Militarization -Before- Colonization?

clark · 2004-05-05 14:57:51

What's the difference between 'masculine' toys and 'feminine' ones?

Palomar · 2004-05-05 15:10:19

*[edit: Ignore please, and please read a few posts down]

Um...okay, I introduced the topic of gender socialization and toys, etc...but within the context of trying to demonstrate (P.D. Ouspensky) how carrying similar attitudes into the future (and to Mars) only perpetrates these things.

Could we please not get too derailed off topic? Please consider creating a new thread for further discussion of gender socialization, toys, etc.? Thanks.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-05 15:16:09

LOL!

Thanks for the nice little rebuke, in a thread started by you, you seem to forget what the orginal intent of this thread was... what was it again, oh, that's right, "Militarization -Before- Colonization?"

Here' lets take a look at how you started this thread:

*It'll impact Marsian culture, I must presume, so I'm creating this little poll in this folder.
Okay, forgive me for having a streak of the "starry-eyed utopian" in me, but I do cringe every time I see articles (at space.com and otherwise) about the militarization of space. :-\
Yes, I know that some (many?) advances in technology are the result of military-related research and development.
I guess it goes without saying that I hope we can -avoid- the militarization of space.
--Cindy
P.S.: My vote was #3. Probably naivete on my part, but oh well...

Well, gee, you're right. I am off topic. What the 'heck' your posts have to with the meaning of this thread is beyond me though. Guess I'll just sit back and learn from ya.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 15:30:12

Clark: "LOL!

Thanks for the nice little rebuke,"

*Sorry you see it that way. I tried for a polite *request*. ::shrugs::

Clark: "in a thread started by you, you seem to forget what the orginal intent of this thread was... what was it again, oh, that's right, "Militarization -Before- Colonization?"

*No, I didn't forget.

---
Clark: "Here' lets take a look at how you started this thread:

Quote
*It'll impact Marsian culture, I must presume, so I'm creating this little poll in this folder.

Okay, forgive me for having a streak of the "starry-eyed utopian" in me, but I do cringe every time I see articles (at space.com and otherwise) about the militarization of space. :-\

Yes, I know that some (many?) advances in technology are the result of military-related research and development.

I guess it goes without saying that I hope we can -avoid- the militarization of space.

--Cindy

P.S.: My vote was #3. Probably naivete on my part, but oh well... "

---

*I don't see how this conflicts with my request that the topic not steer off hard in the direction of gender socialization and toys? ??? Perhaps we have a communication gap.

Clark: "Well, gee, you're right. I am off topic.
What the 'heck' your posts have to with the meaning of this thread is beyond me though."

*Sorry, Clark, I really don't understand your attitude here. I admitted I introduced the matter of gender socialization and toys, but within the context of how those things shape cultures and societies (as per above, in my previous post). I am hoping the topic won't swerve off into pure discussion of gender socialization and the role of toys (thus the polite request to restart a different thread if folks want to discuss that). I am seeing

Clark: "Guess I'll just sit back and learn from ya."

*No need to "just sit back." And I wouldn't presume anyone can "learn" from me.

I simply see that this might "fork" into a different line of discussion totally and I'd like to keep it focused on domestic versus military-oriented colonization of Mars.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-05 15:34:02

Okay, in the interest of thread continuity, militarization is bad, except when it's good.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 20:04:47

*I'm sorry, everyone.

I feel my "call" about the direction the thread might be going in was over-stated and unnecessary (better perspective after 4 hours away from work and the computer).

My apologies to all.

--Cindy

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-05-06 00:21:03

Not to jump into the middle or anything but....

Not to get onto my UN bashing tangent but has it occured to anyone that the great mistake of the space treaty may be a reason that very little progress has been made in space?

During the great age of exploration, the great nautical pioneers set off to find new wealth and territories for their home lands. It's this motivation for growth and wealth that drives exploration and development. My personal hope is that we can return to these natural motivations, and get past such globalist sentiments so that private industry and whole nations can start working towards colinizing and industrializing space. Call me crazy but I just have this feeling that if people could actually own the land they are trying to get to in space there might be actual progress made.

Look at Antartica for example. It is completely devoid of any major settlement or development because Nation states are bared from claiming it. Lets say that we finally come to our senses and leave the wanna-be global government that is the UN and claim Antartica for the good old US of A. Imeadietly hundreds of billions of dollars of natural resources would be avalible for utilization. In a matter of years towns would spring up and Antartica would become more then a place to look at penguins.

The next new world should be colinized and conquered just like that last new world, North America was, except this time we won't have to deal with the problem of an indigenous population. I sincerly hope that the first words spoken on mars are "I herby claim this world in the name of Colonies Unlimited, a joint stock corporation, NASDAQ: CLUN, and the United States of America".

As for the role of the military beyond Low Earth Orbit, I don't see protecting things that aren't there yet. Sure, once there are colonies in space, and if /knock on wood/ the Chinese or EU establishes a base on Mars, the moon, or wherever there will be a need to protect our instalations and kick them out of theirs, just like here on Earth.

The military does have a historical role in the development of frontiers. In the American west wagon trains headed west for cheap land and freedom, but the first towns were established on the frontier by the armies series of Forts that were set up to protect the settlers. Officers brought their wives and families and a whole series of communities were established bringing civilization to the west.

As for the Military in Low Earth Orbit, and the Larrange points. There are fun times ahead, space based weapons are going to change the way we wage war, not in 50 years, in 10...unfortunetly I am not at liberty to talk specifics but trust me, the cliche' "you havn't seen anything yet" doesn't even come close to touching what's going to come online in the rather near term.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 08:43:10

Not to get onto my UN bashing tangent but has it occured to anyone that the great mistake of the space treaty may be a reason that very little progress has been made in space?

It's almost certainly a factor, one among many.

During the great age of exploration, the great nautical pioneers set off to find new wealth and territories for their home lands. It's this motivation for growth and wealth that drives exploration and development. My personal hope is that we can return to these natural motivations, and get past such globalist sentiments so that private industry and whole nations can start working towards colinizing and industrializing space. Call me crazy but I just have this feeling that if people could actually own the land they are trying to get to in space there might be actual progress made.

Quite right. I think we're going to get along well here

As for the role of the military beyond Low Earth Orbit, I don't see protecting things that aren't there yet. Sure, once there are colonies in space, and if /knock on wood/ the Chinese or EU establishes a base on Mars, the moon, or wherever there will be a need to protect our instalations and kick them out of theirs, just like here on Earth.

But that's the double edged sword we're dealing with. If we start building colonies or bases we will soon have a need to at least project a defense. But if we find some military use for Mars, what it might be I don't know, and build a base, we'll have stuff up there. We'll have infrastructure and people on Mars and regular traffic to and from the base. This overcomes the biggest problem blocking colonization, overcoming the inertia not to go. It wouldn't be all that different from the American Colonial example.

Either way, we're militarizing space. The only question is which uniform are we going to see the most of? It's called space flight, but you go in space ships. And space is the high ground afterall... The potential for inter-service rivalry is staggering.

As for the Military in Low Earth Orbit, and the Larrange points. There are fun times ahead, space based weapons are going to change the way we wage war, not in 50 years, in 10...unfortunetly I am not at liberty to talk specifics but trust me, the cliche' "you havn't seen anything yet" doesn't even come close to touching what's going to come online in the rather near term.

I can imagine. It's a wonder some of these "specifics" haven't been introduced earlier. I foresee much smiting of enemies.

Bill White · 2004-05-06 09:02:45

I am considering preparing a discussion forum on celestial real estate property rights and soverignty issues.

One great starting point for discussion (IMHO) is this:

http://www.informationblast.com/Treaty_ … illas.html

I find this part quite droll concerning what happened after the Pope divided the entire non-Christian world between Spain and portugal.

The remaining exploring nations of Europe such as France, England, and the Netherlands were explicitly refused access to the new lands, leaving them only options like piracy, unless they (as they did later) rejected the papal authority to divide undiscovered countries. The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomised by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World.

= = =
Edit to add:

If we US-ians establish a property rights regime on our own, those who lose out under that regime will most certainly attempt to undermine our claims that such system is legitmate.

Palomar · 2004-05-06 09:09:23

celestial real estate property rights and soverignty issues.

*IMO it's far, far too soon for planets, moons, etc., to be divvied up as anyone's property. We haven't yet even barely begun studying other celestial bodies, when you think of the timeline of modern astronomy and technology. It's only been a little over 30 years since we sent our first probes out.

Good luck on your proposed discussion forum, however.

[I have to say I feel -very- protective of the Solar System and etc.]

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-06 09:14:02

celestial real estate property rights and soverignty issues.
*IMO it's far, far too soon for planets, moons, etc., to be divvied up as anyone's property. We haven't yet even barely begun studying other celestial bodies, when you think of the timeline of modern astronomy and technology. It's only been a little over 30 years since we sent our first probes out.
Good luck on your proposed discussion forum, however.
[I have to say I feel -very- protective of the Solar System and etc.]
--Cindy

The sooner we start talking about it, the better prepared we will be, whether its 20 years, 120 years or 220 years.

Besides, when we start getting into the consequences of things like the Treaty of Tordesillas, the ability of the United States to actually accomplish the ideas and plans that Cobra brings up becomes problematic.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was signed by the US for sound geo-political reasons.

Morris · 2004-07-19 15:39:06

Unless we are to believe orders would take 16 years to fully process (asking takes 8 years, and a response takes 8 years), and "reenforcements" would take at least 8 years (though 16 if you actually have to ask for it). I mean, it's really just hard for me to comprehend military-like organization actually working in space...

Well, here's how it worked on Earth in the British Navy before the advent of radio. The Captain was the absolute commander on board ship which was run in military fashion for those on board. Sometimes there was a higher officer (Admiral or Commodore) on another nearby ship in which case control was a little tighter. Otherwise everything was up to the Captain. The fact that they were so far from home and ultimate command was largely irrelevant for daily actions, though it sometimes did cause problems in the larger political context, e.g. The Battle of New Orleans was fought after a peace treaty was signed and the war was over.

Morris · 2004-07-19 15:57:00

Does "just because" rule? How much social conditioning are we willing to take to Mars with us? We -can't- alter our behavior in some ways? We can't try?

Great point, Cindy. However, I think that our "social conditioning" will likely be the thing we take with us that will be hardest to change except for those things that are so obviously maladaptive in the environment that they have to change.

Every once in awhile, a dramatic change does occur in attempting to adapt to new conditions. One such change occurred among the English, but not the French or Spanish, colonies in North America. That change has transformed the world, though in our more pessimistic moments we may not realize how much. I, for one, think that it CAN happen again, especially given the enormously knowledgeable and talented individuals I have met in the space movement. On the other hand, I don't think it will necessarily be easy.

Morris · 2004-07-19 16:13:07

Weaponry is more effective now, but the other side will have more effective weaponry also. In a war between two countries with similar levels of technology, the country with more weapons will probably win. Therefore each country will divert as much resources towards building weapons as they possibly can, because otherwise the other country would outbuild them and win the war.

What about war where the two sides both have some access to technology (a certain minimum level is certainly necessary) but where the side with the fewest weapons and, overall, the poorest technology,wins. E.g. Vietnam.

The case of Afghanistan and the Soviets is especially interesting here. The Soviets had more weapons of generally higher technology, but a single critical weapon made most of the difference.

Morris · 2004-07-19 16:21:30

In your signature quote, is there really a book of Alma. If so what is the full reference?

Grypd · 2004-07-19 16:44:59

We can say that space is already militarised.

What are the spy satelites and gps system. Space is militarised. But is this a bad thing. The Esa project to slug shot an asteroid could be considered a missile test in space. But it is science. When we have lunar or asteroid mass drivers the technology will probably be developed from the Electromagnetic guns being developed to replace the traditional gun barrel. The USAF wish to put weapons into space. Unlike "Star Wars" missile intercept vehicles these will be ground attack solid shot bombs, nicknamed "rods from god" to manage this they want cheap access to space, and this only helps us the space advocates.

I dont have a crystal ball but man has always killed man. Until some magic drug comes around that makes peace happen we will remain as we are. So we will have a military prescence in space.

Morris · 2004-07-19 17:23:45

Doesn't intense militarization = exploitation = dismal chance for domestic colonization?
I understand the need to protect one's self and one's property (habs, spacecraft, etc.). But intense militarization may not prevent abuses -- it likely will encourage abuses.
Where is the "fine line"??
--Cindy

Are we sufficiently distinguishing between domestic militarization (heavily armed police and citizenry) and foreign militirization (armies/navies)? Are we distinguishing sufficiently between militirization and the nature of the political system (how well armed the society is vs the degree of political control the society builds in). For example, colonial American society was highly militarized (almost everyone owned and used firearms) but the degree of political control was rather low.

Some light on this question is given by Charles Murray's book, Human Accomplishment. In this rather massive work, Murray identifies a method of identifying people who make significant contributions to the scientific, philosophical, and artistic life of a society and then a way of measuring how relatively important each person's contributions were. He also identifies a way of identifying and counting the contributions themselves. He then takes on the massive task of trying to find those societal circumstances which are favorable to the generation of such contributions and which are not. While the results are complex, and in some areas seemingly contradictory, there was a clear relationship to political models. While cultural productivity is relatively robust over a wide variety of traditional political systems (e.g. monarchies, parliamentary democracies, etc.) there are political systems that are very unfavorable to such contributions. And these are indeed the relatively modern totalitarian states and certain older states (e.g. the Ottoman Empire) which insisted on a high degree of control of all aspects of society.

You are right. Too much "militarization - defined as heavy GOVERNMENT control over firearms and tight political control"
does indeed generate a less innovative, though not necessarily a less economically rich and sophisticated society. For example, the Romans and the ancient Chinese produced few fundamental innovations in art and science but both had, at their peaks, very highly diverse,structured, and wealthy economies.

There's a lot more to it, but there appears to be a set of very good reasons for modern (post Middle Ages) European cultural productivity and some degree of freedom of thought and action is one of them.

Be of good cheer, look at the culturally dominant societies in the world today. Nobody, not even the Chinese, want a Stalinist Russia or a Maoist China anymore. The brief Maoist interruption of the Confucian ideal in Chinese culture will, in the long run, be no more significant than that of the Mongol invasions. (The Mongol dynasty lasted hardly a generation following the death of Kublai Khan). The only real question is whether or not a "neo-Confucianism" can evolve which allows for more rapid incorporation of change. The tremendous economic success of the dispersed ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, Singapore, the Phillipines, Taiwan, and of derivative cultures in South Korea and Japan suggests that it can.

Palomar · 2004-07-20 06:08:05

Doesn't intense militarization = exploitation = dismal chance for domestic colonization?
I understand the need to protect one's self and one's property (habs, spacecraft, etc.). But intense militarization may not prevent abuses -- it likely will encourage abuses.
Where is the "fine line"??
--Cindy
Are we sufficiently distinguishing between domestic militarization (heavily armed police and citizenry) and foreign militirization (armies/navies)? Are we distinguishing sufficiently between militirization and the nature of the political system (how well armed the society is vs the degree of political control the society builds in). For example, colonial American society was highly militarized (almost everyone owned and used firearms) but the degree of political control was rather low.
Some light on this question is given by Charles Murray's book, Human Accomplishment. In this rather massive work, Murray identifies a method of identifying people who make significant contributions to the scientific, philosophical, and artistic life of a society and then a way of measuring how relatively important each person's contributions were. He also identifies a way of identifying and counting the contributions themselves. He then takes on the massive task of trying to find those societal circumstances which are favorable to the generation of such contributions and which are not. While the results are complex, and in some areas seemingly contradictory, there was a clear relationship to political models. While cultural productivity is relatively robust over a wide variety of traditional political systems (e.g. monarchies, parliamentary democracies, etc.) there are political systems that are very unfavorable to such contributions. And these are indeed the relatively modern totalitarian states and certain older states (e.g. the Ottoman Empire) which insisted on a high degree of control of all aspects of society.

*Hi Morris: I didn't have domestic militarization so much in mind.

I agree with the information you shared regarding cultural productivity and political systems.

Grypd chimed in as well. Yes, of course -- no one here is suggesting all will be peaches, cream and loving all the time in outer space.

Look, however, at the example Thomas Paine in particular set with regards to individual human rights particularly in his book _Rights of Man_. Other Enlightenment-era writers/thinkers encouraged similar points of view as well. Though the political system of the U.S. didn't initially (and for a long time) heed many of these ideals (slavery continued nearly 100 years after 1776, as we know), we now have Amnesty International (founded in England) and other globally oriented human rights groups. New and beneficial ideals can take seed and flourish; we've seen it.

We can do better...at least we can TRY. I don't see the future of space exploration as one big, violent video game. Some war and etc will happen (human nature) but I am sincerely hoping war doesn't become a major culture in space.

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-07-20 10:29:54

I don't see the future of space exploration as one big, violent video game. Some war and etc will happen (human nature) but I am sincerely hoping war doesn't become a major culture in space.

So much will depend on what is going on on earth at the time the first Mars colony is established. From the perspective of the world situation right now, I think there is every reason to hope that the first colonists will have a primary interest in building, not fighting. As Mars develops and immigration costs go down, then various groups may wish to establish their own colonies which could allow a variety of cultural experiments on the one hand, but which could increase the chance of conflict on the other. However, that would be expected to be much further along. It would be expected to be a LONG time before there would be much transportation between widely separated colonies.

You mentioned Paine's The Rights of Man. Do you have a sketch of the kind of colony that you would like to see?

Palomar · 2004-07-20 10:48:08

You mentioned Paine's The Rights of Man. Do you have a sketch of the kind of colony that you would like to see?

*Hi Morris.

Yes, I do. http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … rticularly the 8th post (dated June 19) in this thread.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-07-20 11:33:52

I voted yes just because an army on mars could not be touched by an army on earth. Granted it would take them a few a months to get here. I don’t know maybe they could pick up the pieces after a nuclear war. If all the satellites got destroyed maybe know one would see them coming.

Morris · 2004-07-20 12:09:38

I would argue that the "socialization" aspects are a reflection of what is naturally there, rather than the cause.

One of the most fundamental questions in social science. The evidence suggests a complex interplay between them. One way of viewing it is that the structure is always there but the contents are different from culture to culture or even from individual to individual.

For example, one important structural feature of human beings is the tendency to modify our judgements according to social input. Consider a situation in which a group of people, say 11, are gathered in a room with a projector and screen and given some simple task, for example judging which of two lines is the longer. The difference between the lengths of the lines is sufficiently great that there would be no question as to which is actually longer for anyone without seriously impaired eyesight. For each combination of lines, the experimenter goes around the room and each person is asked to make her judgment. In reality, the first 10 people to judge are really stooges and are told how to respond by the experimenter. Only the 11th is the subject and truly free to respond. On most of the trials all agree, but on selected trials the stooges are told to give a wrong answer. The question is how will the 11th person respond?

Many of you already know the answer as this experiment is described in many of the Introductory Psychology and essentionally all of the Introductory Social Psychology textbooks in the country. A large percentage of the subjects will bow to social pressure every time. A much smaller percentage will make independent (and correct) judgements every time. This experiment has been repeated dozens of times in many different variations (e.g. when the subjects are alone in cubicles and the judgements of the stooges are represented by lights on the wall) and the results are always the same. Thus a strong tendency to bow to social pressure even in trivial matters seems to be a strong characteristic of human populations.

Unhappy as their life may be at times, there is an important need to have a few individuals whose judgments remain independent. This is critical for people such as scientists, who can't affort to let their judgments of reality be affected by social rather than scientific considerations. As a matter of fact, a long series of experiments on creativity at the University of California found that independence of judgment (in the sense determined by the previous experiment) is one of the three most important characteristics of highly creative individuals in many fields both artistic and scientific, the others being preference for complexity in artistic judgments, and, of course, originality.

However universal this tendency may be in populations, this tendency may be modified by the specific, learned contents of people's beliefs. Thus a person who is generally a social conformist may not conform if a social communication violates a well-established religious belief. As we all know, conflicts of this sort are apt to be accompanied by strong emotional reactions, depending on the circumstances, such as anger or fear.

My point, well a lot of things are "natural" tendencies but their expression depends on many learned perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, etc. To see things as "natural" or "instinctive" vs learned and to argue much about which it it is is a largely fruitless enterprise. The useful answer is to understand it's mechanism of operation.

As an example, there is a defective gene which causes phenylalinine (commonly found in food) to be improperly metabolized and generate a neurotoxin. Exposure to this neurotoxin, especially in a young, child can (and in prolonged exposure will) lead to mental retardation. Those who have the defective gene (which is often identified at birth in the US) but don't eat foods containing phenylalinine develop normally (assuming that there is nothing else wrong). It's all in the details.

clark · 2004-07-20 12:15:23

You wouldn't happen to know which UC did the research, would you?

clark · 2004-07-20 12:29:43

This experiment has been repeated dozens of times in many different variations (e.g. when the subjects are alone in cubicles and the judgements of the stooges are represented by lights on the wall) and the results are always the same. Thus a strong tendency to bow to social pressure even in trivial matters seems to be a strong characteristic of human populations.

Isn't the willingness to bow to social pressure also determined by the importance of the the conforming behavior towards the individual? A piece of string is one thing, but it fails to explain dissenting voices within a jury, no?

Isn't there also a complex interplay of the individuals perceptions related to social hierarchy within the given group? The need to impress a pretty girl or attractive boy? The unwillingness to challenge a person perceived to be more knowledgable on a particular subject? Then there are the elements of social relationships within the group and the effects of personal accountability- you tend to see instances of social conforming where the groups are interrelated in some manner- say a team, a family, friends, etc. There is pressure, or perhaps lack, by immediate contact, or by the belief that decisions made as an individual affect the overall group in some manner.

Thus a person who is generally a social conformist may not conform if a social communication violates a well-established religious belief.

Yet what we see here is the interplay of competing social groups and the individuals desire to conform to a specific identity. When conflicts arise like this, it gives the impression of individual choice and thought, but it really is the individiual conforming to a social group it feels more accountability towards.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-20 13:00:42

Welcome Morris, you make some interesting points.

What about war where the two sides both have some access to technology (a certain minimum level is certainly necessary) but where the side with the fewest weapons and, overall, the poorest technology,wins. E.g. Vietnam.
The case of Afghanistan and the Soviets is especially interesting here. The Soviets had more weapons of generally higher technology, but a single critical weapon made most of the difference.

Both of these examples are somewhat flawed, in that both are cases where the more advanced, better armed combatant lost due to self-imposed constraints (Vietnam more so) and indirect interference from another superpower (more the case with Afghanistan). Also, both wars quickly became proxy wars between the superpowers. In the cases of the Viet Cong and the Mujahedeen, they didn't start racking up significant gains against the invading superpower until the other superpower became a benefactor to them for their own purposes.

Are we sufficiently distinguishing between domestic militarization (heavily armed police and citizenry) and foreign militirization (armies/navies)? Are we distinguishing sufficiently between militirization and the nature of the political system (how well armed the society is vs the degree of political control the society builds in). For example, colonial American society was highly militarized (almost everyone owned and used firearms) but the degree of political control was rather low.

Indeed, important distinctions.

*Hi Morris: I didn't have domestic militarization so much in mind.

Alright, that changes the debate somewhat Cindy, if we consider some form of "Martian Guard" militia or police forces to be something other than militarization. I'd argue that such a distinction is too narrow, but not entirely without merit.

Quote (Cobra Commander @ May 05 2004, 15:57)
I would argue that the "socialization" aspects are a reflection of what is naturally there, rather than the cause.
One of the most fundamental questions in social science. The evidence suggests a complex interplay between them. One way of viewing it is that the structure is always there but the contents are different from culture to culture or even from individual to individual.

Not to stray off topic too much, but I think you've brushed against the heart of the matter without really hitting it. There are many levels of conditioning, both cultural and of a more individual sort that affect behavior. Certainly it isn't "natural" for male children to play with toy guns any more than it's "natural" for female children to play with an EZ Bake oven. Guns and ovens don't exist in nature.

But the distinctions they reperesent and play off of do. The male primate is the hunter, while the female is more prone to raising the young. These differences are very real and documented, everything else is merely built on them. Much social 'conditioning' can be broken down as just that, but it rests on a foundation of very real, basic human behavioral norms. Reading too much into the details is misleading, but utterly dismissing them is unrealistic.

EDIT:: Almost forgot...

Quote (Cobra Commander @ April 23 2004, 10:34)

In your signature quote, is there really a book of Alma. If so what is the full reference?

Yes, it's from the Book of Mormon. The wording is rather similar to another 19th Century work whose proponents have never been able to fully substantiate, eh? :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-05-05 14:57:51

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#52 2004-05-05 15:10:19

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#53 2004-05-05 15:16:09

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#54 2004-05-05 15:30:12

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#55 2004-05-05 15:34:02

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#56 2004-05-05 20:04:47

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#57 2004-05-06 00:21:03

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#58 2004-05-06 08:43:10

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#59 2004-05-06 09:02:45

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#60 2004-05-06 09:09:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#61 2004-05-06 09:14:02

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#62 2004-07-19 15:39:06

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#63 2004-07-19 15:57:00

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#64 2004-07-19 16:13:07

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#65 2004-07-19 16:21:30

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#66 2004-07-19 16:44:59

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#67 2004-07-19 17:23:45

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#68 2004-07-20 06:08:05

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#69 2004-07-20 10:29:54

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#70 2004-07-20 10:48:08

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#71 2004-07-20 11:33:52

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#72 2004-07-20 12:09:38

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#73 2004-07-20 12:15:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#74 2004-07-20 12:29:43

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#75 2004-07-20 13:00:42

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Board footer