If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it, the article mentioned the british blockade of France, yet somehow seemed to skirt around how that was accomplished, it mentions expense but does not ecplain how the blockade that was succesful occured, give up? For some of you old movie fans and sailors out there the answer comes easily.
But of course today's government does not want to recognize certain facts, they may be looking for weapons of mass destruction.
Perhaps they have legions of clerks searching for exactly the right words to spell it out, there really is no nice way to say it, the cost of operating a navy is enormous the British knew that and they had 2 ways of reducing that cost one was simply going into a town and making people serve the navy for free. The other was piracy under a term called angary a force seized what they needed and whatevert they captured they took.
Not nice is it?
It is not nice that in this day and age there are pirates.
Politics seems to be ignoring facts re-labeling certain actions to sound good ( weapons of mass destruction) taking actions with "plausible deniablilty" and using regan-like accounting methods (like a toilet seat for 1,500) ((wonder where some of that money went to))
Fact is George Bush was head of the C.I.A. and weekly denying to the media that we were in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia then when he became president one of his first acts in office was to give medals to soldiers who were in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia.
There is a problem in India with "terrorists" (call them pirates maybe?) now India and Packistan may indulge in an exchange of nuclear missiles, George W. sent Donald Rumsfeld over to collect a debt owed to enron, this debt was incurred through a 3 part plan to "modernize" India's electrical power, first a coal fired plant (excleint for global warming) second a gas fired plant and lastly a nuclear plant, this plant was capable of supplying 20 times more power than the whole country was using at that time, What do you think their thougths are when you have more nuclear material than you need to make power?
All in all the way I see it, governments let problems form then come up with half-assed solutions and in the process have a few extra dollars to spend on things they wanted but could not get away with otherwise.
So what are we doing here, looking for solutions or creating problems so that the solutions will look acceptable to John Q. Public?
Bread and circus's that is how the roman's controlled their population, and if worked very well the decline was due to greed and stupidity not public acceptance or correction of problems,
As I said prior those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,
So I am writing a book "The Rise and Fall of the American People".









Discuss