Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.
|
Gotcha. I don't know why I thought you were Active-duty Army. But I still think that what you want is not a realistic hope. The military should (and does) downsize when global threats recede, but having a "small" military will never happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.
And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.  |
You are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the PLO and IRA to the Continental Army; if you
are willing to do that, then you are disrespecting the latter by making a comparison to the former. My point is that you share a mentality with terrorists who sought to undermine a liberal democratic republic, not build one. By equating the ballot box and ammo box, what you are really saying is, "Democracy doesn't work unless the government is afraid of being overthrown by force of arms." Does it really make sense to you that the Founding Fathers would endorse such an idea?