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 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 209

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

  1. #171
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You again, haven't you been beat down enough. Stick with things you understand, whatever that may be!
    What, you mean American history and foreign policy?

    God damn it dude, when it suits your interests, America never invades countries and starts wars
    That's an interesting claim. Where have I stated that?

  2. #172
    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
    What, you mean American history and foreign policy?



    That's an interesting claim. Where have I stated that?
    You've got nothing of interest for me dude.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #173
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.
    Huh. I wonder what the opinion of the native american nations would be about that?

    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]

    The Empire of Liberty is a theme developed first by Thomas Jefferson to identify America's world responsibility to spread freedom across the globe. Jefferson saw America's mission in terms of setting an example, expansion into the west, and by intervention abroad....

    Jefferson also launched the Barbary Wars, which included America's first military campaign with the goal of regime-change.

    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."
    Then they would be foolish. The Monroe Doctrine was a hegemony claim, it was actively interventionist. It wasn't "hey, if European powers seek to exert any more authority over any other part of either of the American continents we will avoid taking either side" it was "hey, if European powers seek to exert any more authority over any other part of either of the American continents, we will go to war over the issue". Mind you, that didn't mean Madison was averse to US military action outside of the western hemisphere - he launched his own round of Barbary wars.

    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]
    also we were in the middle of a major ideologically-motivated invasion of the nation(ish) to our south, which was followed by America's first major nation-building exercise. Seward was pushing non-interference because the North was attempting to divest Britain and France from the Confederacy.

    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.

    United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That's interesting. I wonder what our military doing in Mexico in the 1840s. They were probably all there on vacation. No doubt we went to Korea in the 1870s because we'd heard about the awesome Soju (Well, to be fair, it was the Marines. It is indeed plausible that they invaded a foreign country looking for booze). Commodore Perry no doubt went to Japan because he was a huge sushi fan (who doesn't occasionally just feel the need for a good california roll?). Yup. No military intervention abroad at all....

  4. #174
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You've got nothing of interest for me dude.
    That's because you are not interested in information that might challenge your presuppositions. You've got your stance, the facts bedamned

  5. #175
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    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.
    Not like the last century. Just what exactly are you talking about though? Is it military intervention? Now, I don't really care what wikipedia says on this or what they mean by "significant". It's a clearly Western centric article that ignores the long list of US interventions like the Boxer Rebellion and the creation of Liberia. We even fought a war with Mexico over Texas (who was technically a country before 1845). I'm just not sure what you mean by our meddling hasn't been like that of the last century. If you want to say we now have a wider definition of US interests, sure, but we simply weren't isolationists in any sense of the word.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #176
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Huh. I wonder what the opinion of the native american nations would be about that?




    The Empire of Liberty is a theme developed first by Thomas Jefferson to identify America's world responsibility to spread freedom across the globe. Jefferson saw America's mission in terms of setting an example, expansion into the west, and by intervention abroad....

    Jefferson also launched the Barbary Wars, which included America's first military campaign with the goal of regime-change.



    Then they would be foolish. The Monroe Doctrine was a hegemony claim, it was actively interventionist. It wasn't "hey, if European powers seek to exert any more authority over any other part of either of the American continents we will avoid taking either side" it was "hey, if European powers seek to exert any more authority over any other part of either of the American continents, we will go to war over the issue". Mind you, that didn't mean Madison was averse to US military action outside of the western hemisphere - he launched his own round of Barbary wars.



    also we were in the middle of a major ideologically-motivated invasion of the nation(ish) to our south, which was followed by America's first major nation-building exercise. Seward was pushing non-interference because the North was attempting to divest Britain and France from the Confederacy.



    That's interesting. I wonder what our military doing in Mexico in the 1840s. They were probably all there on vacation. No doubt we went to Korea in the 1870s because we'd heard about the awesome Soju (Well, to be fair, it was the Marines. It is indeed plausible that they invaded a foreign country looking for booze). Commodore Perry no doubt went to Japan because he was a huge sushi fan (who doesn't occasionally just feel the need for a good california roll?). Yup. No military intervention abroad at all....
    Damn it, you beat me to it. But you also forgot that we went all the way to China to fight a war with the Brits, French and Russians. We also invented an entirely new country in Africa (Liberia) and pretty much set up their government for them.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #177
    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 pinqy View Post
    The claim was that the National Guard is not as professional and does not receive as much training.
    I've said that myself.

    And...so what? We're talking about making changes. Obviously changing the structure of the army & militia is going to change the quantity and quality of training.

  8. #178
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Damn it, you beat me to it. But you also forgot that we went all the way to China to fight a war with the Brits, French and Russians.
    Nah, I remembered the Boxer Rebellion (Dan Daly!), but it was after his marker of the Spanish-American war.

    We also invented an entirely new country in Africa (Liberia) and pretty much set up their government for them.
    Now that I did forget - good catch.

  9. #179
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,897

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

    It's not unanimous, but it's close:

    Yes 5 (1.13%)
    No 439 (98.87%)
    Нава́льный 2018

  10. #180
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Nah, I remembered the Boxer Rebellion (Dan Daly!), but it was after his marker of the Spanish-American war.



    Now that I did forget - good catch.
    The thing about the Boxer Rebellion though is that it was the culmination of nearly 5 decades of US intervention really starting with the Arrow War. We essentially hoped on a treaty created by the French & Brits and made China sign a treaty giving us certain trade and import concessions. The US didn't simply get on the Boxer Rebellion alliance for ****s and giggles. Wed' been in the country for over 50 years trying to break into China through the use of military and businesses. In any case, the belief that anybody really bought the non-interventionist shtick is just that. A shtick. Even if the US had remained non-interventionist, the average American wouldn't have known about it one way or another.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •