Should we raise the military enlistment age ????

There are no rules to war. Everything is to be and will be compromised to win. We would do the same as the enemy in there position and we already do.

0 Replies

DD wrote:

... Any opinions on what should be required of older folks to maintain their citizenship?

I think that concern has been addressed; "Grandfathering" would be a given, with option to opt in, perhaps with the incentive of further enhanced benefits accruing thereby, while to "Maintain" one's enfranchisement, one would be expected to excersize same, by at least responding to the electoral process, if not actually undertaking the selection of any given candidate(s) or proposition(s) in any given election(s); one need not cast votes in any particular election, but in order to be eligible to have a voting voice in the electoral process, one would have to dutifully and diligently participate in the acknowledgement of one's obligation under the process.

John Creasy, Madison had a noble idea, but the world is not a noble place. The American penchant for minimizing its military establishment during times of perceived peace and absence of external treat precisely is the occasion of external threat, as roundly witnessed by history. Socrates observed "We make war that we may live in peace", Plato observed "Only the dead have seen an end to war", the Romans understood that to ensure peace it was necessary to ever remain prepared for war, Patrick Henry declared "Give me liberty, or give me death", among the earliest and most revered mottos of this nation are "Don't tread on me" and "Live free or die". Neither peace nor freedom ever have been free. The best of intentions are moot if defenseless in the face of armed agression, and the surest invitation to armed agression is to appear defenseless.

0 Replies

Standing professional army? Isent that what Hitler developed just before the second world war. Also the reason Bush and company was able to go to Iraq with or without the permission of congress and the people after his rigged reasons for Iraq's danger to us.

0 Replies

John,

You've asked Mystery for evidence of his assertion that our forefathers didn't favor standing armies.

Your own tagline, "'As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.' -James Madison", is the very evidence you've asked for. Madison was not alone it his distrust of standing armies, but he wasn't an experienced military man. During his Presidency he was unable to effectively defend even the Capitol with the sort of army he had earlier supported. Madison was not alone in opposing standing armies, but after the War of 1812 the uselessness of militia was pretty evident to all.

The American People continued to distrust standing armies, and even more importantly the cost of maintaining an effective military, right up through the mid-twentieth century. See my post above. Once the capability of conducting devastating military attacks without much regard to distances, no matter how great the distance, it national survival became absolutely dependant upon a powerful and effective military force able to responde within minutes to any attack on our national interests. There is no going back, ever.

0 Replies

Asherman, Applause!

One slight correction on your first post regarding the US military in WWI: the reason that American fighter pilots flew mostly French or British aircraft in that war had nothing to do with the quality of American-made planes. In 1917-18 nobody had yet crossed the Atlantic Ocean in a plane and the aircraft carrier had not yet been developed. Not many American planes could be brought over to Europe on troop ships. That's why we flew the foreign-made birds.

0 Replies

Although it pains me (a little) to do so, i must point out that James Madison was a combat veteran of the American Revolution, serving at the Battle of Trenton. James Monroe was also present at the battle, and was wounded there. (As well, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr participated.) This, to me, makes their truckling to Jefferson's idiotic notion of a gun-boat navy and national defense by militia all the more reprehensible. One of the great mysteries of American political history to my mind is that James Madison, a true intellectual giant, fawned so on Jefferson, a mere dilettante.

0 Replies

I really don't think that Islamist extremists have the capability to conquer the world, if that is even their intention.

So I assume you think that going to Iraq was the right thing to do??

0 Replies

Asherman,
It was John that said that about no standing army.
I questioned him on it and asked for some proof.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Although it pains me (a little) to do so, i must point out that James Madison was a combat veteran of the American Revolution, serving at the Battle of Trenton. James Monroe was also present at the battle, and was wounded there. (As well, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr participated.) This, to me, makes their truckling to Jefferson's idiotic notion of a gun-boat navy and national defense by militia all the more reprehensible. One of the great mysteries of American political history to my mind is that James Madison, a true intellectual giant, fawned so on Jefferson, a mere dilettante.

You don't like Jefferson eh??

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

I really don't think that Islamist extremists have the capability to conquer the world, if that is even their intention.

So I assume you think that going to Iraq was the right thing to do??

Kind'a changing the subject here, aren't you? Has anyone even mentioned Iraq yet?

0 Replies

I entertain about as low an opinion of Thomas Jefferson as you are likely ever to encounter.

0 Replies

Andrew,

Until well into WWI, the USAAF was equipped only with the Jenny, a remarkably poor excuse for a military aircraft. The Jenny was so underpowered that it couldn't climb over the mountains of Mexico during the Punitive Expedition against Villa. It had a terrible habit of ground looping and was widely nicknamed the "widow-maker". The Jenny could only carry one man aloft and was incapable of performing intricate maneuvers or at speed. It would have been a death trap over the trenches. On the other hand both the British and French had tested designs that were capable of performing well in the military environment of the time.

Rebell,

Standing armies weren't invented by Hitler, nor are they intrinsically evil. Standing armies have been around, in one form or another for thousands of years. Some standing armies were fielded by the "good-guys" and by the "bad guys". Most often the disciplined, well-organized and equipped standing armies have defeated undisciplined, disorganize and poorly equipped "militias" that have stood against them. Not always, but often enough for the lesson to be clear. As time between attack and the need for a fast response has shortened, the requirement for a powerful, effective standing military able to react without delay has become ever more important. BTW, U.S. involvement in Iraq was clearly justified and in accordance with the will of Congress.

Amigo,

Wrong, there are rules of war agreed upon by all responsible nations. The United States has abided by those rules, even though our current enemy does not. Radical Islamic Terrorists do not openly represent the national policy of any State, but rather conduct their murderous attacks against innocent people under the cloak of religious idealism as interpreted by themselves. Individuals, in every military conflict, may violate the rules of war and may even "get away with it". They are the exception, in civilized warfare. Some States, like those of Hitler's Germany, WWII Japan, and the Communist States adopted as National Police the extermination of their enemies, civilian or military. That is not the case with the United States, Britain, or any of the other Western democracies of the 20th/21st century. There is a world of difference between our policies and the policies of those we've opposed militarily over the last sixty years.

0 Replies

Andrew

Asherman wrote:

If extremist Islamic radicals are victorious, it is clear that only their own value-system will be allowed to exist. They despise not only the United States, but all Western values. No one would be permitted to hold any religious beliefs contrary to their own interpretation of the Koran. Public and private behavior would have to conform to their narrow vision of what the Prophet might have decreed. Films, and all written publications would be censored to reflect only "proper" views. What sort of world would exist under the rule of people like Bin Laden, or Al-Zarqawi? There is nothing that we in the West could do, or cease doing, to stop their hatred of us ... short of complete surrender to their ideology. Any indication that they are "winning" is sufficient to cause an increase in their attacks against the world of the infidel, anyone who disagrees with them.

It is our military effectiveness that makes them pay hundreds of their most dedicated fanatics for one of our soldiers. It is their inability to engage us directly that leads them to attack those they believe should be their natural allies. So long as they must expend their greatest efforts not to lose Iraq on the ground, they are hampered in their attacks against the peaceful peoples of America and Europe. Every terrorist killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is one less who will murder children somewhere else. They are truly small in numbers and weak, though they would have us believe otherwise. They are ultimately fighting for a cause that they will lose, because most people everywhere in the world find their values repugnant.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I entertain about as low an opinion of Thomas Jefferson as you are likely ever to encounter.

Damn that's harsh. I thought he was a pretty bright guy. What's so bad about him??

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

There are no rules to war. Everything is to be and will be compromised to win. We would do the same as the enemy in there position and we already do.

Poppycock. Indeed there are "Rules to war", and The US, not alone among civilized nations, often finds itself inconvenienced by ethical adherence to same while an enemy flouts those rules at will. The current enemy, the Islamofascists, demonstrate absolutely no ethics or morals in the concduct of their belligerent activities, their tactics consisting of indiscriminate slaughter of innocents, kidnapping and assassination, wanton britality, and the defiling and desecration of cultural icons. Their strategy is terror, aimed not to defeat their enemy's military, an endeavor they understand is beyond their ability, but rather to weaken the resolve of their enemy's populace, causing it to call upon their leaders to to abandon the fight. The opinionating of the America Worst crowd notwithstanding, US tactics consist of carefully focusssed action against armed, actively hostile opponents while exersizing such care as is prudent in the interest of reducing negative impact on non-belligerent persons and infrastructure. The US strategy is to deprive the enemy both of its means and ability to resist and to empower and enable those set upon by that enemy to effectively undertake to protect and preserve their own interests and freedoms from the predations of any future such enemies, internal or external.

rabel22 wrote:

Standing professional army? Isent that what Hitler developed just before the second world war. Also the reason Bush and company was able to go to Iraq with or without the permission of congress and the people after his rigged reasons for Iraq's danger to us.

Nonsense. Your Hitler example is absurd, in that the Nazi war machine was conscript-heavy, under no independent civilian control, and organized along purely offensive lines, apart from being conceptually, effectively, and blatantly in violation of the terms of Germany's 1918 capitulation to the Allies. The world preferred to look away and pretend peace was at hand while Hitler made ready for war.

Your second contention, that " ... Bush and company was able to go to Iraq with or without the permission of congress and the people after his rigged reasons for Iraq's danger to us ... " is absurd as well; mooted first by the fact that Congress in Joint Session authorized the use of military force against Iraq, and second by the fact that despite years of effort and energy on the part of the proponents of the notion, it has been demonstrated no "rigging of the reasons" took place. While allegations of such abound and persist, no valid evidence has been produced to support those allegations, apart from the fact those allegations themselves have been refuted by the findings of official, in-depth, non-partisan inquiries into the matter.

To discover the worst that can happen, simply sit idly by and watch the worst happen - that's life. It ain't pretty, it ain't fair, but its real, and its life.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I entertain about as low an opinion of Thomas Jefferson as you are likely ever to encounter.

Damn that's harsh. I thought he was a pretty bright guy. What's so bad about him??

It would be an unacceptable diversion of the thread to do the subject justice. And, to paraphrase (because i don't have the exact quote) Samuel Langhorne Clemens, it would require a library of volumes and a pen warmed up in Hell.

0 Replies

Can the radical Islamic extremists defeat us? Only, if we surrender and let them. They believe they can win, and that seems to be enough for them to continue their war of terror against innocent civilians. They can not win on the numbers, or on the battlefield. Their only real hope is to so terrorize and exhaust us that we quit the field. Their best weapon isn't roadside bombs, or suicidal young people, it is propaganda. They are counting on demoralizing and sapping the American Will to prevail by countless television images of destruction and death. They count upon our reluctance to conduct extended and bloody campaigns. Americans seem to carry a ton of guilt and self-loathing that can be used to undermine our efforts. Our sense of fair-play and support of the underdog convinces some to take the side of of our enemies. Some would rather see the victory of the Islamic radicals over a Republican victory at the polls.

I guess that calling me a Conservative might have some truth to it.

Setanta and I often disagree with how American History should best be interpreted, but we are in complete agreement when it comes to Thomas Jefferson ... one of the most overrated figures in our political history. Oh well.

0 Replies

I have a bone to pick with my american history teacher then. He told me that Jefferson was one of the only real revolutionary founders of this country(along with Thomas Paine).

0 Replies

Thats the problem with having American History taught by the Phys Ed instructor. LOL

0 Replies

Asherman
I dident say Hitler invented standing armies, but that they enabled him to start the second world war just as our standing army enabled Bushes government to go to war before congress and the US citizens realized what he was up to. He and his government preached the fiction that Iraq was a danger to us even though the UN inspectors were telling us that there were no WMD's and asked us to let them continue thier inspection. He futher componded the big lie by tieing Iraq to 9/11 even though he was told by the CIA that it was Al Quda and the Saudi's who were responsible. He lied and the majority of the US people know he lied. You people say the 2008 election is a long way off and much can change. I can only surmise that you are hopeing for another 9/11 so you can continue to preach your religion of fear.

0 Replies

Should we raise the military enlistment age ????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know