Should We Abolish the Military?

[zacb]

Until recently, I would have said no. But the more I thought about Jefferson, and how he warned against standing armies, in addition to how armies should be formed ("Congress has the right to raise an army"), the Second Amendment ("The Right to Form a Militia"), as well as Costa Rica's experiment with an armyless country, and I have come to the conclusion that we should abolish a standing army, and put "troops" under states control. Although i think we should have some defense systems, such as missle defense and such, but an army should be under the control of the people, via the states. Any thoughts?

[Tsar]

I agree that most of the army should be disarmed and abolished. There is no reason why America or nuclear powers need a large standing army because nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. Soldier to Soldier combat is relatively archaic now that missiles could wipe out an entire regiment or encampment of soldiers.

However, in many countries the military employs many men. In America the army serves the purpose of policing the world, imperialism, waging wars for profit, regime change, and subjugating other nations to American neocolonialism. The American army won't be abolished or disbanded until currency collapse and the eventual bankruptcy of America force the government to have major cuts to military, defense, and security spending. One of the major forces of the shadow government is the military-industrial complex.

In our modern times smaller armies can work fine. Larger armies for countries with hostile neighbors and political or social unrest. Imperialist countries need a larger army to continue imperialism through war, colonialism, and regime change. America is imperialist and until that ends there is no chance that America will ever decrease military spending or change it's focus.

[zacb]

Before, I thought we should downsize, but then I forgot what it was, but a month or so ago, I heard something that changed my mind, and now I think we should get rid of a standing army, although I am not sure about auxiliaries. Perhaps only marine states would have navies or such. IDK. Should little old me in Michigan have to pay to secure the Atlantic if it is not likely to affect me as much as citizens of the New England states or such. I think it may be more proper that way IMO.

[Halwick]

zacb and Tsar, the world since 1941 is a very different world than the world that existed during Jefferson's time. The incident that occurred on Dec 7, 1941 forced the U.S. to pay attention to global affairs and the need for military power capabilities beyond shorlines and coastal waters to protect U.S. interests and citizens abroad, if required.

Tsar suggested there is no need for an army because we have nuclear weapons that serves as a deterrant. Well, what happens when nuclear weapons are abolished as the peace activists demands? Do you honestly believe Russia and China will abolish their nuclear weapons when the U.S. disarms completely?

After World War I ended and throughout the 1920s, the U.S., Britain and France disarmed and demobilized their military.

Then along came Hitler, Tojo and Stalin, who had ambitious expansionist ideas and used military force to invade and occupy countries after countries.

The Winds of War are back. Why is China and Russia modernizing and building up their offensive military power in an unprecedented scale not seen since the Cold War?

Why is China repeatedly deploying warships in proximity of the Senkaku Islands and Okinawa?

China just built a new aircraft carrier and has another one under construction. They are also building fighter and bomber aircraft with stealth technology and modernizing their ICBMs and army.

The U.S. is exiting as a global superpower and China is posturing to replace the U.S. as the global leader in the 21st century.

Sooner or later there is going to be a confrontation with China and/or Russia. How will your military-less U.S. going to meet that threat?

[Cornfed]

Obviously the current ZOG murder gangs should be disbanded and impaled, but any community would want to have access to some kind of professional, mechanized force given the current state of technology.

[zacb]

I never said disbanded. I was just saying we should not have a standing army. If we are going to continue with our militarism (which we probably will), consider me already gone.

As for WWII, FDR had advance warning or an attack, but allowed it anyways. In addition, we had placed an embargo on Japan, as well as raiding oil Platforms owned by the Japanese. Innocent on our part? I think not..... In all honesty, the only wars I can think of that couldn't have been prevented by peaceful means was War for Independence, and of 1812. The rest of them could have been prevented.

[Halwick]

I never said disbanded. I was just saying we should not have a standing army. If we are going to continue with our militarism (which we probably will), consider me already gone.

As for WWII, FDR had advance warning or an attack, but allowed it anyways. In addition, we had placed an embargo on Japan, as well as raiding oil Platforms owned by the Japanese. Innocent on our part? I think not..... In all honesty, the only wars I can think of that couldn't have been prevented by peaceful means was War for Independence, and of 1812. The rest of them could have been prevented.

The title of your post "Should We ABOLISH the Military".

Let me ask you something: Why did the U.S. place an embargo on Japan?
Have you forgotten that Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and then began full scale invasion in 1937?
Who was the aggressor?
China asked the U.S. for assistance and the U.S. responded through economic and diplomatic means, rather than militarily. Japan refused to withdraw. Then Japan attacked us with military force and at the same time attacked Hong Kong, Malaysia and the Philippines.

And what about Hitler's invasion of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Is the U.S. responsible for that?
How could that have been prevented? By appeasing Hitler? Britain Prime Minister Chamberlain did that just in 1939. Hitler laughed and invaded Poland anyway.

(By the way, I do agree with you that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked. He wanted the U.S involved in the war in Europe to help Britain, but couldn't commit military action without justification. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor solved his dilemma. By attacking the U.S., the U.S. could declare war on Japan and FDR knew that German and Italy, being allies with Japan, would have to declare war on the U.S. Then the U.S. could declare war on Germany and FDR now had the justification to get involved in the European war. FDR was a devious, cagey and manipulative President)

What's your response to the recent China and Russia massive military buildup and why are they doing so? Do you honestly believe their build up is because of our military? Do you think they would disarm/demobilize/abolish their military power if the U.S. does the same? I strongly doubt it, and anything to the contrary is wishful thinking at its worst.

The seeds of war are everywhere. The conflicts of interests are real and deep and will not be abolished by pious platitudes.

[zacb]

In regards to Japan invading the US, I don't think that would be realistic, since there was a gun behind every blade of grass. Second, I think that the US has been just as aggressive, albeit in other areas (such as the Indians), and if you understand my position (libertarian anarcho-capitalist), I believe that all states are inherently evil, and thus any security measure that takes liberty defeats the whole purpose of having a military in the land of the free.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. But here is my point: perhaps certain states (like Michigan, New York, California, and others that have waterways) would have navies, and such, but they would be more likely to respond to actual needs, and not the expediency of the executive branch. As far as China, the best thing we could do is to win the economic cold war by lowering taxes, deregulation, and having a gold backed dollar. I think greater economic cooperation could be a step in the right direction, as well as investing in automatic defense systems, and leave manual troops to the states. The legacy cost will be less, and we would be more likely to focus on defense, as well as cut a huge amount from the defense budget, and perhaps have the ability to abolish the income tax.

[VictimOfCapitalism]

Some militaries should be abolished, but not others. For example, militaries who have a track record of abusing their power, provoking others, use of aggression, sponsoring dictators, or manipulating the market, should be shut down. The following countries match this description- USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and just NATO in general. Others can keep their military until they are found to have done the dodgy stuff that NATO is doing right now. All states are not evil. There is good and evil in all states. It just depends on which force is prevailing, and from what I've seen, evil is prevailing in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and NATO.

[Halwick]

Some militaries should be abolished, but not others. For example, militaries who have a track record of abusing their power, provoking others, use of aggression, sponsoring dictators, or manipulating the market, should be shut down. The following countries match this description- USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and just NATO in general. Others can keep their military until they are found to have done the dodgy stuff that NATO is doing right now. All states are not evil. There is good and evil in all states. It just depends on which force is prevailing, and from what I've seen, evil is prevailing in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and NATO.

Some militaries should be abolished, but not others. For example, militaries who have a track record of abusing their power, provoking others, use of aggression, sponsoring dictators, or manipulating the market, should be shut down. The following countries match this description- USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and just NATO in general. Others can keep their military until they are found to have done the dodgy stuff that NATO is doing right now. All states are not evil. There is good and evil in all states. It just depends on which force is prevailing, and from what I've seen, evil is prevailing in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and NATO.

What about Russia (formerly Soviet Union) and China? By your definition, these countries, for the past 60 or so years, have abused their power, acted aggressively, sponsored dictators and manipulated markets. Yet you omit them as countries whose military power should be abolished.

And also, by omission, you imply that they are not evil either?

You guys are quick to be anti-US or anti-Western country, yet you ignore the abuses and atrocities and manipulations of communist countries like Russia and China. How come you're not advocating abolishing China and Russia's military?

[Ghost]

.

[zacb]

Some militaries should be abolished, but not others. For example, militaries who have a track record of abusing their power, provoking others, use of aggression, sponsoring dictators, or manipulating the market, should be shut down. The following countries match this description- USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and just NATO in general. Others can keep their military until they are found to have done the dodgy stuff that NATO is doing right now. All states are not evil. There is good and evil in all states. It just depends on which force is prevailing, and from what I've seen, evil is prevailing in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and NATO.

Some militaries should be abolished, but not others. For example, militaries who have a track record of abusing their power, provoking others, use of aggression, sponsoring dictators, or manipulating the market, should be shut down. The following countries match this description- USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and just NATO in general. Others can keep their military until they are found to have done the dodgy stuff that NATO is doing right now. All states are not evil. There is good and evil in all states. It just depends on which force is prevailing, and from what I've seen, evil is prevailing in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Britain, and NATO.

What about Russia (formerly Soviet Union) and China? By your definition, these countries, for the past 60 or so years, have abused their power, acted aggressively, sponsored dictators and manipulated markets. Yet you omit them as countries whose military power should be abolished.

And also, by omission, you imply that they are not evil either?

You guys are quick to be anti-US or anti-Western country, yet you ignore the abuses and atrocities and manipulations of communist countries like Russia and China. How come you're not advocating abolishing China and Russia's military?

I can't comment for the other poster, but here is my opinion: I think all militaries should be abolished, but that view is not reasonable. I guess what I was trying to get at was that there so be no standing army, and that congress should only be able to RAISE (take from the populace) an army in times of attack. The first line of defense would be the national guard. So basically, I think the military is still in civilian hands, but I think it should be more so, by allowing the states to control the standing armies (via the militia mentioned in the constitution , ie the national guard). As for national defense, we could debate how we could lay that out. I do believe we should have defense, but do we really need a STANDING army, that could be abused by the less ethical among us? (ie Grenada, Iraq, Vietnam,etc.) ? I never said defense was wrong, I just think we need stronger checks on it.

But back to the issue with China and Russia. I never said they were alright. But if you look at our budget vs the rest of the world's, we could probably destroy most conventional countries (guerillas, not quite sure). So all I am saying is keep enough so were are competitive vs a 4 country war for instance, but not have enough power to destroy the earth 7 times. And besides, we could use that money to pay down the debt, which if you haven't noticed, is kinda large as of late. And I know you probably thinking cut welfare. Do that too. But overall, if you believe in limited government, it should expand to all areas, not just everything except morality laws or the military. So basically, I want us to keep our classical liberal heritage.

[zacb]

Just abolishing the military-industrial complex would do. Nothing wrong with a military per se. But the U.S. military was built up like this specifically for aggression that enriches TPTB at the expense of everyone else in terms of blood and treasure. But how would it be done? The U.S. will be defeated at some point, perhaps by a force that invades and occupies the continental U.S. There's no peaceful way to overthrow the MI complex.

True. I was just saying it might be a good idea to have it so congress could RAISE an army, but not have that as an active budget item, except for maybe some defensive measures. And since our government is based upon states rights, it would make sense for states to have some say in war making, by controlling the national guard, which would be the army when the point comes we need to declare war. In the mean time, we could be more productive with our forces, like the national guard is now, except it would be under state control.

[zacb]

http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/20 ... -army.html

Here is what I am arguing. I think Jefferson's point should be well taken.

[ROCKSTAR]

the only people who would defend western imperialism by putting the focus on China, and the USSR are shills.

China and Russia were also amongst one of the few countries in the world who dared criticise the u.s regime and its allies for invading Libya. They were one of the countries courageous enough to veto the Syria resolution. Now, had China and Russia not vetod the Syria resolution, Syria would be in chaos right now, the same way Libya is. So, from this perspective, China and Russia have prevented american cowboy style tyrany from occuring in Syria.

i did not mention China and the Soviet Union, because they are not as evil as the west, japan, south korea, or singapore. the core of evil is centered in the west. we cant ignore how europeans went to all corners of the world killing people. not only is the west not ashamed of this savagry, but they made a holiday after one of the most brutal mass murderers, christopher columbus. so what does this say about western culture that they would do something so insulting. i dont think you can compare any evil with the evil of europe that went to far away places like australia, and the usa to massacre entire populations. ive never heard of China, or the USSR traveling 3000 miles to massacre entire populations. not even the Mongols were as nasty as the europeans.

maybe the USSR was aggressive at times, but the USSR maintained a much healthier balance in this world. since the fall of the USSR, the usa, and nato have been going around the world slaughtering people like never before. in this aspect alone, the USSR was more a force of good than evil, simply by denying the west the ability the right to recolonise the earth. regardless of what aggression the USSR may have been guilty of, i never heard of them traveling to australia to kill off the indigenous people.

the mere existance of the usa, canada, israel, australia, and new zealand is based on aggression, and savagry. they are forcefully occupying someone elses land. the Chinese are indigenous to China. when China travels to america, kills off the entire population, and occupies the land for 200 yrs, then we can talk about China being a threat. until then, we will have to focus on the current threat- the usa, and nato.

The British are learning how their SAS officers were caught dressing up as Arabs in Iraq, driving around with trucks full of munitions, shooting at police to stir up ethnic tensions and insure that permanent bases could be built in the region. They are learning how Haroon Aswat, the supposed mastermind behind the 7/7 bombings, was working for British Intelligence.. They are learning how British military intelligence took part in IRA bombings.

The Indians are learning how the Mumbai attack was helped by an U.S. Agent who is cooperating with investigators so that he won't face questioning by foreign authorities.

The Canadians are learning how their own provincial police dressed up as protestors in 2007 and threatened violence against other police in order to force a crackdown on peaceful protests.

And the Americans are learning that there were multiple bombs found, dismantled and taken out of the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19, 1995. They are learning that Timothy McVeigh had written a letter to his sister in which he claimed to be in the Special Forces for the U.S. Army. They are learning the bombing was being directed by FBI informants, just as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was. They are learning about 9/11 and the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods and their own Army Counterinsurgency Manuals that teach officers how to commit false flag attacks to blame on their enemies.

another reason why i did not mention China, or the USSR is because they backed populist leaders like Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Min. In other words China and the USSR enabled real democracy to happen, while the u.s regime and its allies prevented it. Indeed, the u.s. regime blocked an election that was set to take place in Viet Nam, just before the u.s regime and its allies invaded VN. Today, China and Russia continue the legacy, as they back more populist leaders like Ahmadinejad, Asad, and Gadafi. During the Korean war, Chinese and north Korean troops were welcomed with open arms by the general public, while the u.s backed forces were despised. south Korea had several attempted revolutions because of the malicious nature of the south Korean puppet regime. China treated its pow's humanely. There's a video called "They Chose China" that talks about how the Chinese treated their POW. This is in contrast to how the u.s regime tortures and humiliates its POW in Guantanamo. Actually, the u.s regime keeps these POW's locked up without proof that they were even combatants.

In fact, the u.s. regime is so shameless, it openly trains dictators at the school of the americas in ft. benning. can you imagine the outcry if China, or Russia was training world dictators? numerous british Muslims have come forward and said that mi6 is trying to recruit terrorists straight out of heathrow airport. activists say, the u.s regime is actually training terrorists in guantanamo, as many alumni that have been released have gone on to comit terror after leaving the concentration camp. Hey, the u.s, and british regimes couldn't even bribe a Chinese, or Russian to make up any stories like this about their own country.

China, USSR were helping to get rid of tyrany, whereas the west and the gang were helping to promote it. obvious recent examples include the support of Libyan terrorists. the usa, britain, and france are almost always backing extremely unpopular, and hated people like Bao Dai, ngo dinh diem, Chiang Kai Shek, Iran's shah, Saudi royal family, Qatari royals, wahabis, Muslim brotherhood, al qaeda, jundallah, suharto, tamil tigers, pinochet, and Park Chung Hee. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are all worse off after u.s. and nato invasions. the u.s regime murdered millions of people through sanctions in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, China, Viet Nam, Myanmar, North Korea, and who knows where else. ive never heard of China, or USSR comiting such atrocious acts- cutting off food supplies and purposely starving entire populations to death. the shills and the spin doctors would like to blame the genocide on their own leaders, but the truth is, the u.s regime was behind it. lots of facts to back it up if you take the time to do the research.

it looks like China, and Russia are helping local populations maintain a better lifestyle than the u.s and nato backed terrorists. Libya, under Gadafi had the highest standard of living in all of Africa. they had many social programs that would be envied by europeans. however, today, under u.s./nato dictatorship, Libyans are suffering and living a miserable life. nobody likes the new regime, and almost everyone would prefer the old way of life. the same can be said about the USSR. america helped topple the USSR, but if you talk to most people who lived during the USSR era, they prefer the USSR. the USSR's economy fell by 60% after the fall of the USSR. so as you can see, the u.s regime and its allies spends billions of dollars to topple governments, and then the people end up living a much more miserable life.

as far as China goes, i still cant think of a time when China flew 7000 miles to attack a country. but the u.s and its allies have done this twice when it went to Iraq, and Afganistan, killing millions of people, and causing millions more refugees. China nor the USSR have traveled 8500 miles to anywhere to invade a country, killing millions. however, the u.s regime, and its allies have done this twice when it invaded Viet nam, and Korea. and when the u.s regime invaded Viet Nam, it dropped more bombs on them then all of world war 2 combined. the u.s regime sits on its high horse today, criticising Asad for using chemical weapons, but thats all the u.s regime was doing in Viet Nam. so if Asad should step down, then the u.s regime should step down 100 times over.

during the Ming dynasty, when China's technology was 100 yrs ahead of the west, their navy traveled the seas. they visited such countries like Malaysia, and Indonesia. today, Zheng He (their admiral) is revered as a god, and worshipped by southeast Asians. the Chinese, although they had a strong military, did not try to conquer countries, instead, they brought gifts. and after they visited, they just left. this in contrast to columbus who killed 1 million native americans per year, and occupied the native american's land. today, columbus is hated by all native americans, and the native americans land continue to be forcefully occupied by the white man.

the u.s military broke terrorists out of prison in Libya. ive never heard of China, or the USSR doing such criminally insane acts. british sas troops were also caught red handed doing terrorism, dressed up in Muslim suits. they obviously tried to frame Muslims for terrorism done by british troops. again, ive never heard of China, or the USSR behind such heinous acts.

cia black sites- ive never heard of China, or USSR hosting such sites across the globe. on the other hand, the u.s regime operates many of these sites openly. the u.s regime admits to having 20 locations around the world, including Thailand, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Kosovo, and of course Egypt.

well, i dont even need to talk about israel do i? it's an illegal regime that isnt even recognised by many countries. they are going against what they agreed to and building illegal settlements. israelis are known terrorists. the jews complain about how the germans screwed them, but now theyre doing the same thing to the Palestinians, and israel is constantly trying to provoke Syria. israel is one of the only countries in the world to still practice apartheid, and Palestinians are prisoners in their own land. israel's the only country in the middle west with nukes, and nobody really wants to talk about it. Iraq was invaded because they had "wmd", but why doesnt anyone invade a rogue israel for having wmd? because here we literally have a regime using kids as human shields. i used to wonder why everyone hated jews, and even felt sorry for them at some point, but today im begining to see why everyone hates jews.

in conclusion, while China, and Russia are screwed up in their own ways, they are nothing compared to the west, and their allies. China, Russia, the third world should be able to keep their military, if for no other reason, than to prevent the rise of the usa and its allies from ever menacing the world again.