|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) In a sense, they're the same thing. You can't occupy land that someone else is living on. But the introduction of money taxes-- thus requiring colonial peoples to earn money, and thereby alien- ating them from the land and subsistence--was the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) I wouldn't call that a "conspiracy". They don't have to be clandestine to lobby for the continuation of the "war on drugs", in good or bad faith. I'd just as soon see the drugs legalized and have the drug dealers and drug-law enforcers put out (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) the (...) Dunno about LFB, but I think the destruction of the Aussie aboriginals was more related to power & bigotry than economics. ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun. The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not organized on the larger scale, of course.) (...) This is the traditional way that Britain (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
