I agree with Simon Britnell's reasons for a standing army. Those reasons are
the same ones the founders of our republic understood completely.
The difficulty arises that they could not forsee what has occured in the
last fifty years of our presidents sending troops to fight in 5,6,or7
wars(depend
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
In an earlier post, Alice opined:
> I don't agree with a national army either, ...
Oops. Sore spot. A little light reasoning for you:
Living in a well policed country which hasn't seen armed conflict on its
soil in your lifetime tends to make you myopic about the nature of the
world in general
