Want to go back to the Founding Fathers' intent? Get rid of the active military

[BushOut06]

The Freepers should love this idea, since they are always harping on about the original intent of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never intended us to have a standing military - in fact, they warned against it. Having a standing military would make it too easy to become entangled in foreign affairs, they said. Gee, wouldn't you know, they were right on the money?

Seriously, do we really need a standing army? Look at all the problems we're having in this country, with disasters of all kinds wrecking havoc. Hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes etc. God forbid we have a major earthquake, who would be here to help out?

Wouldn't it be much better to simply expand the National Guard structure? We could take a small fraction of the $$$ we're spending on the active duty military and especially Iraq, and give each state's NG units top-notch equipment and training. We could still maintain a small active duty staff, primarily for logistics and support. In times of need, we could still mobilize National Guard units. But those times should be few and far between, only when the United States or its allies are directly attacked.

We have grown far too comfortable with our active duty military, and using it to enforce our will upon the rest of the world. I think the Founding Fathers would be aghast if they could see what our nation has become nowadays.

[Tom Joad]

1. But.. but... what happens if a nation wants to reorder its economic system,

and it no longer serves corporations? How will the corporations defend themselves?

[terisan]

Brilliant post nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. Congress "raises" an army, but "maintains" a navy. We'll always have the navy! Yay! nt

[mike_c]

3. K&R-- this is exactly correct....

Bingo!

[Peace Patriot]

4. You are absolutely right on! What is this huge aggressive military machine FOR?

It's for making trouble, manufacturing war, feeding the "military-industrial" beast. And with the Bush Cartel in power, it's for corporate resource wars.

When was the last time that the so-called "Defense" Department actually defended us?

They couldn't even defend our nation's capitol on 9/11!

The war machine is a standing temptation to fascists. And that "temptation" is now upon us as a reality. The Global Corporate Predators have hijacked our military!

Just as they have hijacked our voting system, and are now "counting" all our votes with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code.

The two things go together. You can't have unjust, heinous war, in a democracy--especially one in which the Vietnam War is in living memory--without fixing the elections. That's what they've done.

Give this thread a read, and you'll see the problem buried way down in the OP, in boldface FAQ (#7), "Will this review (of voting systems) be open to the public?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x472374

We have as much power to get rid of our standing army as we have to see and understand how our votes are being counted. And until we solve the latter, we will never be able to lay one finger on this massive war budget, let alone challenge its premises.

So, you want to get rid of a standing army? The answer is down at your local registrar's office. DEMAND TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING!

[sanskritwarrior]

5. No thank you

I enjoy having an Army, I enjoy being in that Army. Want to alienate the military today? Attack our pride in our service and tell us you want to banish us.......Yes keep shooting ourselves in the liberal foot.

In the last week I have seen this drivel in this thread, a thread saying military members reprsent the bottom of society, and my favorite a thread that got pulled where military members were bashed for not refusing to deploy to Iraq.....

WOW makes me want to vomit when I see this crap. I take pride in my 14 years of military serivce, just like my dad did, and just like I hope my son gets a chance to do. If I'm lucky he and I will get a chance to serve together before I retire.........

[eridani]

7. Why not be a part of a well-regulated militia instead?

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm
http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

- James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812-- large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

-- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army"

James Madison quotes (American 4th US president (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.

[sanskritwarrior]

8. Because I prefer being a member of the United States Army

Those quotes are nice but most militia's don't have the ability to purchase Main Battle Tanks, Fighter Jets, Aircraft Carriers,etc......As long as other states maintain armies, I want more than a militia. I don't make excuses for my beliefs nor is my mind changeable on this issue.

[Selatius]

10. Nobody said National Guard units don't have M1 Abrams

At any rate, having a military posture akin to the Swiss national defense infrastructure would prevent the kind of adventurism that killed countless of Americans in places like Vietnam. No nation-state is going to attack the US; that's for sure.

[sanskritwarrior]

12. But the National Guard is not a militia

it is one of the three legs of the United States Army, the active component, NG, and Army reserve form three very different legs that comprise the entire US Army force. All three are neccessary to make the "machine" work. Eliminating one destroys the force structure that makes the Army unique in its lethality as well its ability to assume many different missions........

You want to save some dollars? Elimnate a majority of the Air Force budget, they do less work with more money than the other 3 branches combined. Leave the Army and Navy alone, we have a job to do and we do it well.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cults4Bush]

17. uhmm ex....HUGE me!

You go on and hobble the Air force and the next major conflict we're in will see the Army and Marines sustain a ungodly amount more casualties... furthermore none of the other services have a ton of ICBMs to take care of except of course for the Navy (oh by the way they do eat a hefty huge ass piece of the budget as well). I could go on but Im sure you get the point... blackhawks and apaches would be picked off like tinker toys without total air domination.. a small squadrom of mig-29s or su-27s would completely decimate air cav, easily.

Finally Id just like to point out as former Army myself and my entire family being military in some way or another... that when you sit here and bitch about not being given the proper respect from this board but turn right around and illustrate your point by back stabbing a different service you make your entire argument look partisan and one sided.

The military is a dangerous tool and I can fully comprehend why civies arent overly fond on having a military budget that far surpasses the entirety of the rest of the worlds military budget combined.... add to that typical wartime atrocities (Haditha), assholes in the military being hyper aggressive due to poor training and discipline (if youre like me you were constantly embarassed on your overseas tours by compatriots who were the quintessential ugly American), all the money we spend on the military and they cant defeat a classic text book insurgency without inflicting mass casualties on civilians... I could go on and on, what Im saying here is that civies have a right to not be overfond of our military much the same way the military doesnt take well to people outside that bubble much of the time (as a careerist Im sure you understand what I mean by that).

Im not trying to be mean here... but these things are not nearly so myopic as we make them out to be and there is validity in some arguments for a much much smaller military, just as there is validity in yours for more respect for military peoples.

[eridani]

21. The Swiss army has all of that stuff--

--and they are pretty close to a modern equivalent of what the founding fathers envisioned. Of course, they are only into defending themselves, not massive world-wide resource theft (way more expensive).

[BeFree]

6. Right On!

Imagine if we didn't have the forces necessary to invade another country, say like, Iraq?

A citizen's National Guard might even attract a pacifist like me if I knew I would only be used for defense only.

[IChing]

9. That is what I am talking about!!!!!!!

We can be the America that lead the world
without killing each other in a civil war
to decide the difference of state' rights
and freedom for the powerful
and freedom for the enslaved.

[Beam Me Up]

11. You'd better get rid of the Federal Reserve first.

You might need your army to do that because I assure you, nothing would more turn the governments of some seeming allies against us than to rid ourselves of that parasitic central bank.

[Bright Eyes]

13. Damn Straight!!!

a large military is like giving a arsonist a book of matches. a small defensive military is what we need!

[leftupnorth]

14. Standing armies are a threat to democracy

and we spend more on ours than the rest of the world COMBINED.

To paraphrase Mike Gravel - What the HELL are we so afraid of?

[Odin2005]

16. Don't most other Western nations have standing armies?

sure, they're militaries are a lot smaller them ours, but that's just because They know we will come and help them if say, Russia invades.

[Cults4Bush]

18. quick answer

do comparative analysis on the next three largest military infrastrcutures based around overall performance on fighting ability as well as capability of individual weapons systems.. secondly add in logistical/support structures (resupplies and what not..oil, food, parts and the ability to transport).

You will still find we are outrageously overspending.... especially when you consider what an determined isnurgency can do to any military.

[Sic-Semper-Tyrannis]

19. I must say I agree with this viewpoint

despite my current profession. I would support a massive down-sizing of the regular forces to pre-WW II levels, while keeping the NG at its present level. The Constitution clearly envisioned a standing Navy for protection of US trade and maritime interests, although that probably doesn't require 15 super-carriers. A small submarine force for nuclear deterrence, a couple of carriers, a few dozen destroyers/frigates should do fine. We're not likely to be invaded by Canada or Mexico nor have to fight the Royal Navy over access to shipping lanes anytime soon, I think most would agree.

I do believe that our military is far too large to be explained by a need for 'defense.' The Soviet Union is gone, Russia isn't eye-balling the Fulda Gap, and China seems uninterested in being The Next Great Threat To America. Even our treaty obligations are unlikely to be very eventful for many decades to come - whatever you might think of them, the European militaries could pretty handily defeat any country that threatened their territorial sovereignty - not that I'm sure who that might be - is Algeria going to invade France in revenge or something?

I love to hear the wingers rave about money for 'defense.' What they mean is 'offense.' We were never supposed to be a country that invaded others and maintained imperial outposts around the world. That was supposed to be 'them,' the monarchies and the dictatorships. Not us, the bastion of democracy. Something has gone very wrong, and I find I'm part of it.

[The2ndWheel]

20. It would cause more problems than it would solve

Basically like everything else we as a species do. Having a standing army in the first place, solved nothing, created more problems. Doing away with a standing army, solves nothing, creates more problems.

Especially in 2007. At this point, every aspect of life has to grow/increase, or else we're going to huge problems. Of course the larger we create the scale, the larger the problems become, the more we have to grow to solve them. We can't stop doing that, since to do so would mean big problems.