john harvey wrote: >> Their main job was anything but being military. That was a >> secondary or even >> tertiary duty. They weren't just there to fight foreign armies, but >> to be >> ready to fight tyranny, from within or without. > > // Everything from that period that I've read drew a distinct line > //between militias and standing armies. Militias were not used for wars > //against other countries; they were used for domestic problems. > > We didn't have an army at that time, because we weren't a sovereign country. > We were under British rule and their army was here. Our militia was formed > to fight whatever it needed to fight. (Sounds like we're saying the same > thing as we circle the issue)<G>
That would be something like the Iraqi's militia fighting a foreign army? Or a middle east militia is considered 'savage' instead of 'patriotic'? Of course you might answer they are savages because they kill each other too. But.... let me see.... didn't you have a civil war? Whom were you killing then, Dutch? _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
