Rambling thoughts about the US military

[Sponger15SB]

So I don't post much in this forum but I had this bad idea that I haven't thought much about so I'm hoping people can expand on it, tell me why its wrong, or point me in a direction where I can read more ideas on it...

So why don't we just leave? Like, hey, maybe one day we can realize that 90% of the military is a humongous waste and we should just leave a lot of courties and stop interfering and caring and save everyone trillions of dollars. Its cool, I got this idea while watching one of those national geographic shows about the latest bizillion dollar aircraft carier and it got me thinking about how much of a massive waste the thing is. Not only in contstruction but time wasted in training and housing and paying all of the military people who are most likely doing something that isn't necessary anyways. So what if we just said [censored] everyone and left.

Sponger for prez '08

[BCPVP]

Do you like chinese food?

[PoBoy321]

Because if we left, we wouldn't be able to protect our overseas interests, which, as the world's only remaining superpower, is all that matters.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Because if we left, we wouldn't be able to protect our overseas interests, which, as the world's only remaining superpower, is all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to protect this? Why do we have to be interested in anything overseas?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you like chinese food?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Now answer my question, politics boy.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you like chinese food?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Now answer my question, politics boy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good.

Short answer is that in the past when we've "disarmed", we've been ill-prepared for the next war and have probably suffered tens of thousands (if not hundreds) of unnecessary casualties because of it.

[lehighguy]

What next war? There are no more wars. We have nuclear weapons. Why doesn't anyone understand this? Conventional warfare is a thing of the past.

[Sponger15SB]

How long ago did this plan take place? WW1? The US military doesn't die anymore in conflicts. If we did, we could probably just build bigger bombs and launch them from US soil or something?

Also, we could be so ill-prepared that the next war won't even happen. Which would be all part of my plan.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if we left, we wouldn't be able to protect our overseas interests, which, as the world's only remaining superpower, is all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to protect this? Why do we have to be interested in anything overseas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because ultimately the most important political force in America is the state of our economy and much of our economy relies on overseas markets. Therefore, we maintain a heavy presence throughout the world in order to protect our business interests.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What next war?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking historically. Especially between WWI and WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
We have nuclear weapons. Why doesn't anyone understand this? Conventional warfare is a thing of the past.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because we're too pussy to use them anymore except maybe if attacked in kind.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
What next war? There are no more wars. We have nuclear weapons. Why doesn't anyone understand this? Conventional warfare is a thing of the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its horrible to assume that the only war we have left is nuclear war. Cause then we're all screwed, but then again, at least we'd only need a couple dudes sitting next to big red buttons as our military.

[lehighguy]

People will trade with us regardless of any military presence. Do you actually think Japan trades with us because we have troops in Okinawa. And if it is a pre-requisate, why do they trade with Europe who has no forces in the region.

What would happen if your country had an ineffective military:

Germany Invades Poland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_3506000/3506335.stm)

Germany Invades France (http://www.p38lessonplan.com/france.html)

Germany Invades Denmark and Norway (http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1940/chronology_1940_5.html)

Genghis Khan Invades China (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm)

Alexander Invades Persia (http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/persia.htm)

Caeser Invades Europe (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/skyelander/celts7.html)

Japan Invades Manchuria (http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/China/JapanManchuria.html)

Now, a military isn't only necessary from preventing the loss of your sovereignty, for it is also necessary in gaining sovereignty when none exists. I would start here.

American Independence (http://www.americanrevolution.com/)

[Sponger15SB]

Wow, stuff from 430bc! This should all be relevant today!

[lehighguy]

The only reason for the US military to maintain its massive scale is to defend Taiwan, but this can be done much more effectively with nuclear weapons. So why do we spend all this money?

[Sponger15SB]

Why do we need to defend Taiwan?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
People will trade with us regardless of any military presence. Do you actually think Japan trades with us because we have troops in Okinawa. And if it is a pre-requisate, why do they trade with Europe who has no forces in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, they would trade with us if we weren't there. They would not, however, trade with us if they were invaded by North Korea, an event which our presence certainly helps to prevent.

[PoBoy321]

Those are all wonderful cases to be made in support of having a powerful domestic military.

Sadly, they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of why we have such a strong presence overseas.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, stuff from 430bc! This should all be relevant today!

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.... maybe you should just stick with OOT

[ QUOTE ]
What next war? There are no more wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incredibly naive, head in the sand thinking.

Do you see why?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, stuff from 430bc! This should all be relevant today!

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.... maybe you should just stick with OOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making fun of me because you think that I believe that germany invaded poland in 430bc?

Really though, yes, I see that 70 years ago a couple of countries invanded each other and there is lessons to be learned from that. But trying to prove that we need a military based on something that happened 2400 years ago is silly.

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of why we have such a strong presence overseas

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not what the junior high educated OP asked. He specifically addressed eliminating 90% of our military.

[lehighguy]

This had more relevence in decades past. Today, South Korea maintains adequet armed forces to defend itself. Moreover, if American forces removed themselves, those countries would no doubt pick up thier own armed forces budget.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of why we have such a strong presence overseas

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not what the junior high educated OP asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I went to junior high school. Thanks.

I don't see what is so wrong with my post that you feel the need to belittle me. I clearly stated that these were rambling thoughts. Next time you have incomplete information and ideas I will make sure to let you know what an idiot you truely are for not knowing everything.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Really though, yes, I see that 70 years ago a couple of countries invanded each other and there is lessons to be learned from that. But trying to prove that we need a military based on something that happened 2400 years ago is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Gulf War is a little more modern, if that's what you like. I think he's trying to show that there's a history of strong countries invading weaker countries.

[ QUOTE ]
I see that 70 years ago a couple of countries invanded each other and there is lessons to be learned from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What lessons did you learn?

Did we, or did we not, save a lot of innocent Jews through the use of our military?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of why we have such a strong presence overseas

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not what the junior high educated OP asked. He specifically addressed eliminating 90% of our military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. All of the military that is meddling elsewhere, costing taxpayers money and what not. Leaving the other 10% for defense purposes. How is this indicative of a junior high education?

(of course, when you believe that war actually helps the economy, your opinions tend to be skewed)

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
He specifically addressed eliminating 90% of our military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, I have no idea what specific percent we should eliminate and was just throwing around a number to see what you though. Anyone with a junior high education should have been able to figure that out.

[lehighguy]

I'm not saying we need a nuclear war, just that thier existence makes it so countries don't start wars. The principle of mutually assured destruction still applies today, it kept the cold war from getting hot.

To be oblivious to the implications of this fact

[ QUOTE ]
there's a history of strong countries invading weaker countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

and suggest that 90% of our military is an outright waste does not indicate to me that you have completed any high school level history or social studies classes. Im sorry that you felt I was belittling you, since clearly Im not aware of yours or any other anonymous internet poster's age or level of education.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
The principle of mutually assured destruction still applies today

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet...

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
and suggest that 90% of our military is an outright waste does not indicate to me that you have completed any high school level history or social studies classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't ever remember taking "relevancy of the military 101" in high school.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
To be oblivious to the implications of this fact

[ QUOTE ]
there's a history of strong countries invading weaker countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

and suggest that 90% of our military is an outright waste does not indicate to me that you have completed any high school level history or social studies classes. Im sorry that you felt I was belittling you, since clearly Im not aware of yours or any other anonymous internet poster's age or level of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
SHIFTING THE ONUS OF PROOF: This is when your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in. Often, a Creationist will make phantom claims and, then, act like they are common knowledge and he shouldn't have to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then maybe you'd like to explain how our military is used so effectively, rather than belittling anyone who doesn't see what you believe is obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. All of the military that is meddling elsewhere, costing taxpayers money and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is clear that you only care about your own liberty, the liberty granted to you and your ilk by our military so that you can profess glee when cops are murdered, and not the liberty of anyone else.

[lehighguy]

On a moral front it's the right thing to do, but lets say we don't care about that.

The invasion of Taiwan would show that China is not content to simply trade and be prosperous. That it has nationalistic ambitions to expand and conquer beyond its borders. The successful invasion of Taiwan would be followed by incursions into southeast asia. Eventually they could go after Korea, and a long way down the road Japan. This causes major problems for us. We have to defend Taiwan to stop the chain of events that follows.

[Sponger15SB]

Thank you lehighguy.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear that you only care about your own liberty, the liberty granted to you and your ilk by our military so that you can profess glee when cops are murdered, and not the liberty of anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. He only cares about his own liberty and so that means he likes it when cops are mudered?

whaaaaat?

[lehighguy]

um, ok

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is clear that you only care about your own liberty, the liberty granted to you and your ilk by our military so that you can profess glee when cops are murdered, and not the liberty of anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. He only cares about his own liberty and so that means he likes it when cops are mudered?

whaaaaat?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reference to a different thread.

[Sponger15SB]

Dear lehighguy,

thank you for that informative post. i learned a lot.

Regards,
Sponger

(does that sound more normal)

Sponger

You'll understand when youre older, now run along...haha, Im joking

If we downsized our military to fullfil your desires, your quality of life would soon become diminished..believe it or not their are some evil mofos out there(whole chinese gov. among others) who would quickly be knocking at our doors. Chinese expansion is the single biggest threat to America, not terrorists, my bitches.

[Sponger15SB]

Really? There are actually powerful countries out that would attack us if they had the chance? That sounds horrible.

Why hasn't anyone told me of this threat before. Should we attack China right now to defend ourselves (ok i keed).

[ QUOTE ]
Wait. He only cares about his own liberty and so that means he likes it when cops are mudered?

whaaaaat?


[/ QUOTE ]

All cops are jackbooted thugs, and by virtue of their existence, take away all of your liberty. All of it, every last fiber of it. This is completely irrefutable. So when one gets murdered, it is a time to rejoice.

Do you see why?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. All of the military that is meddling elsewhere, costing taxpayers money and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is clear that you only care about your own liberty, the liberty granted to you and your ilk by our military so that you can profess glee when cops are murdered, and not the liberty of anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

These "attacks" are a boogieman. First of all, 10% of the US military is more than enough to sway attackers. Second, nobody is willing to risk a nuclear counterstrike, no matter how insane you think they are.

Why is it that everyone sees America as the only benevolent people when at this time WE are the ones using force in other countries?

This is like when a man cheats on his wife on a weekly basis. Then gets angry when he finds out that she engaged in a single affair.

[thatpfunk]

Not to Sponger,
It is amazing how someone so dense and [censored] stupid could act and write so confidently. I guess that is one of the traits of being dumb.

Cheers!
Funk

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, 10% of the US military is more than enough to sway attackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. In fact, it is not even close.

There is a very clear reason why no country in the world can even think about attacking us conventionally right now. By your previous statement, I know for a fact you do not know that one, singular reason. But I'll let you guess if you want.

[lehighguy]

I think you meant this for the thread we were having. Replied to the wrong one by accident.

Usually, you summarize what you though was informative, if there was something.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually, you summarize what you though was informative, if there was something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sponger.
Reged: 05/20/04
Posts: 10597

Don't tell me how to post, rookie.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
All cops are jackbooted thugs

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm with you.

[ QUOTE ]
and by virtue of their existence, take away all of your liberty. All of it, every last fiber of it

[/ QUOTE ]

Not every last fiber. But enough to want less of them.

[ QUOTE ]
This is completely irrefutable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when a cop arrests me for doing drugs. How is that NOT taking away my liberty?

They are there to "serve and protect," what they are serving and protecting, I'm not sure.

[ QUOTE ]
So when one gets murdered, it is a time to rejoice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Borodog was making this point. He is happy that there is one less cop, not that Ron Jones (or whatever his name was) was killed.

[lehighguy]

I'm not trying to be compative with you, I'm just trying to understand what your thinking or saying.

I can't tell from your post.

[lehighguy]

I'm not trying to be combative with you, I'm just trying to understand what your thinking or saying.

I can't tell from your post.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, 10% of the US military is more than enough to sway attackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. In fact, it is not even close.

There is a very clear reason why no country in the world can even think about attacking us conventionally right now. By your previous statement, I know for a fact you do not know that one, singular reason. But I'll let you guess if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) They don't want to anger US allies.
2) They don't want a nuclear device detonated in their capital city.

It has nothing to do with the US military being abroad. Face it, conventional warfare is obsolete.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Sponger, you have an amazing simplistic view on the world and geo-politics. I am hoping that you started this thread as more of a learning experience and not to try and prove something. The simpliest explanation for why we have such a large military presence is to protect out interest abroad. All countries have interest, and all countries try to do as much as possible to protect and influence their interests.

If the U.S. did not have such a large military, countries such as China, N. Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, Syria, and Russia would be far more aggressive at spreading their ideologies(sp) and far more aggresive at asserting their dominance over their neighbors.

Our militart enables us to restrict, or slow down, aggressive nations, while protecting our interests. Our interests enable us to be the worlds leader both economically and militarily. I think all of this information is fairly obvious.

[lehighguy]

Except for China, I don't think we really care too much about everyone on that list of yours. And China doesn't neceessarily have to be an enemy.

[ QUOTE ]
1) They don't want to anger US allies.
2) They don't want a nuclear device detonated in their capital city.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, those are good answers but they do not completely eliminate any smidgen of a possibility of an invasion led onto US soil. They act as strong deterrents to an invasion, but do not outright eliminate any possibility of it even happening.

Im not trying to be a dick here, but if you or anyone wants to take a stab at why the US cannot possibly be invaded right now, how it is not even mathematically or even theoretically possible to invade the US under any circumstances whatsoever, please do so.

The sustenance of these two words ties greatly into our massive defense budget. These two words require a great deal more than "far less than 10% of our current military".

[lehighguy]

Assuming we reduced the American armed forces by 80%. Maintained only a national guard and a single aircraft carrier group.

Who would invade us?

Why would they do it?

How would they do it?

If you can answer these three questions, the thread can continue.

[ QUOTE ]
Face it, conventional warfare is obsolete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conventional warfare is almost an oxymoron, as war is an ever adapting idiom. But if what you are saying is that two armies marching soldiers at each other with machine guns blazing is a thing of the past, then I defy you to explain to me what is happening throughout the entire world right now.

<font color="red"> Who would invade us?</font>

Given the current state of the world, this is undeterminable. In 1925, if you asked England "who would ever invade you", and the answer was "Im not sure", is that sufficient reasoning to assume no one will ever invade England?

<font color="green"> Why would they do it? </font>

To topple our government, take control of our natural resources, take control of our strategic position, take our land, control our waterways...I could go on, but the answer lies in the overwhelmingly immense history of stronger countries invading weaker countries, even in the absence of any feasibility to success. Why do any stronger nations ever invade weaker nations?

<font color="orange"> How would they do it? </font>

That would give away the answer to my not so secret and relatively widely understood riddle.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Except for China, I don't think we really care too much about everyone on that list of yours. And China doesn't neceessarily have to be an enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]I diasgree completely with your first sentence, but agree with your second.

I think an unchecked Iran, Syria, or Pakistan would be a very troubling thing indeed. I will conceed that China is more likely doing more to restrict N. Korea than us though.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, stuff from 430bc! This should all be relevant today!

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually is relevant because throughout the millenia every Superpower du jour has maintained their status by using their superior military strength to "convince" other nations to see things their way. Why do we do it? Because we can. Our elites enjoy being king of the sandlot, until a new bully shows up to challenge the US that is just how it will be.

[lehighguy]

Iran, Syria, and Pakistan aren't a threat to the US. Are they going to invade us? Are they going to stop selling oil to us? No. They are a threat to Isreal, but not America.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think the Cracka was talking about threats to our interests, not necessarily our national security.

[lehighguy]

What interests?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran, Syria, and Pakistan aren't a threat to the US. Are they going to invade us? Are they going to stop selling oil to us? No. They are a threat to Isreal, but not America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran, Syria, and Pakistan are threats to our interests. Iran has tons of oil and could easily turn around and sell tons of it to potential "enemies" for cheap. They could also completely disrupt a region on an epic scale. Pakistan is an area of concern because they could snap at any moment and start a war with India. It is also possible that India snaps, who knows.

I think all of these are likely without some U.S. influence.

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't really have a laundry list, but these come to mind. The success of the new government in Afghanistan, containing the spread of radical Islamic states, free trade, human rights, the development of India into a world power and ally.

[lehighguy]

Human rights doesn't seem like a US interest now that we torture people.

Free trade doesn't require armed forces, nor does making India an ally.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Human rights doesn't seem like a US interest now that we torture people.

Free trade doesn't require armed forces, nor does making India an ally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first, but not for your reason /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. The U.S. doesn't care about human rights abroad, especially in China and India.

As for your second sentence, I disagree somewhat. I think the U.S. could do a lot to promote free trade without the help of their military. But the only reason why is because they are in such a situation that they can control and effect world trade. However, the reason they are in such a situation is because their military presence during the past 60 years got them there. IMO atleast.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Hitler would have ruled Europe after WW2.
But perhaps your a Nazi sympathizer and that is what you would have wanted. If so, ignore this post.

[Roman]

[ QUOTE ]
Russia would have ruled Europe after WW2.
But perhaps your a communistsympathizer and that is what you would have wanted. If so, ignore this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP