# Fw: It‘s a scary thought...



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Donald Schepens" <a.schepens@home.com>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:53:12 -0700*
> Headline in the NY Times:
> 
> UN Troops to deploy to the U.S.
> -Associated Press
> 
> In a startling move, the UN has decided to move troops into the United
> States "in order to secure the lawful transition of power following the
> results of the US Presidential Election" the results of which Vice
> President Al Gore refuses to acknowledge. The General Assembly of the UN
> has
> likened the Presidential election in the United States of America to the
> recent ‘election‘ in Serbia, where then-President Slobodan Milosevic
> refused
> to acknowledge the results of the election, and moved for a run-off
> election
> in his desperate bid to retain power.
> 
> The U.S. Defense Department has been ordered by the UN to cooperate with
> UN
> military commanders for the deployment of UN ground forces. The initial
> plan
> is for British, French, and German troops to land in Washington, D.C. to
> aid
> in the inauguration of President-Elect George W. Bush and the transferal
> of
> power there, while a second force of British, Australian, and Russian
> troops
> will oversee the final tally of votes in Florida.
> 
> "It is unfortunate that it has come to this," Pres-Elect Bush stated
> from
> the Texas Governor‘s mansion in Austin, Texas, "Al Gore has shown the
> world
> that he is no different from a dictator like Slobodan Milosevic in his
> refusal to abide by the results of the recount. I grieve for his
> insistence
> on duplicity, and hope he will see the light and concede the victory."
> 
> In a related story, the BBC did a story on the actions of Al Gore during
> his
> tenure as Vice President, pointing out his traitorous dealings with
> China
> and his ‘secret‘ deal with Russia. The feedback from around the globe is
> bewilderment at Gore‘s ability to befuddle the American people to the
> point
> where they still consider him to be a viable candidate for office,
> despite
> his record of betrayal and distortions of truth.
> 
> "We hope to quickly complete this change of administrations," said the
> Commander of the UN Forces, Brig. Gen. T. N. Crumpets of the British
> Army,
> "it is in the best interests of the American people, and the world as a
> whole, to get things back to normal."
> 
> Vice President Gore and his camp could not be reached for comment.
> 
> May God help us all...
> 
> *************************
> 
> The above is a farce. But it makes you think, doesn‘t it?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Jay Digital" <todesengel@home.com>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:31:59 -0500*
I think one important detail that most people are forgetting is that these
recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the popular
vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse would be
justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next president.
But that‘s my $0.02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Schepens" 
To: "Army Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 8:53 PM
Subject: Fw: It‘s a scary thought...
> > Headline in the NY Times:
> >
> > UN Troops to deploy to the U.S.
> > -Associated Press
> >
> > In a startling move, the UN has decided to move troops into the United
> > States "in order to secure the lawful transition of power following the
> > results of the US Presidential Election" the results of which Vice
> > President Al Gore refuses to acknowledge. The General Assembly of the UN
> > has
> > likened the Presidential election in the United States of America to the
> > recent ‘election‘ in Serbia, where then-President Slobodan Milosevic
> > refused
> > to acknowledge the results of the election, and moved for a run-off
> > election
> > in his desperate bid to retain power.
> >
> > The U.S. Defense Department has been ordered by the UN to cooperate with
> > UN
> > military commanders for the deployment of UN ground forces. The initial
> > plan
> > is for British, French, and German troops to land in Washington, D.C. to
> > aid
> > in the inauguration of President-Elect George W. Bush and the transferal
> > of
> > power there, while a second force of British, Australian, and Russian
> > troops
> > will oversee the final tally of votes in Florida.
> >
> > "It is unfortunate that it has come to this," Pres-Elect Bush stated
> > from
> > the Texas Governor‘s mansion in Austin, Texas, "Al Gore has shown the
> > world
> > that he is no different from a dictator like Slobodan Milosevic in his
> > refusal to abide by the results of the recount. I grieve for his
> > insistence
> > on duplicity, and hope he will see the light and concede the victory."
> >
> > In a related story, the BBC did a story on the actions of Al Gore during
> > his
> > tenure as Vice President, pointing out his traitorous dealings with
> > China
> > and his ‘secret‘ deal with Russia. The feedback from around the globe is
> > bewilderment at Gore‘s ability to befuddle the American people to the
> > point
> > where they still consider him to be a viable candidate for office,
> > despite
> > his record of betrayal and distortions of truth.
> >
> > "We hope to quickly complete this change of administrations," said the
> > Commander of the UN Forces, Brig. Gen. T. N. Crumpets of the British
> > Army,
> > "it is in the best interests of the American people, and the world as a
> > whole, to get things back to normal."
> >
> > Vice President Gore and his camp could not be reached for comment.
> >
> > May God help us all...
> >
> > *************************
> >
> > The above is a farce. But it makes you think, doesn‘t it?
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:49:26 -0700*
As a person living in the US, I can tell you that the Florida Supreme Court
is having a hard time deciding what is law. I believe that you are
tremendously oversimplifying it. There has been much debate lately,
regarding the Electoral College system, as well as the Constitutional
election requirements. As near as I can figure, if they abandon the college
system, future Presidents will be decided by Illinois, Texas, California,
New York, and Massachusetts. Also, Bush actually won more States. It kind of
points out the advantage of having a non-partisan relatively speaking
common system, such as the one Elections Canada provides. Probably, Yanks on
the list such as Mr. Hall can provide the most insight.
Mac
================================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Digital" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> I think one important detail that most people are forgetting is that these
> recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the
popular
> vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse would
be
> justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next
president.
> But that‘s my $0.02
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:53:22 -0500*
A response from an American friend from the Carolina‘s on the current 
political situation in the US of A I asked for an American‘s view point 
of what would likely be very likely address, in some respects, a point 
Don makes UN Inspectors to the USA. Umphh!...LOL  that should get them 
to pony up their unpaid UN fees...
But its to some extent enlightening, so I‘ll share it..just delete if 
you‘re not interested...and it is abridged...
Regards
John
What‘s going on is a public display of a true politician‘s ambitious 
greed. As one of our pundits, who is the moderator on an American 
political TV program called "Hardball", says, "You‘re just seeing the 
naked political truth. This is the way politicians operate. No holds 
barred, no truth sacred."  Sad, and they wish to be respected.  
Shakespeare had it almost right in "First kill all the lawyers" he 
should have included the professional politician.
Insofar as the system goes, the object is to provide a vehicle which 
responds to the wishes and needs of the majority of citizens. As crass 
as the Florida debacle appears and it truly is crass to the max, it 
really emphasizes how important we, the electorate, perceive each vote 
to be. As disgusted as I am with the actions of the Gore team, I have to 
say that if I were trying to become President and my election hung on 1 
vote, I‘d fight like ****  too. I just would prefer it be honest and 
fair.
In so far as the system goes, let me quote a nationally syndicated 
newspaper columnist who really opened my eyes recently.
"The American republic is not a sleek, efficient machine that infallibly 
converts popular sentiment into government policy. That‘s because it‘s 
not supposed to be. Just the reverse, in fact. From the federal 
government down, our system incorporates a variety of mechanisms that 
are meant not to facilitate action and to empower the people, but to 
prevent action, slow things down and ward off the excess of popular 
rule. The founders of the republic were familiar with efficient 
government: They knew it as monarchy. And they had deep reservations 
about democracy, which they feared would degenerate into tyranny by the 
majority.
So they didn‘t want too much efficiency or too much democracy. The 
institutions they created were designed so it couldn‘t be easy for 
anyone, elected or electorate, to get things done.
Here the president.......can implement much of his agenda only if he can 
get consent from Congress- which may be controlled by the party he just 
defeated in the presidential race. He is checked by Congress, Congress 
is checked by him by veto powers, and both are checked by the 
courts-which in turn are checked by both of the other branches. There is 
no such thing as unbridled power in our system.
Besides being contained by checks and balances, power is not 
concentrated in one place, but scattered among thousands of government 
bodies from coast to coast. We have an electoral college, which can 
deprive the people of their choice for president, because ours is not a 
single democracy but a collection of democracies. We are the United 
States of America, not the United People of America.
So some powers, like supervising elections, reside at the state level, 
while others are lodged in Washington. This prevents either the federal 
government or its‘ state counterparts from having too free a hand. As 
the Supreme Court put it in a landmark 1995 decision, "A healthy balance 
of power between the states and the federal government will reduce the 
risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."
The electoral college comprised of one representative for each Senator 
and member of the House of Representatives from each state, is like the 
United States Senate, is a check on the power of large states to impose 
their will on small states. It encourages presidential candidates to 
heed not only the desires of people living in New York and Chicago but 
also those living in Las Cruces and Cedar Rapids.
With out devices like these, states would be weaker and less able to 
resist the centralizing impulses of the federal government. They would 
be little more than administrative vestiges, as puny and superfluous as 
an appendix.
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the founders had a 
clear idea how to prevent oppression and injustice by politicians: 
"Society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes 
of citizens that the rights of individuals or of the minority will be in 
little danger from the interested combinations of the majority." Bad 
people or bad causes might come to dominate one level or branch of 
government, but like Gulliver being restrained by the Lilliputians, they 
would find themselves foiled by a multitude of tiny obstacles.
So what looks like a senseless Rube Goldberg scheme, that merely 
complicates things which ought to be simple, is actually a sensible Rube 
Goldberg scheme that serves reliably to protect our liberties.
by Steve Chapman

BODY 
BACKGROUND-POSITION: left top MARGIN-TOP: 100px FONT-SIZE: 12pt 
COLOR: 000000 BACKGROUND-REPEAT: no-repeat FONT-FAMILY: Comic Sans MS
A response from an American friend from 
the
Carolina‘s on the current political situation in the US of A I asked 
for an
American‘s view point of what would likely be very likely address, in 
some
respects, a point Don makes UN Inspectors to the USA. 
Umphh!...LOL that
should get them to pony up their unpaid UN fees...
But its to some extent enlightening, so 
I‘ll share
it..just delete if you‘re not interested...and it is 
abridged...
Regards
John
What8217s going on is a public display of 
a true
politician8217s ambitious greed. As one of our pundits, who is the 
moderator on an
American political TV program called "Hardball", says, "You8217re 
just seeing the
naked political truth. This is the way politicians operate. No holds 
barred, no
truth sacred." Sad, and they wish to be respected. 
Shakespeare had
it almost right in "First kill all the lawyers" he should have included 
the
professional politician.
Insofar as the system goes, the object is to provide a vehicle which 
responds
to the wishes and needs of the majority of citizens. As crass as the 
Florida
debacle appears and it truly is crass to the max, it really emphasizes 
how
important we, the electorate, perceive each vote to be. As disgusted as 
I am
with the actions of the Gore team, I have to say that if I were trying 
to become
President and my election hung on 1 vote, I8217d fight like ****  too. 
I just would
prefer it be honest and fair.
In so far as the system goes, let me quote a nationally syndicated 
newspaper
columnist who really opened my eyes recently.
"The American republic is not a sleek, efficient machine that 
infallibly
converts popular sentiment into government policy. That8217s because 
it8217s not
supposed to be. Just the reverse, in fact. From the federal government 
down, our
system incorporates a variety of mechanisms that are meant not to 
facilitate
action and to empower the people, but to prevent action, slow things 
down and
ward off the excess of popular rule. The founders of the republic were 
familiar
with efficient government: They knew it as monarchy. And they had deep
reservations about democracy, which they feared would degenerate into 
tyranny by
the majority. 
So they didn8217t want too much efficiency or too much democracy. 
The
institutions they created were designed so it couldn8217t be easy for 
anyone,
elected or electorate, to get things done. 
Here the president.......can implement much of his agenda only if he 
can get
consent from Congress- which may be controlled by the party he just 
defeated in
the presidential race. He is checked by Congress, Congress is checked by 
him by
veto powers, and both are checked by the courts-which in turn are 
checked by
both of the other branches. There is no such thing as unbridled power in 
our
system.
Besides being contained by checks and balances, power is not 
concentrated in
one place, but scattered among thousands of government bodies from coast 
to
coast. We have an electoral college, which can deprive the people of 
their
choice for president, because ours is not a single democracy but a 
collection of
democracies. We are the United States of America, not the United People 
of
America.
So some powers, like supervising elections, reside at the state 
level, while
others are lodged in Washington. This prevents either the federal 
government or
its8217 state counterparts from having too free a hand. As the 
Supreme Court put it
in a landmark 1995 decision, "A healthy balance of power between the 
states and
the federal government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from 
either
front."
The electoral college comprised of one representative for each 
Senator
and member of the House of Representatives from each state, is like 
the
United States Senate, is a check on the power of large states to impose 
their
will on small states. It encourages presidential candidates to heed not 
only the
desires of people living in New York and Chicago but also those living 
in Las
Cruces and Cedar Rapids.
With out devices like these, states would be weaker and less able to 
resist
the centralizing impulses of the federal government. They would be 
little more
than administrative vestiges, as puny and superfluous as an 
appendix.
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the founders had a 
clear
idea how to prevent oppression and injustice by politicians: 
"Society
itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of 
citizens that
the rights of individuals or of the minority will be in little danger 
from the
interested combinations of the majority." Bad people or bad causes might 
come to
dominate one level or branch of government, but like Gulliver being 
restrained
by the Lilliputians, they would find themselves foiled by a multitude of 
tiny
obstacles.
So what looks like a senseless Rube Goldberg scheme, that merely 
complicates
things which ought to be simple, is actually a sensible Rube Goldberg 
scheme
that serves reliably to protect our liberties.
by Steve Chapman 
R0lGODlhSABXANQUABUQGlc0HW1WKxg2VCZRfHFzUv8AAJVgCcN0CMyZAPmVAcKLK CqJbWeU/XD
UdXSfP/MZjNmmTFqo5icnf//mdLStAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05F
VFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh QQFLAEXACwAAAAASABXAAAF/ AljmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv
/8CgcEgsGo/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6PT20Si4AXCAu9B4PKpsQXzP59Pv
TQ8FewMDBIcREooSEREEhXwCdUkNAXCGiYoRc5xzjY6PewENRg2Xn5sCB6usra0Cbo2hcAVFpoYE
Ba67vK0FjgO0F2yckzumhwRxAb29AgGWl8GEhZAFgDimmcDTfd5xhQSJEZfii4qhtdkAmefc1Xzh
5ueMAAPo1QSLyuo22vQANaEK6O4SrTf2EinDRuMfwYcQ6wGQxPCWogH9GrJT9Cviw02N6glIIUDf
Qn8bJf8sWNDR46JNK7fJSdHgnoQBpGo4XKBAwUo3EeksQNBTZkYTJW/m1JiJZ88DPRu06eSGJwI9
UI2qKHAPIww7YNmkdKoAQICeaHsiWIvgwJ6smiaGnSvoHj qBaDpDaDnW1O0cIimdfvWgAEAcCV 
i6OP3OLHfP6qhZq27DLDhhErkAkZgMnOoCVXRouATwDMmjkLWM26dVJlrlk7mE27du2do0l/O506
rgAIwIMLb6AvmAPhyJMnx527LeTE5H4rB078pvTp2IMzLxtA8NPH0CdmL0muQfbzELbHqUzYW1Hf
2B14No4 e03Rbs9WXrYq8HuR2HElgXj1YVfTImTl1pP/Wd6tgpZM1yEnnyMAmFfgdAcqkqCClCkI
oXIOBNAVAMddqFyGKimoImlEfSihPRIoY6GJy9mkklsdrphWbwAG58AgdlVII4Y2LtAeMzp F16F
UvXVmJBDnlhke3CM9gx7PDomjTkyRkkkglQCMFqVg2WZED0ESOLllxqGOaaYZS4pDih0lLhmjWDy
8SaW4UkilVR23olnm3ruBydabrUIn6D1oViAkdEcCpikCqzFUkjkBJAAA5wGyuhwNnI01AH67Ujp
pQVpmsCqmzLgKaMoviTUaAcItkAb7bxkFqu8bvqpjykBtMmjKxUby0PBHNArr67 CsEBA Tq0kfJ
LttrarOMOpCAJfpM 5AyiFm77KteMpCAW4Z46w644YrLrLMOmEuqPfNEBEwcyrr7rrPAxXsuuvIk
IzAkcDCjL7Pk/jqbvP2BV vBq3bKb3wLc2ouW2wdbHGns01Mo20gh5ywxySXbPLJKKcMXAgAIfkE
BWQAFwAsFwAbABUAEAAABTvgJY5kOVaoqZJouqpt2r5iLLurXdW4abO90u8UBPZir5lxlwsim0zi
hDYJTq5ULOk6fXFLX692FKaZQgAh QQFZAAXACwMAA0AKAAVAAAFTuAljmRpnmelomzbqpVLwnK6
1hcc4yON6zuerwbkiYZEZDL4uzWdT6POmIO6plTlS3vlorxba5haFZNl4LN6zUab2zYm3ASUz2fv
e08VAgAh QQFZAAXACwNAAIAJAAWAAAFPeAljmRpllWanmx7qrArs3A832iN72Jd8TsdEGfzrYYk
oxE5Ui6ZzaINelHljtSsdsvter/gMM8qJofN2RAAIfkEBWQAFwAsCgADADMAFwAABUzgJY5kaVYo
aq5s65Zp s40G8t1Tt V7s 3n7AVGxpPqqNShFsem0uoUyid qpWajJ7xXJfxa8uLK55y7YtGnhe
k4JuFzxObNMvdncIACH5BAVkABcALCAAEgAJAAQAAAUMYCVWV1mOaKpeqhgCADs
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:21:49 -0700*
Another point regarding "the popular vote"... many Americans will remind you
that the US is not a democracy, but a Republic. 50 percent, plus one or
other majority doesn‘t necessarily mean much here.
================================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Digital" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> I think one important detail that most people are forgetting is that these
> recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the
popular
> vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse would
be
> justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next
president.
> But that‘s my $0.02
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Jay Digital" <todesengel@home.com>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:53:03 -0500*
You could also say the same about our parliamentary democracy since Ontario
basically elects the government every election.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The MacFarlanes‘" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> As a person living in the US, I can tell you that the Florida Supreme
Court
> is having a hard time deciding what is law. I believe that you are
> tremendously oversimplifying it. There has been much debate lately,
> regarding the Electoral College system, as well as the Constitutional
> election requirements. As near as I can figure, if they abandon the
college
> system, future Presidents will be decided by Illinois, Texas, California,
> New York, and Massachusetts. Also, Bush actually won more States. It kind
of
> points out the advantage of having a non-partisan relatively speaking
> common system, such as the one Elections Canada provides. Probably, Yanks
on
> the list such as Mr. Hall can provide the most insight.
> Mac
> ================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:12:58 -0500*
I dunno, Ontario seems a wide and varied place to me...and I‘ve travelled
through most of it.
On the other hand, it does flex its muscles and ram a lot of things through
a very tight hole, so to speak, in a lot of other provinces that have a lot
less population, collectively, especially  if not less area.
Are you arguing for representation through square miles or hectares, if you
will?
Seems a pretty good question, doesn‘t it?
Do you want a government that is representative of its people ie Preston‘s
impassioned speeches on the Quebec Referendum...50 plus 1 vote or do you
want that the "have not" provinces can direct the vast bulk of the
population to do as they say, and population be damned?
Do you buy into the Stockwell Day idea of 350K voices on a petition, and
he‘ll run a referendum?  What‘s happening with the 400K voices that say he
should change his name to "Doris"?
We must all remember, this is "real life as we know it" that we are playing
with so some extreme beliefs that we may hold of the moment are not
necessarily how we may want to go for an "untroubled" four years..
But I believe ita good thing, in a snap election call, that with one week
left to run, we are still discussing options, as opposed "conclusions"...be
prepared, brethern, to make a reasonsable choice on the 27th....
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Digital" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> You could also say the same about our parliamentary democracy since
Ontario
> basically elects the government every election.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The MacFarlanes‘" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 9:49 PM
> Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
>
>
> > As a person living in the US, I can tell you that the Florida Supreme
> Court
> > is having a hard time deciding what is law. I believe that you are
> > tremendously oversimplifying it. There has been much debate lately,
> > regarding the Electoral College system, as well as the Constitutional
> > election requirements. As near as I can figure, if they abandon the
> college
> > system, future Presidents will be decided by Illinois, Texas,
California,
> > New York, and Massachusetts. Also, Bush actually won more States. It
kind
> of
> > points out the advantage of having a non-partisan relatively speaking
> > common system, such as the one Elections Canada provides. Probably,
Yanks
> on
> > the list such as Mr. Hall can provide the most insight.
> > Mac
> > ================================================================
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 02:33:53 EST*
Thank you, Sir, for the vote of confidence...but I doubt that any of us down 
south have escaped total bewilderment!  It is truly fascinating from a 
historical perspective, and the attitude most Americans seem to be taking is, 
"Let the drama play itself out."  Personally, this whole business reinforces 
the need for an overhaul of the national election system.  So let me betray 
my ignorance, and ask how Elections Canada does national elections? Serious 
question.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:30:51 -0700*
Scherpens rebroadcast of the UN-US Election farce which is the farce,
the election or the UN invasion does indeed make me wonder. But perhaps
not the way expected:
At what point do I speaking only for myself want the UN to interfere
in the internal workings of what are considered to be "nations"? Several
interesting prejoritive words in that sentence, "interfere", "internal",
"workings" not to mention "nations". How closely are we heading to a One
World Government and do we really want a world nanny?
We‘ve shifted from the position where any internal affairs are the
affairs of only that "nation" genocide but just how far do we go where
1.1 billion votes from one country not wishing to be racist are
matched against 30 million votes from Canada in setting internal
standards within Canada. What‘s this got to do with Military? Well, it‘s
often the Canadian troops who are volunteered to be the policemen or
Black and Tan depending on your point of view. Or is it just mere
anarchy that Canadian troops are required to "police"?
Donald Schepens wrote:
> 
> > Headline in the NY Times:
> >
> > UN Troops to deploy to the U.S.
> > -Associated Press
> >
> > In a startling move, the UN has decided to move troops into the United
> > States "in order to secure the lawful transition of power following the
> > results of the US Presidential Election" the results of which Vice
> > President Al Gore refuses to acknowledge. The General Assembly of the UN
> > has
> > likened the Presidential election in the United States of America to the
> > recent ‘election‘ in Serbia, where then-President Slobodan Milosevic
> > refused
> > to acknowledge the results of the election, and moved for a run-off
> > election
> > in his desperate bid to retain power.
> >
> > The U.S. Defense Department has been ordered by the UN to cooperate with
> > UN
> > military commanders for the deployment of UN ground forces. The initial
> > plan
> > is for British, French, and German troops to land in Washington, D.C. to
> > aid
> > in the inauguration of President-Elect George W. Bush and the transferal
> > of
> > power there, while a second force of British, Australian, and Russian
> > troops
> > will oversee the final tally of votes in Florida.
> >
> > "It is unfortunate that it has come to this," Pres-Elect Bush stated
> > from
> > the Texas Governor‘s mansion in Austin, Texas, "Al Gore has shown the
> > world
> > that he is no different from a dictator like Slobodan Milosevic in his
> > refusal to abide by the results of the recount. I grieve for his
> > insistence
> > on duplicity, and hope he will see the light and concede the victory."
> >
> > In a related story, the BBC did a story on the actions of Al Gore during
> > his
> > tenure as Vice President, pointing out his traitorous dealings with
> > China
> > and his ‘secret‘ deal with Russia. The feedback from around the globe is
> > bewilderment at Gore‘s ability to befuddle the American people to the
> > point
> > where they still consider him to be a viable candidate for office,
> > despite
> > his record of betrayal and distortions of truth.
> >
> > "We hope to quickly complete this change of administrations," said the
> > Commander of the UN Forces, Brig. Gen. T. N. Crumpets of the British
> > Army,
> > "it is in the best interests of the American people, and the world as a
> > whole, to get things back to normal."
> >
> > Vice President Gore and his camp could not be reached for comment.
> >
> > May God help us all...
> >
> > *************************
> >
> > The above is a farce. But it makes you think, doesn‘t it?
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Albert King <aking@mb.sympatico.ca>* on *Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:36:42 -0200*
--------------3533AD343261F3F8CD33BBD6
Gore can win the popular vote all he wants. America‘s system of electing
Presidents doesn‘t work that way, it‘s the electoral collage that counts. To
change after the vote simply because some journalists say Bush may not enjoy
total confidence of the people is un-constitutional and stupid.
If you want to reform the system, fine. But this vote is done with and done
under the Electoral Collage. When you vote, if you feel that you have spoilled
you ballot or can‘t understand the ballot, you can ask for help from an
elections official and get a new ballot. It‘s interesting all these Democrats
who wanted to vote Gore but say they voted Buchannan are suddenly complaining
after the fact.
I think the Democrats are attempting to de-legitimize the Bush presidency before
it even begins. It‘s revenge for the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton.
Right now Gore wants counting to continue until he wins.
I like one sign I have seen being carried by some Republicans... Sore
Loosermen
Jay Digital wrote:
> I think one important detail that most people are forgetting is that these
> recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the popular
> vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse would be
> justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next president.
> But that‘s my $0.02
--------------3533AD343261F3F8CD33BBD6
Gore can win the popular vote all he wants. America‘s system of electing
Presidents doesn‘t work that way, it‘s the electoral collage that counts.
To change after the vote simply because some journalists say Bush may not
enjoy total confidence of the people is un-constitutional and stupid.
If you want to reform the system, fine. But this vote is done with and
done under the Electoral Collage. When you vote, if you feel that you have
spoilled you ballot or can‘t understand the ballot, you can ask for help
from an elections official and get a new ballot. It‘s interesting all these
Democrats who wanted to vote Gore but say they voted Buchannan are suddenly
complaining after the fact.
I think the Democrats are attempting to de-legitimize the Bush presidency
before it even begins. It‘s revenge for the Republicans trying to impeach
Clinton. Right now Gore wants counting to continue until he wins.
I like one sign I have seen being carried by some Republicans...
Sore
Loosermen
Jay Digital wrote:
I think one important detail that most people are
forgetting is that these
recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the
popular
vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse
would be
justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next president.
But that‘s my $0.02
--------------3533AD343261F3F8CD33BBD6--
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:32:38 -0700*
Did he??
Jay Digital wrote:
snip, snip

> Aswell, Gore won the popular
> vote so ..... snip
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:18:05 -0700*
I‘m also not sure what you mean. "Democracy" is merely "mob rule".
A republic is just one of several forms of democracy that is
institutionalized to allow sober thought to be given to issues rather
than reacting immediately to knee jerks of the unwashed hoi poloi. A
republic doesn‘t necessarily have to be democratic, although all forms
of government have to, ultimately, reflect the will of the people
sometimes it takes too long if it‘s also a dictatorship. 
Who are the unwashed hoi poloi?  Those who disagree with me. :
The MacFarlanes‘ wrote:
> 
> Another point regarding "the popular vote"... many Americans will remind you
> that the US is not a democracy, but a Republic. 50 percent, plus one or
> other majority doesn‘t necessarily mean much here.
> ================================================================
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Digital" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> 
> > I think one important detail that most people are forgetting is that these
> > recounts are all required by Florida state law. Aswell, Gore won the
> popular
> > vote so my belief is that anything to put Gore into the whitehouse would
> be
> > justified since the majority of Americans want him as their next
> president.
> > But that‘s my $0.02
> >
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:57:10 -0700*
We elect local Members of Parliament who, in theory, elect a Prime
Minister from within their ranks. That‘s exactly the way it‘s done in
Britain. Here, our political parties tend to get in the way of the
second stage election by electing party leaders at irregular
conventions, but that is not enshrined in any constitution. Cabinet
members are also members of Parliament and answer to parliament or know
how to dodge questions in practice as well as to their own cabinet,
headed by the PM. The fact that cabinet members and the PM must stand up
in the House and answer questions is, I believe, one of the main merits
of "our" system over that of a republic.
We, too, have a bicamarel legislative body. The appointed Senate being
the other body. Members appointed by the PM for life or age 75. Well,
let‘s not go further down that path today...
We have a Governor General, appointed for 5 years by the Queen of Canada
on advice of the Prime Minister unfortunately she doesn‘t appoint the
GG on her own advice and we often wind up with a series of political
has-been hacks given the job as a reward. The GG is only there to
ensure that the elected majority don‘t overstep the perceived mandate
platform they ran on during the last election if they ever should do
so, then the GG can call an election and make sure that the party in
power has the will of the people. The GG must be absolutely sure that
the party in power does not reflect the current will of the people, as
to be found out wrong through an election would cause although no legal
reason the GG to resign and that office to be severely disgraced. It‘s
therefore a power that‘s only exercised once in several or more decades
but its value is in the threat not the carrying out of the action of the
GG that counts.
As a routine, the PM asks the GG to call an election and the GG usually
agrees except in the case of minority governments she/he may appoint
someone for another party as PM rather than call an election. An
election must be called within five years, but the PM has the option of
calling one whenever he/she wishes, subject to the approval of the GG.
The election is usually called whenever new "issues" crop up that are
important enough that the will of the people must be asked. But
sometimes, often argued, the PM calls an election at an opportunistic
momement when he/she feels the public is with him/her and he/she wants
to extend the mandate rather than gamble/face a potential slide in
popularity in the remainder of the 5 years max.
Consequently, a PM has more "power" than a president, as the PM leads
the House and can get legislation passed. Clear as mud???
DHall058@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Sir, for the vote of confidence...but I doubt that any of us down
> south have escaped total bewilderment!  It is truly fascinating from a
> historical perspective, and the attitude most Americans seem to be taking is,
> "Let the drama play itself out."  Personally, this whole business reinforces
> the need for an overhaul of the national election system.  So let me betray
> my ignorance, and ask how Elections Canada does national elections? Serious
> question.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:30:20 EST*
Thank you, Ian. I‘m less ignorant than before, and your system does make 
sense.
Dave Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:45:02 -0800*
>how Elections Canada does national elections?
The best part is that I expect to mark a cross in a circle on a printed ballot,
which will then be counted by hand.  There will be no opportunity for recounters
to dislocate "chads" to invalidate, change, or second-guess my vote.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:42:54 -0700*
I think your question was more "what does "Elections Canada" do. The federal
election operates under a standard set of rules, ballots, etc.,
country-wide. There is a relatively non-partisan organization, Elections
Canada, which oversees this whole process. It is an organization, similar, I
think to the Census Bureau, in the US. The people in BC are voting on the
same type of ballot, as the people in PEI. They are all counted the same,
and verified the same. Anyone else, feel free to jump in.
MacF
"The proverb warns that, ‘You should not bite the hand that
feeds you.‘  But maybe you should, if it prevents you from
feeding yourself."
--Thomas Szasz
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
> Thank you, Ian. I‘m less ignorant than before, and your system does make
> sense.
> Dave Hall
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:30:35 -0000*
Ian,
Full marks for an informative, concise and accurate answer. Though, to 
repeat a point I have made before, having an unelected chamber isn‘t, I 
think, quite as bad as it‘s often made out to be. Harder for various 
interest groups to "buy" people who have guaranteed full-time employment 
Barring gross misconduct or neglect of duties, of course... to age 75, for 
one thing.
However, I feel compelled to point out mostly because I am a brat that it 
has *everything* to do with politics and *nothing* - far as I can tell, 
anyway - to do with the CF.
If you‘re going to "police" others, perhaps un peu de self-policing is also 
in order?
Joan
PS - In a similar vein, as a belated reply to Mike‘s very thoughtful and 
sensible "rules", while obviously standard rules of on-line courtesy and 
relevance should/must apply to this list with a bit of extra "courtesy" or 
caution thrown in for the benefit of whomever our official lurkers may be, I 
suppose, this *is* cyberspace, which, last time I checked, was used by many 
folks to vent issues and roadtest ideas they might not normally be able 
to/care to express through other means. So, while, I‘m a great stickler for 
good manners, I wonder if an excessive emphasis on protocol might not 
inadvertently be having a slight inhibiting effect on our shared 
discussion...
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ian Edwards 
Reply-To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:57:10 -0700
We elect local Members of Parliament who, in theory, elect a Prime
Minister from within their ranks. That‘s exactly the way it‘s done in
Britain. Here, our political parties tend to get in the way of the
second stage election by electing party leaders at irregular
conventions, but that is not enshrined in any constitution. Cabinet
members are also members of Parliament and answer to parliament or know
how to dodge questions in practice as well as to their own cabinet,
headed by the PM. The fact that cabinet members and the PM must stand up
in the House and answer questions is, I believe, one of the main merits
of "our" system over that of a republic.
We, too, have a bicamarel legislative body. The appointed Senate being
the other body. Members appointed by the PM for life or age 75. Well,
let‘s not go further down that path today...
We have a Governor General, appointed for 5 years by the Queen of Canada
on advice of the Prime Minister unfortunately she doesn‘t appoint the
GG on her own advice and we often wind up with a series of political
has-been hacks given the job as a reward. The GG is only there to
ensure that the elected majority don‘t overstep the perceived mandate
platform they ran on during the last election if they ever should do
so, then the GG can call an election and make sure that the party in
power has the will of the people. The GG must be absolutely sure that
the party in power does not reflect the current will of the people, as
to be found out wrong through an election would cause although no legal
reason the GG to resign and that office to be severely disgraced. It‘s
therefore a power that‘s only exercised once in several or more decades
but its value is in the threat not the carrying out of the action of the
GG that counts.
As a routine, the PM asks the GG to call an election and the GG usually
agrees except in the case of minority governments she/he may appoint
someone for another party as PM rather than call an election. An
election must be called within five years, but the PM has the option of
calling one whenever he/she wishes, subject to the approval of the GG.
The election is usually called whenever new "issues" crop up that are
important enough that the will of the people must be asked. But
sometimes, often argued, the PM calls an election at an opportunistic
momement when he/she feels the public is with him/her and he/she wants
to extend the mandate rather than gamble/face a potential slide in
popularity in the remainder of the 5 years max.
Consequently, a PM has more "power" than a president, as the PM leads
the House and can get legislation passed. Clear as mud???
DHall058@aol.com wrote:
 >
 > Thank you, Sir, for the vote of confidence...but I doubt that any of us 
down
 > south have escaped total bewilderment!  It is truly fascinating from a
 > historical perspective, and the attitude most Americans seem to be taking 
is,
 > "Let the drama play itself out."  Personally, this whole business 
reinforces
 > the need for an overhaul of the national election system.  So let me 
betray
 > my ignorance, and ask how Elections Canada does national elections? 
Serious
 > question.
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
 > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
 > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :  http://explorer.msn.com 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:51:54 -0000*
Ian -
Yet again I find myself agreeing with you, though, as always from a civilian 
perspective. Not long ago I edited a book on the impact of the UN Convention 
on the Rights of the Child on public policy and law in Canada. Though an 
innocuous-sounding enough document, the Convention, among other things, 
technically *compels* the gov‘t of Canada to provide universal day care to 
"police" that word again! broadcasters to make sure they are providing 
enough "child-friendly" content and impedes parents from forbidding their 
youngsters to fraternize with drug dealers, pimps, gang members, etc.
The One World Government perspective while, on the one hand, somewhat 
improbable and far-fetched sounding, is actually an issue that I think 
deserves to be much more widely debated than it currently is.
As most of the members of this list have, at one time or another I would 
guess, put themselves in the line of fire on behalf of the UN, I‘m curious 
to know what other people think about Ian‘s comments below.
- Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ian Edwards 
Reply-To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Subject: Re: Fw: It‘s a scary thought...
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:30:51 -0700
Scherpens rebroadcast of the UN-US Election farce which is the farce,
the election or the UN invasion does indeed make me wonder. But perhaps
not the way expected:
At what point do I speaking only for myself want the UN to interfere
in the internal workings of what are considered to be "nations"? Several
interesting prejoritive words in that sentence, "interfere", "internal",
"workings" not to mention "nations". How closely are we heading to a One
World Government and do we really want a world nanny?
We‘ve shifted from the position where any internal affairs are the
affairs of only that "nation" genocide but just how far do we go where
1.1 billion votes from one country not wishing to be racist are
matched against 30 million votes from Canada in setting internal
standards within Canada. What‘s this got to do with Military? Well, it‘s
often the Canadian troops who are volunteered to be the policemen or
Black and Tan depending on your point of view. Or is it just mere
anarchy that Canadian troops are required to "police"?
Donald Schepens wrote:
 >
 > > Headline in the NY Times:
 > >
 > > UN Troops to deploy to the U.S.
 > > -Associated Press
 > >
 > > In a startling move, the UN has decided to move troops into the United
 > > States "in order to secure the lawful transition of power following the
 > > results of the US Presidential Election" the results of which Vice
 > > President Al Gore refuses to acknowledge. The General Assembly of the 
UN
 > > has
 > > likened the Presidential election in the United States of America to 
the
 > > recent ‘election‘ in Serbia, where then-President Slobodan Milosevic
 > > refused
 > > to acknowledge the results of the election, and moved for a run-off
 > > election
 > > in his desperate bid to retain power.
 > >
 > > The U.S. Defense Department has been ordered by the UN to cooperate 
with
 > > UN
 > > military commanders for the deployment of UN ground forces. The initial
 > > plan
 > > is for British, French, and German troops to land in Washington, D.C. 
to
 > > aid
 > > in the inauguration of President-Elect George W. Bush and the 
transferal
 > > of
 > > power there, while a second force of British, Australian, and Russian
 > > troops
 > > will oversee the final tally of votes in Florida.
 > >
 > > "It is unfortunate that it has come to this," Pres-Elect Bush stated
 > > from
 > > the Texas Governor‘s mansion in Austin, Texas, "Al Gore has shown the
 > > world
 > > that he is no different from a dictator like Slobodan Milosevic in his
 > > refusal to abide by the results of the recount. I grieve for his
 > > insistence
 > > on duplicity, and hope he will see the light and concede the victory."
 > >
 > > In a related story, the BBC did a story on the actions of Al Gore 
during
 > > his
 > > tenure as Vice President, pointing out his traitorous dealings with
 > > China
 > > and his ‘secret‘ deal with Russia. The feedback from around the globe 
is
 > > bewilderment at Gore‘s ability to befuddle the American people to the
 > > point
 > > where they still consider him to be a viable candidate for office,
 > > despite
 > > his record of betrayal and distortions of truth.
 > >
 > > "We hope to quickly complete this change of administrations," said the
 > > Commander of the UN Forces, Brig. Gen. T. N. Crumpets of the British
 > > Army,
 > > "it is in the best interests of the American people, and the world as a
 > > whole, to get things back to normal."
 > >
 > > Vice President Gore and his camp could not be reached for comment.
 > >
 > > May God help us all...
 > >
 > > *************************
 > >
 > > The above is a farce. But it makes you think, doesn‘t it?
 > >
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
 > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
 > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :  http://explorer.msn.com 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:11:35 EST*
I feel compelled to jump in here, only because Ian and Mac were responding to 
my inquiry.  Even in stable nations, how the selection of a government takes 
place is of vital interest to the military.  Since both the CF and US Forces 
are part of the UN response to various hotspots, understanding each other‘s 
government processes is a worthwhile bit of knowledge, and just as valuable 
as understanding our Allies‘ military force structure.  Since this list 
supports such international understanding, I figure that my inquiry and their 
responses were both within the range fan...
JMHO.
Dave Hall 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:59:17 -0000*
Dave,
As indeed do I.
In fact, as any student of POL 101 knows, governments can exert authority 
over the people and compel res[pect for the rule of law only because they 
hold a monopoly over serious force. i.e. - They run/"own" the armed forces.
Therefore, it seems to me that all discussions about military 
policy/strategy at a general level, at least are inherently political, and 
that, similarly, much that happens in the political arena - budgetary stuff, 
for sure but also broader social changes, such as the drive to fully 
incorporate women, the physically disabled, etc. into every major 
social/political/economic institution - has at least some impact on the 
armed forces.
I completely agree that your question - and the answers it generated - were 
"on side", and was simply trying to make the point that  perhaps the  topics 
suitable for discussion on this list are a *little* broader than some 
members of the list have tried to suggest in recent weeks.
Of course, total tangents ought to be avoided, and as this exchange is fast 
becoming one of those, I will stop. Now!
:
Cheers,
Joan
----Original Message Follows----
From: DHall058@aol.com
Reply-To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
To: 
Subject: Re: It‘s a scary thought...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:11:35 EST
I feel compelled to jump in here, only because Ian and Mac were responding 
to
my inquiry.  Even in stable nations, how the selection of a government takes
place is of vital interest to the military.  Since both the CF and US Forces
are part of the UN response to various hotspots, understanding each other‘s
government processes is a worthwhile bit of knowledge, and just as valuable
as understanding our Allies‘ military force structure.  Since this list
supports such international understanding, I figure that my inquiry and 
their
responses were both within the range fan...
JMHO.
Dave Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :  http://explorer.msn.com 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

