Does America need a standing army?

[Brett85]

But go ahead and live in the real world where people are not free to disagree with you and your statist friends.

Yes, because anybody who doesn't support abolishing the army is clearly a "statist."

 

[libertarian4321]

You dodged the question but thats ok. It hurts to realize that a logical and moral argument turns your world upsidedown.

Okay, here's the answer, and you aren't going to like it.

Yes, you do have some responsibility as a citizen, you can't just do whatever you damned well please whenever you please without any restrictions.

It may not sit well with your anarchotopic fantasies, but some level of government is necessary in a nation of 300+ million, so you will have to pay something.

Sorry if that hurts, but that's reality, not fantasy.

I don't support big government, but some of you extremist types who think the only answer to big government is "no government" are as unrealistic and frankly childish as those who expect government to provide them a living.

Extremists tend to be irrational at EITHER end of the spectrum.

So that is my answer. Happy now?

 

[libertarian4321]

Yes, because anybody who doesn't support abolishing the army is clearly a "statist."

Clearly.

Now that we have enslaved Arion45, I got dibs on his house.

What do you want?

 

[Brett85]

I don't support big government, but some of you extremist types who think the only answer to big government is "no government" are as unrealistic and frankly childish as those who expect government to provide them a living.

Yes. Some people don't seem to realize that spending a little bit of money on defense is much less costly than living under the rule of the Chinese.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Concerning all the people who say "why would XYZ invade us."

I don't know. Wars happen for all kinds of reasons. Just because a nation seemingly has no reason to invade us today doesn't mean they may not come up with a good reason down the road.

If we were to go to the extremist route proposed by some of you (no professional army), you leave yourself open to invasion by anyone for any reason.

We've been playing with scenarios like China or Russia. But Hell, if we have no professional Army, MEXICO could even decide to take back Texas, NM, AZ, and maybe CA, and there ain't much we could do to stop them.

The Mexican Army isn't the best in the world today (who's to say what it might be like 20 years from now), but against militia and "guys with guns," they'd have no trouble with the invasion where they could at least rape and pillage. Whether they could hold the ground or not is another story.

And I know, a lot of you laugh and say "we could never go to war with Canada, they are our friends and they are small."

Well, they are our friends NOW, but they haven't always been. And even a relatively small professional army like Canada could cause all kinds of damage against a "guys with guns" type of "army."

Mexico can conquer 4 US states with a population of 80 million with no air support(impossible) before anyone can mobilize, pacify all resistance(impossible), and hold off counter attacks? lol

 

[Brett85]

Mexico can conquer 4 US states with a population of 80 million with no air support(impossible) before anyone can mobilize, pacify all resistance(impossible), and hold off counter attacks? lol

Of course it would never happen now. He's was talking about what would happen if we abolished the army and weakened our defenses.

 

[libertarian4321]

Mexico can conquer 4 US states with a population of 80 million with no air support(impossible) before anyone can mobilize, pacify all resistance(impossible), and hold off counter attacks? lol

You don't have to "pacify all resistance", all you have to do is blow aside whatever militia and "guys with guns" are standing in front of you, then take what you want. There won't be any "counter attacks" because the militia, if there is anything left of it, will have next to zero capability of standing up to a professional army.

I can't remember, are you one of the radical "no professional military at all" advocates, or one of the "we'll have a huge air force and navy, but no army" advocates (which is just plain NUTS), so I can be sure I'm answering the right hypothetical/unrealistic scenario.

BTW, to go from Mexico up through Texas, OK, KS, and beyond would be ridiculously easy- you couldn't find flatter, more wide open land that would be harder to defend.

 

[Arion45]

Yes, because anybody who doesn't support abolishing the army is clearly a "statist."

Anyone one who believes in the state is a statist.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Sounds like you are one of the anarchist extremist types who believes there should be no government.

I am NOT an anarchist. I support a limited government, not "no government."

If you are looking for someone to support your ideas on some sort of "anarchotopia," I'm not your guy.

This is in no way an answer to his very simple question, which leads me to believe that you're uncomfortable with admitting to your answer, as you should be if your answer was going to be yes.

I live in the real world.

The reality is we all live in the same world.

If you think part of the solution to problems in the real world involves initiating violence and aggression against innocent people who disagree with you, than we're most certainly not on the same page.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Concerning all the people who say "why would XYZ invade us."

I don't know. Wars happen for all kinds of reasons. Just because a nation seemingly has no reason to invade us today doesn't mean they may not come up with a good reason down the road.

If we were to go to the extremist route proposed by some of you (no professional army), you leave yourself open to invasion by anyone for any reason.

We've been playing with scenarios like China or Russia. But Hell, if we have no professional Army, MEXICO could even decide to take back Texas, NM, AZ, and maybe CA, and there ain't much we could do to stop them.

The Mexican Army isn't the best in the world today (who's to say what it might be like 20 years from now), but against militia and "guys with guns," they'd have no trouble with the invasion where they could at least rape and pillage. Whether they could hold the ground or not is another story.

And I know, a lot of you laugh and say "we could never go to war with Canada, they are our friends and they are small."

Well, they are our friends NOW, but they haven't always been. And even a relatively small professional army like Canada could cause all kinds of damage against a "guys with guns" type of "army."

You're thinking of the British who occupied part of Canada many moons ago. The Canadians, as we now know them, have never been hostile towards the Americans (AFAIK).

 

[Arion45]

Okay, here's the answer, and you aren't going to like it.

Yes, you do have some responsibility as a citizen, you can't just do whatever you damned well please whenever you please without any restrictions.

It may not sit well with your anarchotopic fantasies, but some level of government is necessary in a nation of 300+ million, so you will have to pay something.

Sorry if that hurts, but that's reality, not fantasy.

I don't support big government, but some of you extremist types who think the only answer to big government is "no government" are as unrealistic and frankly childish as those who expect government to provide them a living.

Extremists tend to be irrational at EITHER end of the spectrum.

So that is my answer. Happy now?

Please do not confuse no state with no governance. People can live together peacefully without being forced pay for protection. Your argument is equivalent to the mob forcing a business owner to pay them for protection. The only difference is that the government has a flag.

Oh and there is no such thing as a citizen in this country. A citizen owes his alligence to the government in return for protection. Courts have time and again ruled that the government does have an obligation to protect.

 

[jmdrake]

I have clearly stated on two occasions that the Chinese or Russians (I'll just use "enemy" from now on) or whatever had no ability to move an army here if our navy was there to stop them.

Well I missed that post. That said, then what are you yapping about? Again nobody is saying don't have a navy. And if per chance the navy lost that would at least give time for the militia to come together.

I also stated that it would be possible for the Enemy to move soldiers to an area where a seaborn invasion would not be necessary. Soldiers could be moved to, for example, Mexico, THEN war could be declared. At that point, the navy would be nearly useless, and the Air Force little better, at stopping a ground invasion.

And I also pointed out that sneaking a force into Mexico large enough to invade the U.S. without getting detected is laughably impossible. Come on man. We knew Saddam was going to invade Kuwuit long before he did. We new about the few measly missiles Kruschev was trying to put in Cuba. You think we wouldn't notice a freaking invasion force on the southern border? Under the model I'm talking about (the one we used to use) mobilization happened when there was a threat of war, not just a declaration of war. The constitution doesn't say congress must declare war and then raise an army. Just that congress only has the authority to raise an army as oppose to maintain one.

I'm also a little unclear as to why some of you seem to think having a huge Navy and Air Force is acceptable, yet having ANY Army is "wrong." Sounds a bit deranged to me.

Maybe you think the constitution is deranged?

Why is it okay to have a huge professional AF and Navy, but not have so much as a single professional soldier? At least the "we don't need any professional military" types are consistent.

You're being obtuse or just plain silly. I never said "no single professional solider". Note that I mentioned and officer corps. Note that this is how it was done originally. Note that I keep referring to the Swiss model. The officer corps there routinely trains with the militia.

Hezbollah didn't "beat back" anything. Their conventional military efforts were woefully ineffective. They lost ground continually to a very small Israeli invasion force (about 2% of the IDF was involved in the invasion) until the Israelis halted their advance, then settled into guerrilla warfare until POLITICAL PRESSURE forced the Israelies to pull back. If you think that's an example of a militia preventing an invasion, you are sadly mistaken.

LOL. Political pressure my behind! Condi Rice was running around talking about how this was the "birth pangs of a new middle east". Any political pressure was from at home because the IDF was unable to stop the missile attacks! Hezbollah fighters were routinely severely damaging or destroying Israeli tanks. http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_4.htm The war was not going Israel's way when they agreed to the cease fire. This despite the illegal use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Yet you advocate a large Navy and Air Force, which are vastly more expensive to operate than a small Army. Now I'm really confused.

We about agree that air and sea defenses are necessary to prevent an invasion. Plus maintaining a navy is in the constitution. And while an airforce isn't mentioned (the founders were smart, but they weren't clairvoyant), an airforce could be simply a part of the navy (constitutional "problem" solved).

Have you actually read my posts? I've clearly stated a number of times that our entire military (Navy and Air Force, as well as Army) should be vastly reduced in size.

Fine. Great. Then you only want a slightly larger army than I do. However the size of the navy (and the constitutional air force folded into it) needs to be larger than the army (which for me is a professional officer corps backed up by a trained voluntary militia). Again think "Battle of Britain". All that was needed to prevent the invasion was the navy and airforce. (Actually it was just the airforce. The navy was just saving the army's hash). Now think about it. If Britain hadn't sent its army over to France they wouldn't have needed to be rescued in the first place. And if Hitler had tried to invade England then the results would have been the same. You're worried about an invasion? With complete air and superiority an invasion is impossible. And yes that includes one from Mexico. Really, have can you think of an invasion that has been successful without air superiority? I can think of some that have been unsuccessful with it, but no successful without it.

The only "militias" around today are far worse than what they had back then. Back then, militias, while hardly proficient, were fairly numerous and at least made some attempt to be prepared. Today, the "militias" you see are mostly a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods a few times a year.

Really, are you that clueless? The Swiss militia aren't a bunch of "yahoos" running around in the woods.



Now the American militia might be that way. But that's because the federal government has illegally suppressed state militias and instead replaced the concept with the "national guard". (Those guys you see confiscating guns in New Orleans).

Not worried at all. I support the second amendment. I just don't think "guys with guns" are going to be very effective at stopping an invasion of a modern army.

I think you mistyped, but I agree with what you wrote. "Guys with guns are going to be very effective at stopping an invasion of a modern army". Only by my definition the 2nd amendment isn't limited to just guns.

I'm not referring to just having a bunch of guys with cell phone, but an organized command structure and organized intelligence gathering capabilities. I think a lot of you have no idea how high tech even the Army has become.

Oh I know people who have recently got out of the army and they are no more technically savvy than my 9 year old son. (In fact if I needed tech help I'd probably choose my 9 year old). Plus nobody is saying that a volunteer militia couldn't receive further training. Volunteer firefighters receive training after all.

How the Hell do you have a "professional officer corps" and good militia training WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROFESSIONAL ARMY?

Do you really think Naval officers are going to be able to train soldiers? That's like grabbing a bunch of soldiers and telling them to operate an aircraft carrier- it ain't going to work.

Now I have to ask have YOU been reading MY posts? Apparently NOT. Multiple times I've mentioned a professional West point officer corp. Hello? Which branch is that? Maintaining an officer corp with the capability of raising a standing army in a time of need is not not not the same thing as a standing army. Maybe that's why you're so confused? Again, go back to the text of the constitution.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Note that when this was ratified, West Point was already in existence. Note that nobody thought "Man! I guess we've got to close West Point now!" But note that under this model you don't have a bunch of regular troops that you can send off to Iraq to fight in some godawful war or send to Katrina to confiscate guns. Really, I have to ask. What do you have against following the constitution in this matter?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course it would never happen now. He's was talking about what would happen if we abolished the army and weakened our defenses.

The army is offensive, not defensive. Weakening our offensive branches does not exclude strengthening the defensive ones. People who believe standing armies should exist constantly should voluntarily pay for it instead of putting the cost burden on everyone else.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Please do not confuse no state with no governance. People can live together peacefully without being forced pay for protection. Your argument is equivalent to the mob forcing a business owner to pay them for protection. The only difference is that the government has a flag.

IOU 1 +rep when I get more ammo.

 

[jmdrake]

Of course it would never happen now. He's was talking about what would happen if we abolished the army and weakened our defenses.

You're ignoring a U.S. population of 270 million with approx 235 million guns. And you're also ignoring the fact that the other side of this argument consistently says keep air superiority and naval forces. So as the 80 million Mexicans (half of whom would likely defect) were tramping across the desert as sitting ducks to missiles, bombs and bubbas with rifles, what do you think would happen?

 

[libertarian4321]

Please do not confuse no state with no governance. People can live together peacefully without being forced pay for protection. Your argument is equivalent to the mob forcing a business owner to pay them for protection. The only difference is that the government has a flag.

I don't believe any of this anarcho nonsense about how we'll all live in harmony with no police, no military, no judiciary- that we'll all sit around in our anarchotopia/libertopia singing "kumbaya" while the free market solves everything. It's about as realistic as Marxism (again, you go to the extremes on either end, and you get "crazy").

Sorry, I guess you're going to have to learn to live with at least some "reppression."

The extremists on this board always remind me of this classic- watch and let me know if you see yourself in the mirror while watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

And yeah, I know, you probably see me as the oppressor on the "horse."

 

[jmdrake]

Concerning all the people who say "why would XYZ invade us."

I don't know. Wars happen for all kinds of reasons. Just because a nation seemingly has no reason to invade us today doesn't mean they may not come up with a good reason down the road.

If we were to go to the extremist route proposed by some of you (no professional army), you leave yourself open to invasion by anyone for any reason.

We've been playing with scenarios like China or Russia. But Hell, if we have no professional Army, MEXICO could even decide to take back Texas, NM, AZ, and maybe CA, and there ain't much we could do to stop them.

And here's what would happen to Mexican troop in the open desert with no cover and no air superiority.



And China could take us out economically any day without firing a shot. Obviously they don't want to. And even more obviously if they did want to all the standing armies in the world couldn't stop them. After all we can't force them to buy our debt.

The Mexican Army isn't the best in the world today (who's to say what it might be like 20 years from now), but against militia and "guys with guns," they'd have no trouble with the invasion where they could at least rape and pillage. Whether they could hold the ground or not is another story.

Yeah right.

And I know, a lot of you laugh and say "we could never go to war with Canada, they are our friends and they are small."

Well, they are our friends NOW, but they haven't always been. And even a relatively small professional army like Canada could cause all kinds of damage against a "guys with guns" type of "army."

And we'd have no advance warning about the new hostility coming from Canada? double

 

[klamath]

The unconstitutional Air force has been the main arm of Americas agressive wars. How people have gotten this notion that Army is bad airforce is good. Will that be the last though in your mind when that 30 mm DU projectile from an Airforce A10 warhog blows your head off?

 

[Brett85]

The army is offensive, not defensive. Weakening our offensive branches does not exclude strengthening the defensive ones. People who believe standing armies should exist constantly should voluntarily pay for it instead of putting the cost burden on everyone else.

That's what I'm trying to change. I would like to use our army for our own national defense here at home. The proper role of an army is for self defense.

 

[ClayTrainor]

The unconstitutional Air force has been the main arm of Americas agressive wars. How people have gotten this notion that Army is bad airforce is good. Will that be the last though in your mind when that 30 mm DU projectile from an Airforce A10 warhog blows your head off?

Not an optimist, I presume?