HOLY FUCK < I agree with Red Dog:)
You know maybe if every body else promised not to pole their money to build a fighting force, I do not think either will ever happen. People would take that free market mentality onto the battle field , like They are attacking Lifty , they are not bothering me , so Lifty should have prepared better
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
HOLY FUCK < I agree with Red Dog:)[/quote]
You’re coming around…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Standing, professional militaries do not exist for “national defense”.
The first military to mobilize and cross an other border was for the purpose of aggression. It existed to rob and pillage the citizens of other lands – and sometimes their own.
In stead of having a standing army to defend us, we should just take responsibility for our own self defense and learn to shoot a rifle (or learn whatever means available).
A professional military is not needed for “national defense” and can only be used unjustly. Militaries can only conquer and occupy – not defend.
Defend yourself because the military cannot.[/quote]
Yes, and we should all have tanks and artillery and aircraft and submarines and warships and nuclear missiles and such to protect ourselves from the other nations who don’t share your citizens’ militia philosophy. What a practical idea! In fact, why don’t you all wear Davy Crockett hats and carry breech-loading rifles and become yeoman farmers and say ‘boo’ to the North Koreans? Utter nonsense!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Standing, professional militaries do not exist for “national defense”.
The first military to mobilize and cross an other border was for the purpose of aggression. It existed to rob and pillage the citizens of other lands – and sometimes their own.
In stead of having a standing army to defend us, we should just take responsibility for our own self defense and learn to shoot a rifle (or learn whatever means available).
A professional military is not needed for “national defense” and can only be used unjustly. Militaries can only conquer and occupy – not defend.
Defend yourself because the military cannot.[/quote]
Yes, and we should all have tanks and artillery and aircraft and submarines and warships and nuclear missiles and such to protect ourselves from the other nations who don’t share your citizens’ militia philosophy. What a practical idea! In fact, why don’t you all wear Davy Crockett hats and carry breech-loading rifles and become yeoman farmers and say ‘boo’ to the North Koreans? Utter nonsense![/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Standing, professional militaries do not exist for “national defense”.
The first military to mobilize and cross an other border was for the purpose of aggression. It existed to rob and pillage the citizens of other lands – and sometimes their own.
In stead of having a standing army to defend us, we should just take responsibility for our own self defense and learn to shoot a rifle (or learn whatever means available).
A professional military is not needed for “national defense” and can only be used unjustly. Militaries can only conquer and occupy – not defend.
Defend yourself because the military cannot.[/quote]
Yes, and we should all have tanks and artillery and aircraft and submarines and warships and nuclear missiles and such to protect ourselves from the other nations who don’t share your citizens’ militia philosophy. What a practical idea! In fact, why don’t you all wear Davy Crockett hats and carry breech-loading rifles and become yeoman farmers and say ‘boo’ to the North Koreans? Utter nonsense![/quote]
In a rare turn of events, you and I agree completely.
9/11
Just sayin’. The military did not protect the people that were killed and that was just “19 guys” in 4 airplanes.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
9/11
Just sayin’. The military did not protect the people that were killed and that was just “19 guys” in 4 airplanes.[/quote]
And yet that isn’t in any way a criticism of the fundamental necessity of a military.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And yet somehow superstitious goat herders seem to be able to defend against the world’s most mighty and supreme military force ever…[/quote]
A small group of people employing guerrilla tactics can make it very difficult for a much larger and more sophisticated occupying force. Particularly when they are able to hide among non - combatants. However a cohesive, organized, well equipped professional force that can prevent it’s country from becoming occupied in the first place either through deterrence or effective resistance is infinitely more effective at preserving any form of civil order and domestic tranquility. How can people not see the difference?
If, say, China were to take it into their heads to invade North America, could a bunch of insurgents with shotguns, assault rifles and IED’s cause them problems with occupation? Yup. Would any sane person want to live in the country as it would exist under those conditions? Nope. Would I prefer that the military engage such an invasion and defeat it allowing us to continue with some semblance of our way of life? Yup. Comparing the military’s ability to prevent the 9/11 attacks with their ability to defend against a large scale invasion makes no sense. The ability of an armed citizenry to effectively defend against such an invasion while allowing the country to remain even remotely functional is laughable. Furthermore, believing that such an invasion would not take place in the absence of military protection is just unreasonable.
Obviously if nations ceased to be aggressive to one another, the world would be a better place. Unless that happens unilaterally, simultaneously and world-wide this argument is mute and pretty pointless.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS - I’m not sure on your exact beliefs ( I have gathered that you are a pretty staunch libertarian…) but have you considered the possibility of a society having a PRIVATE military?
Would this not solve your concerns with the government having a standing military? In this way the military would be directly accountable to the people; they would not have an (practically) unlimited source of funding.
Thoughts?
It seems the OP has a problem with US foreign policy, not the military as he states. A nation uses all of its elements of national power to achieve its political ends. The military is only one element of national power, along with diplomacy, economy, technology, ideology, and culture. There is a political objective to every military operation, or at least there should be, and no military operation is carried out exclusive of the other components of national power.
War is an extreme event that usually brought about by two nations failing to resolve a conflict through any other national means, resorting to the application of military force to bring about the conditions where the other components of national power can once again be influential. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of this. The US government was unable to achieve its political objectives with the governments of Iraq (Saddam Hussien) and Afghanistan (the Taliban) and resorted to the application of military force set a more favorable political environment. The fact that it will take over 10 years in Afghanistan and about 8 years in Iraq to achieve this favorable political environment is a result of poor national level planning from the military and the rest of the executive branch.
US Foreign and Domestic policy dictates US national strategy (executed by the entire executive branch of the government), military strategy (executed by the DoD) is developed to support the national strategy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DoD Staff, the commanders of the regional Combatant Commands, and the commanders of the individual services all develop policies and strategies to support the military strategy. DoD manpower and accquisition is driven by the capabilties required to execute the military strategy.
Right now our nation’s foreign policy has us engaging nearly the entire globe. Although we have an Embassy in nearly every country in the world, it is often our military that globally projects the US goverment’s national power. If a US Navy ship enters a port in Yemen, it is a diplomatic, economic, and military event. If a US Army unit deploys to Africa to train the Nigerian military in combat medicine, it is a diplomatic and military event. The US military is used to extend the diplomatic reach of the US government beyond what the US State Dept can achieve. In order to achieve these goals the US military must be forward deployed outside of the borders of the United States, which is why we have bases in places like Okinawa, Korea, Germany, Diego Garcia, Kuwait, and so forth.
If US foreign policy was more isolationist, we would not require a forward deployed US military or such large military expenditures. A military that is not utilized by the government to execute its external foreign policy goals will be a defensive military. If a military is not tied to the national foreign policy as strongly as our military is will only be stationed within the continental United States and only have a role in ensuring the security of the citizenry.
I doubt we could get by with only a well armed citizenry. Other countries will seek to expand thier national influence, and unless our well armed citizenry develops artillery, tanks, and aircraft we are going to need some sort of formal military capablitly to execute our defense. We are also going to require a Navy, and the days of privateers and Naval militias are likely long gone.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS - I’m not sure on your exact beliefs ( I have gathered that you are a pretty staunch libertarian…) but have you considered the possibility of a society having a PRIVATE military?
Would this not solve your concerns with the government having a standing military? In this way the military would be directly accountable to the people; they would not have an (practically) unlimited source of funding.
Thoughts? [/quote]
Yes. That is exactly what self defense is.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
9/11
Just sayin’. The military did not protect the people that were killed and that was just “19 guys” in 4 airplanes.[/quote]
And yet that isn’t in any way a criticism of the fundamental necessity of a military.[/quote]
It is a criticism of a military’s ability to keep you safe.
I personally think we should have whacked Sadam , and Bin Laden, no boots on the ground , no warning we are coming , we would have save probably a couple trillion dollars
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS - I’m not sure on your exact beliefs ( I have gathered that you are a pretty staunch libertarian…) but have you considered the possibility of a society having a PRIVATE military?
Would this not solve your concerns with the government having a standing military? In this way the military would be directly accountable to the people; they would not have an (practically) unlimited source of funding.
Thoughts? [/quote]
Yes. That is exactly what self defense is.[/quote]
Maybe just semantics but is it “self defense” when you hire someone else to defend you?
What i’m saying is that I see no reason why a fully advanced military couldn’t exist in the free market - supported entirely by voluntary payment. I’m bringing this up because people seem to think that no govt military = defense with shotguns/rifles by average citizens. I don’t see why this would have to be the case.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS - I’m not sure on your exact beliefs ( I have gathered that you are a pretty staunch libertarian…) but have you considered the possibility of a society having a PRIVATE military?
Would this not solve your concerns with the government having a standing military? In this way the military would be directly accountable to the people; they would not have an (practically) unlimited source of funding.
Thoughts? [/quote]
Yes. That is exactly what self defense is.[/quote]
Maybe just semantics but is it “self defense” when you hire someone else to defend you?
What i’m saying is that I see no reason why a fully advanced military couldn’t exist in the free market - supported entirely by voluntary payment. I’m bringing this up because people seem to think that no govt military = defense with shotguns/rifles by average citizens. I don’t see why this would have to be the case.
[/quote]
I see self defense in a more general sense: taking responsibility for ones own safety/security.
In the free market when militaries arise they become governmental nations with a territorial monopoly on aggression. A military can only be an occupying force.