Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a Regular Army of about 25,000 men, preferably Irish and German immigrants, will suffice to meet the real needs of The United States. You know, keeping the Indians in line and holding Mexican brigands on their side of the Rio Grande.
Good points. On the first point it does not matter whether you think they are defending freedom or not because you may conclude a war is not achieving such goal.
I expand on that point. A while ago I read a book, forgot the exact title, that addresses Soldiers morality of killing in war. The war may not have the total support from a moral standpoint. However, the question is, is the Soldier acting morally in performing his duty?
Also, a tenet of having an Army may not be based on a totally democratic support. You cannot have a efficient Army by having Soldiers and civilians to vote on the question "Do you want to go to war?". We elect leaders to make those hard calls. That is what Republican principles are for, to allow leaders to make decision on our behalf. At times those decisions may be very unpopular. So if a war is unpopular and you may think it is not defending our freedom, does a Soldier not deserve to be recongnized for acting morally in the performance of his duty and for his actions? Some people believe so and for that reason I state that it is irrelevant whether you or others may thing certain conflicts are not defending our freedom. However, that does not mean we cannot let them know later with our vote or by pressuring them to stop a war. That is what a Republican Democracy is all about.
The second point. I do not have to be a moderator if in the course of the discussion I point the fallacious approach to whether warrior should be recognized or not. Take care.
We aren't at war. The last time we were at "war" was WWII. This is a "conflict." A decade plus long "conflict" that is more about private interests and politics than actually protecting freedom. Our elected leaders aren't doing their job. If they follow popular support, and actually voted as to whether we should be at "war" my guess is Iraq/Afghanistan would have ended way back. The only time we protected our freedom was the War for Independence, the War of 1812, and to a degree the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Are you willing to take a 7.62x39 round to the chest to protect your family?
These guys are willing to do that to protect your family.
They deserve more than your disrespect of calling them "pwecious troopies".
I think your mindset is gross, and likely so do they, but they will protect you anyway and your right to think that the way that you do. Hence, the inherent nobility of their role and sacrifice.
The above is a prime reason I'd gander leading to the OP posting this thread. Holier than thou and blindly believing that military is out there protecting freedom and not just serving as an arm for something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexygeography
My main point anyhow was that for some odd reason it's OK to criticize other professions that have a comparably important function yet even the most peace-loving people seem reluctant to say anything that's not beaming with praise upon our "men and women in uniform" (we can't even just call them "soldiers" anymore apparently). If you say you hate cops, most people won't hate on you, they will respect your opinion.
I don't hate the troops, I just don't feel much reverence for them either.
Social conditioning. The population has been kept in a state of fear for a decade plus. Many people praise the military, but at the end of the night pay little or no attention to any of it.
Worshiping is a poor word to use to describe politely and respectfully thanking him/her for their service, its no big deal its just a small token of respect and it makes us both feel good, i certainly dont delve into what capacity they served whether it was commander of a battle ship ,a front line sniper or just the guy who worked in the mess hall,whatever their position it was a role that needed filling and because of them we enjoy the freedoms we have today in the USA.
You sure need to pass a lie detector test if your answer to the question, "Do you want to live in the United States with no military when everybody else in the world has strong military" is a YES!
You sure need to pass a lie detector test if your answer to the question, "Do you want to live in the United States with no military when everybody else in the world has strong military" is a YES!
The answer is nobody. The only people to try were the Brits, and they were quickly sent home. America is it's own best defense. That, and everybody is too busy sucking on our tit.
DO you want to live in the United States with absolutely no military? Can you imagine the future you are facing?
DO you really believe no soldiers = no war?
Actually through most of our history we did quite well with a small army and navy. No one is coming over here to get us. WE have been the people who started most of our wars, they were of OUR choosing.
Our collective national ego makes us act like modern day Romans, thinking military power makes us great. Like the Romans we like to have client kingdoms but whereas Rome drew strength from their clients our clients draw strength from us; that's getting things ass backwards.
Meanwhile our economic power, something far more important, erodes. And much of that erosion is caused by the expense of a huge and unneeded military.
The answer is nobody. The only people to try were the Brits, and they were quickly sent home. America is it's own best defense. That, and everybody is too busy sucking on our tit.
Who else really has a strong military?
1. United states of America
2. Russia
3. China
4.India surprise surprise
5.UK
6.France
7. Germany
8.south korea
9.Italy
10. Brazil
The following is a list of states that have admitted the possession of nuclear weapons, the approximate number of warheads under their control, and the year they tested their first weapon.
Country Warheads active/total[nb 1] Date of first test CTBT status[5]
The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
United States 2,150 / 7,700[3] 16 July 1945 ("Trinity") Signatory
Russia 1,800 / 8,500[3] 29 August 1949 ("RDS-1") Ratifier
United Kingdom 160 / 225[3] 3 October 1952 ("Hurricane") Ratifier
France 290 / 300[3] 13 February 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue") Ratifier
China n.a. / 250[3] 16 October 1964 ("596") Signatory
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India n.a. / 90–110[3] 18 May 1974 ("Smiling Buddha") Non-signatory
Pakistan n.a. / 100–120[3] 28 May 1998 ("Chagai-I") Non-signatory
North Korea n.a. / <10[3] 9 October 2006[6] Non-signatory
Undeclared nuclear powers
Israel
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
