smooth bruce Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Do you say fuck Australian troops too? Yes Why are you always sassy & angry towards everyone here? If someone doesn't proclaim their ignorance as a virtue and then finish off the post by god blessing everything, it might not happen. the military is made up of volunteers. Exactly. volunteering their lives for their country. No volunteering for armed service is service to your government, not to your country. It is important to know the difference and few Americans seem to. they are there to do a job. just carrying out orders from higher up. Which like I have said doesn't dissolve them of responsibility. It is real simple; If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you join the army and go occupy another person's land then peace be upon you for your terrible situation. If you volunteer for a position in an organization that routinely for the last 100+ years has fucked over large amounts of innocent people, go fuck yourself and catch a bullet. I don't have a very high opinion of military people in America, Europe, Australia fighting in this war, so my opinions are going to biased, but I do realise that a lot of them are not into the whole helping the man build the evil capitalist big brother empire thing. They're just trying to learn a trade or get some life experience or whatever. For argument's sake I say they're responsible for their own actions. At the end of the day, they made the choice to go to Iraq and become a mechanism in the evil capitalist big brother empire machine. Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 13, 2007 Author Share Posted December 13, 2007 what do you have against australian/american troops or troops in general? militaries are necessary aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Casek i find it fucking hilarious how you always go on about how important the founding fathers are and quote them non-stop yet you also support a military that has them turning in their graves. What happened to a standing army being the "bane of liberty". you are a walking talking contradiction of values and beliefs. It is such a cop out saying we should 'support the troops' because they are protecting our countries or whatever crap. I'm sorry but the Australian soldiers over in Iraq sure as fuck aren't protecting anyone or anything I am acquainted with (apart from some profit margins). It is ridiculous to say that troops aren't to blame for what they do. It's quite simple if you don;t want to face the POSSIBILITY of murdering innocent people in a country you have nothing to do with don't join the fucking military. If the prospect of murdering some people for dubious reasons doesn't bother you go right ahead but don''t be surprised if you come home with no legs or in a box, and don;t think your life is somehow more valuable than those of the people you have taken part in invading and slaughtering. In response to the comment about a military being necessary, at this point in time i'd agree but definitely not in the form of most modern armed forces. An armed reserve model, with enough full timers for technology and specialist defense (real defense not 'preemptive strike' defense) would be adequate if you were just interested in defending your country not invading other people's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 "a standing army being the bane" is talking about police, my friend. it was a judge who said it. i support our troops for being an integral part of our country. even though i don't believe in this war or ourrent government, i support the men and women who would give their lives for their country. any country. and purple mushroom, you're a foolish individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 1.3: What is a "Standing Army"? "When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention An Army (an armed force) can be called up by volunteers from the community *as needed* when there is some threat, such as the threat of invasion. This is generally called the "Militia". But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that exists before there is any threat. A Standing Army that lives among the citizenry is most likely to be used against the citizenry. Our present system demonstrates this. While none of the Founding Documents mention the word "police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army. The Founding Fathers are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789) By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline. - Thomas Jefferson "[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power... For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...." -- Declaration of Independence "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace" -- United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10 "The objections which have been brought against a standing army, ... may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." -- Henry David Thoreau A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule. This condition was recognized by our Founding Fathers as perhaps the greatest single threat to the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 "But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that exists before there is any threat." the american armed forces fits this definition perfectly, this definition may include the police force but that does not mean it excludes other 'standing armies'. It is ridiculous to think that the american armed forces does not fit the definition of a standing army, i don;t care what fuckwit judge tries to retrospectively alter the meaning of the words of the founding fathers. It's the same as people who say that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't REALLY mean the right to own a firearm and that this right actually only extends to certain people, it is twisting the meaning of the words of the speakers to fit your own personal beliefs/agenda. so I take it you are against the police force and think it should be abolished? "i support the men and women who would give their lives for their country. any country." ill let the suicide bombers know they have your support Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 "But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that exists before there is any threat." the american armed forces fits this definition perfectly, this definition may include the police force but that does not mean it excludes other 'standing armies'. It is ridiculous to think that the american armed forces does not fit the definition of a standing army, i don;t care what fuckwit judge tries to retrospectively alter the meaning of the words of the founding fathers. It's the same as people who say that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't REALLY mean the right to own a firearm and that this right actually only extends to certain people, it is twisting the meaning of the words of the speakers to fit your own personal beliefs/agenda. so I take it you are against the police force and think it should be abolished? "i support the men and women who would give their lives for their country. any country." ill let the suicide bombers know they have your support no, a judge is the one who said "a standing army is the bane of liberty"eldridge gerry of mass. he's a fuckwit that you are quoting. and when the constitution was written, we didn't have a paid army. it was volunteers. a militia. haha suicide bombers have my support now? am i anti-government now? i didn't know. i better stop voting and get implants so i can grow a mohawk. sad. about the implants. balding sucks. i think highly of the warrior class, yumone. when you are willing to give your life for your beliefs, you get my respect. it doesn't mean i follow your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Oh i thought you were saying some judge decreed that the US military didn;t count as a standing army. my bad 'and when the constitution was written, we didn't have a paid army. it was volunteers. a militia.' and that is important why? I thought the whole philosophy of the founding fathers was that a militia is the desired form of national defense NOT a paid standing army... well suicide bombers are giving their lives for their country in the same sense US troops are so by your own words you do support them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 im supportive of our army at this moment. while iraq and the war in the middle east against anyone but al quada is bad policy and morally wrong, i dont know if totally feel that all troops should be shot. however i think it is wrong for people to condemn everyone who doesnt 'support' the troops, because i have a feeling that those same people who are flag waving patriotic nephews of their uncle sam will still be sitting on their front porches when the tanks are rolling down the streets in america, waving their flags, and shouting down the resisters of martial law, dictatorship and tyranny. i'd love to comment on the standing army/founding fathers discussion, but i gotta get to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Oh i thought you were saying some judge decreed that the US military didn;t count as a standing army. my bad 'and when the constitution was written, we didn't have a paid army. it was volunteers. a militia.' and that is important why? I thought the whole philosophy of the founding fathers was that a militia is the desired form of national defense NOT a paid standing army... well suicide bombers are giving their lives for their country in the same sense US troops are so by your own words you do support them no, i don't support suicide bombers. respect and support are two different things. i respect my enemy, too. more than anyone else, i respect my enemy. as for the other: it is important because a paid standing army is the police. there was once (it's gone now) a part of the constitution that is called posse comitatus that forbids our army from working with our police. john warner act took care of that i believe. perhaps you should look into that? also, i suggest reading more into our revolutionary war. i've got to start re-reading about that, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i have a feeling that those same people who are flag waving patriotic nephews of their uncle sam will still be sitting on their front porches when the tanks are rolling down the streets in america, waving their flags, and shouting down the resisters of martial law, dictatorship and tyranny. word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i'm pretty sure that AOD is correct. but, it was less than 16% of americans who stood to the british. we can do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Casek dude you are not addressing anything i'm saying at all, although the law you mentioned is very interesting. How can it possible be going over your head that the US military fits the definition of a standing army perfectly, surely this is a blatant truth according to the definition you yourself provided. and for the record you did use the word support not respect but lets forget about that for now and focus on the issue at hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i'm pretty sure that AOD is correct. but, it was less than 16% of americans who stood to the british. we can do it again. was this 16% of the population in the army? thats pretty fucking large Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 was this 16% of the population in the army? thats pretty fucking large i'll address this first and work backwards: i think it was 16% support and about 8% fighting. you've got to remember that we were only a handful of colonies back then, so it wasn't that many people. yes, a standing army in todays sense does support that idea of a paid military service, but when that was said, there wasn't such a thing. so, yeah. as for support and respect: i support "our troops" as any good citizen of a country would. i respect the warrior class of every nation, tribe, etc. understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 alright, i got a little time... "and that is important why? I thought the whole philosophy of the founding fathers was that a militia is the desired form of national defense NOT a paid standing army..." i think you are basically right. one must remember that we had 2-3 different schools of political philosophy in these days. the anti federalists were against ratification of the constitution because they felt it betrayed the revolution by creating a strong central government. the federalists wanted a strong central government, but restrained by the constitution. the republicans came about after the constitution was ratified and were essentially the anti federalists who simply turned from opposing the constitution to making sure it was strictly adhered too. most of the fear of a standing army of the central government came from the radical libertarians of the day, the anti federalists. patrick henry, perhaps the most prominent, feared that is the government had power to have a standing army in peace time, and not simply the militia of the several states for defense, that a tyrant could march troops down to virginia and rob the virginians of their liberty. this is just what the british did when they sent swarms of troops to the colonies to collect taxes, confiscate weapons, use self written search warrants to search houses of 'rebels.' once the constitution was ratified, (which only happened because the constitution guaranteed that the government wasnt supposed to act imperialistically at home or abroad) the argument for the standing army was essentially over. the constitution allowed the president to call forth the militias of the several states to repel invasions, insurrections, etc. but it basically said that without congressional authorization, there couldnt be an army or navy during peace time. but tying this to today, i dont think america could handle using the militia system of defense and abolish the standing army, simply because of all our commitments around the world, all our bullying other countries and all the crap we have brought on ourselves. the swiss are the perfect example of a militia system, even though it has some imperfections. they have hardly ever been attacked, and werent even touched in world war 2. the only way america could adopt this system again would be to elect ron paul and allow him to withdraw all troops from across the globe. decommission them on a time table, while requiring citizens to train, fight, drill, and bear arms. im not much for forcing anyone to do anything, but that is what would have to happen. the military would have to retain much of the logistics needed for modern war until they could be transfered into the militia's hands. in the end, the fear of a standing army is just as justified today as it was in the 18th century. certain parts of the military does drills to practice civilian gun confiscation. the local police and peace offices across the country are being federalized. martial law is much easier to declare due to recent legislation saying the executive can declare martial law for any sort of natural disaster, attack, etc, and it is solely up to him to decide if it is time to declare it and when the threat is over. if the shooting ever does really start in america, many in the military will not shoot their own people. many will defect. many will follow orders just like good little storm troopers. americans need to realize, especially liberty loving americans, that our army just might be our enemy one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 speaking of training.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 what do you have against australian/american troops or troops in general? US troops, like I have already said, historically are nothing more than a murdering rampaging force for the rich. Australian troops are much the same, except they're not the worlds only super power so it bares a lot less relevance. militaries are necessary aren't they? Ultimately no and certainly not in their current form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 i support our troops for being an integral part of our country. even though i don't believe in this war or ourrent government, i support the men and women who would give their lives for their country. any country. The US military has nothing to do with giving your life for the country. and purple mushroom, you're a foolish individual. Says the man so indoctrinated into cultural propaganda that he thinks the troops are beyond criticism and that the US military is some kind of force for good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 The US military has nothing to do with giving your life for the country. Says the man so indoctrinated into cultural propaganda that he thinks the troops are beyond criticism and that the US military is some kind of force for good... nice putting words in my mouth. the warrior class of any nation, tribe, etc deserves our respect for putting their lives on the line. indeed, it does have something to do with putting your life on the line. do you think they are using squirt guns? indoctrinated? O RLY? you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or who you are talking to. i never said they are above criticism. they have done some atrocious things. vietnam saw a lot of acts that were not legal or moral in anyway. same with abu ghraib. some really horrible things are about to come out about that. you can't judge the tree because of a few bad apples. and obviously, there are more than a few, but i still refuse to judge all members of the armed services by those dickheads actions. so, go fuck yourself and don't you ever put words in my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 nice putting words in my mouth. the warrior class of any nation, tribe, etc deserves our respect for putting their lives on the line. indeed, it does have something to do with putting your life on the line. do you think they are using squirt guns? indoctrinated? O RLY? you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or who you are talking to. i never said they are above criticism. they have done some atrocious things. vietnam saw a lot of acts that were not legal or moral in anyway. same with abu ghraib. some really horrible things are about to come out about that. you can't judge the tree because of a few bad apples. and obviously, there are more than a few, but i still refuse to judge all members of the armed services by those dickheads actions. so, go fuck yourself and don't you ever put words in my mouth. I didn't put any words in your mouth. You have made it clear you think military service is service to a country and not a government, therefore you are a fucking idiot. Secondly the warrior class deserves respect is a Neanderthal idea so you are a fucking idiot again, and Thirdly you can't seem to differentiate between individual actions, like a single Vietnam atrocity, and the function of the US military (and US government) as a historical whole so again you are a fucking idiot. Oh and nice little negative karma points you are really turning my square red! uhoh! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 when you enlist, you swear an oath to the people of the country. to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. i think that when any man or woman does that, they should be taking it seriously. i would hope most do. so, i'ma cretin now? haha. you must be one of those tree worshipping faggots who thinks it's bad to fight for a cause. well, fuck you. go on a walk about and get fucking lost. maybe a wallabee will ass rape you and you can connect with nature that way. and the negartive props was just payback for the ones you gave me. asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 haha. it burnses us. i can't make much defense towards dawood's insults to the us army enlisted population. i do not have the longest military experience here, but i've seen some, i think enough to comment. the only thing that didn't sit well was "3. You have the criminals, the losers, the ex drug addicts or thugs who just want to go prove they're a big guy too " so dawood, you've lived your life piously in its entirety? you didn't live a thug life and straighten out w/ the help of religion? why talk down on those who are trying to get their shit together? everyone on this board is a criminal, probably a drug user, and probably most of us thugged the fuck out too. i think most in the army are people without much direction. lots of them are just fuckbags, too, though... Don't get defensive, bro. I was just saying...I don't live my life piously in it's entirety now, nevermind before. I'm not talking down on them, just pointing out the the conditions that exist. (well, maybe talking down a little because as I said I don't care for todays military much) So, yeah, to answer your question, I have a lot of faults as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 "The US military has nothing to do with giving your life for the country." sure it does. if the war is defensive in nature or if we are attacked and serving cold hard justice, then sure you are giving your life for your country and not the government. if you go on peace keeping humanitarian missions or invade countries that have no attacked you, then no, you are not serving your country, you are serving the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 "The US military has nothing to do with giving your life for the country." sure it does. if the war is defensive in nature or if we are attacked and serving cold hard justice, then sure you are giving your life for your country and not the government. if you go on peace keeping humanitarian missions or invade countries that have no attacked you, then no, you are not serving your country, you are serving the government. Well I agree but "The US military has nothing to do with giving your life for the country." is still completely true unless I am missing the part where the US has been invaded before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 Well yeah the US has been attacked/invaded on its home soil before. On different occassions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 England invaded in early 19th century right? any time apart from that? (apart from september 11) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 the british were confiscating arms, arresting dissenters, and using 'writs of assistance' (self written search warrants) to seach suspected traitors property before the revolution. the british burned washington in the 18-teens. this next one is complicated, but was started when the south left the union, and the union forces peacefully left southern forts and ports, except sumpter which they resupplied and increased arms, in which the south took it as an act of aggression and bombed the fort, with no casualties. world war 2, despite our idiotic policies, we were attacked and got the pants bombed off of hawaii. then 9/11. a war is just in killing the groups who were responsible for the attacks. those are about the only justified wars in american history. ww1 we were technically 'attacked' but that was after the countries in the war zone said 'dont anyone send any sort of ships into the war zone, they might get hit.' and a ship went down with americans on board. so we got into the war. the was eventually got turned into a crusade of wilsonianism. which is the doctrine bush uses when he talks about spreading democracy around the globe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 mexican troops crossed in to texas during the beginning of the mexican-american war. and i guess you could technically consider the american revolution, since the US declared independence in 1776, and thus british troops were marauding on "US soil". i dont' really consider "9/11" as in "invasion" in the conventional sense since these men were technically civilians and didn't represent an army of any recognized nation. they had visas and were here legally. more of a terrorist attack. there were a sabotage bombing in a shipyard by german agents during wwi pearl harbor was technically US territory and not a state during WWII. besides pearl harbor, a japanese fighter pilot bombed an unpopulated area in oregon hoping to start a forrest fire. and i think some japanese subs had shelled areas in california near santa barbara. very minor as there were no deaths and went underreported. three of the aleutian islands (alaska) were taken by the japanese during WWII. at this time alaska also was a territory and not a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 mexican troops crossed in to texas during the beginning of the mexican-american war. and i guess you could technically consider the american revolution, since the US declared independence in 1776, and thus british troops were marauding on "US soil". i dont' really consider "9/11" as in "invasion" in the conventional sense since these men were technically civilians and didn't represent an army of any recognized nation. they had visas and were here legally. more of a terrorist attack. there were a sabotage bombing in a shipyard by german agents during wwi pearl harbor was technically US territory and not a state during WWII. besides pearl harbor, a japanese fighter pilot bombed an unpopulated area in oregon hoping to start a forrest fire. and i think some japanese subs had shelled areas in california near santa barbara. very minor as there were no deaths and went underreported. three of the aleutian islands (alaska) were taken by the japanese during WWII. at this time alaska also was a territory and not a state. there were also german subs in the gulf of mexico, japanese ballons over california and parts of the midwest. 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.