View Poll Results: Should the US military be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

Voters
453. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 1.55%
  • No

    446 98.45%
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 209

Thread: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That is called a contract that they agreed to.
    And breaking it could mean a stint in prison. Or they chase you all over the world and charge, try and jail you.

  2. #162
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry View Post
    we've been sending our militias overseas for as long as we've had both militias and foreign wars. It even came to head, governors unwilling to send their militias on the president's order, and that' why a guardsman's enlistment contract stipulates simultaneous enlistment in both their state guard and the federal guard.

    Anyway, yes, i want the regular person to feel the cost of their vote. If you support a guy, and he wins, and he sends troops to war, his constituents should participate.

    It's basically a "put your money where your mouth is" attitude.
    i was stating the founders would have never taken that action to send milita overseas.....but i know its been done.


    Ok, i understand you now... Meaning you want those who vote for a person, to have to deal with the pain he causes people by using the military for every country with a sore foot.

    Problem is "the war powers act" which is unconstitutional.....congress cannot grant a power to the president.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    And breaking it could mean a stint in prison. Or they chase you all over the world and charge, try and jail you.
    Yes, the contract is not held to the same standards as common contracts. As I have said before, the contract is not fit for a free society.

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    Ok, i understand you now... Meaning you want those who vote for a person, to have to deal with the pain he causes people by using the military for every country with a sore foot.
    You got it.

  5. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That is called a contract that they agreed to.
    See there's a rub, though. If you sign to serve and then some jackass takes office and wants to send you off to a perfectly illegal conflict, you are not a volinteer. You are given orders, not requests. You didn't sign knowing that guy was going to be elected. You didn't sign knowing you would be sent by a President currently engaged in treason to an illegal war. You have no choice, you are a slave at that point.

    If you want an all volunteer army then you have to use militia almost exclusively, because militia can bail at any time. Only then do you know that the soldiers are there because they volunteer.

  6. #166
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    "Active duty" does not mean "regular Army" because Army reserves are not active duty but are still regular Army.
    Who told you that nonsense? 10 U.S.C. 3062 :"(c) The Army consists of - (1) the Regular Army, the Army National Guard of the United States, the Army National Guard while in the service of the United States and the Army Reserve; and (2) all persons appointed or enlisted in, or conscripted into, the Army without component. - "


    Note how the Army Reserves is NOT part of the Regular Army. Again 10 U.S.C. 3075 : US Code - Section 3075: Regular Army: composition "a) The Regular Army is the component of the Army that consists of persons whose continuous service on active duty in both peace and war is contemplated by law, and of retired members of the Regular Army.

    "Active duty" simply referrs to the literal minimum number of hours they log in a given week. "Active duty" does not describe what kind of branch they're in.
    Again....no. You can be working however many hours a day on AT, but that is not considered active duty service. Generally speaking, members are categorized as Active Duty, Reserves, or National Guard.


    Not to combat the claim that was made. No comparisons at all, of any kind, need to be made in order to combat the claim that militia receive no training and are not professionals.
    That wasn't the claim. The claim was that the National Guard is not as professional and does not receive as much training.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  7. #167
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by RFR View Post
    Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body like Switzerland has? As in every able-bodied adult (except for conscientious objectors) owns and knows how to use a military grade rifle and advanced weaponry is under local civillian control.
    I like it all volunteer. Though people should be educated and experienced with firearms in general.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #168
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Except, of course, for all those times that it invaded other areas and got into lots of wars with other countries

    A book for anyone who believes that we were isolationist until WWI.
    You again, haven't you been beat down enough. Stick with things you understand, whatever that may be! God damn it dude, when it suits your interests, America never invades countries and starts wars. I don't know if you have a clue at all. Or maybe you just enjoy trolling about, I have no idea.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Close poll. As I said earlier, the dumbest poll ever in the history of this forum. And there have been lots of dumb polls.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  10. #170
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Who thinks the US military should be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Hey, can you tell me what you base this claim on? It can't possibly be military intervention. Around 20 years before WWI we got involved in Cuba and fought a whole war over another nation's affairs. That's just off the top of my head. However, the US sent out military expeditions quite regularly to protect US interests abroad. We also deposed entire kingdoms (Hawaii) and fought off an entire rebellion in China (Boxer Rebellion). So I'm not sure what you're basing your claim off. The US has never engaged in the type of isolationism you're discussing.
    Yeah, a general tendency to refrain from entangling alliances and interventions was the norm. That doesn't mean that we never strayed from that. We all know that we did. But nothing like the last century, is the point.


    President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."[2]

    In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

    After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."[3] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."[3]

    The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish–American War, which ultimately resulted in the Philippine-American War from 1899-1902.


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...nterventionism
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •