National Security, Swiss-Style


PDA






xd9fan
June 12, 2007, 01:43 AM
National Security, Swiss-Style

by Nick Bradley


Contrary to popular belief, history has repeatedly shown that societies do not need full-time, government-funded militaries to defend themselves – a heavily-armed populace will suffice. Let us look at Switzerland. Since 1291, Switzerland has defended itself through the use of a heavily-armed populace and a robust militia. Throughout the past 800 years, the Swiss citizenry has defended their liberty against threats both foreign and domestic.

A Revolt against Taxes and Inflation

During the Thirty Years’ War, the Swiss Confederation was the only major power to abstain from hostilities. As a result, the Swiss economy boomed from the wartime drop in productivity, selling agricultural products at high prices to war-ravaged countries (similar to the US agricultural boom during World War One, with agricultural output almost doubling). However, Swiss cities spent much of their resources building fortifications, such as bastions, to protect from invasion. The redirection of resources away from productive, commercial endeavors towards security reduced the tax base for the Cantonal governments. Additionally, the war’s heavy financial burden caused France and Spain to suspend payment to the Cantons for mercenary services rendered.

In order to maintain revenue, the Cantonal governments began raising taxes. In order to keep wealth local, the city governments responded by debasing their currencies to reduce the real amount of tax payments to the Cantonal governments; Berne, for example, arbitrarily reduced the value of the copper Batzen by 50%, while other areas practiced coin clipping. At the same time, European agricultural prices plummeted with the economies of southern Germany returning to pre-war production levels. Swiss monetary authorities reacted to the price reductions by further debasing the currency.

In reaction, the Swiss peasantry demanded a return to previous levels of taxation and an end to inflation, which Swiss authorities refused to do. As a result, an armed Swiss peasant revolt swept through the country, forcing authorities to eventually accede to their demands.

The Helvetic Republic

During the French Revolution, radical French ideology infected much of the Swiss elite, particularly in the French-speaking Western Cantons. Swiss leadership acceded to French demands in 1798 and established the Helvetic Republic. The Radicals, backed by the occupying French Army, abolished the Cantonal governments and established a centralized state. The citizenry, particularly in the Catholic Cantons, rose up and challenged the centralized state and the French military presence through both armed and passive resistance. In 1803, Napoleon introduced the Act of Mediation, which restored the Cantons and removed all French troops from Switzerland.

20th Century

In the 20th Century, Switzerland deterred invasion and forced involvement in both World Wars with its rugged terrain, a heavily-armed populace, and a policy of relative non-intervention. Prior to WWI, the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers. In response a man from Switzerland replied: "shoot twice and go home".

During the Nazi invasion of France, the Luftwaffe violated Swiss airspace over 200 times; the Swiss responded by forcing down Luftwaffe aircraft and even shot down 11+ Luftwaffe aircraft. The Third Reich responded by sending in saboteurs to destroy Swiss airfields, an unsuccessful endeavor. Shortly thereafter, Hitler called the Swiss "the most despicable and wretched people, mortal enemies of the new Germany" and began immediate plans for the invasion of Switzerland, known as Operation Tannenbaum.

Hitler abandoned Operation Tannenbaum after it was realized that an invasion of Switzerland was untenable, with 20% of the civilian population voluntarily mobilized to defend the country – including old men and young boys, with Swiss women manning anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) pieces and running the civil defense corps. The Third Reich also realized that there was no central government to target, nullifying the strategy of blitzkrieg; most Swiss citizens did not even recognize the authority of the Federal President, and any surrender by the Federal Government would have been ignored in the Cantons.

The Swiss also defended their sovereignty against Allied aggression as well. After US aircraft began accidentally bombing Swiss towns near the German border, the Swiss Air Force enacted a policy of forcing down single Allied aircraft and shooting at Bomber Formations (some have speculated that the bombings were not accidental and were designed to force Switzerland in the Alliance; during the war, the Swiss flaunted Allied and Axis sanctions by smuggling to the surrounding Axis powers). As accidental bombings persisted, the Swiss government declared that any further accidental bombings would be declared acts of war. Although Switzerland never declared war on the Allies, the Swiss Air Force forced down 23 aircraft in a three-day period in July of '44. In total, 1,700 US airmen were interred during the War and a few US aircraft were even shot down (this chapter of WWII history is entirely missing from US textbooks).

The "Swiss Model", American Revolutionary Principles, and Private Antiterrorism

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution were inspired Swiss freedom. John Adams praised the Cantonal system, which prevented a despotic central government from emerging, gave citizens the right to vote in local elections, and where every citizen had an inalienable right to bear arms. Patrick Henry applauded the Swiss militia system for preserving Swiss independence with the need for a "mighty and splendid president." In fact, some argue that the Swiss militia system was the inspiration for our own Second Amendment.

Impressive efforts by the Swiss public over the years just goes to show that voluntary self-defense efforts by a population can deter even the most aggressive of enemies. What if we applied Swiss-style defense here in the United States?

The US government could arm all 90 million adult males, age 18–64 with an M-16 and 1,200 5.56mm rounds (40 30-round magazines) for a one-time cost of about 1% (7 1/2 billion dollars) of the cost of our current annual combined security budget ($750B+). Terror threats could by quickly identified by private intelligence agencies such as Total Intelligence Solutions; voluntary civil defense corps would begin patrols of neighborhoods and offer assistance/protection to any victims if an attack actually occurred. If foreign retaliation was necessary after a terrorist or military attack, private military companies (PMCs), such as Blackwater USA or Triple Canopy, could rapidly expand their force strength by hiring local militia units and collecting financial contributions from corporations and patriots. Fourth-Generation Warfare expert and creator of the Global Guerillas blog, John Robb, envisions a future privatized security apparatus:

Then, inevitably, there will be a series of attacks on U.S. soil. The first casualty of these will be another institution, the ultrabureaucratic Department of Homeland Security, which, despite its new extra-legal surveillance powers, will prove unable to isolate and defuse the threats against us. (Its one big idea for keeping the global insurgency at bay – building a fence between Mexico and the United States, proposed in a recent congressional immigration bill – will prove as effective as the Maginot Line and the Great Wall of China.)

But the metaphorical targets of September 11 are largely behind us. The strikes of the future will be strategic, pinpointing the systems we rely on, and they will leave entire sections of the country without energy and communications for protracted periods. But the frustration and economic pain that result will have a curious side effect: They will spur development of an entirely new, decentralized security system, one that devolves power and responsibility to a mix of private companies, individuals, and local governments. This structure is already visible in the legions of private contractors in Iraq, as well as in New York's amazingly effective counterterrorist intelligence unit. But as we look out to 2016, the long-term implications are clearer.

Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks – evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as

Warren Buffett's NetJets – will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security – as they do now with education – and shore up delivery of critical services. These "armored suburbs" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America's cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge.

This is what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they called for a robust militia, strong protection of the right to bear arms, and warned against standing armies. With the removal of the false assurances provided by the security state, Americans will need to take responsibility for their own security – personal security; we should follow the fine example the Swiss have set, an example that inspired our own revolutionary founders.

Perhaps this is what Ron Paul–style national security would look like.

June 11, 2007

Nick Bradley [send him mail] is an analyst in the United States Air Force and is currently pursuing an M.A. in Strategic Intelligence at American Military University. Comment on his blog, Confessions of a Right-Wing Libertarian.

If you enjoyed reading about "National Security, Swiss-Style" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Autolycus
June 12, 2007, 03:39 AM
Got a link?

xd9fan
June 12, 2007, 09:49 AM
sorry
found it here http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bradley1.html

GRIZ22
June 12, 2007, 09:55 AM
The US government could arm all 90 million adult males, age 18–64 with an M-16 and 1,200 5.56mm rounds (40 30-round magazines) for a one-time cost of about 1% (7 1/2 billion dollars) of the cost of our current annual combined security budget ($750B+).

The problem with this is there is no mandatory military training in the US as there is in Switzerland.

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 10:00 AM
"The problem with this is there is no mandatory military training in the US as there is in Switzerland."

It should be part of the High School curriculum. Like Driver's Ed.

Jefferson

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
June 12, 2007, 10:08 AM
Yeah, that policy would work great for the US. We would wait until the enemy had invaded, and was burning our cities, and then we would grab our M16's and drive them out! GO WOLVERINES!!!

Switzerland is in a unique position, with terrain that precludes easy access by the enemy and no strategic value whatsoever. Tyrants need a safe hidey-hole for their money, why would they mess with Switzerland?

Applying the Swiss military model to the US is nothing but Libertarian nonsense.

eric_t12
June 12, 2007, 10:32 AM
maybe libertarian nonsense, but having a well-armed, well-educated populace is DEFINATELY a positive for a nation. both of the aforemention reasons should be self-explanatory, and i definately DONT mean that they need to be educated by any institution, or the state.

my parents taught me more about life than any school ever did. the school just helped me with math.

Titan6
June 12, 2007, 10:34 AM
The Swiss have seen their share of terrorist bombings but they will never see an invasion unless the left succeeds in disarming the populace as they have been attempting to do lately. Part of the reason that the banking system has been so successful is the fact that the country has not had a war in over 200 years. This says safe to a lot of people.

I was unaware that the "accidental bombings" were that numerous. I did read a novel once about a pilot who was interred there during the war after he was shot down.

Could it work here? Sure. It would take a lot of work though and include a total reworking of the education system in this country and a change of attitude on the part of political leaders that I don't see happening. It is too bad really. It would make the country more secure, cost less than our current system and improve the citzenship of our country. But the fed would have to decrease in size, and that won't ever happen.

30 cal slob
June 12, 2007, 10:39 AM
look i love the swiss and everything, but it's not like they're going to need a huge standing army/navy (?)/airforce as long as they have no foreign policy.

i mean, for the most part, the are still formally (!) neutral on a lot of things.

MrRezister
June 12, 2007, 10:45 AM
I tend to agree with SPECTRE on this. Arming the US Population would be pretty much useless. (But cool.) Having an armed citizen-militia would be fine in case of a full-scale invasion, but where will those invaders come from? Mexico? Canada? Atlantic? Pacific? Parachute in "Red Dawn"-style? By the time any invading force got here, our military would have been legitimately deployed to intercept them.

Of course that would only work if our military wasn't spread out as thin and far away as possible. While the troops are away, winning the hearts and minds of potential enemies overseas, I guess it's a great time for an invasion!

MrAcheson
June 12, 2007, 10:47 AM
Could it work? I doubt it. The US is in an entirely different strategic situation than Switzerland. Among other things, the US needs a Navy because we have large coastlines and are directly dependent trade by sea.

The reason we moved away from an emphasis on militia is that it never really worked. Militia performance during the revolution was poor and it wasn't any better in the War of 1812. And, as mentioned above, we already needed a Navy so why shouldn't we have a standing Army?

Mikee Loxxer
June 12, 2007, 10:50 AM
SPECTRE is right on this one.

Marshall
June 12, 2007, 10:53 AM
It'll never happen to Switzerland. Who in their right mind would bomb a country with all those beautiful women. :D


http://www.star-radio.net/images/eurovision/Switzerland.jpg





Besides, I'm scared to death of a country full of men armed with these:


http://www.swissknifeshop.co.uk/swisschampxlt.jpg

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
June 12, 2007, 11:08 AM
Please don't misunderstand, I believe that an armed populace is useful as a last line of defense, and an enormous dissuader to a foolhardy invasion attempt on US soil. Japan noticed our proliferation of citizen marksmen and never seriously considered an invasion of the continental US.

But a citizen militia can't be a front line fighting force. We might win with sheer numbers, but look at the Soviet losses in WW2 to see why it's not the best solution.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm a conservative with some Libertarian leanings. But I have to part ways when Libertarians promote isolationism.

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 11:15 AM
Still wouldn't it be great to get up one morning and get a package in the mail with your very own M-4, M-9 and 1200 rounds for each with a note that says "Courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security?"

Jefferson

xd9fan
June 12, 2007, 11:16 AM
Our foreign military intervention policy needs massive change.
I also understand the logic of a well armed population to be a check on our OWN Govt as well as foreign invasion.

Military nonintervention IS NOT isolation.....God I love the spin:rolleyes:

But a citizen militia can't be a front line fighting force. We might win with sheer numbers, but look at the Soviet losses in WW2 to see why it's not the best solution.

somethings telling me their is a massive difference btwn the Soviet people and the swiss.....

MrRezister
June 12, 2007, 11:40 AM
Military nonintervention IS NOT isolation.....God I love the spin

But, but, but... if we're not out killing potential bad guys 24/7, we're leaving ourselves WIDE OPEN to terrorist attacks! Lord knows they'll never be able to attack us here if we give them an easy target in their home countries, right? Since we can't get anyone to seriously consider watching the people who come into the country, our only other option is to use our massive military force to go out, find bad guys (and potential enemies) and squash them before they ever get to our shores. We are the U. S. of Frickin' A. We can't afford to be on the defensive. We have to kill all the bad guys until whoever is left likes us. [flag wave]

Marshall
June 12, 2007, 11:54 AM
The author..........from Ron Paul's meetup site. Kinda young, but enthusiastic.


Nick Bradley

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/172/members/4309135/


http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/6/5/d/1/member_1946065.jpeg


Location: Omaha, NE us

Link: Right-Wing Libertarian

Introduction:
"I'm 26 and in the Air Force and I fear the Republic may already be dead. I've been a hardcore Old Right Conservative/Liberta rian for years now and I think that Paul is the only candidate that can salvage the country and restore the Republic. "

Stats:
Meetup member since June 5, 2007
Group member since June 5, 2007
Last visited in the past week
nick bradley's Meetup Groups:
The Omaha Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group
nick bradley's Ron Paul 2008 profile

oobray
June 12, 2007, 12:02 PM
I thought this was interesting. However, when I started looking up Swiss laws regarding RKBA... They pretty much DO NOT recognize a RKBA. There are very few laws governing who can purchase a weapon or what type of weapon. But in order to take it out of your home you must have a "purchasing license" and it must be unloaded. If you wish to try and get a "license to bear arms" good luck. According to this site (http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/immigration/relocation/weapons/bearing.html) your chances are very few, and getting fewer.
While that article makes thier defense system sound good, I'm not so sure about where they are headed as far as RKBA.

ServiceSoon
June 12, 2007, 12:05 PM
Actually, the Swiss model is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for the USA. The founders were strongly against standing armies during times of peace (this is evident in many past documents). Unfortunately, like a lot of the USA’s original political principals, this philosophy has been ignored and our military budget continues to be many times higher than any other country.

I hate to sound like a pacifist (because some people here will call me feminine), but can you imagine all of the technological and medial advances that could have been made with ¼ of our military budget over the last 50 years?

atblis
June 12, 2007, 12:06 PM
I think the Switzerland model most certainly would not work here. Too many stupid people (and they're getting what they deserve).

Switzerland had a few more things going for them than an armed populace and mountainous terrain.

General Geoff
June 12, 2007, 12:07 PM
While the United States is no Switzerland, we already have a fairly large portion of the population that's armed with military-grade firearms (i.e. us).


In our case, an armed citizenry comes as a response to a need, not a desire. Take a look at the L.A. riots from the early 90's. People were scrambling for guns (but unfortunately had trouble procuring them legally, as they had shot themselves in the foot with their waiting period laws) as a result of the violence spilling out onto the streets. I'd imagine that any kind of enemy invasion would invoke the same kind of response.

Marshall
June 12, 2007, 12:14 PM
I think the Switzerland model most certainly would not work here. Too many stupid people (and they're getting what they deserve).

Who are they?

buzz_knox
June 12, 2007, 12:16 PM
The Swiss have seen their share of terrorist bombings but they will never see an invasion unless the left succeeds in disarming the populace as they have been attempting to do lately. Part of the reason that the banking system has been so successful is the fact that the country has not had a war in over 200 years. This says safe to a lot of people.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation these days. The banks are safe because the country hasn't gone to war. The country hasn't gone to war because the banks were where the people most likely to invade kept their money, and Switzerland was also where combatants could meet and do business, with each other or third parties.

Switzerland's terrain and populace make invasion a very dicy proposition, but the primary reasons for invading are also the primary defenses against invasion.

budney
June 12, 2007, 01:22 PM
Yeah, that policy would work great for the US. We would wait until the enemy had invaded, and was burning our cities, and then we would grab our M16's and drive them out! GO WOLVERINES!!!

You're ignoring the deterrent factor. What idiot attempts to invade a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth? If you read the article, you'll note that Hitler considered invading Switzerland--and changed his mind.

There is unfortunately no alternative, unless you think that slaughtering people who haven't done anything to us, because we think they might do something to us in the future, is moral. But if it is moral, we should start right here at home: poor black teen-aged males, for example, are more likely to commit crime than any other demographic. We should preemptively execute them.

--Len.

ServiceSoon
June 12, 2007, 06:41 PM
To your point I have heard that is why Japan never attacked US soil during World War II. "Because there is a firearm behind every blade of grass."

atblis
June 12, 2007, 08:04 PM
Who are they?
Have you ever driven and or been to Walmart? Let's just say the Swiss are a bit different.

SoCalShooter
June 12, 2007, 08:14 PM
Well I want a main course of m4 and a side of m1911 please! I love the idea it would be good to have a WELL educated and WELL armed populace, however the Swiss are in a unique position they have very difficult terrain and rather than trying to invade them countries find it more viable to hide accounts of money there, that being said I noticed that somone mentioned it could be taught in schools, I am all for teaching gun training in schools just like drivers ed, you do not have to own a gun just like you do not have to own a car but you should atleast know how to use one.


re: service soon

Actually that was Admiral Yamamoto he is also the one who stated "we have awakened a sleeping giant" and technically they did attack us on our own soil in Alaska...well sorta anyways...

atblis
June 12, 2007, 08:54 PM
Was Hawaii not part of the US at the time?

stevelyn
June 13, 2007, 01:18 AM
Was Hawaii not part of the US at the time?

Hawaii was a US territory in 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a naval action designed to cripple US Naval capability in the Pacific. The Japanese never intended on landing an invasion force and occupy US territory.

The occupation of the Aleutians was only to secure forward operating bases.

Caimlas
June 13, 2007, 02:54 AM
Having an armed citizen-militia would be fine in case of a full-scale invasion, but where will those invaders come from? Mexico?

In a word? Yes.

By the time any invading force got here, our military would have been legitimately deployed to intercept them.

Well, that's funny, because we've had troops and government police (Border Patrol) attempting to do just that for quite a while now, yet they still seem to have been able to bloodlessly (aside from all those who were murdered, raped, etc.) conquered most of New Mexico, half of Texas, and a good portion of both Arizona and California....

Now, let me tie this in: despite all this, every citizen having guns and being part of a militia would not have probably helped, unless it were culturally institutionalized and everyone took it as their personal responsibility to act as independently interested in the welfare of the country. That hasn't happened with our current situation - the government will be here to help, shortly.

But given our current culture, and any culture which might exist in the foreseeable future after arming everyone, such a safeguard would do no good due to the lack of will to do what is needed.

amprecon
June 13, 2007, 01:29 PM
It's too late for the "Swiss Model" to be applied here in the U.S.. The majority of our citizenry here are not loyal to the United States and are disillusioned with our government, whether it be controlled by Dems or Reps.
The defense of our country by only a volunteer citizenry would be paltry and superficial at best. The citizen defenders would be chided into apathy by the status quo.
There is no longer loyalty to our country, it's a predominant loyalty to where they immigrated from. Their objective is to transplant it here and to legally deny anyone from doing anything contrary to their success.

budney
June 13, 2007, 01:55 PM
It's too late for the "Swiss Model" to be applied here in the U.S.. The majority of our citizenry here are not loyal to the United States...

They don't have to be "loyal to the United States." All they need is to "not wish to be raped and pillaged by invading huns." They won't be fighting for the Bush administration; they'll be fighting for their sons' and daughters' lives.

That's the beauty of the militia model: you don't have to rally to the defense, if you'd really rather watch your wife and daughter be raped in front of your eyes. It's entirely your own choice.

--Len.

Marshall
June 13, 2007, 02:28 PM
They don't have to be "loyal to the United States."

With all due respect. If they're not, I wouldn't want them fighting beside me anyway, and would prefer they didn't. Actually, I would prefer they reside somewhere esle, somewhere they would be loyal to their country.

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
June 13, 2007, 02:38 PM
You're ignoring the deterrent factor. What idiot attempts to invade a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth? If you read the article, you'll note that Hitler considered invading Switzerland--and changed his mind.


If you'd bothered to read my second post, you would have read this:


Please don't misunderstand, I believe that an armed populace is useful as a last line of defense, and an enormous dissuader to a foolhardy invasion attempt on US soil. Japan noticed our proliferation of citizen marksmen and never seriously considered an invasion of the continental US.


Let me ask you this: was it wrong for the US to fight Germany in WW2? Was it wrong for us to embargo Japan, because it caused them to attack us? If we withdrew all of our troops from everywhere right now, do you think that would end the Islamic Fascist threat? If not, what would? These are the questions I have for Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy.

buzz_knox
June 13, 2007, 02:57 PM
The recent fatwa against India is instructive in this regard. Because India has not forfeited its claim to the Kashmere (which is at least arguably Indian territory and thus India is minding its own business), the call has gone out for jihad against India.

The days of "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" are long since over . . . if they ever existed.

budney
June 13, 2007, 03:31 PM
With all due respect. If they're not, I wouldn't want them fighting beside me anyway, and would prefer they didn't. Actually, I would prefer they reside somewhere esle, somewhere they would be loyal to their country.

I can't say whether I agree or disagree with you, because frankly I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "loyal to the United States." Do you mean literally loyal to the "states," or is it sufficient to be loyal to your own state (in my case, Pennsylvania)? Or are you referring to the United States as if they are one country, and so meaning that we must be loyal to Washington D.C.? And by loyalty to Washington, DC, to you mean that we must be "loyal" to the current administration, or that we must be "loyal" to an idealized notion of the United States, as symbolized by the Constitution?

Practically nobody is loyal to the intentions of the founders; the proof is that our welfare state isn't dismantled, practically every president since Lincoln has avoided impeachment--let alone tarring and feathering, or execution--and the nation is split 51/49 between those who want government force to be used to bully foreigners, and those who want government force to be used to bully citizens of the states.

So are you demanding that people be loyal to the framers' vision? In that case, Washington D.C. is a nest of treason that needs to be taken out. Or are you talking about loyalty to the people themselves? If so, once again D.C. is a hotbed of treason. Or do you mean that we need to be loyal to the D.C. of today? If so, you can count me out: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

--Len.

Marshall
June 13, 2007, 03:58 PM
I can't say whether I agree or disagree with you, because frankly I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "loyal to the United States."

I quoted you budney. You tell me? :rolleyes:

I've never heard so much double talk bla bla bla in my life.

The subject is defense of our country. We're talking about arming citizens. Reason? Protection from invasion or take over. "Loyal to the United States" would mean defending it from the above, by a foreign entity, people or government.

So again, if someone isn't loyal to the USA in protecting it from the subject we've been discussing. I would prefer they not be armed and prefer they leave.

Is it really that tough to grasp? Boy, I hope not.

budney
June 13, 2007, 04:12 PM
I quoted you budney. You tell me?

I didn't know what you meant by it then, either--and it didn't matter. I was pointing out that your neighbor will fight because he cares about his wife and daughter, not because he votes elephant or donkey.


I've never heard so much double talk bla bla bla in my life.

My apologies; I'm trying to give you a little credit, rather than assuming what you probably mean by "loyalty to the United States." Namely, the talk-radio BS that anything other than supporting G. W. Bush is "treason," and democrats, libertarians, and even anti-war republicans are "traitors" who "support al qaeda" and "want America to lose." That viewpoint, repeated by Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., is pure horse-hockey, so I thought I'd make a point of not assuming you think that.

(Confession: I also did it to slip the plural past you. I wondered if you'd object to my saying "the United States are." State sovereignty died 142 years ago. Anyone who says "the United States is," is either ignorant or else is literally disloyal to the United States.)


The subject is defense of our country. We're talking about arming citizens. Reason? Protection from invasion or take over. "Loyal to the United States" would mean defending it from the above, by a foreign entity, people or government.

Oh. Then anyone with a wife and daughter that he doesn't want raped is "loyal to the United States," since he will of course fight an invasion or takeover.

He won't invade Iraq at your whim, but that's OK, since Iraq is neither invading nor taking over. Fighting an offensive war of invasion increases threats at home, and is by itself a crime anyway, so anyone who incites the people to invade a foreign country is disloyal to the United States and should be imprisoned. At the very least, I'd rather see such people disarmed, so they can't pose a danger to themselves and others.

--Len.

Marshall
June 13, 2007, 05:06 PM
My GOD budney,

I hope you think about the answer to all your questions before we get invaded because by the time you get this figured out you would already have been shot.

OK Len, this is a silly game. You're not the idiot you're portraying. You know what I mean, I know what I mean. But for the hell of it, forget for a moment you have a wife and daughter so you can't hide behind them. If your lack of love and or loyalty to this country prohibits you from fighting against enemy invaders to protect this country from take-over by a foreign entity, people or government, in my opinion, you shouldn't be issued a firearm courtesy of the USA, I don't want you next to me and, I would rather you find a place to live outside of this country. Did I mince words?

Hell, I would rather you say "I'm too sceeeered to fight", at least then I could find some compassion and fight for you. But if you're willing to stand by and let this country be invaded and taken over because of your lack of loyalty/love for this country or because of your disdain for it, I might shoot you myself. ;)

(That was strictly hypothetical and in no way meant as a threat or course of action. Just used to make a point.) :)

budney
June 13, 2007, 06:34 PM
I hope you think about the answer to all your questions before we get invaded because by the time you get this figured out you would already have been shot.

You're acting like this is rocket science. It isn't. Invading horde? Shoot. That simple.


But for the hell of it, forget for a moment you have a wife and daughter so you can't hide behind them.

Please reread my post; you seem to have gotten confused. I'm on the green defending them, not hiding behind them.


If your lack of love and or loyalty to this country prohibits you from fighting against enemy invaders to protect this country from take-over by a foreign entity, people or government...

You definitely need to reread my post, because you've clearly missed the boat. I'm defending it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, because I don't want my home destroyed. By contrast, you seem a little confused, because you are demanding that I swear loyalty to domestic enemies--which I won't do.

But your post has demolished your own objection to the Mexicans who are "overrunning" the place: they, too, are ready to defend their homes against invaders. So by your definition, they are loyal Americans.

Except that isn't your real definition. Anyone who criticizes the current administration's foreign invasions, for example, is undoubtedly not "loyal to the United States" in your book. So you demand more than a willingness to defend our homes and hearths: you demand our approval of the slaughter of tens of thousands of people who never did anything wrong.

--Len.

Marshall
June 13, 2007, 07:34 PM
You're acting like this is rocket science. It isn't. Invading horde? Shoot. That simple.

Len, you're usually sharper than this, really. I am the one making a simple, easy, plain, statement. You're the one throwing out the double speak and the 20 questions, so get with it and quite making statements that have no merit.

Please reread my post; you seem to have gotten confused. I'm on the green defending them, not hiding behind them.

Sigh.......I suggested we leave your wife and daughter out of this for a moment so you can't hide behind them FOR THIS DISCUSSION AND A REASON FOR DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF DEFENDING THE COUNTRY ITSELF.

By contrast, you seem a little confused, because you are demanding that I swear loyalty to domestic enemies--which I won't do.

Since you substitute the term "domestic enemies" for the "United States of America", which you did, you miss the boat and should swim quick to catch it and be on it out of here. If you won't fight invading foreign enemies for the safety of this nation and instead say, if you do, then by default, you're swearing loyalty to domestic enemies (The USA), your priorities clearly lie with the enemy over this country, regardless how you spin it. That's despicable or just ignorant. I hope just ignorant.

No matter what you agree with or disagree with in regard to policy/politics, etc, you/we, can't change anything in this great country if it's taken from us by foreign invaders. But, your hatred for this administration and Bush, and to quote you, "Namely, the talk-radio, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.," is so great, and so entrenched, it has you consumed thus blinding you to that point. That, or, you're just an enemy of this country.


And BTW, illegals can't be loyal Americans, they're not Americans to begin with. They're criminals of a foreign country that are invading this country. In my opinion, they are an enemy, whether combative or not, of this country, whether they are willing to defend a home or not. That's simply wanting to survive, they can do that in their own country.

So........don't come back at me with double speak, 20 questions, twisting of words and meanings that are quite basic. I have been PLAIN and STRAIT in what I have said, a few times now. If you don't agree, that's fine, I already know you don't.

xd9fan
June 13, 2007, 07:51 PM
These are the questions I have for Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy.

cause our non "isolationist" foreign policy (Lets call it what it is: Our military intervention policy) in the last 60 years is kickin ass.

Our southern border sure is.....isolated

budney
June 13, 2007, 10:05 PM
I am the one making a simple, easy, plain, statement. You're the one throwing out the double speak and the 20 questions, so get with it and quite making statements that have no merit.

It's not simple, easy or plain what you mean by "loyal to the United States," since you yourself are not loyal to the republic founded by Jefferson et al. Your use of the phrase "loyalty to the United States" is doublespeak.


A REASON FOR DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF DEFENDING THE COUNTRY ITSELF.

The country is not the government, but you definitely appear to confuse the two. As a result you confuse "defending the country," which I support, with "defending the federal government," which today is treason against the republic. You are therefore in the contradictory position of insisting that I promise to defend and betray the American people at one and the same time.


Since you substitute the term "domestic enemies" for the "United States of America", which you did, you miss the boat and should swim quick to catch it and be on it out of here. If you won't fight invading foreign enemies for the safety of this nation and instead say, if you do, then by default, you're swearing loyalty to domestic enemies (The USA)...

See? It's as clear as day that to you that "the United States" is synonymous with "the federal government." They most certainly are not. The United States are sovereign, independent nations which have formed a federation for the purpose of securing the common defense and promoting interstate trade.

--Len.


You may not realize that "state" means "nation." Since Lincoln, it has been bastardized to mean "province."

It's good to remember, though: the United Nations of America have been converted from a federation of sovereign states into provinces beholden to a centralized ruler. The future of the U.N. will be the same, sooner or later. We should learn a lesson and pull out while there's still time, before the U.N. equivalent of Lincoln smashes the sovereignty of the member nations and forges them into an empire.

Marshall
June 13, 2007, 11:12 PM
Geeze, Len,

It depend what "is" is huh? And you're not double speaking? Laughable, if it wasn't retarded.

You say you won't defend this country because of the government and your hatred for it, but then, turn around and say that I confuse the country for the government. That's double speak.

You substitute the term "domestic enemies" for the "United States of America" but, when called on it, say that I do. That's double speak.

You have been saying that you won't defend this country, for many posts now, only your family, which is what this argument has been all about. Now you say.......""As a result you confuse "defending the country," which I support.""....... That's double speak again Len.

You won't defend this country. You use the term "United States" as your reason while trying to tie it into some blathering horse crap so you have an excuse that you think makes you look patriotic. But then say my use of the the phase "loyalty to the United States" is doublespeak. That's double speak too Len.

In fact, it doesn't make you look patriotic, it makes you look like a person weaseling a way out of a way to defend your country. I don't know what your real reason is, though I bet I do, but frankly Scarlett, I don't give damn because I don't consider you a fellow American.

Tell you what. If we're ever invaded, you protect your wife and kids because we all know that's all you do, and we know why. We won't expect you to defend your country.

We won't expect you to defend your neighbor or anyone else that needs it because your neighbor, IS THIS COUNTRY.

You just stand there, with a sign that says "This is not the USA and because of that, I will not defend her". Maybe it'll confuse the sh*t out of the enemy and they'll go looking for the USA elsewhere.

However, if they don't, the rest of us will fight so you can wonder around wherever you want, with that sign, stepping over the unfortunate that got shot, and be free doing it under the first amendment. While your at it, you can point out to everyone how unlawful we are and how treasonous we are. (ironic as hell huh)

But don't move to Iraq or Iran, you stay here in this POS hell hole as punishment. Here in the Not So USA where you have no freedoms and live under the rule of a King. I know you're trying to move and get out of here as fast as you can but we ain't gonna let ya.

Now, ask your Libertarians, which you are not, how they feel about a Conservative willing to pick up arms at home and fight an invasion while their so-called fellow patriot will not.

I'm done with you Len, you'll just double speak and I'm not gonna play with that ball no more. I'll give you the last word, go ahead, try to save yourself.

budney
June 14, 2007, 08:40 AM
You say you won't defend this country because of the government and your hatred for it, but then, turn around and say that I confuse the country for the government. That's double speak.

This is pointless; you keep repeating such statements without reading what I said. I believe in defending Americans from all enemies of the Constitution--including the federal government. You don't recognize the federal government as a domestic enemy of the Constitution because you don't care about the original intent, which has long ago been shredded and burned. The framers would consider you a domestic enemy for that--but thanks to George Orwell, you get to try and reverse reality by calling traitors patriots and patriots traitors.

--Len.

If you enjoyed reading about "National Security, Swiss-Style" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!