Dad says thanks for the props, now gtfo.

11/15/2005 1:54:26 AM

Ergo, had we not had men and women and uniform, we could all very possibly be saying our "Heil, Hitlers" at the start of every class.

No way. Not even a remote possibility. Even with no US military to defend us, a takeover was impossible for 2 reasons: 1) the sheer size of the US, two big oceans, etc. and much more importantly, 2) the stubborn spirit of a well-armed populace. There was a time when the Japanese brass were entertaining the idea of invading America, but a wise General Yamamoto stepped in with a one-sentence proof for the idiocy of that idea. When he said, "You cannot invade mainland America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" - he wasn't referring to the US military. When a people is almost universally armed and loves their homeland, occupation is impossible (occupation is difficult enough in Iraq, where there is no right to bear arms and a relatively small insurgency). He didn't say the Japs shouldn't invade or that they would be wise not to; he said it was impossible. An armed public is more essential to national defense than a strong military. Yamamoto knew it, and so did the writers of the Constitution.

Even if nothing they did saved us, their very existence did, by your own admission.

Their very existence certainly helped, and is even essential in modern warfare....but the thread asks us to honor them for their sacrifice and preservation of liberty, neither of which will I do. They had courage, and are, more often than not, great people who are simply misguided. I respect their honor, but I'm also realistic on the reasons for those wars, none of which were, in the strictest sense, for national defense.

And for clarity, both of my granddads fought in WW2, an uncle in Vietnam, an uncle in the first Gulf War who also just volunteered for another tour in Iraq....plus my father and sister who just returned from the Middle East. And I enlisted in the Marine Corps, after being nominated/accepted to USNA but being medically disqualified. I have great respect for military personnel, but they're almost all misguided as to the nature of their service. They didn't fight for freedom, liberty, or the Constitution; they fought to enforce White House foreign policy and 'protect our interests abroad.'

There are certain consequences inherent to being the only nonfascist sympathizer country on the planet (and we certainly could have been). Some of those consequences entail a restriction of liberty. From the curtailments that would have been necessary to maintain our independence to the restrictions on travel necessary to the fact that our enemies could have waged an indefinite war on us without occupying, this is obvious to most.

You're gonna have to run that by me again. How exactly could a foreign nation restrict the liberties of another nation's people? Pick any specific example. None of the generalities.

And Guam doesn't count I don't see how you can really be counted as part of a nation whose law rules over you, while having no say in any part of the political process.... and not paying any taxes to that nation (they pay taxes according to the federal code, all of which are then handed right back to the Guam treasury).

[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 5:52 AM. Reason : a]

11/15/2005 5:51:41 AM

Quote :

"Even with no US military to defend us, a takeover was impossible for 2 reasons: 1) the sheer size of the US, two big oceans, etc. and much more importantly, 2) the stubborn spirit of a well-armed populace."

1) Balderdash. We crossed the oceans; why couldn't they? And they wouldn't have to occupy all of our "sheer size;" as soon as one town falls, Americans liberties are being restricted.
2) Wow. So now a disorganized mob of untrained and poorly-armed populace is preferable to a military?

Because let's face facts, here. Hunting rifles and handguns do not constitute "well armed" against tanks, automatic weapons, airplanes, rockets, and artillery.

And, once again, this factor would only prevent the invader from occupying all of the country, which it need not do to take our liberty.

Quote :

"And for clarity, both of my granddads fought in WW2..."

Blah, blah, blah. Don't waste our time with this.

Quote :

"How exactly could a foreign nation restrict the liberties of another nation's people? Pick any specific example."

There are any number of countries who have had some or all of their policies dictated by nations that did not occupy any part of them. Nepal and Bhutan were dominated by the British Empire despite being almost completely unoccupied. Mongolia and some other long-dead central Asian countries were dominated by the Soviet Union.

Once we are cut off from trade with the rest of the world, unable to travel or move goods by sea at all, forced to put ALL of our resources and manpower into defending ourselves from THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD, we don't have any liberty any more. Or are you of the camp that thinks that freedom exists whenever it is decreed to exist, regardless of whether or not circumstances prevent it from being expressed in any way at any time?

11/15/2005 6:15:06 PM