Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Robert S. McNamara's 10 Lessons.

WODIN

बुद्धकर&
Platinum
As taken from the documentary The Fog of War.

1. The Human race will not eliminate war in this century, but we can reduce the brutality of war – the level of killing – by adhering to the principles of a “Just War”, particular to the principle of “proportionality.”

2. The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.

3. We are the most powerful nation in the world –economically, politically, and militarily – and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of our proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend directly the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii.

4. Moral Principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policies across the globe: the avoidance in this century of the carnage – 160 million dead – caused by conflict in the 20th century.

5. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment.

6. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to stockholders, but they also have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.

7. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president – indeed “the” primary responsibility of a president – is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.

8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court – that the U.S. has refused to support – which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity.

9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy – I don’t mean “sympathy,” but rather “understanding” – to counter their attacks on use and the Western World.

10. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorist will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing to that breakdown.
 
this guy is too wrapped up in feeble human emotions. real americans are human animals bent on survival of the fittest.
 
McNamara is hardly someone you would want to take advice from concerning war since he oversaw the massive failure that was the Vietnam War.
 
WODIN said:
5. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment.

Socialist. A perfect demonstration that logical and empirical evidence proving the fallacy of this concept does not deter those who hold to the fantasy of socialism.

6. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to stockholders, but they also have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.

More socialist tripe. Does society have any obligations to the corporate executives, or are they at the mercy of the demanding hordes?

8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court – that the U.S. has refused to support – which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity.

Yes, lets place our sovereignty at the feet of those who have completely different concepts of liberty, rights, economics, etc.
 
atlantabiolab said:
Socialist. A perfect demonstration that logical and empirical evidence proving the fallacy of this concept does not deter those who hold to the fantasy of socialism.



More socialist tripe. Does society have any obligations to the corporate executives, or are they at the mercy of the demanding hordes?



Yes, lets place our sovereignty at the feet of those who have completely different concepts of liberty, rights, economics, etc.


I think if you look at the company SAS you will see a prime example fo the type of company that provides what McNamara is talking about and they are extreamly profit oriented.

You've simply been conditioned to be a me-me-fuck-you-I-got-mine-self-centered individual.
 
WODIN said:
7. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president – indeed “the” primary responsibility of a president – is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.

This is what got him assasinated...
 
WODIN said:
I think if you look at the company SAS you will see a prime example fo the type of company that provides what McNamara is talking about and they are extreamly profit oriented.

You've simply been conditioned to be a me-me-fuck-you-I-got-mine-self-centered individual.

You probably did not pick up on the "group" which he left out of the list, the one "group" which he made no demands of: the American individual. The fact that he only places obligations on government to provide for "the general welfare" and business to be responsible for "society" demonstrates that he is a socialist in thought, for he insinuates that these two groups must cater to the demands of the "people", to fix what ails them, for as all leftists understand, the individual is not capable of caring for himself.

To label me, who believes that others DO NOT have obligations to care for you, as self-centered is interesting. Isn't one who is self-centered typically demanding of attention and assistance from everyone?
 
atlantabiolab said:
To label me, who believes that others DO NOT have obligations to care for you, as self-centered is interesting. Isn't one who is self-centered typically demanding of attention and assistance from everyone?

I think he means more like a selfish stinkypans, then again yeah I know you can also say that welfare suckers are also selfish too, but face it, if you're in the dumps, how are you going to get out without a little help from your "friends?" Not everyone can lead a perfect life with no potholes on the road to greatness. I think I'd rather help dig them out of the trenches with some $ out of my pocket than pay for the crimes they would otherwise commit, and to house them in prisons, cause they have nowhere else to go but further down.
 
Burning_Inside said:
I think he means more like a selfish stinkypans, then again yeah I know you can also say that welfare suckers are also selfish too, but face it, if you're in the dumps, how are you going to get out without a little help from your "friends?" Not everyone can lead a perfect life with no potholes on the road to greatness. I think I'd rather help dig them out of the trenches with some $ out of my pocket than pay for the crimes they would otherwise commit, and to house them in prisons, cause they have nowhere else to go but further down.

What is stopping you? If you have this desire to help your fellow man, why do you wait until government comes knocking on your door to write the check?

Generosity is an individual trait, not a govenrment trait.
 
atlantabiolab said:
What is stopping you? If you have this desire to help your fellow man, why do you wait until government comes knocking on your door to write the check?

Generosity is an individual trait, not a govenrment trait.

Err, last time I handed out 5 bucks to the homeless dude in the shopping complex parking lot, or last time my friend had no money till payday and had no food in his house...I don't think anything was stopping me from helping them out.

And it's arguable that generousity is a government trait, after all you can look at it as if they are generous being they only take 1/3 our money as taxes and not 50%. It's all relative.

However, I think the government should enforce some kind of generosity, because last time I checked, everyone was out for themseleves. I'm so sure everyone would just give money yearly to a poor fund, if you will, to spread around. Really not everyone can at all times provide for themselves due to certain situations. You gotta look out for your fellow man. This isn't a perfect world. How scummy do you have to be to not want to pitch in to help out other people anyway? What if you lost everything somehow? Went from bigshot biz exec one day to homeless dude the next. Well, tough I guess.

The bottom line really is that everyone is out for themselves, but they don't realize that you're nothing in this world without other people either. Your sucess lies in the hands of everyone else around you. How can you suceed at anything if you don't rely one someone to teach you (probably a government paid for public school), or have people to buy your products, etc.
 
atlantabiolab said:
You probably did not pick up on the "group" which he left out of the list, the one "group" which he made no demands of: the American individual. The fact that he only places obligations on government to provide for "the general welfare" and business to be responsible for "society" demonstrates that he is a socialist in thought, for he insinuates that these two groups must cater to the demands of the "people", to fix what ails them, for as all leftists understand, the individual is not capable of caring for himself.

To label me, who believes that others DO NOT have obligations to care for you, as self-centered is interesting. Isn't one who is self-centered typically demanding of attention and assistance from everyone?
You must be a big Ayn Rand Fan.

Of course individuals can make inroads towards social welfare if they choose to do so.

THe point is do you want a world more like America with a large supportive middle class or a world like Brazil who has a very rich people, a very small middle class and a huge poverty base.

These really are your choices.
 
Burning_Inside said:
Err, last time I handed out 5 bucks to the homeless dude in the shopping complex parking lot, or last time my friend had no money till payday and had no food in his house...I don't think anything was stopping me from helping them out.

Then, if you can do this willfully, and people do this everyday (the existence of countless charity organization proves this), what is the need for government redistribution? YOU are the one who should do this, by your own decision; any other means is amoral. There is no pride in giving money to someone only because the threat of punishment exists, this is the scenario of government programs.

And it's arguable that generousity is a government trait, after all you can look at it as if they are generous being they only take 1/3 our money as taxes and not 50%. It's all relative.

You can look at it this way only in a warped fashion. One, government is not stupid enough to tax at outrageous rates, since it understands the disincentive to work will kick in, thus decreasing their revenues. Second, your argument would claim that any thief who robs you, but doesn't take EVERYTHING you have is being "generous". Strange world.

However, I think the government should enforce some kind of generosity, because last time I checked, everyone was out for themseleves. I'm so sure everyone would just give money yearly to a poor fund, if you will, to spread around. Really not everyone can at all times provide for themselves due to certain situations. You gotta look out for your fellow man. This isn't a perfect world. How scummy do you have to be to not want to pitch in to help out other people anyway? What if you lost everything somehow? Went from bigshot biz exec one day to homeless dude the next. Well, tough I guess.

You have exemplified the socialist fantasy perfectly. In the socialist ideology, all men are immoral, without the benevolent guidance of the "state" of course. Without the state, men would stab their brothers for a slice of bread, sell their mothers into prostitution, ad nauseum. Somehow, the socialist conceives of the state as a true "entity", a thinking, living moral creature, and not the reality of an organization composed of "men". To understand the latter would be to realize that these same men are no better than those common men whom they believe should be guided into "goodness". What prevents state officials from having the same "selfish" motives that the common man has? Who is watching the watchers?

By what rationale do you believe that other men are not as generous, or more generous, as you? Why can YOU give to your neighbor, but you believe that others will not?

The bottom line really is that everyone is out for themselves, but they don't realize that you're nothing in this world without other people either. Your sucess lies in the hands of everyone else around you. How can you suceed at anything if you don't rely one someone to teach you (probably a government paid for public school), or have people to buy your products, etc.

No one stated that others do not assist in your outcome. No libertarian believes that without the self-serving cooperation of men, the individual can succeed AS far by himself. But there is a difference between believing that we do better by cooperating and servitude to society. Each man should have the right to determine his course of action, he should never be obligated to heed the demands of others. In this manner, each man decides his fate and is free.
 
WODIN said:
You must be a big Ayn Rand Fan.

Yes, I enjoy her writings. Any problems?

Of course individuals can make inroads towards social welfare if they choose to do so.

THe point is do you want a world more like America with a large supportive middle class or a world like Brazil who has a very rich people, a very small middle class and a huge poverty base.

These really are your choices.

You really believe that the US and Brazil are only different in the area of social programs? Sad.
 
Top Bottom