Should a nation have a standing army?
What do you all think? Here is the definition I want to talk about:
A permanent army maintained in time of peace and war.
Yes
Side Score: 18
|
 |
No
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
That's a touch tangential, because if I had implied that I want the army that's supposed to protect us to police the world, I certainly didn't mean to. I do believe that we need a standing army, yes. That's as far as my argument goes. I'm not going to get into american politics because it's a mess. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
1
point
Our forefathers warned against a standing army yet they stressed the importance of a "well regulated militia." A reason given by many of my opposition is that we need someone to protect the people, and to them I ask this: What is the army doing to protect us now? Do we have countries attacking us? No, so who would the army be protecting us from? Yes, I am aware of 9/11. But, is there a chance that, maybe, we brought that on ourselves? When we have a standing army, we find something for them to do. Going into the Middle East to help bring order was something for the army to do, and, it did help protect one of our interests: Oil. The problem with bringing order to the middle east is that the government overstepped its boundaries when it did that, and it made a lot of people mad. Flash forward a few years and we are dealing with "terrorist threats", however, if we had not been in the Middle East in the first place, would those "terrorists" be mad at us, and even more than that, would they even exist? Or would they still be farmers, men trying to earn a living for their families. But back to the original point, a standing army is unnecessary, and having one only leads to war. Side: No
What is the army doing to protect us now? Watching, waiting, preparing, and reporting any suspicious activity. Such as North Korea's missile activity. Do we have countries attacking us? No, so who would the army be protecting us from? True. Nobody is attacking us. Would a country honestly warn us if they wanted too? No. No country in there right mind would say "Hey America, get your militia ready we are going to attack in about a day or two." They are protecting us from any possible threats and any dangers that may threaten the United States. Yes, I am aware of 9/11. But, is there a chance that, maybe, we brought that on ourselves? Even if America did we could avoid this from happening in the future. When we have a standing army, we find something for them to do. Going into the Middle East to help bring order was something for the army to do, and, it did help protect one of our interests: Oil. The problem with bringing order to the middle east is that the government overstepped its boundaries when it did that, and it made a lot of people mad. True. We didn't have to do all that. I think that America's "world police" status is for a different debate though. Flash forward a few years and we are dealing with "terrorist threats", however, if we had not been in the Middle East in the first place, would those "terrorists" be mad at us, and even more than that, would they even exist? Or would they still be farmers, men trying to earn a living for their families. Well we can't change the past so we can only manipulate our future. We need to protect ourselves from them. But back to the original point, a standing army is unnecessary, and having one only leads to war. 1) Easier for war 2) Much easier to intercept attacks such as aerial attacks. 3) We can track enemy movement and decisively plan and train our soldiers for any event we may encounter. Side: Yes
"Watching, waiting, preparing, and reporting any suspicious activity. Such as North Korea's missile activity." Why might Korea hate us? I wonder... Maybe we brought it on ourselves... Korean war perhaps? We have a standing army which is spread out all throughout the world, they are not exactly able to protect the homeland from another country are they? If we had a militia which was ALWAYS in the homeland, we would be better protected/defended than we are/would be now. "Even if America did we could avoid this from happening in the future." The way to do that would be to withdraw our troops from other countries. "I think that America's "world police" status is for a different debate though." The fact that we are the "world police" is the reason countries hate us, the reason they might attack us, and the reason we would need to be defended. It goes had in hand with this debate and is completely relevant. "Well we can't change the past so we can only manipulate our future. We need to protect ourselves from them." You are right, we can't change the past. You are also right about manipulating our futures. What you do not realize is that, with a standing army, we are already beginning to repeat our mistakes, the ones that got us in to trouble in the first place. "1) Easier for war" How is it easier for war? Having troops all across the world would make it HARDER to wage war would it not? And should we even be in wars? The purpose of a militia would be defense, not war. "2) Much easier to intercept attacks such as aerial attacks." Having troops, no matter where they are, will not stop an aerial attack. For that we would need an aerial defense system, which, while owned by the government and used for purposes similar to war, would not be a part of the army. I agree that we need a way to defend ourselves. I do not believe a standing army is the solution. "3) We can track enemy movement and decisively plan and train our soldiers for any event we may encounter." Please elaborate on this as I do not see how this is something done by a standing army that cannot be done without one. In conclusion, the most fundamental thing which you do not understand is that our current army is not one which is prepared to defend our homeland. Our troops are spread out all across the world policing other countries, not protecting us. By the way, is this the serious debate you wanted? ;) Side: No
Hong Kong (which is in China for ones who don't know) doesn't have an army because China has its own army and has the responsibility to take care of Hong Kong. If Hong Kong has its own army, China would be outraged because its also like saying "We will use our Hong Kong army to rebel against you, China!" Side: No
|
