Aren't standing armies a curse?

[Anarchist420]

Here.

In any event, the warvangelicals beating the drums for war against iran have it wrong and I guess they aren't really evangelicals since they're against the word of God like the Federalists were.

No wonder the articles of confederation praised the Great Governor of the world (and was supported by believers such as Sam Adams) while the federal constitution was totally secular and was forced on the people and the States by an elite acting in secrecy.

Your thoughts?

Edit:
Proving my point again that the Federalists were antiGod is this.

 

[cybrsage]

It depends. If only one nation had a standing army, then the one who did would be called a curse by all the other nations...but would dominate them and rule the world making their view irrelevant. Since a standing army is needed to prevent invasion by the standing armies of other nations, we call them a blessing.

 

[MedicBob]

It depends. If only one nation had a standing army, then the one who did would be called a curse by all the other nations...but would dominate them and rule the world making their view irrelevant. Since a standing army is needed to prevent invasion by the standing armies of other nations, we call them a blessing.

And needed.

 

[nehalem256]

I agree standing armies are a curse to our increasingly obese population. All armies should stay seated while the actual fighting is none with high-tech robots.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Articles of Confederation? :biggrin:

 

[Agent11]

No. Peace through strength is a pretty popular ideology.

A strong military deters aggression much the same way having nukes deters a nuclear attack.

Problems arise though, when you have a wealthy military industrial complex that influences policy (and is a large part of the economy) and dwindling resources increase tensions among developed countries.

Take a look at china, do you think they would be nearly as aggressive if the Philippines had a military on par with the US?

 

[nextJin]

No. Peace through strength is a pretty popular ideology.

A strong military deters aggression much the same way having nukes deters a nuclear attack.

Problems arise though, when you have a wealthy military industrial complex that influences policy (and is a large part of the economy) and dwindling resources increase tensions among developed countries.

Take a look at china, do you think they would be nearly as aggressive if the Philippines had a military on par with the US?

Good post.

 

[shortylickens]

I served for 9 years.
I was in NTC great lakes when the world trade center and pentagon were attacked.
If we cant prevent such quick, small-scale attacks while having the most expensive standing military in the world, I am frightened to think what might happened if somebody tried something when the bulk of our forces were busy on the other side of the globe.

We arent nearly as safe as we'd like to believe. And that illusion is costing us trillions of dollars. I dont see a good solution, but what we have right now is unacceptable.

 

[IGBT]

Why do you have a front door on your house?? Why do you lock it?

 

[shortylickens]

Why do you have a front door on your house?? Why do you lock it?

Mostly, for the illusion of safety. If someone seriously wants in you house that door will NOT protect you. We all assume it might deter a casual threat, just because we havent had our house burgled yet.
When it does get burgled, we act surprised and shocked and almost always overreact by starting neighborhood watches and buying guns and harassing strangers on our streets and giving the cops shit for slacking and maybe buying a new sturdier door after cursing the old one.

Oh, and with all the shit we do, we're rarely safer. We just feel safer.

 

[cybrsage]

I served for 9 years.
I was in NTC great lakes when the world trade center and pentagon were attacked.
If we cant prevent such quick, small-scale attacks while having the most expensive standing military in the world, I am frightened to think what might happened if somebody tried something when the bulk of our forces were busy on the other side of the globe.

We arent nearly as safe as we'd like to believe. And that illusion is costing us trillions of dollars. I dont see a good solution, but what we have right now is unacceptable.

A standing army is only really useful against other standing armies. Small group incursions are all but impossible to stop with a standing army. The Twin Towers attack is nothing like an invasion.

 

[shortylickens]

A standing army is only really useful against other standing armies. Small group incursions are all but impossible to stop with a standing army. The Twin Towers attack is nothing like an invasion.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest our standing forces could repel an invasion. We arent trained for it, and most of our military is busy away from the homeland anyway.

 

[wirednuts]

I served for 9 years.
I was in NTC great lakes when the world trade center and pentagon were attacked.
If we cant prevent such quick, small-scale attacks while having the most expensive standing military in the world, I am frightened to think what might happened if somebody tried something when the bulk of our forces were busy on the other side of the globe.

We arent nearly as safe as we'd like to believe. And that illusion is costing us trillions of dollars. I dont see a good solution, but what we have right now is unacceptable.

the only real protection is through education. teach americans to love our neighbors and maybe our neighbors wont want to fly planes up our ass.

that is one thing i really like about obama. before him, america was the most evil country on the planet (in many eyes). now, we actually have a little dignity again. i dont think other countries are as scared of us as they used to be, but at least we dont hear "death to america" on every news break.

 

[Doppel]

Again, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest our standing forces could repel an invasion. We arent trained for it, and most of our military is busy away from the homeland anyway.

Well, of course you're right because the only evidence to prove that would be pointing out a time when the US has been invaded. As there is no example, it's all guess work.

I would like to know exactly why the strongest--by a long, massive amount--military in the world would be unable to defend its homeland. From where do these mysterious invaders come while the US, caught pants down, has been unable during the movement of the enemy troops been unable or unwilling to bring its own troops home?

I disagree with you that we're not safe. I think we're much safer than we think. Terrorism is irrelevant for most Americans; it will never, ever touch their own lives personally except through the news, and it seems almost unfathomable that the US will be engaged in a war on the homeland in any of our lifetimes.

I agree with you about front doors. The real comedy is deadbolt locks. I kicked in a dead-bolted door when I was a child and was only trying to make a loud sound because it was simply a piece of crap trim that the deadbolt engaged in. Most of us are not attacked in our homes at night because of the odds against it not because it's difficult to do.

 

[spittledip]

Why do you have a front door on your house?? Why do you lock it?

We have doors on our houses to keep dogs, bugs, stray cats, and raccoons out. We lock the doors to keep monkeys out.