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

    Anybody who knows anything about leadership knows that whoever wants to be the leader MUST take the burden of responsibility. It is a leader's FULL respoonsibility that the population is happy. Any leader who does not understand such responsinility is an incompetent and worthless joke.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    You know, dissent is a very fine thing, and I think it's important that we have people who want to keep our government in check. But dude, be smart about it. You obviously aren't even informed on what actually goes on here. You're just being loud for the sake of being loud. There's no substance to your complaints.

    I mean, de-militarize the US? First, good luck trying. Seriously, who do you think would even have the stones to enforce that? Second, we've been within our legal rights every step of the way during the Afghan and Iraqi war. Third, this world does not want a United States without a military. Take our weapons away, and watch Israel crumble, while Russia and China fight over Europe and the Middle East. I'm not saying the US is always right, but our mere presence on the world stage is enough to keep the rest of the big guns in check.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Happiness is determined by the individual and can differ greatly from person to person. To believe that a leader is fully responsible for such a wild, abstract, often times irrational, every now and then harmful, concept is ridiculous.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kadark Banned Banned

    I agree with you, in the sense that the U.S. should not be demilitarized. All nations have the right to maintain a formidable military, in order to protect themselves if a danger ever does arise. That being said, the rest of your post is largely nonsense. Of course, realistically speaking, no nation has the ability to simply render the U.S.'s military defunct, although that is truly not the objective of its enemies. No nation whose economy was in a poor condition has been able to sustain its military prowess and dominance. The U.S.'s economy is perpetually falling, and the level of its growing debt can never be paid. These facts are foremost in the minds of America's enemies, as they plan to destroy its economy rather than its military, which is a much more realistic plan.

    Actually, you haven't. Morally, your nation has no right to speak of the misdeeds of others, especially when those misdeeds have been committed on the basis of your historical support and encouragement. If you wish to speak in terms of legality, then you're still dead wrong. Your nation had no right to invade a sovereign nation simply because it contained the fictitious headquarters of "al-Qaeda", which we know now to be nothing more than arid terrain and generic "mountains". In the case of Iraq, you had absolutely no legal right whatsoever. It was a pre-emptive strike, and it was launched without congressional approval, which violates the laws of your very own nation. In addition to these illegitimate wars, your nation has committed unspeakable war crimes, ranging from the usage of chemical weapons to indiscriminately kill or harm civilians and militants alike, to the disgraceful torturing of men, women, and children who were arbitrarily abducted and given no right to a fair trial.

    That's plain wrong. Given the current state of affairs, and the U.S.'s militaristic outlook, I'd say the greater portion of humanity would like to see a U.S. armed modestly at best.

    Aside from certain American citizens, most people in the world dislike the state of Israel, and couldn't care less if it crumbled. Besides, if Israel can only be sustained by using another nation as life support, then perhaps it's not worthy of being an independent state, after all? In fact, the U.S. military has never truly been targeted simply for being American by "terrorists"; it has been targeted for supporting the likes of Israel.

    As opposed to the U.S. fighting over them? Wow, what a difference! Russia and China may not be pacifists, and their role in worldwide armament circulations is certainly not to be underestimated; however, their level of influence and interference with foreign nations is miniscule compared to the that of the U.S.'s role.

    If the U.S. was a non-interventionist nation with the military it currently has today, your point would be well taken. However, it is not a non-interventionist nation; instead, it is a military empire, and its expansion (largely for natural resources/Israel) is dangerous to most areas of the globe. Why should anybody fear the dangers of the "big guns", when the biggest gun of them all commits wrongdoings far worse? Your argument, essentially, is that we should appreciate the U.S. for being ... well, the U.S. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    A few problems with this. First, a nation has the right to a military so long as they don't bargain that right away, such as Japan did when they surrendered to the US during WWII.

    Second, the idea that the US will never be able to pay down its debt is not fact, nor is it fact that our economy weakens our world position. We have practically become a mini-socialist state in order to save the economy from falling into a depression (which, even then, would only be temporary). Also, we have the United Nations, which would prevent any aggressor from doing anything about it.

    Actually, Kardak, you're really wrong about this, but I don't blame you for not knowing it. Iraq had violated conditions of it's cease-fire, and conditions of UN resolutions passed in a final effort to gain compliance. As far as Congressional approval, that just goes to show that you've done no research on this matter. Bush could not have acted without Congressional approval. In October of 2002, they passed a resolution giving Bush the power to wage war in Iraq.

    I don't disagree with you regarding our abhorrent behavior towards supposed POWs. I have never heard a report, however, regarding our torturing of women and children. Given your lack of accurate knowledge of the legality of the war in Iraq, I will have to assume you're wrong about that, as well.

    Given the current state of affairs, popular opinion is definitely against us. However, popular opinion does not equate to fact, nor does it speak for the potential consequences of a US without military power. That is to say, it may very well be the "in" thing to say around the world that the US needs to lose it's military (not that it is, I'm just saying for the sake of argument) but the reality of the situation is that it would be a disaster for many nations.

    First of all, it doesn't matter who wants Israel around. Second, you're talking out of your ass when you say that most people in the world dislike Israel. That's your own bias speaking. Third, it doesn't matter if Israel requires our assistance to maintain its peace and freedom; Europe would be East and West Germany if not for Russia and the US. Does that mean no nation in Europe deserves to be an independent state? Of course not. Just because some racist scumbags in the Middle East don't want a certain people to be free and have their own nation doesn't mean they're right. If they don't want Israel free, do something about it.

    If only the idiots in that region would stop giving us an excuse to be there.

    I assume you either live in, were born in, or are from a Middle Eastern nation? The fact is that your people have given us a reason to be in the region. In 1991, Saddam decided to invade one of our allies. In 2001, terrorists from that region flew airplanes into our buildings. Remember that; we would not be at war right now without the provocation of your people. That's a fact. Even if we were the most evil empire on the planet and were itching for a reason, we wouldn't have had it without the attacks on 9/11.

    You don't have to agree with me on this. Try as you might, your opinion does not change the truth.
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Pure speculation, and inccorect. Furthermore, USA has non authorization from the taxpayer to keep anybody in check. Our presence overseas is unethical, and for nothing but pure profits of the rich lutocratic fascists that control and deceive the docile followers into submission.

    Not to mention Israel's military is a major force of oppression in the middle east. They terrorize as much as any middle eastern dictator. Nobody is a bigger terrorist than the USA.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  10. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    1. It shouldn't be our responsibility to bail out other countries who can't defend themselves, or to invade other countries to enforce UN sanctions.

    2. Our intervention in the ME was a direct contributing factor to 9/11. Was the act abhorrent, and evil? Absolutely. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the US was completely innocent in the matter.

    3. "Your people"? A select group of individuals from different countries (most from Saudi Arabia) got together and commited an act of terrorism. How is that a provocation from whatever it is that comprises Kadark's "people"?
  11. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    There is are common threads in a healthy lifestyle.
    1. Freedom from physical harm.
    2. Freedom to roam the natural earth.
    3. A place to call home. A comfortable living quarters.
    4. Convenient access to everyday necessities.
    5. Highly competent services in educational and personal physical fitness facilities.
    6. Clean environment.
    7. Natural health maintenance and emergency medical care.
    8. Fast communications, fast transit, clean water, and sufficient energy.
    9. Fair treatment under law. Fair trials. Human rights.
    10. Ownership of personal property. Ability to afford the best standards in living with minimum work hours.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  12. Kadark Banned Banned

    So, do you honestly believe that Japan, as of today, should not be able to fund and train a reliable military solely for self-defense? After all, their attack on Pearl Harbour was sixty years ago, and it was committed by them when they were an empire. Today, the Japanese have a completely different regime, fixed borders, and virtually no human rights violations whatsoever under their name. Isn't it Japan's right to develop a military to protect itself? Or, is it simply a matter of time? If so, wouldn't the number be highly arbitrary? If Japan is allowed a military twenty years from now, why not today? After all, their policies and treatment of citizens and foreigners alike is not estimated to improve. Essentially, you are saying that Japan of 2008 should not be allowed to build a military because of the transgressions its predecessors committed. Under such a flimsy argument, why should any nation be permitted a military?

    What you seem to be ignoring, from a historical viewpoint, are the circumstances of the Pearl Harbour attack, and the circumstances of Japan’s surrender. First of all, the Pearl Harbour attack was a result of direct American provocation, as its leaders were very interested in entering the second World War. As I’m sure you’ve already heard before, Japanese assets were frozen, Japanese enemies were funded and given armaments, and Japanese trade was halted, all at the demand of top U.S. officials, including Roosevelt. Under such circumstances, why wouldn’t Japan attack the U.S.? Let’s not forget, three days before the attack, Australian intelligence warned Roosevelt about an attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, which was purposely ignored. In addition, former Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, had this to say in a journal of his prior to the attack, outlining a conversation he had with Roosevelt: “The question was how do we maneuver the Japanese into the first shot...It was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this, so that there should be no doubt that they were the aggressors.” Doesn’t this seem highly suspicious?

    In addition, it’s vital to consider the circumstances of Japan’s surrender, or more properly, the events which caused it. Two of the most infamous attacks in history were committed against Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as hundreds of thousands of people (mostly civilians) were instantly vaporized due to atomic weapons. These weapons were not used by the U.S. because they were in a desperate state of war; instead, they were used as a method of instilling fear into other competing nations in the post-war era, in addition to being a test for future weapons to come. In a sense, the Japanese were made into guinea pigs, all under the pretense of winning a war that was discreetly caused by the U.S. itself. Sure, at the time, the Japanese had no choice but to surrender, considering two cities of theirs were wiped off the face of the map by weapons which were plentiful in America’s arsenal. However, most neutral individuals can easily call the atomic attacks what they truly were: unparalleled war crimes. How does this relate to today? Well, you are under the impression that the modern nation of Japan should not be allowed to have a military, simply because they surrendered to the U.S. sixty years ago due to American war crimes. Does any of this seem reasonable to you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What does that eerie image illustrate to you? To me, it resembles somewhat of an exponential function! The fact is, your nation’s debt has been tumultuously increasing since the days of the Federal Reserve System. Considering the fact that none of your nation’s spineless, corrupt Zionist candidates are discussing the Central Bank menace, your nation’s debt can only go in one direction - up. The debt has been raised to such a tremendous figure that, given the current hardships and the bleak future, one can rationally say that it will never be paid.

    As for your other silly statement, “nor is it fact that our economy weakens our world position”, I ask, “are you crazy?” What other explanation is there? Of course your economy affects your world position! You boast of your nation’s military, but it’s only a matter of time before America’s dwindling economy takes with it to hell any strength that had remained. Very soon, your own countrymen will be waking up in the streets with no health care, home, or education. Do you honestly believe you can sustain your military’s budget when your own citizens are losing their homes? Throughout history, defunct economies have always meant one thing, and one thing only: the severe crippling of the nation’s military, many times to the point of utter extinction. Are you so arrogant as to believe you’re an exception?

    Oh, so you’re operating under the presumption that UN law is universal law? I see. Your argument, therefore, is that Saddam violated shoddy conditions of “ceasefire”, which allowed for, in legal terms, an American-led invasion. I have a few problems with your viewpoint, and if you don’t mind, I’ll express a few.

    First and foremost, pre-emptive war (as witnessed by the United States) flagrantly contradicts the UN’s legal framework. The following satisfactorily explains the UN’s position on pre-emptive warfare; that is, a war which is not in response to a direct military attack (which, as we all know, was not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan).

    "The UN Charter is clear that wars of aggression are prohibited. Article 2(4) states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This prohibition on the use of force finds an exception in Article 51 of the Charter, which allows for the possibility of self-defense.

    Article 51 states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” It should be emphasized that this exception to the general prohibition against the use of force is only valid in the event of “an armed attack” and only “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

    According to the UN’s legal framework which you are adamantly supportive of, the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly illegal. In the case of Iraq, there was no direct attack organized and led by Iraqi leadership against the United States. In the case of Afghanistan, “al-Qaeda”, a fictitious organization, was the reason for the invasion, which completely ignores the sovereignty of the rest of the nation. But, since you are discussing Saddam and Iraq, I will do the same, which leads me to my second concern, explained below.

    You are stating that the American-led war against Iraq was done so (legally) because Saddam had violated his conditions for a ceasefire. If that is the case, can you please explain to us why it was not mentioned formally as the excuse for war? There are two prominent excuses for the Iraq war: Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and his connection to al-Qaeda (which implies his connection to the attacks of 9/11). As you can see, the reasons given to the public for the war did not include “Saddam’s violation of a ceasefire”; instead, the two aforementioned reasons were the justifications for the war. Here is the problem: both of the reasons for war were completely dishonest. To date, not a single weapon of mass destruction has been located, despite former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s convincing description of their location: “They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” The other reason was Saddam’s connection to al-Qaeda, and therefore, 9/11. Yet, after reviewing 600,000 Iraqi documents, the Pentagon itself admitted to finding no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda! To add insult to injury, the top officials of the nation pushing for the war at the time back-pedalled on their positions, claiming to have never supported the Hussein-al-Qaeda connection. The fact of the matter is, Saddam Hussein was diametrically opposed to Islamic fundamentalists, just as he was bitterly opposed to the religious revolution in Iran. Saddam killed hundreds of these so-called “terrorists” when he found them in his nation, which is a fact I’m telling you simply to illustrate the foolish arguments given to the public for the Iraq war.

    If a female in your family was raped in prison by soldiers, would you consider it to be a form of torture? If so, then yes, Iraqi and Afghani women and children have most definitely been tortured. However, I am getting the sense that you don’t believe me, even though countless human rights groups have documented cases of Iraqi and Afghani women and children being raped, sexually harassed, and sexually humiliated, at times in front of family members and loved ones.

    Here is one such article describing the U.S.’s brutal violations of Geneva: in Prison.html

    But really, would a rational individual put the torture of women and children to be beyond the U.S.? Interestingly enough, I was watching a documentary just yesterday which outlined the U.S.’s torture techniques in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib alike. Men were beaten, had their genitals electrocuted, hung by their wrists for days on end, sexually humiliated, put on dog leashes, and even smeared with menstrual blood. Under such a barbaric army’s control, who is to say women and children are safe?

    “Many” nations? Hmm … the U.S., Israel … actually, I think that’s just about it. When small nations face imminent danger, such as the recent case of Georgia, the bastion of freedom you call the United States does absolutely nothing. Why? Well, there are only two possible answers: either the U.S. only “supports” weak nations when it can largely benefit itself, or it is cowardly in the face of powerful nations, such as Russia. So, which one is it? I find it incredibly amusing that you wish to speak on behalf of the entire world. The most reasonable stance to take is what I’m offering: given the public protests in virtually every nation on Earth against the Iraq war (especially including nations Bush has visited), and the unpopular nature of this war globally, it’s safe to say that most people worldwide do not appreciate America’s “heroic” antics. The numbers suggest that people would rather the U.S. mind its own business, and refrain from policing the world, which is implicative of wanting the U.S. to have a modest military which keeps to itself. You are an American and I am not, so perhaps it is easier for me to understand this phenomena than it is for you. Maybe you are genuinely dumbfounded as to why people don’t appreciate your nation’s willingness to invade foreign nations and build permanent military bases and oil pipelines within them. As a Canadian, I can safely say that just about everybody here thinks your nation is an oppressive empire hellbent on stealing oil. Sure, Canada doesn’t represent the entire world, but it’s a very telling trend, in the sense that your very neighbours disharmonize with practically everything your military is doing. You may appreciate your military’s actions, but please, do not make it seem as if the rest of us do. The only two nations which seem to have a problem with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and the rest of the “evil” axis, is the U.S. and Israel - or, in other words - the match made in hell.

    It’s actually very true. In fact, the only nation on Earth whose citizens genuinely approve of Bush and the work his administration has done is - you guessed it - Israel. The UN has called Israel out on over seventy violations of universal resolutions and conventions, although Israel is protected because its “ally”, the U.S., bails it out with its veto power. Yes, that’s right: the UN cannot issue any type of solid verdict against Israel, because the U.S. will override it every single time. So, then, is it really my own bias speaking? Or has the world, by and large, had enough of Israel’s illegal occupation and brutal treatment of its neighbours?

    Racist? The Jews are not a race; they are a people of a particular faith. That being said, wishing for Israel’s government to be toppled does not make on a racist. Interestingly enough, Palestinian Jews, Christians, and Muslims, not to mention Orthodox Jews, believe Israel to be an illegitimate state. Are they, too, racist? The fact of the matter is, they are living on the land of the displaced Palestinians. The land was promised to Arabs by the British themselves, signed in ink. The land was inhabited by the Palestinians continuously for centuries. All things considered, how could one support the European Jew’s venture into Palestine? At the end of the day, it’s not their land, so opposing their occupation doesn’t make one a racist.

    It’s not their fault they were born atop the world’s most generous oil fields.

    Wow, I can’t believe you guessed it! I mean, I’ve only been dropping clues in over 3,000 posts of mine. Well, technically, I don’t live in, nor was I born in, a Middle Eastern nation; I was born and live in Canada. My family is Turkish and Iraqi, though. Who wants to know?

    Oh dear, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? Don’t make me laugh. Kuwait belongs to Iraq; historically, religiously, ethnically, and culturally, Kuwait and Iraq have been identical for the greater portion of history. Kuwait was created following exchanges between the UK and Emir Abdullah Al-Salim in the 1960s. That being said, returning the Emir to Kuwait (who was a dictator, by the way) was not the only reason for the Gulf War. Recall that in 1981, Israel launched Operation Opera, which was a mission to destroy nuclear facilities in the city of Osirak, Iraq. Turns out, the facilities were not completely destroyed, nor did they meet their fate when Iran attacked them again during their eight-year war with Iraq. Israel, which greatly feared Saddam’s increasing power in the region, wished for Iraq’s nuclear reactors to be completely destroyed. What did they do to get the job done? They did what they were best at: getting their goons in America to do it for them! No sooner did the Gulf War begin, than the nuclear facilities end. So, protecting the dictator Emir of Kuwait simply wasn’t a reasonable defense for invading Iraq. Why didn’t the U.S. protect its NATO ally, Georgia, from Russia? Is it because they’re not oil-buddies, or is it because America is scared of Russia? Either way, both answers will be most uncomfortable for you!

    The events of 9/11 were organized and perpetrated by the highest elements of your government, and of Israel’s. It is simply another sacrifice committed by the powers that be in order to justify expansionist and militaristic policies. 9/11 was needed to overthrow Saddam, who made the mistake of demanding euros for his oil over dollars in the year 2000. The Taliban made the mistake of refusing to allow American companies to build gigantic pipelines from the Caspian sea to India, Pakistan, etc. The neoconservatives in your government needed 9/11 for geopolitical purposes, and they collaborated with Israel, who wanted, and still fight for, complete domination of the Middle Eastern region. Just like the Lusitania was deliberately allowed to enter German-controlled waters, just like the Pearl Harbour attack was provoked months in advance, just like the Tonkin incident was a blatant lie engineered to engage in war with the North Vietnamese, 9/11 was planned and executed by globalist Americans and Israelis. Osama bin Laden denied taking part in the attacks, so you simply made a false video of him “admitting to the attacks”, which was conveniently found in an Afghani cave. What all of this is, is a game for power played on a global scale. Some of us believe America to be a spreader of peace and democracy; others see the shallow speeches and military occupations for what they really are.

    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.

    Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”
  14. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    And each and every one of those things can be compromised by individual desires and acts made in self interest. Still don't understand why you think some supreme leader can guarantee all of them, nor why he/she should be held fully responsible for them. What you're suggesting is as of this moment impossible.
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    It is not impossible. It is expected of competent leadership.
  16. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Very minor nitpick because I'm interested:

    At the time of the attacks against Japan, the US had produced exactly four nuclear weapon cores. One was the uranium-fueled gun type weapon used at Hiroshima. The other three were plutonium implosion devices. One was used at the Trinity test on July 16th. One was used over Nagasaki on August 9th. The third and final core was used in 1946 during Operation Crossroads. All four of them were hand-built prototypes. Mass production of nuclear weapon cores and stockpiling did not begin in earnest until 1947, and even then, the US did not have a plentiful supply of deployable weapons (or the means to deliver them en masse) for several years afterward. It really wasn't until the Soviets tested Joe-4 in 1949 that the US started building a large strategic arsenal with Curtis LeMay's objective of being able to "kill a nation".
  17. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    I voted yes!!! Word, can you imagine how bad things would get if China and Russia were left with their armies?!?!! ouch

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page