Segos Pumpkin omalicha nm,
Segos Pumpkin ormahleechar nm,
this one is going to be
brief and direct to the point
it is probably best
that way
so that
we don’t get
distracted and diverted
by tangentials
we should probably
do a definition of
the terms
MIGHT
and
RIGHT
so that we mutually agree on
what we mean
when we say MIGHT
and
when we say RIGHT
Going forwards
that term MIGHT there
for the purposes of our current discourse
is probably
best understood as
■STRENGTH
■POWER
■CAPABILITY
■CAPACITY
■GREATER STRENGTH
■GREATER POWER
■GREATER CAPABILITY
■GREATER CAPACITY
and
that term RIGHT there
for the purposes of our current discourse
is probably
best understood as
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with STRENGTH
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER STRENGTH i.e LESS STRENGTH
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with POWER
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER POWER i.e LESS POWER
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with CAPABILITY
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER CAPABILITY i.e LESS CAPABILITY
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with CAPACITY
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY
with LOWER CAPACITY ie LESS CAPACITY
i.e to say
that is to say
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with GREATER STRENGTH
to IMPOSE i
t’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER STRENGTH i.e LESS STRENGTH
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of t
he ENTITY with GREATER POWER
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER POWER i.e LESS POWER
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with GREATER CAPABILITY
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER CAPABILITY i.e LESS CAPABILITY
█the EMPOWERMENT and/or ABILITY
of
the ENTITY with GREATER CAPACITY
to IMPOSE
it’s
WILL,
WISHES,
DESIRES
on
the ENTITY with LOWER CAPACITY i.e LESS CAPACITY
Segos Pumpkin ohbee nm
Resego Tshabadira ohbee nm
the matter of
whether or not
the ENTITY possessing
■STRENGTH
■POWER
■CAPABILITY
■CAPACITY
■GREAT STRENGTH
■GREAT POWER
■GREAT CAPABILITY
■GREAT CAPACITY
■GREATER STRENGTH
■GREATER POWER
■GREATER CAPABILITY
■GREATER CAPACITY
uses it
FAIRLY or NOT
JUSTLY or NOT
PROPERLY or NOT
CAREFULLY or NOT
APPROPRIATELY or NOT
WISELY or NOT
RECKLESSLY or NOT
KINDLY or NOT
WICKEDLY or NOT
is another issue entirely
is a separate matter entirely
moving on forwards
and
keeping it simple,
Resego Tshabadira nnmah nm,
Segos Pumpkin nnmah nm,
it sometimes seems as if
generally
when the word
MIGHT
is mentioned
a lot of folks
immediately relate the word
to
▲■THE PHYSICAL STRENGTH
OF
AN INDIVIDUAL.
Resego Tshabadira nma nm,
Segos Pumpkin nma nm,
this
mental association
of
the word
MIGHT
with
THE PHYSICAL STRENGTH
OF
AN INDIVIDUAL
is not wrong
and
is
in fact correct.
however
it draws attention to
the reality that
▲■THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MIGHT
e.g
MILITARY MIGHT
and thus for example
▼RUSSIA
may have
MORE MILITARY MIGHT
than
UKRAINE
▼UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
may have
MORE MILITARY MIGHT
than
HAITI
▼CHINA
may have
MORE MILITARY MIGHT
than
TAIWAN ( and HONG KONG ? )
▼ISRAEL
may have
MORE MILITARY MIGHT
than
the HAMAS organisation and PALESTINE
Resego Tshabadira nnkeh nm,
Segos Pumpkin nnkeh nm,
i am not at all sure that there is value in
our looking at
▲■NUCLEAR MIGHT
i.e
▼the POSSESSION OF NUCLEAR CAPABILITY BY A NATION
▼the ABILITY OF A COUNTRY TO MANUFACTURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
clearly,
if a country that has
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
is engaged in battle
with a country that has no
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
for example
the possession of NUCLEAR WEAPONS
e.g
NUCLEAR BOMBS
NUCLEAR WARHEADS ?
etc
confers on the country that has
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
■comparative STRENGTH
■comparative POWER
■comparative MIGHT
■comparative MILITARY MIGHT
over it’s
NO NUCLEAR CAPABILITY confronter
as historically
demonstrated on record
demonstrated on global record
demonstrated on world record
in and by
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
dropping
NUCLEAR BOMBS
on
JAPAN
( refer : Hiroshima, Nagasaki in Japan )
( refer also : Pearl Harbour, USA )
however
whether
the MIGHT in reference
is
▲■THE PHYSICAL STRENGTH
OF
AN INDIVIDUAL
or
▲■THE MILITARY MIGHT OF A COUNTRY
▲■THE NUCLEAR POWER CAPABILITY
OF
A COUNTRY
MIGHT IS RIGHT
to the extent that
the POSSESSION of MIGHT
confers
UPON the POSSESSOR of that MIGHT
the ABILITY
to IMPOSE
it’s
WISHES
WANTS
DESIRES
ON the LESS STRONG entity
[ TO BE CONTINUED ]
NOTICE OF WORK IN PROGRESS
please note that while this piece has been posted,
it is in fundamental essence
and
to all intents and purposes
a WORK IN PROGRESS
and shall thus be updated and edited
from time to time accordingly
until such a time that the work stands or can stand for itself
DISCLAIMER and NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER
VIRTUALLY ALL THE PHOTOS USED IN THIS BLOG WERE SOURCED FROM AND HAVE BEEN SOURCED FROM THE INTERNET.
WE DO NOT OWN OR HOLD THE COPYRIGHT(S) TO THE PHOTOS AND WE DO NOT CLAIM THAT WE OWN OR HOLD THE COPYRIGHTS TO THE PHOTOS.
ANY INFRINGEMENT ON COPYRIGHT IS UNINTENDED AND UNINTENTIONAL.
IMMEDIATELY WE BECOME AWARE OF ANY INFRINGEMENT WE WILL DELETE SUCH PHOTOS TOTALLY, COMPLETELY AND PERMANENTLY FROM THE BLOG.