Do you support abolishing the military?

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

This country could never be disarmed.

A country actually invading here would be such a financial drain that it is unfeasible.

If they did, I'm comfortable in believing my fellow countrymen would be taking pot shots from the trees every chance they got. We could never be captured.

Not to mention the 1,500+ some odd nuclear warheads we have that could destroy this world many times over. A bit of a deterrent if someone happened to be strategically retarded enough to attempt an invasion.

 

[erowe1]

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.

These debates are ultimately ethical debates about what's right and wrong. Being guided by principles of right and wrong doesn't become pointless just because you don't think you'll ever get to a place where everything is right and nothing is wrong. Every little decision we make along the way that can either get us a little bit closer to that or a little bit further from it is affected by what we understand those basic ethical principles to be.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

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.

California/Washington/Oregon have a combined GDP that is a quarter larger than Russia's, on top being covered in mountains and separated from Russia by several thousand miles. Yet Russia is supposedly able to conquer all three of them along with the other 47 states.

 

[Brett85]

Not to mention the 1,500+ some odd nuclear warheads we have that could destroy this world many times over. A bit of a deterrent if someone happened to be strategically retarded enough to attempt an invasion.

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.

What else would we do with them?

 

[erowe1]

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.

Speaking for myself, I'm all for disarming all of them.

 

[Brett85]

What else would we do with them?

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?

 

[Brett85]

Speaking for myself, I'm all for disarming all of them.

Are you an anarchist?

 

[torchbearer]

each state could keep their nukes. mutually assured destruction is a path to peace for ultimate weapons of destruction.

 

[erowe1]

Are you an anarchist?

I reject that label. But I probably couldn't convince you I'm not one.

 

[erowe1]

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?

He's saying we would keep them.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?

I was saying that we already have them. What are we going to do with them, bury them in the side of a mountain? If we already have them I see no reason in getting rid of all of them. I would be for reducing the amount we have depending on the cost of that vs. the cost of maintaining and storing them but realistically, they are a good deterrent against attack.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34Truth. 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.

Need for people to try to get a firm grasp on miltary versus defense spending. Roads, bridges and many other infrastructural change that is in order fits into both. And so then maybe not practical to sell the notion of bringing them all home but legislation can do scwewy things. kind of a problem, reaction, solution scenario with the Katrina thing and equally quirky is that weather phenomenon itself has even managed to get packagerd with matters of national security.

I don't know. There's a thought in there some place...

 

[torchbearer]

Need for people to try to get a firm grasp on miltary versus defense spending. Roads, bridges and many other infrastructural change that is in order fits into both. And so then maybe not practical to sell the notion of bringing them all home but legislation can do scwewy things. kind of a problem, reaction, solution scenario with the Katrina thing and equally quirky is that weather phenomenon itself has even managed to get packagerd with matters of national security.

I don't know. There's a thought in there some place...

when the state needs people to fill sand bags, we have a guard for it.
when the state needs people to fly helicopters in to rescue stranded people, we have a guard...
when gangs start robbing people, we have a guard...

but during katrina, we had no guard. we had dema turning away the volunteer fire fighters, with government agents disarming lawful people, while gangs roamed free to rob them.

 

[pcosmar]

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?

Russia could not even take and hold Afghanistan.

They could not even survive one state in the US,, let alone 50.

 

[Brett85]

It just seems funny that even Ron would probably be one of the more moderate, mainstream members of this forum if he actually posted here. He said during one of the Republican debates that he would probably be in favor of building more bases here at home if we closed all the bases overseas.

 

[Brett85]

Russia could not even take and hold Afghanistan.

They could not even survive one state in the US,, let alone 50.

Afghanistan has a military.

 

[erowe1]

It just seems funny that even Ron would probably be one of the more moderate, mainstream members of this forum if he actually posted here. He said during one of the Republican debates that he would probably be in favor of building more bases here at home if we closed all the bases overseas.

I have to admit, it really is shocking to me that he said that. Maybe it was a moment of weakness brought about by having to come up with something to say on the spot.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Afghanistan has a military.

Yes, they had the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, who were allied with the Soviet Union. They both lost to the insurgents.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I have to admit, it really is shocking to me that he said that. Maybe it was a moment of weakness brought about by having to come up with something to say on the spot.

No doubt.

Speaking to a roomful of South Carolinian war hawks could fluster a man.

I have no doubt Ron Paul understands the economic insanity of it all and that standing armies are a cause for concern with regards to conflicts initiated.

I believe his proposed budget even increased the DoD spending did it not? I have no doubt Ron Paul would take an ax to it if ever given the real opportunity. I tend to think he didn't want to be dismissed outright and "dumbed down" his views for the public, I guess you could say.

He believes in a strong national defense, no doubt, but I think he can objectively look at our situation and see how all of this waste is hurting national defense. He mentioned it a few times, that our national debt was the biggest threat this country faced. It would be interesting to talk to him in depth on the subject though.