The Right's affinity for military and police

Albion · Aug 7, 2019

whatbogsends said:
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.

I read the posts in question. Willie makes a case that a disarmed America would sooner or later be inviting an attack if we were to stay militarily underprepared. For goodness sake, you cannot seriously argue that this is false or blatantly false (!) when North Korea has tested out dropping a missile a few miles from American territory.

wing2000 · Aug 7, 2019

...and North Korea is still testing despite two visits by the POTUS.

Willie T · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
I read the posts in question. Willie makes a case that a disarmed America would sooner or later be inviting an attack if we were to stay militarily underprepared. For goodness sake, you cannot seriously argue that this is false or blatantly false (!) when North Korea has tested out dropping a missile a few miles from American territory.

Thank you for that. You may be among a small minority here who actually read what someone writes.

bèlla · Aug 7, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Would it be unfair to say their first concern is maintenance of established social order, or at least the imagined social order that existed before left wing, liberal, tree hugging, minority defending, animal-rightist, hippy socialists like myself messed it up?

That’s truly a fallacy. You didn’t disrupt anything. It is possible to move the needle forward and pull it back in other areas.

The true social order that existed still remains. The middle class was never the bourgeoise in the truest sense. That’s why they bear the greatest burdens like beasts of old.

Privilege is an institution. It is the order. Everything else is well crafted spin to lull the masses. Your stance didn’t prevent the recent massacres on your (the masses) turf. When did you last hear of someone doing the same at a opera house? You won’t.

A man was led by leash by an officer on horseback. Yet there’s gains in civil rights. The needle is easy to shift when you’re controlling the handle. You direct the flow of events that others are subject to.

The correct term you’re looking for is gatekeepers. Are certain groups gatekeepers for the ruling class? Absolutely. But that is neither Democrat or Republican. It’s elitism and supremacy. That spans many hues and party lines. Money and power are its keys.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
I read the posts in question. Willie makes a case that a disarmed America would sooner or later be inviting an attack if we were to stay militarily underprepared. For goodness sake, you cannot seriously argue that this is false or blatantly false (!) when North Korea has tested out dropping a missile a few miles from American territory.

Willie T said:
Thank you for that. You may be among a small minority here who actually read what someone writes.

Holy jeez. I read what you wrote. Here it is again for everybody to see:

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.

"an enemy army on our shores" means an invasion. It doesn't mean missiles. It doesn't mean attacks on foreign bases. It doesn't mean potshots at our deployed naval assets. It means an invasion. That's what you wrote. That @Albion wishes to interpret your post more charitably than what it deserves doesn't erase the meaning of what you wrote. If you want to retract it and rephrase it to better clarify your intent, fine. Go for it. But don't put the responsibility for your bogus assertions on the rest of us.

RDKirk · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
I read the posts in question. Willie makes a case that a disarmed America would sooner or later be inviting an attack if we were to stay militarily underprepared. For goodness sake, you cannot seriously argue that this is false or blatantly false (!) when North Korea has tested out dropping a missile a few miles from American territory.

Downsizing is not "disarming."

During the Cold War and until fairly recently, the policy was for the US to maintain a "2 1/2 war" military capability. That is, the US should be able to fight the Soviets in Europe, the North Koreans on the peninsula, and some other regional conflict all simultaneously.

The DoD actually wrote Operational Plans for all that and based funding requests on it. Every unit had an Operational Plan for the specific war it was set in place to fight.

Those plans were quite detailed, down to instructions even to a basic wrench-turner on the flight line. For instance, an F-16 mechanic in Germany had a manual with different specifications than an F-16 mechanic in South Korea because one expected to fly substantially longer missions for his war than the other.

The question is whether that capability is still necessary. Who is the US willing to go to war for today? If a simultaneoius 2 1/2 war capability isn't necessary--if nobody wants to get into all that--then downsizing is proper. The size of the military should always match the intended purpose.

Nor did North Korea drop any missiles "a few miles" from American territory.

Albion · Aug 7, 2019

RDKirk said:
Downsizing is not "disarming."

Okay. Say "downsizing" if you prefer. The administration's proposals have been to increase readiness.

Obviously, there comes a point at which the ability of any military to successfully repel an enemy attack is almost nil, even if it still holds some weapons.

RDKirk · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
Okay. Say "downsizing" if you prefer. The administration's proposals have been to increase readiness.

No, the administration's proposals are to pump new money into weapons procurement--which benefits big business. If the administration wanted to increase readiness, Trump would put more money into training, operations, and maintenance.

Once upon a time, I was quite proud of the fact that the US had the best trained fighter pilots in the world--because it's not all about the plane, it's also about how many hours a pilot gets to put in that plane. Today US pilots aren't getting any more flight time than Russian pilots. The flightline maintainers can't keep planes "turnin' and burnin'" any better than Russian ground crews.

whatbogsends · Aug 7, 2019

Albion said:
I read the posts in question. Willie makes a case that a disarmed America would sooner or later be inviting an attack if we were to stay militarily underprepared. For goodness sake, you cannot seriously argue that this is false or blatantly false (!) when North Korea has tested out dropping a missile a few miles from American territory.

Wrong. Willie makes this false claim:

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 admitted that Trump "has gotten our military back up to being respected and feared" - they said specifically, that it had been the case since before Trump, including through the Obama administration.

Willie lied about what iluvatar5050 said, and you're either lying about the what the discussion was or have misread it.

Willie is making a case based on a false proposition. Your mischaracterization of his post and our exchange is what is blatantly false.

whatbogsends · Aug 7, 2019

Willie T said:
Thank you for that. You may be among a small minority here who actually read what someone writes.

You didn't bother to read what iluvatar5050 wrote when you made your post that I responded to. Albion rushing to your defense doesn't change the fact that your post was a misrepresentation of what he had said.

The US was not at real risk of invasion or attack during Obama's Presidency. There is no tangible difference in or position now and our position then with regard to susceptibility to a large-scale foreign attack.

wing2000 · Aug 7, 2019

RDKirk said:
The question is whether that capability is still necessary. Who is the US willing to go to war for today? If a simultaneoius 2 1/2 war capability isn't necessary--if nobody wants to get into all that--then downsizing is proper. The size of the military should always match the intended purpose.

A question that is long overdue.

Sparagmos · Aug 7, 2019

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.

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.

You nailed it!

The Right's affinity for military and police

Facilitator

E pluribus unum

St. Petersburg Vineyard

❤️

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Facilitator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Similar threads