Does America need a standing army?

[idirtify]

I really don't understand your writing style.

Sorry… I was originally being facetious, but now I’m being serious. Is this (the job description in my post) close to what you are advocating, in terms of what our military should be doing after all the troops are brought home?

 

[affa]

OK, so you disagree with what Thomas Paine said in 1776, and with all the related Jeffersonian views about government being a necessary evil. That is a very contentious viewpoint and does nothing to add credibility to your position, but at least it’s relevant to the discussion. But where did I say anything about “our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all”? I agree that that’s a “pretty extreme point of view”, but it’s also a strawman argument.

I wonder, if he hears this term 'strawman' enough times, whether he'll bother to actually research what it means and take it to heart.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't believe that the government is inherently evil. I just believe that the government is way too big, spends too much, taxes too much, and takes away too many of our personal liberties. But I don't believe that our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all. That's a pretty extreme point of view.

then you are ignorant of history. and recent history at that.
There are a great may evil people in government. Evil and Power hungry people seek out such positions.
There are multiple examples of deliberate evil done by government. You would have to be willfully ignorant to not have heard of some.

 

[Brett85]

Sorry… I was originally being facetious, but now I’m being serious. Is this (the job description in my post) close to what you are advocating, in terms of what our military should be doing after all the troops are brought home?

I'm advocating that we close down all of our foreign military bases and bring our troops home. I would then place our troops along both of our borders and both of our coastlines. This seems like it would be a much better national defense strategy than using our military to defend the entire world. Since we would have troops along the borders and coastlines, we would have to build additional bases for their living quarters. I don't believe the number of new bases would have to equal 800, which is the number of foreign bases we now have. So we would still be saving money by bringing troops home and not intervening overseas. The troops that I wouldn't put along the borders and coastlines would be sent to military bases that already exist in the United States. They would serve the same function as the troops that currently serve within the United States.

 

[Brett85]

But where did I say anything about our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all?

Are you not aware of the many detention camps around the country ready and waiting to fence in millions?

I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.

 

[pcosmar]

I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.

There is that potential. Though no one made that claim.
How many Americans were sterilized by the government?
How many were permanently scared by MK Ultra experiments?
How many were infected with diseases? or radiation?
Deliberately.
Cases of these are documented,,, before you attempt to refute the facts.

Then start looking into CPS or pedophile rings involving High level Government officials.
Look into the face of EVIL.

 

[idirtify]

I'm advocating that we close down all of our foreign military bases and bring our troops home. I would then place our troops along both of our borders and both of our coastlines. This seems like it would be a much better national defense strategy than using our military to defend the entire world. Since we would have troops along the borders and coastlines, we would have to build additional bases for their living quarters. I don't believe the number of new bases would have to equal 800, which is the number of foreign bases we now have. So we would still be saving money by bringing troops home and not intervening overseas. The troops that I wouldn't put along the borders and coastlines would be sent to military bases that already exist in the United States. They would serve the same function as the troops that currently serve within the United States.

Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But I’m perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, I’ll handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation – literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?

 

[idirtify]

I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.

While I do not know how many the government is planning to round up and place in detention camps or if they are planning mass genocide, there’s quite a gap between “millions” and “us all” (300+million). I mean the camps/yards that exist could hold millions, but certainly not the whole population. I think the basic theory is that they would only imprison the dissidents.

Do you understand the term “strawman” and that it means distorting your opponent’s position?

 

[AFPVet]

Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But I’m perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, I’ll handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation – literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?

Technology has come a long way. Troops are no longer required to stand guard duty on the borders. Sensors and camera's and/or satellite systems can signal problems which could result in troops in vehicles who would respond and investigate. They would be a great resource for border patrol... in fact, our troops are supposed to be doing border patrol during wartime anyways.

 

[CasualApathy]

I honestly wouldn't fear invasion if we dismantled everything, but I know that's an extreme position and haven't argued it here. But yea, where some seem to think we're going to get attacked if there is even a teensy hint of weakness, I don't. At all. Especially since that would go hand in hand with an end to US imperial aggression. That said, I'm perfectly fine with stepping down the military to the limits discussed in this thread. Anything that stops our aggression and expenditures, anything that stops enriching the warmongers and war profiteers, really.

I am really curious why you wouldn't worry about being basically defenseless? If you dismantled everything, how would you defend yourself as individuals against the potential aggression of nation states?

 

[Brett85]

Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But I’m perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, I’ll handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation – literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?

I would imagine probably half that number. Perhaps 750,000.

 

[Pericles]

For the amusement of the posters on this thread:

 

[Arion45]

Propaganda.

 

[Pericles]

Propaganda.

Yes, but who's propaganda would CNN promote?

 

[1836]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

Exactly. We need that army to defend our rights from threats abroad, just as we should have other checks to defend our rights at home.

 

[Arion45]

It has nothing to do with going abroad. It has to do with putting together an effective fighting force on american soil and being able to provide that defence on American soil. As far a a present danger I agree but as to whether we should wait until the threat becomes obvious before trying to play catch up we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

What you don't understand is that it is not a disagreement. It is either one pays to support this army or be imprisioned. You support this. So you are not saying I disagree with you, what you are saying is you are wrong and I support armed men with guns to put a person if a cage if thay do not support your position. This is not freedom but tyranny of the maases.

 

[Arion45]

Look, I already addressed this:

An invading army wouldn't have to occupy more geographical area than they could secure, if not facing an organized army.

Invading Russia in winter is pretty dumb, but the Germans were also facing the full force and power of the soviet state. They literally moved entire factories and relocated them away from the invading German army, an impressive feat that couldn't have been accomplished without the soviet state directing it. Also it's really no surprise that regular people fought back along with the soviet army since they knew that there was no mercy even for civilians when the German army advanced.

Afghanistan is a mute point, since the resistance there could be crushed easily by the vastly superior might of the US forces if they didn't have to care how it looked on TV.

Your statement about Afghanistan was just outrageously ridiculous. First of all the media no longer reports on what is really going on over there. So it does not matter what they do because the majority of thempopulation is not paying attention. The government learned not to give too much info from vietnam. Second the United States has spent over a trillion dollars over ten years of war there. If they can not get the job done in this amount of time then it is either impossible or the military is completely inept.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Lying down armies aren't that effective. Standing is much better. Lol.

 

[jmdrake]

For the amusement of the posters on this thread:

Yeah. So? China is the world's dominate economic superpower and they are becoming the world's dominate military superpower. The only way for us to compete as it stands it to borrow more money....from China. That just increases China's economic power. Also the mission on that video was an appropriate one. (Evacuating Chinese nationals in Libya). I hate to say this, but in many ways our foreign policy should match what China did here.

 

[idirtify]

Technology has come a long way. Troops are no longer required to stand guard duty on the borders. Sensors and camera's and/or satellite systems can signal problems which could result in troops in vehicles who would respond and investigate. They would be a great resource for border patrol... in fact, our troops are supposed to be doing border patrol during wartime anyways.

Good post, but although guard duty is no longer required, we are talking about what SHOULD BE required. So why not require it again? Adding troops to stand guard duty AND having all the latest technology would certainly be a winning combo. And it wouldn’t be a problem even if it’s only allowed/constitutional during wartime, since we have officially entered the phase of “perpetual war” (war on terror). But given this particular “perpetual war”, I don’t think anyone is going to argue that 1.5 million troops brought home will be too busy doing other things to stand guard duty. I mean really…what else will they be able to credibly claim they have to do? How long can 1.5 million well-trained soldiers get away with using the “training” and “maintaining bases” excuses for not doing the most no-brainer, most fundamental, most obvious kind of military defense??