But that is why there is not an invasion in the first place…
Indeed, and mortality in battle was higher on the revolutionary side than it was on the loyalist/British. Indeed the real killer in the war, for both sides, wasn’t actually musket balls but desease.
The reason the British threw in the towel was primarily because she never fully committed to the war in the first place believing right up until the end that peace would be reached through concessions as opposed to military domination, secondly because of Britain’s spiraling national debt which the war was causing to increase far beyond tolerable levels, thirdly a natural distaste for fighting kin, and fourthly the decision of the French and Spanish Empires to join the war.
Your retort is ridiculous and purposely misses the point. Let me put it this way - the aim of public militarism is not defense.
Partially correct, the U.S., or FDR was inticing Germany and especially Japan to attack us. The Germans didn’t have the military power to go with us, and they were pleading for peace to the British. Mr. Roosevelt had prewar munition buildups and peacetime conscriptions too. Roosevelt in July 2, 1940 prohibited munitions exports and other desirable goods to war(food, etc.) without his advice. Roosevelt also had war plans made in 1940. He also had tried to intice the Germans into attacking us. His war ships were extending out past the Western Hemisphere. Remember War Plan 51?
You sir are an insult to all militias who took up arms against the British in their independence (uSA,etc) or against any enemy in our history(Ireland,Scotland,etc). If you think modern warfare would make things any different, like someone before me posted, all we need now is to acquire a few Nuclear weapons, Nuclear weapon making materials and factories.
Is this all necessary?
Poor Japanes. Everyone provokes them. The Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Americans… They really didn’t have any other choice than have a big navy in place for preemptive strikes against inferior races. I guess the Rape of Nankin is one the things they absolutely had to do to protect themselves?
Uh oh. No different than amerikkkan or russian imperialism and mass murder eh ? Or are you suggesting that the japanese are the real ‘bad guys’ ?
Define “effectiveness” because I think it is you who has not bothered thinking it through.
I’m not suggesting anything, much less than anyone is blameless. I just question some assertions here that it’s the Japanese (and Germans even) always seem to be “provoked” into attacking or committing atrocities. Black ships of Commodore Perry is not an excuse for imperialist invasions of other countries.
I think the point is that all sides commit unprovoked atrocities…
What is being objected to, I believe, is the idea that the American government had ‘no choice’ but to always engage in ‘defensive’ wars including WWI & WWII.
Not always.
Just in this particular case. It’s not a narrative here for me. It’s just the facts that I’ve seen which are a bit deeper than what my high school history teacher could tell me.
Not at all, your point was a strawman proffering a retort to a point nobody had made, and worse still it was a complete exaggeration aimed to score emotive points.
I take it you are ‘british’ ?
More capable in fulfilling its purpose; providing a greater insentive among other power to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent. Quite obviously a military that commands more might than its opponent has a far greater probability in fulfilling these aims.
Another example of a retort that basically boils down to “nu-uh”, but lacks anything to discuss or convince. Why don’t you explain the problem you have with my position? I will either offer a responce, or, if I find your argument to be insurmountable, revise my position.
What has nationality got to do with the price of tea in China?
Which has what to do with it being economically efficient, i.e. geared to serving its consumer’s needs? I bet in a sense gulags were “effective” too, as well as NASA, as well as the Soviet space programme… as is conscription, if you want a slave army… basically anything you throw bucket-loads of money at. Why don’t minarchists support it then?
Which I did, by asking his Lordship to define “effective”.
I lol’d.
Jon I hope you publish a book someday because you seem to be very well informed and I really enjoy reading your posts.
As I asked another user; what has that got to do with the price of tea in China? You are making a retort to point nobody has made. The point I have been attempting to raise and defend is not whether ensuring military ‘might’ is economically efficent, but rather does it fulfill the purpose of “providing a greater insentive among other power(s) to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent”. I am not attempting to argue that there are not firm reasons to oppose a military, financial cost being perhaps the least important.
Evidently you are confused. Requesting that I define various words within my post is not a substitute for formulating an actual argument. I hope that has put your confusion to rest.
Hence I opened with asking “effective at what”, because there is no point in formulating an argument if the term is not qualified to begin with…