How do we all feel about Military Parades?

[_EAllusion]

If google the phrase, "standing army, founding father" the very first link is a teaching website that explains normal view that I imagine most kids are expected to absorb before they hit high school:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-cont ... rian/24671

It offers an essay length explanation from a professor of history at George Mason on the near-universal opposition to standing armies among the founding fathers. It opens with:

In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”

[_Ceeboo]

Can I get a mulligan?

Meh. I don't really have a problem with a military parade.

Peace,
Ceeboo

But after reading the thread......

Military Parades should be the local VFW marching on the 4th of July. We should honor the men and women and the sacrifices they make. Military parades with large fetishistic displays of hardware glorify technology. We do not need to glorify technology.

I like this much better! (Thanks MeDot)

[_Maksutov]

Another suggestion: If we DO get a hardware parade, have all the military contractors pitch in and pay for the parade.

Dude. That's not how it works. Military contractors don't pay for things, we pay for them, plus general and administrative expenses, plus profit.

[_Jersey Girl]

Another suggestion: If we DO get a hardware parade, have all the military contractors pitch in and pay for the parade.

Dude. That's not how it works. Military contractors don't pay for things, we pay for them, plus general and administrative expenses, plus profit.

I don't know how things go currently, but when I worked for the Fed Gov, there were quite a lot of hoops to jump through to transport even one tank. He wants this to happen in D.C.? That requires special permits to transport the tanks on flat bed trailers through the city to a staging or holding area (Andrews?), depending on the location it could require escort vehicles equipped with warning lights, or at least it used to. And not only that, you needed qualified semi drivers and tank operators, and if you could get one person certified and licensed to do both, you were doing good. I used to make those types of arrangements on a fairly regular basis.

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to drive tracked vehicles down a paved road in the city proper either unless it's mission essential, and not just for the helluvit.

I understand that transportation was contracted out not many years after I left. I'm not entirely sure how that works now or how the contractors interface with the military for such an undertaking.

It sounds good on paper, but in reality, I think it's too costly. It also sounds like he's trying to compete with KJU. That couldn't be good!

[_SteelHead]

You are citing a section of the Constitution that does not support your point. The 2nd amendment provided a means for national defense that was supposed to help obviate the need for standing armies. It early drafts, this was explicitly stated.

You conveniently leave out facts, whereas a standing navy is provided for, and a standing militia is provided for. Point being, a standing military has always been intended, and this is further confirmed when a most famous founding father established the marine corps.

Your post is mostly ignorant of Article 1 Section 8, but I suggest you read it...as in read the actual text, not someone else's opinion of the text.

Nevertheless, the poster's blanket claim for what the FFs wanted is proven to be wrong. The poster's fallacy of appealing to authority has been exposed and that claim can be rightfully dismissed.

There was no standing army in the US until the "Act for the establishment of troops" was passed, Sept 29, 1789.

[_MeDotOrg]

Another suggestion: If we DO get a hardware parade, have all the military contractors pitch in and pay for the parade.

Dude. That's not how it works. Military contractors don't pay for things, we pay for them, plus general and administrative expenses, plus profit.

Okay, you're right. Let's have Mexico pay for the parade. Since they're not paying for the wall, it's the least they can do.

[_subgenius]

If google the phrase, "standing army, founding father" the very first link is a teaching website that explains normal view that I imagine most kids are expected to absorb before they hit high school:
...
The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”[/i]

Putting forth an "argument" by James Madison as being indicative of what the FFs intended or wanted is a fallacy and does not confirm the poster's claim...if you want to claim that some or these particular FFs wanted this or that, then sure - but that is not what the poster was trying to infer.

It is easy, and appropriate, to say that the issue was debatable, for example Article 1 Section 8 does not actually say that an Army should be created whenever and then just have a shelf-life of 2 years...nope, this is a typical Congressional direction about budget lifespans...and the mere presence of a navy that is to be maintained, argues that having a more permanent form of military was palatable...and this is further supported by the details for particular State Militias to be somewhat "standing" in nature (bearing in mind the whole popularity for State sovereignty etc..).
Nevertheless, these are perhaps arguable notions because thy are indeed Constitutional - ergo, the living-and-open-to-interpretation document.

So, what do we know as FACT inasmuch as history can provide such a thing?

1. The Continental Army was disbanded following the Revolutionary War (circa 1783) - EXCEPT for those "standing" troops that guarded munitions (West Point, Fort Pitt, etc.)...and of course the 4 "well-manned" militias of about 700 men to deal with Indian threats (and some butt-hurt Brits). This was known as the FIRST AMERICAN REGIMENT and was under the command of George Washington when he took office in 1789. So, perhaps disbanded is the best term

2. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788 and by the end of the first session of Congress (1789) the standing army was in place, all by the power and will of the Founding Fathers...except now it removed the States' ability to refuse sending men. George Washington (a founding father) had urged the establishment of "some uniform and effective system" for the military (note that early in the first session Congress established the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the War Department....a triumvirate of priorities indeed).

3. Indeed the Battle of Wabash (a.k.a. disaster) was an evolutionary point for those who thought a standing army was unnecessary....and it is still foolish today for those who relish in their ignorance of our nation's history.

So, while we can easily go back and forth with facts and speech quotes from a variety of FFs, the facts remain in contrast to the original poster's claim about what the FFs intended/wanted.

[_Maksutov]

Trump didn't get a big crowd for his inauguration, so he's going to create a parade to salve his wounded ego.

[_subgenius]

Trump didn't get a big crowd for his inauguration, so he's going to create a parade to salve his wounded ego.

Do you have factual knowledge that the parade will incorporate President to any degree?

[_canpakes]

Trump didn't get a big crowd for his inauguration, so he's going to create a parade to salve his wounded ego.

Do you have factual knowledge that the parade will incorporate President to any degree?

Lol.

I suppose that we could place some bets one way or the other. Where do you stand on the possibility of Dear Leader showing, or not?