NationStates Jolt Archive

It had been my firm belief, for a few years now, that for a democracy* to remain pure, there can be no standing military. I believe for freedom to remain pure and true, every citizen should take up a role in fighting against oppressors, if the time comes. I often look at the classical democracy in Athens, when Darius came to attack, and how they had no standing military. Rather, every man was conscripted to go fight against the tyrannical forces. They defeated their opponent despite being out numbered 2 to 1. Some years later, when Xerxes came to Athens, the leader (I forget his name at this point in time) ordered all the citizens to give up their homes and leave, while all the men were to board the triremes for an attack on the Persian fleet near Salamis. Again, victory came to the Greeks.

I have come to conclude that when common people are thrust into a situation where they have to defend everything they have, they will fight hard and until the end. There should be no standing military to act as intercessors. Intercessors are only good in religion, and freedom is no religion. It is a lifestyle given to every man and woman, should they choose to embrace it. When the blood of a free man is spilled, while he is defending his freedoms, the purity of liberty is renewed. When you try to have freedom intercessors, such as a professional military, liberty grows stagnate. And when those soldiers die, they die in vain, and their blood is spilled for no reason.

So, I wonder, what think ye NSG?








*Yes, I know the US is a republic, but we still call ourselves democratic. So for this argument I am going to refer to the US as a democratic nation.

What, so you want France to have been even worse than they were?

Well you're in luck. The US technically doesn't have a standing army. It needs to be reauthorized by congress every two years.

(Likewise in the UK every year).

The problem is, of course, that times change. In ancient greece it was reasonably easy to arm every day citizens so they could stand a fair chance in battle.

"here's a sword". Now they might not be as well armored as the best centurians, but it was something reasonably good comparatively. Same with the American revolution. Sure England used its well trained military, but their weapons were, at the end of the day, not much better than the rifles the farmers used to hunt with.

Now of course the disparity between what a modern military has and what the average person can be armed with is immense.

The Athenian example I think is an apt one, and it's because modern nations have separated the people from the military that this happens. The idea of Athens was that every armed man who defended the state has a right to an equal share in that city he is fighting for. Military's became more and more separated as the profit motive crept further and further into them like a virus. Instead of service to your country it was about being paid, getting benefits, it became a career, like a mercenary. The purpose of retaining large standing armies in peacetime can only ever be for the purposes of aggression, be it at home or abroad, lest be forget what defensive war is. So if a military is not defending it's state by aggression on their own soil, then it is a professional force making war abroad, not for national defense but for economic or whatever gain.

What, so you want France to have been even worse than they were?

No, what I want is to make sure that leaders don't get ideas of grandeur and power because they a military at their hands. For a democracy to work, the people must be in charge. They must make their leader submit to their will. Militaries only strain the democratic process.

For instance, if GWB wanted to, he could withdraw all the troops from Iraq, and use them here to promote himself as life long dictator. Why? Because he has lives to spare for his cause. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the lust for power.

For instance, if GWB wanted to, he could withdraw all the troops from Iraq, and use them here to promote himself as life long dictator. Why? Because he has lives to spare for his cause. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the lust for power.

Except no, not really, because:

1) the military's purpose and oath is to uphold the constitution, you would have a VERY large revolt if that happens

2) Congress controls the budge, at which point they'd simply freeze the military's funds.

To stage a military coup typically the military has to like you. That's hardly the case

The Athenian example I think is an apt one, and it's because modern nations have separated the people from the military that this happens. The idea of Athens was that every armed man who defended the state has a right to an equal share in that city he is fighting for. Military's became more and more separated as the profit motive crept further and further into them like a virus. Instead of service to your country it was about being paid, getting benefits, it became a career, like a mercenary. The purpose of retaining large standing armies in peacetime can only ever be for the purposes of aggression, be it at home or abroad, lest be forget what defensive war is. So if a military is not defending it's state by aggression on their own soil, then it is a professional force making war abroad, not for national defense but for economic or whatever gain.

You are aware of the fact that before professional armies, it was mostly mercs, right?

I have come to conclude that when common people are thrust into a situation where they have to defend everything they have, they will fight hard and until the end. There should be no standing military to act as intercessors
This ideal was all very well in the days before a standing military's equipment was within the comprehension of the common citizen. Nowadays, it would be somewhere between extremely unlikely and impossible for an untrained, undrilled populace to effectively defend themselves against a well-armed, well-trained aggressor (no matter what some of my 2nd Amendment spouting cousins across the ocean would have me believe**)

In an ideal world, a standing military allows the projection of force by mandate of the people (i.e. the military could only be deployed if the population that they represent wished it). Like any other aspect of a democracy (or any other society, for that matter) it is simply a case of using specialist persons for specialised roles.

Oh, for an ideal world!



(** to clarify, and hopefully to prevent any gun control based derailments of the thread, I'm not actually anti gun ownership)

The problem is, of course, that times change. In ancient greece it was reasonably easy to arm every day citizens so they could stand a fair chance in battle.

"here's a sword". Now they might not be as well armored as the best centurians, but it was something reasonably good comparatively. Same with the American revolution. Sure England used its well trained military, but their weapons were, at the end of the day, not much better than the rifles the farmers used to hunt with.

Now of course the disparity between what a modern military has and what the average person can be armed with is immense.

I think the second amendment covers the "here's your sword" part.

It could work...although I'm sad to say that a state that relied on such means would likely also need a strategic deterrent to ensure it's safety.

I think I like the opposite idea more...lose the nukes, then work on the armies.

For a democracy to work, the people must be in charge. They must make their leader submit to their will. Militaries only strain the democratic process.

No, representative democracy doesn't work like that. 60% of a member's electorate might oppose legislation, that doesn't mean the member is obligated to try and block it.

At any rate, I think a standing military is the only sensible decision for most countries. You can't just expect every citizen to take up arms and be any good at it, so the government should develop a well-resourced and well-trained army. Not only does this provide security but also creates jobs, infrastructure and new technology.

I don't see a standing military as being a hindrance to democracy either. It is just another institution. I honestly don't understand your argument about democracy and a standing army.

I believe for freedom to remain pure and true, every citizen should take up a role in fighting against oppressors, if the time comes. I often look at the classical democracy in Athens, when Darius came to attack, and how they had no standing military. Rather, every man was conscripted to go fight against the tyrannical forces.

Please note bold text, irony.

The Athenian example I think is an apt one .....yeah but.. Greece did not need need an actual standing Army.

Thanks to Hollywood we all now know -for a fact- that in Old Greece.. 300 "presidential" bodyguards could decimate an invading Army of tens-of-thousands.. Leading to the ultimate defeat of the Invading Army.

Thanks to Hollywood we all now know -for a fact- that in Old Greece.. 300 "presidential" bodyguards could decimate an invading Army of tens-of-thousands.. Leading to the ultimate defeat of the Invading Army.

Except that the King plus his Body guards were killed and the Persians still took Athens and defeated them.

You are aware of the fact that before professional armies, it was mostly mercs, right?
Same thing. The military is about selfless defense of your people when invaded by a foreign power, if a military would only ever be used to fight that kind of defensive war, then they wouldn't need the profit motive to fight, they'd fight to save their city and people, profiteering mercenary military's are obviously only needed to create new markets by invading and looting the resources of other nations. Large standing armies is the cornerstone of militarism.

So in short, non-standing citizen armies - defensive, standing professional paid armies - aggressive.

The problem is, of course, that times change. In ancient greece it was reasonably easy to arm every day citizens so they could stand a fair chance in battle.


Also "citizen" was a little bit more restrictive then than it is now. It's not like every - or even most - of the able bodied men would be called upon to defend athens. It really was more the upper middle classes and the ruling class.

I think the second amendment covers the "here's your sword" part.

No, it doesn't, especially since the government doesn't hand out firearms or require all citizens to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the people being part of a militia, but the people having a check ON the militia/military.

Of course, you do still have a disparity when it comes to the sheer power of firearms and other weaponry...hell, just take a look at any military site to get a clear idea of the kind of power the military has at its fingertips.

That doesn't make the 2nd Amendment worthless as a check on the government, since guerrilla tactics and the like tend to work pretty well when you're revolting and trying to get rid of an occupying force--as would be the case for your hypothetical Bush takes over America for life scenario. But it does make it worthless in the sense of having an army composed of minutemen, unless you want to start handing out M16s, SPAS-12s, destroyers, F-14s, ect ect ect...

I like this idea, but in order for it to work the whole population needs to be reasonably familiar with modern military equipment. Ideally it would be taught in schools. It could be called the 'One F16 Per Child' program.

So in short, non-standing citizen armies - defensive, standing professional paid armies - aggressive.

Yeah, you're full of shit.

Sorry, but to maintain a military capability on a par with other, less democratic nations, you need a standing military. The days when citizens could be called to fight and be expected to prevail are long gone. Technology has made that a fact.

Unless you propose that everyone be in a reserve unit and drill to keep proficient with the arms of today, I doubt that I could go back to navigating an A-6 (assuming they still existed) as well as I used to -- and there's no question that an untrained or inexperienced person would fail miserably.

Yeah, you're full of shit.

Wow, cherrypicking my post at the same time as strawman and ad hominom in the same post, nice one.

I like this idea, but in order for it to work the whole population needs to be reasonably familiar with modern military equipment. Ideally it would be taught in schools. It could be called the 'One F16 Per Child' program.

I should have read a little more. This is the best idea, yet! I expect the parents to get a two seat version to train the kids and check their instrument proficiency twice a year.

"here's a sword". Now they might not be as well armored as the best centurians, but it was something reasonably good comparatively. Same with the American revolution. Sure England used its well trained military, but their weapons were, at the end of the day, not much better than the rifles the farmers used to hunt with.



Actually, the Brown Bess was even far worse off then locally manufactured Kentucky rifles that the colonials were able to find in their own homes. Oftentimes Kentucky longrifles could have an effective range up to three times that of the Brown Bess, as well as a history of reliability, and close personal acquaintance of a soldier with his weapon, as prior to the war it was his own livelihood.

Kind of a bizarre inversion of the usual pattern of rebellion and insurgent warfare, eh?

Except that the King plus his Body guards were killed and the Persians still took Athens and defeated them.LOL..

see? sometimes even ## is pwned by the Media spin. (I stand corrected I was under some false impression)

Wow, cherrypicking my post at the same time as strawman and ad hominom in the same post, nice one.

Uh huh. Tell me, do you seriously expect people to defend their nation just out of the goodness of their hearts? There's a reason people are paid to be in the military; because when you fight in a war, there is a very high chance that you will die.

I should have read a little more. This is the best idea, yet! I expect the parents to get a two seat version to train the kids and check their instrument proficiency twice a year.

This year at college, I'm doing music theory, with an minor in autocannon maintenance. :D

LOL..

see? sometimes even ## is pwned by the Media spin. (I stand corrected I was under the false impression)

Yeah, maybe someone should inform him of the battles of Salamis and Platea?

No, what I want is to make sure that leaders don't get ideas of grandeur and power because they a military at their hands. For a democracy to work, the people must be in charge. They must make their leader submit to their will. Militaries only strain the democratic process.


If we're talking the American public? At that population size? Damn near impossible to get anything done.

Also, you have to remember that a great deal of American's simply aren't interested in politics beyond the usual flash button issues and are more easily distracted by stuff like American Idol.

To make Americans take enough interest in their national politics at a level of engagement that works, would take generations of re-education and reduction of consumerist don't-think-cause-it's-difficult lifestyle.

It's not impossible, but nothing short of civil war is going to achieve that kind of change.

Yeah, you're full of shit.that kind of repetitive crap statement does not show you on a good light.. basically it says "I have nothing of substance to say.. "

Uh huh. Tell me, do you seriously expect people to defend their nation just out of the goodness of their hearts? There's a reason people are paid to be in the military; because when you fight in a war, there is a very high chance that you will die.
Oh, so your actually talking now that your finished ad hominom attacks? How very mature of you... The fact of course is that you only really have to pay an army to go abroad and invade other countries in order to get plunder so that the military can produce profit and general occupy countries for this purpose, which you would obviously have to pay people to do. This is as opposed to being invaded by a hostile foreign power, and you and the neocon lot praise yourselves ceaselessly for being patriotic, yet you would actually refuse to defend your country for no pay at the risk of seeing the SS marching through your streets so to speak? If so I venture that you aren't so patriotic after all if that is true, and that we live in a society and not a economy. In short, conservatives exposed, selfish profiteers who would sit by the crematoriums in Poland saying 'naaaa, I am not paid enough to fight'.

In the conservatives world their would be no military incentive to be selfless and to defend your country, they're would only be the profit motive - you get what you plunder.

Capitalist imperialism at the lowest I dare say.

If we're talking the American public? At that population size? Damn near impossible to get anything done.

Also, you have to remember that a great deal of American's simply aren't interested in politics beyond the usual flash button issues and are more easily distracted by stuff like American Idol.

To make Americans take enough interest in their national politics at a level of engagement that works, would take generations of re-education and reduction of consumerist don't-think-cause-it's-difficult lifestyle.

It's not impossible, but nothing short of civil war is going to achieve that kind of change.
It would definitely be a very useful change for many reasons, though. For one, it would guarantee we'd have universal health care. For two, people like Myrmi would be far outnumbered by more logical thinkers. For three, we'd be much more powerful scientifically and would cooperate more with other nations.

...

You know what, I think it would be a good idea to perform this re-education just for those benefits alone.

Oh, so your actually talking now that your finished ad hominom attacks? How very mature of you... The fact of course is that you only really have to pay an army to go abroad and invade other countries in order to get plunder so that the military can produce profit and general occupy countries for this purpose, which you would obviously have to pay people to do. This is as opposed to being invaded by a hostile foreign power, and you and the neocon lot praise yourselves ceaselessly for being patriotic, yet you would actually refuse to defend your country for no pay at the risk of seeing the SS marching through your streets so to speak? If so I venture that you aren't so patriotic after all if that is true, and that we live in a society and not a economy. In short, conservatives exposed, selfish profiteers who would sit by the crematoriums in Poland saying 'naaaa, I am not paid enough to fight'.

In the conservatives world their would be no military incentive to be selfless and to defend your country, they're would only be the profit motive - you get what you plunder.

Capitalist imperialism at the lowest I dare say.

I think you need to address the practicality of non maintaining a standing force to provide for the immediate defense of a nation. Today's military forces can move so fast and strike so hard that it would be impractical to ask for volunteers, train them, then expect that there is a country left to defend.

This whole capitalist/conservative nonsense is just that. It's irrelevant to the mechanics of providing a defense. Just a red-herring strawman of an argument to make you feel good about yourself, right?

So in short, non-standing citizen armies - defensive, standing professional paid armies - aggressive.

At current levels of technical and skills requirements in terms of warfare...

Non-standing citizen armies - inadequate, standing professional paid armies - more than adequate.

I very much doubt you could just yank some airliner pilot and expect him to fly fighter jets with much proficiency, or expect truck drivers to do well in tanks. Or even the average gun toting redneck to effectively understand infantry group tactics and important things like "taking cover".

It would definitely be a very useful change for many reasons, though. For one, it would guarantee we'd have universal health care. For two, people like Myrmi would be far outnumbered by more logical thinkers. For three, we'd be much more powerful scientifically and would cooperate more with other nations.

...

You know what, I think it would be a good idea to perform this re-education just for those benefits alone.

It would be convenient if people like me weren't around, you're right. But by purging those such as myself, you'd be short on people that could actually do things. Sure, you'd have plenty of academicians, but not practical people that can make ideas work and then make them work well.

Good luck.

I think you need to address the practicality of non maintaining a standing force to provide for the immediate defense of a nation. Today's military forces can move so fast and strike so hard that it would be impractical to ask for volunteers, train them, then expect that there is a country left to defend.

This whole capitalist/conservative nonsense is just that. It's irrelevant to the mechanics of providing a defense. Just a red-herring strawman of an argument to make you feel good about yourself, right?

If your talking about modern practicality issues, that's easy, it's called neutrality. Just to confirm I am not advocating even a limited citizen army, I think if we're going to make this debate modern (as opposed more to the Athens stuff) that military's need no reason to exist at all whatsover. Apart from police, border and coast patrol services, neutral nations need not worry about it. Military's these days anyway are too expensive with conventional equipment, better off spending it on you know, THE PEOPLE.

I think you need to address the practicality of non maintaining a standing force to provide for the immediate defense of a nation. Today's military forces can move so fast and strike so hard that it would be impractical to ask for volunteers, train them, then expect that there is a country left to defend.fair enough..

I like to point at the Swiss example.
They have something like a "people's national guard". and No professional Army.

Same thing. The military is about selfless defense of your people when invaded by a foreign power, if a military would only ever be used to fight that kind of defensive war, then they wouldn't need the profit motive to fight, they'd fight to save their city and people, profiteering mercenary military's are obviously only needed to create new markets by invading and looting the resources of other nations. Large standing armies is the cornerstone of militarism.

So in short, non-standing citizen armies - defensive, standing professional paid armies - aggressive.

Uh huh. Tell me, do you seriously expect people to defend their nation just out of the goodness of their hearts? There's a reason people are paid to be in the military; because when you fight in a war, there is a very high chance that you will die.

The US uses a volunteer army...so you get paid to volunteer to go to war...and typically the people who join strictly for money don't stay in very long..anyways you need a standing army now..in todays world...I would say extreme nationalism with standing armies leads to war case in point ww1 and ww2... having a standing army...doesn't mean its an aggressive one

The only exception was during the draft...which more than likely won't be back unless ww3 actually erupted..

For two, people like Myrmi would be far outnumbered by more logical thinkers.

You are far more optimistic than I.


For three, we'd be much more powerful scientifically and would cooperate more with other nations.

That optimism again.

It's a reasonable conclusion that the greater aggregate total of individuals in a group, the less rational and intelligent thought it displays. It's a depressingly common occurrence in small and large groups.

fair enough..

I like to point a the Swiss example.
They have something like a Large "national guard".

Exactly right! Exactly what I was thinking, see my post above the one I am quoting.

It would be convenient if people like me weren't around, you're right. But by purging those such as myself, you'd be short on people that could actually do things. Sure, you'd have plenty of academicians, but not practical people that can make ideas work and then make them work well.

Good luck.

I was referring more to the political opinions that you embody...the horrible lack of compassion and caring for others, and all that jazz.

Besides, who says an academic can't also make something work practically? You're creating a dichotomy that wouldn't normally exist. It only exists as such in our society because we can afford it existing.
You are far more optimistic than I.

Yes. Yes I am.


That optimism again.

It's a reasonable conclusion that the greater aggregate total of individuals in a group, the less rational and intelligent thought it displays. It's a depressingly common occurrence in small and large groups.

Well, I think you and I were seeing re-education in a different light. I was seeing it as teaching people to always think critically, to never just accept something someone says but to verify it, ect ect, whereas you seem to be thinking something else.

If your talking about modern practicality issues, that's easy, it's called neutrality. Just to confirm I am not advocating even a limited citizen army, I think if we're going to make this debate modern (as opposed more to the Athens stuff) that military's need no reason to exist at all whatsover. Apart from police, border and coast patrol services, neutral nations need not worry about it. Military's these days anyway are too expensive with conventional equipment, better off spending it on you know, THE PEOPLE.

Yes, neutrality is all well and good. Until you get invaded by the Nazis.

Exactly right! Exactly what I was thinking, see my post above the one I am quoting.

And Switzerland is also a very, VERY small country, has a minuscule population compared to the United States and a National Guard is STILL a standing force! You fail on all three counts, my dear.

Yes, neutrality is all well and good. Until you get invaded by the Nazis.

Switzerland was never invaded by Nazi Germany or anyone else.

Exactly right! Exactly what I was thinking, see my post above the one I am quoting.

Neutrality is just as much of a pipe dream as is a real socialist economy. I'd like to see the United States remain uninvolved in world affairs, but a global economy just won't allow that. At some point we'll have to protect our interests abroad. Those interests are not necessarily financial, thought that does make most of the wars.

Conversely, at some point another nation that wants to protect their interests may have an interest in attacking us, no matter what posture we take with regard to neutrality. A well-prepared defense is essential in that case.

And Switzerland is also a very, VERY small country, has a minuscule population compared to the United States and a National Guard is STILL a standing force! You fail on all three counts, my dear.

I like how he's using Switzerland as an example: not only does it actually HAVE a standing army, but it also has mercenaries, and Switzerland just happens to be one of the most conservative nations in Europe.

Yes, neutrality is all well and good. Until you get invaded by the Nazis.

well if you do their banking they leave you alone

Switzerland was never invaded by Nazi Germany or anyone else.

I was actually referring to the Low Countries.

Besides, Switzerland was hardly neutral.

I like how he's using Switzerland as an example: not only does it actually HAVE a standing army, but it also has mercenaries, and Switzerland just happens to be one of the most conservative nations in Europe.

Yeah, Switzerland is a really, really bad example for Andaras Prime to hold up.

And yes Switzerland was neutral, or at least as neutral as one can get. Sure, they helped with banking everywhere, but I'm pretty sure they did that for the Allies as much as the Axis.

Yeah, Switzerland is a really, really bad example for Andaras Prime to hold up.

And yes Switzerland was neutral, or at least as neutral as one can get. Sure, they helped with banking everywhere, but I'm pretty sure they did that for the Allies as much as the Axis.

There was no such thing as neutral in WWII. "Neutral" nations usually collaborated with the side they were nearest to or surrounded by (i.e. the Swiss with the Axis, the Irish with the Allies, etc.).

there was a show on Switzerland not too long ago...along with the banking some of the Nazi generals didn't want to be tied down fighting the swiss in the mountains...which would have been extremely costly...that and they wanted to focus more on the Brits

If your talking about modern practicality issues, that's easy, it's called neutrality. Just to confirm I am not advocating even a limited citizen army, I think if we're going to make this debate modern (as opposed more to the Athens stuff) that military's need no reason to exist at all whatsover. Apart from police, border and coast patrol services, neutral nations need not worry about it. Military's these days anyway are too expensive with conventional equipment, better off spending it on you know, THE PEOPLE.

Neutrality didn't help Poland. Or Chechnya. Or any number of countries that deluded themselves into thinking neutrality was adequate protection from belligerent nations in the place of a capable defense force.

Or for a more personal example. If you close your eyes and say "I'm harmless", is that going to stop my fist from rearranging your face if I were in the position to and desired it? Or more aptly, is that going to stop you from being mugged?

Come back when you've had a dose of reality AP. You're just making yourself look like a deluded fool right now.

Switzerland was never invaded by Nazi Germany or anyone else.

Two reasons. Switzerland was quite accommodating to the demands of Nazi Germany, and as I understand it, very busy putting explosives in all their key entry points as well as building hidden bases in the mountains. They were neutral, but at the same time had the force to make an invasion too prickly to make it worth it.

Well, I think you and I were seeing re-education in a different light. I was seeing it as teaching people to always think critically, to never just accept something someone says but to verify it, ect ect, whereas you seem to be thinking something else.

No, you misunderstand. The way I see things, that sort of re-education wouldn't work at any practical scale. You can't teach groups of people to think independently. You'll end up with a bunch of sheep and one leader.

Believe me, I've tried. It always failed miserably.

And if by some miracle you do make it work, you'd end up with a group of people refusing to talk to each other due to differing viewpoints.

It had been my firm belief, for a few years now, that for a democracy* to remain pure, there can be no standing military. I believe for freedom to remain pure and true, every citizen should take up a role in fighting against oppressors, if the time comes. I often look at the classical democracy in Athens, when Darius came to attack, and how they had no standing military. Rather, every man was conscripted to go fight against the tyrannical forces. They defeat thttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=1227
jolt.co.uk public forums - Post New Threadhe opponent despite being out numbered 2 to 1. Some years later, when Xerxes came to Athens, the leader (I forget his name at this point in time) ordered all the citizens to give up their homes and leave, while all the men were to board the triremes for an attack on the Persian fleet near Salamis. Again, victory came to the Greeks.

I have come to conclude that when common people are thrust into a situation where they have to defend everything they have, they will fight hard and until the end. There should be no standing military to act as intercessors. Intercessors are only good in religion, and freedom is no religion. It is a lifestyle given to every man and woman, should they choose to embrace it. When the blood of a free man is spilled, while he is defending his freedoms, the purity of liberty is renewed. When you try to have freedom intercessors, such as a professional military, liberty grows stagnate. And when those soldiers die, they die in vain, and their blood is spilled for no reason.

So, I wonder, what think ye NSG?








*Yes, I know the US is a republic, but we still call ourselves democratic. So for this argument I am going to refer to the US as a democratic nation.

That works. But only with small countries such as Switzerland and Israel.

That works. But only with small countries such as Switzerland and Israel.

How the heck would it work for Israel? They're surrounded by enemies.

No, what I want is to make sure that leaders don't get ideas of grandeur and power because they a military at their hands. For a democracy to work, the people must be in charge. They must make their leader submit to their will. Militaries only strain the democratic process.

For instance, if GWB wanted to, he could withdraw all the troops from Iraq, and use them here to promote himself as life long dictator. Why? Because he has lives to spare for his cause. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the lust for power.

Except that the soldiers have sworn an oath to defend the constitution. They'd never allow any president to declare themselves life long dictator.

How the heck would it work for Israel? They're surrounded by enemies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OP stating that all citizens should have guns, and that when a war breaks-out, the entire population should be mobilized?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OP stating that all citizens should have guns, and that when a war breaks-out, the entire population should be mobilized?

Which is going to be pretty useless against hoards of T Series tanks.

In addition, the idea of the WHOLE population mobilising is shit anyway. It's a good way to lose a war.

Except that the soldiers have sworn an oath to defend the constitution. They'd never allow any president to declare themselves life long dictator.

I was going to point that out, but I remembered that we're not exactly into facts here at NSG.

http://www.s-o-l-i-d.com/images%205/towlie.jpg

Which is going to be pretty useless against hoards of T Series tanks.

In addition, the idea of the WHOLE population mobilising is shit anyway. It's a good way to lose a war.

He's advocating the Russian ww2 strategy.....just send so many bastards at them they run out of ammo and we can beat them to death since only half of us have fire arms anyways

http://www.s-o-l-i-d.com/images%205/towlie.jpg

You're a towel!

(About citizens with guns) Which is going to be pretty useless against hoards of T Series tanks. Are you saying our Tanks and Warplanes are going to defeat the Insurgents?

In addition, the idea of the WHOLE population mobilising is shit anyway. It's a good way to lose a war.You dont need to mobilize all the citizens.. Our Tanks and Warplanes are being defeated by a fraction of the citizenship.

Are you saying our Tanks and Warplanes are going to defeat the Insurgents?

You dont need to mobilize all the citizens.. Our Tanks and Warplanes are being defeated by a fraction of the citizenship.

They could...quite easily however in todays world we can't totally disregard killing civilians where as in ancient times the invading army could massacre an entire population.

They could...yes but.. my Vegas-certified-odds-machine calculated the % possibilities of Bush winning the War at less than 1% (close to 0%)

It had been my firm belief, for a few years now, that for a democracy* to remain pure, there can be no standing military.


why not?

George Washington was against a standing army.


But the Republic was over just after WW2 with the handing it over the the "national security (police) state".


You've got America's political police - the fbi, which occasionally catches some street and even white color criminals as a pr move.
It IS unconstitutional after all.
Since a regular accounting of all monies spent must be made by the congress.
The fbi & its outside the country (only! according to its own charter, regularly broken) counterpart the cia, both have secret budgets. They are thus unconstitutional. This isn't "twisting the words", but regular old US constitution.


also...
After previous wars the armed forces were all but disbanded.
But instead Truman and his wall street advisers decided that rather than
democratizing the economy and helping real people, because the fear of returning to the depression, they went forward with a permanent war time economy.

A lot of angry US troops around the world almost revolted when, instead of heading home, they were sent to allies' colonies to suppress uprisings by local populations who did not want a return of their former masters.
Which eventually led to the Korean War and the Vietnam war to name a few.

What do we do when Canada invades?And no I'm actually not being being sarcastic I'm using Canada as an example because they're our nieghbor.Seriously,a military is important to have.It's what you do with it that counts.

Costa Rica has no military.

And a lot of countries around the world have a military that "we", excuse me, the US gov't licenses sales by US arms manufacturers to, that have no external enemy.
These militaries tend to train their weapons on their own populations.
Usually those working for democratic change, workers rights, community organizations, religious organizations, etc...

Keep being friends with people

Costa Rica has no military.

Costa Rica has no enemies. And for that matter, no power.

Costa Rica has no enemies. And for that matter, no power.

You only have enemies when you want enemies, these days anyway, Switzerland is a good example of neutrality achieved. The only purpose that having a large standing professional army is overseas aggression for profit, while having a neutral nation with a national service small citizen army (like Switzerland) is only for self-defense against aggression. Japan also is a good example of this.

You only have enemies when you want enemies, these days anyway, Switzerland is a good example of neutrality achieved. The only purpose that having a large standing professional army is overseas aggression for profit, while having a neutral nation with a national service small citizen army (like Switzerland) is only for self-defense against aggression. Japan also is a good example of this.

Switzerland has a standing army called the National Guard. Japan has a standing army called the "Self Defense Force" which is in practicality, a full fledged army, navy and airforce.

Chechnya wanted independence and no enemies. Russia said no.

Your example fails. Again.

You only have enemies when you want enemies, these days anyway, Switzerland is a good example of neutrality achieved. The only purpose that having a large standing professional army is overseas aggression for profit, while having a neutral nation with a national service small citizen army (like Switzerland) is only for self-defense against aggression. Japan also is a good example of this.


One could make the argument against Japan, since they have a mess load of US bases, 75% of which have to be put up with by the poor Okinawans.
http://www.fhan.org/comment.html

Thus Japan relies on the US for defense, the argument goes.
Switzerland is a good case.

But your other arguments are basically true too.
Until the person above brings up an example like Chechnya.

One could make the argument against Japan, since they have a mess load of US bases, 75% of which have to be put up with by the poor Okinawans.
http://www.fhan.org/comment.html

Thus Japan relies on the US for defense, the argument goes.
Switzerland is a good case.

But your other arguments are basically true too.
Until the person above brings up an example like Chechnya.

Chechnya isn't a good example of neutrality I think because they were also being provocative after breaking from Russia, and were threatening to stir up jihadi insurgencies in all the former-Soviet Islamic states, and at the time Russia was fighting wars with it's breakaway republics and it was quite chaotic. I mean in Switzerland can do it with the Nazi's, anyone could do it. The fact that Switzerland have a small standing army doesn't refute anything because it doesn't refute the point that they could not have a standing army and it wouldn't affect anything.

Chechnya isn't a good example of neutrality I think because they were also being provocative after breaking from Russia, and were threatening to stir up jihadi insurgencies in all the former-Soviet Islamic states, and at the time Russia was fighting wars with it's breakaway republics and it was quite chaotic.

And your proof of said provocation is? Manufactured by AP Imagination Inc?

The fact that Switzerland have a small standing army doesn't refute anything because it doesn't refute the point that they could not have a standing army and it wouldn't affect anything.

This is an example of what we like to call illogical thinking.

"Switzerland has a small standing army, thus it doesn't change anything if it didn't have a standing army"

What the heck?

"The accused has the blood of the victim on his hands, thus it doesn't change anything if he didn't"

So if you have money it doesn't change anything if you don't have money? Or your having a brain doesn't refute the point that you might not have a brain and it wouldn't change anything?

You are claiming factual inconsistencies.

As for neutrality, try explaining Poland then. Or much of Asia when Genghis Khan was knocking around. Or Afghanistan when the Soviet Union came knocking. Or China, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Korea and Taiwan during Japan's invasions.

The history of war commits your ludicrous claims to the ash heap of stupidity.

You fail. Again.

Well you're in luck. The US technically doesn't have a standing army. It needs to be reauthorized by congress every two years.



Not true.

I don't know precisely where you got that idea, but all five branches of the U.S. military are established in the United States Code and a quick read-through provides no basis for 'reauthorization'.

Japan's SDF is still limited in terms of weapons it can be armed with and IIRC the Tonnage/roles of its ships, could be wrong though.


The Athenian 'military' was made up of professional mercenaries and drafted 'citizens' where citizen== Rich male Landowner who could buy out of their military service b hiring mercenaries to take their place. So while on paper and in the history books, the 'classical age' Greek military may have included all citizens, in practice very few citizens actually served (if any)

There is no historical precedent for a nation effectively utilizing its citizenry (even limited citizenry) in place of a standing army.
none.
not that one either.

why not?

George Washington was against a standing army.


But the Republic was over just after WW2 with the handing it over the the "national security (police) state".


You've got America's political police - the fbi, which occasionally catches some street and even white color criminals as a pr move.
It IS unconstitutional after all.
Since a regular accounting of all monies spent must be made by the congress.
The fbi & its outside the country (only! according to its own charter, regularly broken) counterpart the cia, both have secret budgets. They are thus unconstitutional. This isn't "twisting the words", but regular old US constitution.


also...
After previous wars the armed forces were all but disbanded.
But instead Truman and his wall street advisers decided that rather than
democratizing the economy and helping real people, because the fear of returning to the depression, they went forward with a permanent war time economy.

A lot of angry US troops around the world almost revolted when, instead of heading home, they were sent to allies' colonies to suppress uprisings by local populations who did not want a return of their former masters.
Which eventually led to the Korean War and the Vietnam war to name a few.

You are...so totally full of shit.

The US opposed quite a lot of reoccupation of the former colonies post WWII. They came close to shooting war with Britain over Hong Kong.

The FBI budget is part of the Department of Justice budget. It's completely open. The CIA does not reveal it's budget to the populace, I believe, but does do so to Congress - and Congress is under no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, to make that public.

The US, further, has had a standing army since the Civil War. It was small, and most of it was a "skeletonized" set of formations designed to act as the core of an expanded military - but it was, most assuredly, there.

As to the OP:

None of the Ancient Greek citystates are a good example of a nation "without a standing army", because they ALL had one. That army being the citizens. Part of being a citizen was the requirement to furnish, when required, a Hoplite warrior, either yourself, a family member, or a trained man to fight in your place. In Athens, the most common reason for being banished was failure to appear at a muster - these Hoplites were expected to be available on one day's notice.

In the modern era, a standing army is not optional. A well trained, well armed and well equipped foe could literally occupy your capital in less than 24 hours from a declaration of hostilities. No reserve or guard force could assemble quickly enough to prevent it. Only a standing military force can protect a modern state - and one of the responsibilities of the modern state is to protect it's citizens.

I love the 'peace through superior firepower' warmongering niks on this thread, it's precisely because of this modern age and the emergence of the bordered nationstate and international law that neutrality is possible and desirable. The would does not need more weapons, because the common people should not have to carry the burden of paying for the aggression so the rich can feel powerful. In short, war can be over if you want it to be.

I love the 'peace through superior firepower' warmongering niks on this thread, it's precisely because of this modern age and the emergence of the bordered nationstate and international law that neutrality is possible and desirable. The would does not need more weapons, because the common people should not have to carry the burden of paying for the aggression so the rich can feel powerful. In short, war can be over if you want it to be.

No, Andaras. That would be wonderful if it were actually true - but it simply isn't.

We still have nations that are undeniably expansionist and desirous of conquering their naeighbours. We have border arguments, some that stretch back thousands of years, some much less, that one or both sides are perfectly willing to settle by armed force.

And we still have the same xenophobic and short sighted people willing to allow themselves to be swayed into wars on the flimsiest of excuses.

What stops this sort of thing from breaking out? Standing armies and regional power balances. No one goes to war if they don't think they can win. No one starts something if they know the other guy is going to finish it.

All neutrality and no standing army does is paint a big sign on your country: HIT ME.

I love the 'peace through superior firepower' warmongering niks on this thread, it's precisely because of this modern age and the emergence of the bordered nationstate and international law that neutrality is possible and desirable. The would does not need more weapons, because the common people should not have to carry the burden of paying for the aggression so the rich can feel powerful. In short, war can be over if you want it to be.

OMG. I see someone has ignored 3rd world history of conflict.

You are...so totally full of shit.

The US opposed quite a lot of reoccupation of the former colonies post WWII. They came close to shooting war with Britain over Hong Kong.

The FBI budget is part of the Department of Justice budget. It's completely open. The CIA does not reveal it's budget to the populace, I believe, but does do so to Congress - and Congress is under no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, to make that public.

The US, further, has had a standing army since the Civil War. It was small, and most of it was a "skeletonized" set of formations designed to act as the core of an expanded military - but it was, most assuredly, there.

no actually, i'm not.

like i said, "all BUT totally disbanded".

The US opposed some recolonization. But there were specific reasons for it.
There was a lot that lasted well past Eisenhower's time even.
The Portuguese empire didn't collapse until progressive forces in their military opposed the fascists in the 70s. You remember that French colony called Vietnam that led to the first Vietnam war? (And the subsequent attempt by the US to re-colonize it in the 2nd Vietnam war.)


Actually, yes. You can't have a "secret" congress.
The constitution requires the following plain language:
-----------------
Article. I.
Section 9
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-------------------

Both CIA & FBI 's budget are secret, and thus unconstitutional.

*snip*

Accept that Congress has obliged the CIA. Also, the language says from time to time. Who defines the time?

OMG. I see someone has ignored 3rd world history of conflict.

yeah, a lot, if not most of 3rd world conflict history had some sort of malicious US behind the scenes, if not overt hand in it.
Not to say the Soviet Union didn't have some hands here or there either.
But the last 50 years in the "3rd world" is littered by home grown conflicts, often against soon to be former colonial powers or some sort of local dictator or corrupt oligarchy that cares about nothing but themselves, who would take help from wherever it would come. Even from an opportunistic Soviet Union.
Time and again, the US would be on the side of whatever side could guarantee opportunities for their legal entities called corporations.

Accept that Congress has obliged the CIA. Also, the language says from time to time. Who defines the time?


Isn't it wonderful....
;) could be defined by crooks as once every 10 or 20 years.
Ah, from time to time.

Pretty much a joke on us when someone in congress interprets it as that.
I mean, no elected official's term lasts more than 6.



"Accept that Congress has obliged the CIA"

meaning...the congress has given in to them?
Oops.
Guess the US really is over.

We can get the ideal back, someday

It had been my firm belief, for a few years now, that for a democracy* to remain pure, there can be no standing military. I believe for freedom to remain pure and true, every citizen should take up a role in fighting against oppressors, if the time comes. I often look at the classical democracy in Athens, when Darius came to attack, and how they had no standing military. Rather, every man was conscripted to go fight against the tyrannical forces. They defeated their opponent despite being out numbered 2 to 1. Some years later, when Xerxes came to Athens, the leader (I forget his name at this point in time) ordered all the citizens to give up their homes and leave, while all the men were to board the triremes for an attack on the Persian fleet near Salamis. Again, victory came to the Greeks.

I have come to conclude that when common people are thrust into a situation where they have to defend everything they have, they will fight hard and until the end. There should be no standing military to act as intercessors. Intercessors are only good in religion, and freedom is no religion. It is a lifestyle given to every man and woman, should they choose to embrace it. When the blood of a free man is spilled, while he is defending his freedoms, the purity of liberty is renewed. When you try to have freedom intercessors, such as a professional military, liberty grows stagnate. And when those soldiers die, they die in vain, and their blood is spilled for no reason.

So, I wonder, what think ye NSG?

*Yes, I know the US is a republic, but we still call ourselves democratic. So for this argument I am going to refer to the US as a democratic nation.

Thats why the citizens right to own guns is so important, we are the backup of the countries standing military. I don't believe a standing military is the problem whether its in a democracy or any other type of government because the military is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil according to the will of the person in control of it. The problem starts with the people who make up that government. Do they see themselves as protectors of the people or would be kings and queens with there own objectives. Will they use the standing military to protect the countries people or use it to oppress them? They should put the peoples needs first and not base all their decisions on what would further their career best and / or add to their bank account.

no actually, i'm not.

like i said, "all BUT totally disbanded".

The US opposed some recolonization. But there were specific reasons for it.
There was a lot that lasted well past Eisenhower's time even.
The Portuguese empire didn't collapse until progressive forces in their military opposed the fascists in the 70s. You remember that French colony called Vietnam that led to the first Vietnam war? (And the subsequent attempt by the US to re-colonize it in the 2nd Vietnam war.)


Actually, yes. You can't have a "secret" congress.
The constitution requires the following plain language:
-----------------
Article. I.
Section 9
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-------------------

Both CIA & FBI 's budget are secret, and thus unconstitutional.

First: The US was attmpting to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the Soviet-backed North, not to "re-colonize" it. This wasn't out of any especial delight over South Vietnam, but as one move in the giant chess game of the Cold War. While the attempt eventually failed, the overall goal was acheived - the Soviets did not gain dominance in SE Asia.

Second, the Supreme Court has stated that the Congress CAN retain information for a reasonable period without publishing it, though not forever. The CIA's budget falls under that heading - though, in point of fact, I can't recall any such budget being held for more than the base seven years. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, this action clearly IS constitutional.

While the attempt eventually failed, the overall goal was acheived - the Soviets did not gain dominance in SE Asia.

Well, they kinda did, but it turned out to be an irrelevant theatre.

Well, they kinda did, but it turned out to be an irrelevant theatre.

True. The overall "Mess" level turned the entire area useless for both sides.

Not an uncommon result, actually. Both sides were willing to use "scorched earth" policies when losing.

I love the 'peace through superior firepower' warmongering niks on this thread, it's precisely because of this modern age and the emergence of the bordered nationstate and international law that neutrality is possible and desirable. The would does not need more weapons, because the common people should not have to carry the burden of paying for the aggression so the rich can feel powerful. In short, war can be over if you want it to be.

Using your logic, one could compare it to the argument of "There would be no crime if there were no police"

Another failed attempt at rhetoric that might work if it weren't humans we were talking about, but some kind of super enlightened alien race.

Reality has a liberal bias AP, not a stupid bias. Reality is unkind to the stupid, and often kills them because they're unprepared.

Thats why the citizens right to own guns is so important, we are the backup of the countries standing military. I don't believe a standing military is the problem whether its in a democracy or any other type of government because the military is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil according to the will of the person in control of it. The problem starts with the people who make up that government. Do they see themselves as protectors of the people or would be kings and queens with there own objectives. Will they use the standing military to protect the countries people or use it to oppress them? They should put the peoples needs first and not base all their decisions on what would further their career best and / or add to their bank account.

You seriously can't be arguing that some kind of unprofessional home grown militia would be able to stand up to a professional army that operated under no restraint?

First: The US was attmpting to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the Soviet-backed North, not to "re-colonize" it. This wasn't out of any especial delight over South Vietnam, but as one move in the giant chess game of the Cold War. While the attempt eventually failed, the overall goal was acheived - the Soviets did not gain dominance in SE Asia.

Second, the Supreme Court has stated that the Congress CAN retain information for a reasonable period without publishing it, though not forever. The CIA's budget falls under that heading - though, in point of fact, I can't recall any such budget being held for more than the base seven years. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, this action clearly IS constitutional.

There is another part of the constitution about military appropriations...?
which states can go no more than 2 years.
The CIA, in that it has conducted war-"type" operations, would clearly fall under this.
Or,
since there is nothing in the CIA's charter about war-"type" operations,
it is clearly doing things it has never been authorized to do.
Or,
under the 'and other things to gurantee the security of the us',
which some claim such things fall under...you begin to see where they hide
the crimes against humanity (and democractic and constitutional government) they regularly commit.



Recently I've been working on tracking down the info from the (once public, always public, never reclassifiable - ever!) Pentagon Papers.
It might take a couple trips to the libraries, but the gist of it, besides the lying to the public about the reasons for the war, and bombing southern Vietnam (which outside forces basically created) MORE and just about randomly compared to specific targets in the north - some helping the south eh -, the PP also talk about natural resources needing to be in the "global market" or something like that.
Mike Gravel, who is running for prez of uS on the dem. ticket, read the entire PP into the congressional record during a filibuster.
So it shouldn't be too hard to track down. It's just that I would rather read some summaries or excerpts of them. Call me lazy...

What this has boiled down to is a conflict between neutrality and standing armies. The ideal situation would be both neutrality AND a standing army. Neutrality alone has not and will never save anything. You have to have force to back up that neutrality, which says that 'maybe we don't care who wins your war, and maybe if you invade us we'd lose, but dammit if you do you are going to get hell from us'. Switzerland is definitely not a good example of this. Switzerland is neutral because it serves their purposes and they are geographically protected (meaning that they have obstacles in the way, such that invasion is rather pointless if you are going so slow and suffer so much losses, then why invade anyway?).

As for standing army vs. Militia, the two are not even comparable. The Military of any nation at all is going to have at least several times the resources and hardware available to even the most well equipped militia force. Insurgency and guerrilla tactics are indeed powerful and are tactically intelligent choices, but the real purpose is to oppose a force significantly stronger than you until you get the power to overwhelm them. Take, for example, the US in Iraq. The US military is the most powerful single force in the world (Hang on: if it is the most powerful military in the world, and if the military is so easily subverted to achieve dictatorship, and since we have our share of 'corporate capitalist neo-fascist conservatives', then why hasn't it been used yet? Hmm?) and is not easily resisted. There are very few forces that can fight competently against a standard US force with standard tactics. The insurgents are willing to use the power that is Guerrilla tactics to damage the US so much that they decide that it is just a waste of time to stay here (waiting for a solution to that problem big G.W.B. got us into). When they are in power, do you seriously think they will use guerrilla tactics? No! They will have no need to, because it is easiest to use slightly more conventional tactics than hide out and do guerrilla raids all the time.

you and the neocon lot
n short, conservatives exposed, selfish profiteers who would sit by the crematoriums in Poland saying 'naaaa, I am not paid enough to fight'.


Capitalist imperialism at the lowest I dare say.

As I've probably said before, Andaras Prime, I will say it again: I would appreciate it a great deal if you would simply not refer to all capitalists as one and the same (and all conservative, capitalist, and patriotic people as somehow 'in the neo-con lot'), because some capitalists differ from others almost as much as most people think that capitalism and socialism are radically different. This is like putting communists and socialists into one group, saying 'you left-wing bastards, you're all the same, and I'm deciding that you all think that we all should turn into commie bastards too, and I don't like you, even though I've never actually heard your opinions. So piss off.'

Wow, cherrypicking my post at the same time as strawman and ad hominom in the same post, nice one.

Woah, big words! I think you've swayed me!

Methinks some are grossly overestimating the ability of the average civilian to fight the average soldier.

Getting conscripted into a fight, as per your two examples, is about as far away from democracy that I think you can get.

Democracy is also about having the choice to participate.

You seriously can't be arguing that some kind of unprofessional home grown militia would be able to stand up to a professional army that operated under no restraint?

Alot of the people that you are identifing as " unprofessional home grown militia " were once members of their countries standing army. As such they recieved military training at that time and I'm sure are able to still use that knowledge and training. These same people could make a differance by training the untrained citizens. Beyond that normal everyday people that I know don't take kindly to anyone that would be trying to takeover this country .... I know I wouldn't. Finally a " PROFESSIONAL Army " doesn't operate without restraints, they have a chain of command that they must follow. I believe that such a force using guerilla tactics could defeat an invading enemy if they put their mind to it.

This ideal was all very well in the days before a standing military's equipment was within the comprehension of the common citizen. Nowadays, it would be somewhere between extremely unlikely and impossible for an untrained, undrilled populace to effectively defend themselves against a well-armed, well-trained aggressor (no matter what some of my 2nd Amendment spouting cousins across the ocean would have me believe**)

In an ideal world, a standing military allows the projection of force by mandate of the people (i.e. the military could only be deployed if the population that they represent wished it). Like any other aspect of a democracy (or any other society, for that matter) it is simply a case of using specialist persons for specialised roles.

Oh, for an ideal world!



(** to clarify, and hopefully to prevent any gun control based derailments of the thread, I'm not actually anti gun ownership)

What about the Yugoslavian Partisans during WWII, who kept several Nazi divisions chasing them?

Or the Viet Minh/Viet Cong, that fought with WWII weapons and had to home make most of their equipment?

Or the Arab insurgency in Israel (where the Arabs are not allowed to have weapons) that has been going on for how long?

Or the Irish Provisional Army,that fought the well armed British for how long?

Or almost everyones favorite here in NS, the Iraqi insurgency against the coalition forces?

Now we must keep in mind that the reason that these revolts lasted (and are lasting) so long is that they had/have the support of the majority of the population.

Whereas some like the FARC in Colombia or the Shinning Path in Peru do not have the support of the people. Now the Arab insurgency in Israel has the support of the Arabs, and the Israeli crackdown happens to have Israeli support. Those are just a few examples of "not being as armed as a modern military" can actually cause a modern military to get their butts handed back to them.

Just my thoughts, Y'all be safe out there.

Vic

Alot of the people that you are identifing as " unprofessional home grown militia " were once members of their countries standing army.


Who cease to exist one generation down the line. Any training that they do unless organized and established at beyond simple militia levels will also dilute through generations.


These same people could make a differance by training the untrained citizens.


Over reliance on public spirited people who are likely to be dispirited following the dissolving of the army.


Beyond that normal everyday people that I know don't take kindly to anyone that would be trying to takeover this country .... I know I wouldn't.


And how effective would you be against carpet bombing, thermobaric munitions, unrestricted use of chemical agents and combined arms groups? Unless you have a steady supply of explosives and anti tank and anti-air weaponry? Not very.


Finally a " PROFESSIONAL Army " doesn't operate without restraints, they have a chain of command that they must follow. I believe that such a force using guerilla tactics could defeat an invading enemy if they put their mind to it.

Asymmetrical warfare only works against armies that do not operate under scorched earth principles for occupation.

Or conversely, an army that wins strong support by local groups significantly weakens any form of asymmetrical warfare.

A professional standing army is needed in the modern world because a professional standing army will always beat militias or conscripts. Especially a standing army which has no rules about what kind of warfare they choose to wage.

History has shown that time and time again.

I thought that "army intelligence" was the only oxymoron about the military, but "military-democracy" must be the second one. :rolleyes:

What about the Yugoslavian Partisans during WWII, who kept several Nazi divisions chasing them?

Or the Viet Minh/Viet Cong, that fought with WWII weapons and had to home make most of their equipment?

Or the Arab insurgency in Israel (where the Arabs are not allowed to have weapons) that has been going on for how long?

Or the Irish Provisional Army,that fought the well armed British for how long?

Or almost everyones favorite here in NS, the Iraqi insurgency against the coalition forces?

Now we must keep in mind that the reason that these revolts lasted (and are lasting) so long is that they had/have the support of the majority of the population.

Whereas some like the FARC in Colombia or the Shinning Path in Peru do not have the support of the people. Now the Arab insurgency in Israel has the support of the Arabs, and the Israeli crackdown happens to have Israeli support. Those are just a few examples of "not being as armed as a modern military" can actually cause a modern military to get their butts handed back to them.

Just my thoughts, Y'all be safe out there.

Vic

what you also have to remember is that they fought the wars they are involved in for a long, long time, the same goes with any sucessful movement. one could argue that if they spend years in an organized paramilitary force, engaged in battle and training/preparation/logistical efforts, they are infact proffessional soldiers.

oh and unless the VC where hand making artillery pieces they probably got most of their equipment from communist fellow travellers.

You are...so totally full of shit.

The US opposed quite a lot of reoccupation of the former colonies post WWII. They came close to shooting war with Britain over Hong Kong.


This months Anti-Empire Report by William Blum is where I got info
on troops being sent to former colonies just after WW2.
Note the footnotes, mostly mainstream sources of that time

But, besides Hong Kong, what are some other places US opposed recolonization?




http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer49.htm

The world is very weary of all this and wants to laugh again

Okay, Bush ain't gonna get out of Iraq no matter what anyone says or does short of a)impeachment, b)a lobotomy, or c)one of his daughters setting herself afire in the Oval Office as a war protest. A few days ago, upon arriving in Australia, "in a chipper mood", he was asked by the Deputy Prime Minister about his stopover in Iraq. "We're kicking ass," replied the idiot king.[1] Another epigram for his tombstone.

And the Democrats ain't gonna end the war. Ninety-nine percent of the American people protesting on the same day ain't gonna do it either, in this democracy. (No, I'm sorry to say that I don't think the Vietnam protesters ended the war. There were nine years of protest -- 1964 to 1973 -- before the US military left Vietnam. It's a stretch to ascribe a cause and effect to that. The United States, after all, had to leave sometime.)

Only those fighting the war can end it. By laying down their arms and refusing to kill anymore, including themselves. Some American soldiers in Iraq have already refused to go on very dangerous combat missions. Iraq Veterans Against the War, last month at their annual meeting, in St. Louis, voted to launch a campaign encouraging American troops to refuse to fight. "Iraq Veterans Against the War decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do," said Garrett Rappenhagen, a former U.S. Army sniper who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005.

The veterans group has begun organizing among active duty soldiers on military bases. Veterans have toured the country in busses holding barbeques outside the base gates. They also plan to step up efforts to undermine military recruiting efforts.

Of course it's a very long shot to get large numbers of soldiers into an angry, protesting frame of mind. But consider the period following the end of World War Two. Late 1945 and early 1946 saw what is likely the greatest troop revolt that has ever occurred in a victorious army. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American soldiers protested all over the world because they were not being sent home even though the war was over. The GIs didn't realize it at first, but many soon came to understand that the reason they were being transferred from Europe and elsewhere to various places in the Pacific area, instead of being sent back home, was that the United States was concerned about uprisings against colonialism, which, in the minds of Washington foreign-policy officials, was equated with communism and other nasty un-American things. The uprisings were occurring in British colonies, in Dutch colonies, in French colonies, as well as in the American colony of the Philippines. Yes, hard to believe, but the United States was acting like an imperialist power.

In the Philippines there were repeated mass demonstrations by GIs who were not eager to be used against the left-wing Huk guerrillas. The New York Times reported in January 1946 about one of these demonstrations: "'The Philippines are capable of handling their own internal problems,' was the slogan voiced by several speakers. Many extended the same point of view to China."[2]

American marines were sent to China to support the Nationalist government of Chang Kai-shek against the Communists of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai. They were sent to the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) to be of service to the Dutch in their suppression of native nationalists. And American troop ships were used to transport the French military to France's former colony in Vietnam. These and other actions of Washington led to numerous large GI protests in Japan, Guam, Saipan, Korea, India, Germany, England, France, and Andrews Field, Maryland, all concerned with the major slowdown in demobilization and the uses for which the soldiers were being employed. There were hunger strikes and mass mailings to Congress from the soldiers and their huge body of support in the States. In January 1946, Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado declared "It is distressing and humiliating to all Americans to read in every newspaper in the land accounts of near mutiny in the Army."[3]

On January 13, 1946, 500 GIs in Paris adopted a set of demands called "The Enlisted Man's Magna Charta", calling for radical reforms of the master-slave relationship between officers and enlisted men; also demanding the removal of Secretary of War Robert Patterson. In the Philippines, soldier sentiment against the reduced demobilization crystalized in a meeting of GIs that voted unanimously to ask Secretary Patterson and certain Senators: "What is the Army's position in the Philippines, especially in relation to the reestablishment of the Eighty-sixth Infantry Division on a combat basis?"[4]

By the summer of 1946 there had been a huge demobilization of the armed forces, although there's no way of knowing with any exactness how much of that was due to the GIs' protests.[5]

If this is how American soldiers could be inspired and organized in the wake of "The Good War", imagine what can be done today in the midst of "The God-awful War".

Iraq Veterans Against the War could use your help. Go to: http://www.ivaw.org/

[1] Sydney Morning Herald, September 6, 2007

[2] New York Times, January 8, 1946, p.3

[3] New York Times, January 11, 1946, p.1

[4] Ibid., p.4

[5] For more information about the soldiers' protests, see: Mary-Alice Waters, "G.I.'s and the Fight
Against War" (New York, 1967), a pamphlet published by "Young Socialist" magazine.

A professional standing army is needed in the modern world because a professional standing army will always beat militias or conscripts. Especially a standing army which has no rules about what kind of warfare they choose to wage.

History has shown that time and time again.


former Reagan national security advisor General Brent Scrocroft has written in recent months that such an untrained insurgency is fighting the US to a draw in Iraq.

you could shoot everyone and everything that moved, but then,
you'd be a nazi

you could shoot everyone and everything that moved, but then,
you'd be a nazi

Or a Mongol. Or a KGB squad. Or a Blackwater mercenary company. Or a member of the Janjaweed (sp?).

Or a Mongol. Or a KGB squad. Or a Blackwater mercenary company. Or a member of the Janjaweed (sp?).


you said it much better than I


:upyours::fluffle:thank you

former Reagan national security advisor General Brent Scrocroft has written in recent months that such an untrained insurgency is fighting the US to a draw in Iraq.

you could shoot everyone and everything that moved, but then,
you'd be a nazi

You require a "security expert" to tell you as much? The US army, operating, at a fundamental level, in an offensive capacity in Iraq, has been fought to a standstill. Try attacking the USA though; if the purpose of a nation's armed forces is primarily the defence of the nation, I would suggest the US armed forces fulfil this role excellently.

Nice, and predictably ignorant, use of the Nazi card by the way.

Woah, big words! I think you've swayed me!

Strawman and "ad hominem" clearly being the pinacle of academic diction? Perhaps, just perhaps, Andaras is actually educated, and able to converse and write on a level above "it was like, totally in you face".

Any government, anywhere in any time, needs a military to exist. Unless you're talking about direct democracy anarchism, in which case there would be no military, every state needs one or else they'd be overthrown.

You require a "security expert" to tell you as much? The US army, operating, at a fundamental level, in an offensive capacity in Iraq, has been fought to a standstill. Try attacking the USA though; if the purpose of a nation's armed forces is primarily the defence of the nation, I would suggest the US armed forces fulfil this role excellently.

Nice, and predictably ignorant, use of the Nazi card by the way.


no, i don't need some "expert" to tell me an offensive war will probably lose.

um, full scale slaughter of the "people of the enemy" and not just those trying to kill you.
whatever. i could have used any other sort of brute thug group.
sorry to tarnish your precious nazis.

Any government, anywhere in any time, needs a military to exist. Unless you're talking about direct democracy anarchism, in which case there would be no military, every state needs one or else they'd be overthrown.


so a government needs a military to prevent its own people from overthrowing it?


Costa Rica has no military.