 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I have listened to Pepe about 4 times now. Just about the time I understand what he is talking about it seems like he moves to a new subject. I understand the summary is that the US wants full spectrum dominance.
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan in the first place? I remember listening to a radio program back in the late 70's/early 80's. There was a man from Afghanistan speaking. He said there was a meeting between Afghanistan leaders and Russian leaders and the Russians opened fire and killed the Afghanistan people they were meeting with. Have you ever heard anything about that? I was probably still in high school are just out so I wasn't really paying that much attention. But the fact that the people were shot during a meeting stuck with me because it bothered me. Do you know about that?
From Pepe's report I understood that the US lured Russia into Afghanistan during the Carter years. But I still don't understand why.
Then Russia invaded Afghanistan.
Listening to Pepe made my head hurt. It was almost like reading Joe a year ago when I had read and re-read to understand. This world dominance stuff is like a shell game.
Do you know why Russia went to Afghanistan in the first place?
It seems ironic that we are speaking of
Highest and best use, as I understand it, is reasonable.
Maybe both Russia and the US think they have the highest and best use rationale for the lands that surround them and each other?
Joe, you may be entirely too busy to mess with my thoughts below. And they really don't matter, but I wrote them anyway and have gone back and added this note before you start answering. I am on page 140 out of 174 of the book. I am going to try to finish today.
he owner (so called) has the only source of water, in a desert, and many people, a billion or 10, does the number really matter?
A billion, or 10, people arrive at the guarded fence and propose a deal of some kind.
The owner has a better use for the water.
The billion, or 10, people die for lack of water.
Honestly, I was not thinking in those terms. I was thinking of the people who were bought out to move them off of their land so the Truman Dam could be built and flooding could be controlled. Our area which used to be the "resort area" ended up being the water table control land so the marinas and business that were supported by tourism went belly up while the other side of the dam properties were elevated in value. Our county seat got a federal prison "to make up" for the economic lost. There was an old lady in a nursing home who said they were forced off of their farm land that their family had established. It seems that all the land around the rivers now is state/public land.
I am sure there is more to it. If 10 people show up outside my gate when I have been the only person around for years and miles around, is it my fault that they want to move where I already am? Sure, I'd give them some water, then I would encourage them to move on and find a place to live that would support their needs. But I would not make them die of thirst. But neither should they run me off of my property because they have now shown up with a greater use theory.
If we go with the greater use theory, then we can say that we, the white man, had a greater use for this land between sea to shining sea and therefore the Indians who were here first have no right to block railroads and settlements.
Who and What determines greater use? Sometimes it seems like Johnny come lately is the determiner...as long as Johnny has the might to make it right.
But certainly things should be equitable. Like maybe the 10 people who show up could move next door and did their own well. I could be neighborly and help them. What happens if they drain all the water to build a dam? Is that a good neighbor relation?
