Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't claim to know much about the military and I am quite proud of the fact that I do not know much about an organization that subverts the democratic process and seeks to undermine the American ideals that our forefathers fought for. The only thing I need to know is what I see with my own eyes Yes, I am against a standing Army and I agree with our founding fathers on that much and I condemn those motherfuckers like you who support a standing army. When and if the people cease to direct the affairs of war is the day we cease to be a free people. It is bad enough that much of our freedom has already been lost but it is pathetic that we have a military empire that spans the globe with military installations in the majority of countries around the world because the truth is that this is what the Roman Empire did and it is what we are now witnessing taking place in this country and if we become as foolish as the Roman Republic and allow the same to happen then it is our own damn fault.
Just who did all the fighting for our forefathers, asshole?
What the hell do your posts have to do with the original topic of this thread?
You are just hijacking what would otherwise have been an intelligent discussion.
That would be the people, and the organized militias which formed the Continental Army. Ever hear of Paul Revere, and Willaim Dawes? They didn't rely on a standing army and when the war was over the army was disbanded and it was only after that the people decided that everything our forefathers did meant nothing that a Standing Army was formed and it was the one thing that was most feriously opposed by those who loved freedom and supported by evil bastards like you who hated everything that was gained from the American Revolution. As for intelligent discussion. It is apparent that you can't have one of those because you are an idiot. If and when you want an intelligent discussion then you might get one but until then you get the same discussion as the retards who represent you in Congress.
Actually just on that. General Smedley, USMC. He actually blew the whistle on a bunch of very undemocratic folks who wanted to take over the US government. I think it was in the late 1920s or 1930s. As far as I know, the US military has never been a threat to its own country.
I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for you.
Actually, the institution of the military has always been a threat to this country and that is why former Presidents have warned of the military industrial complex. For example, former President Eisenhower said, "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together" While, he was a man of war that I do not agree with on most areas I do recognize his words have a sound of truth to them. These people and what they represent are the anti-thesis of what the American people have stood from since we revolted against England. It is this fight against evil whether domestic or foreign that must continue and that is why we must defeat conservatisim in the Middle East and conservatism here whether it is the form of al-Qaeda or the Republican Party and only God can protect us from these people and what they represent therefore it is our duty to do what we can to protect ourselves, our families, and our associates and may God have mercy on us if they win because the principles of conservatism has done more harm to this world than any other principle. We must fight radical Islamic conservatism just like we must fight American conservatism if we are ever to have peace on earth. What CSM represents is of satanic origin and we must never back down from confronting that evil even when it takes advantage ouf our system of government to benefit itself and to usher in its reign of terror. So I hope every American has the courage to pray for America at this time because we are confronted with two of the greatest evils in the world at this time. Those being al-Qaeda and the Republican Party.
Hot Damn! I'm right up there with the debbil!
What Edward reperesents is some serious inbreeding.
Do you always foam at the mouth or only when posting?
Do you seriously believe this nation could survive without a standing military???
That question was asked by the likes of you in 1789 as well but the fact remains that this nation could survive in peaceful co-existence without a standing military. Prove it. You don't need a standing military to protect yourself or your family when you are attacked. Who will protect them then...you? It is only when you become an aggressor and take on the role of an empire that you need a standing military. Care to mention ONE society that survives that way? Name just one nation that does not have an Army.There were periods in our history where we did not have a standing military. When? What planet do you live on? It make no sense to argue that a standing military is necessary when the truth is that what you represent is what the British in 1776 represented. Prove it. You can deny this all you want but many of your faction openly advocated a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention and the ideological founder of the Republican Party, Alexander Hamilton, in fact advocated that the President be appointed for life and praised the British form of government. That is a huge stretch. I was not alive in the 1700's nor do I know anyone who was. It's no wonder they wanted to meet in secret. I can see Patrick Henry marching up to Alexander Hamilton, dragging him into the street with thousands of other people and lynching him for his comments. That said, it is you who is foaming at the mouth just like your members of Congress do when they seek your vote. You enjoy the feeling of power you get from being able to vote and to do harm to this country. Ah so voting is bad then. You indicate that you believe a dictatorship run by the likes of you is the only way to go. Now why don't you shut up you psychotic piece of shit and run for President like the mentally unhinged John McCain is doing. For the same reason you wont do us all a favor and jump off a cliff.
Isn't it time for you to go clean your room or something? Does our mother know you aren't really taking a nap?
Are you foaming at the mouth yet bitch? Does it upset you that I won't take your shit or accept your claim to have the right to vote us into a war of choice? So go take a nap now old man before you fall off your rocker and hit your head on the floor while foaming from the mouth at how you aren't be treated as a King who gets to vote us into a war of choice. We know that you are upset that no one gives a damn that old Granddady served in the military and we know that you are upset that no one shows you the respect and deference you think you deserve. Make sure to to let the nurse know you need your diaper changed now and that you need your morning meds. I know that it upsets you that you have to live in an Old Folks home for the senile but you will get over it since you can always look forward to the yearly prostate exam you receive from the Retirement Home physician.
An educated and well informed response.
Can't answer my questions, I guess. Interesting that you cannot even make up our own insults and have to pirate mine.
In any case, care to tell us all just how this country could defend its national interests without a standing military? Care to expound on the original topic of this thread?
Let's start with the words of Patrick Henry: "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, "we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble." Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system."
These words aren't hollow ones and they apply today. We have no need for a standing military and never had a need other then to become an empire and to be counted among the empires of the world. No nation needs a standing military and the only reason all the current ones have one is because they are following our bad example. What nation in their right mind, except for maybe Switzerland, would not have a standing military when the United States has one. The Swiss military has changed over time as a result of the way the world has gone but they still retain the vestiges of a militia system and they have no standing military in the general sense of the word. You insist on talking about national interests as if our interests span the globe. If and when we are attacked it would take no more than a fews hours to have the National Guard prepared to defend our country. There is absolutely no reason to have a standing military. The whole argument is based on the fear tactics of people like you. In almost every generation you have tried this and Patrick Henry's comments prove it. You even tried it as early as 1789 when you people talked out of your asses about how we needed a standing military to defend ourselves. You continued to do so because you are warped people who think of fighting first instead of living in peace. It is interesting to watch how Switzerland conducts itself and how we conduct ourselves and yet Switzerland has survived longer then we have and ironically on a war-torn continent. Interesting isn't it? Of course, since we decide to develop the nuclear bomb and use it it has become more difficult to protect our national security but it is still possible to do so without a standing army. We could disband the military in peace-time (but of course you bastards would try to start a war so you can build yourselves back up), place the National Guard in control of our national defense, discontinue all U.S. military installations in foreign country and conduct ourselves as equals among nations. Then I doubt very much we would have to worry about anyone attacking us because our national defense system would be feared and other nations would not have anything to fear from us. You have yet to provide one good reason why we should have a standing military other then to try to instill fear in people. So I wait for your answer to my question. Why do we need a standing army?
What the first CIC thinks about it:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/gw1/writings/brf/recrui.htm
"To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows. Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living, (particularly in the lodging) brings on sickness in many; impatience in all, and such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes that it not only produces shameful, and scandalous Desertions among themselves, but infuses the like spirit in others. Again, Men accustomed to unbounded freedom, and no controul, cannot brook the Restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good order and Government of an Army; without which, licentiousness, and every kind of disorder triumpantly reign. To bring Men to a proper degree of Subordination, is not the work of a day, a Month or even a year; and unhappily for us, and the cause we are Engaged in, the little discipline I have been labouring to establish in the Army under my immediate Command, is in a manner done away by having such a mixture of Troops as have been called together within these few Months. "
also:
"The Jealousies of a standing Army, and the Evils to be apprehended from one, are remote; and in my judgment, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting one, according to my Ideas, formed from the present view of things, is certain, and inevitable Ruin; for if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter. I do not mean by this however to arraign the Conduct of Congress, in so doing I should equally condemn my own measures, (if I did not my judgment); but experience, which is the best criterion to work by, so fully, clearly, and decisively reprobates the practice of trusting to Militia, that no Man who regards order, regularity, and (e]conomy; or who has any regard for his own honour, Character, or peace of Mind, will risk them upon this Issue"
So I guess we can conclude that George Washington is/was a traitor if we are to believe Edward's criteria.
Terrorism and the New American Republic
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.
History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.
On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.
"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.
"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."
Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."
Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.
One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.
"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."
Good find. Again, history reveals that there is nothing new.
I'm amazed you have wasted your time trying to tell "his eminence" anything. He's busy compiling his next unhinged sermon for his next post nothing you say sinks in.
Its a rather mindless diversion equivalent to whittling. You just keep peeling little chips away until there is nothing left.
LMAO. THAT doesn't work with Edward ... he keeps coming back for more abuse.
Does a whittler whittle for the wood's entertainment or the whittler's?
