?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Proposition

Our standing army is the greatest threat to our liberty. Discuss.

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
seamusd
Nov. 5th, 2005 04:41 pm (UTC)
Our standing army is only the tool of those who have seized power. The greatest threat to our liberty is our own apathy which has allowed the current right-wing political machine to have free reign to destroy two centuries of American values.
dbroussa
Nov. 5th, 2005 08:16 pm (UTC)
The military is the instrument of liberty not the opposite. In the end we are not China, and if the gov't ordered the troops against the people it would not work well for them. I once read a quote that gov't is the monoppoly of power, and this is why every totalitarian regime takes away all weapons from their subjects. The US military is not the only power in the US and this the gov't does not hold a monopoly. Secondly in the end WE are the gov't and thus we decide when and where the military goes.
seamusd
Nov. 6th, 2005 08:47 am (UTC)
...in the end WE are the gov't and thus we decide when and where the military goes.

Ideally that may be the case on paper, but "we the people" did not decide to send the military to Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Vietnam, or Korea. Also, strong evidence suggests that the current Republican administration was not fairly elected by the people, both in 2000 and in 2004. "WE" cannot be defined by 40% of eligible voters. Americian democracy is critically ill.
dbroussa
Nov. 6th, 2005 02:16 pm (UTC)
The Us Congress authorized the military to be sent into Iraq, Viet Nam, and Korea. I would have to research Somalia and Kosovo, but I think those did not have Congressional Authorization (I may very well be wrong in that though).

Even so, the President as the HEad of State is the authorized Commande in Chief and cau use the military at their discretion as long as it is not declaring War (which requires Congress), and as long as Congress is willing to fund it. We elect the PResident, and we elect Congress to be our representatives in such matters. IF you look at the last election, roughtly 33% of the people in the US voted (a bit higher), and about 50% of those voted for President Bush. Once the election is over, the President represents everyone not just those who voted for him. The same was true when about 42% of the ballots cast elected President Clinton in 1992 and under 50% in 1996. The majority of ballots cast were not for President Clinton, and yet he was the President for everyone.

If our democracy is critically ill...it is because more of us do not vote, and because more of us do not take active interest in every level of our gov't. Recently I attended some school board functions to voice my displeasure about a school zoning proposal. The end result is that the school board is rethinking their proposals because many residents voiced similar concerns. Had they not, then it would have been incumbent upon us to remove them from office in the next election. BUt that is the real problem...we are too used to immediate gratification and are not willing to work the system the wya it is intended to work...Of course there is an strong argument that the oligarchs have made teh system harder to work to maintian their power...but that is another argument.
seamusd
Nov. 6th, 2005 05:44 pm (UTC)
"Even so, the President as the HEad of State is the authorized Commande in Chief and cau use the military at their discretion as long as it is not declaring War (which requires Congress), and as long as Congress is willing to fund it. We elect the PResident, and we elect Congress to be our representatives in such matters. IF you look at the last election, roughtly 33% of the people in the US voted (a bit higher), and about 50% of those voted for President Bush. Once the election is over, the President represents everyone not just those who voted for him. "

Whatever, that doesn't equal to "we the people" control the military. Take Iraq as the most recent example. The president used a lot of false information to make his weak case. Yeah, COngress voted to allow the invasion, but you didn't, nor did I. If "WE" controled the military as you initially said, there would have to be a national referendum each time the military is used. That would be impractical. The bottom line is that the people have no control whatsoever over the way the military is used in any country. The military is an instrument of those in power.
dbroussa
Nov. 7th, 2005 02:30 am (UTC)
It is exactly we the people. Yadvocating the idea that the public should vote on each and every decision to be made...that is impossible. The chaos would be such that nothing would ever get accomplished.

You may not like President Bush...you may disagree with his policy, but his policy represents the will of the people of the US that he is sworn to serve. If you don't like that policy, then you vote him out, or work with the system to change that policy. But it is still our gov't..until we cede that to the oligarchs.
seamusd
Nov. 7th, 2005 04:21 am (UTC)
"until we cede that to the oligarchs." Already done that! Ha! What do you think BushCo is? Clinton was much the same only not quite as bad.
dbroussa
Nov. 8th, 2005 02:59 am (UTC)
Clinton was much the same only not quite as bad.

He was worse in some ways and better in others.
seamusd
Nov. 8th, 2005 04:04 am (UTC)
You might find this... I don't know, interesting?

;)

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1ldyn/id2.html
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )