If America's professional military were done away with...

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I have an AK-47. I am my own militia.

It bears saying again:

I answered Maybe because I served in the US Army for 15 years and wouldn't join such an outfit unless they were run professionally, well equipped, and well trained. If it was a bunch of guys that think they only need a weapon and camouflage to fight and win, then no.

 

[K1052]

There is a reason a standing army was created in the first place out of experiences in the Revoltionary War. Militias are usually under trained, under equipped, poorly led, and hard to control.

That said, I have enough weapons and ammo to arm a platoon if required.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: jemcam
WTF are you talking about?

Going back to the original military organization specified in the US Constitution.

The Constitution empowers the national government to "provide for the common defense". There is no mention of militia (though this was the topic of much debate prior to ratification) except for the 2nd Amendment which in no way percludes the establishment of a standing army.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: jemcam
I'm assuming you've never been in the military. When you enlist, you volunteer knowing and expecting you could be deployed. It is your duty to comply and if you don't want to be deployed because you object to the idealism of that conflict, you're a pacificist, etc., you deserve to be court martialed and separated from the service.

I really don't think that individuals not wanting to fight in ridiculous wars (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) are pacifists. A pacifist is someone who is 'strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war' (from m-w.com). I think most anyone will agree that our participation in WWII (for example) was entirely justified. If we hadn't involved ourselves in the European theater, we'd probably be speaking German.

Originally posted by: jemcamI fail to understand why people get in the military and then protest when they are deployed. Why would you get any job and then complain to your boss and/or company when you're asked to do what you're trained to do? Makes no sense to me.

In certain cases it should make sense. Why should people want to be deployed to Iraq to be shot up and for what reason? Because Iraq had a connection to 9/11? That has not been found to be the case (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/). I see it like this: If I go to school to be trained to be an accountant, I fully expect to do accounting. However, if my boss asks me to start fudging numbers to make the financial statements look better, should I complain or should I just do what I'm told to do? Questioning authority doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist; it's a healthy check and balance in any system.

Originally posted by: K1052
The Constitution empowers the national government to "provide for the common defense". There is no mention of militia (though this was the topic of much debate prior to ratification) except for the 2nd Amendment which in no way percludes the establishment of a standing army.

Article I Section 8 talks a lot about militias and congress' role regarding national defense:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second line states that armies can be raised and trained, but funding for the army will be for two years at a time. Also, here the word militia is mentioned three times. In Article II Section 2 it is also mentioned.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Again in Amendments II (duh) and V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

But I digress. Congress is indeed granted the power to provide for the common defense by means designated in Article II Section 8. Iraq and Vietnam posed hardly any measurable threat to the US. Yet in both instances many lives were lost and many dollars were spent, and we were no more defended than before. Our foreign policy has taken an ugly turn which has resulted in unnecessary loss of life and excessive military spending.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: jemcam

In the current situation if someone is scheduled to be deployed for a war/invasion/occupancy (whatever), they're screwed because they enlisted. If they resist, legal action is brought against them.

I'm assuming you've never been in the military. When you enlist, you volunteer knowing and expecting you could be deployed. It is your duty to comply and if you don't want to be deployed because you object to the idealism of that conflict, you're a pacificist, etc., you deserve to be court martialed and separated from the service.

I personally think a firing squad is a much better solution for those who resist deployment.

 

[FoBoT]

the scenario is unrealistic

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the scenario is unrealistic

Could you elaborate?

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: jemcam
I'm assuming you've never been in the military. When you enlist, you volunteer knowing and expecting you could be deployed. It is your duty to comply and if you don't want to be deployed because you object to the idealism of that conflict, you're a pacificist, etc., you deserve to be court martialed and separated from the service.

I really don't think that individuals not wanting to fight in ridiculous wars (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) are pacifists. A pacifist is someone who is 'strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war' (from m-w.com). I think most anyone will agree that our participation in WWII (for example) was entirely justified. If we hadn't involved ourselves in the European theater, we'd probably be speaking German.

Originally posted by: jemcamI fail to understand why people get in the military and then protest when they are deployed. Why would you get any job and then complain to your boss and/or company when you're asked to do what you're trained to do? Makes no sense to me.

In certain cases it should make sense. Why should people want to be deployed to Iraq to be shot up and for what reason? Because Iraq had a connection to 9/11? That has not been found to be the case (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/). I see it like this: If I go to school to be trained to be an accountant, I fully expect to do accounting. However, if my boss asks me to start fudging numbers to make the financial statements look better, should I complain or should I just do what I'm told to do? Questioning authority doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist; it's a healthy check and balance in any system.

Originally posted by: K1052
The Constitution empowers the national government to "provide for the common defense". There is no mention of militia (though this was the topic of much debate prior to ratification) except for the 2nd Amendment which in no way percludes the establishment of a standing army.

Article I Section 8 talks a lot about militias and congress' role regarding national defense:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second line states that armies can be raised and trained, but funding for the army will be for two years at a time. Also, here the word militia is mentioned three times. In Article II Section 2 it is also mentioned.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Again in Amendments II (duh) and V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

But I digress. Congress is indeed granted the power to provide for the common defense by means designated in Article II Section 8. Iraq and Vietnam posed hardly any measurable threat to the US. Yet in both instances many lives were lost and many dollars were spent, and we were no more defended than before. Our foreign policy has taken an ugly turn which has resulted in unnecessary loss of life and excessive military spending.

Oh, now I see where you're coming from. Soldiers are supposed to be apolitical. At least that's the way I looked at it. I knew what my job was and what I was trained for, and my own opinions didn't mean sh!t about whether or not I was obligated to perform the duty I VOLUNTEERED to do. It would be downright cowardly to refuse to do my job that I was trained to do. I was scared as hell whenever I got deployed and I didn't want to do it, but I did, because it was my duty and I made an oath. Anyone who was deployed or fought in a war that says they were never scared is either lying or crazy.
Besides, my buddies were going and I didn't want to be a chickensh!t and make up some sorry excuse about not wanting to go. I would be very disheartened if any of my buddies refused to go based on their beliefs. Of course, I'm pretty sure we would have been able to pick out any potential wussies anyway and they wouldn't have made the cut to begin with, much like yourself. It's laughable hearing people such as yourself criticizing the military but who don't have the balls, honor, and sense of duty and obligation and wherewithall to serve their country honorably.

 

[upsciLLion]

I firstly want you to understand that I am not criticizing the military itself nor any of the soldiers that serve in the military. Quite the contrary. I am very appreciative of their service. The problem I have is with how the government uses and manages the military.

Originally posted by: jemcam
Oh, now I see where you're coming from. Soldiers are supposed to be apolitical. At least that's the way I looked at it. I knew what my job was and what I was trained for, and my own opinions didn't mean sh!t about whether or not I was obligated to perform the duty I VOLUNTEERED to do. It would be downright cowardly to refuse to do my job that I was trained to do. I was scared as hell whenever I got deployed and I didn't want to do it, but I did, because it was my duty and I made an oath. Anyone who was deployed or fought in a war that says they were never scared is either lying or crazy.

I would never want any soldier to be apolitical. Soldiers are US citizens that are (especially) subject to the government's mandates just as every other US citizen is. They should have the choice to be informed and opinionated just like everyone else.

As for whether someone is being cowardly or not should depend on their motive. If someone refuses to be deployed because (for example with Iraq) they don't want to invade a country, remove its stability, and watch it disolve into civil war, then I would definitely say they were not being cowardly. If someone refused because they were afraid of being shot at, then yes the label of cowardly would certainly apply. Like you said, everyone's afraid but they're going anyway (a true form of admirable bravery).

Besides, my buddies were going and I didn't want to be a chickensh!t and make up some sorry excuse about not wanting to go. I would be very disheartened if any of my buddies refused to go based on their beliefs. Of course, I'm pretty sure we would have been able to pick out any potential wussies anyway and they wouldn't have made the cut to begin with, much like yourself. It's laughable hearing people such as yourself criticizing the military but who don't have the balls, honor, and sense of duty and obligation and wherewithall to serve their country honorably.

I like how you can make such sweeping generalizations about me from what little you know about me. You should definitely be an interrogator.

My dedication would indeed be tied to how much I believe what I am doing is right. I'm unwilling to commit violence for something that I deem wrong no matter how much respect I would gain from those unwilling to question authority nor how much money I would earn in the process.

Regardless, your very narrow view of what is considered honorably serving one's country is slightly disturbing but no doubt a bi-product of having been through the military. There are far more ways to honorably serve one's country than just by being in the armed forces.