America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers - Page 10 - Political Forum

Observer2 · 05-03-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

As someone studying history, I have to agree with this.

I also have to agree. Normally, I just read this forum, but today I decided to post. I've read every word of this thread and Truth-Bringer has won this debate conclusively. There is no need to respond further, Truth-Bringer, you have proven your case. Well done.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 05-03-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer

No, you haven't.

The vast majority of Founding Fathers, and a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers, supported the militia as the primary means of national defense. This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only. They would not support current U.S. foreign policy.

Yes, I have, as shown on post 72. You've failed to even reply to it, because your opinions consists of selectively ignoring facts that contradict your opinion. The Founding Fathers supported keeping a standing army (something you previously argued against) and they also specified that our standing army should not exceed 1% of the total national population. We have kept our standing army well beneath 1% of the total national population, so we are acting in accord with the founders on those issues and not in contradiction, as you have claimed.

The Founders acted to expand and protect US national interests and thus would have supported current US foreign policy which has done just that. They might have disagreed with how our foreign policy has been implemented, but the basic strategic dynamic they would have agreed with.

WEB

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 05-03-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer2

I also have to agree. Normally, I just read this forum, but today I decided to post. I've read every word of this thread and Truth-Bringer has won this debate conclusively. There is no need to respond further, Truth-Bringer, you have proven your case. Well done.

That's your opinion, but if debates are to be judged by popular opinion, then I will let the fact that the personification of Truth-Bringer's opinions (Ron Paul) and his total defeat in the national election of 1988 and his more recent total defeat in the GOP primary, show that his ideals have lost in debate.

Video: Ron Paul Booed At Debate For Bashing Foreign Policy : Ian Schwartz

The Paulist ideas that you and "Truth Bringer" espouse are laughed at by the American people, and it is you folks who have lost the debate.

WEB

Bartholomew Roberts · 05-04-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Yes, I have, as shown on post 72. You've failed to even reply to it, because your opinions consists of selectively ignoring facts that contradict your opinion. The Founding Fathers supported keeping a standing army (something you previously argued against) and they also specified that our standing army should not exceed 1% of the total national population. We have kept our standing army well beneath 1% of the total national population, so we are acting in accord with the founders on those issues and not in contradiction, as you have claimed.

The Founders acted to expand and protect US national interests and thus would have supported current US foreign policy which has done just that. They might have disagreed with how our foreign policy has been implemented, but the basic strategic dynamic they would have agreed with.

You guys both just said the same thing. You both said that the founding fathers supported the idea of Militia as primary defense, but also kept a small standing army.

The one place you disagree is when it comes to the foreign policy. And you rightfully disagree, because, as I thought about this, I realized that some of our founding fathers would approve, and others would not. The Federalists had no problem going to war in the interests of the nation, and therefore would support the modern nations actions. On the contrary, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans opposed military action, and would not stand for what the US is currently doing.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 05-04-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

You guys both just said the same thing. You both said that the founding fathers supported the idea of Militia as primary defense, but also kept a small standing army.

The one place you disagree is when it comes to the foreign policy. And you rightfully disagree, because, as I thought about this, I realized that some of our founding fathers would approve, and others would not. The Federalists had no problem going to war in the interests of the nation, and therefore would support the modern nations actions. On the contrary, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans opposed military action, and would not stand for what the US is currently doing.

I think the Founders didn't "support" a philosophy of having a militia as the primary means of national defense. The Founders implemented a POLICY of having a militia as the primary means of national defense because that's all they could afford. Saying that the Founders had a philosophy of militia as primary national defense because they implemented such a policy, is like saying that India believes in having extremely unsanitary conditions because they implement policies that do not address the lack of sanitation in their cities. In reality, they have no money for those projects, it's not that they don't believe in sanitation, just as with the Founders, they had no money for a large standing army and that is the main reason they didn't have one.

WEB

Bartholomew Roberts · 05-04-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I think the Founders didn't "support" a philosophy of having a militia as the primary means of national defense. The Founders implemented a POLICY of having a militia as the primary means of national defense because that's all they could afford. Saying that the Founders had a philosophy of militia as primary national defense because they implemented such a policy, is like saying that India believes in having extremely unsanitary conditions because they implement policies that do not address the lack of sanitation in their cities. In reality, they have no money for those projects, it's not that they don't believe in sanitation, just as with the Founders, they had no money for a large standing army and that is the main reason they didn't have one.

WEB

But by the time of the Civil War, the US definitely had the money to build a large standing army, yet the majority of those fighting were militia. So even if it wasn't really the founding fathers' intent to have a small standing army,the idea of depending on Militia carried through and is still seen today in the National Guard.