A free people do not need an army to protect them.

[libertybrewcity]

No doubt, we need defense. That doesn't necessarily imply a standing army.

then what does it imply? angry individuals with guns? how about a standing army reserve?

 

[Number19]

If we were a free and non-interventionist nation, why would another nation invade us in the first place?

Not necessarily nations, but just as probably, warlords. Why? For resources. A good historical example would be the roughly 400 year period between 800 and 1200 when the Vikings pretty much had their way with the Brits, Irish and Scots.

 

[Vessol]

Not necessarily nations, but just as probably, warlords. Why? For resources. A good historical example would be the roughly 400 year period between 800 and 1200 when the Vikings pretty much had their way with the Brits, Irish and Scots.

Because they weren't allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves, they depending on the State.

 

[Number19]

I thought we were talking about an invasion by a foreign army, not a raid. Why would a foreign army invade and occupy a nation if it had no provocation? And if it did, wouldn't that damn them on the world scene?

Yes,under current political conditions. But given worldwide social, political and economic collapse......?

 

[tremendoustie]

then what does it imply? angry individuals with guns? how about a standing army reserve?

I support independent militias, which join together in time of general attack.

This has several advantages:

1. There isn't the huge burden of maintaining a full time fighting force
2. There isn't the "when you have a hammer everything's a nail" problem.
3. No military industrial complex lobbying for war.
4. No war by the command of one individual, or body -- and your own skin's on the line. This encourages caution.
5. No central command and control to take out -- or take over.
6. Independent militias allow for independent creativity -- an approach slow to adjust central armies can't contend with.
7. Intelligence gathering by the enemy is nearly impossible.
8. Increases community cohesion in peacetime, as average folks go out training or shooting together on a regular basis.
9. This arrangement makes the fighting force almost impossible to use an an offensive weapon, or as a tool of tyranny.
10. Troops are beholden to their communities, not to a central government.

 

[Number19]

Like the Native Americans?

Excellent example.

 

[Number19]

This bold part, it's not really... true. The problems of those two countries have to do with political strategy, and nothing to do with tactical issues. We have utter tactical superiority. (and yes, I know because I've been there)

The rest is rhetoric, and you're entitled to it.

The Afghans are a patient and unforgiving adversary. They are willing and capable of outlasting their enemy - waiting 100 years to achieve their revenge and victory, if necessary.

 

[Vessol]

Excellent example.

Look how much they flourished once they let the State defend them.

 

[Number19]

Because they weren't allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves, they depending on the State.

In the years following the withdrawal of the Romans, there wasn't any "state". This was the dawn of the feudal system, in which warlords gained ascendancy as a response to the Norse invasions. Society was agrarian. The tide against the Norse invasions wasn't turned until one of the warlords ( I forget who ) realized he had to arm and train the farmers and organize them into an effective fighting force, a standing army, sufficiently strong to stand against the Norse. ( Thanks to the History Channel ).

 

[Kojac]

The Afghans are a patient and unforgiving adversary. They are willing and capable of outlasting their enemy - waiting 100 years to achieve their revenge and victory, if necessary.

The Afghans will drink and bathe in water 10 feet downstream from where one of their countrymen is urinating. More than 90% of them are illiterate. They culturally imprison their females. I know you'd like to think they're a noble, ancient, mysterious people... but those days are long gone. Now we just have a populace that is held back by a variety of factors, not the least of which is for the political and religious convenience of the extremist Islamic leadership. (which is regional)

 

[Vessol]

In the years following the withdrawal of the Romans, there wasn't any "state". This was the dawn of the feudal system, in which warlords gained ascendancy as a response to the Norse invasions. Society was agrarian. The tide against the Norse invasions wasn't turned until one of the warlords ( I forget who ) realized he had to arm and train the farmers and organize them into an effective fighting force, a standing army, sufficiently strong to stand against the Norse. ( Thanks to the History Channel ).

Why couldn't the peasants arm and organize themselves? Oh yeah, because their was laws barring them from owning weapons made of metal, or armor. Only the professional standing armies could own those.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In the years following the withdrawal of the Romans, there wasn't any "state". This was the dawn of the feudal system, in which warlords gained ascendancy as a response to the Norse invasions. Society was agrarian. The tide against the Norse invasions wasn't turned until one of the warlords ( I forget who ) realized he had to arm and train the farmers and organize them into an effective fighting force, a standing army, sufficiently strong to stand against the Norse. ( Thanks to the History Channel ).

Feudal system was developed through Monarchy. When you say Romans I take it you mean West Rome, since the East flourished for quite a while longer (Byzantine). There were little to no 'Warlords' during this time. This was the time of the Monarchy, largely through the Church. The Church dominated this period.

Society was mostly agrarian up until the mid 18th Century for the whole world. I fail to see your point. The Vikings faltered for a myriad of reasons not any because of 'Warlord' standing armies. In fact, from 1000 to 1200 the major losses for the Vikings came against Saxon Kings (Fellow Scandinavians). Conversely from the Mongol Empire to the East. Christianity also killed off the Vikings. If anything the period from 1000 to 1700 was intellectually backwater because of Church dogma (Granted there were some brilliant Spanish Theologians -- mostly Economic/Political), but from a scientific standpoint that time period was.....regressive.

Everything you wrote is wrong. The Franks who had a large standing army, which invaded and took over what was Italy at the time, faltered against the raids of the Vikings and eventually Normandy fell under their control (Or more precisely were granted Fielty by the French King). The Vikings ended up also controlling Britain with the Norman Conquest. Ironically, what ended the Vikings were fellow Vikings in Britain and the influence of Christianity from the Church, not 'Warlords' fielding Standing Armies.

Also: LOL History Channel

And yes, there were laws against peasants owning arms. Only Knights and those conscripted by the Noblemen could have weapons. It's quite easy to raid an undefended population, since you know, Standing Armies can't be everywhere at all times, while the Militia can.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Afghans will drink and bathe in water 10 feet downstream from where one of their countrymen is urinating. More than 90% of them are illiterate. They culturally imprison their females. I know you'd like to think they're a noble, ancient, mysterious people... but those days are long gone. Now we just have a populace that is held back by a variety of factors, not the least of which is for the political and religious convenience of the extremist Islamic leadership. (which is regional)

::rollseyes:: that is not at all what he was saying.

 

[libertybrewcity]

I support independent militias, which join together in time of general attack.

This has several advantages:

1. There isn't the huge burden of maintaining a full time fighting force
2. There isn't the "when you have a hammer everything's a nail" problem.
3. No military industrial complex lobbying for war.
4. No war by the command of one individual, or body -- and your own skin's on the line. This encourages caution.
5. No central command and control to take out -- or take over.
6. Independent militias allow for independent creativity -- an approach slow to adjust central armies can't contend with.
7. Intelligence gathering by the enemy is nearly impossible.
8. Increases community cohesion in peacetime, as average folks go out training or shooting together on a regular basis.
9. This arrangement makes the fighting force almost impossible to use an an offensive weapon, or as a tool of tyranny.
10. Troops are beholden to their communities, not to a central government.

what stops these militias from attacking another community? the huns were a small community once, they attacked other communities and joined forces, eventually forming one of the largest empires and killing millions of people. the indians were brought up as an "excellent example", however, they frequently went to war with each other. Does your world also assume that communities are ruled by every individual in that community?

Is this realistic? or just a 'perfect world' theory?

 

[Kojac]

Feudal system was developed through Monarchy. When you say Romans I take it you mean West Rome, since the East flourished for quite a while longer (Byzantine). There were little to no 'Warlords' during this time. This was the time of the Monarchy, largely through the Church. The Church dominated this period.

Society was mostly agrarian up until the mid 18th Century for the whole world. I fail to see your point. The Vikings faltered for a myriad of reasons not any because of 'Warlord' standing armies. In fact, from 1000 to 1200 the major losses for the Vikings came against Saxon Kings (Fellow Scandinavians). Conversely from the Mongol Empire to the East. Christianity also killed off the Vikings. If anything the period from 1000 to 1700 was intellectually backwater because of Church dogma (Granted there were some brilliant Spanish Theologians -- mostly Economic/Political), but from a scientific standpoint that time period was.....regressive.

Everything you wrote is wrong. The Franks who had a large standing army, which invaded and took over what was Italy at the time, faltered against the raids of the Vikings and eventually Normandy fell under their control (Or more precisely were granted Fielty by the French King). The Vikings ended up also controlling Britain with the Norman Conquest. Ironically, what ended the Vikings were fellow Vikings in Britain and the influence of Christianity from the Church, not 'Warlords' fielding Standing Armies.

Also: LOL History Channel

And yes, there were laws against peasants owning arms. Only Knights and those conscripted by the Noblemen could have weapons. It's quite easy to raid an undefended population, since you know, Standing Armies can't be everywhere at all times, while the Militia can.

Feudalism is the process by which a king has agreements with various lords and barons who control smaller regions. These guys are basically mini-kings, responsible for their own armies, serfs (permanent hereditary working class), trade agreements, etc. It's been a while since I've read the history, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all that uncommon for these lords to fight amongst themselves whilst jockeying for power and position.

Feudalism begins with these regional leaders, and then the strongest of all these guys emerges, unifies them (sort of), and is the king.

Rome was taken by the Visigoths and then sacked by the Vandals. (still Germanic barbarian hordes, just from the other direction, and victorious only when unified behind a leader, while Rome was slowly splintering under weak emperors)

And for your postscript: I don't know how accurate or inaccurate it is, but the Celts were on an island, buffered by England from the Norse, and happily uninvolved with the Germanic tribes and the splintering, corrupt remnants of Rome.




Also, what exactly WAS he saying? The days of the mujaheddin are gone. They are all too old to fight, and the new generation is not really up to par.

 

[ProBlue33]

Ron has basically said as much. Once I heard him say all America basically need is 12 nuclear subs. And no nation's military would ever directly attack America.

You could scale the American military to 1/4 it's size very easily, close all the bases abroad, slowly retire the carrier groups.

If you mix that with how the Swiss does their military, you would have a pretty good defense.

Strengthen the NATO alliance guaranteeing that if any nation attacks the nation within it, all members gang up on the lone aggressor. Nobody would want to face that combined firepower.

 

[Inflation]

'No Standing Army' to be included in the Ron Paul Amendment

The problem now is that we cannot disband the standing armies that have been hired. Specifically the metropolitan police forces and their SWAT Teams that have terrorized countless innocent people for decades.

We can pass Ron Paul Amendments to our State and Federal Constitutions that prohibit standing armies, including all armed jackboot thug agencies.

Most small towns wouldn't have SWAT teams if not for federal War On Drugs $$$$.

 

[Kojac]

ProBlue, are you serious? NATO? You want to advocate a smaller military in favor of global centralization? We ought to be getting away from NATO and the UN.

 

[Vessol]

ProBlue, are you serious? NATO? You want to advocate a smaller military in favor of global centralization? We ought to be getting away from NATO and the UN.

Lol, I'm basically advocating what you're advocating, but on a smaller scale . Apply what you say about Nato to what I saw about any standing army.

 

[Kojac]

A standing military is a necessity for the defense of anything sovereign, be it a constitutional republic or a dictatorial empire.

Every member of ours swears to defend the Constitution, and however it may or may not be misused, the problem does not lay with the military itself, but with whoever is at the wheel.