🚀 go-pugleaf

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: If you want to argue that accepting Federal money makes a part-time force into a
: standing army, be my guest.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  For me at
least, the one who signs the checks is the boss.  And a Federally funded
standing is not my definition of a militia.  Thats my definition of an
army.


: %Aha - so its an army now?  Sure there not in the same militia?  (Forget
: %it, you made my point)

: Negative.   It is a Reserve of the United States Army _and_ a category of
: Militia.  That's what dual role is.

The Guard is not the Reserve.  Its a standing army, be it a federal army
or a state army - but its still an army.  

: %deployment of an all national guard unit to the Sinai, and other FEDERAL
: %deployments during peace times.  The whole time I was a reservist we never
: %called ourselves a militia - we always trained to the ARmy standard and
: %training for federal contingencies except for CD - but even that was to
: %the federal standard.

: Of course.  Back to the bit about Militia Law of 1903.

Back to the bit about the uniform tags reading "US ARMY".
(Nothing about a militia there)

: %Well have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't recognize the
: %definition of a standaing army as being equal to that of a militia.
: %Regardless of the veracity of the need for a militia, thats immaterial to
: %the argument which seprates an army for a militia.

: I'll conceede that.

Most gracious of you. 

: %: OK, I'll go halfway on this one.  The NRA vociferously supports those who
: affirm
: %: the basic premise of the Whiskey Rebellion, which is that the Federal
: Government
: %: does not have the power to tax (whether it be in general or them personally).

: %
: %I don't ever remember seeing tht as part of there platform.  I think you
: %might be reading into your rhetoric on that one.  Last time I checked they
: %were not a tax lobby, but a gun lobby. 

: I didn't say that they made that case.  Just that they argue for the right of
: those who do make that case to own assault weapons.

You still haven't made your point here.

: Nope.  What broke the US resolve was the Tet Offensive, which was about as
: conventional as the 12th SS Panzers.

Time broke the US resolve.  Any war, dragged on for an indefinite period
of time, with no definable goals, and a limited subset of actionable
fronts that don't effect an enemies supply lines and moral resolve will be
lost.  War is not about taking land, its about crushing your enemies will
to fight.  If you take his will, you've won the war.

: Of course the Continental Army got it's head handed to it.  But it's victories
: first attracted French support, and finally decided most of the campaigns.  Most
: notably at Yorktown, which decided the war.  And the Continental Army was
: undoubtedly the center of gravity-if they had dispersed, the war would have been
: over.

Thats awfully myopic, how can ytou dimish the contributions of people like
Thomas Paine and other partisian leaders?

: Read more carefully.  I didn't say the regulars won the war alone, just that it
: was hardly the partisans that won it finally.

My conention was that the partisians won the war, without the partisians
the
war could not have been won.  I do certainly conceed that the war was also
won thru the valiant efforts of the contential army, but it is my
supposition that the deciding efforts the war were caused by the radical
under current fin the colonies at the time (read the radical partisians
running around killing anyone and everyone that was Pro-British).

: Not an insurgency.  A PR campaign. 

I'd call throwing the British out of India an insurgency, but I will
conceed that that PR played a huge role in Mr. Ghandis succesful route of
the British.

M. Shinn