Should we abolish the U.S. Army?
Best idea I heard all day
Side Score: 24
|
Eeeeek!!!
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
"Thomas Jefferson first suggested that we not have a standing army, and wrote a series of letters in 1787, as the Constitution was being debated, urging James Madison and others to write it into the Constitution. The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army. Switzerland has such an army, and many have suggested it's one reason why Hitler never tried to invade this neighbor." P.S. Please don't throw around "national security" as if that handy little term needs no explanation. If you wish to include "national security" in your argument, please say what exactly you mean by it. Security of US citizens from foreign invasion? Security of US business interests in the middle east? Thanks! note: For the purposes of this debate, the Air Force and Navy are excluded. Side: Best idea I heard all day
4
points
It all starts in the name of defense, but you have this large defensive force and no way to put it to use. Then we find out country A needs help from country B. So we step in and help Country A which makes country B and his allies C, D, and E mad. So Country C and D send B aid which turns a small problem between country A and B into a big problem, and now we have to protect our investment with counrty A... So on and so forth We run across Counrty H(awaii) who has a great strategic position in the pacific so we decide in the name of defense to liberate these sovereign people and assimulate them So on and so fourth I wonder why no one likes the U.S's idea of freedom? Side: Best idea I heard all day
2
points
The USG does not represent basically the whole of the working class, who are the vast majority of the American citizens. Thus, the army is a weapon in the hands of the privileged few that may be used against the American citizenry. It undemocratically invades foreign lands, creating enemies for America, for reasons that the military refuses to disclose to the public. WMDs, false-flag 9/11, Lusitania, Vietnam lies, anti-Communism/anti-Unionism, the US Military has been a demonstrable force for evil in the world and has been for at least 100 years. It's time Satan's attack dogs got their due, which is 0 dollars and 0 cents. A new Left-wing Military should be founded, which will attack and destroy the Republican party and free the citizens from their oligarchial tyranny. Let's even call it a secular Jihad. The American military should never, EVER, be so strong that the American people cannot defeat it. And it currently is. Thus, in order to defeat this foreign power, we have no recourse except to attempt to use its own illusion of Democracy to cause it to commit suicide. Side: Best idea I heard all day
|
I do agree that the Army should be reduced and more reserved should be readied. In a sense, they reserves are what Jefferson is talking about. But totally disbanding the Active Duty army would place a lot of people out of work and limit our ability to defend our country's ability to defend itself overseas. How many civilians with guns would want to go to Iraq? Side: Eeeeek!!!
Zero! I don't think the United States should have armies in 130 nations around the world. Can you imagine if China had troops stationed in Mexico, or Canada? America would flip the hell out. But we're in Japan. We're in Eastern Europe. We're in Southeast Asia. Side: Best idea I heard all day
The reason we have troops overseas is because of mutual understandings with friendly nations that allow us to be closer to the battles we may be fighting. We have troops in Japan and Korea to assist their governments and keep the threat of North Korea down. We have troops in Europe to assist their nations and foster better international relations. Southeast Asia is a different story, we are there because of idiotic decisions made by our government. Our overseas troops aren't there to intimidate or oppress, they are there to strengthen the international ties that will save our country's ass in case of another world war. The troops are overseas for specific reasons, not just because our country wants to have troops all over the world. Side: Eeeeek!!!
I don't think the United States should have armies in 130 nations around the world. I would tend to agree. Let other countries take care of themselves. Can you imagine if China had troops stationed in Mexico, or Canada? America would flip the hell out. Only because those countries are our allies. I believe Russia has/had troops in Cuba. I don't see anyone flipping out. Side: Eeeeek!!!
If I understand Szechuan's argument correctly, then it's not a question of whether we should have an army or not, but rather 'should we have an offensive army or not'. Mind you, the Swede's do have an army -- it's just not a standing army, it's a militia. And a conscripted one at that. I fully support the notion of a conscripted militia. There are few more powerful defenses than to have an nearly entire nation's males trained to fight war. And the affect of conscription does great things for national pride as well as endowing individuals with useful skills (navigation, self-defense, leadership). Having said that, we're in no position to abolish the army now. It will be several decades before we could work ourselves into a position diplomatically that would allow us to remove troops and support from around the world. Side: Eeeeek!!!
"It will be several decades before we could work ourselves into a position diplomatically that would allow us to remove troops and support from around the world." I don't think I follow you. Will our allies be angry with us for removing bases from their lands? I don't think so. They might even be glad that we can begin to lower our deficit by not pouring so much money into military spending. I think our allies would prefer the US have a strong economy than a strong military presence in their country... In addition, it would improve diplomacy with countries that don't like us so much - like Palestine, Iran... Side: Eeeeek!!!
Most of the bases on foreign soil are there with the explicit permission of foreign governments and they wouldn't be there if said government didn't want them there. In some instances it's a security measure. More often though, there are economic and political considerations. A US military base is almost an assured economic boon to the area where it's stationed. People may hate the U.S. but they have no problem taking money from U.S. soldiers stationed overseas. Also the U.S. allows allies to use our military installations. It's a tit-for-tat agreement whereby the U.S. is allowed a military presence within an allied nation under the assumption that that allied nation receives U.S. military support and that the U.S. will use it's logistics command to support allied operations. They want us there, probably even more than we want to be there. Side: Eeeeek!!!
You say 'We' as if this is a meaningful term in regards to the US Army. It isn't. I would rather we merge governments with the Chinese than continue to fund this Capitalist cancer. We wouldn't have to worry about an invasion because we would be inviting them over here. A joint coalition of Russia, China, Mexico, and the Left wing of the United States may just be enough to defeat the Republican party. And that is the military the people of the United States may actually democratically support, especially since in that case people would talk, not simply money. Side: Best idea I heard all day
Just wanted to say I think that was a very well thought out and worded argument. I agree that now is not the time at all to abolish the Army. Although some people hate to admit it the fear of the US Military is what keeps most nations peaceful in the world. You think North Korea or Iran wouldn't have attacked one of its neighbors by now if it weren't for the US Military? Side: Best idea I heard all day
Like HELL no. Every Nation needs some form of security one way or another. America is a country ultra developed in terms of infrastructure. If it was free for the taking any country would want to bring their tanks over and take over the capital city. But, I do support the view that the U.S Army should not be sent thousands of miles from home to do what other Armies should be doing for themselves ( 'Nam, Korea, Iraq to name a few famous examples ) The U.S Army should remain standing, just not on other's soil. Side: Eeeeek!!!
LOL some ppl never seize to amaze me. OK i don't think the question is correct, it should have read, Should we abolish the US government ways and policy's? ok the US army is u and me and our brothers and neighbors fighting to keep freedom, im not saying the wars we have and are in are about our freedom but we do need the US army we do need protection without the Army we would have wars on our very land we dwell on and take for granted the total freedom we really have, now not to say some policy's recently seem to take freedom to a different level, but to me freedom, is all part of being in america period! Side: Eeeeek!!!
We'd still have air and sea power. We have the most advanced navy and air force in the world. Not to mention nukes. This is a huge deterrent. As for terrorists, one of the things that inspires people to align with terrorist causes is our actions in the middle east. Withdrawing our armies from foreign lands would make the United States safer from terrorists, as the terrorist ranks would soon dry up with no reason to hate us. Side: Eeeeek!!!
|