how do we measure the amount of security the State has given us?

[Anarchist420]

is there really any way to know? and is a standing army even worthwhile even though nothing guarantees security? ill agree that it is inevitable that people will be attacked by outside invaders from time to time, but i just think that mathematics concludes that having a standing army has not saved liberty.

and Hamilton wanted a standing army to enforce legislation and to setup an empire, not to protect the liberty of the people.

even the War of 1812 would not have happened had there not been a nation-State governing what were the 13 colonies because individuals wouldnt be fighting on the high seas for glory unlike the U.S. govt which was trying to build up a global navy but not one with any intent of securing liberty.

i just cant think of a single time the u.s. military protected liberty without taking away more liberty than necessary to protect liberty. the imperial japanese army didnt protect liberty. the chinese military in the 1930s didnt protect liberty and neither did the one of today didnt protect liberty. Nazi Germany's military didnt protect liberty. the British Empire never protected liberty. Napoleon's army never protected liberty and no french military since then has protected liberty. the Empire of Rome never protected liberty and its predecessor failed because it was always fighting wars. the CSA military would not have protected liberty after independence was won.

 

[Doppel]

The English army did not protect liberty against Nazi's?

Has any major nation lived long without a standing army?

 

[IronWing]

The purpose of a military is not to protect liberty. Hope that clears things up.

 

[Lithium381]

The purpose of a military is not to protect liberty. Hope that clears things up.

It's to protect the State.

 

[Anarchist420]

The English army did not protect liberty against Nazi's?

churchill was the initial aggressor trying to police the world. what happened was the british elite guaranteed the polish that the british had their backs, and hitler didnt attack britain until the British State attacked him for attacking poland.

Has any major nation lived long without a standing army?

that's a good question, but it is not easily answerable because few nations have not had standing armies. but the ones that did like ireland back in the day did pretty well.

 

[Doppel]

churchill was the initial aggressor trying to police the world. what happened was the british elite guaranteed the polish that the british had their backs, and hitler didnt attack britain until the British State attacked him for attacking poland.

So Britain says it will protect Poland, hitler attacks Poland, Britain responds, hitler then attacks Britain, and Britain is the aggressor? Hitler didn't start it?

 

[JEDIYoda]

churchill was the initial aggressor trying to police the world. what happened was the british elite guaranteed the polish that the british had their backs, and hitler didnt attack britain until the British State attacked him for attacking poland.

that's is thre most insane, idiotic, blatantly ignorant, goofy, off the wall statement you have ever made!

So let me get this straight had Churchill sacrificed the Polish people to Hitler there would have been no WWII??

 

[waggy]

churchill was the initial aggressor trying to police the world. what happened was the british elite guaranteed the polish that the british had their backs, and hitler didnt attack britain until the British State attacked him for attacking poland.

.

how do you continue to live? someone this dumb has to have trouble remembering to breath.

 

[unokitty]

is there really any way to know?

By definition, you can never prove that a particular entity is secure.

You can only prove that a particular entity lacks security.

Uno

 

[Anarchist420]

So Britain says it will protect Poland, hitler attacks Poland, Britain responds, hitler then attacks Britain, and Britain is the aggressor? Hitler didn't start it?

why would hitler have initiated aggression against britain? hitler was trying to get land back from poland. and dont we all know that churchill was the john mccain of his day, always loving war and trying to police the world?

anyway, more people should know what churchill did in the first half of the Great War (it was just one war won by the Wilsonians; trying to call them world war one and world war two is inaccurate).

i acknowledge that hitler was a terrible monster, but he wasnt on the levels of churchill and stalin. and even if hitler had somehow beaten stalin without being too wounded to conquer the rest of europe, there is no denying that would've been a lot less worse because at least hitler got some votes (and he got a lot of votes once he took power) while Stalin got none and churchill was hated after WWII.

anyway, the truth is that modern europe has pretty much always had a tendency towards fascism and it wouldnt have been as bloody had hitler took over all of europe compared to anything being controlled by stalin... 4 million germans, austrians, and hungarians were murdered by the soviets after WWII, many more women were raped, and then those who were remaining had to flee if they we were lucky enough. and there wouldve been no cold war on our end had hitler and stalin went at it by themselves.

By definition, you can never prove that a particular entity is secure. You can only prove that a particular entity lacks security. Uno

true

So let me get this straight had Churchill sacrificed the Polish people to Hitler there would have been no WWII??

see my reply to Doppel reading ralph raico would help too.

 

[Anarchist420]

and this.

 

[dank69]

The amount of wealth you have is the measure of how much security your government is giving you.