View Single Post
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 11:05 AM
Dom1 Dom1 is offline
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back Atcha View Post
I'll tell you what speakes volumes about a standing army, the federalist papers and the debates, letters and opinions of the framers of the constitution.

It was determined that standing armies in the absence of a declared war pose a significant threat to the liberties of the citizen. It's hard to imagine now (if all you know is a smattering of American history), but this was (and in many parts of the world still is) of grave concern to a group of true patriots and freedom fighters/givers in the late 18th century. People who had learned far more world history (and lived it) than any two people on these boards combined.

It's the same reason military is not allowed to intervene in civilian affairs. You can't possibly understand the ramifications of the constitution unless you learn why it was written. It was designed to protect the free people of these United States from the feudalism and tyranny that has run rampant in nearly every government in the history of the world. Historically, a large standing army with nothing to do tends to find itself turned against it's countrymen by the order of their elites.

A large standing army in times of peace runs CONTRARY TO COMMON SENSE in every historical aspect. Exactly who are you afraid of? We are a heavily armed citizenry, with resources and reasonably well educated. Look at what the Arab countries have done with what little they have to work with... do you really think any foreign army is itching to invade the US? LMAO

Now, for those of you who love to take things to the extreme, I'm not saying there should be no standing military during times of peace, but a greatly reduced one. Keep your intel gathering, keep the air force at decent numbers.

Now, for those of you who love to take things to the extreme, I'm not saying there should be no standing military during times of peace, but a greatly reduced one

No standing army needs no standing army. You can't say that a standing army during peace threatens the liberties of people and then say, "but it is OK if we have a smaller one." Is there a magic number and if we have a standing army below that number our liberties are safe but when above they aren't?????

The world has changed, the Framers also owned slaves and didnt' see a problem with that. They didn't allow women to vote. They didn't allow some men to vote.

A standing army in the 21st century is necessary and while the size may be subjective, it does need to be large enough to respond in a timely manner against multiple threats.
Reply With Quote