Re: Better off with armies?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously arguing that, throughout history, "people as a whole" have been better off with armies than without them? Are you some sort of hero warrior cultist or just kidding?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you're a hippy or what's going on here, but you need armies. You need armies because if you don't have armies other people kill you, and that's a bad thing. Sure it would be better if we didn't have armies but the other guys don't leave us with that option.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you have thought this through or not, but can you tell me the last time having an army stopped a determined invasion? It didn't help Iraq, South Vietnam, Kuwait, France, Poland, ect. During the Iran/Iraq war the only thing that stopped Iraq's initial attack according to most historians is basically incompetence. There is apparently no reason for Saddam to halt his attack a few weeks in and give Iran a chance to import arms from the US and organize a defense.
What is stopping the US from invading Canada? Certainly not the massive Canadian military.
|