Does America need a standing army?

[Brett85]

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?

They would likely be killed along with millions of innocent Americans. They would be walking through populated areas, not just the desert.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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."

There was no such thing as police at all until 1789 (and even then it was very tiny). They did not take on their modern para-military-type role till after the civil war. How ever did we get along without them?

 

[jmdrake]

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?

1) Fold them into the navy if your worried about the constitutional ramification.
2) The only reason the airforce is able to do what it does is because we maintain foreign bases. Close them.
3) Air superiority (whether it's provided by the navy or the airforce) is a requirement to prevent a foreign invasion. A standing army is not despite all of the hyperbole coming from your side about Mexicans being able to do jack crap against country where even the civilian population would have them out manned and out gunned, and even ignoring the very real possibility that they would face aerial bombardment.

 

[jmdrake]

They would likely be killed along with millions of innocent Americans. They would also be walking through populated areas, not just the desert.

LOLZ. You're just delusional. And if Mexican army went waltzing through populated areas they'd be cut down like dogs.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

1 million of them at a price tag of 700 million dollars? Sorry but that's just ridiculous. And even the other people in this thread supporting a standing army in theory realize that your level of standing army is ridiculous.

 

[libertarian4321]

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.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

The Swiss actually have a much larger standing army than most people believe, backed up by professionally trained reservists and militia.

The Swiss Army has somewhere between 5-7k professional soldiers.

A proportional US Army would be 200k+ professional soldiers.

I would accept something similar for the USA, maybe even a fair amount less (on the order of 50-100k).

I also agree that the Navy should be fairly strong (nowhere near it's present size, though).

Okay, we've solved the problem.

I'm going to get some dinner.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOLZ. You're just delusional. And if Mexican army went waltzing through populated areas they'd be cut down like dogs.

I agree with this. Arizona (and the other border states, as I understand) are very gun-friendly. It's harder to find people who don't have guns than those who do in my neck of the desert.

 

[affa]

Be careful. If you call anybody an "anarchist" on these forums, you'll be called a "troll" who "intentionally misrepresents what other people believe." You've been warned.

I've never called you a troll, but I bet others have. My issue with you is not that you call people anarchists, but that you continually misuse the term. There are plenty of proud anarchists of various persuasions on this forum. You can call them anarchists - but in order to do so, it probably would help if you knew what the term meant. You use it, however, as a cuss word -- and claim someone wants to 'abolish the police' or 'abolish the gov't' or whatever the second they don't agree we need as much gov't as you do.

You do not correct yourself or apologize when someone points out you misrepresented them -- actually, you did twice apologize twice to one guy in the Caylee thread, but then went on to continue the misrepresentation. He called you out on it, as do I.

There are a huge number of people on these forums, and not everyone agrees. That's fine. But repeatedly misrepresenting other people in order to demolish straw men is disrespectful.

And perhaps most damningly, you resorted to the argument of 'if you don't like it, leave it' against jmdrake rather than actually addressing his issues.

Anyway, this is off topic. The fact you want to increase our domestic military to make it the largest military on the planet, and have stated we could stuff them all into existing US bases without spending to build new bases, is, however, on topic. Too bad it still doesn't make any sense, can't be paid for, and you refuse to address these points.

 

[Brett85]

Anyone one who believes in the state is a statist.

That explains it.

 

[klamath]

1) Fold them into the navy if your worried about the constitutional ramification.
2) The only reason the airforce is able to do what it does is because we maintain foreign bases. Close them.
3) Air superiority (whether it's provided by the navy or the airforce) is a requirement to prevent a foreign invasion. A standing army is not despite all of the hyperbole coming from your side about Mexicans being able to do jack crap against country where even the civilian population would have them out manned and out gunned, and even ignoring the very real possibility that they would face aerial bombardment.

Fold the army into the navy why don't we to salve the constitution ramifications. IF it wasn't for the navy we wouldn't have been able to deploy the main armies overseas so the better concept would be to get rid of the the navy and airforce because THEY are the arms of the military that have provided the aggressive capabilities for themselves as well as the army..
The airforce can strike almost any place in the world without foreign bases.

 

[jmdrake]

Fold the army into the navy why don't we to salve the constitution ramifications. IF it wasn't for the navy we wouldn't have been able to deploy the main armies overseas so the better concept would be to get rid of the the navy and airforce because THEY are the arms of the military that have provided the aggressive capabilities for themselves as well as the army..
The airforce can strike almost any place in the world without foreign bases.

Right. Let's just throw the constitution out the window so you can maintain your military fantasies. I'm done here. Anyone with half a brain knows you need to protect your land and air approaches in a defensive posture against a modern military. That's more important to preventing an invasion than having a large standing army. I explained that clearly going over the history of the Battle of Britain. I guess your answer is "Don't worry about that. Never mind that nobody defends the land and sea approaches. Once they realize that we have this awesome landlocked unconstitutional standing army they'll turn back!"

 

[Arion45]

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."

You do realize that before the 1800s there wasn't police in the United States? British common law was formed without the government. Militias have served for defense in the United States and in switizerland.

It is time for you to give up on your dystopian dreams of a limited government. The smallest government always allows enough freedom to create the wealth that eventually strangles itself. If the government can force someone to pay it then it looses accountability and comtrol.

Around each new legislative act it creates springs a group of people that profit from it. Those people who profit will make it there job to lobby the government to keep that legislation. While you and I may not agree with corn subsidies it may only cost an individual a dollar a year. This makes it not worth the time to fight it. On the other hand the farmers have millions to lose to shrink goverment. With the majority of governmental legislation this is case. Therefore government grows and rarely shrinks.

So if you continue to support violence against peaceful people you will just have to accept the leviathian that springs from your own ignorance. You will have to learn to live with the destruction of the currency, the murder of innocent civilians by the endless wars, the oppressive taxation (40% of a persons labor), the nanny state, etc, etc. You have to learn that once the monopoly power of force is given to a small group of people that this is the result. You need to learn to wake up.

 

[tekkierich]

Wolverines!

like

 

[klamath]

Swiss Army; The armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers and 77,000 reservists, most of these being soldiers
The swiss maintain about the equivalentof 8 to 12 active divisions. So much for the much touted all militia swiss army. One of the larger active armies population wise in the western world.

 

[klamath]

Right. Let's just throw the constitution out the window so you can maintain your military fantasies. I'm done here. Anyone with half a brain knows you need to protect your land and air approaches in a defensive posture against a modern military. That's more important to preventing an invasion than having a large standing army. I explained that clearly going over the history of the Battle of Britain. I guess your answer is "Don't worry about that. Never mind that nobody defends the land and sea approaches. Once they realize that we have this awesome landlocked unconstitutional standing army they'll turn back!"

Just like you were trying to throw the constitution out the window to support the Airforce. You sure can miss sarcasm. "Your side" as you like to say has been maintaining that an active army is always used for agressive wars yet was supporting the navy and Uncontitutional airforce which have a lot higher use in agressive wars. I don't believe we should get rid of any of them just massively reduce the size and use them for our defence. The army is no more a threat to the US population the the navy or airforce.

 

[Brett85]

1 million of them at a price tag of 700 million dollars? Sorry but that's just ridiculous. And even the other people in this thread supporting a standing army in theory realize that your level of standing army is ridiculous.

The level of the "standing army" would end up depending on the number of people who wanted to enlist in the army. I realize that you don't want to have an army at all. But if we're going to have one, how could you actually prevent people from enlisting in the army?

 

[jmdrake]

The level of the "standing army" would end up depending on the number of people who wanted to enlist in the army. I realize that you don't want to have an army at all. But if we're going to have one, how could you actually prevent people from enlisting in the army?

So everybody that shows up at an army recruiting station wanting a job gets one? The army is now just a jobs program? As the economy worsens how are you going to keep 100 million people from joining an army and reaching a point where even you have to admit is unsustainable?

 

[Brett85]

So everybody that shows up at an army recruiting station wanting a job gets one? The army is now just a jobs program? As the economy worsens how are you going to keep 100 million people from joining an army and reaching a point where even you have to admit is unsustainable?

There wouldn't ever be 100 million people who would sign up to join the army. There's not even 100 million young men in this country. Some people who wanted to join the military would be denied because they wouldn't meet the physical requirements. But I don't see how people who met all of the requirements could be prohibited from serving their country.

 

[jmdrake]

Just like you were trying to throw the constitution out the window to support the Airforce.

I'm not "throwing the constitution out to support the air force". Unless you think the internet should not be protected by the 1st amendment just because it's not listed in the constitution. Common sense says if something didn't even exist at the time of the constitution then you have to compare it against things that did. And this is a non issue anyway because the navy has planes already.

You sure can miss sarcasm. "Your side" as you like to say has been maintaining that an active army is always used for agressive wars yet was supporting the navy and Uncontitutional airforce which have a lot higher use in agressive wars.

Again the airforce is no more unconstitutional than the internet. You must not believe the first amendment applies to the internet.

I don't believe we should get rid of any of them just massively reduce the size and use them for our defence. The army is no more a threat to the US population the the navy or airforce.

It's unlikely that the air force would go house to house confiscating guns. But regardless that's not the point. To protect against a modern threat (that's what you keep yapping about right?) you need air superiority and to defend your sea approaches. The founding fathers realized that which is why they said a navy should be maintained. Also building ships takes a lot longer than training troops. And while every infantryman can keep his main weapon at his house like the Swiss do, it's impractical for an individual to keep and maintain a warship. We don't have the luxury of raising a navy when needed like we do for an army. An airforce fits the same mold as a navy just like the internet fits the same mode as the press when it comes to the first amendment. But that's a side issue since the navy can and does fly airplanes. So there isn't any reason for you to keep yapping about it. You just do because you think it helps your case. It doesn't. It just makes you look silly.

Lastly, pray tell how do you plan to restrict this standing army that you feel we so desperately need to the size you think we can afford? Through policy arguments? Don't make me laugh! "Traditional Conservative" is already saying we need to take on anyone who enlists. By that measure there is no upper limit. Using the constitutional argument the army can be trimmed to its proper size which I say is an officer corps. You want 5 divisions? Fine. Take 10 divisions of national guard, put them back under their proper state militia command structure, let the train the same amount they are training now and they should be able to handle the job of those 5 divisions of full time professional army you want so badly while still staying within a constitutional framework. The framework is more important than the details because that's the only real way to reign this in. Seriously if you want the so called "deterrent effect", 5 divisions won't cut it anyway. Someone dumb enough to try to invade a country with 275 million people and 235 million guns and a professional air force and navy isn't going to be seriously deterred by 50,000 professional soldiers.

 

[jmdrake]

There wouldn't ever be 100 million people who would sign up to join the army. There's not even 100 million young men in this country. Some people who wanted to join the military would be denied because they wouldn't meet the physical requirements. But I don't see how people who met all of the requirements could be prohibited from serving their country.

Fine. 50 million then. Or 10 million. What's your upper limit number? You think that every able bodied person who wants to sign up should be entitled to a job right? Why limit that to the military? Why not let local fire departments grow as big as possible just because someone wants a job? How about the police force? Why do you think the taxpayers should pay for excess people in the armed forces just because someone wants to "serve their country"?

And here's how it works now. At times when the military has more than met its recruiting goals the requirements are raised. The definition of "able bodied" changes. At times when the military isn't reaching its goals the requirements are lowered. If we have much lower goals we make the requirements that much tougher. Not a problem. And if you move to a constitutional militia where everyone is NOT a career solider then you can let everybody join just like in Switzerland. I knew if you thought about it long enough you'd come around to my position.