Should USA be allowed to have a military?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2008.


Should USA be allowed to have a military?

  1. Yes

    39 vote(s)
  2. No

    10 vote(s)
  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    I realized that Japan isn't allowed to have a military. If anybody shouldn't be allowed to have a military it's the USA.

    1. USA military is a massive campaign to commit terror around the world for land, cheap human labor, and resources.

    2. USA military is funded by the working class of the USA, and makes billions in profits for the rich.

    3. The USA military doesn't protect anything. It's only purpose is to destroy the lives of earthlings for the profits of the rich.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Who is going to enforce it ? And how ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    What do you mean "isn't allowed". How do you explain all those Japanese troops?
    The ones they deployed in some UN force.
    They have restrictions imposed by the UN, but they aren't "for all time" or anything completely ridiculous like that.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    It is in the Constitution that there must be one.
  8. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    They're actually in violation of their constitution in having a military. The military that they do have is handicapped in certain ways too, but I can't recall the specifics. The UN activity is basically the only overseas activity they're allowed to partake in.

    Funny enough, many of the founding fathers were explicitly against having a standing army.

    Oh, and I voted Yes out of principle. If lixluke is against it, it must be right.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
  9. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    I always thought Lixluke was existabrent/sisyphus.
    They're both logged in so I guess not.

    Anyway, I nominate Lixluke to clean up the US military. Report back as to how it goes.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Well if it's in the constitution, it doesn't matter.
    The military is out of control, and needs to be dismantled like Japan.
  11. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    I think that most proponents of the MIC would quickly point to WWII and ask what if there was no US military.
    It's true enough and is a worthy augment.
    I will take another route.
    Noting that any large military installation is going to have certain percentage of corruption, The US military is like any other organization.
    It's massive so that theoretical "number" of crooks is considerable.
    That being said, it's not my final point.

    "Freedom" is contagious, period.
    For years, every countries people who saw it, wanted it. Not only to go there but also to bring it home. It still goes on today and hangs in the balance for a great number of folks.
    The US military is the champion of that way of life. It's kept them fed and feeling good for a long time making sure countries x,x and x have at least three different kinds of shampoo to choose from(and everything else).
    It's always Important to remember that they don't always disclose the real nature of a particular campaign. Many times it's tied to many issues and countries. It's known that China has NOT been slacking on the military end now that they're seeing huge profits from the new business that the USA has ensured them.
    Regardless of the screams about supplies,3rd world working conditions and pollution."Free" market is very liberating to people.
    If they( the US military) were to pack everything up and disband, I think there would be a lot more uproar than cheering.

    So I vote Yes to the US military.They stay.

    I think also, they're (USMIC) realizing that the people aren't too happy to use other countries as glorified training ops. We're (civilians) striving for an "everyone wins" world. Everyone can't be winner when the world is full of fighting forces. Simple as that.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Actually Japan is now allowed a military, this is the reason that they were actually deployed to Iraq as peacekeepers by the UN, they were actually eager to prove themselves and show they are apart of the international community.

    In truth all militaries shouldn't be allowed, disallowing them would mean no organised fighting. However it doesn't mean that conflicts would suddenly be resolved, it just means that certain organisations would sprout up from the anarchy and still be on about oppressing the small man, taking his stuff and looking out just for themselves.

    Rubbish. If there is any exploitation by any military it's caused by corruption within their hierarchy, this usually leads a muddy trail right back to the rooms that politicians are "debating" in.

    The military employees people that otherwise would be a burden on the labour market (This was one of the main reasons that China has the largest Military force in the world, not because they were destined to go on an invasion spree but because it was an attempt to deal with poverty prior to trade embargo's being overruled), they can be asked to help in disaster scenarios not just by their own country but by the UN. Sometimes the more Prudent people within the Military realise that some of their Militaristic advances can be converted into Civilian related products and services. It just takes them a while to get round the whole "National Security Super Secrecy" to provide any benefits to the common man.

    Actually I think they are first charged with the protection of their own country, then the protection of others that they have pacts with. This includes having pacts with say the U.N. and why they are called on to aid when trouble erupts around the world.

    I won't lie, there are a lot of problems in the world caused by the corruptor's that are just after power and material gain, these people however are never a majority, they are a controlling minority that are clever enough to keep their control... at least until ousted.
  13. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    No, it should be stronger, and under Semitic control:shrug:
  14. Reiku Banned Banned


    I said no, but i'd rather not say why, because it isn't very realistic. It's more morality based.
  15. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Yet, the "evil" "greedy" "right-wing" USA manages to donate more to charity around the world than any other nation.

    There are rich people in just about every country making profits. Just look at Communist Cuba .
    The difference between "greedy" Capitalists and greedy Communists is Capitalists EARN their money when the public volunteerily purchases their products. Communists just TAKE everything from everyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    American military "terrorizing" people. I suppose that's true in the eyes of Communists, Nazis, and radicals that hate freedom and democracy.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    As a percent of GDP I belive the Europeans beat the United States in terms of international charity. However, I agree Cazzo with your statement about the American military. Only those who attack the United States or engage in genocide and terror need worry about the American military showing up on their doorsteps.

    With one exception, we have been thinking about invading Canada for a long time...ever since Benedict Arnold failed in the attempt two hundred years ago. But then they have the French up there, and who wants the French?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I think Americans have shown that they are not grown up enough to handle weapons. They should be sent to the corner and have their privileges taken away till they learn to play with others.
  18. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Excellent idea. I personally can't think of any better international scenario than China and Russia being the only major-armed nations. Those two nations have certainly proven their humanitarian pedigree.
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    And they are not burdened by silly religious delusions. It could not get any better. Like western troops in Afghanistan, they clearly are not to be discriminated against for a different culture, language, ideology and the use of force to impose their principles on others.
  20. Kadark Banned Banned

    Of course the U.S. should be allowed to have a military; the ability to protect oneself is not negotiable. I don't think the magnitude of their military should matter, either, considering virtually every country worldwide competes in arms races of some sort. My only problem is the elite personnel in America secretly guiding the Empire. Besides, if America unarms, their policeman position will simply be usurped by the next in line.

    Kadark the Weapon
  21. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Right. The Chinese do not in any way have a one-sided, narrow, censored and dogmatic view of the world. The flourishing of free ideas and open opinions has worked to ensure the peaceful political involvement of all citizens in the democratic and humanitarian cause of the federal government.
  22. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    i dont think any country should have a military. so long as the people are sufficiently armed to defend themselves then it would allow for a defense against not only other countries, but their own government.
  23. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    nah.,they still arent allowed a military which is why its called the self defense force despite the fact that they have the third largest military budget in the world....
    they went into iraq in a non-combatant role.they still arent allowed to engage in combat.there was a big debate about it about a year ago when abe wanted to change article 9 and failed.

Share This Page