Why should we support the US military?

I think the poster is getting at the question of having a standing army.

I oppose having a standing army; the only reason we have had one for so long is a series of instigated conflicts used to further a global geo-political agenda.

----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

I support our military and fly my flag with pride. I appreciate what they are willing to do when they can't get body armor and the defense secretary that wont let them buy and wear commercial body armor. What I can't support is a president that invaded the third oil richest country on the planet so that he could appoint the vice presidents company, Haliburten, to market the oil and the president and vice-president recieve defered compensation payments for doing so. This cost is nearly 3000 dead service people, 300 billion dollars, and raised the price of gasoline $1.00.

The Founders didn't think we should have a large standing Army, and until the Cold War we didn't have one. I think we're paying the price for our lack of vision now, as we have to fight more and more wars with a larger and larger military. It's never going to end unless we wind down the whole shebang and keep only a small regular army and a true guard force that cannot be shipped overseas.

Radical Islam will not go away, it is a cancer that MUST be cut out from civilization

Click to expand...

You don't need a large army to do that. Two keys will work.

Amen, Cosmo!

The knuckleheads of "Radical Islam" are handled far better with a .22 to the ear in some smelly, dusty bazaar or a warehouse ceasing to exist than with the 10th Mountain Division.

If our goal is to be able to freely own any firearm, why should we support a military effort in another country?

Since we should be able to defend our own land, and sustain ourselves without help from others, should we really desire to have a military controlled the government?

Maybe we need one to stop the threat of nuclear weapons being shot at us from abroad. But one might answer that if someone really wants to fire a nuke at us, they'll eventually do it no matter who tries to stop them.

What do you think? I'm not trying to belittle anyone who has served in the military, they are certainly brave, but should we support them?

Silverbomber,
What a bizarre question,
Not only do we need to support the military as an outing of common sense, it is our duty as American Citizens to support our troops. These folks go into harm's way to support and defend our freedoms for EVERY American Citizen. They do it in harsh conditions, often under fire from enemies of freedom, and for very little pay for long periods of time. These folks miss the births of their kids, their kids' birthdays, and sometimes the deaths of their parents friends and family. Amazingly enough, these folks VOLUNTEER to do these duties and take an oath to do so and amazingly will do it for 20-30 years until they retire.

So to answer your question, yes we should support our military and the government that "controls" the troops because it is us that essentially put the folks in office.

...1....

Look at other nations such as Brasil, Norway, Netherland, Switzerland and evern Costa Rica. They don't have global armies and worry about keeping our sea lanes free.
We don't have to project power globaly for trade. Does China rule the sea to keep there goods arriving to Wallmart. NO.
Are foreign policy is ate up. Our freedom is a myth.
Over twenty years in the US Army with my eyes open.

Click to expand...

And those other nations of Brasil, Norway, and such enjoy the benefits of our military doctrine as we the US keep the sea lanes free. China doesnt rule the Pacific for one simple reason.........because we do. If we scrapped our Pacific Fleet tomorow who long do you think till China steped in to fill the void? Do you think they would be as fair towards us as we are towards them? As long as nations exist there are going to superpowers. I do think one of the worst things to happen in recent history was the collapse of the Soviet Union as now being the sole superpower has left us in an awkward position, but fear not China is comming to take their place.

Why shouldn't you support them? They're doing a job just like everyone else. A lot of them, me included, are just doing what they're told.

I was watching a special during Veterans Day and there was an Army soldier that related a story...When asked why he is over there fighting and protecting, he responded, "Someone has to do it...that someone is me."

That's good enough reason for me...

Ed

According to Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a prededent that will reach to himself."
In this case, ultimately, terrorism will decrease as freedoms increase.
We, including many gun owners, have become so good at enjoying our freedom that we sometimes forget how to fight for it.
Consider me not one of the cynics.

The Founding Fathers had the right idea at the time but the times have changed. We no longer live in a world where wars are fought muzzle to muzzle making militias feasable to defeat an invading foe. Today wars are fought in the sky by multibillion dollar jet fighter programs which would be fiscally impossible to maintain at the militia level. Militia still has its place but to oppose even a moderately powerful enemy a strong centraly controlled and financed military is needed.

Click to expand...

The "times" nor people have changed one iota. The Constitution allowed for
a standing Navy to protect our borders from an invasion by sea (which would
be made up of foreign powers). In considering today's technology it can
easily be assumed a standing Air Force is allowed.

There has always been a standing federal Army which prior to the Civil War
was extremely small. In peacetime they collected reports from the various
State Governors about organised militia drills. During a ground invasion
they would coordinate movement of people and supplies.

We could still have a Navy, Air Force and various strategic armories around
the country. The central stranding army which is more powerful than the
states and controlled by a single man in the Capital is certainly NOT what
the Founders had in mind since history has shown that this leads to
Empires and dictators.

The Founders didn't think we should have a large standing Army, and until the Cold War we didn't have one. I think we're paying the price for our lack of vision now, as we have to fight more and more wars with a larger and larger military. It's never going to end unless we wind down the whole shebang and keep only a small regular army and a true guard force that cannot be shipped overseas.

Click to expand...

That would be nice except that the people who make the decisions in this
country have a lot of stock options that would suffer if the US wasn't
sending soldiers overseas. Likewise, the globalists prefer to see US blood
(and UK) spilled policing the world since we are the only people who would
oppose them when the screws get the real tightening --you've seen nothing
yet. We end up with a very sick symbiotic relationship between our own
banana republic wannabes in this country and globalists overseas.

Again, this is why the Founders put a 2nd Amendment in the Constitution
since they knew freedom wouldn't be maintained by the good intentions
of law-givers-deciders in a central capital. History shows they all
become corrupt despots.

Well,as a theoretical question it has some merit SB...
I was in the Navy in the early 70's and with the general attitude of the civilians at that time many of us often wondered why WE were working so hard in their behalf.So to speak...
And then we just got back the job at hand.Yep,Somebody had to do it..."ours not to reason why...etc."

Yes, we should support the military. You do not have to agree with the manner in which they are used but you should support them, regardless of your position on politics. They are dying because they think that is what is needed to protect you and the country you share with them. Fell free to disagree with a particular war or peace keeping mission, but be supportive of the work done by the military.

As far as those who disagree with a standing army because of the founding father's intentions, it is my belief that current tactics and technology dictates a devotion to a particular craft in warfare. In addition, the current makeup of society is such that the general citizen would be unable to effectively fight or learn to fight in a manner quick enough to not have a standing army. For instance, many of the population are far to fat to even be considered for joining. Do you really think the 300 pound butterball is going to be any good to you as an infantryman? The army makes sure it's people are fit (enough) and trained to do the job required. Unlike in the 1700's, our nation is made up of lazy, unfit, cityfied people who wouldn't have the first idea of what to do while camping let alone soldiering.

Finally, while I politically find Thomas Jefferson to be the most brilliant political theorist to live, believe that, at times, disagreement with the founding fathers can occur. For instance, if we followed the constitution blindly, the 3/5 compromise would have never been superseded. I am sure we can all agree that that was a flaw which had to be corrected.

The original question here doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe I'm dense.

Military defense is one of the legitimate functions of government. One of the few legitimate functions engaged in by our government.

The arguments by the Founders against standing armies should be viewed in the context of their times. Most of the standing armies of the time were controlled by absolute monarchs who regularly used them as instruments of oppression of their own people.

Do some research. Personal firearms really don't have that much utility in modern warfare compared with crew served heavy weaponry. The concept of the citizen soldier or minuteman is a good one but the record of militia troops is quite mixed. Many militia units-in the school of hard knocks-became top notch. After paying one hell of a price in blood. Others broke and ran...again and again.

Our military has an outstanding record. Not just against enemy troops but in maintaining its allegiance to the concept of civilian control of the military.

Norway? The Netherlands? Bad examples to pick. The citizens who endured Nazi occupation would have preferred to have a much better military than they had, I'm sure.

Perhaps a better focus for the apparent thrust of your question(I think...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here) would be the foreign policy of our government that has so often misused our military forces.

Silverbomber, see my replies below:

Yes, but if they are going into harms way and it doesn't do a bit of good, then why support them?

See my original post for the reasons to support them, not sure why you are asking that, but let me see if I can answer it. As for harms way and not doing a bit of good, let's look at Iraq: I didn't agree and I still don't with the initial invasion of Iraq. However, for good or ill, our boys and girls are there doing a thankless job trying to rebuild a country that is trying to stand on its own two feet again. They need the support and love of the civvies back home to do their job and get them home soonest.

I'm more concerned with someone crossing the US-Canada border that is 1 mile from my house, and setting off a biological weapon.
You have a valid concern here, but depending on where you are located on the US Canada border, I think a bio weapon attack is a low chance happening. These terrorists like to go for big, symbolic targets that will shake the psyche of the American people. If you live in a border town of 5K people, the chances for attack are less, than say something symbolic.

Why not bring everybody back to their own country to actually protect us?
While there are bad guys here, there are also dangerous bad guys overseas and the fight needs to be taken to them to root them out once and for all. It's better to eliminate a threat overseas than have it on your own soil. Remember a little place called Afghanistan? This country was taken over by hard-core Islamic fundamentalists called the Taliban who sheltered Osama Bin Laden, the man who planned the bombing of the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia, the US Embassy in Kenya, and the 2 Towers in NYC, and the Pentagon in VA. Since the US has liberated Afghanistan, the Taliban have been decimated and on the run and Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in a cave, or in the Tribal areas of Pakistan. Getting this SOB won't be easy, but getting him overseas is the only way to do it and our Troops are the ones fighting to either kill this SOB, or bring him to justice.

I'm not paranoid about a biological attack, it's more of a theoretical question.

You should be more paranoid about who our next Commander-in-Chief is, rather than a Biological attack. Bush isn't the best, but he was the best of what was left in our wonderful political system. Bush has a clue that bad guys are out there. I am not convinced that Kerry, or Gore would have recognized it.

SilverBomber - More things are possible as a team. We need to support them because they are us. Do you think you don't have relatives serving? If that is so then you are wrong, every one of those people is your brother and sister.

This topic is inane and bordering on trolling.