Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

"The founders correctly wanted citizen soldiers to defend freedom because they felt standing armies were always corrupt because they work for who pays them."




So were they right and so is that what you think our professional armed force, really ?

But look you started a off topic discussion here, so why not just a new thread with your contention "The founders correctly wanted citizen soldiers to defend freedom because they felt standing armies were always corrupt because they work for who pays them."

Happy to join you there, but as to being topic here, anymore, b'bye.



YES! The founders were absolutely right.
If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever.

No democracy can stand with a paid standing army.

Iraq and Afghanistan are additional proof.
We murdered millions and no one is protesting because the media was "embedded" and given good stories, and the troops are well paid with pensions, GI Bill free tuition, etc.

It is obvious our current standing army is not only useless but actually is CAUSING us to be under more threat than if we had no standing army. They consume half our national budget and cause us to be retaliated against.

They lie to us.

Last edited by Rigby5, 10/12/2017, 4:22 am
10/12/2017, 4:21 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2254
Karma: 7 (+12/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


Okay (and thanks doing as I asked, too)

So I'll go with this:

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

And BTW "If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever."

Good point, but would we have won any more than we did ? ( Ho Chi Minh City , right )

But be careful, son.
My brother wrote home from there in 1967, pulling rank on our lifer M/Sargent Daddy ordering him to make sure none his bothers came to fight that dirty lost war.

Our Dad, a B-17 E-4 tech, one of the first, a flight engineer in the Regular Army AC in 1938 and a veteran that went both up Korea and back down again, too, followed those orders, thank goodness.

Tell us what you know that war personally.

Then, sure after the French Foreign Legion got whipped, better we had left it to French mercs, to be sure.
After all it was imperialistic war fought in the post imperialistic age, right ?
 

Last edited by Geezess, 10/12/2017, 5:48 am
10/12/2017, 5:27 am Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Noserose Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3957
Karma: 13 (+24/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


Who are you going to call to help after an earthquake, firestorm, hurricane or any severe national disaster? The boy scouts? the cops? The pink hat ladies? The army? yeah the [sign in to see URL] are there to help and protect us.

---
--------------------------------------------------------------
"libido sciendi"..... the passion to know.
10/12/2017, 6:01 pm Link to this post PM Noserose
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2254
Karma: 7 (+12/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


... actually you are thinking of the National Guard which have their roots in the real State Militias and their C in C is their State Governor, until they are called up, mobilized, or Federalized.


 
10/12/2017, 9:50 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Noserose Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3957
Karma: 13 (+24/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


[sign in to see URL] not call in the rest of the military? Get them out of their barracks and working? They are getting paid anyway.

---
--------------------------------------------------------------
"libido sciendi"..... the passion to know.
10/12/2017, 9:58 pm Link to this post PM Noserose
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

Okay (and thanks doing as I asked, too)

So I'll go with this:

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

And BTW "If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever."

Good point, but would we have won any more than we did ? ( Ho Chi Minh City , right )

But be careful, son.
My brother wrote home from there in 1967, pulling rank on our lifer M/Sargent Daddy ordering him to make sure none his bothers came to fight that dirty lost war.

Our Dad, a B-17 E-4 tech, one of the first, a flight engineer in the Regular Army AC in 1938 and a veteran that went both up Korea and back down again, too, followed those orders, thank goodness.

Tell us what you know that war personally.

Then, sure after the French Foreign Legion got whipped, better we had left it to French mercs, to be sure.
After all it was imperialistic war fought in the post imperialistic age, right ?
 




First of all, the whole point of every amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to maintain state sovereignty against any attempt by the federal government to increase its power over them.
So the constitution clearly prohibits ANY federal firearm law .

There was to be no standing federal army at all, and it was the states that were supposed to arm and supply the troops the federal government would borrow when needed.
If you remember how divisions are characterized, they belong to a specific state. For example, the 32nd Infantry division was from Wisconsin.
In the Civil War for example, each division was not only uniformed differently by state, but also trained, fed, supplied, etc., by their respective states.
The only thing the federal government supplied was the leadership.

As to the cartoon, it is totally wrong.
The only cannon in the American revolution was privately owned.
Privateer powerful ships were the norm.
Private ownership of weapons of mass destruction was not only allowed, but expected.

Whether or not we would have defeated the Vietnamese if a pure mercenary force was used is not relevant to me. I did not want us to win, because I believe in self determination for the Vietnamese.
The point is Iraq and Afghanistan are worse because mercenary forces never protest, so can do unspeakable horrors. The example of torture and abuses we later learned about prove that.
10/12/2017, 11:05 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Noserose wrote:

Who are you going to call to help after an earthquake, firestorm, hurricane or any severe national disaster? The boy scouts? the cops? The pink hat ladies? The army? yeah the [sign in to see URL] are there to help and protect us.



The original way it was is that states maintained their own divisions. There was no standing army.
So what we now call the national guard, should have stayed as state militia, the way it used to be.

The advantage of state militias is they are not banned from acting in side the US by the Posse Comitatus Act.

{...
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed to prevent US military personnel from acting as law enforcement agents on US soil. This was common practice before 1878, particularly in areas of the West where the US military was often the only law enforcement to be found. Soldiers often enforced civilian laws whenever it was necessary.

The Posse Comitatus Act banned this practice, and the Act still remains in effect. The text (18 [sign in to see URL]. Section 1385), reads:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
...}

Federal forces then are really supposed to be banned from keeping the peace.

States are supposed to be in control, not the federal government.
10/12/2017, 11:16 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

... actually you are thinking of the National Guard which have their roots in the real State Militias and their C in C is their State Governor, until they are called up, mobilized, or Federalized.

 



No I am not thinking of the National Guard, but all the divisions of the US military.
For example, the 32nd division was by Wisconsin.

For example, in the Civil war we think of uniforms being blue or grey, but that is not true. The reality is they division were run by each state, so had totally unique appearance.

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

The National Guard did not exist until 1916, and it was all state run militia until then.
In fact, it is likely illegal for the federal government to take over the state militias like they did in 1916.
10/12/2017, 11:24 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2254
Karma: 7 (+12/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


I say, I say. ..."First of all, the whole point of every amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to maintain state sovereignty against any attempt by the federal government to increase its power over them."

0
o
.
--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--



Last edited by Geezess, 10/12/2017, 11:36 pm
10/12/2017, 11:34 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Noserose wrote:

[sign in to see URL] not call in the rest of the military? Get them out of their barracks and working? They are getting paid anyway.



When they were run by the states, the states could do that.

But once the federal government took over the troops, they are limited by laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, from doing many things, like even maintaining order or directing traffic.
10/12/2017, 11:55 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)