• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do we have an Army?

Tigerace117 said:
Yeah, because Japan has a massive patron(the United States) which can provide more than enough support and protection.

There's nobody to do that for us
Click to expand...

The point being, it is a country surviving without an army.
 
jkennedy said:
I would rather have an elephant and not need it, than than need one and not have one.
Click to expand...

That's the best one of the bunch. How much do you suppose it costs for feed an elephant?
 
KevinKohler said:
We have an army, because, without one, we become increasingly irrelevant. Period.
Click to expand...

With our aircraft carriers (that almost no one else has - that many), satellites, AND NUKES ... sorry. I can't anywhere near agree with you.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Cause that's always worked so well, right? After all, in the 1930s we thought the oceans would keep us safe. That's why we didn't get involved in World War Two, right?

Oh, wait.....:roll:

It's naive to think the United States isn't going to need ground forces.
Click to expand...

Please educate me on the most practical scenario where we get invaded. Truly - I await your answer.
 
coldjoint said:

One of the best ways to prevent war is to be ready for it. The Army needs to be rebuilt, with the best weapons and more importantly the best technology. And the pay should be doubled to attract quality people who want a career.
Click to expand...

So keep 50%. The most highly trained and competent. Tech and weaponry don't come FROM the Army. They come from R&D, DNR, and DARPA.
 
azgreg said:
I'd rather have an army and not need it than need one and not have one.
Click to expand...

I love one-liners that seem to solve everything, regardless of cost.

Only ... if you are an adult, you understand cost and sacrifice. We need to be smarter with our budget. Stop digging our debt deeper.
 
GoNavy said:
Please educate me on the most practical scenario where we get invaded. Truly - I await your answer.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a place called Pearl Harbor?

Not to mention the fact that without troops on the ground there's no way to enforce our values.
 
RJApple said:
There is an old Latin proverb: Si vis pacem para bellum. Translation: Let he who desires peace prepare for war. In the modern world, the sea, and pretty much any other natural land barrier, isn't as important a defense measure as it was in previous centuries. While there is peace between the world's greatest powers right now, that can change very quickly. Further, NATO's influence greatly depends on the US' military strength. Without a strong NATO, and more specifically without a strong US, countries like Russia and China would seek to annex the smaller nations around them. Finally, does anyone think that military intervention by NATO wouldn't be justified in the event that North Korea, ISIS, Saudi Arabia, or another nation similarly led by lunatics, got their hands on a nuclear weapon? A strong military is an integral part of maintaining a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

You made a GROSS segue from my suggestion of "massively" scaling down our Army (and ... ONLY our Army) to - scaling down our entire military presence.

Which I never suggested. Ever.
 
GoNavy said:
So keep 50%. The most highly trained and competent. Tech and weaponry don't come FROM the Army. They come from R&D, DNR, and DARPA.
Click to expand...

That stuff might not come from the Army but it ends up there, doesn't it? We should be strong enough for 2 wars at the same time. We have been since WWII until recently.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What's your point? Do you honestly believe in this day and age a country can survive without an army?
Click to expand...

My suggestion was not COMPLETE elimination. That is probably your primary misunderstanding.
 
fmw said:
"Why do we have an Army?"

To win wars. Of course we have to recognize that we are in a war and then we need to use the Army in a way that allows them to win the war. We stopped doing the latter in the Vietnam conflict.
Click to expand...

In Total War - you would be correct. Which ... we have not waged in over 70 years. And probably never will again so long as Nukes exist.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No, we cannot.

Why do you oppose helping others who are being targeted and destroyed by a vicious enemy?

Turning your back on your neighbor when you have the capacity to help is an act of vile cowardice.
Click to expand...

Wow - your presumptuous segue was just horrific. Might I introduce you to this thing called NATO. Something that is comprised of 99% US, and 1% other countries ... if you evaluate based on resources spent ... and number of military deaths.

Other countries need to pick up a larger portion of the tab.
 
SDET said:
That's the best one of the bunch. How much do you suppose it costs for feed an elephant?
Click to expand...

SDET - THAT'S EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY. You win. Best response in this ENTIRE thread. Bravo Zulu, amigo.
 
GoNavy said:
In Total War - you would be correct. Which ... we have not waged in over 70 years. And probably never will again so long as Nukes exist.
Click to expand...

So the wars after Korea were partial wars. Is that something like being half pregnant?
 
GoNavy said:
Wow - your presumptuous segue was just horrific. Might I introduce you to this thing called NATO. Something that is comprised of 99% US, and 1% other countries ... if you evaluate based on resources spent ... and number of military deaths.

Other countries need to pick up a larger portion of the tab.
Click to expand...

NATO is comprised of 28 countries. It's budget is broken down into 3 sectors. In all 3 sectors the US's paid out allotment is around 20%. Not 99%.

If you want to dispute something, dispute it with facts.
 
GoNavy said:
What is the fundamental purpose of an Army? Let's answer this question HISTORICALLY. Not the 'Murica definition.

In warfare, the Army's purpose was to invade other lands, to expand one's borders, and absorb their resources. OR, the only other purpose was to STOP someone ELSE from doing that to you. It's pretty much that simple.

OK. Fast forward to the 20th Century and the Geneva Convention. With some exceptions (Africa, Indo China ... maybe the Balkans ... and the 'stan countries), the map of the known world will PROBABLY not change that much. We are all globally connected in commerce, politics, and the media. So ... let us focus on my actual query (by putting aside the rest of the world, because maybe borders will continue to shift in other continents ... but let's just focus on 'Murica).

Ok - so we are at the economic pinnacle of the world. $18T !! annual GDP. Which means we have to do everything right. Tip toe on egg shells. That's who we are at the moment. Don't offend anyone ... come running to the rescue ... offer international aid, etc.

SO. How has that Global War on Terror gone? I happen to know. I served 8 years. Has ANYTHING changed? Yes ... details in Iraq ... details in Syria ... details in Afghanistan and Pakistan ... blah blah blah. Just details. But has anything REALLY changed?

So ... if we decide to learn that occupying someone else's land does NOT accomplish ANYTHING if you are waging an ideological war ... then - (query) -

Why do we have an army?

We are situated between the two largest oceans in the world. We have satellites, radar, sonar, Google Maps, the strongest Navy by FAR !! We have a wall in our southern border, we have Border Patrol, National Guard, CIA, Special Forces, Homeland Security, National Intelligence, NRO, NSA ... an on and on and on.

AND ... here's the kicker ... our country has over 270 MILLION firearms (estimate). We have an army RIGHT HERE. U.S. populace.

What do you guys say? Can we massively !! scale-down our Army?
Click to expand...
The simple answer is No, and by the way have you been keeping tabs on the antics of our good friends the Russians/Putin. One cannot deal with the likes of him without having a Big Stick.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
It's almost like this thread was tailor-made for my fellow Navy vets! But yeah, we still gotta have an army. Why? Because (and I hate using a comic book as a source) "with great power comes great responsibility". Nobody else can do what we do. That may change as the decades pass, but for now, the only real guarantor of freedom from communist or Russian hegemony is...US. Which means that if the crap does hit the fan, the only army capable of defeating any other army can still be gotten there by the only other services on the planet (the Navy and the Air Force) capable of getting it there in numbers great enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!! For better or worse, we are the wall between freedom and subjugation and that means that we need to have a military that can kick the ass of anyone and everyone if needed. People think that Russia and China have these incredible militaries, yet if push came to shove and it was the US vs. everyone else - we win. No one has ANYTHING that come even remotely close to our high altitude stealth bombers carrying smart bombs or our drone/cruise missile technology. Whether they like it or not, the world needs us doing what we do.
 
Because the bleeding hearts won't let us just assassinate our enemies like a decent society.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
NATO is comprised of 28 countries. It's budget is broken down into 3 sectors. In all 3 sectors the US's paid out allotment is around 20%. Not 99%.

If you want to dispute something, dispute it with facts.
Click to expand...



Each of the 28 countries are required to fund NATO to the tune of 2% of GDP. Naturally, the US being the biggest will contribute more than, say, Belgium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom