The Greatest Armed Services Ever

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
That however means conscription. To force someone in to an army because you think it would be best for “society”.

While I would actually agree in this specific case I hold no love for this line of thinking.

I think the “if you are not prepared to fight for your country you ought not to vote” approach is best, but there is no way way to get this done in a democracy where everybody is allowed to vote on this issue.

The Swiss have chosen to conscript themselves for the last 500 years.

One would think that if they ever felt oppressed by the “slavery” of conscription into the militia, they would have voted to end the practice long ago.[/quote]

True, but that is in part the fallacy of “democratic legitimacy”.

No matter how great the majority, how can they expect someone to kill or die for them at gunpoint?

I meant the “as far as armies go” part. IMO armies are a necessary evil, so greatness, if such a thing exists is a very relative concept when it comes to armies.

I struggle with the idea that in this specific instance state slavery might result in much less state violence than an army entirely made out of voluntary soldiers.

122

[quote]orion wrote:
True, but that is in part the fallacy of “democratic legitimacy”.

No matter how great the majority, how can they expect someone to kill or die for them at gunpoint?

I meant the “as far as armies go” part. IMO armies are a necessary evil, so greatness, if such a thing exists is a very relative concept when it comes to armies.

I struggle with the idea that in this specific instance state slavery might result in much less state violence than an army entirely made out of voluntary soldiers.

[/quote]

I think that’s just the point of the greatness of the Swiss army though. No majority is expecting anyone to kill or die for them: the majority are the ones holding the SIG rifles and manning the alpine bunkers. Right along with the minority.

That’s why I have trouble thinking of membership in the Swiss militia as “slavery,” or even as “conscription.” Were I Swiss, I would look at taking up arms to defend my community, canton and country as one of my duties as a citizen of a free republic. Kind of like voting.

And be damned glad that my country wasn’t run by people who would use me and my comrades to loot and enslave other nations.

123

See, this should have been a foreign policy discussion. And, not a “greatest army” discussion. That seems to be what you’re after.

124

[quote]Sloth wrote:
See, this should have been a foreign policy discussion. And, not a “greatest army” discussion. That seems to be what you’re after.[/quote]

Not true, because it is also about how an army is organized, what an effect that organization has on a society and whether properties that make an army great can actually be detrimental to a society that finance that army.

This is not only about foreign policy, but also very much about “a republic, if you can keep it”.

And about the gut reaction “greatest military EVA, 4 REALZ!” but the completely inability to define “greatness” in this context.

125

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
True, but that is in part the fallacy of “democratic legitimacy”.

No matter how great the majority, how can they expect someone to kill or die for them at gunpoint?

I meant the “as far as armies go” part. IMO armies are a necessary evil, so greatness, if such a thing exists is a very relative concept when it comes to armies.

I struggle with the idea that in this specific instance state slavery might result in much less state violence than an army entirely made out of voluntary soldiers.

I think that’s just the point of the greatness of the Swiss army though. No majority is expecting anyone to kill or die for them: the majority are the ones holding the SIG rifles and manning the alpine bunkers. Right along with the minority.

That’s why I have trouble thinking of membership in the Swiss militia as “slavery,” or even as “conscription.” Were I Swiss, I would look at taking up arms to defend my community, canton and country as one of my duties as a citizen of a free republic. Kind of like voting.

And be damned glad that my country wasn’t run by people who would use me and my comrades to loot and enslave other nations.[/quote]

So you think that you cannot call it slavery because the majority sits in the exact same trenches as the minority?

How does that take away the element of coercion?

127

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, this should have been a foreign policy discussion. And, not a “greatest army” discussion. That seems to be what you’re after.

Indeed. My main problem with the Dachshund’s earlier posts was his assertion that the Swiss Army was so great that Germany and its Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe couldn’t bear the thought of invading Switzerland. That’s out there with his assertion last fall that the U.S. vice president rules America.[/quote]

I must be an intellectual giant, if the only way you feel you can deal with my arguments is by constant, unrelenting misrepresentation.

128

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, this should have been a foreign policy discussion. And, not a “greatest army” discussion. That seems to be what you’re after.

Not true, because it is also about how an army is organized, what an effect that organization has on a society and whether properties that make an army great can actually be detrimental to a society that finance that army.

This is not only about foreign policy, but also very much about “a republic, if you can keep it”.

And about the gut reaction “greatest military EVA, 4 REALZ!” but the completely inability top define “greatness” in this context.

[/quote]

Then it’s about foreign and domestic policy. Of not just the country in question, by all the actors involved in either peace time or conflict.

The army kills the enemy, and destroys his capacity to do the same back. At home or abroad. Just because the greatest army may be over-extended to where even it can’t accomplish it’s goals, or is hamstrung by political restraints in carrying out it’s mission, doesn’t make it any less “the greatest army.” They just may not have the benefit of the “greatest politicans.”

129

No, Sloth, I think Orion was after an answer to the question of what makes an armed service great.

Is it the quality of the individual soldier, Marine, airman or sailor?

Is it the quality of their individual weapons?

Is it the skill with which they can wield those weapons?

Is it the quantity of destruction they can accomplish with those weapons?

Is it the quality of leadership that keeps them from dying or killing without cause?

Or is it something less tangible?

Whether or not this discussion needs to delve into foreign policy depends entirely on whether you believe an armed force is primarily for defending the nation, or for imposing the political will of the government onto other sovereign states.

130

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Whether or not this discussion needs to delve into foreign policy depends entirely on whether you believe an armed force is primarily for defending the nation, or for imposing the political will of the government onto other sovereign states.
[/quote]

But that comes back to my objection.

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, this should have been a foreign policy discussion. And, not a “greatest army” discussion. That seems to be what you’re after.

Not true, because it is also about how an army is organized, what an effect that organization has on a society and whether properties that make an army great can actually be detrimental to a society that finance that army.

This is not only about foreign policy, but also very much about “a republic, if you can keep it”.

And about the gut reaction “greatest military EVA, 4 REALZ!” but the completely inability top define “greatness” in this context.

Then it’s about foreign and domestic policy. Of not just the country in question, by all the actors involved in either peace time or conflict.

The army kills the enemy, and destroys his capacity to do the same back. At home or abroad. Just because the greatest army may be over-extended to where even it can’t accomplish it’s goals, or is hamstrung by political restraints in carrying out it’s mission, doesn’t make it any less “the greatest army.” They just may not have the benefit of the “greatest politicans.”[/quote]

And yet your greatest politicians where very much against a a standing army at all, and for very good reasons.

The only thing Jefferson feared more was a central bank and you have both!

Anyway:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people… [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

and:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Both James Madison

132

[quote]orion wrote:
So you think that you cannot call it slavery because the majority sits in the exact same trenches as the minority?

How does that take away the element of coercion?

[/quote]

I can’t be coerced into doing something I was already going to do, and indeed already voted for the right to do.

If the thought that my sense of duty to serve and protect the Swiss Confederation might be in any way sullied by the spectre of coercion, I imagine I might have to emigrate. Certainly not to Austria, where even nine months of Zivildienst might seem too onerous. Italy maybe.

133

[quote]orion wrote:
And yet your greatest politicians where very much against a a standing army at all, and for very good reasons.

[/quote]

And in this regard, they were shortsighted. Not every country has the honor to bank the foreign Tyrant’s gold. Some have the unfortunate position of being the plundered.

134

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, Sloth, I think Orion was after an answer to the question of what makes an armed service great.

Is it the quality of the individual soldier, Marine, airman or sailor?

Is it the quality of their individual weapons?

Is it the skill with which they can wield those weapons?

Is it the quantity of destruction they can accomplish with those weapons?

Is it the quality of leadership that keeps them from dying or killing without cause?

Or is it something less tangible?

Whether or not this discussion needs to delve into foreign policy depends entirely on whether you believe an armed force is primarily for defending the nation, or for imposing the political will of the government onto other sovereign states.
[/quote]

135

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Whether or not this discussion needs to delve into foreign policy depends entirely on whether you believe an armed force is primarily for defending the nation, or for imposing the political will of the government onto other sovereign states.

But that comes back to my objection.[/quote]

Indeed. So which do you believe should be the primary purpose of an armed service?

136

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Whether or not this discussion needs to delve into foreign policy depends entirely on whether you believe an armed force is primarily for defending the nation, or for imposing the political will of the government onto other sovereign states.

But that comes back to my objection.

Indeed. So which do you believe should be the primary purpose of an armed service?[/quote]

To kill and destroy.

137

[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

Nice post.

Orion, you so desperately want to be perceived here as an intellectual heavyweight but this thread proves you fail so miserably. Your logic and reasoning capabilities are seriously flawed and you’re getting your ass spanked grandly but you keep on flailing.

In that regard I hereby nominate you as the central European version of Lixy - a whiny little America-bashing bitch. So jaded that you actually have delusions of the Swiss Army being the greatest armed service ever. You actually deserve more pity than contempt.

Second the nomination.

Without the need to leave the depths of his bat-cave, 300 meters beneath the despised American Embassy, he has finished his revised history of the Navaho, is rewriting the biography of Lincoln–without reading a single reference!–and he has knows better than the German General Staff in 1938 the entire military situation in Czechoslovakia! He is near completion on his thesis by which the gold standard is to be re-established, all the better for us peasants to trade for Austria’s chief products, lederhosen and cookoo clocks. And in one more gratuitous attempt to insult the USA, who better than Orion to lecture us on the illusory prowess of the Swiss Army?

Hmmm…maybe more contempt than pity. Contempt is earned.

There is the point that the general staff of the Wehrmacht actually was wrong, because when the Wehrmacht entered the Sudetenland they were greeted with flowers.

Then, the thesis you mentioned was pretty much written by Hajek, he received a Nobel price for it in 1974 .

The history of Lincoln needs no rewriting, you could look up his own words if you wanted to, regarding the secession of Texas
and his deal to uphold slavery to save the Union.

And, yes, finally, your idea of what we export is also completely wrong.

How does it feel to make so many factual errors that could easily be checked in one post? I mean, to yell your own ignorance from the mountaintops like that, are you even capable of embarrassment?

PS: But since you are probably not stupid, only ignorant, her is an ability to learn:

Grateful for the Nobel reference. And when are you packing your tux for Stockholm?

Let’s see, regarding the Wehrmacht: if they were greeted with flowers, it was only after the forced capitulation of Cz. Had there ben no capitulation at Munich, Halder et al. may have been absolutely correct in their estimate of Cz 's might relative to the Wehrmach. No, sorry, Orion they were right and history is there and no, sorry, you are wrong.

Oh, never mind. There is no point in correcting your distortions.

To try to explain the joke to its object is pointless.
Send me a signed copy of your history of the Navahos…

Did I not write regarding that topic that CZ´s “might” was irrelevant since it was a divided country with a large, geographically unified German population?

A population that lived in the very same area that you feel could have been defended against the Germans, on German territory by a nation that was yet again divided between Slovaks and Czechs.

They had absolutely no will to fight.

Zero, zilch, nada.[/quote]

And yet the German General Staff thought otherwise, and published so, in 1938.
To belabor the point, the arrogance of your position is that your knowledge, 70 years later, is more relevant than the military estimates of the Germans at the time. In the context of the original discussion–Pat Buchanan’s distorted view of the capitulation at Munich–the German General Staff was relieved that they did not have to fight Cz and a multifront war. Your opinion is irrelevant to the estimates of the time and the foolishness of Munich. And whatever knowledge you might have–dubious and unmeasured–cannot change the opinion of the men in charge in Berlin 70 years ago.

But stubbornness and arrogance have their own logic. You may continue your rant alone…

As for the Swiss Army. Who cares? It serves a purpose, I suppose, but it is the Swiss government, people, polity and good luck that we all admire. Can’t you see that we all agree?

138

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
And yet your greatest politicians where very much against a a standing army at all, and for very good reasons.

And in this regard, they were shortsighted. Not every country has the honor to bank the foreign Tyrant’s gold. Some have the unfortunate position of being the plundered. [/quote]

I disagree, they were rather forgoing a short term advantage to keep a long term republic that would ensure their freedom:

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Henry St. George Tucker

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Patrick Henry

… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Patrick Henry

Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.

US State Department

139

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Indeed. So which do you believe should be the primary purpose of an armed service?

To kill and destroy.[/quote]

Oh, well, if that’s all it’s for, then the United States armed forces have a lot to learn from the Red Army, the Red Chinese Army, the Wehrmacht, and the hordes of Tamarlane and Genghis, clearly the greatest killing machines the world has ever known.

140

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

As for the Swiss Army. Who cares? It serves a purpose, I suppose, but it is the Swiss government, people, polity and good luck that we all admire. Can’t you see that we all agree?[/quote]

We should care, Doc, if for nothing else to inspire us to wonder why we can’t cultivate in our own nation the kind of government, people, polity and good luck that is as worthy of admiration as that of the Swiss.

And that includes the army.