Does America need a standing army?

[Southron]

Why? Who are you afraid of?

I fear that several well placed nukes could destroy our military capabilities. That's why the Constitutional Militia is vital to our security.

 

[GreenLP]

Take a trip to Southern Arizona or Texas and tell me that we aren't being invaded. People are being kidnapped, beheaded, shot... on U.S. soil! This is not a joke. I have friends who are in law enforcement in those areas... it is getting crazy... and some of what is going on will never make the news—such as militias trying to push those Mexican gangs back.

You can thank the US's War on Drugs for that chaos!

 

[GreenLP]

I fear that several well placed nukes could destroy our military capabilities. That's why the Constitutional Militia is vital to our security.

I agree, but also ask why would people want to place nukes around like that to do that?

 

[Brett85]

Why? Who are you afraid of?

I support a strong national defense. I don't believe that the key to keeping ourselves safe from terrorism is to "fight them over there," but we need to have a strong army and a strong national defense here at home to keep our country safe.

 

[Carson]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War

The problem with that would be to know just what side was with you. We have many in the government now that refuse to uphold their oaths of office in regards to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We have a military that has been co-opted and is off fighting the battles of the new world order.

Can you be sure that those you side with will be for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on?

Can you be sure you're not being sucked in by another in a long line of false flag maneuvers?


How many now run around claiming to support freedom but can't allow any for any autonomous country anywhere in the world.

 

[GreenLP]

I support a strong national defense.

So do I, but why would we need any more military bases in the US to have a strong national defense?

I also don't want to turn America into a third world country.

How would having more military bases in the US prevent that?

 

[Brett85]

So do I, but why would we need any more military bases in the US to have a strong national defense?


How would having more military bases in the US prevent that?

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.

 

[GreenLP]

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.

Well I'm a Libertarian and not an anarchist. I think a lot of anarchists think they would like that, but wouldn't in reality. It's always easier to talk more "extreme" than actually live it out.

So what's your definition of a "strong military"? Do you agree the USA is the biggest imperialists currently on the planet?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The problem with that would be to know just what side was with you. We have many in the government now that refuse to uphold their oaths of office in regards to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We have a military that has been co-opted and is off fighting the battles of the new world order.

Can you be sure that those you side with will be for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on?

Can you be sure you're not being sucked in by another in a long line of false flag maneuvers?


How many now run around claiming to support freedom but can't allow any for any autonomous country anywhere in the world.

There will always be power hungry loons who don't care about the rule of law. The idea is to reduce their ability to wreak havoc. Having no standing army would help that, but really, the issues you are raising have little to do with the military and much to do with the type politicians that have evolved in our country. Luckily, the internet is changing things and that makes it easier to be sure that those who I may side with are "for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on."

And very few things in life are certain; there is risk in living, and human nature is what it is...

 

[jmdrake]

We can be the world's leading superpower without having foreign military bases. We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.

Why do we need more military bases here in the U.S.? To defend ourselves from the Canadians and Mexicans?

This is what convinced me that we don't need a standing army.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

If the Jefferson's benchmark for danger to liberty was a standing army, then we need to rethink standing armies. Or at least the huge mega army we have now. Plus we aren't the world's leading superpower anyway because we are broke and have been for some time. We need to fix our economy and more military bases in the U.S. wouldn't help with that.

 

[Brett85]

So what's your definition of a "strong military"? Do you agree the USA is the biggest imperialists currently on the planet?

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

 

[Brett85]

Why do we need more military bases here in the U.S.? To defend ourselves from the Canadians and Mexicans?

To defend ourselves from people illegally crossing the borders who are coming here with the intention of doing harm to us.

 

[affa]

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.

over the course of repeated postings in multiple threads, i have come to the conclusion you have absolutely no understanding of what anarchism is, whatsoever. here's a hint: regional rule by militant warlords is not anarchism. here's another -- a country with no central government does not just become Somalia.

 

[AFPVet]

And how exactly does the existence or non-existence of a standing army change this in any way? I'll point out that we currently DO have a standing army... so having one isn't exactly doing anything to stop what you see as an 'invasion'. And defending a standing army because civilian foreign nationals may cross a border is strange to me. Foreign soldiers? Sure. But civilians are a resource, and it would be better to design a system that saw them as a resource rather than as an enemy. We already have laws in place against the extreme 'kidnappings' and 'beheadings' that you focus on, though the majority of immigrants are really just hoping to get some menial job and have no interest in beheading anyone.

The inherent problem with a standing army is that it costs money, and if it's just 'standing' around it's not generating much in the way of income. However, if you put them into use invading a country, you can make the war industry (weapons manufacturers, suppliers/infrastructure like Halliburton, para-military like Blackwater (now XE)) extremely wealthy.

Therefore, over time, certain types of people will see $$$ and decide to put that standing army to use. It's terrible, it's tragic, and if I were religious I'd even say sinful. But if you believe in a large standing army, it's my belief you're also ultimately proposing what we have now - an endless state of war. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but at some point, a standing army will be used... because it's too profitable not to.

As many here have pointed out, there are many alternatives to a standing army, even assuming a country had the resources to invade us (which is questionable).

When I think of a standing army, I think of the police force. I believe that an active military is necessary along with a Constitutional Militia for the defense of our republic.

 

[asurfaholic]

Is anyone involved with their local militia?

http://www.ncmilitia.org/

 

[affa]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

Are you aware we have in the ballpark of just under a million US active duty troops already stationed in the continental United States, and well over a million if you count our territories? A million. How many people do you think we need to 'protect our borders'.

We have, what, a bit less than a half a million troops give or take stationed or in combat around the world. If we can't seem to 'protect our borders' with 1 million troops, how is even half a million more going to help? Who the heck needs that many people to protect a 2000 mile border with Mexico, especially considering the state of technology today?

Are you really advocating needing (paying, housing, training, equiping) 1.5 million people to 'defend' a border with a country (or countries, if you include Canada) that has no military aspirations against us?

PS -- these numbers are based on the Sept. 30 2010 troop deployment numbers from the department of defense:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf

Seriously, a standing army of 1.5 million people is ludicrous for a country that has no bordering enemies and is as protected by geography as we are. What an amazing, awe-inspiring expenditure, a bottomless pit of wasted money.

 

[affa]

When I think of a standing army, I think of the police force. I believe that an active military is necessary along with a Constitutional Militia for the defense of our republic.

A standing army is not the police force. (Well, it is now that we've militarized the police, but that's a different issue). A standing army means a professional, permanent army of soldiers, kept even during times of peace, aka 'the military'. The police are generally not considered part of the military, and thus not standing army, except perhaps in a police state (which again, arguably, we now live in).

 

[AFPVet]

I don't think that the military needs to be quite as large as it is today. The purpose of a military is to be the primary buffer for invasion... not for policing the globe. The purpose of the militia is explicitly outlined in Article I, Section 8.

 

[jmdrake]

To defend ourselves from people illegally crossing the borders who are coming here with the intention of doing harm to us.

And you think local militias can't do that? Do you think there'd even been significant numbers of people crossing the border illegally with the intention of doing harm without the U.S. government funding them through the war on drugs and arming them through the war on guns? And did you even read the OP?

 

[AFPVet]

A standing army is not the police force. (Well, it is now that we've militarized the police, but that's a different issue). A standing army means a professional, permanent army of soldiers, kept even during times of peace, aka 'the military'. The police are generally not considered part of the military, and thus not standing army, except perhaps in a police state (which again, arguably, we now live in).

Yes, I was speaking of the police state. On another note, our militias need to be well regulated and supplied. The militia's have been demonized and not even considered by the higher up's. State defense forces are a joke... and the national guard is simply another division of the US military.