Why do we need a military?

[400Years]

Is Canada a threat?

Mexico?

[Hello_Kitty]

1. So Chimpy can wear his flight suit!

Duh....:rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

2. Um...

Poland 1939.

London 1940.

Hawaii 1941.

Take a wander through a history book and look at all the nations whose military was inadequate to the times. They don't exist anymore.

Why do we need a military? Because your life is worth defending, whether you like it or not.

[SCantiGOP]

3. agreed

necessary evil, like police and prisons. The army can, however, stay in the barracks unless there is a real and direct threat.

[400Years]

6. Who is going to invade us? Name names.

Also by that logic shouldn't Costa Rica be in ruins by now?

[WilliamPitt]

9. Who knows?

I left my crystal ball at the office.

What does yours say? Can I borrow it the next time I go to Vegas?

[400Years]

13. I am searching for serious answers here not sarcasm.

Seriously, is Candada about to hatch a new Hitler.

And what about Costa Rica, shouldn't they have been laid to waste by now?

[400Years]

41. also to those bringing up WWII

Given the fact that DuPont, Standard Oil/Rockefeller, etc. all supported Hitler's rise, was WWII a result of the processes of capitalism? How does that figure into your calculus?

[The Straight Story]

87. Was US going to attack anyone years ago?

Other nations keep a military for the same reason we do - it's called being prepared for the unknown.

[400Years]

93. I don't understand your question

are you referring to the invasion of Iraq?

Is having 700 bases overseas "being prepared for the unknown"?

[Maru Kitteh]

109. Mmm but that's not the question you asked, was it? Of course not.

You questioned the need for *A* military, not 700 bases. You don't get to change the subject halfway through, it's so.... middle school.

[400Years]

113. okay all conversation must never go anywhwere

after all the point of all discussions is to repeat one sentence over and over again.

:eyes:

talk about "middle school"

I also said early on that I wasn't talking about the national guard.

[Maru Kitteh]

122. Of course not, you change the subject to attempt to wiggle out of honest

or valid argument which you obviously have no interest at all.

So are you still willing to contend there is no need for a military, or were you just, you know, talking out your butt there in your original premise?

[400Years]

132. I asked a question and wanted interesting responses you come here

to make you feel better about yourself by trying to "win" something. I'm not interested in your little games.

The question was "do we need a military?" not can we have a flame war and see who wins. You may want to grow up a little.

[Maru Kitteh]

136. I didn't start the fire baby! You're the one who can't seem to stop your

self. I simply pointed out the fact that your "debate" tactics (I'm using that term loosely here) are dishonest.

[400Years]

139. okay super vegan like I said you "win", sheesh how childish

you are a god among men with your masterful powers of rhetorical destruction.
I can't hold a candle to the mighty brain you have at your disposal.
Whatever contest you are engaging in you have "won" and you can feel like
a big man now.

I'm sure there are other flame wars that desperately need your input at this time.

:eyes:

[SaveElmer]

12. No one now...

That is the point of having a military. A better question to ask is, who would attack us if we had no military. I can think of many takers there.

Costa Rica has us to defend them

[400Years]

15. Name them, note I am not talking about not having a national guard

who would be able to launch a full scale invasion of the united states
given also that we have a national guard that could be mobilized in the
case of such an event so I am not talking about having absolutely nothing.
What I am talking about is not having a standing army run by the Pentagon.

[SaveElmer]

65. Lets see....

China and North Korea spring to mind!!!

[400Years]

70. so you think it is logistically possible for China to invade the U.S.?

and why exactly would they?

[SaveElmer]

81. Lets see...

In 1941 it was logistically possible for Japan to hit us. Last time I looked China had a large number of ICBM's, and they have the largest military in the world...so yes I do think they could logistically hit the US.

The question is ridiculuous. You are asking "why" in terms of conditions that now exist, conditions that would not exist if the U.S. did not have a strong military. The modern world has been shaped in large part becasue the U.S. is a superpower. If that had been untrue then the world would be different and motivation would be different. We have enemies now, and if we just decided to disarm, do you seriously think China, North Korea, Iran, Syria etc would not try to take advantage...?

Our history is replete with us weakening our military infrastructure because we believed we were immune to attack, only to be violently disabused of that notion later. Not to mention our responsibilities to defend western Europe and Japan from nuclear threat.

[400Years]

89. So we are going to be invaded by Syria?

by "take advantage" I must presume you mean competition to access to resources.

[SaveElmer]

98. Ok we disarm tomorrow...

North Korea and China step up their nuclear programs knowing we won't hit them. North Korea, in order to raise money, begins selling missile and nuclear technology to Syria and Iran. Israel, now that we no longer can support them likewise exponentially increases their military budget to defend against these enemies. That isn't a recipe for disaster at all.

Western Europe must now exponentially increase their military budgets because we are no longer there. Japan, one of the aggressors in the last great war, are now forced to ramp up their military to defend against an increasingly powerful China and North Korea. Taiwan is gobbled up by Mainland China. An impotent United States no longer has leverage with either the Indians or the Pakistanis, so tensions increase there...along with the number of nuclear weapons

[400Years]

105. Okay I'll discuss this with you

We don't have much of a check on the nuclear programs of China or North Korea at this time anyway. As well, China is currently investing heavily in its military and will soon have a number of nuclear submarines that will effectively cut us off from defending Taiwan according to members of our military. And if North Korea wasn't a pariah state would they need to do what you are suggesting? You bring up good points.

As far as Japan and China, again is China not becoming increasingly powerful anyway? So the threat is happening wether we rule the world or not.

Many of the things you are worried about are happening anyway. Given the world we now live in I don't think there is a way out and disbanning the military is not going to happen but the decision to become an empire in the post WWII era with a full time standing army and bases all over the world has produced most of these concerns that you post.

[SaveElmer]

110. China does not swallow Taiwan...

Because we are here. Japan does not have to arm or worry about aggression from North Korea and China, because we are here. We absolutely are a check on China's nuclear capabilty. Us and the Russians are the only countries that provide a credible deterrant to any nuclear attack they might make. Do you think the government that ran their tanks over their students at Tianemen would hesitate more then a microsecond if they knew we were powerless to stop them?

[400Years]

116. mutually assured destruction is what stops nuclear warfare

Now as far as conventional military aggression that is another story.
The U.S. military does provide a big deterrent in that realm but wasn't it the
Japanese that invaded China originally?

[SaveElmer]

124. Absolutely...

ANd do you you suppose China has forgotten that? And do you seriously want the only options in a dispute to be eithe rsurrender or nuclear conflict?

[400Years]

128. well like I said this is all purely academic

The way we are going China is going to own us. The level of spending that the U.S. is engaging in is unsustainable so the future looks pretty uncertain there.
I think Mexico probably has a brighter future than we do due to their non-empire status.

[SaveElmer]

131. I do not think so...

China's economy though growing, will not be able to sustein the level of military growth they contemplate. And the fact is, with increasing economic prosperity, Chinese citizens will not be content to live under a dictatorship forever. And Chinese workers will not put up with the conditions they are forced to work under forever either.

[400Years]

135. well before WWI U.S. workers were getting pretty revolutionary

and Wilson promised not to get us in that war although I think he was crossing his fingers. Nonetheless, that war and WWII and some repressionary measures sure took the revolutionary wind out of U.S. workers.

But as far as internal Chinese politics I can't say I know anything about the dynamics inside of that country.

[SaveElmer]

138. Well I would argue...

Prosperity took the wind out of Revolutionary change.

[400Years]

140. and that same dynamic could not happen in China?

[SaveElmer]

142. Not in a dictatorship...nt

[Maru Kitteh]

86. Why wouldn't it be? Of COURSE it would be logistically possible.

Duh. They had a 2,300,000 member army in 2003 (must be bigger by now) and their military budget has been BOOMING thanks to all those American dollars from Wal*Mart. They have a well equipped Navy including nuke subs, carriers and battleships.


:crazy:

[400Years]

90. You think they can ship enough soldiers over here to invade and

they would actually undertake that effort knowing that we would nuke them off the face of the planet?

They wouldn't even be able to take LA. They are not that dumb.

[Maru Kitteh]

102. Dumb.

Dumb would be having no military and going "gee whillakers, I hope the world just leaves us alone".

Dumb would be lobbing the first nuke at the only other superpower in the world who has just as many and half of those sitting right off our shores pointed at our collective heads.

Dumb would be the premise of this ENTIRE thread.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[400Years]

125. There is nothing to "win" here, this is not a flame war to your dismay

I think the question brought up some good points from people and it is a valid one to discuss. There are no "winners" and "losers" here other than you because you obviously think the point of all discussion is to win rhetorical points instead of hashing out an issue.

Your responses say alot about your mental state. Perhaps you've spent too much
time getting into flame wars instead of searching for deeper understanding.

[Maru Kitteh]

130. And deeper understanding comes by what? Avoiding the issue

brought up by your own hand? Nice try though.

[400Years]

134. okay flameboy, whatever you say

I have no idea what you are trying to argue about at this point.

You "win" do you want the red balloon or the blue one?

[BushOut06]

147. We invaded Germany during WWII

Somehow the United States was able to ship enough soldiers overseas to Europe - heck, we've been able to ship soldiers all over the globe.

Why do you assume other countries wouldn't be able to do the same? Especially if we didn't have a Navy to stop them?

[wuushew]

71. I don't believe China ever has had a history of colonialism

unless you count the annexation of Tibet. Do you count Taiwan as a piece of American soil, because i sure as hell don't want to start WWIII over that dispute.

North Korea is likewise crazy yet xenophobic. They laid out fairly reasonable terms that we not attack them in exchange for the groundwork of a peace process.


It is our meddling which causes us problems not the other way around.

[400Years]

77. besides the north koreans would starve to death before they got half way

across the pacific

[mike923]

82. They are starving to death right now.

nfm

[400Years]

84. exactly, so I can't get all in a lather being worried about them

[Dorian Gray]

126. Are you seriously asking this question?

I mean, come on! You know why we must have a military. It's ridiculous to think that we don't need one. It would be dangerous to our citizens if we were to disarm and defund the military right now. It would be absolutely insane. Maybe we don't like what they do in our name, but we need them for our protection.

[400Years]

137. give me a serious answer

Other than a nuclear deterrent and a national guard do you think we are protecting America or protecting our lifestyle?

[SaveElmer]

88. China since communism is a completely different animal...

And yes I would include Tibet. And I would include Taiwan. The reason they haven't been able to wreak more havoc is because the west is there to oppose them. China's turn to communism was not the result of our meddling.

As to North Korea, you are using irrelevent events to make your point. So we have made bad decisions diplomatically so therefore we should disarm?

[wuushew]

107. I don't advocate complete disarmament, just parity

And yes our meddling has caused problems.

Like how we forcibly opened up Japan to western ideas in 1854 and then later encouraged Japanese militarism following the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War.

Or how about how we became the natural enemy of the Soviet Union after interfering with the assistance of Britain in the Russian Civil war after World War I.

Would Nazi Germany have risen if Amerika had not tipped the scales against Germany on the Western front condemning millions of Jews to death twenty years later?

North Korea had successfully subdued the South in 1950. By going to its defense 50,000 Americans and a million Chinese were fed into the meat grinder. Two divided states emerged which acted as a dangerous nuclear trip wire in the Cold War.

Amerika's dangerous optimism and willingness to plunge into uncharted foreign affairs seems to result in outcomes that are not originally desired. Being reactionary and not pro-active always gives the party making the decision clear and more determinant information on which to base decisions.

The history of the world is now abundantly clear that expansionist powers that attempt to maintain polyglot empires invariable fail. Given this self evident fact why commit the blood of you or your fellow citizens to the defense of others or establish a virtual empire in the so called crusade to make the world safe?


We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't support hawks and I don't support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. Convince me on her Iranian intentions.

[SaveElmer]

121. Really...

We are responsible for Japan's aggression because of actions taken 90 years earlier. So the Rape of Nanking, the occupation of the Phillipines etc are all our fault.

We are responsible for Hitler, because we aided the allies in WWI? And since Hitler was sure to fail anyway, because "...expansionist powers that attempt to maintain polyglot empires invariable fail," we should have stayed out of Europe in 1941 becasue Hitler would have fallen eventually anyway? I'm sure Europe's populations of Jews, Gypsys, gays etc would have been happy to wait!!!

And I suppose you believe our intervention in Kosovo was also unwarranted? Why bother ourselves with a little ethnic cleansing becasue Milosevic and his crew were bound to fail eventually anyway!

And, your solution to the Korean problem was to make the entire peninsula Communist?

[BushOut06]

144. You tend to dismiss the threat so easily...

The reason we haven't been attacked or invaded for quite some time is BECAUSE of our military. Do you really think that having oceans protecting us would stop would-be invaders?

Didn't stop US from invading Germany in WWII.

[michreject]

39. Cuba

If they knew we were defenseless.

[400Years]

42. uh, okay if you say so

[pitohui]

104. costa rica is defended by the usa

what nation's army do you suggest we employ as mercenaries for our protection?

if we actually had no military, yeah, i don't doubt for a moment that a large part of the nation would belong to mexico, and even canada would prob. grab its share in the resulting free-for-all, get real

[400Years]

111. so at least somebody here is actually scared of Canadian invasion

[Xithras]

120. Anybody, if we didn't have a military.

Also, it's fallacious to assume that someone would have to take over the whole US if they invaded. China, for example is a huge player in the worlds technology and agricultural markets. They would LOVE to take over California and gain access to those. They don't, because it's not worth a war to them. OTOH, you don't even neccesarily need a hostile nation to do it. Canada, for example, had publicly stated its opposition to oil drilling in ANWAR (it's very near their own arctic border). Without a US military, all of Alaska could EASILY be invaded and seized by the Canadians as a "preemptive" measure to protect their own country.

What about on our southern border? Fox has repeatedly attacked both US economic and immigration policy and has vowed to use "all resources available" to change our national policies. If we didn't have a military, the likleyhood that he would inclide military intervention into that list of resources grows exponentially.

[Maru Kitteh]

129. You've presented a far to reasoned and plausible argument to get a

reply from this OP.

[400Years]

143. okay Canada and Mexico are the biggest threats

thanks.

[BushOut06]

154. We've fought wars in both countries in the past

You're the one who wants to keep bringing up these hypotheticals. If we didn't have a military, the world would be MUCH different. Are you seriously saying that because Canada & Mexico are friendly to us now, that would always be the case? Well, it hasn't always been that way! During the early years of this country, we did fight wars in Canada and Mexico!

[Karmakaze]

123. That's a fallacious argument!

"Who's gonna invade us?" is a premise solely based on the US ability to defend itself. If the US had no military, it could easily be answered: "Anyone who wants to!"

While I agree that the size or strength of an army before a war is less important (the US military was backward as hell in 1939 - severly understaffed and under armed considering what was coming) it does not stand to reason that security of the kind you refer to can be maintained with no military at all.

I am a New Zealander. We do not have a proper combat arm in our Airforce (ie no fighters or bombers), and our geographical location pretty much rules us out for invasion by anyone but the US, but the fact remains that we try to maintain a strong (but not too sizable) and modern army purely to ensure that should the need arise we would not be totally defenceless.

If the worst was to occur, our army as it is right now would not be able to put up enough of a defence, BUT, it would be able to quickly train and assimilate many new recruits, while still maintaining a professional fighting force. If we had no army at all, and DID need to defend ourselves, who would train and lead new recruits? Who would be experienced enough as soldiers to prevent our defence being more than a rabble destined to be rolled over by a superior force?

Aside from that, our military has peacetime uses too - they often provide the manpower for search and rescue, disaster relief and other civillian needs that would otherwise not exist. Not to mention peacekeeping and humanitarian roles overseas.

The problem is not HAVING a military, the problem is what it is used for. US presidents have often used the US military as a stick - a threat to anyone who does not bow down to US demands - while we use our military as a carrot - an offer of help when it is needed.

The result is that many nations WANT our Army to come to their aid; not militarily, but for humanitarian reasons. That more than anything is a damn good reason for us to have one. Our military is more like "International Rescue" from the Thunderbirds, than it is like the US military.

[wuushew]

66. This graph doesn't strike me as an inadequate level of spending

[hunter]

114. Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

It's amazing that if all those countries on the chart ganged up against us, we'd still outspend them...

But the way things are going, that's a very real possibility, isn't it?

Thanks, Bush.

[file83]

4. Good question - they were of ZERO help during 9/11, Oklahoma bombing,

WTC bombing in 1993. Good question.

[blondeatlast]

161. A military didn't attack us, nor were our attackers subject

to the Geneva Conventioor the UN.

In neither case was there a declared war (there was plenty of intelligence to suggest Japan was going to attack in 1941, OTOH).

It is a a fallacious argument to blame the failures 9/11 and/or Oklaho,a City on the military. It isn't necessarily fallacious to blame Pearl Harbor or 9/11 on the failures of the administrations in charge at the time, however.

HUGE difference.

[RJRoss]

5. To protect the country

like on Sept. 11, 2001.

Seriously, our military exists to maintain our economic empire and "not open for negotiation" wasteful American way of life. And big business makes a buttload of money when we bomb the beejeebus out of and invade another country.

Then there's our overseas military bases...

[cali]

7. If you're seriously asking-

my answer would be we need a military for national defense. A better question would be: why do we need such a huge military? Why do we need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on military expenditures?

[400Years]

8. national defense against who?

[cali]

16. Who knows?

We can't forsee threats that may arise. Someone pointed out upthread that the military was of no use during 9/11, and though that may be largely true, I, for one, had no problem using the military to go into Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban. I think there are perfectly legitimate uses of military power. Unfortunately, this country tends to abuse its military more often than it uses it well.

[400Years]

21. Given that we have a national guard to protect our borders

and also given the fact that we have over 700 bases in other countries that as far as I am concerned make us more of a target than not, why do we need the military that we have today?

Saying "who knows" as if there is some scary unnameable threat out there is no much of an answer IMHO.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[400Years]

35. I didn't suggest not having a military I asked why we need one.

and lay off the name calling it debases the discussion.

the paranoia around here is a little high sometimes with all these scary faceless threats we are facing.

BTW, according to bin laden's own statements 9/11 was due to bases in Saudi.

[cali]

67. Candide? That's hardly playing rough.

I trust you know the reference. You're being a tad thin skinned.

I'm hardly one of those around here who's prone to scary faceless threats. (and yes you did suggest that) I refer you to this, which I posted yesterday. Pretty clear I haven't bought into the terra, terra, terra meme, isn't it?



"My odds of being killed in car accident are far greater than being killed in a terrorist attack. I'm sick of the hyperbole, the non-stop fear mongering, the price tag, etc. I believe it's 85% cooked up bullshit. If we hadn't gone to Iraq and hadn't alienated so many people, it'd be perceived as a much smaller issue.
But no, this country just can't seem to exist without enemies, so we construct them.
Life is dangerous. There will always be threats to the security of the nation, but this national obsession with terror is exhausting and demoralizing. I'm so frustrated by it I can barely articulate my disgust.
Screw terror, screw the terror mongers and screw those who avidly buy into it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=549589&mesg_id=549589

[400Years]

73. I've read the book.

[Maru Kitteh]

68. I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you

UBL is one of the greatest propagandists of our time. He's like Bush and his entire team of spin doctors and nut-jobs rolled into one tall Wahhabi.

UBL attacked the US because:

1# To become a great hero you need a great villain and impossible odds make the sale even easier
2# American influence and business dealings make it difficult for him to overthrow the house of Saud
3# He wants to go down as one of the great Muslim leaders in history. He is just as deluded and loves himself as much a Bush does.

You want to boil this down to the military? All military? Very simplistic line of reason there. It's not the military, it's how it's abused.

[400Years]

76. I guess being an empire has nothing to do with being a target?

:eyes:


I haven't really put forth any line of reasoning yet. I just asked a question and have yet to get anything convincing in response.

[Maru Kitteh]

106. So in other words you're just running about throwing red herrings,

straw men and chasing your tail. Thanks for entertaining us. :rofl:

[400Years]

118. I'm just trying to have a rational discussion and you want a flame war

I doubt if you cared if we were discussing smoking, the DLC, or anything else.
You are obviously here just to engage in flame wars.

[Dorian Gray]

127. Yes, Cali...

No to mention the military planes that were immediately sent out to patrol NYC, Washington, D.C., and the the airways immediately after the strikes. You may not think that the military did anything then, but that day, in midtown Manhattan on the roof of my building, I was happy when US airplanes were flying over to protect our skies.

[aikoaiko]

10. I'm glad we have an excellent military and I'm proud of the troops.

Its the people givng the orders and setting the agendas, that need to questioned. We have needed and will need a strong military.

[400Years]

17. you didn't anwer my question

[aikoaiko]

48. simply put: to kick ass when we need to. nt

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

64. What? you ask a question -- you get answer.

Forgive me if I spoke colloquially, but I think you got a succint answer.

Sometimes brute force is the way things get done. In the past the US has been attacked, and we will probably be attacked again. The military is a useful means of protecting the US and helping allies protect their interests (which are often our interests if they are allies).

[400Years]

I referred to you as Einstein, what more do you want?

milk and cookies?

[leftofthedial]

11. To create markets for Halliburton

[LSK]

14. because what if Mars Attacks???

Lets see,
Europe has no interest in War after being destroyed twice in WWI and WWII within the past 100 years.

Russia will not attack because we will just Nuke each other.

China would rather just keep making lots of money off us.

Is there any other military power capable of reaching our shores let alone invading us?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. To protect us from the endless supply of bogeymen that politicians find.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

[ThomWV]

26. And To Protect Us From Real Threats As They Arise

No matter where it is from. Just because you can't put your finger on a true danger to our nation today doesn't mean that one does not exist nor that one will not come into existance.

Just because Bush caused us to go to war without legitimate cause does not mean that there is no reason why our nation might not be forced to protect itself from armed invasion or intrusion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. And, the nations threatening to do so are?

When, since 1945, has the military "protected" us from anything?

[bryant69]

19. OK - this is crap.

What a non-sensical question.

We have enemies and rivals throughout the world. Abandoning our military would expose us to them. Maybe that would be beneficial in your mind, but not mine.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RJRoss]

20. I agree

A better question would be "Why do we need a larger military (BY FAR) than any other country?"

[400Years]

23. It's a valid question and if you can't answer it with a sensical reply

then I would say you don't have a justification for our currentl military.

Now the statement "We have enemies and rivals throughout the world" is sensical
in terms of the Geopolitical situation. It may be that China would be an actual
threat somehow in terms of resource acqusition and the support of our lifestyle in the
case that we didn't have a military. However, I have yet to see anyone her make that case.

[bryant69]

25. OK

We get rid of our military, doesn't that increase the pool of nations who could hit us? I mean lots of nations have militarys, all over the world. Pretty much all of them if memory serves. So we eliminate our military, it seems the pool of potential threats opens exponentially.

[400Years]

32. The militarys of most other nations don't have bases all over the world

but most other countries are not up to the scale of Russia, China, the UK, France and the U.S.

So if we had nothing but the national guard to protect our borders and we did not have bases all over the world do you think people would want to kill us? If so why?

Abolishing our military would mean giving up our lifestyle but I don't think there would be much of a threat in terms of hatred for U.S. policy.

Note: this is all purely academic since none of this would ever happen any time soon but I am interested in where the conversation leads.

[bryant69]

34. Well exactly

We'd have to voluntarily beccome a third world nation in order for this scheme to work.

And incidently - the state militias are in fact a military.

Bryant

[400Years]

36. So our military is really about our lifestyle?

[bryant69]

38. MIlitary is about protecting what we have

If we don't have anything to protect, we don't need a military.

[400Years]

59. our lifestyle depends on our access to resources

we could live a less consumptive lifestyle and not need so much

but you might not get the latest gamebox or whatever

[bryant69]

72. Interesting response

A few points.

1. I don't own a gaming system now - I play computer games. But presumably in your brave new world, we'd do away with those too.

2. We'd have to lose a lot more than game boxes.

3. You'd have to make non-consumptiveness mandatory in order to achieve your goal of eliminating the military.

4. You are free to live the less consumptive life by my standards. I am not free to play computer games or buy CDs by your standards.

5. I'm going to hell anyway, so I don't spend a lot of time worrying about being too consumptive. Trying to make me feel guilty for taking what little pleasures life offers me probably isn't going to work.

6. The powers you would unleash in making a less consumptive lifestyle mandatory would inevitably have negative consequences.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[400Years]

80. okay

I guess all the negative consequences of the current situation are more to your liking. That's fine. I can respect that.

[bryant69]

97. Yes I prefer the negative consequences of freedom

to the negative consequences of slavery.

To each their own.

Bryant

[400Years]

146. So the U.S. military brings freedom? To who?

Certainly not us, we don't seem free to me.

You are free to be a good consumer but try speaking out and you will see how free you are or were you not around during the run up to war?

[SaveElmer]

150. Shows how truly spoiled we are...

You say you were not free to speak out against the war. What were the consequences if you did...harsh words and maybe ridicule from some. Your participation here demonstrates that did not stop you.

In some places, you would have been rounded up and never heard from again.

[400Years]

153. that is happening now right here in the u.s.

I guess you missed out on the cops gassing people on the street during the run up to invading iraq.

I guess you missed out on the sweeping mass arrests during the RNC.

[SaveElmer]

157. Nothing new...

A few isolated incidents does not prove your case. There has been polic eabuse throughout history. None of the people mistreated were hauled off and executed. How many DU'ers have been awakened in the middle of the night and were never heard from again.

And before you accuse me of looking askance at such incidents, I do not. They are serious and those responsible should have been punished, but it is not indicative of a societal or systemic abrogation of our free speech rights!

[400Years]

160. nothing "isolated" about it

I have seen many arbitrary arrests, spying on citizens, infiltration of peace groups, etc. The repression is systematic and widespread.

[Dorian Gray]

133. Maybe the answer seems so obvious to everyone who thinks

the question is a foolish one. If we didn't have a military, then the other powers in this world who were grabbing for power THROUGHOUT HISTORY and IN OUR FUTURE would target us. Either with bombs or with invasion. Take your pick. And it is our military that oftentimes keeps peace throughout other conflicts in the world. Look at the UN peacekeepers, often filled with our military personel. Oh, and look at the Bosnia War. Our presence prevented it from becoming an European-wide bloodbath.

It's obvious to me why WE need a military. Do you think that this world would be a better place without our military?

[400Years]

141. so we kept the peace in Chile, Argentina, VietNam, Iraq, El Salvador

Guatamala, Loas, Cambodia, Haiti,....

well you get the point.

"Do you think that this world would be a better place without our military?"

Quite possibly.

[wuushew]

152. The United States has only once acted in defense

The Second World War was the only legitimate war this country ever fought. The War of 1812 doesn't count because Congress decided the solution for the minor problem of impressment was to mount a full scale invasion of Canada and burn its capitol.

The Indian Wars, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, Philippine War, Vietnam, Grenada etc : All were unjust. What a bad track record for something some claim is necessary.

[SaveElmer]

156. 1812 was about more than impressment...

Great Britain had not lived up to their agreements in the Treaty of Paris, had refused to abandon forts, and were inciting Indian attack. In addition, impressment was only a symptom of trade barriers that were being erected. I'm not saying war was the best answer, but the issues were not minor.

In addition to the Second World War I would argue The Revolutionary War, the Civil war, Korea, WWI, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were all justified.

[Swede]

22. Because Russia and China do.

It's self preservation.

[400Years]

24. Best answer I've seen yet, thanks for the reply.

I don't know why so many people can't answer the damn question seriously.
Thanks again.

[K-W]

40. What if we retained a strategic nuclear arsenal?

That would ensure that no nation could ever attack us without assuring its own destruction.

What about the rest of the military? It serves no defensive purpose whatsoever in the nuclear age.

(I do not btw support nuclear weapons, I just wanted to pose the question, I would much rather have mutual global disarmement)

[400Years]

43. good point

[jayfish]

164. That Would Be Like Throwing The Baby Out With The Bathwater.

We are going to wreck the planet because we don't want to pay for a conventional capability? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Jay

[porphyrian]

27. Because there are always people who will wage war.

Since we can't be sure that they'll be in our country, we need to be ready to defend ourselves. That doesn't mean we should build a giant military, or that we should use it to wage our own wars. The problem with having a huge military during peace time is that they'll itch to do what they're trained for, and it can be dangerous to ignore this fact.

Most people most of the time don't need a military. However, not having one when you need one usually means bloody destruction.

[DS1]

29. So we can have really cool Navy commercials during the Superbowl

[Cleita]

31. According to our founders, military was supposedly only

necessary at the times that war was threatened. We were actually caught with our pants down both in WWI and WWII and had to mobilize and build almost from scratch. It was then decided after WWII to have a regular military at all times "just in case". However, this already in place military was abused almost from the beginning, with wars of agression, thinly veiled as fighting communism, starting with Korea and then Vietnam.

I'm not against a regular military really. We do live in a dangerous world, but I really don't want the President to be Commander In Chief anymore. I think declaring war should be left only to Congress. Between two houses they should get it right. I would definitely leave the executive office out of it. I think the Presidency should operate from the premise of diplomacy in foreign affairs. If he feels that we need to go to war then he will have to persuade Congress to do so. Actually, that is the way it's written in the Constitution.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[im10ashus]

37. As a former military person, I am very hurt you would say that.

I know a lot of people have a hard time understanding why we have a military. But in my family college was not an option. I CHOSE to join the Army after being out of high school for 2 years because I needed to learn a trade. I was extremely proud of my service there and wouldn't consider myself to be a murderer. Remember Pearl Harbor? Where would we be today without a military?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. As a former military person, I'm surprised you missed training.

Either that, or the military has changed drastically since I was in. As I recall, we were taught to kill on command in various ingenious and efficient ways. Without asking why we were to commit murder.

I CHOSE to join the marines because I was more than likely to be drafted anyway and I was facing homelessness. Also, because of false advertising, "The Marine Corps Builds Men".

Do you see any Pearl Harbors looming on the horizon? Perhaps mighty Cuba will invade Miami? Or, the noted SuperPower Grenada?

[im10ashus]

47. I didn't miss training.

And in fact was an expert marksman. That has nothing to do with it. You HONESTLY believe we don't need a military?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Yes. I honestly believe that we don't need a military.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[VelmaD]

49. And don't you think it's rather sad...

that the only way you had available to learn a trade was to sign yourself up to potentially have to kill or die?

[im10ashus]

52. Of course I think it is sad.

But it is what it is. Without our military would you feel safe? I just can't believe we are having this conversation.

[400Years]

56. What are you scared of? Canada?

9/11 was a direct result of our interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

[VelmaD]

58. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other...

about whether we need a military. I was simply trying to make the point that it is wrong that so many of our young people end up in the military because they have no other options. I firmly believe that is intentional on the part of our government and the military-industrial compex. They have created and have to perpetuate an economic system that creates enough low-income young people to feed the war machine.

As to whether or not I feel safer with or without a military...that depends entirely on who is in charge of it.

[im10ashus]

60. "that depends entirely on who is in charge of it."

I couldn't agree more.

[WilliamPitt]

44. Barf

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Aaaah. Did I hurt your feelings?

[400Years]

50. so it's not murder?

[im10ashus]

62. Have you ever heard of self-defense?

[400Years]

63. from whom?

[K-W]

94. Oh is that all they teach in the military?

I was under the impression they taught people how to kill methodically and without emotion whoever has been identified as the enemy.

[K-W]

53. At the moment all we need is a natl guard and nuclear weapons.

That would be all it would take to ensure the security of the US borders. There is simply no risk of any nation staging a conventional invasion of the US as long as it has nuclear weapons. This is if one considers it a need to guard the borders against potential aggressors.

[400Years]

57. I agree

[aikoaiko]

69. So nothing in between waiting for a strike inside borders and nukes?

Seems a little extreme.

[K-W]

85. I don't understand your question.

All you need tactically is nuclear weapons, a national guard to secure them, and enough intelligence to detect threats. Everything else is superfluous if your only goal is insuring that nobody invades the United States. Having a very large conventional military was necessary before the nuclear age, when a large conventional military was the top weapon on the planet. That is simply no longer the case. Conventional militaries are obscolete as a deterrent if you have nukes.

Now I am not talking about some small force here. Our nuclear deterrent is large and complex and there would be a sizable national guard including an air force and a navy, but nothing close to the military we have now which is built to intervene in, invade and occupy foreign nations.

[ksilvas]

54. To make rich people more money.

National defense is supposed to be handled by the national guard, or citizen soldiers.
We've had a standing army since WWI, coincidentally about the same time
as corporate defense industries came about and the industrial revolution.

[400Years]

61. So is anybody going to make a solid case?

It's such a simple question.

[Bridget Burke]

74. You mean "simplistic" instead of "simple"

First--you make a solid case.

[400Years]

83. I'm not the one claiming we need a military

other people are and they have yet to make one.

I just asked a question that seems to produce mostly reactionary responses, primarily because they have always lived with the assumption that we need a massive military.

[im10ashus]

95. You are parsing words.

Your idiotic OP stated "why do we need a military?" It stated nothing about the size of the military, massive or otherwise. Apparently no answer is good enough for you so why ask in the first place?

[400Years]

100. actually there have been a couple of decent answers at this point

and I have acknowledged them.

claiming my post was idiotic says more about your mental state than mine since you obviously are incapable of discussing the issue without getting emotionally reactionary about it.

Don't worry I won't bother to stoop to your level.

[im10ashus]

103. Emotional?

I guess stating my beliefs is emotional? OK. Whatever you say. You are obviously lacking in cognizant skills in general or this question would never have crossed your mind.

God I love the ignore button.

[400Years]

149. yes punch the ignore button since you are not capable of discussing

an issue without resorting to insults

[Bridget Burke]

101. Your original post did not say"massive" military.

Many of us believe that the US spends far too much on the military. And having idiots in charge means that the military will be misused.

[LSK]

75. no, apparently not

A lot of what if UNKNOWN COUNTRY invades us.

Nobody wants to define UNKNOWN COUNTRY or define what it takes to deter UNKNOWN COUNTRY.

[HamdenRice]

78. No one answered because there really isn't a good answer ...

The main answer is that there are other people with armies who might want to do us harm. But stepping back from that micro view to see the macro view shows that each country is locked into a prisoner's dilemma game -- that is, all countries would be better off without militaries, if everyone got rid of theirs.

In the meantime, though, some countries are able to free ride. Costa Rica has no military, for example. Botswana, which before it was hit by AIDS was one of the fastest growing, and most stable countries in Africa, has virtually no military.

But overall, given we are a bigger target than Costa Rica or Botswana, the question is what is the right size for our military and what is its mission?

Right now we have an utterly bizarre circular logic about resources and the military: we need a military to protect our access to oil, so we spend $400 billion a year in order to purchase several hundred billion worth of energy resources.

If magically we could redirect both the military expenditures and energy expenditures toward energy indepedence, we could be eliminate the need for both the military expenditures and overseas energy expenditures.

There used to be a show on PBS about defense issues, hosted by retired generals. Because they were no longer subject to the system of discipline and rewards for keeping the system going, and also knew a lot about threats and military resources, they had the luxury of being able to be both honest and perceptive.

They routinely said that the right size of our military was about 1/10th its current size -- and defense budgets should be around $30 billion, rather than $300 billion.

[400Years]

96. cool, thanks for the good input Hamden

[Radio_Guy]

79. To protect this country

We need a military to protect us from attacks on this country. We also need it to help our allies out when they ask (Britain in WW1 & 2, Kuwait in Gulf War 1, etc.) But it is not to invade other countries (Iraq, Iran, Panama, Grenada, etc.) There is not a country that is currently a threat to our borders. But if one decided to cross the pond to attack us, I'd like a military to be able to defeat them.

[wuushew]

92. I reject the need to free Kuwait by force

Saddam's sole reason for invading was to control the highly valuable crude oil, not to ethnically cleanse Kuwait or search for lebensraum.


If we refused to buy the oil, Saddam's reason for occupation would have evaporated. The resulting energy crisis could have jump started the conservation and alternative energy routes that we need TODAY to deal with peak oil. Also the garrisoning of the ME lead directly to the problems we have now regarding terrorism.

Taking the peaceful route would have saved at least 200,000 lives as a direct consequence of Gulf War I.

[jus_the_facts]

112. Our military CREATES our enemies so our NEED of them will never end...

:nopity:

[Maru Kitteh]

148. You don't need to create enemies to have someone

come and steal your stuff. We've done plenty of it and it would be done to us as well.

[jus_the_facts]

159. They stir shit all over the world to perpetuate their need to exist....

....the BFEE was in full swing when prescott bush funded hitler's rise to power..then sold them the chemicals to gas jews in the concentration camps...the history is there for consumption. :think:

[killbotfactory]

91. Theoretically to protect the country, or allies

Right now it's mainly used to impose our will over the world, and give jobs to defense contractors with connections to politicians.

[jus_the_facts]

99. Just 'cos that's the way it's ALWAYS been....and always will be....

....unless something is done to abolish the Pentagon and the military industrial complex then nothing will EVER change for the better here or anywhere in the world. :nopity:

[stepnw1f]

115. Are You Trying to Justify Our Military

being in the Middle East rather than here on American soil?

[400Years]

151. no

[THUNDER HANDS]

119. because

now eat your peas.

[Taxloss]

145. I refer you to Thoreau:

"The objections which have been brought against a standing army, which are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it."

- Civil Disobedience, 1849

... And he was writing while a war was raging in Mexico. So, you can argue against a standing army, but the same position can be used against a standing federal government. You may be a Libertarian.

[400Years]

155. thanks for the quote

[SaveElmer]

158. I wonder...

Would he have felt the same way after Pearl Harbor?

[400Years]

162. you do understand how the U.S. came about taking over Hawaii?

[SaveElmer]

163. Yes I do...

What does that have to do with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

[pinto]

165. Locking.

This thread has become a series of sidetrack arguments - understandably perhaps - but the number of personal attacks and general incivility have resulted in Moderator consensus for a lock.