Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/19/2010 9:50:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
EXCERPT :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine that thousands of American citizens, wanting to leave the mainland in search of a better life and to populate a large, uninhabited island a thousand miles off the west coast of the U.S., petition the U.S. Government to live on the island under U.S. jurisdiction, ruled by a Federal Governor. The Government agrees.
No sooner have the emigrants planted the Stars and Stripes on the island than they strike gold, build up a healthy trade with the mainland, and become hugely wealthy. However, the Japanese, wanting to expand their sphere of influence and enrich their coffers, invade the island. The U.S. successfully defends the island in a major, protracted war which costs many American lives and drains the U.S. Treasury.
To offset the massive cost of the war and of guaranteeing the island's security (a cost which has produced large tax hikes for Americans on the mainland), the U.S. Government imposes a modest tax on coffee imported by the islanders. Some islanders refuse to pay, claiming that as they have no right to vote for members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal tax demand is unwarranted. They seize a U.S.-registered ship in the island's port and jettison its cargo of coffee into the sea. They also assault IRS officials, riot, and torch the Governor's mansion.
When a detachment of U.S. Marines is sent to the island to restore order, some islanders confront them with loaded rifles and with cannon stolen from the local Federal Armory. Shots are exchanged. besieged by the rebel islanders.
SNIP
The U.S. Government demands that the rebels lay down their arms and respect U.S. law. The rebels (representing perhaps only a third of the island population) refuse and declare independence,
SNIP
A full-scale war between the rebel islanders and the U.S. ensues.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
This fellow reminds me of Mr.Peabody and his wayback machine on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.
That phrase only applies when the loser is utterly destroyed and eradicated. It doesn’t happen with conflicts when the two sides settle the conflict by treaty...
RE: No doubt the author also feels that India gaining independence from Britain was “unjust.”
Not sure if India’s experience is relevant to the topic of Just War.
The author is talking about our WAR for independence. He is questioning the necessity of causing the deaths of thousands of people when perhaps, achieving independence in a manner similar to Australia or Canada could have been possible.
India did not achieve independence by warring with England.
Of course these are all ACADEMIC discussions. Interesting table talk but water under the bridge nonetheless.
That must be because Catholics have no Republic Identity. Or the Fact that the Rebellion as against a Tyrannical Protestant King.
Or Perhaps we Catholics Love this country as much as Protestants do.....
Take off you hat and bow at the waist when you say that.
To fix the problem let's suggest here that the "island" now has 1/3 of the nation's population, yet, due to the fact they live on this "island" the folks back on the mainland have denied them the right to vote, and have, in fact, imposed onerous taxes on them.
Back during our debates over the utility of the Census I tried to find out why George Washington and others considered a modern census to be a revolutionary advancement in statecraft. First I found out how many people lived in the UK.
That was a lot harder than I imagined. Seems NOBODY wanted to know that ~ there were Parliamentary disputes over the matter. Some towns had a census. Other towns didn't. Rural areas had not been counted since the DOMESDAY BOOK was prepared by William the Conqueror. Representation in Parliament had no relationship whatsoever to population.
When it came to the colonies, there were good estimates and some censuses had been conducted. Slaves were well counted since their presence posed a clear and present danger to the population at large (against which any slave rebellion would be lodged).
It turns out that the best estimates are that the 13 colonies had about half as much population as did the UK, not counting Indians and the French!
The Revolution wasn't a case of a "small nation" on the fringe of the known world challenging a "large nation" in the heart of civilization. No, America had become one of the "large nations" ~ by European standards ~ and its existence as such commanded respect.
Even the must justifiable of taxes would necessarily be submitted to the locals for approval!
The UK then proceeded to lose a war it couldn't win. Fortunately for them, they didn't wait until America had 10 times the UK population ~ as it did just a few decades later ~ then they'd been little more than an island in an American empire!
One of the strategies alinsky democrats must employ for the fall elections is to pit Catholics and Protestants against each other; Catholic voters belong to the democrats ... didn’t you get the Ted Kennedy/Tom Harkin memos?
The 1st amendment has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation of the federal government, and so subject to federal control. The militia of Lexington/Concord owed as much to the government back then as does today’s Tea Party - none.
I have a Maryland Carroll for an ancestor, KC_Lion. Spare me the didactic gymnastics.
I assume you also know that the Tolerance Acts were repealed and the Catholic origin of Maryland was by virtue of a very recent convert, Calvert, who improbably secured his haven for persecuted Catholics in England from a decidedly un-Catholic king, at a time when the pendulum had swung in the opposite direction, as it tended to do with some frequency, back and forth for over a century between Henry VIII’s break with Rome and the English Civil War.
In an overwhelmingly Protestant nation aborning, of *course* the one former colony with any significant Catholic population is going to back the religious freedom afforded by disestablishment of the State Church. They’d been persecuted by such just as the diverse Protestant groups such as Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Baptists and Lutherans had. It was in their interest to do so.
Now, if the good author Keown would just adjust to this historic reality himself. He seems to be rather heavily afflicted with the “not invented here” syndrome.
Nah I never was, and never will be a Liberal,Democrat, Progressive whatever, I am too much en-grained with our Founding to let that Happen
p.s. I am stealing your Prayer to Mary to use on the Unborn Pings, where did you get that?
Yes many Catholics did come to this country for religious freedom, and of course they would fight for it. So why do you try to diminish the Catholic Contributions?
And yes I don't understand why this author is try to justify to English, you could say to understand it, but you can understand where they other guy if coming from and NOT agree with him. (Something that Liberals Don't know how to do)
They were fortunate they had an inside track with the British royal family or they'd simply died.
No, they weren't tricked out of anything ~ and they always felt they were being saved personally by God for some even better purpose.
It never gets too difficult for those who believe God has preserved them, which is what these guys felt.
Any story about the Palatinates and Quakers that fails to note that the Scandinavians who'd been there earlier were evacuated from Lancaster to York is sorely incomplete.
Don’t worry I’ll credit him! :)
So do you support or oppose the author’s premise? Or are you neutral, viewing it as an interesting but irrelevant debate?
I oppose it. And I see it as relevant because it denigrates the rights of a people to take up arms against oppression.
>The 1st amendment has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation of the federal government, and so subject to federal control. The militia of Lexington/Concord owed as much to the government back then as does today’s Tea Party - none.
First, I cited the 2nd Amendment;
Second, if it were not for the actions of the government, the Tea Party would not exist as the major premise for the Tea Party is that the government should cut size & spending;
Third, the Militia and National Guards *ARE* linked, at least in some States:
NEW MEXICO STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XVIII — Militia
Sec. 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.]
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the “national guard of New Mexico,” of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.
Sec. 2. [Organization, discipline andequipment of militia.]
The legislature shall provide for the organization, discipline and equipment of the militia, which shall conform as nearly as practicable to the organization, discipline and equipment of the regular army of the United States, and shall provide for the maintenance thereof.
Fourth, The mention of the National Guard was within a parenthetical, it read as follows: “I would say National Guard, but then people might be able to argue that equipment belongs to the Army itself and I want to constrain the debate to the relevant aspects” — Thank you for proving me right.
Fifth, Instead of National Guard in my example I used State Police.
I don’t believe you’ll find a hard core lib that believes America ever fought a “Just War”. They’re simply not wired to believe that anything good or just could come from our country. I give you the ever bowing and apologizing Barry H. Obama as defense exhibit 1.
I rather doubt they were told that they were also signing their children into servitude. Did you read the link?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.