Do you support abolishing the military?

[Cutlerzzz]

Yes?

[Christian Liberty]

I don't support a standing army, I do support a Federal Navy, for basically the same reasons as the Founders.

I think air force would fall more under navy than army, but I could be convinced otherwise.

[FrankRep]

I'll stand with Ron Paul and say "reduce military spending," but not abolish.


Ron Paul: Stop Nation Building & Cut Military Spending to Keep Us Free and Safe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE

[VIDEODROME]

I could see scaling back to the Navy and "National Guard" along with the Coast Guard.

[Sola_Fide]

A standing army is the bane of liberty.

[69360]

No, but I support closing all overseas bases and bringing all troops back to the US right now.

[Christian Liberty]

A standing army is the bane of liberty.

Amen! "You must spread some reputation around"... Yeah, I owe you one.

[juleswin]

Theres no middle ground? is it going to be a slow transition to a more free market protection system or is a yes answer be that we close down shop immediately and expose US citizen to invasion from Russia and China?

At without further clarification, my vote is no. You dont junk your crappy car before you get a replacement for it

[jclay2]

Considering a giant over expanded military has been the cause of almost all of our international conflicts, I voted yes.

[Cutlerzzz]

Theres no middle ground? is it going to be a slow transition to a more free market protection system or is a yes answer be that we close down shop immediately and expose US citizen to invasion from Russia and China?

At without further clarification, my vote is no. You dont junk your crappy car before you get a replacement for it

How would China and Russia invade? The logistics would be mind boggling and they would both need giantic expansions of their military. Furthermore, what would their incentive be? China would destroy their economy completely. Russia is far too poor to attempt something like that if they wanted.

[kcchiefs6465]

Perhaps.

Considering we can't cut a dollar over ten years I think it would be best to think about what is at least remotely realistic.

I consider today's police force to be the standing army. Dissolve them. Sheriffs, perhaps. Locally. And even then restrained.

The army? People should be trained. If ever there was a time, which wouldn't be anytime soon, to be clear, that we needed an army mobilized and trained to fight another well trained and funded army, we should be ready. You asked somewhat of hard question to answer in such simple terms. Our diplomacy would have to change. Dollar hegemony ended. The people willing to work. Am I to assume these things happen? Seems to be wishful thinking. Besides all that the entire mind frame of the people would have to change. Indeed they would have to accept their safety as their responsibility. I believe in national defense but nowhere near what we have today. (which is so bloated and overbearing as it hurts national defense) We can have a well maintained and trained army for much cheaper than we do now. Cutting the DoD budget by upwards of 80% would limit how adventurous they really could be. Again though it doesn't matter unless the people change. Until they hold their Representatives and Senators accountable. Us harassing and bullying the world would have to be a thing of the past and that doesn't seem realistic anytime soon.

My answer would be, eventually, probably. As it stands, no. Though I would put them back to a 1990 or so level. CIA, NSA, and most of the other 15 or so intelligence agencies dissolved. The FBI dissolved. The DEA and TSA and BATF dissolved. A lot of people would be being prosecuted for their crimes as well. From the fraud charge dodging MIC to the politicians who violated their Oath of Office.

Time to wake up from the day dream. We will be bombing Syria and soon enough be in Iran. Conscientious objector, I suppose I'll have to be. I don't see a volunteer army lasting much longer.

[Christian Liberty]

I won't be participating in "noncombative service" either.

I'll have enough blood guilt just from paying taxes.

If they try to force me to make the weapons, I'd either rig them or outright refuse.

[Eagles' Wings]

I won't be participating in "noncombative service" either.

I'll have enough blood guilt just from paying taxes.

If they try to force me to make the weapons, I'd either rig them or outright refuse.Your thoughts on legal requirement for 18 year olds to sign up for selective service (although I'm pretty sure what you will say). Thanks, FF.

[RickyJ]

Not fighting unnecessary wars is not the same thing as abolishing the military. The military is needed for defense of this country, and for that reason should never be abolished.

[Christian Liberty]

Your thoughts on legal requirement for 18 year olds to sign up for selective service (although I'm pretty sure what you will say). Thanks, FF.

Obviously I'm opposed. Slavery is always wrong.

That said, I am currently signed up. That may have been stupid of me, but I am currently signed up.

That said, unless someone actually invades the country, I won't be "serving."

[Cutlerzzz]

I never signed up and don't intend to.

[Christian Liberty]

I never signed up and don't intend to.

The only reason I did it was for financial aid. I guess it was a gamble that hopefully there won't be a draft anytime soon. That may have been stupid, but that's why I did it.

[Eagles' Wings]

Obviously I'm opposed. Slavery is always wrong.

That said, I am currently signed up. That may have been stupid of me, but I am currently signed up.

That said, unless someone actually invades the country, I won't be "serving."Well, I don't think it was stupid. The notice to register is pretty scary, although we've discovered they have not prosecuted anyone for declining to register. We will never apply for government assistance of any kind, even for higher education.

[JCDenton0451]

A standing army is the bane of liberty.

Yes, but abolishing the army is a crazy idea. As far as I'm concerned, dumping its foreign commitments and downgrading its capacity to project force overseas would suffice.

[eduardo89]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

[mad cow]

No.
Provide for the common defence.From the first sentence in the Constitution and,IMO,one of the only important reasons for having a Federal Government in the first place.

I think all soldiers should be brought home from overseas immediately and never sent overseas again without a declaration of war by Congress and the standing Army and Air Force should be reduced by 70-90%.

However,you are not going to train and equip a 21st century military overnight and now and throughout history justifiable war,like justifiable self defense,happens.Whether you want it to or not.

The Army and the Air Force can be legally defunded,forever or for any two year period,any time that Congress disagrees with me.

[kcchiefs6465]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?
Send Al-Qaeda or North Korea an invitation to invade us?

That's a literal LOL.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes. Socialism is no better for defense than it is for bread, shoes, the internet, or anything else. As is always the case with failures of socialism, our defenses are now weaker, and us less safe as a result, of our socialistic defense.

[Cutlerzzz]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

A terrorist organization without an army and a small weak country that can't feed itself?

[Cutlerzzz]

I want to at least know what we need an army for. Canada and Mexico are the only countries we have a border with. Otherwise, our army is not physically capable of being used unless it is deployed overseas.

So long as we have a standing army we will remain at war. Without one, we would never go to war.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I don't think it was stupid. The notice to register is pretty scary, although we've discovered they have not prosecuted anyone for declining to register. We will never apply for government assistance of any kind, even for higher education.

I'll admit the truth, I did it for financial aid, not because I was scared.

Regarding education, to be clear, I don't actually support financial aid, and I support its abolition. I also believe its abolition would make education a lot cheaper.

That said, while I believe the existance of government assistance is immoral, I certainly don't see what's wrong with using what's there, seeing as you are either taking advantage of what you're being forced to pay for, or stealing from thieves, depending on how you look at it. Neither of which do I see a problem with.


What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

Do you think its dumb that I voted for option 3 out of agreement with the Founding Fathers?

Am I really the only one that agrees with them?

[eduardo89]

A terrorist organization without an army and a small weak country that can't feed itself?

Fine, Mexicans and homosexuals will invade if we abolish the military since al-Qaeda and North Korea aren't big enough threats in your eyes.

[kcchiefs6465]

I want to at least know what we need an army for. Canada and Mexico are the only countries we have a border with. Otherwise, our army is not physically capable of being used unless it is deployed overseas.

So long as we have a standing army we will remain at war. Without one, we would never go to war.
There may come a time where a ground war is needed. We are getting to the point in technological history where it is not. That is, we have planes that can be anywhere in the world and munitions for every situation conceivable.

The minds of the people still need to change though. Able bodied men should be well versed with a rifle of their choosing. I have no doubts that if someone attempted the ridiculously, strategically stupid move of invading the US, it would be their downfall. I do want to deter such an invasion though, in the case of men who may have god like egos and aspirations of domination.

I agree with you. An army is unnecessary.

Abolishing the military, I'm not so sure. A navy and air defense (until attacked) would be best. People being trained and of the mind frame that their defense is theirs would be great as well. Of course if we were more diplomatic and ceased the entangling alliances, we'd all be a lot safer.

[Danke]

Fine, Mexicans and homosexuals will invade if we abolish the military since al-Qaeda and North Korea aren't big enough threats in your eyes.

Mexicans are too lazy to invade. As for the *****, they have already invaded.

[fr33]

I never signed up and don't intend to.

Me either. I'm a bit past the age they would want now.

[heavenlyboy34]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

Fine, Mexicans and homosexuals will invade if we abolish the military since al-Qaeda and North Korea aren't big enough threats in your eyes.
LMFAO!! :D Troll job of the night. :cool:

[NIU Students for Liberty]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

Give it up folks for Sean Hannity!

[Fredom101]

Why do countries invade other countries?
To take over their tax farms.

We need to get rid of the income tax, federal reserve, and military so we can live in peace.

[Fredom101]

Give it up folks for Sean Hannity!

LOL!

[fr33]

Why do countries invade other countries?
To take over their tax farms.

We need to get rid of the income tax, federal reserve, and military so we can live in peace.

^ Thread winner.

[eduardo89]

Give it up folks for Sean Hannity!

Layne Staley is dead. Get over it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Give it up folks for Sean Hannity!
lolz :)

[oyarde]

I support eliminating DHS , CIA , FBI , NSA ,DEA , BATFE etc, turning over intel to the military and other security to County Sherrifs and then we can decide about the military later.Monday morning would be good, then we could revisit 12 months later....

[enhanced_deficit]

No, but tt needs to be a sitting military and whole military-idustry system needs total overhaul looking at results so far.



Iraq/Afghanistan wars disabled 624,000 US troops , Divorces up 42%, Foreclosures up 217% among militray families and communities.
High human cost on top of $Trillions debt for future generations from neocons blunders of using military force for spreading equality, freedom around the world using false WMD/freedom claims.

Divorce Rate Among Afghanistan, Iraq War Vets Increases by 42 Percent

January 2, 2012|4:29 pm
The divorce rate among military couples has increased 42 percent throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a recent study shows, adding to the woes of U.S. military veterans returning from the Middle East who already have to tackle war-related problems like post-traumatic stress disorder and high unemployment rates.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rate-among-afghanistan-iraq-war-vets-hits-42-percent-66195/ (http://global.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rate-among-afghanistan-iraq-war-vets-hits-42-percent-66195/#aQMQHW48ebG65LZ5.99)


The toll of war now includes more amputees - CNN.com (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2012%2F05%2F27%2Fus %2Famputee-veterans-come-home&ei=_04SUtvIGqX52AXquoCwDg&usg=AFQjCNH6mnT-b4TmCIdCRBJFyJFjMmfDbA&bvm=bv.50768961,d.eWU)

Oct 29, 2012 - More than 624,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have filed disability claims, Military Times reported in January.... met with Army Staff Sgt. Travis Mills, who lost his four limbs in a similar way.


Foreclosures in Military Towns Surge at Four Times U.S. Rate ... (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=awj2TMDLnwsU)

Foreclosure filings in 10 towns and cities within 10 miles of military facilities, including Norfolk, Virginia, home of the Navy's largest base, rose ...

Record Foreclosures Strike Military at Home - Total Bankruptcy (http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/news/articles/statistics/military-foreclosure-rates.aspx) The foreclosure crisis hits military families hard at home while soldiers are ... But foreclosures in towns near military bases were up an average of 217 percent.

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day (http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/02/05/22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-commit-suicide-every-day/)
www.forbes.com/.../22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-com...‎ (http://www.forbes.com/.../22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-com...%E2%80%8E)
Feb 5, 2013 - Veterans now commit suicide at the rate of 22 a day, or almost one an hour. Almost once an hour – every 65 minutes to be precise – a military veteran commits suicide, says a new investigation by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[Pericles]

I support eliminating DHS , CIA , FBI , NSA ,DEA , BATFE etc, turning over intel to the military and other security to County Sherrifs and then we can decide about the military later.Monday morning would be good, then we could revisit 12 months later....
On my priority list is the following departments - Education, Staatssicherheitsdienst, Justice, Commence, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and a few others I fail to remember at the moment, then take on DoD for a reengineering effort.

[Sola_Fide]

Fine, Mexicans and homosexuals will invade if we abolish the military since al-Qaeda and North Korea aren't big enough threats in your eyes.

Are you serious?

[eduardo89]

Are you serious?

As serious as a fat kid wanting an extra scoop of ice cream.

[fr33]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

Who is us anyways? You aren't even from here and you don't even live here.

[Pericles]

Well, I don't think it was stupid. The notice to register is pretty scary, although we've discovered they have not prosecuted anyone for declining to register. We will never apply for government assistance of any kind, even for higher education.
When I got mine, I headed for the copy machine, pulled my Army ID card out of my wallet and made a photocopy. Sent the photocopy back with their letter that would give retards a bad name, and never heard from them again.

[oyarde]

On my priority list is the following departments - Education, Staatssicherheitsdienst, Justice, Commence, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and a few others I fail to remember at the moment, then take on DoD for a reengineering effort.

Oh yes Ed, Ag , H & H "HUMAN' services etc, that shit has to go .

[oyarde]

Who is us anyways? You aren't even from here and you don't even live here.

Well if the North Koreans invade my humble area, I am taking him,arming him and showing him how this is done :)

[BuddyRey]

I vote yes. Scrap the military and go back to locally accountable citizen militias. Then you might actually have a military whose job it is to defend America, instead of going abroad looking for monsters to slay.

[Neil Desmond]

The problem with the military is how it's being used by the government, not its existence - just like with guns & individuals using them.

[DamianTV]

When the Cops finally declare War on the Citizens, the only ones who will be willing to fight for the People will be the Vets. So no, I dont support abolishing the military. Some of the things about the military I absolutely dont like, but I would not abolish the military by any means.

Instead, I might support abolishing the Police, if the idiots in this country that watch MSM day in and day out could behave themselves without a figure of authority glaring at them over their shoulder and shaking their fingers in disapproval of their considered criminal actions...

[robert68]

The problem with the military is how it's being used by the government, not its existence - just like with guns & individuals using them.

The government is not an individual.

[enoch150]

What a dumb question. Why not send al-Qaeda and North Korea an invitation to invade us?

A country which would starve to death without food aid and a disorganized force of probably less than 10,000 are going to invade a country with 275 million guns. It's sad that there are people who actually believe this.

The ironic thing is that both Al-Qaida and North Korea are only hostile to us because of the US government's use of the military. The government would cause us a lot less trouble if we took away its toys.

[Neil Desmond]

The government is not an individual.
Who thinks that it is & why does that matter?

[presence]

In his book War Is A Racket, Butler argued for a powerful navy, but one prohibited from travelling more than 200 miles from the US coastline. Military aircraft could travel no more than 500 miles from the US coast and the army would be prohibited from leaving the United States altogether. Butler also proposed that all workers in defence industries, from the lowest labourer to the highest executive, be limited to `thirty dollars a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get'. He also proposed that a declaration of war should be passed by a plebiscite in which only those subject to conscription would be eligible to vote.

I'd support disbanding the army and auctioning the gear off for domestic market only.


I'd support a mandate for every adult male to own and maintain a M16, exemptions for conscientious objectors.

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment,


The constitution, 1 sec 8, requires the maintainance of a Navy. I support the same, inclusive of the Air Force. I'm with Butler, neither should venture more than a few hundred miles from our coast line.




I vote disband the Army

[Brett85]

Those are some crazy poll results. Apparently anarcho capitalists now make up a majority of the members of this forum.

[FrankRep]

Why do countries invade other countries?
To take over their tax farms.

We need to get rid of the income tax, federal reserve, and military so we can live in peace.

Other countries would invade us then.

[pcosmar]

abolishing the military?

No.

Limiting it,, Reducing it. putting it on a very short leash,, Yes.

[AFPVet]

I don't support a standing army, I do support a Federal Navy, for basically the same reasons as the Founders.

I think air force would fall more under navy than army, but I could be convinced otherwise.

I agree since during the writing of the Constitution, the Founders wanted defense—not offensive capabilities. Since that time, we've had strides in air and space technology. This is why the Air Force is also called the Space Force. We even shouted Air Force, Space Force, during training.

So if we have a Navy, it would be logical to have an air/space force as well.

[Christian Liberty]

I vote yes. Scrap the military and go back to locally accountable citizen militias. Then you might actually have a military whose job it is to defend America, instead of going abroad looking for monsters to slay.

The army, at any rate.

Not sure how citizens militias would handle the navy.


When the Cops finally declare War on the Citizens, the only ones who will be willing to fight for the People will be the Vets. So no, I dont support abolishing the military. Some of the things about the military I absolutely dont like, but I would not abolish the military by any means.

Instead, I might support abolishing the Police, if the idiots in this country that watch MSM day in and day out could behave themselves without a figure of authority glaring at them over their shoulder and shaking their fingers in disapproval of their considered criminal actions...
The Vets obeyed when they were told to deploy overseas, what makes you think they'll rebel when we're attacked by the police?

I mean, I'm not saying none of them will, but how many do you think we can count on?


Those are some crazy poll results. Apparently anarcho capitalists now make up a majority of the members of this forum.

If you assume every "Yes" vote is an ancap its like 40%. I don't really see why that's a problem.

As I've said, I agree with the Founders.

I agree since during the writing of the Constitution, the Founders wanted defense—not offensive capabilities. Since that time, we've had strides in air and space technology. This is why the Air Force is also called the Space Force. We even shouted Air Force, Space Force, during training.

So if we have a Navy, it would be logical to have a air/space force as well.

Why a Space Force? Unless extraterrestrials actually show their faces, and decide to attack... Earth?

If you're talking about space exploration/NASA I see no reason not to leave that kind of thing to the free market.

[qh4dotcom]

How would China and Russia invade? The logistics would be mind boggling and they would both need giantic expansions of their military. Furthermore, what would their incentive be? China would destroy their economy completely. Russia is far too poor to attempt something like that if they wanted.

Exactly....and juleswin forgot about the two big deterrents....two big oceans and 300 million guns in the hands of citizens.

[willwash]

Navies operate very, very expensive equipment and highly trained and proficient operators, relative to armies. This was true even in the 1700's, but it is even more true now with nuclear powered vessels. As a result, the Founders realized that a standing Navy was necessary to national security.

An Army can be trained and equipped in a comparitively short time in response to a legtimate threat to national security, especially when people are already trained as militia. To present an effective naval defense, however, a standing Navy is essential. You cannot respond to a threat then and decide to build an aircraft carrier (and carrier Airwing) and train its crew in a timeframe appropriate for national defense. The process takes years and many many billions of dollars. So, some may say unfortunately, this is one case where we are better off having a fleet of ships and trained crews at the ready at all times.

Additionally, combatting piracy on the high seas is a specifically authorized power of the federal government. This requires a Navy.

I'd argue the same principle naturally extends to an Air Force for the same reasons.

[Snew]

Hell yeah.

[klamath]

Yeaw yeaw yeaw.
Militia's have a history of brutalizing Amercans far worse than standing armies.

Navy is wonderful. Uh... Guess what branch is the first one moving into position to attack Syria and almost every other war we have been in.

They can't attack us..... logistics are so great it can't be done.... Yeaw ask the Iraqis, Germans, Vietnamese whether an army can cross oceans and invade them..
Yeaw go unconstitutional AF! Drones anyone.

You better worry about changing leaders for without that, any force can be tailored to kill you from the militia to the AF and you aren't going to care what uniform drained the last blood from your dying body.

[Uriel999]

No the military has traditional been downsized after wars to skeleton screws that can be rapidly expanded in time of war. The military as a hole can be gutted quite a bit, and still retain the ability to fight. We do need to retain a well trained fighting force. Personally I believe in the 21st century NOT maintaining a defensive professional military would be naive and dangerous. I am pro militia, however, a militia cannot compete with a professional force. They can definitely augment and bolster forces, but to reason they can maintain a level of proficiency on par with a force that consistently trains is a fallacy. Even a war vet loses proficiency over time despite his ego may not.

[PunkMaister]

I think reducing the size and expenditure generally of all the armed forces is essential, was the continental army disbanded after independence or merged into the states militias? I think the National Guard should be reformed to be again State defense civil voluntary militias. The Air force and Navy need to be reduced so it can be an effective defense force but not be used to play games of Empire any longer either. But to be quite honest I do not think Humpty dumpty can be ever put back together, And if by some miracle the old republic is restored there is no guarantee that sooner or latter we'll be back to this situation. I think that once the whole system collapses we should vie for a voluntarist society instead where people are allowed to organize themselves as they see fit.

[AFPVet]

The army, at any rate.

Not sure how citizens militias would handle the navy.


The Vets obeyed when they were told to deploy overseas, what makes you think they'll rebel when we're attacked by the police?

I mean, I'm not saying none of them will, but how many do you think we can count on?



If you assume every "Yes" vote is an ancap its like 40%. I don't really see why that's a problem.

As I've said, I agree with the Founders.


Why a Space Force? Unless extraterrestrials actually show their faces, and decide to attack... Earth?

If you're talking about space exploration/NASA I see no reason not to leave that kind of thing to the free market.

... it's not what you think. Our space force is comprised of the ICBMs and associated space born defense technology.

[Christian Liberty]

... it's not what you think. Our space force is comprised of the ICBMs and associated space born defense technology.

Oh, OK.

I have a problem with ICBMs, but at the same time, as long as other people have them we kind of have to. I could never condone using them though, and its impossible to really do so in "Defense." They're a deterrent, but they can't actually be used for defense.

[AFPVet]

Oh, OK.

I have a problem with ICBMs, but at the same time, as long as other people have them we kind of have to. I could never condone using them though, and its impossible to really do so in "Defense." They're a deterrent, but they can't actually be used for defense.

I hope we never have to use them. There are no winners in a strategic launch of ICBMs; however, if there were ET invaders, those ICBMs could be calibrated to deal with that threat lol.

[Christian Liberty]

I hope we never have to use them. There are no winners in a strategic launch of ICBMs; however, if there were ET invaders, those ICBMs could be calibrated to deal with that threat lol.

I guess we can cross THAT bridge when we come to it. Somehow I don't imagine that happening...

[navy-vet]

I hope we never have to use them. There are no winners in a strategic launch of ICBMs; however, if there were ET invaders, those ICBMs could be calibrated to deal with that threat lol.
Defense of our air space is no different than the defense of our shores and sea shipping lanes etc. As for "extraterrestrial threats", I would suspect that the possible impact of an asteroid might also be a consideration for the maintenance of a space entity with access to thermonuclear devices and delivery apparatus, etc.

[erowe1]

I want to change my answer. Instead of "yes" I want to vote no.

I don't support abolishing the military, I just support voluntarizing it.

The same goes for everything else the government does.

[bolil]

I would make it a purely voluntary thing. I would reverse the reforms of Marius and deprofessionalize the military. You might say make it an organization of Amateurs which the sport of golf proves can be very good at what they do.' The Marine Corps, for example wouldn't be abolished it just wouldn't be a job. I think the Ancient Greek model is best in this regard.

I wouldn't abolish it, but I would see it changed.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The fact that it's about 50-50 on RonPaulForums means it's probably better than 90-10 'no' overall.

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that it's about 50-50 on RonPaulForums means it's probably better than 90-10 'no' overall.

Probably not even close. It probably more like 99-1 overall, even if that. So what?

I agree with the Founders on the issue.

[surf]

end it, don't "mend" it.

edit - score update: peacemongers lead by 2 over peacedoubters

[FrankRep]

end it, don't "mend" it.

edit - score update: peacemongers lead by 2 over peacedoubters

Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish the military or army. What would you label him?

[erowe1]

Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish the military or army.

I bet he does.

[FrankRep]

I bet he does.

Ron Paul: "reduce military spending," not abolish.

Ron Paul: Stop Nation Building & Cut Military Spending to Keep Us Free and Safe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPU--f01wE

[erowe1]

Ron Paul: "reduce military spending," not abolish.

I can't watch it right now. But is that just something he proposed as part of his campaign? Because you said "does not want to," not "did not campaign to."

[Sola_Fide]

I want to change my answer. Instead of "yes" I want to vote no.

I don't support abolishing the military, I just support voluntarizing it.

The same goes for everything else the government does.

I'll endorse that.

[FrankRep]

I can't watch it right now. But is that just something he proposed as part of his campaign? Because you said "does not want to," not "did not campaign to."
Wow. Did you just call Ron Paul a liar? Not cool dude. The video was made Aug. 20, 2012.

[erowe1]

Wow. Did you just call Ron Paul a liar?

I can't fathom how someone could get that from anything I said.

Were you under the impression that "campaign on" and "want" meant the same thing?

[FrankRep]

I can't fathom how someone could get that from anything I said.

Were you under the impression that "campaign on" and "want" meant the same thing?

I believe that Ron Paul didn't lie when he said reduce military spending.

[AFPVet]

Defense spending and military spending are dichotomous. Military spending can be anything... nation building, expansion.... Defense spending is purely for national defense purposes.

[erowe1]

Oh, OK.

I have a problem with ICBMs, but at the same time, as long as other people have them we kind of have to. I could never condone using them though, and its impossible to really do so in "Defense." They're a deterrent, but they can't actually be used for defense.

I don't think we actually need to have them to have the deterrent. Everybody knows we can make them in no time.

[erowe1]

I believe that Ron Paul didn't lie when he said reduce military spending.

So do I.

[Uriel999]

You know, I really get annoyed when people try to put words and opinions of their own into Ron Paul's mouth. Since 2007 when I discovered the man I remember him railing against the wars, ending the empire, and shrinking the military BUT not abolishing it. I am all about shrinking it. I'm a Marine. We do more with less yet I see ways to cut back spending even in the financially lean USMC. I could probably find ways to save billions of dollars and actually improve combat effectiveness just in my branch alone. I already can think of many. Other branches can do the same.

As for ICBM's they are a great deterrent. Think about it, an armed society is a polite society. We partially won the Cold War by having more than the USSR could produce. I truly hope they never be used EVER, but they are a deterrent.

[69360]

I want to at least know what we need an army for. Canada and Mexico are the only countries we have a border with. Otherwise, our army is not physically capable of being used unless it is deployed overseas.

So long as we have a standing army we will remain at war. Without one, we would never go to war.

A country would not have to share a border to attack or invade the US. Having trained soldiers with command and control structures in place ready to go stationed in the US is not a bad thing. Armies don't materialize overnight if you are attacked.


Those are some crazy poll results. Apparently anarcho capitalists now make up a majority of the members of this forum.

It's an off election year. Only the hardcore are posting.

I agree with ancaps about most business and economic issues but think a military stationed in the US for defense only is ok. I don't think the state should regulate business, but do think it should defend the people. I guess they don't have a word to describe my views.

[erowe1]

We partially won the Cold War by having more than the USSR could produce. I truly hope they never be used EVER, but they are a deterrent.

We didn't win squat.

And, assuming they really deterred anything at all, that deterrence stops once you cross the threshold of the number of warheads it takes to do as much damage as you could ever want to do. The USSR and USA had both crossed that threshold some time in the 70's.

[willwash]

We didn't win squat.

And, assuming they really deterred anything at all, that deterrence stops once you cross the threshold of the number of warheads it takes to do as much damage as you could ever want to do. The USSR and USA had both crossed that threshold some time in the 70's.

This assumes no missiles are stopped by antiballistic missile defense systems, which were also in development at that time on both sides. Thus, for strategic planning purposes you would need more missiles than you actually planned on hitting your target with. So it still helped to have more missiles. It allowed you to say, even if your SDI stops 90% of our missiles, we can still destroy you.

[willwash]

Abolishing the entire military would require a constitutional amendment. The Navy is expressly authorized by the Constitution, wartime or not.

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder what the market would say?

Will you pay $1000 a month for military "protection"?

[Cutlerzzz]

I want to change my answer. Instead of "yes" I want to vote no.

I don't support abolishing the military, I just support voluntarizing it.

The same goes for everything else the government does.

The poll asks "Should the Federal Military be abolished". Your vote is still accurate.

[osan]

Yes?

Not without establishing its replacement first - a well trained militia of at least 75 million people. Simple practicality will NOT allow us to safely dismantle out military unilaterally. If our armed forces disappeared permanently this minute, China and Russia would be landing troops here within a month. The rottenness of mean humanity has painted all of us into this corner and the preoccupation with the thrill of power leaves those wielding it in no mood to stand down from the edges of oblivion. So here we sit, perched on this knife's edge waiting for what is likely inevitable.

Glad I'm this old - in fact, wish I were my parent's age because I envy no soul inheriting what we leave behind.

[erowe1]

If our armed forces disappeared permanently this minute, China and Russia would be landing troops here within a month.

For what purpose?

[Contumacious]

For what purpose?

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

[erowe1]

This assumes no missiles are stopped by antiballistic missile defense systems, which were also in development at that time on both sides. Thus, for strategic planning purposes you would need more missiles than you actually planned on hitting your target with. So it still helped to have more missiles. It allowed you to say, even if your SDI stops 90% of our missiles, we can still destroy you.

That sounds like an argument bomb makers and politicians would use to make people think they need to keep spending tax dollars on useless crap.

[erowe1]

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

Flushing their own money down the toilet would not help them accomplish that.

[Cutlerzzz]

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

The US owes China 1.3 trillion.

China would have to spend several trillion a year to occupy the US. Hundreds of billions a year to occupy the West Coast.

Invading the US would shut down hundreds of billions of dollars of trade between the countries.

Invading the US would destroy the American economy and infrastructure, rending the US incapable of paying anything.


How is invading the US a good idea to get 1.3 trillion back?

[Pericles]

The US owes China 1.3 trillion.

China would have to spend several trillion a year to occupy the US. Hundreds of billions a year to occupy the West Coast.

Invading the US would shut down hundreds of billions of dollars of trade between the countries.

Invading the US would destroy the American economy and infrastructure, rending the US incapable of paying anything.


How is invading the US a good idea to get 1.3 trillion back?
Why ask why?

Why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did N Korea invade S Korea?
Why did did Japan invade Manchuria?
Why did the Soviet Union invade Finland?
Why did Germany invade Belgium?
Why did France invade Spain?
Why did England invade France?
Why did the Turks invade Europe?
Why did the Moors invade Spain?
Why did Spain invade the Incas?
Why did Macedonia invade Greece?

[Natural Citizen]

You can't abolish the military.

[Cutlerzzz]

Why ask why?

Why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did N Korea invade S Korea?
Why did did Japan invade Manchuria?
Why did the Soviet Union invade Finland?
Why did Germany invade Belgium?
Why did France invade Spain?
Why did England invade France?
Why did the Turks invade Europe?
Why did the Moors invade Spain?
Why did Spain invade the Incas?
Why did Macedonia invade Greece?

Are you insinuating that none of those countries had reasons to go to war on any of those occasions? Are you conflating Germany invading Belgium to China invading a country 300 times the size of Belgium and twice China's GDP? Are you conflating pre modern warfare to modern warfare, where Afghanistan or Iraq can financially cripple super powers in less than a decade?

[Pericles]

Are you insinuating that none of those countries had reasons to go to war on any of those occasions? Are you conflating Germany invading Belgium to China invading a country 300 times the size of Belgium and twice China's GDP? Are you conflating pre modern warfare to modern warfare, where Afghanistan or Iraq can financially cripple super powers in less than a decade?

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

[green73]

A standing army is the bane of liberty.

Yes!

[green73]

I want to at least know what we need an army for. Canada and Mexico are the only countries we have a border with. Otherwise, our army is not physically capable of being used unless it is deployed overseas.

So long as we have a standing army we will remain at war. Without one, we would never go to war.

The military ultimately operates at the behest of the City of London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London).

[green73]

Give it up folks for Sean Hannity!

Don't be an assburger.

[green73]

abolishing the military?

No.

Limiting it,, Reducing it. putting it on a very short leash,, Yes.

Pfft.

[green73]

Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish the military or army. What would you label him?

Appeal to authority fallacy. Does anybody commit it more than you?

[eduardo89]

The military ultimately operates at the behest of the City of London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London).

Been reading a bit too much Lyndon LaRouche, have we?

[green73]

I wonder what the market would say?

Will you pay $1000 a month for military "protection"?

What are you saying? You think in a free market it would cost that much?

[green73]

Been reading a bit too much Lyndon LaRouche, have we?

Never read him.

[enoch150]

Those are some crazy poll results. Apparently anarcho capitalists now make up a majority of the members of this forum.

A few years back, on John Stossel's show, Glenn Beck argued in favor of privatizing the military. Glenn Beck is not an anarcho-capitalist.

[eduardo89]

Never read him.

You should. His plan to link Europe to China with Maglev trains across Siberia is fascinating.

[surf]

What are you saying? You think in a free market it would cost that much?

really, that's $300 billion (don't curse me if my zeroes are bad).

are we really that concerned that we will be invaded by those pesky Canadians?

edit: Peacemongers up 3 (goals by Obafemi Martins, Eddie Johnson, and Clint Dempsey) as we head into the second half

[krugminator]

The fear of jihad is completely overblown. I'm sure those peaceful Muslims would never launch nuclear weapons at a non-Muslim country with no military. After all the people of the United States have Bitcoins and could form militias to defend itself. And if they did nuke the United States, it would be our fault for interfering in their affairs.

[eduardo89]

are we really that concerned that we will be invaded by those pesky Canadians?

I'm more worried about Canexicans. They can screw the US from both ends.

[green73]

You should. His plan to link Europe to China with Maglev trains across Siberia is fascinating.

Huh.

[kcchiefs6465]

The fear of jihad is completely overblown. I'm sure those peaceful Muslims would never launch nuclear weapons at a non-Muslim country with no military. After all the people of the United States have Bitcoins and could form militias to defend itself. And if they did nuke the United States, it would be our fault for interfering in their affairs.
I created a thread specifically for you. I'm a little sad you never showed up. :(

As to this post, research delivery systems. Enriching uranium. That sort of thing. To say that that is unlikely would be such a gross under-exaggeration it is ridiculous.

[Pericles]

The fear of jihad is completely overblown. I'm sure those peaceful Muslims would never launch nuclear weapons at a non-Muslim country with no military. After all the people of the United States have Bitcoins and could form militias to defend itself. And if they did nuke the United States, it would be our fault for interfering in their affairs.

Islam is a religion of peace, and if you disagree, or remark on the tendency of the Great prophet to be a child rapist, someone will be along soon to behead you.

[green73]

Interesting poll numbers. Since we have a number of ancaps here it doesn't bode well for the statists who claim to be "constitutionalists". Statism is so corrupting.

[heavenlyboy34]

The fear of jihad is completely overblown. I'm sure those peaceful Muslims would never launch nuclear weapons at a non-Muslim country with no military. After all the people of the United States have Bitcoins and could form militias to defend itself. And if they did nuke the United States, it would be our fault for interfering in their affairs.
Do you really think that only the regime's military can produce protection from nuclear weapons? :rolleyes: Who do you think builds these sort of things now? You can bet your arse it isn't the State Department!

[heavenlyboy34]

Islam is a religion of peace, and if you disagree, or remark on the tendency of the Great prophet to be a child rapist, someone will be along soon to behead you.
We have at least one muslim member of these forums (expatpaki) who strongly agrees with RP about the importance of peace and non-aggression, d00d. Stupid stereotypes are stoopid.

[green73]

FreedomFagnatic keeps negging me for assburger comments.

Listen, I'm happy to have brilliant people such as Aspergers supporting the cause, but they should know that their black-and-white personality is often a source for derision from the regular public. FFS you often can't even tell what sacasm is. Recognize your limitations and stfu!

[Pericles]

Appeal to authority fallacy. Does anybody commit it more than you?
Only those who tell other posters to go read Rothbard.

[Cutlerzzz]

I have Assburgers as well. I enjoyed the South Park Episode making fun of it and consider it normal for family members to tease me about being Autistic.

Someone needs to loosen up.

[krugminator]

We have at least one muslim member of these forums (expatpaki) who strongly agrees with RP about the importance of peace and non-aggression, d00d. Stupid stereotypes are stoopid.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 10-15% are radicalized. That's a large number. It is a pretty bad idea to unilaterally disarm.

And this topic reminded me of this Rand Paul ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zibqde-pjxg

[green73]

Only those who tell other posters to go read Rothbard.

:rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

I don't go for the "religion of peace" line, but I do recognize that most of those attacks are motivated by blowback. That doesn't justify them, but it does put things into perspective.

[Christian Liberty]

FreedomFagnatic keeps negging me for assburger comments.

Listen, I'm happy to have brilliant people such as Aspergers supporting the cause, but they should know that their black-and-white personality is often a source for derision from the regular public. FFS you often can't even tell what sacasm is. Recognize your limitations and stfu!

Not sure why you added an S to the end of my abbreviation, but yes, I often can't tell what sarcasm is, and I have a black and white personality. I can own up to that. That doesn't justify mockery.

[heavenlyboy34]

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 10-15% are radicalized. That's a large number. It is a pretty bad idea to unilaterally disarm.

And this topic reminded me of this Rand Paul ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zibqde-pjxg
:rolleyes: Disbanding standing militaries is not "disarming". You kids and your tortured logic. :P

[GuerrillaXXI]

In my opinion we should keep enough military power to deter attack by foreign powers, but drastically reduce or eliminate military capabilities that could be used for foreign occupations or domestic counter-insurgency. It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between these kinds of military assets.

America's nuclear deterrent is sufficient to prevent attack by foreign powers such as Russia or China. We can keep the ICBMs, the jets, and the nuclear-armed submarines. These weapons pose little threat to a domestic insurgency but certainly deter any foreign aggression that could pose a significant threat.

The same cannot be said for standing ground forces. The Army and Marines once served a purpose, but today they are irrelevant to US national defense. They serve no purpose other than to invade foreign countries and threaten freedom at home, all for the benefit of "defense" manufacturer profits.

We should also get rid of all police except elected sheriffs and their deputies, and there should be strict citizen oversight of law enforcement. And this is to say nothing of the laws themselves, many of which are morally repugnant.

[Natural Citizen]

In my opinion we should keep enough military power to deter attack by foreign powers, but drastically reduce or eliminate military capabilities that could be used for foreign occupations or domestic counter-insurgency. It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between these kinds of military assets.

America's nuclear deterrent is sufficient to prevent attack by foreign powers such as Russia or China. We can keep the ICBMs, the jets, and the nuclear-armed submarines. These weapons pose little threat to a domestic insurgency but certainly deter any foreign aggression that could pose a significant threat.

The same cannot be said for standing ground forces. The Army and Marines once served a purpose, but today they are irrelevant to US national defense. They serve no purpose other than to invade foreign countries and threaten freedom at home, all for the benefit of "defense" manufacturer profits.

We should also get rid of all police except elected sheriffs and their deputies, and there should be strict citizen oversight of law enforcement. And this is to say nothing of the laws themselves, many of which are morally repugnant.

I like Ron's way. Bring them home and build more bases here. Which is essentially what you are saying if I understand correctly.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like Ron's way. Bring them home and build more bases here. Which is essentially what you are saying if I understand correctly.
When did RP say anything about "build(ing) more bases"?

[heavenlyboy34]

Not sure why you added an S to the end of my abbreviation, but yes, I often can't tell what sarcasm is, and I have a black and white personality. I can own up to that. That doesn't justify mockery.
"FFS" means "For Fuck's Sake". Now you know. :)

[bolil]

In my opinion we should keep enough military power to deter attack by foreign powers, but drastically reduce or eliminate military capabilities that could be used for foreign occupations or domestic counter-insurgency. It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between these kinds of military assets.

America's nuclear deterrent is sufficient to prevent attack by foreign powers such as Russia or China. We can keep the ICBMs, the jets, and the nuclear-armed submarines. These weapons pose little threat to a domestic insurgency but certainly deter any foreign aggression that could pose a significant threat.

The same cannot be said for standing ground forces. The Army and Marines once served a purpose, but today they are irrelevant to US national defense. They serve no purpose other than to invade foreign countries and threaten freedom at home, all for the benefit of "defense" manufacturer profits.

We should also get rid of all police except elected sheriffs and their deputies, and there should be strict citizen oversight of law enforcement. And this is to say nothing of the laws themselves, many of which are morally repugnant.

"There is no good nor evil, but thinking makes it so."

It is all in the application, isn't it, I could have the highest quality paint but if I don't go about applying it the right way it will look like shit.

[green73]

Not sure why you added an S to the end of my abbreviation, but yes, I often can't tell what sarcasm is, and I have a black and white personality. I can own up to that. That doesn't justify mockery.


"FFF" means "For Fuck's Sake". Now you know. :)

FF, the latter part of my statement was aimed as Aspergerites in general.

[Natural Citizen]

When did RP say anything about "build(ing) more bases"?

One of the debates he had said to just bring them home and specifically followed it with "Heck, I'd probably build more bases here at home then".

[QuickZ06]

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 10-15% are radicalized. That's a large number. It is a pretty bad idea to unilaterally disarm.

There are 316 million Americans. 90%+ whom are radicalized (think statism). That's a large number.......

[heavenlyboy34]

One of the debates he had said to just bring them home and specifically followed it with "Heck, I'd probably build more bases here at home then".
hmmm...I do recall him talking about bringing the troops home, but not building more bases domestically. Got toobz?

[heavenlyboy34]

There are 316 million Americans. 90%+ whom are radicalized (think statism). That's a large number.......
And that's not including the various territories (American Samoa, etc)! :eek:

[Natural Citizen]

hmmm...I do recall him talking about bringing the troops home, but not building more bases domestically. Got toobz?

Nope. Good luck finding it if you do look though. What struck me by it was the tone in which he said it. He was very frank. Kind of like matter of fact..ish.

It'll probably come to me if I think about it a bit who he said it to.

[Natural Citizen]

Got toobz?




During the South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate, Candidate Ron Paul was questioned by Gerald Seib, of The Wall Street Journal, about Paul’s plans to cut Defense spending by “several hundred billion dollars in the coming years that inevitably would cost South Carolina jobs. What do you say to people in this state who worry that your military plans would hurt the national security and cost South Carolina jobs?”

I would say your question suggests you’re very confused,” responded Ron Paul, “about my position.” Seib focused on the importance of South Carolina’s “seven major military bases and thousands of people employed into the defense industry.” Seib was particularly interested in why Paul would want to cut defense spending that would surely put thousands of South Carolina citizens out of work. “I would probably have more bases at home,” Paul told Seib. Paul plans to cut Defense spending overseas, not at home as Seib was inferring.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYZ-imz1es#t=420



“After 9/11 I voted for the authority to go after [Osama bin Laden] and my frustration was that we didn’t go after him.” – Ron Paul
Congressman Paul vocalized the fact that we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora. What other candidate has even mentioned Tora Bora?


Paul noted that he gets “twice as much money from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So they’re saying that I’m on the right track. They’re sick and tired of those wars. They’re sick and tired of the nation building and the policing activity.”
The Wall Street Journal executive editor reiterated his point that Ron Paul’s “plan calls for freezing defense spending at 2006 levels.”
Ron Paul immediately corrected the editor by responding, “You still don’t understand.” After a few seconds of laughter, Paul continued.

“There’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, bigger than the Vatican, you consider that Defense spending. I consider that waste.” The crowd then erupted into cheers for common sense. Paul seized on the moment and explained that the first cuts he would make would be “some of this military spending, like Eisenhower advised us. Watch out for the Military-Industrial Complex. Defend this country. We have to have a strong national defense. But we don’t get strength by diluting ourselves in 900 bases, 130 countries. That is where the problem is.”


Following up this point Paul added, “Any time you spend money it’s a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax that’s attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation tax. The devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that, and that’s why I want to make the inflation tax zero as well.”

“This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy, that all we have to do is start another war? It’s warmongering,” Congressman Paul tells the South Carolina audience. “They’re building up for another war against Iran and people can’t wait to get in another war. This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in.”

Asked about the direction of the nation, Paul responded, “I think we’re going in the wrong direction for the protections of our liberties at home. They’re under deep threat. The Patriot Act has eliminated the Fourth Amendment. We now have a policy of preemptive war. You don’t have to declare war, and you don’t even have to have an enemy. We can start the wars. That’s what preemptive war is all about. Now with the military appropriations defense act, this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for [being] under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely without habeas corpus, and denied a lawyer indefinitely, even in a prison here [in America].”

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYZ-imz1es#t=420
ok. I am disappoint. :( I guess RP and I will have to have a gentlemen's disagreement here.

[osan]

For what purpose?


Is this a serious question?

Really d00d - that is embarrassing. The reasons are manifold and as obvious as the ridiculousness of the question. Why has ANY would-be conqueror invaded another's territory? Why did the Romans do it? How about Germany? Crusade, anyone? and so forth down a wearying line of sorrowfully predictable and boring tales of masturbatory avarice, stupidity, and ultimately futility.

[osan]

Why ask why?

Why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did N Korea invade S Korea?
Why did did Japan invade Manchuria?
Why did the Soviet Union invade Finland?
Why did Germany invade Belgium?
Why did France invade Spain?
Why did England invade France?
Why did the Turks invade Europe?
Why did the Moors invade Spain?
Why did Spain invade the Incas?
Why did Macedonia invade Greece?

This is SO on point - bullseye.

Expecting rationality from the tyrant is notably less rational than two monkeys humping a football.

Since when did good sense and sanity have ANYTHING to do with such affairs?

[osan]

Are you insinuating that none of those countries had reasons to go to war on any of those occasions? Are you conflating Germany invading Belgium to China invading a country 300 times the size of Belgium and twice China's GDP? Are you conflating pre modern warfare to modern warfare, where Afghanistan or Iraq can financially cripple super powers in less than a decade?

He wrote nothing that could be construed to mean there no reasons. There are always reasons - i.e. causes - but in how many cases is INVASION justified? Is it ever? Can invasion ever be taken as defensive? In theory I can see it readily, but what proportion of such events actually were? 1 in 1000? Not saying I know, but given my readings it appears to be a small to the point of vanishing. If you examine these affairs CLOSELY and with a competent analytic eye, these actions all appear to be established on bullshit and lies that in turn are driven by nothing fancier than good old fashioned avarice - often gussied up by that bullshit to bring even the most paltry crust of the appearance of a legitimate cause. When all else fails, one can always resort to "God came to me in a vision and..." and people will often lay down for it, regardless whether they buy the line.

The question is not one of the presence of reasons - those are always there; it is a question of legitimacy.

[osan]

In my opinion we should keep enough military power to deter attack by foreign powers, but drastically reduce or eliminate military capabilities that could be used for foreign occupations or domestic counter-insurgency. It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between these kinds of military assets.

America's nuclear deterrent is sufficient to prevent attack by foreign powers such as Russia or China. We can keep the ICBMs, the jets, and the nuclear-armed submarines. These weapons pose little threat to a domestic insurgency but certainly deter any foreign aggression that could pose a significant threat.

The same cannot be said for standing ground forces. The Army and Marines once served a purpose, but today they are irrelevant to US national defense. They serve no purpose other than to invade foreign countries and threaten freedom at home, all for the benefit of "defense" manufacturer profits.

We should also get rid of all police except elected sheriffs and their deputies, and there should be strict citizen oversight of law enforcement. And this is to say nothing of the laws themselves, many of which are morally repugnant.

I would call this rational. However, the question of how to fund remains and if we are doing so by force, what have be bought in terms of being a free nation?

[Root]

I voted yes, but I'd keep the Navy around, with subermarines and aircraft carriers, they should be able to protect us for foreign invaders. A standing army does us no good. If congress declares war, then the army will rebuild itself quick enough.

[libertariantexas]

Considering a giant over expanded military has been the cause of almost all of our international conflicts, I voted yes.

Okay.

But there is a HUGE difference between the bloated military we have now and "No military."

The rational answer is that we should reduce the size of our military significantly, not abolish it.

[Brett85]

These are some crazy poll results. Would people really rather live under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians than pay a little bit to have a military for legitimate defense purposes?

[erowe1]

Is this a serious question?

Really d00d - that is embarrassing. The reasons are manifold and as obvious as the ridiculousness of the question. Why has ANY would-be conqueror invaded another's territory? Why did the Romans do it? How about Germany? Crusade, anyone? and so forth down a wearying line of sorrowfully predictable and boring tales of masturbatory avarice, stupidity, and ultimately futility.

I think one thing you'll find in common in all those tales is that the conquered people had governments with militaries prior to being conquered. The existence of the regime in DC with its own military makes America more susceptible to being taken over by a foreign empire, not less. My question was based on the premise (as the context of this thread would show) of the people of America being free.

[erowe1]

These are some crazy poll results. Would people really rather live under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians than pay a little bit to have a military for legitimate defense purposes?

That just seems crazy to me. I can't fathom how getting rid of our military would lead to us living under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians.

[Brett85]

That just seems crazy to me. I can't fathom how getting rid of our military would lead to us living under the rule of the Chinese or the Russians.

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

[erowe1]

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

Without a federal government here for them to take over, it would be completely impossible. What good would those militaries be to them? Beijing and Moscow have enough trouble keeping China and Russia under their control. Imagine them trying something 1000 times harder than what our government is doing in Afghanistan with less.

[heavenlyboy34]

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?
1) A defense system-entirely different from a standing army 2) Do you seriously believe China or Russia have a desire to invade? Why? We're separated by massive land and sea boundaries. (Do you really believe the Russians or Chinese could maintain a sufficient supply line?) Neither of those regimes are in a particularly good position to launch an offensive against a far-flung, heavily armed population and militia system. Plus, the massive geo-economic disruption that would result from such a fool's errand would destroy them.

The Russians couldn't even defeat the Afghans who were armed with AKs, rocket launchers and other little toys. I mean, srsly. Think about this before you fear-monger.

ETA: Also, what erowe said^^

[torchbearer]

I could see scaling back to the Navy and "National Guard" along with the Coast Guard.

the idea was the states could maintain their own guards/"militias", and in times of war, the federal government would assemble a national army from those guards to DEFEND the nation from an attack on its mainland.
not what is happening now, and hasn't happened since 1865 when state armies were made illegal for the reason that it could possibly oppose the federal government.
Our national guard today is really under the control of the president, not the governor.

[heavenlyboy34]

the idea was the states could maintain their own guards/"militias", and in times of war, the federal government would assemble a national army from those guards to DEFEND the nation from an attack on its mainland.
not what is happening now, and hasn't happened since 1865 when state armies were made illegal for the reason that it could possibly oppose the federal government.
Our national guard today is really under the control of the president, not the governor.
Truth. That is why there are Guardsmen stationed in the fucking 'stan and such places. Ridiculous.

[torchbearer]

Truth. That is why there are Guardsmen stationed in the fucking 'stan and such places. Ridiculous.

When Katrina hit New Orleans, most of our guard was in Iraq.
They were trying to ship them back to help... wtf?
The system is so fucked up- it needs to be scrapped.

[Brett85]

What's the point of even having these kind of debates/conversations when there's a 0% chance this would ever happen? It would be extremely hard to even get our troops home from overseas, much less convince the American people that they should all be fired immediately.

[Brett85]

1) A defense system-entirely different from a standing army 2) Do you seriously believe China or Russia have a desire to invade? Why?

Why wouldn't they? It would be extremely easy if we disarmed ourselves and offered them no resistance, and we have a land of abundant resources that they would then have direct access to.

[kcchiefs6465]

What's the point of even having these kind of debates/conversations when there's a 0% chance this would ever happen? It would be extremely hard to even get our troops home from overseas, much less convince the American people that they should all be fired immediately.
For philosophical sharpness and to expand on advanced libertarian theory.

I'm interested in how it would all work. People bring up good points I have not thought of and I can adjust my earlier position according. The philosophy is evolving. Certain issues are clear cut. This one isn't.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why wouldn't they? It would be extremely easy if we disarmed ourselves and offered them no resistance, and we have a land of abundant resources that they would then have direct access to.
This country could never be disarmed.

A country actually invading here would be such a financial drain that it is unfeasible.

If they did, I'm comfortable in believing my fellow countrymen would be taking pot shots from the trees every chance they got. We could never be captured.

Not to mention the 1,500+ some odd nuclear warheads we have that could destroy this world many times over. A bit of a deterrent if someone happened to be strategically retarded enough to attempt an invasion.

[erowe1]

What's the point of even having these kind of debates/conversations when there's a 0% chance this would ever happen? It would be extremely hard to even get our troops home from overseas, much less convince the American people that they should all be fired immediately.

These debates are ultimately ethical debates about what's right and wrong. Being guided by principles of right and wrong doesn't become pointless just because you don't think you'll ever get to a place where everything is right and nothing is wrong. Every little decision we make along the way that can either get us a little bit closer to that or a little bit further from it is affected by what we understand those basic ethical principles to be.

[Cutlerzzz]

the idea was the states could maintain their own guards/"militias", and in times of war, the federal government would assemble a national army from those guards to DEFEND the nation from an attack on its mainland.
not what is happening now, and hasn't happened since 1865 when state armies were made illegal for the reason that it could possibly oppose the federal government.
Our national guard today is really under the control of the president, not the governor.

California/Washington/Oregon have a combined GDP that is a quarter larger than Russia's, on top being covered in mountains and separated from Russia by several thousand miles. Yet Russia is supposedly able to conquer all three of them along with the other 47 states.

[Brett85]

Not to mention the 1,500+ some odd nuclear warheads we have that could destroy this world many times over. A bit of a deterrent if someone happened to be strategically retarded enough to attempt an invasion.

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.

[kcchiefs6465]

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.
What else would we do with them?

[erowe1]

Would the same people who are advocating abolishing the military actually be in favor of keeping our nuclear arsenal? That seems doubtful.

Speaking for myself, I'm all for disarming all of them.

[Brett85]

What else would we do with them?

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?

[Brett85]

Speaking for myself, I'm all for disarming all of them.

Are you an anarchist?

[torchbearer]

each state could keep their nukes. mutually assured destruction is a path to peace for ultimate weapons of destruction.

[erowe1]

Are you an anarchist?

I reject that label. But I probably couldn't convince you I'm not one.

[erowe1]

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?

He's saying we would keep them.

[kcchiefs6465]

What do you mean? I thought you were saying that our nuclear aresenal would be a sufficient deterrent even if the military were abolished?
I was saying that we already have them. What are we going to do with them, bury them in the side of a mountain? If we already have them I see no reason in getting rid of all of them. I would be for reducing the amount we have depending on the cost of that vs. the cost of maintaining and storing them but realistically, they are a good deterrent against attack.

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5194886#post5194886)Truth. That is why there are Guardsmen stationed in the fucking 'stan and such places. Ridiculous.



When Katrina hit New Orleans, most of our guard was in Iraq.
They were trying to ship them back to help... wtf?
The system is so fucked up- it needs to be scrapped.

Need for people to try to get a firm grasp on miltary versus defense spending. Roads, bridges and many other infrastructural change that is in order fits into both. And so then maybe not practical to sell the notion of bringing them all home but legislation can do scwewy things. kind of a problem, reaction, solution scenario with the Katrina thing and equally quirky is that weather phenomenon itself has even managed to get packagerd with matters of national security.

I don't know. There's a thought in there some place...

[torchbearer]

Need for people to try to get a firm grasp on miltary versus defense spending. Roads, bridges and many other infrastructural change that is in order fits into both. And so then maybe not practical to sell the notion of bringing them all home but legislation can do scwewy things. kind of a problem, reaction, solution scenario with the Katrina thing and equally quirky is that weather phenomenon itself has even managed to get packagerd with matters of national security.

I don't know. There's a thought in there some place...

when the state needs people to fill sand bags, we have a guard for it.
when the state needs people to fly helicopters in to rescue stranded people, we have a guard...
when gangs start robbing people, we have a guard...

but during katrina, we had no guard. we had dema turning away the volunteer fire fighters, with government agents disarming lawful people, while gangs roamed free to rob them.

[pcosmar]

We have a land of abundant resources that other countries would love to have. How would we be able to stop a country like China or Russia that has a strong military from taking over our country if they decided to do so?

Russia could not even take and hold Afghanistan.

They could not even survive one state in the US,, let alone 50.

[Brett85]

It just seems funny that even Ron would probably be one of the more moderate, mainstream members of this forum if he actually posted here. He said during one of the Republican debates that he would probably be in favor of building more bases here at home if we closed all the bases overseas.

[Brett85]

Russia could not even take and hold Afghanistan.

They could not even survive one state in the US,, let alone 50.

Afghanistan has a military.

[erowe1]

It just seems funny that even Ron would probably be one of the more moderate, mainstream members of this forum if he actually posted here. He said during one of the Republican debates that he would probably be in favor of building more bases here at home if we closed all the bases overseas.

I have to admit, it really is shocking to me that he said that. Maybe it was a moment of weakness brought about by having to come up with something to say on the spot.

[Cutlerzzz]

Afghanistan has a military.

Yes, they had the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, who were allied with the Soviet Union. They both lost to the insurgents.

[kcchiefs6465]

I have to admit, it really is shocking to me that he said that. Maybe it was a moment of weakness brought about by having to come up with something to say on the spot.
No doubt.

Speaking to a roomful of South Carolinian war hawks could fluster a man.

I have no doubt Ron Paul understands the economic insanity of it all and that standing armies are a cause for concern with regards to conflicts initiated.

I believe his proposed budget even increased the DoD spending did it not? I have no doubt Ron Paul would take an ax to it if ever given the real opportunity. I tend to think he didn't want to be dismissed outright and "dumbed down" his views for the public, I guess you could say.

He believes in a strong national defense, no doubt, but I think he can objectively look at our situation and see how all of this waste is hurting national defense. He mentioned it a few times, that our national debt was the biggest threat this country faced. It would be interesting to talk to him in depth on the subject though.

[RedLightning]

I'm against large standing armies. Not for abolishing it altogether.

[heavenlyboy34]

This country could never be disarmed.

A country actually invading here would be such a financial drain that it is unfeasible.

If they did, I'm comfortable in believing my fellow countrymen would be taking pot shots from the trees every chance they got. We could never be captured.

Not to mention the 1,500+ some odd nuclear warheads we have that could destroy this world many times over. A bit of a deterrent if someone happened to be strategically retarded enough to attempt an invasion.
It's interesting that in this particular thread people like you and I are more in agreement with the "Founding Fathers" than the conservatives in here. :eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm against large standing armies. Not for abolishing it altogether.
Then what is your solution? A slow phase out and a return to the militia (National Guard) and navy?

[Brett85]

He believes in a strong national defense, no doubt, but I think he can objectively look at our situation and see how all of this waste is hurting national defense. He mentioned it a few times, that our national debt was the biggest threat this country faced. It would be interesting to talk to him in depth on the subject though.

He believes in having a strong national defense, which is why he mentioned that he would support building additional military bases here at home and closing down all of the overseas bases. If he took the position of many people here who advocate gutting the military or abolishing it, he definitely wouldn't be in favor of having a strong national defense.

[fr33]

He believes in having a strong national defense, which is why he mentioned that he would support building more additional military bases here at home and closing down all of the overseas bases. If he took the position of many people here who advocate gutting the military or abolishing it, he definitely wouldn't be in favor of having a strong national defense.

We don't need that any more than we need another hole in our heads. The military has been taking away land from unwilling sellers at a rapid pace via eminent domain. They have too much already.

One example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi%C3%B1on_Canyon_Maneuver_Site)


The Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (also Pinon and Pinyon) is a 235,896 acre (955 km2) U.S. Army base in southeastern Colorado. The Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) is a training site for Fort Carson. The proposed expansion of PCMS by the army has encountered opposition from local citizens and conservation groups.


In 2003, the Army identified a need to expand PCMS by acquiring 6.9 million acres (27,923 km2) of land owned by private citizens and the Comanche National Grassland in southeastern Colorado.

[XTreat]

I am in the Army and I support abolishing the Army.

[AFPVet]

I am in the Army and I support abolishing the Army.

Didn't want to crossover to the blue side (AF)? LOL

[Christian Liberty]

Speaking for myself, I'm all for disarming all of them.

I'm not. Not unless everyone else disarms theirs too. Otherwise, we're just asking for it.

Now, I'd never actually fire them, seeing as to do so would be to murder hundreds of thousands of innocents, but the statists that rule the rest of the world don't/wouldn't know that...

[kcchiefs6465]

He believes in having a strong national defense, which is why he mentioned that he would support building additional military bases here at home and closing down all of the overseas bases. If he took the position of many people here who advocate gutting the military or abolishing it, he definitely wouldn't be in favor of having a strong national defense.
Meh.

We spend 7.5 times as much as Russia yearly. Four times as much as China. I'd say we should have a pretty strong national defense already without the need for more bases and any more money wasted. And if we don't have a strong national defense while spending 40% of the world total for military expenditures, the fraudster, crony capitalist corporatists ought be brought up on charges for swindling the People's wealth. Not that they shouldn't be charged and tried for their crimes anyways.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No doubt.

Speaking to a roomful of South Carolinian war hawks could fluster a man.

I have no doubt Ron Paul understands the economic insanity of it all and that standing armies are a cause for concern with regards to conflicts initiated.

I believe his proposed budget even increased the DoD spending did it not? I have no doubt Ron Paul would take an ax to it if ever given the real opportunity. I tend to think he didn't want to be dismissed outright and "dumbed down" his views for the public, I guess you could say.

He believes in a strong national defense, no doubt, but I think he can objectively look at our situation and see how all of this waste is hurting national defense. He mentioned it a few times, that our national debt was the biggest threat this country faced. It would be interesting to talk to him in depth on the subject though.

It cut defense in year 1, then, along with everything else, went up like 1% a year. He was stressing during the campaign that the current year is all that matters, however.

[asurfaholic]

I don't fear another country as much as I fear my own govt. I support keeping the military, and using it against the foreign invaders currently pulling strings at home.

[erowe1]

I'm not. Not unless everyone else disarms theirs too. Otherwise, we're just asking for it.

Asking for what? Whatever it is, is New Zealand asking for it too?


Now, I'd never actually fire them, seeing as to do so would be to murder hundreds of thousands of innocents, but the statists that rule the rest of the world don't/wouldn't know that...

How would that work?

Should we have a policy of never using them, and just trying to pretend that we would?

[bolil]

A highly decorated Marine once wrote, "It will take NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION soldiers to invade the United States with any hope of success. These million men must come all at once, The must bring not less than SEVEN TONS OF BAGGAGE PER MAN. One million men, seven million tons of food, ammunition, whatnot. For instance, just ONE item: The must bring four hundred thousand vehicles alone; tractors, fifty gallons of gasoline per day for each vehicle for 270 days -- that's nine months' supply. Why, there are not enough ships in the whole world, including our own -- and we certainly wouldn't lend them ours -- to carry that kind of expedition. And remember, these ships have to bring with them enough fuel to get back with -- to make the round trips. We certainly aren't going to give them fuel over here to go home with. Any dumb cluck can see that." -Smedely Butler.

[helmuth_hubener]

US Military: largest force for evil in the world.

Yeah, that sounds worth keeping.

[Seraphim]

Thread winner.


Why do countries invade other countries?

To take over their tax farms.

We need to get rid of the income tax, federal reserve, and military so we can live in peace.

[robert68]

A highly decorated Marine once wrote, "It will take NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION soldiers to invade the United States with any hope of success. These million men must come all at once, The must bring not less than SEVEN TONS OF BAGGAGE PER MAN. One million men, seven million tons of food, ammunition, whatnot. For instance, just ONE item: The must bring four hundred thousand vehicles alone; tractors, fifty gallons of gasoline per day for each vehicle for 270 days -- that's nine months' supply. Why, there are not enough ships in the whole world, including our own -- and we certainly wouldn't lend them ours -- to carry that kind of expedition. And remember, these ships have to bring with them enough fuel to get back with -- to make the round trips. We certainly aren't going to give them fuel over here to go home with. Any dumb cluck can see that." -Smedely Butler.

But tiny, no resources (couldn’t even take Hawaii) Japan was going to do it, that’s why they had to be decimated. Sorry, but after that long, should Japan have been a-bombed thread, just had too.

[Paulbot99]

I'm with Paul: cut military spending and bring the troops home and secure our own borders.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm with Paul: cut military spending and bring the troops home and secure our own borders.
The fences aren't just to keep people out.