Should the United States maintain a "Standing Army"

[nathanbforrest45]

In the immortal words of Elbridge Gerry at the founding of this country "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it offers a temptation for foreign adventure". There are currently 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the military with another 800,000 in various national reserve units. In as much as Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military within the borders of the United States except by special exceptions that leaves a tremendous amount of temptation lying around. The Constitution allows for a permanent navy and an army funded for a two year period only.

Do we need or even desire this large a permanent military? Today's technology can have naval forces almost anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. Aircraft, submarines, and the Marines can handle almost any outbreak of hostilities in the short term until the various State Militias could be called up. World wide military bases could be closed saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The lack of temptation for foreign adventure could save millions of American lives

The American military should be for the protection of America not the rest of the world.

[Peter1469]

Yes.

The US is the world's super power. We aren't a backwards farming community.

[nathanbforrest45]

Not good enough. England was at one time a world super power and by spreading itself throughout the world has now become a second rate country.

[Beevee]

Not good enough. England was at one time a world super power and by spreading itself throughout the world has now become a second rate country.

The United Kingdom (not England) became a second rate country when it was obliged to repay all of it's debt demanded by the USA at the end of WW11

[birddog]

We need a very strong military in all of it's areas, especially troops. However, we should close some overseas bases and concentrate on key bases around the world to protect our interests.

Our military needs to be primarily run by the military, not primarily by the politicians.

A strong military prevents war and the loss of American lives.

[Peter1469]

The United Kingdom (not England) became a second rate country when it was obliged to repay all of it's debt demanded by the USA at the end of WW11

Would the UK prefer to speak German?

lol

[donttread]

In the immortal words of Elbridge Gerry at the founding of this country "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it offers a temptation for foreign adventure". There are currently 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the military with another 800,000 in various national reserve units. In as much as Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military within the borders of the United States except by special exceptions that leaves a tremendous amount of temptation lying around. The Constitution allows for a permanent navy and an army funded for a two year period only.

Do we need or even desire this large a permanent military? Today's technology can have naval forces almost anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. Aircraft, submarines, and the Marines can handle almost any outbreak of hostilities in the short term until the various State Militias could be called up. World wide military bases could be closed saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The lack of temptation for foreign adventure could save millions of American lives

The American military should be for the protection of America not the rest of the world.

Yup , the Constitution reads " common defense" not ":Common offense " or "World police"

[donttread]

Yes.

The US is the world's super power. We aren't a backwards farming community.

But we're not supposed to a backwards reincarnation or the Huns, The Romans or the British Empire either

[donttread]

The United Kingdom (not England) became a second rate country when it was obliged to repay all of it's debt demanded by the USA at the end of WW11


Damn how I would love to see the faces on Congress if our creditors did the same thing to us tomorrow

[Common Sense]

A standing army can be construed as unconstitutional.

But some like to pick and choose.

[Peter1469]

But we're not supposed to a backwards reincarnation or the Huns, The Romans or the British Empire either

Correct. That is Ransom and his neocons.

I am a foreign policy realist.

[Peter1469]

Damn how I would love to see the faces on Congress if our creditors did the same thing to us tomorrow

So. If that happened we could repudiate our debt and make stuff here.

No other nation has that ability.

[Peter1469]

A standing army can be construed as unconstitutional.

But some like to pick and choose.

How?

[Ethereal]

No, I don't think we should. I think we should have a militia as our basic defense and a standing army only in times of war.

[del]

i'm sure the founders intended us to have military bases in 130 foreign countries.

they just forgot to write it down

[Ethereal]

Yes.

The US is the world's super power. We aren't a backwards farming community.

The only reason we're the world's super power is because we have such a gigantic military, but I question the necessity and the propriety of being the world's super power. As far as I can tell, our status as such hasn't very beneficial to Americans. If anything, it has caused the rapid deterioration of the republic and our national wealth.

[Peter1469]

The only reason we're the world's super power is because we have such a gigantic military, but I question the necessity and the propriety of being the world's super power. As far as I can tell, our status as such hasn't very beneficial to Americans. If anything, it has caused the rapid deterioration of the republic and our national wealth.

It was a result of geopolitics. We are more secure than most other nations. And our geography allowed us to grow faster and cheaper than others.

[zelmo1234]

The only reason we're the world's super power is because we have such a gigantic military, but I question the necessity and the propriety of being the world's super power. As far as I can tell, our status as such hasn't very beneficial to Americans. If anything, it has caused the rapid deterioration of the republic and our national wealth.

Actually that is what has kept us a super power, What made us a super power was our ability and freedom to produce things, It was the ability to out preform every other nation on earth, But that is gone now. So we need a kick ass military.

[Beevee]

Would the UK prefer to speak German?

lol

Think that's funny do you? Especially as 10% the American population speaks Spanish and you weren't even at war with them.

[Peter1469]

Think that's funny do you? Especially as 10% the American population speaks Spanish and you weren't even at war with them.

You would be a German colony if it were not for the US. Cease talking.

[del]

You would be a German colony if it were not for the US. Cease talking.

you misspelled ussr

[Peter1469]

you misspelled ussr

I did no such think semen.

[del]

I did no such think semen.

yeah, you did. it's to be expected among the unwashed

[Peter1469]

yeah, you did. it's to be expected among the unwashed

In the Army we can't carry showers with us. Like you squids do on your boats.

But we don't have queer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-crossing_ceremony)ceremonies when we cross the equator. You got us there.

[Beevee]

You would be a German colony if it were not for the US. Cease talking.

In your mind. That's the usual American propaganda and you especially fall for it hook, line and sinker.

You only think the UK would be a German colony because that's what you have been taught to think. You have no way of proving it, except in you mind.

On the other hand, consider what the US will be like with Trump as it's master. It may not be too long before you find out but by then, the US won't have any friends left. But, they don't need any do they - especially when all those countries in which the US military maintain a presence, kick you out.

At that time, is Trump going to wage war with all of them combined? Hardly. Considering North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, it's got you nowhere - fast.

[Peter1469]

In your mind. That's the usual American propaganda and you especially fall for it hook, line and sinker.

You only think the UK would be a German colony because that's what you have been taught to think. You have no way of proving it, except in you mind.

On the other hand, consider what the US will be like with Trump as it's master. It may not be too long before you find out but by then, the US won't have any friends left. But, they don't need any do they - especially when all those countries in which the US military maintain a presence, kick you out.

At that time, is Trump going to wage war with all of them combined? Hardly. Considering North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, it's got you nowhere - fast.

You were instructed to cease talking.

I wish I could say that in German. :wink:

[domer76]

In the immortal words of Elbridge Gerry at the founding of this country "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it offers a temptation for foreign adventure". There are currently 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the military with another 800,000 in various national reserve units. In as much as Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military within the borders of the United States except by special exceptions that leaves a tremendous amount of temptation lying around. The Constitution allows for a permanent navy and an army funded for a two year period only.

Do we need or even desire this large a permanent military? Today's technology can have naval forces almost anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. Aircraft, submarines, and the Marines can handle almost any outbreak of hostilities in the short term until the various State Militias could be called up. World wide military bases could be closed saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The lack of temptation for foreign adventure could save millions of American lives

The American military should be for the protection of America not the rest of the world.

For you strict Constitutionalists, the founders disliked the concept of a standing army. Hence, the Second Amendment.

[Peter1469]

For you strict Constitutionalists, the founders disliked the concept of a standing army. Hence, the Second Amendment.

So? Gun grabbers have the same political clout in the US as fascists do. You are the same.

[Archer0915]

In the immortal words of Elbridge Gerry at the founding of this country "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it offers a temptation for foreign adventure". There are currently 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the military with another 800,000 in various national reserve units. In as much as Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military within the borders of the United States except by special exceptions that leaves a tremendous amount of temptation lying around. The Constitution allows for a permanent navy and an army funded for a two year period only.

Do we need or even desire this large a permanent military? Today's technology can have naval forces almost anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. Aircraft, submarines, and the Marines can handle almost any outbreak of hostilities in the short term until the various State Militias could be called up. World wide military bases could be closed saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The lack of temptation for foreign adventure could save millions of American lives

The American military should be for the protection of America not the rest of the world.

In the modern world? Yes. Perhaps not in its current form but make no mistake, we must keep a trained force that remains trained. It is not 1770 anymore. It is not as simple as handing a person a flintlock, teaching them how to aim and reload and them pointing them at the enemy. Today our forces do not know who the enemy may be. The need for constant training is real.

Could we scale back some and create more reserve units? Yes and they would need to train all the time. Doing this hurts business and activation is a killer for small businesses.

Standing army needs to stay for the present.

[Green Arrow]

Probably, yes. However, it could be very easily scaled down from what it is now without really damaging our national defense or ability to respond to foreign crisis. The primary focus of our military spending should be on the navy and air force, wars really don't have to be fought by large masses of soldiers on the ground anymore.

[Peter1469]

Probably, yes. However, it could be very easily scaled down from what it is now without really damaging our national defense or ability to respond to foreign crisis. The primary focus of our military spending should be on the navy and air force, wars really don't have to be fought by large masses of soldiers on the ground anymore.


They do if you want to win.

[domer76]

So? Gun grabbers have the same political clout in the US as fascists do. You are the same.

14379

[Peter1469]

14379
lol

incorrect.

[donttread]

A standing army can be construed as unconstitutional.

But some like to pick and choose.

I have no issue with a standing army. I just think they need to stand here at home

[nathanbforrest45]

Would the UK prefer to speak German?

lol


Many of the French would not have cared. Today, I am not sure if the UK would care if they spoke Arabic.

[nathanbforrest45]

A standing army can be construed as unconstitutional.

But some like to pick and choose.

No, the Constitution allows an army but it must be refunded every two years. The idea of course was the people would not want to pay for a permanent army when they had a perfectly capable state militia and a navy

[nathanbforrest45]

In the Army we can't carry showers with us. Like you squids do on your boats.

But we don't have $#@! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-crossing_ceremony)ceremonies when we cross the equator. You got us there.


Its ships, not boats. Only submariners deliberately stuff themselves in boats.

[Peter1469]

Its ships, not boats. Only submariners deliberately stuff themselves in boats.

I know

[Green Arrow]

They do if you want to win.

It's not 1944 anymore, Peter. We completed our objective in Libya solely with our air force. Egypt lost the Six Day War because the Israelis destroyed their air force.

I'm not saying we don't need any ground troops, but we certainly don't need one million men storming the beaches to win a war anymore.

[Peter1469]

It's not 1944 anymore, Peter. We completed our objective in Libya solely with our air force. Egypt lost the Six Day War because the Israelis destroyed their air force.

I'm not saying we don't need any ground troops, but we certainly don't need one million men storming the beaches to win a war anymore.


Our action is Libya created chaos. And got a US ambassador ass raped and murdered.

[Green Arrow]

Our action is Libya created chaos. And got a US ambassador ass raped and murdered.

That's largely irrelevant. Our objective was to remove Gaddafi from power. We accomplished that solely with air power.

[Peter1469]

That's largely irrelevant. Our objective was to remove Gaddafi from power. We accomplished that solely with air power.


And created a bigger problem.

[Archer0915]

And created a bigger problem.

Yes, from Bush forward (even Clinton a little with the Balkans mess) we have been pushing the globalist interference agenda. This causes strong nations to change (not for the better) and the elitists gain more power. It is multifaceted but there is so much, it can not be coincidence.

[nathanbforrest45]

This "we are the world's policeman" is exactly what Gerry was referring to, and the reason we do not need a large standing army. A large standing army is useless against the type of warfare being waged today. Hell, we don't even know who the enemy is, we can't invade another country to protect ourselves because the current combatants are not states but ideologies. The biggest threat to our security today is not ISIS but Mexico and its millions of citizens streaming across our border and occupying our lands. We haven't fought a successful large scale land war in over 70 years. Vietnam should have proven that a determined country with outdated weapons, no air or sea power could still beat us, large scale army or no..

I am not suggesting we scrap our military, I am saying to re purpose it to defend this country first, not Germany, not Syria, not Israel but the United States.

[Archer0915]

This "we are the world's policeman" is exactly what Gerry was referring to, and the reason we do not need a large standing army. A large standing army is useless against the type of warfare being waged today. Hell, we don't even know who the enemy is, we can't invade another country to protect ourselves because the current combatants are not states but ideologies. The biggest threat to our security today is not ISIS but Mexico and its millions of citizens streaming across our border and occupying our lands. We haven't fought a successful large scale land war in over 70 years. Vietnam should have proven that a determined country with outdated weapons, no air or sea power could still beat us, large scale army or no..

I am not suggesting we scrap our military, I am saying to re purpose it to defend this country first, not Germany, not Syria, not Israel but the United States.

That can come down the road. First we need to get out of some agreements.

[nathanbforrest45]

That can come down the road. First we need to get out of some agreements.


Perhaps, perhaps we could just turn some of our bases into outpost with a very limited number of personnel Perhaps Congress should abide by the Constitution for a change and fund the army and airforce accordingly.

[Green Arrow]

And created a bigger problem.

I agree, but that's irrelevant to the topic.

[Dr. Who]

The only reason we're the world's super power is because we have such a gigantic military, but I question the necessity and the propriety of being the world's super power. As far as I can tell, our status as such hasn't very beneficial to Americans. If anything, it has caused the rapid deterioration of the republic and our national wealth.
Bite your tongue Eth - then the military industrial complex would go bankrupt!

[del]

lol

incorrect.

yeah, there's always hillary

two

[Cletus]

That's largely irrelevant. Our objective was to remove Gaddafi from power. We accomplished that solely with air power.

That is not even close to being true.

WE only committed air power, but it was the rebel forces on the ground that brought about his downfall.

[Green Arrow]

That is not even close to being true.

WE only committed air power, but it was the rebel forces on the ground that brought about his downfall.

That's the point. WE didn't HAVE to commit ground forces. Why can't that be the standard in other conflicts? Why can't we have the Sunni nations of the Middle East, for an example, supply the ground troops for the war against ISIL and back them up with air power?

The dynamics of warfare are changing and we have to change with them.

[Peter1469]

That's the point. WE didn't HAVE to commit ground forces. Why can't that be the standard in other conflicts? Why can't we have the Sunni nations of the Middle East, for an example, supply the ground troops for the war against ISIL and back them up with air power?

The dynamics of warfare are changing and we have to change with them.

Sure. But other nations act in their interests not ours. Constraints.