• 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!

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

Should the US military be replaced with a citizen defensive body?

  • Total voters
    68
cpwill said:
Huh. I wonder what the opinion of the native american nations would be about that?



:lol:
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.



:lol: 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.... :lol:
Click to expand...

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.
 
pinqy said:
The claim was that the National Guard is not as professional and does not receive as much training.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Now that I did forget - good catch.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
I've said that myself.
Click to expand...
Then why we're you arguing? Why were you pretending the claim was no trading and no professionalism?

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.
Click to expand...
No, that's not obvious. Why don't you explain how eliminbting the regular army and using only militias ( or just reducing the regular components greatla and relying mostly on militias) would make the militias as good or closer to the level of regular active duty? And if they could be, why aren't they now?
 
cpwill said:
:) That's because you are not interested in information that might challenge your presuppositions. You've got your stance, the facts bedamned :lol:
Click to expand...

To the contrary. I'm not interested in books that you keep peddling.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because you ignore the founding intentions of those that produced our constitution, and executed our foreign policy for the first third or half of our countries history. There simply is no comparison between US interventionism before the dawn of the 20th century and our military adventurism since.

The United States remained politically isolated all through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, an unusual feat in western history. Historians have attributed the fact to a geographical position at once separate and far removed from Europe.

During the 1800s, the United States spanned North America and commenced to piece together an empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific — without departing from the traditional perspective. It fought the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War without joining alliances or fighting in Europe.

The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "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."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
 
Last edited:
Citizen defense forces have defeated the US military in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and they defeated the British empire during the American revolution, so I voted yes.
 
pinqy said:
Then why we're you arguing?
Click to expand...
The conversation was turned from the actual topic onto "let's bash the national guard again". We get no ****ing funding and you want to kick us while we're down. Guardsmen want that training, we eat it up, but schools cost money and the Guard is the first branch cut.

pinqy said:
No, that's not obvious.
Click to expand...
Well what did you think was going to happen with all the equiptment and facilities?

pinqy said:
Why don't you explain how eliminbting the regular army and using only militias ( or just reducing the regular components greatla and relying mostly on militias) would make the militias as good or closer to the level of regular active duty? And if they could be, why aren't they now?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you folks can manage to set asside bashing my branch then I would be happy to.
 
Montecresto said:
Because you ignore the founding intentions of those that produced our constitution, and executed our foreign policy for the first third or half of our countries history. There simply is no comparison between US interventionism before the dawn of the 20th century and our military adventurism since.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything. You made a claim about the US' actions. I questioned that claim and showed evidence to the contrary. If you don't like it, just say so, however don't try and change your claim and make it about intentions. The US may have held a policy of non-interventionism, but in practice, it surely wasn't there. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I'm not ignoring anything. You made a claim about the US' actions. I questioned that claim and showed evidence to the contrary. If you don't like it, just say so, however don't try and change your claim and make it about intentions.
Click to expand...

I'm changing nothing. You, are wrong about USFP pre 20th century. It's not about what I like, I could give a **** what you believe. But if you give a **** about what American foreign policy was pre military adventurism, then read instead of blowing, understand?

The process of distortion started about a century ago, when certain fateful steps were taken that in time altered fundamentally the character of our republic. One idea of America was abandoned and another took its place, although no conscious, deliberate decision was ever made. Eventually, this change affected all areas of American life, so that today our nation is radically different from the original ideal, and, indeed, from the ideal probably still cherished by most Americans.

The turning point was signaled by a series of military adventures: the war with Spain, the war for the conquest of the Philippines, and, finally, our entry into the First World War. Together, they represented a profound break with American traditions of government.

American Foreign Policy: The Turning Point, 1898-1919: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
 
Jerry said:
The conversation was turned from the actual topic onto "let's bash the national guard again". We get no ****ing funding and you want to kick us while we're down.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. The ability of reserve components (which includes the Guard) to substitute for the regular components is part of the issue of the OP.


Well what did you think was going to happen with all the equiptment and facilities?
Click to expand...
Would the militias have the a ability to continue to maintain them?


Sure, if you folks can manage to set asside bashing my branch then I would be happy to.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
 
pinqy said:
No, it didn't.
Click to expand...
The content of the posts on this thread before you even jumped in says otherwise.

pinqy said:
The ability of reserve components (which includes the Guard) to substitute for the regular components is part of the issue of the OP.
Click to expand...
When there's a domestic emergincy we do just fine. While deployed we typicaly do better than our reguler Army counterparts. I confess that part of that superior performance is due to the Guard feeling like we have something to prove when around reguler Army units. While the Guard limousine driver has to show the WestPoint-grad convoy commander how to properly call for fire, while actualy taking fire, the Guard motorcycle sailsman is showing the 82nd Airborn Major how to properly conduct a base-defence drill. I have every confidence in the Guard.

pinqy said:
Would the militias have the a ability to continue to maintain them?
Click to expand...
Just as we can now with our thinner ranks and leaner budget.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think people shouldn't be bound to fight in wars they don't believe in, but at the same time, people should keep their word and understand what they are getting into before agreeing to anything.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm changing nothing. You, are wrong about USFP pre 20th century. It's not about what I like, I could give a **** what you believe. But if you give a **** about what American foreign policy was pre military adventurism, then read instead of blowing, understand?
Click to expand...

Again, how am I wrong when I've already shown you a wide array of examples showing your non-interventionist claim to be untrue. We created new countries, invaded others, and pretty much did the same things we've been doing since well... since the founders were around.
 
Montecresto said:
To the contrary. I'm not interested in books that you keep peddling.
Click to expand...

:) history can be upsetting for those with a need for it to fit simple narratives.
 
Hatuey said:
Again, how am I wrong when I've already shown you a wide array of examples showing your non-interventionist claim to be untrue. We created new countries, invaded others, and pretty much did the same things we've been doing since well... since the founders were around.
Click to expand...

You've shown me no such thing. I showed you that the twentieth century was the century of US intervention, provocation, military adventurism, interference, imperialism, nation building and exploitation.

The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "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."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
 
Montecresto said:
You've shown me no such thing
Click to expand...

US-Mexican war over Texas.
Creation of Liberia.
50 years of foreign intervention in China.
Monroe Doctrine in Latin America

The list goes on, you ignoring it doesn't change that.
 
Hatuey said:
US-Mexican war over Texas.
Creation of Liberia.
50 years of foreign intervention in China.
Monroe Doctrine in Latin America

The list goes on, you ignoring it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

You've been corrected on this repeatedly.

The United States hasn�t always been imperialistic. Out of the United States� 230 years as a country, it has only been within the last 100 years it has practiced imperialism. This is due in part of the infancy of the U.S. as a nation. The U.S. maintained a policy of isolationism until the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, the U.S. began to become a major player in international trade and the arena of world affairs and therefore needed more �breathing room�

Imperialism
 
Montecresto said:
You've been corrected on this repeatedly.

The United States hasn�t always been imperialistic. Out of the United States� 230 years as a country, it has only been within the last 100 years it has practiced imperialism. This is due in part of the infancy of the U.S. as a nation. The U.S. maintained a policy of isolationism until the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, the U.S. began to become a major player in international trade and the arena of world affairs and therefore needed more �breathing room�

Imperialism
Click to expand...

Good grief, I don't care what your long blog post has to say on the matter. I'm asking you about specific examples where we CLEARLY weren't isolationists. Our history in China in the 19th century covers 50 years of policies that clearly weren't isolationist. The Monroe Doctrine clearly wasn't isolationist. The creation of Liberia and our intervention in Mexico clearly weren't isolationist. So I'll ask again: What are you talking about?
 
Hatuey said:
Good grief, I don't care what your long blog post has to say on the matter. I'm asking you about specific examples where we CLEARLY weren't isolationists. Our history in China in the 19th century covers 50 years of policies that clearly weren't isolationist. The Monroe Doctrine clearly wasn't isolationist. The creation of Liberia and our intervention in Mexico clearly weren't isolationist. So I'll ask again: What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Stop being so haughty and actually read something dude, and you'll have less questions. See what scholars have said.

The scholarly literature on isolationism began in 1924 with J. Fred Rippy and Angie Debo's essay "The Historical Background of the American Policy of Isolation"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Isolationism.aspx

Isolationism or non-interventionism was a tradition in America's foreign policy for its first two centuries.

Source: Boundless. “Isolationism.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 03 Jul. 2014. Retrieved 28 Feb. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/political...can-foreign-policy-110/isolationism-582-8017/
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Stop being so haughty and actually read something dude, and you'll have less questions. See what scholars have said.
Click to expand...

Encyclopedia and Boundless.... Good grief. those are your scholars? Fine. Here are mine:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Myth of American Isolationism - Braumoeller - 2010 - Foreign Policy Analysis - Wiley Online Library
Ostrich America? | The American Conservative
https://books.google.ca/books?id=cD...epage&q=myth of American isolationism&f=false

Now, do you want to do this right? Because MY scholars actually have works published. Yours seem to hang out at encyclopedia.com.
 
Hatuey said:
Encyclopedia and Boundless.... Good grief. those are your scholars? Fine. Here are mine:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Myth of American Isolationism - Braumoeller - 2010 - Foreign Policy Analysis - Wiley Online Library
Ostrich America? | The American Conservative
https://books.google.ca/books?id=cD...epage&q=myth of American isolationism&f=false

Now, do you want to do this right? Because MY scholars actually have works published. Yours seem to hang out at encyclopedia.com.
Click to expand...

Of course conservatives argue that America has ALWAYS been imperialistic, laugh out loud. Boundless provides textbooks to more than 2,000 colleges in the US. But I wouldn't expect that you'd know this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom