Dear David,
Thanks for your email.
I largely agree with your analysis of American militarism and encourage you to watch the fine online documentary, "Why We Fight." The link is at http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-we-fight-excellent-documentary-with.html
Although nuking North Korea will have strong appeal for Tiny Fingers, I think it likely the generals will persuade His Satanic Majesty that so-called "bunker-busting bombs" can "get the job done" without establishing -- forevermore -- the insane precedent of "stand your ground" preemptive nuclear strike. (I eagerly await the day when a black man who kills a cop resorts to the "stand your ground" defense because 1.) he knew he committed NO crime, and 2.) he felt mortally menaced by a pistol-packing policeman whose attitude and behavior communicated a potentially lethal threat. THAT will be an epochal case. It will either put America's "legal house" in order, or it will reveal that America wants cops to have carte blanche to kill people at will.
http://paxonbothhouses.
"I Will Re-Direct You To This Post When Trump Bombs North Korea"
White Christian Despair And Armageddon As Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Conservative Christianity, Armageddon As Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, And Return Of The Neolithic
Although it is unclear whether the following report is trustworthy, it "rings true" and could be another way to oust the sobmf.
Former RNC Chariman Michael Steele Telling Clients To Prepare For Pence Presidency
Scuttlebut akin to the Michael Steele report has been circulating for months and I would venture that the Republican Old Guard -- which will lose its decisive political role if Trump-Bannon get a permanent foothold -- will coordinate a "palace coup," perhaps under aegis of The 25th Amendment. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-the-25th-amendment-suddenly-getting-so-much-attention
Dwight Eisenhower And America's Re-enactment Of The Tower Of Babel
I look forward to your new writing and apologize for being so overwhelmed that I have yet to reply to your last vignette.
Love
Alan
"Do War's Really Defend America's Freedom?"
(Homage To Marine Commandant, Major General Smedley Butler)
"We Like War"
Video
Scare The Sheep
And They Will Applaud Military-Industrial Profiteering
"Do War's Really Defend America's Freedom?"
(Homage To Marine Commandant, Major General Smedley Butler)
"We Like War"
Video
Scare The Sheep
And They Will Applaud Military-Industrial Profiteering
Republican Lawmaker From Nevada Sends Christmas Card Featuring Fully Armed Family
"Whom The Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Mad"
"Whom The Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Mad"
The Mistaken Concept That Reducing Cultures To Rubble Results In Peace
Punishment Rarely Reforms But Instead Tends To Reinforce Wrongdoing
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:17 PM, DS wrote:
Hello, Alan,
I actually have an ongoing hypothesis about this:
The US military has engaged in a variety of activities around the world during my lifetime, almost all of which I've disagreed with. That being said, they always have a "mission" f some sort, albeit a mission that I disagree with. There is no mission that can be accomplished by the use of nuclear weaponry. At the moment, it seems like Trump is ramping it up with Kim Jong-Un. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if, at some point, perhaps relatively soon, Trump will order a nuclear strike against North Korea. It's my guess that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already thought about this, and have decided that if the order is given to implement such a strike, they will refuse the order. I NEVER thought I would see the day when I would welcome a military coup inside the United States. But I would, indeed, welcome one in that scenario, as more or less any sane minded person probably would. The question would then become, "What with the military do next?" Just a guess here, but my guess is that they would not try to stay in power like in typical Third World dictatorships, but would, after escorting Trump out of the building, so to speak, just allow Pence to become president. This would be a relief in some ways, but it would also tend to unify the remnants of the Republican party in a way that would bring right-wing fundamentalism back to the forefront.
Your thoughts?
Incidentally, I was just reading through your most recent text regarding my magical realism piece. I have been working hard for the last week or so, and them now "coming up for air" again. I will send you a couple of additional pieces in my more concretely reality-oriented style, to get your take on editing in the two different writing styles.
Hasta pronto, David
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Arthur,
I hope you are well.
Since I do not fully understand "the chain of command" linking the president and "the generals," please clarify the following issue.
I believe it is true that the Pentagon -- and all branches of the military -- have declared environmental integrity a major security issue.
If "the brass" also believes that environmental integrity is not just a security issue but an existential issue (at least insofar as we are embarking a major "extinction event" for many species, if not our own) does military brass -- let's say the Joint Chiefs -- have the ability (or perhaps the obligation) to state that some significant portion of the 54 billion that Trump plans to invest in the Armed Forces (at the expense of the EPA and other federal agencies) should remain with the EPA.
Or, alternatively, could "the military" transfer that portion of the 54 billion that is being taken from the EPA back to the EPA, justifying the re-allocation as the best way to enhance national security?
All of which begs this question...
At what point does military leadership have a political obligation to declare Trump himself a national security threat?
Thanks!
Paz contigo,
Alan
PS Does your schedule have lunch openings in the next couple of weeks?
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:17 PM, DS wrote:
Hello, Alan,
I actually have an ongoing hypothesis about this:
The US military has engaged in a variety of activities around the world during my lifetime, almost all of which I've disagreed with. That being said, they always have a "mission" f some sort, albeit a mission that I disagree with. There is no mission that can be accomplished by the use of nuclear weaponry. At the moment, it seems like Trump is ramping it up with Kim Jong-Un. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if, at some point, perhaps relatively soon, Trump will order a nuclear strike against North Korea. It's my guess that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already thought about this, and have decided that if the order is given to implement such a strike, they will refuse the order. I NEVER thought I would see the day when I would welcome a military coup inside the United States. But I would, indeed, welcome one in that scenario, as more or less any sane minded person probably would. The question would then become, "What with the military do next?" Just a guess here, but my guess is that they would not try to stay in power like in typical Third World dictatorships, but would, after escorting Trump out of the building, so to speak, just allow Pence to become president. This would be a relief in some ways, but it would also tend to unify the remnants of the Republican party in a way that would bring right-wing fundamentalism back to the forefront.
Your thoughts?
Incidentally, I was just reading through your most recent text regarding my magical realism piece. I have been working hard for the last week or so, and them now "coming up for air" again. I will send you a couple of additional pieces in my more concretely reality-oriented style, to get your take on editing in the two different writing styles.
Hasta pronto, David
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Arthur,I hope you are well.Since I do not fully understand "the chain of command" linking the president and "the generals," please clarify the following issue.I believe it is true that the Pentagon -- and all branches of the military -- have declared environmental integrity a major security issue.If "the brass" also believes that environmental integrity is not just a security issue but an existential issue (at least insofar as we are embarking a major "extinction event" for many species, if not our own) does military brass -- let's say the Joint Chiefs -- have the ability (or perhaps the obligation) to state that some significant portion of the 54 billion that Trump plans to invest in the Armed Forces (at the expense of the EPA and other federal agencies) should remain with the EPA.Or, alternatively, could "the military" transfer that portion of the 54 billion that is being taken from the EPA back to the EPA, justifying the re-allocation as the best way to enhance national security?All of which begs this question...At what point does military leadership have a political obligation to declare Trump himself a national security threat?Thanks!Paz contigo,AlanPS Does your schedule have lunch openings in the next couple of weeks?
No comments:
Post a Comment