The Right's affinity for military and police

iluvatar5150 · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Are you saying our Military is not stronger now than it was three years ago?

No, I was addressing your absurd claim that were so weakened that were at risk of being invaded by a foreign power.

But no, I don't think we're stronger now than we were three years ago - or if there has been any change, it's been minor and due to some troop drawdowns, not any grand plan on the part of Trump.

Willie T said:
I agree with you that the recent wars and conflicts have been politically motivated and often patricianly self-serving. But, the appearance of weakness would be our death knell to many of the crazy kingdoms out there. Lousy truth, but it is just a fact of life in a world we have let Satan take over.

Which "crazy kingdoms" would those be? Our mainland only borders two other countries, both of which are allies and neither of which stands a vanishing chance of mounting a sufficiently powerful army. Unless Russia wanted to launch an invasion across the Bering Strait (which, lol) or some South American power wanted to march up through Panama (which, lololol), that invading force would need a significant deep-water navy and aircraft carriers to maintain air superior.

But of the 43 aircraft carriers currently in service, we have 20 of them. Italy has 5; France has 4. Any country that might consider attacking us has no more than 1. We also have more submarines than just about anybody else.

List of aircraft carriers in service - Wikipedia
List of submarine classes in service - Wikipedia

Willie T · Aug 6, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
No, I was addressing your absurd claim that were so weakened that were at risk of being invaded by a foreign power.

But no, I don't think we're stronger now than we were three years ago - or if there has been any change, it's been minor and due to some troop drawdowns, not any grand plan on the part of Trump.

Which "crazy kingdoms" would those be? Our mainland only borders two other countries, both of which are allies and neither of which stands a vanishing chance of mounting a sufficiently powerful army. Unless Russia wanted to launch an invasion across the Bering Strait (which, lol) or some South American power wanted to march up through Panama (which, lololol), that invading force would need a significant deep-water navy and aircraft carriers to maintain air superior.

But of the 43 aircraft carriers currently in service, we have 20 of them. Italy has 5; France has 4. Any country that might consider attacking us has no more than 1. We also have more submarines than just about anybody else.

List of aircraft carriers in service - Wikipedia
List of submarine classes in service - Wikipedia

Uh, you can't have it both ways. We are either strong, thus creating a deterrent to invasion, or we aren't.

Albion · Aug 6, 2019

caerlerion said:
It has nothing to do with the previous thing we were talking about.

I'd say that it just means that someone wasn't following along.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Uh, you can't have it both ways. We are either strong, thus creating a deterrent to invasion, or we aren't.

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to have anything "both ways".

We are strong now; we have been strong for a long time. We are not appreciably strong now than we were three years ago. We also have a lot of geography that works in our favor. Your claim that we were significantly weaker a few years ago is false. Your claim that we've significantly strengthened over the last few years is false. Your claim that we were at risk from invasion just a few years ago is also false, not merely because our military was strong at that time, but also because other militaries were significantly weaker than us and because of the significant geographic hurdles they would've had to have overcome in order to invade.

Willie T · Aug 6, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
What are you talking about? I'm not trying to have anything "both ways".

We are strong now; we have been strong for a long time. We are not appreciably strong now than we were three years ago. We also have a lot of geography that works in our favor. Your claim that we were significantly weaker a few years ago is false. Your claim that we've significantly strengthened over the last few years is false. Your claim that we were at risk from invasion just a few years ago is also false, not merely because our military was strong at that time, but also because other militaries were significantly weaker than us and because of the significant geographic hurdles they would've had to have overcome in order to invade.

Thinking anyone can depend upon the protection of Geography is kind of a joke in this day of intercontinental ballistic missiles. LOL So that is over as soon as mentioned.

And I assume you either know no Military people, or you have not read much about the degraded condition almost all our equipment had fallen to in the past ten years.

caerlerion · Aug 6, 2019

Albion said:
I'd say that it just means that someone wasn't following along.

I have a low tolerance for condescension (especially from the religious people who claim to be above it).

This on top of the non sequitur, mudslinging, and multiple falsehoods...

Thanks for the conversation.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Thinking anyone can depend upon the protection of Geography is kind of a joke in this day of intercontinental ballistic missiles. LOL So that is over as soon as mentioned.

1.) You were specifically talking about an invasion, not merely lobbing missiles. An invasion still requires a navy and whole ton of logistical capabilities that those nations don't have.

2.) Only a handful of countries have the capability to launch missiles like that, and our early warning and defense systems are still able to counteract most of them.

3.) Even if they did launch, our nuclear arsenal dwarfs that of any other nation besides Russia, for whom MAD still plays a deterrent effect.

And I assume you either know no Military people, or you have not read much about the degraded condition almost all our equipment had fallen to in the past ten years.

And that's different from the past, how? There's been a drawdown after every major conflict of the last century, and then we've had to ramp back up. And what has Trump done to improve this readiness? Yeah, his budget last year increased spending but the previous spending freeze was, AFAIK, a result of budget sequestration from 2011, which itself was a result of House Republicans playing hardball on the debt ceiling.

RDKirk · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Ever seen an enemy Army on our shores. No, you haven't. They will never try as long as it is obvious America is strong. We were getting closer to being weak enough that some country might try, but Trump has reversed that downward spiral.

Actually, no, no he hasn't.

The military's ability to actually fight a serious war is worse than it's been in decades. The Air Force can't launch more than 60 percent of its fighters. The Navy can't launch more than 40%. No service currently has the logistics to fight a war like the Iraq invasion today. The services are bleeding because they don't have the operations and maintenance funds to keep the forces prepared for combat.

Edit: The SECDEF has called upon the Air Force and Navy to get their launch capability up to 70% by the end of 2020. Not that they're getting any more money. But this might be why the Air Force is dealing with more suicides. Troops can endure a lot, but one thing that will break a good troop down is being forced to fail.

An entire squadron's worth of F-22 fighters were lost when hurricane Michael hit Tyndall AFB because they couldn't get the planes off the ground. They had all been waiting for extended periods lacking both spare parts and enlisted maintenance crew to keep them repaired.

Nor is Trump doing anything to fix that. He's specifically drawing down operations and maintenance funds--which is what it really takes to fight a war--to build his wall.

ThatRobGuy · Aug 6, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Uh, when is the last time the military fought to preserve free speech for Americans?

The "fighting for our freedom" tagline is one that people often repeat without thinking. "Freedom"/"Bravery"/etc... have become bumper stickers more than anything else.

An honest look at our military history would shoot some holes through that logic...
List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

The War of 1812 was defending our nation...

Civil War preserved the union (though, was risky because it destabilized it and an opportunistic other country could've capitalized on that...we're lucky they didn't)

One may be able to make an argument that our involvement in the two world wars was a 'preemptive protection measure'

Everything else until until those were "wars", but could be more accurately described as land grabs and indiscriminate Indian slaughter.

...and like I made reference to in my prior post, I can't put my finger on any military action from 1950-2019 in which our freedoms and sovereignty were under any sort of threat. Just a lot of inserting ourselves into other countries' civil wars, forcefully facilitating regime changes in the name of "spreading democracy" to parts of the world 99% of us will never go to, and protecting trade routes for business interests.

I'd be willing to go as far as saying that there's a certain morality to a few of our engagements with regards defending allies against larger aggressors...but none of that measures up to the claim of "defending our freedom" that pro-military conservatives like to casually toss around.

Willie T · Aug 6, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
1.) You were specifically talking about an invasion, not merely lobbing missiles. An invasion still requires a navy and whole ton of logistical capabilities that those nations don't have.

2.) Only a handful of countries have the capability to launch missiles like that, and our early warning and defense systems are still able to counteract most of them.

3.) Even if they did launch, our nuclear arsenal dwarfs that of any other nation besides Russia, for whom MAD still plays a deterrent effect.

And that's different from the past, how? There's been a drawdown after every major conflict of the last century, and then we've had to ramp back up. And what has Trump done to improve this readiness? Yeah, his budget last year increased spending but the previous spending freeze was, AFAIK, a result of budget sequestration from 2011, which itself was a result of House Republicans playing hardball on the debt ceiling.

Again.... you are admitting that we have gotten our Military back up to being respected and feared. This President has done that.... BECAUSE WE WERE SO FAR BELOW ACCEPTABLE THAT HE HAD TO. Where do you think most of the money he has had to spend has gone to?

iluvatar5150 · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Again.... you are admitting that we have gotten our Military back up to being respected and feared. This President has done that.... BECAUSE WE WERE SO FAR BELOW ACCEPTABLE THAT HE HAD TO. Where do you think most of the money he has had to spend has gone to?

I admitted no such thing. I don't believe we were as weak as you claimed and I don't believe Trump has made an appreciable improvement. You have yet to demonstrate that any of your claims are anything other than fanciful TrumpFan propaganda.

com7fy8 · Aug 6, 2019

Albion said:
Well, we either are in favor of democracy or we are not.

How about if we agree on competent democracy, Albion?

I think of how the early church handled the issue of if the Gentiles had to keep the Law of Moses. First there was quite a dispute; then Peter stood and God used Peter . . . I would say, since Peter was God's approved leader for that. And then James assisted and Paul and Silas shared. After God's approved men did their part, there was unanimous consensus.

I have seen how a church has democratic order. A woman made a proposal and others offered their input. Then . . . after they had pointed out that her idea was not practical, she said she proposed it so it could be evaluated and she withdrew the proposal. I was amazed

So, how about consensus democracy?

Skreeper · Aug 6, 2019

Willie T said:
Again.... you are admitting that we have gotten our Military back up to being respected and feared. This President has done that.... BECAUSE WE WERE SO FAR BELOW ACCEPTABLE THAT HE HAD TO. Where do you think most of the money he has had to spend has gone to?

You guys had nukes far longer than Trump is the president.

Even if your military was weak, what country would risk attacking the US which has enough nukes to destroy the planet?

RDKirk · Aug 6, 2019

Skreeper said:
You guys had nukes far longer than Trump is the president.

Even if your military was weak, what country would risk attacking the US which has enough nukes to destroy the planet?

Actually the planet is more resilient than that. Not even the Cretaceous–Paleogen extinction event destroyed the planet.

But to agree with your actual point, an as already discussed, the American nuclear arsenal remained and remains more than sufficient to deter a nuclear missile attack.

Geography handily deters an invasion. The logistical problem of actually getting a suitable invasion force to the US mainland is as yet and for the foreseeable future unlikely.

Unless either Mexico or Canada became hostile enough to become embarkation points.

wing2000 · Aug 7, 2019

ThatRobGuy said:
Is it a case of them sincerely not seeing certain connections, or merely a case of them wanting to support institutions that their political rivals don't like for the sake of opposition?

I suspect the Right's defense of all things military was a response to the Vietnam War protest and the counter-culture of Left during that time period.

ThatRobGuy said:
The "fighting for our freedom" tagline is one that people often repeat without thinking. "Freedom"/"Bravery"/etc... have become bumper stickers more than anything else.

Right, such expressions, while well-meaning, are simply not accurate. And frankly, as our military enters the 18th year of war in Afghanistan, I find these bumper sticker slogans all the more grating.

USincognito · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
No, they aren't! None of us got to vote on Obamacare or veterans benefits or Social Security, etc. etc.

Oh. You're in favor of direct democracy then?

Albion · Aug 7, 2019

com7fy8 said:
How about if we agree on competent democracy, Albion?

Hi. I almost always sympathize with an appeal for civility or reconciliation, but democracy means letting the people have their choice, even if it is a dumb choice.

We can require a few categorical boundaries--like you must be an adult and a citizen, but when it comes to "only the ones smart enough" we are denying democracy. And I would even sympathize with anyone who said that maybe there is something better than democracy, except that the proposition, when it was made on this thread, still envisioned it being a form of democracy. That's what my earlier comment was referring to. Either it is democracy or it is not; if someone favors a different form of government, that's fair, but it won't be "democracy."

I have seen how a church has democratic order. A woman made a proposal and others offered their input. Then . . . after they had pointed out that her idea was not practical, she said she proposed it so it could be evaluated and she withdrew the proposal. I was amazed

We aren't really talking about elections here, though. And you are describing a voluntary association which can set whatever rules for administering its affairs that it chooses. That doesn't offer us much of a blueprint for electing a government of a very diverse nation.

whatbogsends · Aug 7, 2019

Willie T said:
Again.... you are admitting that we have gotten our Military back up to being respected and feared. This President has done that.... BECAUSE WE WERE SO FAR BELOW ACCEPTABLE THAT HE HAD TO. Where do you think most of the money he has had to spend has gone to?

No one grounded in reality thought that the US being invaded was a realistic possibility in the decade before Trump. Your "analysis" of his statement reflects either dishonesty or confusion.

Albion · Aug 7, 2019

whatbogsends said:
No one grounded in reality thought that the US being invaded was a realistic possibility in the decade before Trump. Your "analysis" of his statement reflects either dishonesty or confusion.

There wasn't any "analysis" of your scenario in that post. Nor was there anything in it about invasions.

The military has to be prepared for the possibility of war. And both parties acknowledge that the military was downsized under Obama; the disagreement more recently was simply whether or not to remedy that situation.

whatbogsends · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
There wasn't any "analysis" of your scenario in that post. Nor was there anything in it about invasions.

The military has to be prepared for the possibility of war. And both parties acknowledge that the military was downsized under Obama; the disagreement more recently was simply whether or not to remedy that situation.

Willie is making the false claim that the US was at risk to invasion before Trump and that Trump has removed that risk. That is a blatant falsehood.

A "downsized military" isn't remotely akin to "being susceptible to invasion".

The Right's affinity for military and police

Well-Known Member

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Part of the IT crowd

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

E pluribus unum

a post by Alan Smithee

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Similar threads