The Greatest Armed Services Ever

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Surely this discussion is over my head.

I just can’t seem to feel any “admiration” for a country (and its “great army”) that stands by in “neutrality” while millions of people in the same “neighborhood” are being extinguished in gas ovens.

Perhaps if (like Orion’s countrymen) they were MY ovens, I’d feel differently?

[/quote]

Imagine an army going “over there” to “save democracy” and helping to give birth to two of the two bloodiest dictatorships in the history of mankind and the most terrible war in mankind’s history.

Greatness?

That army consisted of people who were forced to fight, as were their enemies.

Greatness?

One reason why they fought was to save J.P.Morgan (the bank) who had heavily invested in British and French purchases in the US and feared they would lose the war. It went on to finance the US part of the war too.

Greatness?

[quote]orion wrote:
It is not that those question are answered, it is just that the answer your founders gave to a pressing problem is no longer applicable.

[/quote]

So, shortsighted. That’s what I said.

This is thilly.

I nominate the Armed Forces of Chad as the 2nd greatest military.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
It is not that those question are answered, it is just that the answer your founders gave to a pressing problem is no longer applicable.

So, shortsighted. That’s what I said.[/quote]

No perfectly able to see the problems of their day and to develop a solution and also aware that they did not foresee the future which is why your constitution contains a change mechanism.

Or your point is simply “well, they did not foresee the future, let´s slide into tyranny then”.

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

This is thilly.

I nominate the Armed Forces of Chad as the 2nd greatest military.

[/quote]

Reasons?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Surely this discussion is over my head.

I just can’t seem to feel any “admiration” for a country (and its “great army”) that stands by in “neutrality” while millions of people in the same “neighborhood” are being extinguished in gas ovens.

Perhaps if (like Orion’s countrymen) they were MY ovens, I’d feel differently?

Imagine an army going “over there” to “save democracy” and helping to give birth to two of the two bloodiest dictatorships in the history of mankind and the most terrible war in mankind’s history.

Greatness?

That army consisted of people who were forced to fight, as were their enemies.

Greatness?

One reason why they fought was to save J.P.Morgan (the bank) who had heavily invested in British and French purchases in the US and feared they would lose the war. It went on to finance the US part of the war too.

Greatness?

So, let the Jews cook?

Let Hitler rock’n roll?

If I happen upon your mother, sister or other relative being violated by some cretin, fear not. I will dutifully mind my own business, as the potential “unintended consequences” of my intervening are just too scary to contemplate.

God help me, I might end up killing the father of a future Nobel prize winner or something! (Imagine the horror of the Swiss then.)

Let me guess: The Lixy principle applies, and it’s ok if I help your relative so long as she is living right next door to me.

It’s actually quite interesting how much your (Austrian) views match those of many Japanese. I call it the “Roaming the globe kicking ass is fun, until you lose and no longer can; then non-interventionism rules” principle.

I’d take your belief in noninterventionism more seriously if your country actually practiced it when it had a choice. It’s way too easy to complain about air-polluting limousines once your OWN car has been repossessed by the bank.
[/quote]

Of course the other side of your coin is a “we intervene because we can and let the consequences be damned, we do not suffer them anyway” approach.

I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.

[quote]orion wrote:
I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.

[/quote]

Who’s saying that? No American history books I’ve read have painted us as these great WWII liberators.

[quote]orion wrote:
I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.
[/quote]

Either way, we still did. And conscription is something the greatest army does, remember?

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
It is not that those question are answered, it is just that the answer your founders gave to a pressing problem is no longer applicable.

So, shortsighted. That’s what I said.

No perfectly able to see the problems of their day and to develop a solution and also aware that they did not foresee the future which is why your constitution contains a change mechanism.

Or your point is simply “well, they did not foresee the future, let´s slide into tyranny then”.

[/quote]

No, my point is that we need a standing army.

[quote]orion wrote:
I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.

[/quote]

What are the names of these official history books? Lets have em.

Name two. One book claiming the Civil War was started to end slavery; and one claiming the allies entered WW II to end the holocaust.

I look forward to checking them out.

Adolf plucked a common criminal out of a concentration camp, had him dressed him up in a Polish uniform and taken to Gleiwitz and shot by the Gestapo in a fraudulent ‘Polish attack on Germany!’. The next day, he now had his reasons to invade Poland – the attack by Polish troops on the Gleiwitz tramsitter!

As far as the Civil War, the secessionists certainly talked much more openly about slavery than the modern day neo-Confederate libertarians seem willing to. The secession conventions and Southern politicians referred to slavery constantly in their efforts to explain why their states were leaving the Union.

Texas: With Lincoln’s election the country had fallen under the control of ‘a great sectional party proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race and color, a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law’. Lincoln and his Black Republicans could now press forward with their agenda: ‘the abolition of negro slavery’ and the ‘recognition of political equality between the white and negro races.’

South Carolina’s ‘Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify Secession’ focused primarily on the Northern embrace of antislavery principals and the Black Republicans evil designs. ‘This party will take possession of the government…the South shall be excluded from the common territory…and a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.’

Missisippi: ‘Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the union…’ The Northern abolitionist majority now ‘advocated negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst…We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union.’

Georgia: ‘This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.’

In Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ first speech, he bragged that their ‘new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to…the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.’ Thomas Jefferson and the Founders had believed ‘that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principal, socially, morally and politically. Those ideas were fundamentally wrong. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.’

Jefferson Davis gave his reasoning to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861: The Black Republicans were determined to deny slave owners access to the new territories and would surround the South with ‘states in which slavery should be prohibited…thus rendering property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless.’

The South wanted a slave empire – expanding southward, to Cuba and Latin America (read: The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire 1854-1861 by Robert E. May) and westward, to California. They also felt Abolitionist Abe, who was fairly and constitutionally elected president of the United States, and his Black Republicans were going to attack slavery where it had already existed.

But Lincoln had refused to compromise on only one issue: prohibiting the spread of slavery into the territories. He had no constitutional right to interfere with the institution in the states where it already existed. You would think a libertarian would know that.

So, the South seceded, boasted that ‘the Confederate flag will fly over Washington by May!!!’, invaded neutral states, seized federal forts, blockaded the Mississippi River to Northern shipping, fired on federal ships and attacked a union garrison occupying a federal fort. That’s what started the Civil War.

[quote]orion wrote:
I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.
[/quote]

LOL Yes, the American Civil War was ALL about slavery! And even better, WWII was ALL about ending the Holocaust and we just swooped in and saved all those people and single handedly ended it on our own while the other poor devestated countries were sitting on their asses doing nothing. It’s statements like this that piss me off cause lots of people think this is correct.

Plus, from what I’ve been told by every single veteran of WWII, no one questioned the draft, they were answering the call of duty to serve their country proudly and unquestionably. I think you are getting your last part mixed with the Vietnam War draft. And last I checked, our economy got fucked in 1929, which was about a decade before the start of WWII, not 1941 when we finally entered the war.

Here’s some advice, read some fucking books and do research on a subject before writing it down to sound intelligent.

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So how many tens of millions of people has the Swiss Army freed from horrific oppression and dictatorship? How much does the freedom enjoyed by so many around so much of the world owe to the Swiss Army?

Oh wait, is the answer none and not any?

Doesn’t sound like true greatness to me.

Is that the job of an army? To free other people from oppression and dictatorship? Now even if I agreed for discussions sake that any army ever did more harm than good trying to achieve that, how is that not a form of welfare and how could we possibly hope that a government can make that work in another country when it fails to do so in its own?

But to an ingrate who doesn’t want to admit he owes his personal freedom to the armed services of the United States of America, of course it makes sense that the Swiss Army is allegedly greater. Not only makes sense, but is probably psychologically necessary.

Well the very army that laid the groundwork for several revolutions during and after WWI helped us deal with the consequences afterwards.

I would indeed have preferred to achieve the exact same situation we have now without Hitler, Stalin and WWII, so yes, thank your grandfather for putting out the fires his father poured gas into.

But maybe it is psychologically necessary for you to believe that the history of American involvement in European affairs started ca 1944?

Europes problems were created by Europeans. Unfortunately for the rest of the world they lacked the ability or character to fix them. The Americans had to do it for them and now they resent it since they have lived in a relative era of peace. This attitude is particularly pronounced on the continent and Orion is simply a product of that upbringing.

To this day Europe still cannot stand on it’s own militarily and most of it’s armies are hollow or make work programs. Other then Britian most Euro armies would be hard presed to but a division in the field even if they had the desire to do so. That division would last about two weeks before running out of supplies if the US didn’t provide airlift capability.

As to the greatest Military ever. The Swiss Armey isn’t even under consideration. This is merely a mindless point Orion seeks to make so he can spew his rhetoric. Arguing military affairs with Orion is pointless. He is too one dimensional to make it interesting and he assumes his opinion to be fact.

The Swiss Army is small. It cannot project it’s power or manuever with any degree of speed. It is vulnerable to blockade or isolation. In other words it can simply be ignored and isolated. Since the Swiss have a history or diplomacy they would no doubt seek terms if faced with starvation. Those terms would be dicated by the aggressor.
If your military can only fight a holding action while you seek surrender terms, you are not the “Greatest Military Ever” Hardly in the same ranks as the US, Britian, Australia, Russia and China…the only worthy competitors for that title in modern times.

No Hitler without Versailles, no Versailles with the US.

So, US involvement was undoubtedly a conditio sine qua non for Hitler´s rise.

That does not put the blame on the US, but it shows that government actions tend to have unintended consequences. If an American conservative like you fails to see that the minute the American armed forces are involved it is probably a result of your upbringing?

Then, your idea of “greatness” when it comes to a military is a military that is able to reach out and make other people bow to its will, merely successfully keeping the homeland safe does not seem to be enough.

That however is an army that is more fitting for an empire, not a republic and I think the founders of your republic agree with me.

No Versailles without the Europeans and all of the problems and character flaws in your leadership. The fate of the Europeans has always been in their own hands put they have chosen to shift that responsibility to others.

What you are doing is asking a question and then changing the parameters of what you think is an acceptable answer.

You need to try someting new rather then simply repeating back what is provided to you if you want to be taken seriosuly.

No doubt those that brought you up would be proud. The rest of us merely amused. It’s been institutionalized in you. No other line of reasoning is possible as your response has pointed out.

You misrepresent me on purpose.

You understand the concept of unintended consequences perfectly well.
[/quote]

I may understand the concept of unintended consequences but your post still makes no sense and you have failed to make a point…yet again.

[quote]orion wrote:

No perfectly able to see the problems of their day and to develop a solution and also aware that they did not foresee the future which is why your constitution contains a change mechanism.

Or your point is simply “well, they did not foresee the future, let´s slide into tyranny then”.
[/quote]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

–John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

“…a republic, if you can keep it.”

–Benjamin Franklin

They foresaw the future. They did the best they could. But you can’t actually change human nature.

[quote]orion wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

This is thilly.

I nominate the Armed Forces of Chad as the 2nd greatest military.

Reasons?[/quote]

  1. pretty thweet unis
  2. my brothers name is Chad.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
I also find it interesting what noble motives are ascribed to a states action after they are finished with writing the official history books.

American civil war: To end slavery.

WWII? To end the Holocaust.

As if America united in disgust of Auschwitz, armed herself, and millions of volunteers practically begged to fight the Germans.

It would also highly questionable to practically enslave large parts of a population and make other people suffer enormous economic hardships in order to save someone 6000 miles away.

You really need to work on your biases. They are blinding you like crazy. [/quote]

At least I can name them.

Can you?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

No perfectly able to see the problems of their day and to develop a solution and also aware that they did not foresee the future which is why your constitution contains a change mechanism.

Or your point is simply “well, they did not foresee the future, let´s slide into tyranny then”.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

–John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

“…a republic, if you can keep it.”

–Benjamin Franklin

They foresaw the future. They did the best they could. But you can’t actually change human nature.[/quote]

I am beginning to detest human nature.

Since they seem to beg to be told what to do, what am I to make of them?

Let us pretend I could choose, would it be in my best interest to tell the truth as I see it, or should I simply reap the rewards of having one eye in a kingdom of the blind.

Serious question.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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

Hmmmmm…The Dachshund wrote on 12/31/2008:

All they (the Swiss Army) did was raising the cost of an (German) invasion to a point where it did not happen.

The crystal clear implication is that the Wehrmacht - the same army that marched to the outskirts of Moscow, engulfed all of France, occupied North Africa and most of eastern Europe and part of Asia - got out their slide rules and carefully calculated the dire circumstances that the Swiss Army would have put them in had they crossed the Alps and so Keitel said to Hitler, “Nein, nein, nein, wir bleiben zu müssen weg von der Schweizer! Das Blutvergießen sie auf uns nehmen, wird zu groß!”

Yeah, right.

I happen to think it had more to do along the lines that the Germans greatly appreciated the Swiss for safeguarding the gold dug from the mouths of Jews but then what do I know, I’m just a country boy who doesn’t believe that the vice-president rules America.[/quote]

LOL. Exactly. The Swiss just collaborated with the Germans, which is why they didn’t get invaded. Hitler engaged in Napoleon’s folly. There was nothing that would have stopped him from going into Switzerland if he had wanted to.