Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: RP
- One need not be one to judge. I'm not a statist, for example, but I can judge George H. Smith to not be one as well. I can also judge Obama to be one. How is that?
On Dec 31, 2011, at 6:12 PM, MikeHolmesTX@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/31/2011 3:11:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> premise : Ron Paul is a staunch advocate of the 'American constitution'.
> premise : The american constitution is not a miniarchist legal document.
> conclusion : Ron Paul is not a miniarchist.
Premise # 2 is clearly debatable.
Since you are not by your own admission a minarchist, who are you to judge?
- We are not amused.
On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
I meant that in the unroyal "we" sense. ;)
JoOn Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Dan <danust2012@...> wrote:We?
On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
And, Dan, if it weren't an equal contest, how did we lose?
Jeff O.On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
Well, Vietnam was more than equal enough to be unsupportable by a volunteer army, that's for fucking sure. The casualties dwarf our modern "USA uber alles" modern wars. Incidentally, American casualties in Vietnam exceeded those in Korea by around 20,000 in deaths. Equality in equipment, etc., isn't a necessary condition for suffer terrible losses (58,000 in Vietnam).
JOOn Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:I don't even think Vietnam was an "equal contest." Actually, hard any war ever is, but I think you have to go back to Korea to see something close to parity in combat deaths. Even then, I don't think they were. They were simply more evenly matched that Vietnam or later wars. And combatants likely had similar levels of training and equipment.Regards,DanTo: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Nuclear weapons and libertarianismWell, I'm not sure it hasn't deterred some from signing up. But I think the popular perception is that while it's dangerous over there, we are nonetheless completely dominating the area militarily (that was the gist of a conversation I recently had with military-employed relatives).
Now if it became an equal contest (much like Vietnam or WW 2), I very much doubt the military would get enough volunteers to fight against well-motivated. well-trained, and well-equipped (say) Wehrmacht soldiers who could kill them at a very high rate. The only way that kind of conflict could be manned would be through a draft, imo.
I've watched videos of American soldiers clowning around and giggling why blasting away at apparent civilian targets. I have this feeling there wouldn't be quite as much merriment against forces quite capable of matching them equally.
I wonder how brave our soldiers would be against a powerful military that employed drones and Apaches and other high-technology "kill-vehicles" against them?