TLKREWS Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 so i just d-loaded and watched this documentary... i thought it was pretty interesting and i was wondering if any of you have seen it/ have an opinion of it. I found a few statements to be pretty interesting: -that almost every presidency since WW2 has engaged troops in military action "overseas" -one dude says that washington, before leaving office, warned that a standing army would be the downfall of america. so what the fuck?? why does our country, supposedly so "advanced", great, unique, and exemplary, fight so much?? freedom, money, "democracy", power... when is it going to stop? and is it possible for america to change its relationship with the world? p.s. if anyone has seen it and can point out flawed statements that would be cool as well. i know my beliefs but they are kinda cutty so i wouldnt mind hearing other opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 we fight so much, because since teddy roosevelt, we have imperial impulses. we have power hungry presidents who have been consolidating power into the central government and executive branch in particular since Lincoln. we have abandoned the traditional 'friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" policy as layed out by washington and jefferson. the main root of the US imperial presence and its search for empire can be found in our first great liberal in the modern sense.... Woodrow Wilson. he rhetoric and action about 'spreading democracy' and establishing a one world government body started it all. his policies led us into WW1. arguably FDR's planning led us into WW2. since FDR presidents have gotten more bold, starting with Truman's police action in Korea....basically only opposed by the people left over from the old right America First coalition. most of the early leaders of this country were fearful of standing armies... fearful of the government using military force on its people. patrick henry warned that with the constitution in place (he favored even more decentralization) the feds would march down to virginia and invade his "country." they were very forceful in thier support of citizen militia and private citizens owning guns for defensive purposes both from abroad and against the government. in this day and age, with a volunteer army, that is restrained, with our fingers crossed, is what we have to deal with to keep our 'empire' afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 yup yup..power hungry imperialists. somewhere along the line we got away from our free-wheelin pot growin liberty lovin forefathers imo, motivated by the desire to gain control pver more and more of the world's natural resources and cash, thus enabling a dictation of their brand of proper religion, ethics, politics etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I just got this on Netflix. Will probably watch tomorrow and comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sick Nigel Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 -one dude says that washington, before leaving office, warned that a standing army would be the downfall of america. This one really makes you think....Because the opposite is true as well. Not having a standing army would lead to our downfall much quicker. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that if we lay down our arms and change over to mr. niceguy/no army nation that no other regime would exploit our vulnerability and conquer us. A standing army is a symbol that no one can do that, and that may be the only symbol of protection we have at times. I'm no policy expert but I think not maintaining a standing army especially in a nation as influential and powerful as America would be insane. Any one else have personal thoughts on the topic? Not just lines from a documentary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 i think in the situation we are in today, a law against a standing army is simply not feasible. as said above in the early 19th and late 18th centuries standing armies were feared because they could be used on the people if the wrong people were elected. the problem is today, we have strayed so far from the original vision we could not do without a standing army. we need it merely to get by. a standing army is the sign of an empire, not a republic. what we would have to do to actually survive as a country with out a standing army, would be to withdrawal from overseas... everywhere. we would probably have to secure our borders and fort up for atleast a generation. then the hippies would have to get over the horrible thought of people owning assault weapons. the militia (citizens) would have to be supported by the states. each state would have its own militias. these were considered the best defense with least change of any liberty being lost. if the populace wasnt armed and we had no standing army, we would be obliterated by almost anyone. the constitution gives the feds authority to call up the militia's in times of crisis and can nationalize them when or if we are invaded. and this doesnt even address nuclear weapons, etc etc. in the end, a standing army is not feasible today, but it is essential to know why they were opposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 costa rica has no army i thought that shit was nuts, until i got there. we are not living in a world that will allow us to dispose of our arsenal quite frankly because, we have made far too many enemies now, who hates costa rica? haha. that's why they have no standing army. and of course it has saved their country from the internal, and external political strife that has doomed many latin american etc countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 "we are nit living in a world that will allow us to not have an arsenal quite frankly because, we have made far too many enemies" hahahaha it took me 98494 lines to say that, and i still wanst able to say it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 libertystickers always has the catchy slogan type answer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 if that sticker isnt COMPLETELY ironic its completely stupid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 i think in the situation we are in today, a law against a standing army is simply not feasible. as said above in the early 19th and late 18th centuries standing armies were feared because they could be used on the people if the wrong people were elected. the problem is today, we have strayed so far from the original vision we could not do without a standing army. we need it merely to get by. a standing army is the sign of an empire, not a republic. what we would have to do to actually survive as a country with out a standing army, would be to withdrawal from overseas... everywhere. we would probably have to secure our borders and fort up for atleast a generation. then the hippies would have to get over the horrible thought of people owning assault weapons. the militia (citizens) would have to be supported by the states. each state would have its own militias. these were considered the best defense with least change of any liberty being lost. if the populace wasnt armed and we had no standing army, we would be obliterated by almost anyone. the constitution gives the feds authority to call up the militia's in times of crisis and can nationalize them when or if we are invaded. and this doesnt even address nuclear weapons, etc etc. in the end, a standing army is not feasible today, but it is essential to know why they were opposed. word to sweden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 hahahaha it took me 98494 lines to say that, and i still wanst able to say it.... .. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 costa rica has no army... My pop's sat next to the nicest lady on the way to Costa Rica. He told her how he was nervous to be flying out through Managua, Nicaragua. She said 'yeah, it's crazy there... nobody drives at night because the entire country is out of headlights.' When they got off the plane (tarmac style) she just casually walked over to a car that was there on the runway. My dad said something like 'must be nice' to another passenger and they said 'What do you expect, she's the President's wife." A later conversation revealed that they also don't have a 'White House' in Costa Rica. The President just works out of their own house and goes in to a central office building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLKREWS Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share Posted July 14, 2006 Yeah i see that it really isnt possible to do with out this "standing army" in the modern world. I just think that it is ridiculous to keep hundreds of thousands of troops spread across the world, especially when a huge proportion of the world population (including the our own) lives in a state of "poverty" and could really use those troops help with strengthening physical (vs. political) infrastructure. Why not make money helping people instead of making it from war profits. if we have the technological capability to stop nuclear missiles from striking our "homeland" isnt that all of the defence we really need? i dont think it would be possible for any country to invade the us... it just wouldnt happen. the world is getting so small and it seems like american policy and lifestlye is in it for the short run...disproportionatley (sp.) exploiting resources, and alienating itself from many countries in the world. "as long as war is profitable, you're going to see more of it" i sure dont want to see another world war and im just trying to figure out what needs to change in this country. (i know it sounds naive and idealistic but) How can the world become a better place? P.s. what are some countries that set a good example of stability and success?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 sweden, new zealand, Japan(of late, and excluding problems with NK, even though they decided to reinstate standing army) Costa Rica, Canada ill let some other people take over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 switzerland is in my opinion the most admirable neutral state. here is thier secret to national defense.. the 'miltia.' john lott lays it out pretty good here: "All able-bodied males from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at home." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 from wikipedia: in some 2001 statistics[3], it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million; more liberal estimates put the number at 3 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 List of countries without armed forces From Wikipedia This is a list of the 27 countries that do not maintain any armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies whose defence is the responsibility of another country, or an army alternative. Andorra Defence of the country is the responsibility of France or Spain. Similar treaties with both, June 3, 1993. Cook Islands Defence is provided by New Zealand, in consultation with the Cook Islands' government. Costa Rica The constitution forbids a standing military in times of peace since 1949. Seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Seat of the United Nations University of Peace. Dominica No standing army since 1981, after the army attempted a coup. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. Grenada No standing army since 1983, after the American-led invasion. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. Haiti Disbanded on June, 1995, but rebels have demanded its re-establishment. The National Police maintains some military units. Iceland No standing army, but is a member of NATO. There is a defence agreement with the U.S., which maintains, along with other NATO countries, a base in the country. Maintains an expeditionary peacekeeping force, Coast Guard and an Armed Police unit. Kiribati The only forces permitted are the police and the coast guard. Liechtenstein Abolished their army in 1868 because it was too costly. Depends on Switzerland for defence. Army does not exist in times of peace. Maldives Has no army since its independence on 1965. Was invaded by mercenaries in 1988, and rescued by India. No known permanent defence treaty. Marshall Islands Defence is the responsibility of the United States. Mauritius A multicultural country without an army since 1968. Micronesia Defence is the responsibility of the United States. Monaco Renounced its military investment in the 17th century because the expansion of ranges of artillery had rendered it defenceless. Defence is the responsibility of France. Nauru Under an informal agreement, defence is the responsibility of Australia. Palau The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. Panama Abolished their army in 1990, confirmed by a parliamentary unanimous vote for constitutional change in 1994. Some units within the Public Force (Police, Coast Guard, Air Service and Institutional Security) have limited warfare capabilities. San Marino Maintains a ceremonial guard, a police and a border force. Solomon Islands Has known a heavy ethnic conflict between 1998 and 2006, in which Australia and other Pacific countries finally intervened to restore peace and order. No standing army. Saint Kitts and Nevis Maintains a small defence force for internal purposes. Saint Lucia Maintains a special service unit. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Maintains a special service unit. Samoa No standing army. Defence is the responsibility of New Zealand. Tuvalu Has no army, but its police force includes a Maritime Surveillance Unit. Vanuatu Has a small mobile military force. Vatican City The largely ceremonial Swiss Guard acts as a security police force. so, of these, Costa Rica, Iceland, Dominica/Grenada/StKitts/StVincent, Monaco seem to be actual countries with incomes/GDP and somewhat recognizable on the world map. maybe i'd add liechtenstein..these guys all seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. as far as countries with armies, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 yeah all those treaties we have need to lapse with those damn countries. all we need is some people to attack those countries, while we are playing around in iraq, iran and n. korea... then we'll really be in deep shit. im suprised costa rica as recently as 1949 adopted the no standing army dealy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOh Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 i thought the documentary was excellent myself. and fuck me, ive been trying to word this post the right way for damn near an hour now and i still cant get it right. basically, i think there are two big reasons why we fight so much. one is because of all the countries we have invaded. the populace are always given reasons that we can sleep with for our invasions but its usually the same in all cases-those countries are not playing ball with our financial interests, therefore we make them play ball through force. the other reason i believe, is globalization. its what the elite have planned, and you and me (the peasants) dont have a say in that. globalization is essentially "manifest destiny" but on a global scale. and nobody ever attacks Switzerland cause thats where a lot of elite money is. and chocolate, a whole bunch of chocolate. in other news, oil just closed at at record $77/barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 The sooner we realize our civilization isnt nearly as 'advanced' as many like to believe the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 libertystickers always has the catchy slogan type answer: TRUE STORY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 We fight so much because we're always throwing the first punch. True story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 yeha i have so much admiration for new zealand, so awesome they had the balls to bar the entry of that american nuclear sub a while back. Its a pity my country (australia) has become americas bitch in our region of the world it's a real fucking disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 "and nobody ever attacks Switzerland cause thats where a lot of elite money is" this may be true... another reason is i dont think switzerland has extradition with anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 why we fight? nah, seriously, is that a real question or a rhetorical question? well, absolute power corrupts....absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.