Simon Britnell wrote:
>
> In an earlier post, Alice opined:
> > I don't agree with a national army either, ...
> Standing armies (even small ones) are vitally important because they
> place a lower limit on the number of lunatics which have to get their
> heads together before they can forcibly spread their insanity.
I'm afraid I agree with the need for a national army, for much this
reason.
I add another reason, though:
A well-trained and organised rapid-response team of people used to
coordinating things with each other comes in very, very useful in a
range of national emergencies.
Armies can - often don't, but can - provide temporary housing, food
and medical care for cities and towns devastated by natural disasters.
Emergency services personnel and charities can do the same, but the
redundancy is rather comforting.
YMMV.
Jenn V.
--
"Do you ever wonder if there's a whole section of geek culture
you miss out on by being a geek?" - Dancer.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jenn Vesperman
http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
