Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, and his "Nuking Capitals" Strawmen Arguments...

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: Why would a country want their capitol city nuked, Joe?

First: "...this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument" -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

What, if anything, does this question have to do with the argument on the utility of a standing military... or, for that matter, an argument on whether civilians could successfully repel an invading Army without a need for a standing Army?

I wasn't arguing from the standpoint that Canada wouldn't want to invade the US for fear of getting its cities nuked. However, advancing that argument raises the usefulness of a standing Army.

I've been in the US military cumulatively for over 1/5th of a Century. I know that we wouldn't need to resort to nukes if the Canadians tried to invade the United States. This mere fact makes your question, with regards to nuking their capital city, a "null and void" point.

We'd defeat them through conventional means. The Canadian military knows that such an act, invading the United States, would be suicide for them.

Realistically, there's no need for either country, under the current conditions, to invade each other. They did draw plans up, during World War II, for invading each other.

They did this from the context of countering an invasion threat from a hostile country. If a foreign power had invaded the U.S., there'd be a plan in place to liberate the U.S. using Canada as a launching point.

This would also be applicable had Canada been invaded. We would've had an invasion plan already in place to liberate Canada, from the U.S.

Mac, the Troops are Welfare Whores: Also, this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument, since I've never suggested getting rid of the military and having no means or system of national/regional defense, but I'm totally used to straw man arguments from you people.

Says the guy that asked questions about why a country wanted its own capital city nuked.

First, from this thread:

"I wouldn't need a mall or regular cop if I was allowed to open carry everywhere. Wouldn't need to troops either. Civilians with More guns than most of the worlds armies?" -- Devan Robert Nelson

In response, a poster says this:

"If you think civilians could take on an invading army your dumb" -- Ian Harmon

Your response:

"Yeah, that didn't work in Vietnam, did it?" -- The Troops are Welfare Whores

This in support of this statement:

"You'll get what the US troops got in Vietnam...... A massacre." -- Devan Robert Nelson

The trend in this part of the argument?

We don't need troops, just millions of armed civilians. Nowhere in there did you correct the other person with regards to the need for a standing military... but you ratified his comment about the alleged effects of "armed civilians" against a professional military.

That was the string, within the thread, that I was addressing, a string that had two points:

1. We don't need a military, just millions of armed civilians...

And...

2. Look at what happened in Vietnam, see point number 1.

I countered both claims with my response. I wasn't advancing a strawman argument. I was sticking to the points that were brought up.

Nowhere in my argument am I arguing against a citizen militia... in fact, I'm a strong supporter of having a lawful citizen militia. They exist per US federal law, as well as per the law of most states. I'm a supporter of their 2nd Amendment rights.

I simply refuse to believe; however, that they alone are needed for this country's defense.

Also, your "not believing" in arguing about the ability of a disorganized civilian militia doesn't constitute my making a "strawman argument" when I do advance my argument.

More on that in one of the following posts.