Does America need a standing army?

[idirtify]

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

And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?

 

[AFPVet]

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??

Well said!

 

[Brett85]

And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?

They would be involved in training and performing all the other functions that our troops currently perform on the military bases that we already have within the United States.

 

[Pericles]

And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?

FYI

Active Army strength (including mobilized Guard & Reserve) 547,400
National Guard authorized strength 358,200
Army Reserve authorized strength 205,000

Don't know where you get the rest from - carry on.

 

[oyarde]

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?

Anyone have an estimate on how many dissidents ? If I recall , active participation in the Revolution was around 15 % .

 

[CasualApathy]

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.

No it wasn't

You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).

There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)

 

[klamath]

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.

Well get used to it if you want to be a smartass. Anarchy has never existed in the history of the world and it is not going to start. I feel that there is a greater threat of the armed gangs of the attempted anarchy taking by force what is mine, or a foreign power taking what is mine whether it is my property or life, than a small active army.
I can say you support armed gangs killing me and taking my property. This is not freedom but tyranny of the few.

 

[klamath]

No it wasn't

You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).

There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)

Absolutely true. People that have no clue, always make the statement that a few insurgents pinned down the worlds most powerful army in Iraq. Iraq would have been a barren waste land had utter "brown people" elimination had been our goal.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No it wasn't

You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).

There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)

O, really? AFAIK, the Soviets didn't have any limitations put on them, (even though they didn't have the kind of hardware the modern occupying forces have, they still had more firepower than the Afghans) and they still lost in trying to conquer Afghanistan. (correct me if I'm wrong, of course)

 

[CasualApathy]

O, really? AFAIK, the Soviets didn't have any limitations put on them, (even though they didn't have the kind of hardware the modern occupying forces have, they still had more firepower than the Afghans) and they still lost in trying to conquer Afghanistan. (correct me if I'm wrong, of course)

Well, as far as you know is wrong - the soviets were limited by public opinion as well, especially at the time of their Afghan war.

Edit: The soviets were certainly more ruthless than the US, but their invasion of Afghanistan also led to strong condemnation, trade embargoes and many other sanctions. Still, nearly 2 million afghans were killed, and nearly 10 million displaced, leading to a large outcry and accusations of genocide. International pressure along with the collapsing soviet economy and military forced the withdrawal before they could "finish the job", so to speak...

Soviet casualties numbered at 14.453, do the math.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, as far as you know is wrong - the soviets were limited by public opinion as well, especially at the time of their Afghan war.

Got a link? I can't find anything to verify your claim.

 

[Brett85]

The thread that never dies.

 

[CasualApathy]

Got a link? I can't find anything to verify your claim.

If wiki is good enough for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

 

[idirtify]

They would be involved in training and performing all the other functions that our troops currently perform on the military bases that we already have within the United States.

Please go back and read my post 420 (the second half), where I perfectly predicted your excuses (for not making the troops perform the most basic defense function of guard duty). And as you write a better response, remember that:
1) all 150million of these troops are well trained and experienced;
2) most of the current military-base functions are connected to the foreign wars.

 

[idirtify]

The thread that never dies.

Aw, this is nothing. Now suck it up and reply to my rebuttals!

 

[idirtify]

FYI

Active Army strength (including mobilized Guard & Reserve) 547,400
National Guard authorized strength 358,200
Army Reserve authorized strength 205,000

Don't know where you get the rest from - carry on.

The 1.5 mil figure came from affa, post #112.

 

[Brett85]

Aw, this is nothing. Now suck it up and reply to my rebuttals!

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "guard duty," but it sounds like it could be a good plan. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I just know that my philosophy is that we shouldn't use our military to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we should have a strong military to maintain a strong national defense here at home. I think if our country was attacked and we actually had to raise an army before we went to war, that could end up taking many months or even years. So it's essential to have an army ready and well equipped at home to be able to immediately respond to an attack on our soil. As for all of the exact different functions that our troops would perform here at home, that's something that I should probably think more about and do more research into. But what exactly do the 50,000 troops do that we have in Germany? It seems as though they would certainly have nothing to do. Germany isn't exactly a hot spot in the world at the current moment.

 

[klamath]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "guard duty," but it sounds like it could be a good plan. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I just know that my philosophy is that we shouldn't use our military to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we should have a strong military to maintain a strong national defense here at home. I think if our country was attacked and we actually had to raise an army before we went to war, that could end up taking many months or even years. So it's essential to have an army ready and well equipped at home to be able to immediately respond to an attack on our soil. As for all of the exact different functions that our troops would perform here at home, that's something that I should probably think more about and do more research into. But what exactly do the 50,000 troops do that we have in Germany? It seems as though they would certainly have nothing to do. Germany isn't exactly a hot spot in the world at the current moment.

Any well trained army unit trains at least 7 to 11 months a year. That is what it takes to stay proficient. They don't set around planning how they are going to kill the next US citizen.

 

[Pericles]

The 1.5 mil figure came from affa, post #112.

Knowing something about the subject being discussed can enhance credibility.

 

[Arion45]

Well get used to it if you want to be a smartass. Anarchy has never existed in the history of the world and it is not going to start. I feel that there is a greater threat of the armed gangs of the attempted anarchy taking by force what is mine, or a foreign power taking what is mine whether it is my property or life, than a small active army.
I can say you support armed gangs killing me and taking my property. This is not freedom but tyranny of the few.

That is the stupidest response I have ever received , you win the internets.