• 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
Jerry said:
I am forced to pay my bills. Therefore I'm a slave, according to you. And I'm working off debt, so I'm a slave even according to me.

Therefore I have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

You agreed to pay back your debt and pay your bills. Fail.
 
Henrin said:
True, but even in those cases they provide their labor to their employer. If they were forced to provide that labor it would be slavery.
Click to expand...

If you say. But you are wrong. By your standard everyone in the service is a slave. Because its not like you can just quit.
 
Jerry said:
Which one accomplishes the goal of making the common person personally feel the pain of a poorly cast vote?
Click to expand...

is it your view, that you want normal citizens to have to have first hand experience of war OR what the reality is going to mean to them when politicians today send out troops all over the world for anything stupid?

the founders would have never believed in sending militia over into foreign lands.
 
joko104 said:
Why not just a pointed stick?
A rifle has no use against aircraft, armor, and certainly not against nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Another thought...if small arms can't harm aircraft, why aren't guns allowed into an airport's "clean zone"?
 
CRUE CAB said:
If you say. But you are wrong. By your standard everyone in the service is a slave. Because its not like you can just quit.
Click to expand...

That is called a contract that they agreed to.
 
Henrin said:
You agreed to pay back your debt and pay your bills. Fail.
Click to expand...
No I didn't, and I have the garnishment paperwork to prove it. I put off paying them for as long as I could.
 
CRUE CAB said:
If you say. But you are wrong. By your standard everyone in the service is a slave. Because its not like you can just quit.
Click to expand...

in a sense its true you are a slave, because you are now government property, and you have given up your rights as a citizen, and have now accepted the UCMJ.
 
Jerry said:
No I didn't, and I have the garnishment paperwork to prove it. I put off paying them for as long as I could.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what happens when you fail to uphold your word.
 
ernst barkmann said:
is it your view, that you want normal citizens to have to have first hand experience of war OR what the reality is going to mean to them when politicians today send out troops all over the world for anything stupid?

the founders would have never believed in sending militia over into foreign lands.
Click to expand...
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, you should be on the plane.

It's basically a "put your money where your mouth is" attitude.
 
Dayton3 said:
Not to mention being unofficially covered by the U.S. nuclear umbrella
Click to expand...

That too, Switzerland can afford to not have an actual army because other countries are fighting the fights that they profit from. And they also profit from the enemies of the US by storing the money of these enemies in their banks.
 
jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And breaking it could mean a stint in prison. Or they chase you all over the world and charge, try and jail you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...
You got it.
 
Henrin said:
That is called a contract that they agreed to.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jerry said:
"Active duty" does not mean "regular Army" because Army reserves are not active duty but are still regular Army.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that the National Guard is not as professional and does not receive as much training.
 
RFR said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like it all volunteer. Though people should be educated and experienced with firearms in general.
 
cpwill said:
:lamo Except, of course, for all those times that it invaded other areas and got into lots of wars with other countries :lol:

A book for anyone who believes that we were isolationist until WWI.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Close poll. :lamo As I said earlier, the dumbest poll ever in the history of this forum. And there have been lots of dumb polls.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/United_States_non-interventionism
 
Montecresto said:
You again, haven't you been beat down enough. Stick with things you understand, whatever that may be!
Click to expand...

What, you mean American history and foreign policy? :)

God damn it dude, when it suits your interests, America never invades countries and starts wars
Click to expand...

That's an interesting claim. Where have I stated that? :)
 
cpwill said:
What, you mean American history and foreign policy? :)



That's an interesting claim. Where have I stated that? :)
Click to expand...

You've got nothing of interest for me dude.
 
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

: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.

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."
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

: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.

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
Click to expand...

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:
 
Montecresto said:
You've got nothing of interest for me dude.
Click to expand...

:) That's because you are not interested in information that might challenge your presuppositions. You've got your stance, the facts bedamned :lol:
 
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom