Why Bother Having A National Military If You Won't Use Them ?

[protectionist]

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

 

[bodecea]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

 

[rightwinger]

To a man whose only tool is a hammer....every problem looks like a nail

 

[deltex1]

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And the other part of that is when we do use our military, it is with a host of ROE...just to make it fair. We fight at the level of our opponents. Massacre them in the quickest most efficient way possible...then kill their goat.

 

[martybegan]

Armies and Navies are things that you bitch about when you have as being too expensive, but the alternative is not having one when you really really need it, and to date, dragon's teeth that can cause Soldiers, tanks, planes or ships to spring out of the ground.

That being said they are not things to just use because they exist. Same as nukes.

 

[BillyP]

Hey, we have an army, LET'S STOMP THE SHIT OUT OF SOME POOR BASTARD COUNTRY!!!!!!!

 

[SmedlyButler]

I watched a doc the other night on Netflix called "Severe Clear". It was basically home movies a young marine had taken during the Baghdad campaign 2003. At the beginning of the movie he was a real gung-ho, country right-or-wrong kind of Marine, mostly because of 9/11. At one point on the way to Baghdad he was reflecting on Iraqi civilian deaths and looked on them as justifiable in a way as "revenge" for 9/11. At the end of the doc after returning home he was pretty subdued. Wondering, after learning WMDs were not found, thinking about the deaths of buddies and the Iraqi child who he had seen get her brains blown out because her father had not understood the orders to stop at a checkpoint, wondering if it had all been worth it. He said he would still fight again, but not for country or the President, for his "brothers" who were still in Iraq.

A country better be sure it's all double damn worth it before sending guys like that to war. And not just use the Military "because it's there" like just another tool.

 

[Silhouette]

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And if Obama got Congress to declare war, you'd label him reckless and foolhardy. Bottom line you know as well as anyone else that Obama [the democrats] won't be allowed to look good. Not on the eve of a contested election fer shizzle.

Crying wolf has its limits. Even the dullest of voters is starting to get weary of all the Obama-bashing. He's not my favorite guy but I'm beginning to have that "underdog" urge to support him just for the magnitude of the unfair bashing from the right.

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

 

[protectionist]

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And if Obama got Congress to declare war, you'd label him reckless and foolhardy. Bottom line you know as well as anyone else that Obama [the democrats] won't be allowed to look good. Not on the eve of a contested election fer shizzle.

Crying wolf has its limits. Even the dullest of voters is starting to get weary of all the Obama-bashing. He's not my favorite guy but I'm beginning to have that "underdog" urge to support him just for the magnitude of the unfair bashing from the right.

Here's your challenge >> what are you claiming is "unfair" ? (and it's not just the right that is criticizing Obama's stance toward ISIS)

 

[Care4all]

I thought ''protectionists'' were the citizens that didn't believe in the Bush Doctrine- preemptive war? And didn't believe that the usa should be the world police, and didn't believe in sending troops all over the world?

so, what is a ''protectionist'' since I was obviously wrong?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I watched a doc the other night on Netflix called "Severe Clear". It was basically home movies a young marine had taken during the Baghdad campaign 2003. At the beginning of the movie he was a real gung-ho, country right-or-wrong kind of Marine, mostly because of 9/11. At one point on the way to Baghdad he was reflecting on Iraqi civilian deaths and looked on them as justifiable in a way as "revenge" for 9/11. At the end of the doc after returning home he was pretty subdued. Wondering, after learning WMDs were not found, thinking about the deaths of buddies and the Iraqi child who he had seen get her brains blown out because her father had not understood the orders to stop at a checkpoint, wondering if it had all been worth it. He said he would still fight again, but not for country or the President, for his "brothers" who were still in Iraq.

A country better be sure it's all double damn worth it before sending guys like that to war. And not just use the Military "because it's there" like just another tool.

Did he happen to mention the vietnam adventure?

 

[protectionist]

I thought ''protectionists'' were the citizens that didn't believe in the Bush Doctrine- preemptive war? And didn't believe that the usa should be the world police, and didn't believe in sending troops all over the world?

so, what is a ''protectionist'' since I was obviously wrong?

One who PROTECTS.

 

[JWBooth]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

Reagan considered it madness.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction".

 

[Care4all]

I thought ''protectionists'' were the citizens that didn't believe in the Bush Doctrine- preemptive war? And didn't believe that the usa should be the world police, and didn't believe in sending troops all over the world?

so, what is a ''protectionist'' since I was obviously wrong?

One who PROTECTS.

protects what? World Peace? Protects who? Are you a New World Order kind of guy? A one World order where the USA is the head of all other nations?

 

[Wildman]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

>>>>>>>>>>
never thought i would agree with a liberLWnut, but about a dozen well placed nukes over there would reduce the radical islamic forces to below kindergarten status.

 

[JWBooth]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

>>>>>>>>>>
never thought i would agree with a liberLWnut, but about a dozen well placed nukes over there would reduce the radical islamic forces to below kindergarten status.

Not sure Bodey was going there. Could be wrong, but think sarcasm was intended.

 

[deltex1]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

Reagan considered it madness.

Reagan was a liar.