Do you support abolishing the military?

[Natural Citizen]

Got toobz?

During the South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate, Candidate Ron Paul was questioned by Gerald Seib, of The Wall Street Journal, about Paul’s plans to cut Defense spending by “several hundred billion dollars in the coming years that inevitably would cost South Carolina jobs. What do you say to people in this state who worry that your military plans would hurt the national security and cost South Carolina jobs?”

I would say your question suggests you’re very confused,” responded Ron Paul, “about my position.” Seib focused on the importance of South Carolina’s “seven major military bases and thousands of people employed into the defense industry.” Seib was particularly interested in why Paul would want to cut defense spending that would surely put thousands of South Carolina citizens out of work. “I would probably have more bases at home,” Paul told Seib. Paul plans to cut Defense spending overseas, not at home as Seib was inferring.

“After 9/11 I voted for the authority to go after [Osama bin Laden] and my frustration was that we didn’t go after him.” – Ron Paul
Congressman Paul vocalized the fact that we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora. What other candidate has even mentioned Tora Bora?


Paul noted that he gets “twice as much money from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So they’re saying that I’m on the right track. They’re sick and tired of those wars. They’re sick and tired of the nation building and the policing activity.”
The Wall Street Journal executive editor reiterated his point that Ron Paul’s “plan calls for freezing defense spending at 2006 levels.”
Ron Paul immediately corrected the editor by responding, “You still don’t understand.” After a few seconds of laughter, Paul continued.

“There’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, bigger than the Vatican, you consider that Defense spending. I consider that waste.” The crowd then erupted into cheers for common sense. Paul seized on the moment and explained that the first cuts he would make would be “some of this military spending, like Eisenhower advised us. Watch out for the Military-Industrial Complex. Defend this country. We have to have a strong national defense. But we don’t get strength by diluting ourselves in 900 bases, 130 countries. That is where the problem is.”


Following up this point Paul added, “Any time you spend money it’s a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax that’s attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation tax. The devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that, and that’s why I want to make the inflation tax zero as well.”

“This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy, that all we have to do is start another war? It’s warmongering,” Congressman Paul tells the South Carolina audience. “They’re building up for another war against Iran and people can’t wait to get in another war. This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in.”

Asked about the direction of the nation, Paul responded, “I think we’re going in the wrong direction for the protections of our liberties at home. They’re under deep threat. The Patriot Act has eliminated the Fourth Amendment. We now have a policy of preemptive war. You don’t have to declare war, and you don’t even have to have an enemy. We can start the wars. That’s what preemptive war is all about. Now with the military appropriations defense act, this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for [being] under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely without habeas corpus, and denied a lawyer indefinitely, even in a prison here [in America].”

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ok. I am disappoint. I guess RP and I will have to have a gentlemen's disagreement here.

 

[osan]

For what purpose?

Is this a serious question?

Really d00d - that is embarrassing. The reasons are manifold and as obvious as the ridiculousness of the question. Why has ANY would-be conqueror invaded another's territory? Why did the Romans do it? How about Germany? Crusade, anyone? and so forth down a wearying line of sorrowfully predictable and boring tales of masturbatory avarice, stupidity, and ultimately futility.

 

[osan]

Why ask why?

Why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did N Korea invade S Korea?
Why did did Japan invade Manchuria?
Why did the Soviet Union invade Finland?
Why did Germany invade Belgium?
Why did France invade Spain?
Why did England invade France?
Why did the Turks invade Europe?
Why did the Moors invade Spain?
Why did Spain invade the Incas?
Why did Macedonia invade Greece?

This is SO on point - bullseye.

Expecting rationality from the tyrant is notably less rational than two monkeys humping a football.

Since when did good sense and sanity have ANYTHING to do with such affairs?

 

[osan]

Are you insinuating that none of those countries had reasons to go to war on any of those occasions? Are you conflating Germany invading Belgium to China invading a country 300 times the size of Belgium and twice China's GDP? Are you conflating pre modern warfare to modern warfare, where Afghanistan or Iraq can financially cripple super powers in less than a decade?

He wrote nothing that could be construed to mean there no reasons. There are always reasons - i.e. causes - but in how many cases is INVASION justified? Is it ever? Can invasion ever be taken as defensive? In theory I can see it readily, but what proportion of such events actually were? 1 in 1000? Not saying I know, but given my readings it appears to be a small to the point of vanishing. If you examine these affairs CLOSELY and with a competent analytic eye, these actions all appear to be established on bullshit and lies that in turn are driven by nothing fancier than good old fashioned avarice - often gussied up by that bullshit to bring even the most paltry crust of the appearance of a legitimate cause. When all else fails, one can always resort to "God came to me in a vision and..." and people will often lay down for it, regardless whether they buy the line.

The question is not one of the presence of reasons - those are always there; it is a question of legitimacy.

 

[osan]

In my opinion we should keep enough military power to deter attack by foreign powers, but drastically reduce or eliminate military capabilities that could be used for foreign occupations or domestic counter-insurgency. It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between these kinds of military assets.

America's nuclear deterrent is sufficient to prevent attack by foreign powers such as Russia or China. We can keep the ICBMs, the jets, and the nuclear-armed submarines. These weapons pose little threat to a domestic insurgency but certainly deter any foreign aggression that could pose a significant threat.

The same cannot be said for standing ground forces. The Army and Marines once served a purpose, but today they are irrelevant to US national defense. They serve no purpose other than to invade foreign countries and threaten freedom at home, all for the benefit of "defense" manufacturer profits.

We should also get rid of all police except elected sheriffs and their deputies, and there should be strict citizen oversight of law enforcement. And this is to say nothing of the laws themselves, many of which are morally repugnant.

I would call this rational. However, the question of how to fund remains and if we are doing so by force, what have be bought in terms of being a free nation?

 

[Root]

I voted yes, but I'd keep the Navy around, with subermarines and aircraft carriers, they should be able to protect us for foreign invaders. A standing army does us no good. If congress declares war, then the army will rebuild itself quick enough.

 

[libertariantexas]

Considering a giant over expanded military has been the cause of almost all of our international conflicts, I voted yes.

Okay.

But there is a HUGE difference between the bloated military we have now and "No military."

The rational answer is that we should reduce the size of our military significantly, not abolish it.

 

[Brett85]

These are some crazy poll results. Would people really rather live under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians than pay a little bit to have a military for legitimate defense purposes?

 

[erowe1]

Is this a serious question?

Really d00d - that is embarrassing. The reasons are manifold and as obvious as the ridiculousness of the question. Why has ANY would-be conqueror invaded another's territory? Why did the Romans do it? How about Germany? Crusade, anyone? and so forth down a wearying line of sorrowfully predictable and boring tales of masturbatory avarice, stupidity, and ultimately futility.

I think one thing you'll find in common in all those tales is that the conquered people had governments with militaries prior to being conquered. The existence of the regime in DC with its own military makes America more susceptible to being taken over by a foreign empire, not less. My question was based on the premise (as the context of this thread would show) of the people of America being free.

 

[erowe1]

These are some crazy poll results. Would people really rather live under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians than pay a little bit to have a military for legitimate defense purposes?

That just seems crazy to me. I can't fathom how getting rid of our military would lead to us living under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians.

 

[Brett85]

That just seems crazy to me. I can't fathom how getting rid of our military would lead to us living under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians.

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

 

[erowe1]

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

Without a federal government here for them to take over, it would be completely impossible. What good would those militaries be to them? Beijing and Moscow have enough trouble keeping China and Russia under their control. Imagine them trying something 1000 times harder than what our government is doing in Afghanistan with less.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

1) A defense system-entirely different from a standing army 2) Do you seriously believe China or Russia have a desire to invade? Why? We're separated by massive land and sea boundaries. (Do you really believe the Russians or Chinese could maintain a sufficient supply line?) Neither of those regimes are in a particularly good position to launch an offensive against a far-flung, heavily armed population and militia system. Plus, the massive geo-economic disruption that would result from such a fool's errand would destroy them.

The Russians couldn't even defeat the Afghans who were armed with AKs, rocket launchers and other little toys. I mean, srsly. Think about this before you fear-monger.

ETA: Also, what erowe said^^

 

[torchbearer]

I could see scaling back to the Navy and "National Guard" along with the Coast Guard.

the idea was the states could maintain their own guards/"militias", and in times of war, the federal government would assemble a national army from those guards to DEFEND the nation from an attack on its mainland.
not what is happening now, and hasn't happened since 1865 when state armies were made illegal for the reason that it could possibly oppose the federal government.
Our national guard today is really under the control of the president, not the governor.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the idea was the states could maintain their own guards/"militias", and in times of war, the federal government would assemble a national army from those guards to DEFEND the nation from an attack on its mainland.
not what is happening now, and hasn't happened since 1865 when state armies were made illegal for the reason that it could possibly oppose the federal government.
Our national guard today is really under the control of the president, not the governor.

Truth. That is why there are Guardsmen stationed in the fucking 'stan and such places. Ridiculous.

 

[torchbearer]

Truth. That is why there are Guardsmen stationed in the fucking 'stan and such places. Ridiculous.

When Katrina hit New Orleans, most of our guard was in Iraq.
They were trying to ship them back to help... wtf?
The system is so fucked up- it needs to be scrapped.

 

[Brett85]

What's the point of even having these kind of debates/conversations when there's a 0% chance this would ever happen? It would be extremely hard to even get our troops home from overseas, much less convince the American people that they should all be fired immediately.

 

[Brett85]

1) A defense system-entirely different from a standing army 2) Do you seriously believe China or Russia have a desire to invade? Why?

Why wouldn't they? It would be extremely easy if we disarmed ourselves and offered them no resistance, and we have a land of abundant resources that they would then have direct access to.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

What's the point of even having these kind of debates/conversations when there's a 0% chance this would ever happen? It would be extremely hard to even get our troops home from overseas, much less convince the American people that they should all be fired immediately.

For philosophical sharpness and to expand on advanced libertarian theory.

I'm interested in how it would all work. People bring up good points I have not thought of and I can adjust my earlier position according. The philosophy is evolving. Certain issues are clear cut. This one isn't.