It's time for BIG cuts in our military

And what is that important war? Please don't sidestep this. It's an important question.

 

That is not an option for a powerful nation.

The more powerful a nation is, the more responsibilty they have for the weak and powerless.

 

I agree with pulling our military, but why the hell would we pull out our intel? You do understand that forward deployed listening posts are a necessity, right?

 

Why do we need our allies to defend ourselves? Are the Russians or Chinese going to magically poof an invasion fleet into existence and conquer America?

No nation in the world can touch us with any short of ballistic missiles and in that case they risk nuclear retaliation.

 

We don't need our allies to defend the 50 states.

But we do need our allies for economic reasons. Not to mention that most of the 20 million American citizens who travel outside the U.S. every year do so to nations we're allied with.

 

There is not mention in the Constitution of using the military to defend economic interests. If private companies are having problems overseas, perhaps they should hire mercenaries.

The 20 million Americans overseas should only factor into our military equation if they are being attacked and the local government cannot defend them.

 

You're getting more ridiculous as you dig along.

 

The last time I looked, I did not insult you. I was making a general blanket statement. I never stated your namoe, nor made any claims as to your service or lack thereof.

But hey, feel free to put your money where your mouth is. If you really think the government spends to much on the military, you are more then free to sign your pension checks back to the Government, and to never use any of your medical or other benefits now or in the future.

Think of the savings that would be to the Government.

 

So could someone in the know explain to a simple civilian what the current threats are requiring a huge infrastructure of military bases all over? I know the whole boogie man USSR/now China but what actual regimes/countries are currently posing a threat. I understand the need for keeping some bases that are used for re supply of naval and air force.

 

My opinion doesn't come from concern about the economics, but of behavior consistent with our stated values of respect for freedom and sovereignty.

 

As mentioned above, our bases overseas have evolved to suit different purposes. After WW2, they served as a forward location for occupational forces while we reformed Japan from an Imperalist nation into one of the greatest democracies Asia has ever seen. In korea, they serve and still serve as a warning to N.Korea of impending destruction if they invade the south again. Currently our bases in asia serve many purposes. They are forward opperating bases for any conflict that would erupt on the Korean peninsula along with support locations for conflicts in the ME. Our bases in europe are also support locations for ME opperations along with keeping the russians in check. As a result of the joint security treaties we have with S.Korea and Japan, all three countries (US, Japan, China, S.Korea) have blossomed financially due to the other agreements that have been made due to the security agreements and the peace in the region. If Japan, China or S.Korea were to go to war tommarow it would have a devistating effect on the US economy. Now, that we have become such a large economy we have a need for cheap oil to keep it going. This is where the ME comes in. Now the bases that provided that financial security in Asia are doing so in the ME as well. If the ME were to break out into war, it would destroy our economy. I really don't think people really understand how dependent we are on oil. Not just for fuel, but also to make the many products we need to support our economy. Plastic is just one of many small things that keep us going. Just look around your desk and see how many things are made of plastic. Then, think of what you would do without those things if you were running a business, or doing your job. And again, plastic is just one thing made from oil. There are a lot of other things as well..

 

See, this is the problem. Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the Us military is to be used as a mercenary force to protect private companies' and individuals' profits?

 

The Constitution does not say a lot of things that we take for granted.

Like "privacy" or the practice of "judicial review".

Neither appears in the U.S. Constitution yet both are considered to be effectively so.

I take it for granted that one duty of the U.S. military is to protect me and the rest of the United States both our territory AND OUR INTERESTS, including diplomatic, military, economic, social, whatever else we determine is in our interests.

 

It's not about current threats, since at this moment no other nation on Earth could take on the Americans and hope to win. That being said there is a need to maintain a flexible response to any threats which may emerge in the near future. If the United States is going to be able to deal with these potential future threats ( China may be one but that is debatable ) then they need the bases and infrastructure in place to deal with this. We learned the hard way what happens if you don't maintain enough arms to be ready for any eventuality while at the same time using those arms/strategic bases to deter possible aggression. Not just military aggression but also political and economic, I agree that some bases are no longer needed but most are and if the United States wishes to continue exercising the "soft" power that they have then they must maintain their capability to use their considerable "hard" power just in case it comes to that. I hope that helped.

 

The Constitution also does not say that the Government should provide health care or retirement funds for people either. It also does not list things like Income Tax, or a Federal Highway or Train system either.

And If you want to be technical, "Freedom of the Press" does not automatically protect television or radio news.

 

There'll be no sidestepping from me, I can assure you.

Afghanistan, specifically, since said region was used as a base of operations by the sworn enemies of our country and all of western civilization; enemies who effectuated a successful and devastating military attack on our homeland, which claimed the lives of 3,000 civilians.

The war on terror, in general, since our enemies do not claim a nation, but an ideology. It just so happens that their geographic concentration is in the middle east; might have something to do with the region's religious and cultural fanaticism. Of course, I hear that it's our fault...the original, truly democratic republic, which helped to defeat Nazism and Soviet expansionism; apparently, we're to blame for everything; at least, according to the leftist elite, both here and abroad. Do you agree with them? Is the US to blame?

 

That's refreshing. Thanks.

The Afghanistan war is over, imo. We won quickly & decisively. This nation-building is not good for us. As for the war on a battle tactic, it's just silly. We would've invaded Northern Ireland if it were an accurate term for what we're doing. We need to identify our enemy/enemies or stop spending American soldiers.

 

What's the alternative?

We do identify our enemies. The war on terror is just a generic term we use to describe our war on the jihadists and their allies.

 

And if you look back, we did exactly that once before.

When the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan, we had the chance to help the nation rebuild itself. But the US turned it's back on the region, and over a decade of civil war resulted, ending in what happened in 2001.

And I believe that Nation Building is our responsibility. And we have done it before, and very successfully. Because that's exactly what The Marshal Plan was after WWII.

If not for the assistance the US gave in rebuilding Western Europe after WWII, Europe may have returned to the same chaos and anarchy that reigned in the period between World Wars I and II.

 

Germany and Japan were already established with centralized governments. We were replacing one with another. Afghanistan is not in that same category at all. As I understand it, it is a loose group of disparate tribes thrown together by Western European colonists, more like Korea and Viet Nam.

It isn't and shouldn't be our sole responsibility. This is the kind of stuff the UN was created for. Let them do it. If they can't be trusted to do the job then they shouldn't exist.

 

Yea, the UN did a great job in Afghanistan in the 1990's. They could not even stop them from destroying priceless pieces of cultural history.

And the end result was 9/11.

Better yet, look at the thread in here about how impotant the UN is. And you are going to trust them with the security of the US and other nations?

 

Then they shouldn't exist.

eta: in my previous post I should have written "solely our responsibility" rather than "our sole responsibility."

 

So we should both have a smaller military, and disband the UN?

*shakes head*

If that happened, hello World War III.

 

IF the UN can't help a new gov't establish itself then what use is it?

 

You are correct on all points save freedom of the press. The Constituion doesn't clarify a specific form of the Press, so all forms must be protected. Everything else you brought up is indeed unConstitutional.