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

[arnegrim]

...a general heart of apathy for those w/o a ssn, I would have to agree.

WHAT?!?

We give more to those who are here illegally then any other country in the world!!

 

[k]

WHAT?!?

We give more to those who are here illegally then any other country in the world!!

There is a whole world of people out there besides Mexicans and let's not kid ourselves.....the illegals are here because we NEED their very very cheap labor.

 

[arnegrim]

There is a whole world of people out there besides Mexicans and let's not kid ourselves.....the illegals are here because we NEED their very very cheap labor.

I'm not limiting the term 'illegals' to Mexican... and I don't care why they're here... they shouldn't be here illegally.

Oh... and let's compare how much aid we send to other countries... shall we?

 

[k]

I'm not limiting the term 'illegals' to Mexican... and I don't care why they're here... they shouldn't be here illegally.

Oh... and let's compare how much aid we send to other countries... shall we?

The majority, by and large are Mexicans....anyways....

To compare aid amount is moot because we have to first look at how the wealth, or ability to give aid, is acquired in the first place.

We don't praise drug dealers for giving money to the church do we?

 

[arnegrim]

The majority, by and large are Mexicans....anyways....

To compare aid amount is moot because we have to first look at how the wealth, or ability to give aid, is acquired in the first place.

We don't praise drug dealers for giving money to the church do we?

I don't care who the majority of illegals are... I said 'illegals' which encompasses any and all.

Fine... the fact remains that we give more to those who are here illegally then any other country.

 

[k]

I don't care who the majority of illegals are... I said 'illegals' which encompasses any and all.

Fine... the fact remains that we give more to those who are here illegally then any other country.

If they are here illegally, thus undocumented, how can we prove how much they are given?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

Hmmmm I voted no...but here is a big secret!! shhhhh!!! we aren't the only superpower in the world...oh we may be the only atomic weapons superpower..but never forget that rather massive over populated major communist nation that we could bomb into the stoneage and they could do the same to us..but as Mao said in the 60's you can bomb us into the stoneage but when we come out from the underground shelters we will have more than a 100 mill people left...so who will win???

Yes it is the only country that we have to worry about today for they can beat us with man power alone...something to think about people...

 

[arnegrim]

If they are here illegally, thus undocumented, how can we prove how much they are given?

There have been numerous studies done...

 

[k]

There have been numerous studies done...

This does not answer the question, and it only complicates it.

 

[arnegrim]

Ok... sure... whatever...

 

[CCGirl]

I don't care who the majority of illegals are... I said 'illegals' which encompasses any and all.

Fine... the fact remains that we give more to those who are here illegally then any other country.

I would like to see some links for this claim.

 

[Moros]

Heh, yeah. Let's give up national sovereignty and disarm our national military because we need to improve our PR. Great plan.

 

[zoink]

Hmmmm I voted no...but here is a big secret!! shhhhh!!! we aren't the only superpower in the world...oh we may be the only atomic weapons superpower..but never forget that rather massive over populated major communist nation that we could bomb into the stoneage and they could do the same to us..but as Mao said in the 60's you can bomb us into the stoneage but when we come out from the underground shelters we will have more than a 100 mill people left...so who will win???

Yes it is the only country that we have to worry about today for they can beat us with man power alone...something to think about people...

It is estimated that China has 36 warheads capable of hitting the United States. Yes that would set us back a ways, but I think the stone age is a little bit of a stretch.

We can deliver about 5,100 warheads. So after having there country turned to glass (more then once if we so desire), are these 100 million Chinese going to walk across the Pacific Ocean or did we forget to nuke the ports? Keeping the supply lines open while invading the third largest country in the world is going to be real fun; especially with no infrastructure back in the homeland and the most advanced navy in world constantly shooting at them.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[LogicChristian]

It is estimated that China has 36 warheads capable of hitting the United States. Yes that would set us back a ways, but I think the stone age is a little bit of a stretch.

We can deliver about 5,100 warheads. So after having there country turned to glass (more then once if we so desire), are these 100 million Chinese going to walk across the Pacific Ocean or did we forget to nuke the ports? Keeping the supply lines open while invading the third largest country in the world is going to be real fun; especially with no infrastructure back in the homeland and the most advanced navy in world constantly shooting at them.

Fewer than that, more like 25 DF-5As, they take 1 hour to prepare for launch.

Also, how will those 100 million get anywhere even without the US Navy and a fully functional infrastructure without any boats to get them there? 6,000 miles is a heck of a long way to swim.

The United States could destroy China before they ever got their nukes off the ground if they attempted to attack. They were supposed to deploy new mobile missiles that could hit the West Coast in 2003, but after the last test failure, we haven't heard much on the program. They aren't supposed to have a modern missile that can hit the USA from China until 2010 at the earliest.

France and Britain are closer to being superpowers than China. They have ballistic submarine fleets as well as aircraft carriers. China has no carriers, a huge military that it can't actually transport anywhere it would actually need to fight, and a navy that couldn't even beat Japan's, much less Europe or the US.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Fewer than that, more like 25 DF-5As, they take 1 hour to prepare for launch.

Also, how will those 100 million get anywhere even without the US Navy and a fully functional infrastructure without any boats to get them there? 6,000 miles is a heck of a long way to swim.

The United States could destroy China before they ever got their nukes off the ground if they attempted to attack. They were supposed to deploy new mobile missiles that could hit the West Coast in 2003, but after the last test failure, we haven't heard much on the program. They aren't supposed to have a modern missile that can hit the USA from China until 2010 at the earliest.

France and Britain are closer to being superpowers than China. They have ballistic submarine fleets as well as aircraft carriers. China has no carriers, a huge military that it can't actually transport anywhere it would actually need to fight, and a navy that couldn't even beat Japan's, much less Europe or the US.

Let us not forget that we already based in the Pacific with a well-equipped landing force, in Korea, Guam, Japan, Okinawa and Hawaii.

 

[zoink]

Fewer than that, more like 25 DF-5As, they take 1 hour to prepare for launch.

I thought they only had 24 DF-5A's and I was being generous by letting them get there Xia launch its JL-1's. You are probably right though.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[Machjo]

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.

Actually, China would be a good bet; it's already quite reputed in Africa for its no-strings-attached donations of money, which has in fact earned it much respect on that front. Add to that that China generally doesn't like sticking its nose in otehr nations' affairs. You might be surprised at how many nations would root for China over the US as an international superpower anyday. Their internal policy might not be perfect, but then again, that doesn't affect their naeighbours so much now does it.

 

[Machjo]

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.

The US isn't even a match for the Viet Kong and al-Qaida!

 

[Machjo]

It is estimated that China has 36 warheads capable of hitting the United States. Yes that would set us back a ways, but I think the stone age is a little bit of a stretch.

We can deliver about 5,100 warheads. So after having there country turned to glass (more then once if we so desire), are these 100 million Chinese going to walk across the Pacific Ocean or did we forget to nuke the ports? Keeping the supply lines open while invading the third largest country in the world is going to be real fun; especially with no infrastructure back in the homeland and the most advanced navy in world constantly shooting at them.

Sincerely,
zoink

And this is a point of pride? Sounds to me like you're already in the stone age!

Immagine that:

"Hey John! You should see what my kid bought for himself. He bought himself a bicycle to protec the environment and keep fit. And he bought a rice cooker too to help him with his new vegetarian diet to pretect the environment even further."

"Ha, your kid is so stupid, Bill! My kid bought himself an automatic rifle. So you tell me, Bill, if your kid and mine get into a fight one day, your kid with his... (bursts out laughing) bicycle and rice cooker, and my kid with an M16, who do you think will win? Man I'm proud of my kid!"

 

[Machjo]

Fewer than that, more like 25 DF-5As, they take 1 hour to prepare for launch.

Also, how will those 100 million get anywhere even without the US Navy and a fully functional infrastructure without any boats to get them there? 6,000 miles is a heck of a long way to swim.

The United States could destroy China before they ever got their nukes off the ground if they attempted to attack. They were supposed to deploy new mobile missiles that could hit the West Coast in 2003, but after the last test failure, we haven't heard much on the program. They aren't supposed to have a modern missile that can hit the USA from China until 2010 at the earliest.

France and Britain are closer to being superpowers than China. They have ballistic submarine fleets as well as aircraft carriers. China has no carriers, a huge military that it can't actually transport anywhere it would actually need to fight, and a navy that couldn't even beat Japan's, much less Europe or the US.

You know what. What I read this, I can only wonder why any nation would want to be a superpower!

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.