National Security, Swiss-Style

[ServiceSoon]

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]

HA

Who are they?

Have you ever driven and or been to Walmart? Let's just say the Swiss are a bit different.

 

[SoCalShooter]

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]

Hmm

Was Hawaii not part of the US at the time?

 

[stevelyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.