• 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?

Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Belgium doesn't have the money they can at least bring the beer.
 
If we didn't have an army we'd have to hire people to pick up cigarette butts at army bases.
 
azgreg said:
How many are actually operational?
Click to expand...

2, 4 are used for flying useless Politicians around. We had at one time 40, but those were assigned to dumb politicians and the fleet has been decimated dues to crashes. Only the pilot had a chute. Now ain't that lucky.
 
Tigerace117 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of Virginia Class sub ... never mind. You make a 1941 reference. Ridiculous. Before Satellites. Waste of time here.
 
coldjoint said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet - Vietnam didn't work out. Neither is the GWoT.
 
fmw said:
So the wars after Korea were partial wars. Is that something like being half pregnant?
Click to expand...

NO. It means that when General MacArthur says to drop nukes, and a non-strategic Oval Office suit says - NO ... that is NOT total war.
 
shrubnose said:
If we didn't have an army we'd have to hire people to pick up cigarette butts at army bases.
Click to expand...

The Army calls them posts not bases but I did get a chuckle from the comment.
 
GoNavy said:
NO. It means that when General MacArthur says to drop nukes, and a non-strategic Oval Office suit says - NO ... that is NOT total war.
Click to expand...

I see. I would just say that it is war managed by politicians rather than military officers. We continue to wage wars this way and it is pretty stupid. The idea of engaging in a military campaign without the will to do what is required to win it as quickly as possible with as little loss of life as possible is inexplicable to me. The nukes dropped on Japan won the war as quickly as possible and saved millions of lives. That was a war managed by military officers but had the will in government to get it done. Now we worry about what people think, not what will get the job done. The president should lay out the mission and expected outcome and then leave the military alone to get it done.
 
GoNavy said:
NO. It means that when General MacArthur says to drop nukes, and a non-strategic Oval Office suit says - NO ... that is NOT total war.
Click to expand...

In your opinion if a country has the opportunity to carpet bomb or nuke their opposition but doesn't, they are not at total war. We have to update our history books.
 
Blue_State said:
In your opinion if a country has the opportunity to carpet bomb or nuke their opposition but doesn't, they are not at total war. We have to update our history books.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify if you are referring to a Ted Cruz carpet bombing or the correct interpretation of carpet bombing? :2razz:
 
GoNavy said:
NO. It means that when General MacArthur says to drop nukes, and a non-strategic Oval Office suit says - NO ... that is NOT total war.
Click to expand...

No it means the Military is subordinate to the people-Govt.
 
Redress said:
You mean like Japan...

And no, the JSDF does not count.
Click to expand...

They can survive without an army because they know that if China gets too rambunctious, Uncle Sam will be there to protect them. The Japan argument is ridiculous.

And if you don't think the Japanese are worried as hell about China, you haven't been paying attention.
 
I think scaling back our military is a wonderful idea, given as how we now have a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize running Russia. :lamo And look how will it worked for us during the 30's, when we had a smaller army than Rumania.

Do any of you people ever read a history book? No nation has ever been attacked because it was perceived as being too strong militarily. The reverse, sadly, is not true.
 
Blue_State said:
In your opinion if a country has the opportunity to carpet bomb or nuke their opposition but doesn't, they are not at total war. We have to update our history books.
Click to expand...



Oh for the love of God, let's justify horror by changing the name. War is war, whether it meets someone's definition of 'total' war is a mere academic exercise.
 
Well, I think you can make the argument that being the most important member of NATO, we should spend more. However, there is no excuse for those 26 countries not meeting the self-imposed goal of 2%. None.
 
JANFU said:
2, 4 are used for flying useless Politicians around. We had at one time 40, but those were assigned to dumb politicians and the fleet has been decimated dues to crashes. Only the pilot had a chute. Now ain't that lucky.
Click to expand...

I like that form of gov't: Leadership by way of crash survival....
 
Ntharotep said:
Because the bleeding hearts won't let us just assassinate our enemies like a decent society.
Click to expand...

Apparently, some still haven't gotten the memo how important it is to be the good guy who plays fair. Yeah, it would seem a no-brainer that all's fair in love and war, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to go around assassinating the bad guys and the not-so-rational actors, the world public opinion be damned, right? Because in today's world, we have to assume that the word would get out that we did it.

And the answer is, so what, right? Just like with the torture at Abu Ghirab, who the hell cares, we're trying to save our fellow servicemembers' lives and win a war so shut the hell up and get out of the way, right?

Not so much. Even if torture were every bit as effective as some want to claim (and it's not), actions like assassinations and torture have larger and deeper effects - all of which are bad for the nation which committed those crimes. A great example lay in Germany's invasion of Belgium in WWI.

Even until the day that Germany invaded Belgium on the way to France, England - the world's greatest superpower at the time - was officially neutral, and the majority of the population believed they would not go to war over Belgium despite England's treat obligation to do so if someone invaded Belgium. The Germans did invade on the assumption that the Belgians - with full knowledge that they couldn't hope to stop the Germans - would wisely step aside and let them through. The Belgians instead had a 'Gandalf moment' - "You shall not pass!" So the fit hit the shan...and the English declared war as a direct result.

At the time, the Germans - as in WWII - had a policy of collective punishment: if a partisan or sniper attacked the occupying German army or attempted to hinder its progress, they would kill a certain number of Belgian citizens from the closest town - sometimes just a few, sometimes a hundred or more - in order to teach the locals that war is not fair, leave us alone and we will let you live, try to hinder us, and we will make you regret it.

Many reports of the German Army's cruelty got out and were used to incredible effect by the French, American, and especially the British Empire's press. It was these reports of the German Army's atrocities that began to turn the attitude of the Americans against Germany, and the American government began conducting crucial trade deals much more favorably to England than to Germany. What's more, the stories of the Germans' atrocities were used to rally and inflame the passions of the Dominions, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, allowing England to much more easily draw upon those populations for manpower and supplies.

In other words, it's not much of a stretch to say that their cruelty towards the Belgians was certainly one of the largest factors - if not the largest single factor - in Germany's loss of WWI. Their abhorrent actions turned the world against them, and gave their enemies wonderful recruiting tools, making it much easier to attract recruits (England's army was all-volunteer until about 1916) than it would have been otherwise.

THAT, sir, is the value of "playing fair" even in wartime - even if doing so costs you lives in the short run, maintaining the goodwill and sympathies of the rest of the world pays huge dividends in the long run.
 
Blue_State said:
In your opinion if a country has the opportunity to carpet bomb or nuke their opposition but doesn't, they are not at total war. We have to update our history books.
Click to expand...

That is the 20th century definition. So, I am very close to agreeing with you. According to my American Military History college course. It was an allusion to our management of Vietnam and Korea ... but still applies to the GWoT.
 
JANFU said:
No it means the Military is subordinate to the people-Govt.
Click to expand...

Which is why Mac stepped down. He was subordinate and never acted without approval.

THE POINT - which you clearly missed - was for the Oval Office to RESPECT the tactical and strategic opinion of those with experience. Which Truman CLEARLY did not.
 
Wiggen said:
I think scaling back our military is a wonderful idea, given as how we now have a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize running Russia. :lamo And look how will it worked for us during the 30's, when we had a smaller army than Rumania.

Do any of you people ever read a history book? No nation has ever been attacked because it was perceived as being too strong militarily. The reverse, sadly, is not true.
Click to expand...

So - by your logic - 20th century warfare applies to an $18TRILLION GDP country who is protected on both sides by the largest oceans in the world ... has some of the most cutting-edge tech warfare equipment ... has more aircraft carriers than ANY country by FAR ... has more operating nuclear subs than any country by FAR ... has more satellites, research agencies, and on and on and on ...

And you think we need to look to Depression era to learn a lesson? hahaha Apples and Oranges. Troll points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom