So they’re just all just total fools and no one has a brain in their head besides your team?
facepalm
Do please grow up. “My daddy can beat up your daddy” retorts have no place here.
If you wanted to strawman what I said, yes.
I can protect myself, thank you. I’ll put in my own work. You can keep your military though.
Everybody here should buy the book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace edited by Henry Elmer Barnes. The chapters are each done by some great Revisionist proffessors.
This isn’t a measure of effiency, it is a measure of who can afford the largest gun.
Seriously? Where did you get that conclusion from? Obviously not from the facts of the situation.
Actually, Germany brought the US into the European theatre by declaring war on the US. Pearl Harbour brought the US into the Pacific war, but the US did not use that as an impetuous to declare war on Germany and Italy. Furthermore once Germany brought the US into the war, US shipping became an obvious target for German U-Boats. So the US was not, as you seem to believe, able to sit back and ignore the fact that it was in the conflict.
Because supplying German enemies unconditionally with subsidies and weaponry was not entering the war.
OK. Officially, the US declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the US, but official isn’t always reality. It’s similar to Lincoln putting his federal troops in the sovereign state of South Carolina while not “technically” declaring war.
Read this book.
My friend, it’s a simple question of effectiveness. If we are all to have our own private armies, shouldn’t we want to know how well they stand up to public armies first?
Which army wins is a clear test of effectiveness. If the armies were of the same size, it might even become a test of efficiency.
A stupid argument for two reasons. Firstly yes, supplying one side of a conflict, but not actually joining the conflict hardly constitutes ‘entering the war’. Secondly, the US prior to Pearl harbour, had also invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Nazi Germany as well. In was only in June 1941 that the Nazis actually froze US assets in Germany. Companies such as Ford Werke, which produced tens of thousands of military vehicles for the Nazi war machine only came under complete German control (even though US assets had been frozen) after the US had entered the war.
What, American had declared war on Germany and just not told anybody?
And why would a read a Pearl Harbour conspiricy theory book when I know the conspiricy theory has been debunked? Indeed I personally know a couple of guys who have played a role in debunking the military intelligence side of the myth.
I’m not your friend, and what you’re proposing is might makes right. You think that stealing is ok for the government because it’s got more weapons and can have a big army. How disgusting.
You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by ‘might’, ‘might’ manifestly is what determines ‘right’. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its ‘might’?
I guess you didn’t think this through.
He thought it through. It appears you just did not read what he said.
Spidey: you know we can summarise the contribution your post brings to this topic with the following; “Nu-uh”?
Want to try again?
Israel says it was an accident, I believe them. You can choose to believe Lew Rockwell if it makes you happy.
I’m only saying that might makes possible. And I don’t see why we can’t be friends here. Anyways, shouldn’t we find out whether our private army is going to be able to defend us from a publicly funded one before we put all our chips in that basket? Is it unreasonable to try to ascertain the efficacy of our plan before we act on it?
RIGHT IS IRRELEVANT!! Someone will come and take everything from us without ever asking if it’s the right thing to do. They’ll just do it because they can. How are we going to defend ourselves guys??