stand back and reevaluate our conception of what is ethical in war and in those haunting almost-wars arising from foreign disorder and international organized crime. We might discover that our current military ethics are the least humane thing about us.
[..]
[Ed: I had originally been searching for what I had thought was a Ralph Peters article, which starts with the quote about the roman general with his whispering cherub slave on his chariot. I did not find it that night; but I did find it today and it was not by Peters; but Christopher Fettweis]
"... and that night, Gore didn't concede and I wondered what the hell, what is going on; I mean Gore is no less of a player than Bush in these scenarious; I mean they all have big money behind them, sometimes the same money. Cause if you smart enough and rich enough, you bet every horse in the race. So why is Gore not conceding? .... and then I realized they want us to see; they want us to know; they want us to get the message and and it was just as blatant a message as November 22, 1963. I believe that 63's message is 'Yeah we shot the son of a bitch, and what are you gonna do about it? We can kill the president and we sure as hell can kill you; so sit down, shut up and get out of the way." Thats the subliminal message and a subliminal message of the 2004 election was 'we done here had enough about this dumb duhmockery shit, we already told you who won the election, now sit your duhmckery ass down and shut up." "Get out of the way" is the message and I think they pull3Д up the pettycoat and let us and let the rest of the world know." -- John Judge, Special Projects Assistant to Rep. Cynthia McKinney..
"There was no way the flag signals Mongols used to coordinate attack would work. Instead, you've got a knight on a war horse, twice as tall and 4 times heavier than their ponies, plowing thru the brush like a fucking tank taking out Mongols one at a time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvolution of War is Peace War:
ReplyDeleteAdvancement and acquisition of Human and Military Technology and Capital vs Breeding of CannonFodder:
In a battle between two armies with the same level of military skill and technology; generally the bigger army wins.
Many of history’s military conquerors have relied on simply breeding more cannon fodder to slaughter on the battlefields to try to win their battles or wars.
Other military conquerors focussed on improving their soldiers skills (psychological, physical, intellectual, spiritual, etc) and technology (better armor, better swords, better chariots, better bows and arrows, better scaling machines, better rams, better artillery, better guns, better tanks, better planes, better bombs, better rockets, better nerve gas, better germs, better chemicals; better subs, better aircraft carriers, better mind readers, better psychotronics, better strategies, better problem solvers....).
Many times small armies with greater technological equipment and/or military tactical or strategic skills won: There are many examples, but two are Battle of Blood River (guns), conquest of North and South America (guns, germs & steel). [ Guns, Germs & Steel: Conquest of America’s | RU-Natasha: Russian State Library]
-- Excerpt: GMC 4643/2578 Q&A || T&F.Moe Q :: Re: Clerk ZvEyk 28/04 email [02][B] & [3] [EoP | WiP]
*****
** How to Subscribe to EoP blog: If you are a signed up Ecology of Peace (EoP) supporter; then you can send an email to the EoP Clerk with the heading ‘Subscribe EoP PRH SQSwans blog’. In the body of the email write the following: “I, [Name] unconditionally recognize the Radical Honoursty culture's right to exist, and its members rights to publicly verbally express themselves in accordance to their honourable problem solving cultural values.” Upon receipt of your email, you will be sent an invitation to be a reader of the EoP blog where you can will be able to access reading all EoP related correspondence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpdated
ReplyDelete=====
* Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States
* Revolution in Military Ethics
Our dilemma is that of defining just and unjust actions within our wars and conflicts. It is time to reexamine habits that have come to pass for ethics and ask the sort of questions that are as controversial as they are uncomfortable to the man or woman of conscience. .. We must reexamine our concepts of the ethical and the legal. .. The whispered warning that we do not condone "assassinations" because we do not want our own leaders assassinated is a counsel of unspeakable cowardice. First, if leaders will not risk the fate they ask of their privates, they are not fit to lead their people.
These issues demand serious debate. Traditionalists who decry even the possibility of attacking these sources of human misery in such a manner generally do so from campuses or comfortable offices. They are out of contact with our citizenry and its needs, as they are phenomenally out of contact with the sheer violence of this world. They will immediately push the issue to absurd extremes, crying out that such a doctrine would amount to giving our military, which they see through the eyes of Oliver Stone and their own disdain of service, a license to kill. But the purpose of a military is to kill, and if you cannot stomach that, you should not have a military. The only operative question is whom the military should kill.
The United States enjoys a historically unique position of power, influence, and cultural empire. Whether we find this crown comfortable or not, we bear unprecedented responsibilities--and face unanticipated vulnerabilities. If we truly will protect our citizens, our allies, and (that most anomalous condition of mankind) peace, it is time to stand back and reevaluate our conception of what is ethical in war and in those haunting almost-wars arising from foreign disorder and international organized crime. We might discover that our current military ethics are the least humane thing about us.
[..]
[Ed: I had originally been searching for what I had thought was a Ralph Peters article, which starts with the quote about the roman general with his whispering cherub slave on his chariot. I did not find it that night; but I did find it today and it was not by Peters; but Christopher Fettweis]
-- Excerpt: RE: EoP Known Facts & Unknown Semi-Facts: Clerk Resignation [EoP | WiP]
*****
Elsewhere:
United Russian Marine Corps (UJMC) reveal [30-50] new Russian military symbol.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpdate #3:
ReplyDeleteIn the 23/04: Guns and Butter program We Remember Michael Ruppert & John Judge; John Judge has an interesting interpretation of the Kennedy Assassination:
"... and that night, Gore didn't concede and I wondered what the hell, what is going on; I mean Gore is no less of a player than Bush in these scenarious; I mean they all have big money behind them, sometimes the same money. Cause if you smart enough and rich enough, you bet every horse in the race. So why is Gore not conceding? .... and then I realized they want us to see; they want us to know; they want us to get the message and and it was just as blatant a message as November 22, 1963. I believe that 63's message is 'Yeah we shot the son of a bitch, and what are you gonna do about it? We can kill the president and we sure as hell can kill you; so sit down, shut up and get out of the way." Thats the subliminal message and a subliminal message of the 2004 election was 'we done here had enough about this dumb duhmockery shit, we already told you who won the election, now sit your duhmckery ass down and shut up." "Get out of the way" is the message and I think they pull3Д up the pettycoat and let us and let the rest of the world know." -- John Judge, Special Projects Assistant to Rep. Cynthia McKinney..
**********
Elsewhere:
**********
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall: Caisson B-roll Honour Horses show their playful side -- 18 of 28 | 28 of 28. Caisson platoon work at Arlington Cemetry, in ceremonies burying the living dead who died in the WiP Battles of Cow-pens.
*****
"There was no way the flag signals Mongols used to coordinate attack would work. Instead, you've got a knight on a war horse, twice as tall and 4 times heavier than their ponies, plowing thru the brush like a fucking tank taking out Mongols one at a time.
Clausewitz, 'On War': "When an army is confronted with steep forested land, it should go around it.
-- PIE History