Do we need a military?

[EnragedMaldivians]

You ARE the world police. One mildly amusing satire movie is not a good refutation of United States foreign policy dating back to the inception of the Cold War. (It actually dates back further)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

Works too:

http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publicatio ... flicts.jpg

We shouldn't be. It is not the responsibility of the United States to enforce any laws in territories it doesn't directly govern, nor to protect human rights in those territories. Our number one priority should be our own country, not foreign ones.

*Sigh*

They don't do it out of altruism - but because it benefits both politicians, and the taxpayer. Not to mention that they don't want people who are viable markets for their exports confronting each other in a military showdown. It's not zero sum. Christ!

Leave the Middle East for instance, and that would create an escalating security dilemma involving Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran - lets see how your economy fumbles on without their oil.

[Caninope]

You ARE the world police. One mildly amusing satire movie is not a good refutation of United States foreign policy dating back to the inception of the Cold War. (It actually dates back further)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

Works too:

http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publicatio ... flicts.jpg

We shouldn't be. It is not the responsibility of the United States to enforce any laws in territories it doesn't directly govern, nor to protect human rights in those territories. Our number one priority should be our own country, not foreign ones.

A stable system IS in the best interest of the US.

[The Matthew Islands]

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.
Just because there hasn't been a battle on home soil doesn't mean that there is no need for an army. You seemed to have completely glossed over the reason for the oil embargo in the first place.
2. The Soviet Union is dead, and there is no other superpower that poses a threat to the US. China is growing in power, but economic ties make war nearly impossible. There is no empire threatening world conquest...
You can't predict that though. Nobody thought WW2 was going to happen after WW1 (war to end all wars etc.) but it did. You can't predict what you will need and not need.
3. ...Except the USA or the NATO alliance, who engage in military adventures worldwide. Are these actions stirring up the very terrorists they are allegedly suppressing? The 9-11 attacks were stated to be in response to militaristic US foreign policy. That isn't very unlikely, since...
So, if the all nations abandoned their armed forces, every single conflict would end?
4. ...A standing military encourages national leaders to have a more belligerent attitude in foreign relations rather than seeking diplomatic resolution to conflict. Witness the recent "coalition" attack against Libya as an example.
What diplomatic solution? The UK tried Diplomacy with Hitler and it failed. They tried diplomacy in Bosnia and it failed until NATO fired some rockets at the Serbs.
5. In the US, at least, there are enough civilian riflemen to withstand any invasion force. Assuming the state National Guard units were repurposed as artillery, armor, and air support specialists, a full military force would still be able to resist invasion in the unlikely event it may occur.
So you wan't to replace the full military force, with a full military force?
6. So, in conclusion: In a time of economic turmoil, can we afford to expend so much money and so many resources on a global military? It drains the economy of the general productive populace, threatens global stability, and exists to combat threats that may no longer exist.
Sure. Lets throw 2 million US citizens out of a job. Lets destroy the entire defence industry. Lets destroy a wonderful institution that can help people live fulfilling and meaningful lives.

THAT will fix the economy.

[Ceannairceach]

Do we need a military anymore? It's a serious question, particularly when it comes to the US. Consider:

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

Actually, you seem to be forgetting the Japanese attack on the Alaskan isles. I'd count that as an invasion of US Soil.

[Indeos]

We shouldn't be. It is not the responsibility of the United States to enforce any laws in territories it doesn't directly govern, nor to protect human rights in those territories. Our number one priority should be our own country, not foreign ones.

A stable system IS in the best interest of the US.

A stable system would be, if we didn't half-ass it. Imperialism would lead to a stable and unified system, interventionalism doesn't. Intervention in foreign conflicts is a temporary solution at best and a strike against the stability at the worst.

@EM: It benefits the politician far more than taxpayer, and the best thing for the US to do regarding oil is to develop alternatives so it can become largely self-sufficient. Again, intervening is a short-term solution, and in this case one that harms as much as it helps.

Also, because you mentioned it, I don't know what "mildly amusing satire" you're referring to.

[EnragedMaldivians]

A stable system IS in the best interest of the US.

A stable system would be, if we didn't half-ass it. Imperialism would lead to a stable and unified system, interventionalism doesn't. Intervention in foreign conflicts is a temporary solution at best and a strike against the stability at the worst.

@EM: It benefits the politician far more than taxpayer, and the best thing for the US to do regarding oil is to develop alternatives so it can become largely self-sufficient. Again, intervening is a short-term solution, and in this case one that harms as much as it helps.

Also, because you mentioned it, I don't know what "mildly amusing satire" you're referring to.

Team America World police - it's often "invoked" as a "refutation" of American foreign policy.

As for developing clean energy alternatives. I've often said as much. I'm from the freaking Maldives -

But until then...:shrugs:

@Bolded. Did you even look at the human security site link I provided?

Notice the trend?

[Caninope]

A stable system IS in the best interest of the US.

A stable system would be, if we didn't half-ass it. Imperialism would lead to a stable and unified system, interventionalism doesn't. Intervention in foreign conflicts is a temporary solution at best and a strike against the stability at the worst.

@EM: It benefits the politician far more than taxpayer, and the best thing for the US to do regarding oil is to develop alternatives so it can become largely self-sufficient. Again, intervening is a short-term solution, and in this case one that harms as much as it helps.

Also, because you mentioned it, I don't know what "mildly amusing satire" you're referring to.

Intervention allows us to work as a hegemony without invading everywhere.

[Mongolian Khanate]

A stable system IS in the best interest of the US.

A stable system would be, if we didn't half-ass it. Imperialism would lead to a stable and unified system, interventionalism doesn't. Intervention in foreign conflicts is a temporary solution at best and a strike against the stability at the worst.

@EM: It benefits the politician far more than taxpayer, and the best thing for the US to do regarding oil is to develop alternatives so it can become largely self-sufficient. Again, intervening is a short-term solution, and in this case one that harms as much as it helps.

Also, because you mentioned it, I don't know what "mildly amusing satire" you're referring to.

In this day and age, full scale imperialism would lead to a polarization and worldwide condemnation against the US. I don't quite see how can you believe this would lead a stable system. That train has gone by.

[Indeos]

A stable system would be, if we didn't half-ass it. Imperialism would lead to a stable and unified system, interventionalism doesn't. Intervention in foreign conflicts is a temporary solution at best and a strike against the stability at the worst.

@EM: It benefits the politician far more than taxpayer, and the best thing for the US to do regarding oil is to develop alternatives so it can become largely self-sufficient. Again, intervening is a short-term solution, and in this case one that harms as much as it helps.

Also, because you mentioned it, I don't know what "mildly amusing satire" you're referring to.

In this day and age, full scale imperialism would lead to a polarization and worldwide condemnation against the US. I don't quite see how can you believe this would lead a stable system. That train has gone by.

If the people responsible for our world image can manage to make people support interventionalism, they can definitely manage support for imperialism. The point is that military action becomes a last resort, and that its use at all means the nation in question will shortly lose their sovereignty. Not that the US will be aggressively invading every country it can.

@Caninope: That doesn't work very well in the long-term, because it means that any country whose affairs we intervene with will have to reestablish a government and we'll just have to hope that they are able to control their country without our continued involvement.

@EM: We're in agreement on the alternative energy sources, then. I did glance over the site, but it isn't just international conflicts that we intervene in. I'm referring to the actions the US takes when a country is in some form of civil war, be it fully blown or not. (Ex. Libya) Currently, the policy is to do the best we can to ensure that the country can govern itself and hope that whatever government ends up ruling will be pro-US and able to prevent further intervention on our part. This is hardly a working system, or we wouldn't have had to intervene multiple times in the same countries.

[EnragedMaldivians]

In this day and age, full scale imperialism would lead to a polarization and worldwide condemnation against the US. I don't quite see how can you believe this would lead a stable system. That train has gone by.

If the people responsible for our world image can manage to make people support interventionalism, they can definitely manage support for imperialism. The point is that military action becomes a last resort, and that its use at all means the nation in question will shortly lose their sovereignty. Not that the US will be aggressively invading every country it can.

@Caninope: That doesn't work very well in the long-term, because it means that any country whose affairs we intervene with will have to reestablish a government and we'll just have to hope that they are able to control their country without our continued involvement.

@EM: We're in agreement on the alternative energy sources, then. I did glance over the site, but it isn't just international conflicts that we intervene in. I'm referring to the actions the US takes when a country is in some form of civil war, be it fully blown or not. (Ex. Libya) Currently, the policy is to do the best we can to ensure that the country can govern itself and hope that whatever government ends up ruling will be pro-US and able to prevent further intervention on our part. This is hardly a working system, or we wouldn't have had to intervene multiple times in the same countries.

Ah. You were talking about humanitarian intervention - well, that's another matter altogether. Not one that I complain about though.

But I support the U.S keeping military bases in the Middle East. And to an extent, Naval presence in East Asia.

[Indeos]

If the people responsible for our world image can manage to make people support interventionalism, they can definitely manage support for imperialism. The point is that military action becomes a last resort, and that its use at all means the nation in question will shortly lose their sovereignty. Not that the US will be aggressively invading every country it can.

@Caninope: That doesn't work very well in the long-term, because it means that any country whose affairs we intervene with will have to reestablish a government and we'll just have to hope that they are able to control their country without our continued involvement.

@EM: We're in agreement on the alternative energy sources, then. I did glance over the site, but it isn't just international conflicts that we intervene in. I'm referring to the actions the US takes when a country is in some form of civil war, be it fully blown or not. (Ex. Libya) Currently, the policy is to do the best we can to ensure that the country can govern itself and hope that whatever government ends up ruling will be pro-US and able to prevent further intervention on our part. This is hardly a working system, or we wouldn't have had to intervene multiple times in the same countries.

Ah. You were talking about humanitarian intervention - well, that's another matter altogether. Not one that I complain about though.

But I support the U.S keeping military bases in the Middle East. And to an extent, Naval presence in East Asia.

I'm not fully aware of the extent of our foreign military bases, but there is a difference between those and a military force actively engaging in combat. I do dislike humanitarian intervention, though.

[Maltielles]

Yes, if other countries have them then it's a safety measure (which shouldn't be overdone like in the US). If all nations put down their arms and eliminate the military, just maybe we might not need them.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Ah. You were talking about humanitarian intervention - well, that's another matter altogether. Not one that I complain about though.

But I support the U.S keeping military bases in the Middle East. And to an extent, Naval presence in East Asia.

I'm not fully aware of the extent of our foreign military bases, but there is a difference between those and a military force actively engaging in combat. I do dislike humanitarian intervention, though.

Well, I support them as a deterrent actually - I don't want them to fight. Beleive it or not I'm a pacifist imperialist.

You keep some in the Middle East - seeing as the Saudis requested it, following ever since Saddam scared them shitless when he invaded Kuwait; and then there's their whole rivalry with Iran. Without U.S security gurantees they would be locked into an escalating security dilemma of constant Military balancing/ - and that would almost certainly adversely effect oil prices. Then there's assistance to Israel of course, but that has more to do with the influence of Aipac on foreign policy towards that area - rather than if being of any real benefit to the U.S.

I support whatevers good for the Global economomy and reduces conflict between States - if the U.S wants to become isolationist again, then that's their business and I can't stop them - but it'd be a shame and would hurt your own interests in the long run.

Also your Military budget isn't whats wrecking your economy - American citizens wanting high levels of services simultaneous with low taxes is the real issue. It can't last.

I'm still a little drunk, so apoligies if I make little sense.

[Tergnitz]

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

Yeah...I wonder why... :/

Yeah, I have no idea either. Boy this one is confusing...

[Indeos]

I'm not fully aware of the extent of our foreign military bases, but there is a difference between those and a military force actively engaging in combat. I do dislike humanitarian intervention, though.

Well, I support them as a deterrent actually - I don't want them to fight. Beleive it or not I'm a pacifist imperialist.

You keep some in the Middle East - seeing as the Saudis requested it, following ever since Saddam scared them shitless when he invaded Kuwait; and then there's their whole rivalry with Iran. Without U.S security gurantees they would be locked into an escalating security dilemma of constant Military balancing/ - and that would almost certainly adversely effect oil prices. Then there's assistance to Israel of course, but that has more to do with the influence of Aipac on foreign policy towards that area - rather than if being of any real benefit to the U.S.

I support whatevers good for the Global economomy and reduces conflict between States - if the U.S wants to become isolationist again, then that's their business and I can't stop them - but it'd be a shame and would hurt your own interests in the long run.

Also your Military budget isn't whats wrecking your economy - American citizens wanting high levels of services simultaneous with low taxes is the real issue. It can't last.

I'm still a little drunk, so apoligies if I make little sense.

I'm not talking about reducing military budgets, and I didn't claim that the military was bad for the economy. As I said already, alternative fuel sources are in our best interests. Isolationalism is only workable or acceptable if we can stay self-sufficient.

Best-case scenario is that the United States manages to become largely self-sufficient, to the point where foreign economic influence isn't enough to draw us into any conflicts. Ideally, we would only need to go to war if there was a military threat against the United States. After reaching that point, non-military humanitarian aid to foreign countries would increase again.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making, either. I don't exactly qualify as emotionally stable right now.

[Druidville]

the pen is mightier than the sword

I can disprove that point with a good claymore.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Well, I support them as a deterrent actually - I don't want them to fight. Beleive it or not I'm a pacifist imperialist.

You keep some in the Middle East - seeing as the Saudis requested it, following ever since Saddam scared them shitless when he invaded Kuwait; and then there's their whole rivalry with Iran. Without U.S security gurantees they would be locked into an escalating security dilemma of constant Military balancing/ - and that would almost certainly adversely effect oil prices. Then there's assistance to Israel of course, but that has more to do with the influence of Aipac on foreign policy towards that area - rather than if being of any real benefit to the U.S.

I support whatevers good for the Global economomy and reduces conflict between States - if the U.S wants to become isolationist again, then that's their business and I can't stop them - but it'd be a shame and would hurt your own interests in the long run.

Also your Military budget isn't whats wrecking your economy - American citizens wanting high levels of services simultaneous with low taxes is the real issue. It can't last.

I'm still a little drunk, so apoligies if I make little sense.

I'm not talking about reducing military budgets, and I didn't claim that the military was bad for the economy. As I said already, alternative fuel sources are in our best interests. Isolationalism is only workable or acceptable if we can stay self-sufficient.

Best-case scenario is that the United States manages to become largely self-sufficient, to the point where foreign economic influence isn't enough to draw us into any conflicts. Ideally, we would only need to go to war if there was a military threat against the United States. After reaching that point, non-military humanitarian aid to foreign countries would increase again.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making, either. I don't exactly qualify as emotionally stable right now.

You must understand that I'm not American - but that American foreign policy nicely aligns with some of my goals.

I guess we can at least agree that the U.S needs to invest in an alternative fuel source. Tom Friedman has suggested so, and so has Barack Obama in fact. He's a more decent president than you Americans give him credit for being.

[Indeos]

I'm not talking about reducing military budgets, and I didn't claim that the military was bad for the economy. As I said already, alternative fuel sources are in our best interests. Isolationalism is only workable or acceptable if we can stay self-sufficient.

Best-case scenario is that the United States manages to become largely self-sufficient, to the point where foreign economic influence isn't enough to draw us into any conflicts. Ideally, we would only need to go to war if there was a military threat against the United States. After reaching that point, non-military humanitarian aid to foreign countries would increase again.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making, either. I don't exactly qualify as emotionally stable right now.

You must understand that I'm not American - but that American foreign policy nicely aligns with some of my goals.

I guess we can at least agree that the U.S needs to invest in an alternative fuel source. Tom Friedman has suggested so, and so has Barack Obama in fact. He's a more decent president than you Americans give him credit for being.

I got that you weren't American, but I'm just going to say that America doesn't exist to accomplish the goals of foreign entities. Therefore, your goals are irrelevant to what the goals of the US should be.

I don't really have any problems with Obama. Things haven't gotten noticeably better or worse for me, so I have no judgement for our current president.

[EnragedMaldivians]

You must understand that I'm not American - but that American foreign policy nicely aligns with some of my goals.

I guess we can at least agree that the U.S needs to invest in an alternative fuel source. Tom Friedman has suggested so, and so has Barack Obama in fact. He's a more decent president than you Americans give him credit for being.

I got that you weren't American, but I'm just going to say that America doesn't exist to accomplish the goals of foreign entities. Therefore, your goals are irrelevant to what the goals of the US should be.

I don't really have any problems with Obama. Things haven't gotten noticeably better or worse for me, so I have no judgement for our current president.

Umm, I didn't say otherwise - just that when they align, I support them.

[Coltarin]

Do we need a military anymore? It's a serious question, particularly when it comes to the US. Consider:

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

2. The Soviet Union is dead, and there is no other superpower that poses a threat to the US. China is growing in power, but economic ties make war nearly impossible. There is no empire threatening world conquest...

3. ...Except the USA or the NATO alliance, who engage in military adventures worldwide. Are these actions stirring up the very terrorists they are allegedly suppressing? The 9-11 attacks were stated to be in response to militaristic US foreign policy. That isn't very unlikely, since...

4. ...A standing military encourages national leaders to have a more belligerent attitude in foreign relations rather than seeking diplomatic resolution to conflict. Witness the recent "coalition" attack against Libya as an example.

5. In the US, at least, there are enough civilian riflemen to withstand any invasion force. Assuming the state National Guard units were repurposed as artillery, armor, and air support specialists, a full military force would still be able to resist invasion in the unlikely event it may occur.

6. So, in conclusion: In a time of economic turmoil, can we afford to expend so much money and so many resources on a global military? It drains the economy of the general productive populace, threatens global stability, and exists to combat threats that may no longer exist.

I'm sorry this is a STUPID question in general of course we need a military if one day we said "we don't need a military" and broadcast that it would say to everyone in the world
"COME KILL US ITS OPEN SEASON"

[Indeos]

I got that you weren't American, but I'm just going to say that America doesn't exist to accomplish the goals of foreign entities. Therefore, your goals are irrelevant to what the goals of the US should be.

I don't really have any problems with Obama. Things haven't gotten noticeably better or worse for me, so I have no judgement for our current president.

Umm, I didn't say otherwise - just that when they align, I support them.

All I'm saying is that your support is irrelevant. As is the fact that they might align with your goals by coincidence. (Or design, if there is something to gain by it.)

[EnragedMaldivians]

Umm, I didn't say otherwise - just that when they align, I support them.

All I'm saying is that your support is irrelevant. As is the fact that they might align with your goals by coincidence. (Or design, if there is something to gain by it.)

I have no influence on United States policy - but I can see where there are avenues for mutual gain; that's all. I didn't claim that the United States should take my specific interests into account, wether by accident or by design, into account, when formulating their decisions - I am simply stating my personal opinion that as long as their goals align with mine, I am content with what they do. I don't really know what our disagreement is to be honest. Of course what I want is irrelavant to the U.S.

[The ivain isles]

Do we need a military anymore? It's a serious question, particularly when it comes to the US. Consider:

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

2. The Soviet Union is dead, and there is no other superpower that poses a threat to the US. China is growing in power, but economic ties make war nearly impossible. There is no empire threatening world conquest...

3. ...Except the USA or the NATO alliance, who engage in military adventures worldwide. Are these actions stirring up the very terrorists they are allegedly suppressing? The 9-11 attacks were stated to be in response to militaristic US foreign policy. That isn't very unlikely, since...

4. ...A standing military encourages national leaders to have a more belligerent attitude in foreign relations rather than seeking diplomatic resolution to conflict. Witness the recent "coalition" attack against Libya as an example.

5. In the US, at least, there are enough civilian riflemen to withstand any invasion force. Assuming the state National Guard units were repurposed as artillery, armor, and air support specialists, a full military force would still be able to resist invasion in the unlikely event it may occur.

6. So, in conclusion: In a time of economic turmoil, can we afford to expend so much money and so many resources on a global military? It drains the economy of the general productive populace, threatens global stability, and exists to combat threats that may no longer exist.

Totally agree, but how is the gov. meant to install there totalitarian dictatorships without it?

[Indeos]

All I'm saying is that your support is irrelevant. As is the fact that they might align with your goals by coincidence. (Or design, if there is something to gain by it.)

I have no influence on United States policy - but I can see where there are avenues for mutual gain; that's all. I didn't claim that the United States should take my specific interests into account, wether by accident or by design, into account, when formulating their decisions - I am simply stating my personal opinion that as long as their goals align with mine, I am content with what they do. I don't really know what our disagreement is to be honest. Of course what I want is irrelavant to the U.S.

There really isn't one, I think at this point you think I'm misunderstanding you. I know what you're saying, I was just clarifying what I meant.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I have no influence on United States policy - but I can see where there are avenues for mutual gain; that's all. I didn't claim that the United States should take my specific interests into account, wether by accident or by design, into account, when formulating their decisions - I am simply stating my personal opinion that as long as their goals align with mine, I am content with what they do. I don't really know what our disagreement is to be honest. Of course what I want is irrelavant to the U.S.

There really isn't one, I think at this point you think I'm misunderstanding you. I know what you're saying, I was just clarifying what I meant.

Fair enough - I'm actually an international relations student; and since I beleive in hegemonic stability, I want the U.S to be as strong as possible.

That includes the U.S having a good economy, being internationally secure and her taxpayers being content. Wether my support is irrelavant or not (and I fully admit it is), I only want good things for the U.S, which btw includes eventual energy self-sufficiency. That is not out of any altruism or genuine concern for the well being of Americans mind you - it is completely self serving. But that being said - given that my framework is geared towards benefiting the United States, I occasionally take it upon myself to defend United States policies to American citizens.

And given that your country has such a hegemonic influence on world affairs (which again, I don't see as a bad thing necessarily) - and that your country effects mine in a way that mine doesn't effect yours - I feel entitled to have an opinion. What Americans do howver is, and should be decided by your ballot.

Just clarifying my position.

- Now obviously if you guys did something that harmed my interests, or myself - that would become relavant. At least to to me. -