Should the U.S. disarm itself and no longer maintain a military?

ScottishJohn · Mar 7, 2006

Billnew said:
Disarm our military?
The world would fall apart.

Probably the exact same words of British Colonels all over the world in the early 20th century. World didn't fall to pieces when our military hit its demise, won't happen when your military hits its demise. There is always someone else to pick up where you left off.

arnegrim · Mar 7, 2006

Neverstop said:
The Sunday Jesus rose.

Then the answer is still yes.

Neverstop said:
I explained why it is ridiculous to say that Jesus would have had to tell a Roman soldier.....in order to show Jesus was anti-war.

Why is my argument ridiculous? Do you even know what it is?

Only as far as you've explained. A Christian cannot support the military since the military engages in physical conflict/war/killing.

arnegrim · Mar 7, 2006

cavymom[FONT=Comic Sans MS said:
This sounds like alot of the propaganda I hear from CNN. The world does not depend on the US, the US just likes to say that to thier taxpayers to justify spending all thier money.[/FONT]

If the US collapsed tommorow it would affect the world financially then the world would shrug it off and keep going. It has happened to other superpowers all throughout history, it just happens to be the US at this point of time.

Probably true... hopefully true...

cavymom said:
And as for ensuring stability in the world, have you seen what is happening because of the US? If the US government stayed out of countries there would be MORE stability.

cavymom said:
Look at Iraq, they are not democratic like Bush said it would be, and yes they had problems but it was with thier own neighbors... now we see plenty of US soldiers coming home in boxes. The countries that were being abused by Iraq would have fought it out themselves eventually.

After how many more years and how many more dead? Are you suggesting we not care what goes on in other countries?

cavymom said:
If the US is fixing everything so sweetly, why do they not go to countries that don't have OIL or a STRATEGIC LOCATION to another country (that has oil)?

cavymom said:
One of the main reasons that the US NEEDS to hang on to it's military is because of all the countries that are very unhappy with it right now. The US is making enemies by implanting themselves everywhere, and now they are trapped in a vicious circle they created themselves.

Let's see... there is a Dem on the boards who says the US is in well over 100 of the worlds countries... do they all have oil?

Have you bothered to check to see what support we send to what countries?

Wait... we should mind our own business and let them rot... right?

cavymom said:
The Swiss probably don't need to be over-militarized because they aren't at odds with other countries. I've never seen anything on the news about them fighting and invading others.

Last time I checked... the Swiss were not very influential... internationally speaking.

k · Mar 7, 2006

arnegrim said:
Then the answer is still yes.

It was impossible for Christians to exist pre-Easter...

Only as far as you've explained. A Christian cannot support the military since the military engages in physical conflict/war/killing.

But why?

arnegrim · Mar 7, 2006

Neverstop said:
It was impossible for Christians to exist pre-Easter...

And there are instances of Roman centurians being converted 'after Easter'... yet no mention that they need to leave the army.

Neverstop said:
But why?

You tell me.

k · Mar 7, 2006

arnegrim said:
And there are instances of Roman centurians being converted 'after Easter'... yet no mention that they need to leave the army.

You tell me.

okay...this is getting insane

The_Horses_Boy · Mar 7, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
Probably the exact same words of British Colonels all over the world in the early 20th century. World didn't fall to pieces when our military hit its demise, won't happen when your military hits its demise. There is always someone else to pick up where you left off.

You defenitely have the wrong idea, no offense. For example, when the Roman military fell who picked up where they left? No one really for a while.

Then, transition of dominance from Britain to America - that's a special case. America is the daughter of Britain and has very similiar views and issues, in fact very similiar stances on the same issues. But if American military might fell, who would be next in line in terms of power? China. A transition of power from Democracy to Democracy is very different than from Democracy to Communism.

ScottishJohn · Mar 7, 2006

The_Horses_Boy said:
You defenitely have the wrong idea, no offense. For example, when the Roman military fell who picked up where they left? No one really for a while.

Well, given the difference in technology, speed of communication, etc etc etc, things did move considerably more slowly in that kind of time period, so it is not really an accurate comparisson. There was no real competitor to the Roman Empire waiting in the wings to take over from where they left off, but China will overtake America one way or another it is just a matter of time. The Roman Empire was by no means the last empire, The Eastern half survived about another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire sprang up in the West, and then fell again. It was just a much slowere turnover.

The_Horses_Boy said:
Then, transition of dominance from Britain to America - that's a special case. America is the daughter of Britain and has very similiar views and issues, in fact very similiar stances on the same issues.

Now that is just plain daft. America may well be the heir of the British empire, and is engaged in re-making many of the mistakes made by the British, but the views of the US and UK are not what I would describe as very similar. Large Government, Socialist Institutions, 3 Party Politics, Human Rights,
International Law, all things on which the majority of British people would be favourable towards, and seem to be pretty unpopular for many Americans. I don't think it is a special case at all. Same story. US sees British Empire, British resources are stretched defending it, it costs a lot to maintain, then you have two world wars, and before you know it the UK is up to its neck in hock to the US and others, and the US start to move in for the kill. Survival of the fittest.

The_Horses_Boy said:
But if American military might fell, who would be next in line in terms of power? China. A transition of power from Democracy to Democracy is very different than from Democracy to Communism.

It really makes very little difference, although I think it is stretching facts a little to refer to China as Communist now, given that they have abandoned most communist principles in favour of making shedloads of money. Empire and control is all about money. Britain took dominance from Spain, and held it for a few hundred years, then the US took the baton, and shortly they will hand it on to China. China in turn will pass it on to another. The only difference is that as communication, economies and technology advance, things move at an ever quicker pace.

Ave Maria · Mar 8, 2006

I voted other because I don't agree with any of those options. In my opinion, we should downsize our military but we should not totally eliminate it. We need a standing military to be able to defend ourselves should a legitimate threat ever come up. And no, Iraq was not a legitimate threat in my opinion.

LogicChristian · Mar 8, 2006

The_Horses_Boy said:
But if American military might fell, who would be next in line in terms of power? China. A transition of power from Democracy to Democracy is very different than from Democracy to Communism.

That's not a certainty by any shot. China isn't by any means the dominant military power on the planet after the USA.

Fallschirmjägergewehr · Mar 8, 2006

Then, transition of dominance from Britain to America - that's a special case. America is the daughter of Britain and has very similiar views and issues, in fact very similiar stances on the same issues. But if American military might fell, who would be next in line in terms of power? China. A transition of power from Democracy to Democracy is very different than from Democracy to Communism.

A transition to China?

They use secondhand Soviet Air crap, and stuff along those lines. Would they stand a chance in a real blue water shooting war?

Brennin · Mar 8, 2006

KalEl76 said:
With the growing dissent worldwide against the U.S. and it's percieved empirical motivations, should we as a nation disarm our military and then submit to international rule?

Yes! We should fight our enemies with love!

ScottishJohn · Mar 8, 2006

LogicChristian said:
That's not a certainty by any shot. China isn't by any means the dominant military power on the planet after the USA.

I predict the next shift will not be a military one, but a more corporate style hostile takeover.

The US is trying to increase its credit limit again after maxing out all of its state credit cards. China is one of the main creditors, and more and more of the US economy depends on keeping in with China. One day it will just be too expensive for the US to say no to China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4780844.stm

After all, the takeover from UK to US was done without us fighting each other, we just couldn't afford to stop you, or to fall out with you.

k · Mar 8, 2006

ScottishJohn said:
I predict the next shift will not be a military one, but a more corporate style hostile takeover.

The US is trying to increase its credit limit again after maxing out all of its state credit cards. China is one of the main creditors, and more and more of the US economy depends on keeping in with China. One day it will just be too expensive for the US to say no to China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4780844.stm

After all, the takeover from UK to US was done without us fighting each other, we just couldn't afford to stop you, or to fall out with you.

excellent points!

nvxplorer · Mar 8, 2006

Fallschirmjägergewehr said:
A transition to China?

They use secondhand Soviet Air crap, and stuff along those lines. Would they stand a chance in a real blue water shooting war?

With Chinas double digit economic growth, it will someday (soon) be able to purchase first rate equipment. India will have this ability as well.

quantumspirit · Mar 8, 2006

No, the US should not by any means completely disarm. The second amendment says that a well regulated militia is essential to the existence of a free state. Well regulated means, as well as gun control, that we stop doling out contracts to private corporations. Lockheed Martin might have less work to do for us. Get no-bids like Halliburton out of the picture entirely! Halve our nuclear arsenal, if not entirely abolish it. Take the money we are throwing at Halliburton et. al. and redirect that money to veteran and collegiate benefits.

Maynard Keenan · Mar 8, 2006

KalEl76 said:
With the growing dissent worldwide against the U.S. and it's percieved empirical motivations, should we as a nation disarm our military and then submit to international rule?

Wow, talk about the lack of a middle ground option.

Yusuf Evans · Mar 8, 2006

Maynard Keenan said:
Wow, talk about the lack of a middle ground option.

From the general consensus on this board and in the world, it appears the U.S. is just short of being WWII Germany.

Law of Loud · Mar 9, 2006

Fallschirmjägergewehr said:
A transition to China?

They use secondhand Soviet Air crap, and stuff along those lines. Would they stand a chance in a real blue water shooting war?

While I'm confident that the US is more than a match for China, I've little doubt the British were saying similiar things about the colonists during the Revolutionary War.

k · Mar 9, 2006

KalEl76 said:
From the general consensus on this board and in the world, it appears the U.S. is just short of being WWII Germany.

In terms of ideologies, imperialism, bigotry, manipulation, and a general heart of apathy for those w/o a ssn, I would have to agree.

Should the U.S. disarm itself and no longer maintain a military?

Should the U.S. Disarm

Yes. The U.S. is the greates human rights oppressor

Yes. The U.S. has too much power and needs to be placed under international governance

No. The U.S. needs to remain the sole military superpower

Other

Contributor

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

reset

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.

reset

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Well-Known Member

Fallschirmjägergewehr

Guest

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Contributor

reset

Senior Contributor

evangelical humanist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Apparently a Librul Moonbat &lt;[wash my mouth][wa

reset

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Apparently a Librul Moonbat <[wash my mouth][wa