[Osborn F Enready]

Castille said: So you can say, with absolute precision, that you have never suggested or implied a total removal of taxed?

Not at all, nor is that what I implied. I have often argued from the perspective of having no taxes, as opposed to the taxes we have now as they are, but usually to draw out in my opponent their arguments for the necessity of taxation, and then shredding them when they say that is what we have.

Why not debate the points, and the valid arguments instead of looking for one time sited philosophical hangmen with which you seek to frame MY argument around?

I am here now....

Castille said: There's no such thing as a "defensive" and "offensive" military force.

Really? Strange then that they teach the basics of offense and defensive force allocations, tactics and strategies then isn't it? The military obviously recognizes the difference, so why don't you?

My argument is that force should be limited to the age old concept of defense of people and land. We were not to have an offensive military, and that was not the reasoning used to create it. We are Constitutionally a nation which seeks military isolationism, no entangling alliances with other nations, and no goal of oppressing or changing nations or peoples around the world. We were meant to have a "reactionary" defense force, not an "actionary" or inititator offensive force in role description and application.

Castille said: They can be configured to a defensive role, but would still be capable of offensive operations.

I am talking about LIMITATIONS, not their actual design. Legal limitations, to be beholden to standards, and punishable by such, according to the people they are in place to protect. Clear limitation on the projection of force unless meeting certain qualifiable criteria defined by the people, and determined by their representatives along those strict guidelines. This is NOT what we have had for the last 150 years.

Castille said: Furthermore, how would a completely defensive army deal with pre-emptive threats? Would you prefer to wait for the enemy to burn your farms before reacting?

Imminent threat is a valid argument. The Bush/Iraq War debacle is proof of the folly that this has become of this standard under bi-partisan leadership. The Congress and Senate "lack of"oversight controlled by the bi-partisan monopoly on power for the last 150 years is directly to blame, as they are for the notion of unitary executive, and explicitly unconstitutional war power, as is the War and Emergency Powers Act, as is the unjust view of prohibition except in cases of right violations such as murder, theft or fraud to mention a few.

Let me be clear for you.

The reality of the world demands a competent national defense force, that is capable of REACTING to serious threats offensively if the need arise.

REACTIONARY force is the main thrust of their limitations, not their tactical outlay or abilities if offensive forces are needed. I fully support the specialized interdiction, observation and combat units such as the Navy SEALs, the Army Rangers, Delta Force, as well as other such units. They are surgically capable of using force in offensive high risk situations that are sometimes necessary, while truly at heart being offensive geared operators.

There is a need for both offense and defense ability, but all of that offense should only be, and limited to justification for only DIRECT THREAT to our land, our people, or our national intrests. (NOT corporate intrests, as has often been associated with NATIONAL intrests by lobbyists and special intrest groups)

Castille said: I never mentioned that I don't trust people. Can you provide me with a direct link to a specific quote where I say that?

This is what you said that I was referencing.

Private "corporate cops" aren't exactly ideal, and "civilian police" will simply result in lynch mobs, disorganised justice ("Hey Billy-Bob, I reckon we shoulda shoot them fellas for stealing"

What makes the fed or state "title" more apt to pick responsible, law abiding people than private, local or city sources?

Why is a corporate cop, or a civillian cop somehow less professional than state or fed cops? What did you MEAN by that statement if not this highlight of their apparent (to you) differences?

Why can't local authorities be as apt to be effective as more nationalized forces, in your opinion?