Foxfyre, it's sometimes difficult for me to make subtle points in the forums for a couple of reasons. One, it has to be said, is my own inability or lack of knowledge; another is the limitation of the medium, although being able to exchange ideas assymetrically across huge distances is great (I sometimes think there's a nice little research question for someone looking at the educational aspects of forums use - seriously, heck I might even do it myself!). Bearing those points in mind I'll do my best to address your points.
Firstly, the US as a nation of Boy Scouts. No. The US, like any other nation, has never hesitated to protect its foreign and domestic interests. And it has done so both surreptitiously and overtly and it has done so using diplomatic means and it has done so using force - both covert and overt. I'm not putting a moral slant on this observation, just stating whatÂ’s known. Let me make it clear that other nations, throughout history, have done exactly the same and most with far more brutality. The British have a benign reputation now but a look at their imperialist history will reveal some incredible bloodthirstiness. One action that comes to mind is the treatment of the mutineers in the Sepoy Mutiny where mutineers were strapped to the muzzles of cannons and the cannons fired. No-one has to look far for more examples. The US is a neo-colonial power, unlike the British Empire which seized countries for resources, the US has sought to protect and project its economic interests by assisting its corporations. A quick look at the recent history of Honduras makes my point. And while I canÂ’t prove it I maintain that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out to benefit oil companies. So, I donÂ’t accept the view of the US as a benign power. That doesnÂ’t accord with reality.
To your other points.
Your point about the origins of the 2nd Amendment, yes I understand them and given the state of the infant nation, it makes perfect sense. While IÂ’m not well versed in the Federalist Papers I have read some and I am reading an analysis of them (periodically, itÂ’s actually hard going for me) and I agree that the debates were intellectual (startlingly intellectual, they were well educated men) and intense. I think the current (here at least) debate over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is an interesting example of the struggle between those who advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution and those who see it as being interpreted in a contemporary context. As an aside itÂ’s also interesting because it outlines the limitations of a written constitution as opposed to a constitution that is composed of various sources, such as in Britain or here in my own country. Hah, that might provoke yet another thread, but that would be a good discussion too.
IÂ’m not sure if Hitler followed Marx, I thought that he despised the communists. ThatÂ’s not to say the younger Hitler may have perhaps dabbled but Nazi Germany definitely wasnÂ’t run along Marxist lines. But I seem to remember that after Hitler came to power he disarmed German Jews, not Germans in toto, but IÂ’ll be corrected on that of course. Lenin, not sure. All I remember is that the Bolshevik Revolution continued for quite some time. I donÂ’t remember a wholesale seizure of firearms but again, corrections always welcome.
On revolution. The aim of revolution is to forcibly overthrow an existing regime and replace it with another. The nature of the replacement regime is irrelevant to the fact that revolution is the tool used for a rapid change of regime.
On the would-be fascists and Butler. I think they would have failed too. Interestingly enough in Britain in the 1930s Moseley, the British fascist, was having more success than the anti-Roosevelt conspirators, in the British aristocracy there was much sympathy for him.
On the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. I really donÂ’t have an argument with it. IÂ’m only interested in the 2nd Amendment in terms of constitutional interpretation. I think the reasons for the status of the US as superpower are myriad. I think that status was gained post WWII when the sun actually did set on the British Empire. The journey of the US towards that status was enhanced by a wealth of natural resources available and a political and economic system that prized individual (and individual corporate) initiative. The cultural emphasis on freedom no doubt facilitated this.
I understand well the nature of subtleties and the difficulty of using them in this medium. Without being able to see the other's arched eyebrow, knowing smile, body posture, or hear inflections in the voice, the best intended prose can be completely misunderstood by another. That's probably why I stay in hot water so much of the time on these forums because even knowing that, I tend to write as I would say it with advantage of the body language and voice inflections.
So......let's agree to be friends and to give each other the benefit of the doubt and at least a chance to clarify if one of us says something that sounds completely outrageous to another. (I'm not gonna guarantee that all my stuff will sound good no matter how much I try to clean it up though.
)
The Boy Scout was a metaphor related to the idea of being prepared (the Boy Scout motto) for whatever a citizen militia or the military might have to face no matter how far fetched a threat might seem. (Of course a Boy Scout is also trustworthy, loyal, helpful, freindly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, all of which we would like to think are virtues of our country however much we sometimes don't manage to obtain them.)
I agree with your definition of revolution. I just don't agree that the American revolution was anything similar to the Cuban revolution(s).
I think both Hitler and Lenin were definitely grandchildren of Karl Marx. Both admired Marx greatly. They took pure Marxism in different directions, however, with Hitler going the facist route and Lenin/Stalin the totalitarian communist route, both of which resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people. If the US government should fall to a similar regime, that regime might eventually be able to bring in sufficient military force to subdue the people, but they would pay dearly for it here because in every hamlet they would be facing AK47s, M-16s, Colt 45s, high powered deer rifles, 10-guage shotguns, an occasional elephant gun as well as various kinds of explosives courtesy of miners, construction crews, fire departments, etc. and enough experience from retired military to use them to maximum advantage. If prudence called for temporary surrender, you can guarantee that most of such weaponsry would be well hidden until an effective uprising could be organized and executed.
I think oil was defnitely one of motive for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein had already demontrated designs on taking his neighbor's oil fields, and the idea of a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves in the hands of somebody like him was not pleasant to contemplate. Oil after all is the fuel of democracy, prosperity, independence, and self defense for all of the free world and nobody should be afforded the power to withhold it for the purpose of bringing the free world to its knees.
I think part of the motive was in fact self defense both for U.S. interests and Israel's interests as virtually everybody thought Hussein had that WMD and would use it. And I think part of the motive was humanitarian because we knew how much the Iraqi people were suffering under 12 years of sanctions with a leader who didn't care whether they suffered or not.
I'm quite sure it didn't go as anticipated and our leaders would surely like to have a lot of do-overs now with hindsight. But I do not question the motives of our leaders for doing it.
I'm addressing your cogent points as best I can.
