Does America need a standing army?

[Anti Federalist]

And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes.

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_murmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.

FTW!! +rep (there should be a "mega +rep" for posts this full of win)

 

[Brett85]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_murmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

 

[Pericles]

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category.

1. The point of invading Alaska would be to deny the rest of the US a significant oil reserve.

2. The US was invaded in 1814/15 by Great Britain (ever heard of the Star Spangled Banner)
1846 by Mexico
Debate as to whether the raid on Columbus, NM by Pancho Villa counts
1942 by Japan (a couple of islands in Alaska)

While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_murmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

qft!!

 

[Brett85]

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.

Then maybe you should just move there.

 

[idirtify]

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

TC,

What about the MIC, now that you have been made aware? It’s fairly conspicuous that you have proceeded with another round of posts, but have ignored this important point. Are you going to continue to ignore it?

 

[Anti Federalist]

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

Because the time has come to stop looking at spending as if it was Chinese menu, a little from column A and a little from column B, picking what we like and rejecting that which we find distasteful.

To get this country back on it's feet, grow the middle class, produce stuff and the jobs that go with it. it's going to require massive downsizing of the government apparatus.

It all has to be cut.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Then maybe you should just move there.

You know what? If they also didn't control their borders and keep a tight lid on immigration, (another two things they do right) I'd seriously consider it.

Trust me, I've looked into it.

But if all you got is "Iff'n yew doan like it, why doan you jus' get out?!", I'll stop hounding you.

 

[Pericles]

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

That type of chart borders on the meaningless statistic. It makes no comparison of military capability, which is the real measure. The US cost appears extreme because of the amount of money spent for a capability - draftees paid less than $200 per month are much cheaper than US soldiers, $30 AK-74s appear the better deal than $512 M4 carbines, $250,000 T-90s against $4million M1A2 tanks and so forth. The US does not buy more stuff than other countries, it buys more expensive military things than other countries.

 

[Brett85]

TC,

What about the MIC, now that you have been made aware? It’s fairly conspicuous that you have proceeded with another round of posts, but have ignored this important point. Are you going to continue to ignore it?

What would be the alternative to giving contracts to private companies to make weapons? What should we do instead?

 

[klamath]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_murmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

Ron Paul will sell Ron Paul, his words are his words.

He is in favor of cuts, but no where have I seen him say that defense would be reduced to zero.

If what we said around here carried the weight you think it does, RP would have won in 2008.

 

[idirtify]

What would be the alternative to giving contracts to private companies to make weapons? What should we do instead?

You are kidding, right? The alternative is to not have a standing army.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

1. The point of invading Alaska would be to deny the rest of the US a significant oil reserve.

2. The US was invaded in 1814/15 by Great Britain (ever heard of the Star Spangled Banner)
1846 by Mexico
Debate as to whether the raid on Columbus, NM by Pancho Villa counts
1942 by Japan (a couple of islands in Alaska)

While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

1: As already pointed out, invading Alaska would be impossible.

2: None of those countries ever invaded the United States with the intent of conquering. The War of 1812 was an offensive war on the United States part that Britain wanted to end; conquering the US was not their goal. Beating Napoleon was.

Alaska was not a state in 1942.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That type of chart borders on the meaningless statistic. It makes no comparison of military capability, which is the real measure. The US cost appears extreme because of the amount of money spent for a capability - draftees paid less than $200 per month are much cheaper than US soldiers, $30 AK-74s appear the better deal than $512 M4 carbines, $250,000 T-90s against $4million M1A2 tanks and so forth. The US does not buy more stuff than other countries, it buys more expensive military things than other countries.

That may apply to some of the second or third world nations listed, but to first world nations like Germany?

I'd have to look into it, but I find it hard to believe that they are equipping the Deutsches Heer with $30 AK variants.

Or take the Saudis, they buy mostly all our stuff, they just don't buy as much of it.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

It isn't even about conquering but a deterent because somebody was tempted by our weakness. Give them no hope of winning and nobody has to die.

This "weakness" does not exist and would not exist without an army. Alaska is virtually impossible to conquer.

Actually I am done arguing with you if your military history is so spotty that you think that the 5000 man airborne over Iraq is the largest airborne operation in history even when I pointed out the real largest operation.

You did no such thing. The only one in history I can think of that was larger was Market Garden, which was performed at a time when the allies had complete domination of the skies, it was supported by forces on the ground elsewhere, and ended in a devastating failure that likely extended the war by several months.

They would be at a serious aerial disadvantage going into the US in any case and have no means of supplying their men through any other means(no roads to Russia, Russia's industrial sector is 7,000 miles away, no way to ship in supplies by sea), while advancing through 15,000 foot tall mountains in freezing temperatures, against an angry enemy. And they have to do this for one thousand miles. Attacking would be unthinkable. Their men could only land if it was a suprise attack, and even then they would starve to death after the USAF and USN cut them off of supplies.

You are showing poor grasp of even the geography of alaska. When you throw mountains around maybe you should study Hannibal.

Hannibal went through mountains that were generally 5-10,000 feet tall. The mountains in Alaska are nearly that. Southern Europe is fairly warm for most of the year and only gets cold during winter. Other than the rainforest in Southern Alaska, it is cold year round in most of the state. Modern armies need huge amounts of supply in order to function. 2000 years ago that was not as important, as they could live off the land and used primitive tools; there was no need for billions of bullets, millions of gallons of oil, millions of pounds of food, specific pieces of equipment for tanks, ect...

The situations are nothing alike.

And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes

Ron wants serious cuts in the military. I'm concerned about principle, and about logic. Not winning votes.

 

[affa]

I put you on my ignore list, and I am not going to answer your posts from now on. I've kept this focused on the issues all along. I've never personally attacked anyone on these forums. You feel the need to make this personal, and I feel the need to ignore you.

I've made this personal? You've been labeling several of us over and over and repeatedly misrepresenting our views. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people in multiple threads. I point this out, and instead of apologizing you do it more.

The reason you will not respond is because I point out your statements such as 'we should have the largest military' make no sense when actual facts (such as the size of China's army) are taken into consideration. There is no response to that, because numbers are numbers. So ignore away.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

Who said no army? On the contrary -- those of us who want to abolish the Standing Army aka Government Army, want MORE defense. The only rightful defense of a Free-State is the Militia. People really need to stop with the false dichotomy and total non-sense regarding this issue. Mind you a significant portion of the original founders of this country wanted no Standing Army, and the defense was to be manned by Militia. Standing Armies have always been used for Offense everywhere and always, period. They always become pawns of the Government to be used to further profligate their 'prestige', influence, and power. It is the enemy of the People and of Property and Liberty. You should really open up some Anti-Federalist works.

(This is also an issue I usually depart on with reference to fellow An-Caps/Voluntaryists...I think Private Defense Agencies would be inimical to a free-society, but I wouldn't try to forcibly stop their chartering. Private Security is a wholly other matter to PDA's. I think Market Security would be amazing.)

 

[libertarian4321]

I don't think we need a massive Army, but we do need at least a small professional military.

Mexico may be friendly now, but it is a rather unstable nation. If something happens there, and they have a radical change of government, who's to say they couldn't become a base from which a nation like China (should our relations with them sour) couldn't attack? China would have no chance of winning if they had to establish a beach head, but if they had a massive staging area already set up, they (or maybe the Russians) could be a threat to an America defended only by minimally trained militia and untrained "guys with guns."

And you don't want to meet professional soldiers with tanks, artillery, etc using only Reserves/militias/guys with guns. It doesn't work very well. Look at what happened to the Soviets at the beginning of WW2- they got chewed up by a much smaller professional army (the Soviets, on paper, had a "professional" army, but in reality it was little better than a Reserve/militia).

You'd need at least some guys who were up to speed and able to operate modern weapons who could buy you time to get those militias up to speed.

This isn't 1776, where you could train a semi-competent soldier in a few days by showing him the basics of drill and how to fire a musket. The weapons systems are too complex. To train a soldier just to be semi-proficient can take months (and, btw, who is going to train those recruits and militia types if you don't have a standing professional army?).