A Thread Sure To Make FastPaste Cry...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabascobobcat
I'd like to buy anyone from the military (past or present) a beer just to say thanks for providing the kind of freedom allowed to fastpaste to post his *cough* beliefs.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius, but buy your beer, I'm sure some of them will drink it.

Particularly one of the biggest armchair generals out here, fintstone.

[tabascobobcat]

Originally posted by fastpat
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius, but buy your beer, I'm sure some of them will drink it.

Particularly one of the biggest armchair generals out here, fintstone.

They defend it for you everyday.
You're such a pleasantly happy person.
Cheers.

[oldE]

"The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius"

I wouldn't be too quick to call that much of a defence. They started out on the offence, then things kind of went sour from there. But hey! The White House probably needed new paint, anyway.

Five decades later, the Union army, (which I guess you'd have to call the army of the United States, wouldn't you?), defended the Union from break-up.

Even if you discount the Aleutian campaign (as I'm sure you have) it is easy to make the mistake of seperating "America" with America's interests".

Should you take up arms against someone who has invaded your home? It would seem you should, (provided it is indeed your home and you have a right to be there). What if that someone has blocked the road to your home so that you cannot go to work or bring home food or goods? Is that not an attack upon your freedom, upon your life, perhaps?

If we trade, or carry out commerce in the world, placing restrictions upon right of passage or trade can be construed as an attack upon the country which is restricted. Unless your country is entirely self-sufficient and trades with no-one, you are vulnerable to interruption of trade through action outside your borders. After all, most wars are fought for commercial reasons, including the War of Independence and the Civil War.

Let's see. I'm guessing I'll get comments 2, 4 7 & 13.

Les

[fastpat]

Originally posted by oldE
"The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius"

I wouldn't be too quick to call that much of a defence. They started out on the offence, then things kind of went sour from there. But hey! The White House probably needed new paint, anyway.

I wuld agree, particularly since Britain had already made statements that she'd sign a treaty agreeing to almost every demand. Alas, New England shipping corporations wanted "something done", and a meeting had already taken place among the New England states to discuss secession.

Also, it's not entirely clear that Great Britain wouldn't have taken a few things back to stop American expansion westward, things such as New Orleans, the west bank of the Mississippi River, and so forth.

Five decades later, the Union army, (which I guess you'd have to call the army of the United States, wouldn't you?), defended the Union from break-up.

No, the Union army invaded a sovereign nation to force it at gun point to an association from which it had lawfully withdrawn. That's not a defense, it is naked agression. In fact, it set a precedent that is used today.

Even if you discount the Aleutian campaign (as I'm sure you have) it is easy to make the mistake of seperating "America" with America's interests".

I don't know why the Japanese attacked and attempted to occupy the Aleutian Islands, but let's not try to say that was a prelude to an invasion of America, with Los Angeles as next. Just guess, mind you, I'd say that Japan didn't understand the scope of the US government's forces, thinking that we'd tie down soldiers and men defending the islands that wouldn't be available to fight them. While we did station men and equipment "way up there" for the duration, it had no effect in the war with Japan.

Should you take up arms against someone who has invaded your home? It would seem you should, (provided it is indeed your home and you have a right to be there). What if that someone has blocked the road to your home so that you cannot go to work or bring home food or goods? Is that not an attack upon your freedom, upon your life, perhaps?

If we trade, or carry out commerce in the world, placing restrictions upon right of passage or trade can be construed as an attack upon the country which is restricted.

No, there's nothing in the Constitution that permits this conclusion. Jefferson made the unfortunate precedent of invading a foreign nation over this issue to avoid an illegal payment of bounty for trade, which the British and French were doing to avoid military action which is more expensive. The payments were recognized as lawful, as the body of water being crossed and entered was recognized as belonging to Tripoli. The US government sent the navy to bully the country, nothing more, and certainly nothing to be proud of. It was using the military in support of corporations that didn't want to spend the money to defend themselves, which should have be the course of action.

Unless your country is entirely self-sufficient and trades with no-one, you are vulnerable to interruption of trade through action outside your borders. After all, most wars are fought for commercial reasons, including the War of Independence and the Civil War.

Les

Ever wonder why the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are in the Constitution but seldom used? It's to enable lawful, private defense of shipping (among other uses) by the shippers themselves. It was seldom used because early on the precedent was set to alleviate the need for private defense, instead tax supported defense came into use, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But, none of those was a defense of America against invasion by a foreign enemy intent on occupation.

[oldE]

Pat,

The Aleutian campaign, (Japanese) was a feint to draw US forces away from the mid-Pacific.
"On 6-7 June, 1942, the Japanese followed the Dutch Harbor raid with an invasion of American soil. After months of reconnaissance, they landed on Kiska and Attu Islands in the Western Aleutians, over 1,000 miles from Dutch Harbor. On Kiska, they took a small Naval weather crew captive; on Attu, they took the whole village hostage, later shipping them back to Japan as prisoners of war." (About.com)

The weather station was valuable to commanders operating in the Pacific. It was worth getting back. There was a bit of hysteria at the time, both on your side and our side of the border, but the Japanese were overextended as it was. After the defeat at Midway, they were forced into a defensive posture.

Letters of marque have historically been employed by those interrupting shipping, rather than by those defending it. It is a matter of concentration of forces. I have been wondering how long before some form of convoy system is employed in areas such as the Straits of Molucca to combat piracy.

"an illegal payment of bounty for trade, " Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this seems to be a euphanism for piracy and extortion, something which was practised by the Barbary states at that time and had, by 1800 cost the US government approximately 1/5 of its total income. Such a threat was addressed under Section 7 of the CftUSA:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations; "

They could not afford to pay the ransoms, (at one time $4000 per seaman and $1400 per cabin boy and it wasn't the companies who had lost the ships, cargoes and crews who were paying ransoms, it was the government 'by the people for the people'). It was cheaper to build a fleet and fight. They were not fighting individual ships and pirate captains, but the nation states which demanded ever increasing 'protection money'.
Without commerce your economy is crippled. It sounds like you are advocating arming all trading ships for their own protection and paying for that defence through the directly passed on increase in the cost of goods. That won't work because of the principle of concentration of forces. You would have to convoy your ships wherever they went.

What would you have done?

Les

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by fastpat
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

The US military hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, genius, but buy your beer, I'm sure some of them will drink it.

Particularly one of the biggest armchair generals out here, fintstone.

WWII was a direct defense of the US and it's interests...in case you'd forgotten, US Soil was attacked by a foreign power in a clear act of war. Forget the US territories and Pearl that were violated by the IJE, the Japs actually invaded Alaska too.

[m21sniper]

Also, it's not entirely clear that Great Britain wouldn't have taken a few things back to stop American expansion westward, things such as New Orleans...

Yeah, how'd that work out?

I seem to recall the Brits getting their asses handed to them by a group of Kentucky Marksmen armed with Pennsylvania long rifles.

The brits did try to take NO, and got wiped out for their troubles(the irony is that the war had already officially ended, but no one got word to either side at NO in time).

[fastpat]

Originally posted by oldE


What would you have done?

Les

Told the shipping company's to buy more and larger cannon, then learn to use them effectively.

If they wanted to continue making money, that is.

[oldE]

"Told the shipping company's to buy more and larger cannon, then learn to use them effectively.

If they wanted to continue making money, that is. "

Pat.

Pat,

I missed the symbol, so have to guess either you figured the statement was ludicrous enough to stand as a joke without the indicator or you really have no idea of the conditions of the time.

Your statement is tantamount to saying the pizza guy should be armed if he wants to deliver in some neighborhoods, and so should the paperboy etc. I have not lived in the 'rough part of town' and, judging from the photos of your place, neither do you. There are, however, people who would have no compunctions whatever about relieving you of your hard-earned (I assume) income and benefits. In fact, let's turn your signature line around a bit and ask:
"What if your neighbow confronts you, demanding your money at gunpoint, and he has bigger guns and more family members than you ?"
Your apparent solution is to buy more guns. Sorry, you have no income left. You starve. Too bad you don't live in a country which had a constitution declaring, "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; "

A few days ago, I made a prediction that if the country you professed to desire ever came into being, it would have a standard of living closer to that of Cuba than to the one you enjoy today.

I stand by that, except to add the caveat the standard of living would be below Cuba's. The only good side would be that people would be free to leave, (wouldn't they?)

If the response was a joke, I guess I get it.

Les

[fastpat]

Originally posted by oldE

I missed the symbol, so have to guess either you figured the statement was ludicrous enough to stand as a joke without the indicator or you really have no idea of the conditions of the time.

I was quite serious, and based my recommended answer on the conditions of the time.

Americans have no business spending tax money involuntarily taken from its' rightful owners, to be used to protect the business interests of others wishing to conduct commerce outside the country. If those business interests wish to form a cooperative arrangement for defense of their interests, I'd have no problem with that as long as it was totally voluntary, with no hint of coercion.

Your statement is tantamount to saying the pizza guy should be armed if he wants to deliver in some neighborhoods, and so should the paperboy etc.

While it's an interesting juxtaposition, worldwide private commerce with local commerce, but the self defense issues are the same. Yes, everyone is directely responsible for their own defense. They may hire someone to do it, or do it themselves, or decline to live in or work in areas known to be ripe with criminals.

I have not lived in the 'rough part of town' and, judging from the photos of your place, neither do you. There are, however, people who would have no compunctions whatever about relieving you of your hard-earned (I assume) income and benefits.

I'm sure that there are places like that, I've been in a number of them for business reasons, or to visit friends. Government is almost exclusively the problem with all of those places, without government they might still be problems, but to a substantially reduced degree, and over time would vanish.

In fact, let's turn your signature line around a bit and ask:
"What if your neighbow confronts you, demanding your money at gunpoint, and he has bigger guns and more family members than you ?"

His problems would only have just begun. Unless he kills me immediately, then I wouldn't be one removing his threat, but others would. In truth, well over 95% of the population in America isn't like that at all, that's why mala in se laws work, nearly everyone obeys them, and those who don't have a short, unsatisfactory life.

Your apparent solution is to buy more guns.

No, I'll have plenty to remedy such a short term set back. That, or my other neignbors will have already "arrested" the bad neigbor, recovered my tools, and await my decision as to the disposition of the criminal.

Sorry, you have no income left. You starve. Too bad you don't live in a country which had a constitution declaring, "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; "

Sorry, your rather impossible scenario has been terminated earlier.

A few days ago, I made a prediction that if the country you professed to desire ever came into being, it would have a standard of living closer to that of Cuba than to the one you enjoy today.

No, Cuba is as close to a communist state as can exist without mass starvation and disease. They honor little private property, and have little real private commerce. My desired country would not only NOT be like Cuba, it would be more prosperous than America is today. Your country, Canada, is a very good example of going down the socialist road and become more and more serfs in your own land. I remember well, on my first visit to Canada in 1961, while it had a modicum of social services, it wasn't much different economically. The Canadian dollar was worth about $1.04 US dollars. Over the years, as the socialist welfare state has grown, significantly faster than in America, the value of the Canadian dollar has steadily plunged, almost in direct proportion to the difference in the levels of socialism between America and Canada. This isn't just my opinion, but that of several Canadian friends I've had for over 30 years. If this decline continues, and if you're an example, I expect it will, then it will be Canada that will have the experiences of Cuba, not America.

I stand by that, except to add the caveat the standard of living would be below Cuba's. The only good side would be that people would be free to leave, (wouldn't they?) If the response was a joke, I guess I get it. Les

No, it's obvious that you didn't "get it" at all, perhaps now you will.

[oldE]

In your response, you are assuming your neighbors are trustworthy and are not the ones messing up your way of making a living. I'm not sure how you'd come to trust anyone since your 'political' viewpoint indicates you trust no-one. What makes your neighbor any different from the policeman in the nearest town, the selectman who sits on council or your state legislator? Did you not elect someone you could trust? Did you become involved in the process?

You still haven't aknowledged the idea that it is easier to interrupt trade than it is to carry it out. Also, when I refer to a standard of living, I have in mind the toys we accumulate in our western lifestyle. You seem to be basing your ideas on an agrarian community in which everything is made within walking distance of home. Does everyone know how to make a pencil in your scenario?

I'm sorry Pat. One of us must be living in a parallel universe. Since you declare it's not you, therefore it must be me.

Isn't it funny no one has tried your system of non-government in your world either?

Les

[fastpat]

Originally posted by oldE
In your response, you are assuming your neighbors are trustworthy and are not the ones messing up your way of making a living. I'm not sure how you'd come to trust anyone since your 'political' viewpoint indicates you trust no-one. What makes your neighbor any different from the policeman in the nearest town, the selectman who sits on council or your state legislator? Did you not elect someone you could trust? Did you become involved in the process?

You still haven't aknowledged the idea that it is easier to interrupt trade than it is to carry it out. Also, when I refer to a standard of living, I have in mind the toys we accumulate in our western lifestyle. You seem to be basing your ideas on an agrarian community in which everything is made within walking distance of home. Does everyone know how to make a pencil in your scenario?

I'm sorry Pat. One of us must be living in a parallel universe. Since you declare it's not you, therefore it must be me.

Isn't it funny no one has tried your system of non-government in your world either? Les

Well, from this message, it's clear you don't get it, socialists seldom do. Something else that you'd better get a grasp of is that socialism and it's close littermates; communism and fascism, are being thrown on the dung heap of history as fast as individuals can do so. Most governments are resisting that change, but ultimately we individuals will prevail, and you know what happens to dinosaurs.

[m21sniper]

Yes, everyone is directely responsible for their own defense.

Well dammit i am now in the unenviable position of having to side with Pat again.

SCOTUS has (fairly recently- in the last 10-15 years IIRC) held that it is the individual's responsibility to provide their own self-defense. Not the state's, not the police's, not the Army's.

Yours.

If you want to conduct international commerce it is YOUR ultimate responsibility to secure your own interests. While it is in the nation's best interests to secure int'l commerce, it is not a legal responsibility of the gov't to do so.

I am fine if they do(unlike pat), but he is right that technically your own security is your own problem. This is why so many overseas companies have a paramilitary arm nowadays(which is also very troubling).

That being said, WWII was still a clearly justified war as we were directly responding to numerous attacks by an identifiable state belligerant against US soil.

Frankly, so dastardly was the behavior of the Japs throughout WWII that they are lucky we left ANY of them alive.

"When we are through with them Japanese will be a language spoken only in Hell."
~Gen.Curtis LeMay

[oldE]

Change is, indeed inevitable.
Where you profess to want to go is to a rustic world where a man mixes his own black powder and has a cousin who can forge iron. I'll bet you have all the Foxfire books.) Yep, a sprinkling of individuals, living off the land, in harmony with nature. (Is there a nuclear winter anywhere in the transition to this scenario?)

You know Pat, compared to humans, the dinosaurs had a lot longer time on the earth. I hope we're not still trading emails in another million.

Have a great Christmas.

Les