Since we were just talking about the Swiss...
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=player_profilepage

Switzerland has a crime rate that we could only hope to have one day.


Switzerland was also the only European country not taken over by the Germans in WW2; Jews in Switzerland were not rounded up and taken away in cattle cars. They maintained their freedom.

Or as Machiavelli said:
"The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

So you are saying Switzerland is about like....



Texas?

Have you forgotten that Sweden was neutral in WW II?


Hitler asked his Generals what would happen if he invaded it.


"They would fight like HELL", he was told.






Hitler could have rolled up Switzerland in a week if he wanted to.

Surely you cannot be propounding the idea that just because the Swiss people had handguns and rifles they could have stood off the Luftwaffe, the SS and the Wehrmacht???!!

Why does everyone treat Hitler like god? He was taking over a completely pacified and controlled (chemically and sociologically) populace that was all but totally disarmed. He had the wealthiest entities funding him, some of the brightest and most fit men in the world to engage in the actual battles, and lead them. A f***in 10 year old could have done at least as well as he did.

That said, Switzerland would have been like the Spartans. Germans wouldn't have known what hit them. They would have gained little and all but wiped out a good enough portion of the troop count to bring the war to an end. Let's be real, an armed populace, trained and invested in IT'S OWN DEFENSE is awful hard to beat and impossible to occupy. (See: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan...) Unless they're trained to be slaves, and that's not real easy. Hell it's been going on here for at least 100 years and still, gun sales are at an all time high for fear of government tyranny.

on the topic of the mighty gun...

the pen (in the hands of, say, greenspan, wall street, framers of nafta, etc.) seems to have been proven to be mightier than the sword (or gun, if you will) - at least in the last twenty years.

(unless you've figured out how to "gun down" the national debt and the trade deficit? )

(and the swiss' hands aren't so clean re: wwII, collaboration etc.)

The Germans didn't invade Switzerland because it would have been very costly. To costly for what they would have gained.

Switzerland is a mountanious country, and all Swiss males are well armed and know how to shoot. So you would be invading a country of snipers. The Swiss can raise an army of half a million fairly quickly, even by WW2 standards that was pretty good.

Just look at the Finish war of 1939 to see how it works.

I remember reading about a coversation between a Swiss general and a German general. I forget their names. The Swiss general said I can raise an army of half a million men. The German general said well what would you do if I invaded with a million men? The Swiss general simply said, I would instruct my soliders to shoot twice!:D

They didn't JUST have hand guns and rifles-they had automatic weapons and they know how to use them. That is exactly why ****ler didn't attack Switzerland. Look at what a few poorly armed jews with a strong will to live did in the Warsaw Ghetto to the Germans. Imagine what would have happened if the were well armed and trained like the Swiss.

A wise man once said, "A will that has sacrificed everything including survival on the achievement of a definite chief aim will very likely prevail."
Very few other countries had the will to win, just to survive, and so, they lost and were conquered. Napoleon Hill wrote a very interesting piece on the German, Japanese, and Russian mentality of that period. Now days, the Taliban, Iraqis, Afgans, etc. have that kind of will...

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he didn't need to. The Swiss, armed with any weapon, were not standing in the way of Hitler's plans. Besides, the Nazis needed a safe place to send their money.

The Swiss refused entry to thousands of Jewish refugees while the Swiss government already knew that they would be sent to the camps and would face death.
There is no reason to celebrate the Swiss for there roll during WWII.

Not hardly. The Swiss profited off the investments that the Third Reich and the displaced Jews made in their country, to the point that they paid 80 BILLION dollars some years ago to settle claims that they had illegally kept the money of the dead Jews, and did it without batting an eye lash. I think it was 1996.

They were the bag men.

it is a small country with a lot of mountains. the mountains make Switzerland a more difficult military target. In addition, Switzerland never felt the need to go out into the world and conquer other countries.

by not allowing every tom, dick and harry to enter their country they have maintained their national integrity. we, on the other hand, have allowed just about anything that walks or crawls to move in.

here are some photographs of some of those we have allowed to move in letting us know exactly what they think of our great country........

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/03/29/the-american-flag-comes-second/

Actually, way back in medieval times the Swiss were the most feared mercenaries on the European continent. One of the Holy Roman Empire's popes made an agreement with Switzerland to assure their neutrality.

Okay, here's a link. I didn't read anything in this story about an agreement with a pope so that part might be attributed to my faulty memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

Bingo, we have a winner. Switzerland maintained its "independence" because of their banking industry and reputation for extreme discretion on financial matters. If the Swiss ever outlived their usefulness they would have been no match for Nazi Germany.

I stand corrected. I didn't realize that was their history. makes sense though....it appears the decision to remain neutral has served them well.

Swiss mercenaries are like all mercenaries: individuals that fight for profit for whom ever will pay them. The fact that they are Swiss does not mean that Switzerland as a country fought other countries and overtook them. Not sure how you made that leap.

I think we as a country would have a much lower crime rate if all people living in the USA were forced to join the army for three years during youth years.

X2.
Even as a part-time reservist, you develop better physically, make useful friends, learn things, and develop maturity--- or someone punches you out :D

You guys don't want to pay for Iraq. Wait till you see the bill for 3 years of universal service.

But it will make outstanding citizens...:rolleyes:

You would have outstanding citizens if they were following a policy that gave them the opportunity to do things that made them outstanding. Now we have soldiers who become outstanding citizens in spite of the policy...

What policy is that?

We need to start doing that more often.

Yup, three years of welfare for young people who could be contributing to the economy. I really need to pay more taxes?

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland not out of fear that he would loose because the civilians were armed but because the Swiss were fencing the gold that he stole from the Jews. In return they were supplying him with arms. It is the same reason that he didn't invade the Vatican. The Vatican was turning over Jews to Mussolini and issuing travel documents to escaping Nazis.

deals deals and more deals. it's all politics.

for a REALLY interesting read on IBM, Ford Motor Co, and other U.S. based company's involvement with the Nazis, check out THIS:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914153102/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

and....

http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Nexus-Corporate-Connections-Holocaust/dp/0914153099/ref=pd_sim_b_1

the swiss figured that evetyone else was getting rich, so..

and, don't forget the whole aluminum-lead (as in octane boost) -ig farben - silesian mining -brown brothers harriman - prescott bush (small fry, but still, well, father and grandfather of presidents) - john j mccloy - the dulles boys and more world war II scheming and wheeling dealing.




after all, there's patriotism. but then, there's profits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUIBxUqiWQ

;)

Why is it that the two most liberal folks here don't want to pay for believed tax increases associated with universal service, yet the left is willing to raise taxes and spend like the planet has never seen on other things?
Since when would a universal military service plan raise taxes? If crime dropped and we had three years of service- military or civilian corp- they would be doing projects for the civilian sector.
I don't know about you- but I'd sure rather pay my taxes to see folks in service than see it go to welfare junkies.

The swiss have it correctly- a group with common backgrounds tends to move in concert with each other and has less friction.

I'm definitely a fiscal conservative; I do not want to pay more taxes for anything; especially anything to do with the military. Have you ever seem me in favor of anything that would raise my taxes? I am always in favor of less government, including less military.

How would "universal service" not cost the taxpayers more money? What would they do that would off-set current publicly supported activities? What makes you think "universal service" would reduce crime? You are talking about creating a large number of new federal employees with no useful mission. This is just another big government program, similar to public works programs that were created during the depression. I don't think we can afford this experiment in social engineering at the moment. If this is what you really want to do, just implement a military draft; you don't have to give it a new name and you can pay them as little as you want.

If you want to pay for something with my money, how about some job training for unemployed/underemployed people supporting families?

Let's start with the basic numbers, since you have implied you know them. How many individuals would be required to serve?
But I have no expectation you can provide those figures since you have no understanding of g'ment spending and taxes for the last 25 years.

[QUOTE=Craig;2358218]I'm definitely a fiscal conservative; I do not want to pay more taxes for anything; especially anything to do with the military. Have you ever seem me in favor of anything that would raise my taxes? I am always in favor of less government, including less military.

QUOTE]

And you voted for Obama:confused: I don't get it. Did you not read the prospectus?

I want a K31, I'm told they are nail drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Lcvyrifw&feature=related

1k yard hits are pretty good for whats a $500 rifle these days.

Did I ever say that I voted for Obama?

Let me be clear, I want the smallest, cheapest, weakest government possible. That includes a much smaller military. A U.S. government with less resources can cause less mischief.

If you are not a wanted felon and have 45,000 for a residence permit, you can live in Switzerland as a resident alien.

So please don't talk about tom, dick, harry and abdul, since with 45K they are enjoying the cafe live of Zurich...as long as they have cash, no matter where they got it.

I never fired mine at anywhere near that distance. I sold it and still have a box of ten rounds, (591-1100) let me know if you get one.

I did not say I knew the "basic numbers" and I never used that term. You say that, then you say you have no expectation "...since you have not understanding...". Strange how you believe you can speak for others you are talking to and tell them what they know. Let's be honest- you just don't like what I say and you are trying your best to get me to cross the line and get infractions. Quite childish attempts, really.

You made this statement.
"Since when would a universal military service plan raise taxes? If crime dropped and we had three years of service- military or civilian corp- they would be doing projects for the civilian sector.
I don't know about you- but I'd sure rather pay my taxes to see folks in service than see it go to welfare junkies."

How do you know this to be fact if you don't know the basic facts? Obviously, and typically, you don't. Why do you make such statements when you don't know what you're talking about?

It's really a silly idea because the military needs to get smaller once they get out of the current conflicts (the sooner the better). Unfortunately, they can't be downsized until that happens; so they will continue to suck up too many tax dollars for at least several more years.

I asked you to show that it would raise taxes and you have not done in any way shape or form.
Please post a link to the study that shows universal service raises taxes- and include the projected savings due to the lower crime rate and lesser need for LEO's and reduced court functions.
It may even cost more- but since when does a left as left can get like you raise taxes? You just print more money and raise the debt ceiling!

I asked a question- and you have decided to believe you can extrapolate that to ideas I never put forth and then tell me those ideas are facts which I now must prove- again which is childish.
George Bernard Shaw told me about wrestling folks like you.

You asked me no such question.

yes, but do they allow the resident aliens to hoist their flag over an upside down flag of switzerland?

and speaking of every tom, dick and harry, some tom, dicks and harrys have walked and crawled their way across the U.S./mexican border and are living here free of charge. and it isn't just mexicans, either. a few from the north are also living in the home of the brave and the land of the free for free.

What about all those US military bases all around the world that suck up huge amounts of dollars?



Do we need all of them?


Why can't they be reviewed for their raison d etre .... and shut down, if their existence can't be justified?

According to some that post here, we are the "de facto" world cops and we got to live with it.
The folks we're protecting and serving have a great universal healthcare program, while we spend 3 times what they do for half the care. This seems wrong to me.

North American costs to attempt to control what is percieved to be good for them is an expensive and now possibly unaffordable and obtainable exercise. With the overall declining portion of the world economy and resultant loss of influence for North America these policies might have to be scrapped..

China hopefully will probably reach all over the world soon enough for the same basic reasons. I expect they may be smart enough to find alternatives to armed interventions. We do not seem to be that developed.

Perhaps reducing the costs somewhat for North America. Help in many forms will be needed if the current powers that be decide this is not in their own interests as well.

All the current interventions are not doing that well. There is no reason to expect any better in the future. It may be no different than if their armies and any others with a major culture difference to us were over here trying to control us to meet their needs.

It seems to always follow a pattern. Elect a puppet government that the bulk of the population do not want and try to ram it down their throats. This will usually always result in civil wars. Then stand back and claim they are fighting each other.

I canot remember why the russians were involved for a few years. They seem smart enough not to repeat the same mistakes though with other countries. It is reasonable to assume as things are now that a total loss is almost inevatable.

You know its pretty bad when the public reciently is told. If we could kill one man it might be different.Or we are fighting a small terrorist group.

Killing Ben Laden now might make no difference at all. Face is important I know. Yet wonder why they were not smart enough to accept his truce offer when it happened. The cost in human life and money has far outweighed the possible revenge motive as well.

Get rid of a corrupt government instead of supporting it and let the people deal with it themselves could work. That current government would fall in less than a month if the foreign forces were removed. Same senario in the middle east. Actually our current actions might be just begging for serious retaliation.

I have heard they are just fighting for true self determination still. If this is so why are we there? If they were really all terrorists there would be no hope. I have to wonder about how ingrained propaganda has really become over time. History may not be too kind to North America for the twentieth and twenty first centuries at the current rates.

As usual, the U.S. is prepared to fight the last war. IMO, the military needs to get smaller, cheaper including closing any bases that are not serving any real post-cold war purpose.

ok, cut the military. but first, can we invade switzerland and blow up some minarets? :D

by the way, i heard there's a connection between glen beck and, yes, ...minarets. film at 11

I guess I just assumed that you voted for Obama by your seemingly liberal opinions. I stand corrected (or do I?). As for the rest of your response- I agree 100%.

http://unreasonablysafe.files.wordpr...pg?w=239&h=187

It is possible to hold a set of opinions that does not fall neatly into the category of liberal or conservative. One can be a fiscal conservative while holding "liberal" views on social issues (or the opposite). IMO, the current political parties and the media are both performing a disservice by trying to lump everyone into two predefined categories. I suspect that the majority of Americans are niether liberal nor conservative as defined by the media. Just sayin'