Why Do We Have Such A Big Military?

[Orange_Juice]

I completely disagree. While this may be the nationalistic way to explain it, nationalism has nothing to do with reality.

We live in a world ruled by force We've been pointing the guns for 60 years while the rest of the world points sticks and stones at us and we like it that way.

Military has been cause celebre' for nationalism as long as the phenomenon has existed. Might makes right in the social conscience of societies. Victory, sometimes a hollow word (see the "as long as it takes" on Iraq crowd), even if it exists in a vacuum, is still a celebration of right by virtue of might.

Over excessive military spending also serves as a means of economic redistribution among elites. Under the guise of fair market value for a service or product, legislators use the overinflated defense budgets to create employment in their districts for products and services of no value to the country. Defense spending is largely argued over in the halls of congress by means of legislators taking positions based on the expected results in their districts, not based on the defensive needs of the country. A secondary result is companies like United Defense Industries Inc. are pushed toward IPO on government money, leading to fortunes made by its private investors now selling shares on the open market. The only reason UDI made IPO is through selling us crap we don't need and post-9-11 hysteria for more defense spending, regardless of what the spending got the country in return. Veridian and Anteon are other examples.

The evidence that defense spending is not synonymous with defending the country from external enemies is apparent. While our leaders sabre rattle over third world countries not following orders, the Olympics are being held in the most repressive regime on the planet. China has been at economic war with the United States for no less than a decade while it has ratcheted up its defense build up many times over. But a war with China won't be profitable. China's sweatshop and slave labor produce goods are distributed, at great profits due to low cost via exploited workers, by supporters of politicians.

Doing what we would have to do to take on the real threat to American security and its place in the world, namely prohibit any item manufactured in China from being sold within American borders, is not going to happen. We are funding a country which intends us great harm by the sale of goods at department stores. If Iraq served a purpose, like it did when it was exporting terrorism to Iran, there would have been no invasion. If every American wanted a Persian rug or some product made in Tehran, you can damn well bet their nuclear program would be just as acceptable as India's and Israel would be told to quiet down its criticism.

But nations that don't make American businessmen money are expendable to make way for a viable production partners or customers.

When has rhetoric from the White House toward Iran seemed to moderate? When exports to the country have risen. That's no coincidence.

Very well said

 

[Ravi]

Hurts when I am right doesn't it Ravi?

What are you right about?

 

[CSM]

I think IKE summed it up rather well at the time.

Some elements of his speech are of course, no longer an issue, but still, this speech is one that I wish more REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS would commit to memory

Not only did he explain why our military strength was absolutely necessary, but he also saw how that military strength could lead to our eventualy downfall as a TRULY democratic republic.

I have emboldened the parts of this speech which speak to both of those vital issues.



Text of this speech (which is public domain, gunnyL) was found here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

The basic American common sense that Ike I think represents in the above is what I think is lacking in the republic and democratic parties, folks.

Basically, I agree with Ike. There has to be a balance and IMO, the citizens of this country are responsible for ensuring the government maintains that balance.

Thanks for posting the speech. Too often folks take some of Ike's speech out of context and present it as an argument for disbanding the military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And its about 10 times more well thought out than your reply

Really? Lets do a history review shall we? After WW2 the Soviets maintained HUGE standing armies on all their Borders, the swallowed up Eastern Europe and North Korea. They rearmed the Communist Chinese with captured Japanese arms and munitions leading to China going Communist.

No Army on our part would have seen Europe either invaded or forced by the presence of the Soviet Military to do the Soviets bidding. West Berlin would have been taken by the Soviets. They would have "reunited" Germany without our "unneeded" Military presence.

In Korea in 1950 the South would have been over run and almost was because we cut back to far anyway. Leaving Japan as the next target for the Soviets and their puppets.

In Viet Nam the South would have fallen in the late 50's early 60's, leading to Thailand and Burma being next in line.

Cuba would have had inter continental missiles on Island with out our "unneeded" military.

The Caribean would have been turned communist one island at a time with out our "Unneeded" military. South America would have followed suit as well as most of Central America.

In the Middle East the Soviet block countries would have been free to invade any country near enough they wanted to.

Our "unneeded" military kept the Soviets from invading Europe or using their military presence on their borders to get those countries to do as the Soviets wanted.

After the Wall fell we did cut our military and I believe we cut it to much. We still had enough to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, with out that " Unneeded" military it is likely Hussein would have taken Saudia Arabia as well.

And we continue to need military forces around the globe to protect Countries unwilling or unable to field their own military.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Really? Lets do a history review shall we? After WW2 the Soviets maintained HUGE standing armies on all their Borders, the swallowed up Eastern Europe and North Korea. They rearmed the Communist Chinese with captured Japanese arms and munitions leading to China going Communist.

No Army on our part would have seen Europe either invaded or forced by the presence of the Soviet Military to do the Soviets bidding. West Berlin would have been taken by the Soviets. They would have "reunited" Germany without our "unneeded" Military presence.

In Korea in 1950 the South would have been over run and almost was because we cut back to far anyway. Leaving Japan as the next target for the Soviets and their puppets.

In Viet Nam the South would have fallen in the late 50's early 60's, leading to Thailand and Burma being next in line.

Cuba would have had inter continental missiles on Island with out our "unneeded" military.

The Caribean would have been turned communist one island at a time with out our "Unneeded" military. South America would have followed suit as well as most of Central America.

In the Middle East the Soviet block countries would have been free to invade any country near enough they wanted to.

Our "unneeded" military kept the Soviets from invading Europe or using their military presence on their borders to get those countries to do as the Soviets wanted.

After the Wall fell we did cut our military and I believe we cut it to much. We still had enough to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, with out that " Unneeded" military it is likely Hussein would have taken Saudia Arabia as well.

And we continue to need military forces around the globe to protect Countries unwilling or unable to field their own military.

Spin, spin, spin....Never have I said the military is "uneeded." So please, if you are going to argue don't start constructing strawman arguments, falsehoods and lies. I have said it is too big. Secondly, you went over a brief and incomplete history of the Cold War. News flash, the Cold War is over!

Our military as it now stands is basically a relic of the Cold War. Communism is a thing of the past and the world is moving forward. We would move forward a lot better if we didn't have an overblaoted military budget weighing us down. That is my argument

 

[dilloduck]

Spin, spin, spin....Never have I said the military is "uneeded." So please, if you are going to argue don't start constructing strawman arguments, falsehoods and lies. I have said it is too big. Secondly, you went over a brief and incomplete history of the Cold War. News flash, the Cold War is over!

Our military as it now stands is basically a relic of the Cold War. Communism is a thing of the past and the world is moving forward. We would move forward a lot better if we didn't have an overblaoted military budget weighing us down. That is my argument

You argument is stupid. Our military has been consisently upgraded over the years and is far from a force that is only prepared to deal with Soviet expansion. Our military is prepared for anything to include cyber warfare. It needs to be.

 

[editec]

Really? Lets do a history review shall we? After WW2 the Soviets maintained HUGE standing armies on all their Borders, the swallowed up Eastern Europe and North Korea. They rearmed the Communist Chinese with captured Japanese arms and munitions leading to China going Communist.

Right about Stalin in Europe and Korea.

Mostly wrong about China.

No Army on our part would have seen Europe either invaded or forced by the presence of the Soviet Military to do the Soviets bidding. West Berlin would have been taken by the Soviets. They would have "reunited" Germany without our "unneeded" Military presence.

In Korea in 1950 the South would have been over run and almost was because we cut back to far anyway. Leaving Japan as the next target for the Soviets and their puppets.

Yeah, I think you're spot on there.

In Viet Nam the South would have fallen in the late 50's early 60's, leading to Thailand and Burma being next in line.

Simplictic. Ho was our ally during WWII, and sought to continue that alliance with us. We choose to support the French instead, so that they would support our defence of Europe.

Cuba would have had inter continental missiles on Island with out our "unneeded" military.

Agreed. To get them out we traded off our missles in Turkey

The Caribean would have been turned communist one island at a time with out our "Unneeded" military. South America would have followed suit as well as most of Central America.

Highly unlikely.

In the Middle East the Soviet block countries would have been free to invade any country near enough they wanted to.

Agreed. I'm not sure they'd have been happy with that decision, but I don't doubt Stalin was meglomaniacal enough to attempt it.

Our "unneeded" military kept the Soviets from invading Europe or using their military presence on their borders to get those countries to do as the Soviets wanted.

Agreed.

After the Wall fell we did cut our military and I believe we cut it to much. We still had enough to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, with out that " Unneeded" military it is likely Hussein would have taken Saudia Arabia as well.

Probably. Of course Hussein and tthe Ba ath was supported by the CIA to begin with which explains how they got into power to begin with.

And we continue to need military forces around the globe to protect Countries unwilling or unable to field their own military.

Somewhat overstated, but certainly there's important elements of truth it it , too.

 

[Reality]

Really? Lets do a history review shall we?

Oh this ought to be grand.

After WW2 the Soviets maintained HUGE standing armies on all their Borders, the swallowed up Eastern Europe and North Korea.

Soviets were heroes at the time. In Asia, communism was reactionary to Japanese Fascism, as was Eastern European communism reactionary to Nazism. Anti-communist reactionism wasn't all that high immediately after the war because it was better than Hitler and Japanese Fascism.

They rearmed the Communist Chinese with captured Japanese arms and munitions leading to China going Communist.

The United States backed Chiang Kai Chek as much as they could. He was an inept, corrupt fool. Mao didn't win the war, Chiang lost it.

No Army on our part would have seen Europe either invaded or forced by the presence of the Soviet Military to do the Soviets bidding. West Berlin would have been taken by the Soviets. They would have "reunited" Germany without our "unneeded" Military presence.

Eastern Europe is still on the continent. Nonetheless, Potsdam had a little something to do with the Occupational Zone system. However I agree that without the presence in Germany there would have been no wedge to negotiate on. The French and Brits had a little to do with that as well.

In Korea in 1950 the South would have been over run and almost was because we cut back to far anyway.

Stalin specifically told Kim Sung-Il that he was on his own.

Leaving Japan as the next target for the Soviets and their puppets.

No person of any reputability sees the Domino Theory as having any relevance after 1970 or so. It was a bullshit nationalistic line.

In Viet Nam the South would have fallen in the late 50's early 60's, leading to Thailand and Burma being next in line.

The nationalism of Vietnamese communism escapes you. Vietnamese communism was hardly even communism. They were loyal to Mao as much as it suited their interests.

Cuba would have had inter continental missiles on Island with out our "unneeded" military.

And the evil liberal managed to only get two people killed in getting the missiles off of Cuba. Meanwhile missiles were pointed at Moscow which put a ton of pressure on Khrushchev to answer the threat.

The Caribean would have been turned communist one island at a time with out our "Unneeded" military. South America would have followed suit as well as most of Central America.

More domino theory. You do understand that the Domino theory explicitly rejects that native people actually have thoughts, no?

In the Middle East the Soviet block countries would have been free to invade any country near enough they wanted to.

What countries were those? You misunderstand Nasser.

Our "unneeded" military kept the Soviets from invading Europe or using their military presence on their borders to get those countries to do as the Soviets wanted.

Pointing nukes at their face had a bit to do with that.

After the Wall fell we did cut our military and I believe we cut it to much.

Who in the hell are we afraid of now?

We still had enough to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, with out that " Unneeded" military it is likely Hussein would have taken Saudia Arabia as well.

The Soviets couldn't take Afghanistan because of the Muslim resistance yet you think bitch ass Saddam Hussein was going to take even one inch of Saudi Arabia? The Mujtahids would have marched on Baghdad.

And we continue to need military forces around the globe to protect Countries unwilling or unable to field their own military.

Yea... not so much. Stop playing daddy. If people find a need to defend themselves, they will. They are free to make that choice. Stop thinking other people are so stupid that you must think for them.

 

[dilloduck]

If people find a need to defend themselves, they will. They are free to make that choice.

Ahhhhhh so the European jews just 'decided' not to defend themselves. Interesting.

 

[Reality]

Ahhhhhh so the European jews just 'decided' not to defend themselves. Interesting.

Maybe my post would have been better worded as "a people" in my failed intent to refer to nations. It seemed like the previous poster thinks that some nations under threat just roll over and refuse to defend themselves. For all the failures of the French in WWII, the resistance fought like hell, for example.

European Jews are different in the sense that they were a repressed minority group within a greater population. Nobody really cared that Hitler was killing Jews. The French sure cared that they were invaded and certainly defended themselves.

 

[editec]

It IS somewhat difficult to respond to sweeping generalizations without also making sweeping generalizations of our own, isn't it?

The alternative is the write tomes in response to thought-bites only to have the person you took the time to respond to in detail dismiss them with something akin to:

"Nah ugh!" or "You are an Idiot"

Giving posts a response at roughly the same level of detail they were offered is the only way one can play here without being abused by trolls.

I am sure that RGS, Reality or myself could easily debate any single element of these multiple issues in much greater and informative detail if we had the time and desire to do so.

Agreed, all?

You just can't say it ALL in this venue unless the subject at hand is VERY limited.

 

[dilloduck]

It IS somewhat difficult to respond to sweeping gneralizations without also making sweeping generalizations of our own, isn't it?

the alternative is the write tomes in response to thoughtbites only to have the person you took the time to respond to in detail dismiss them with something aki to

"Nah ugh!" or "You are an Idiot"

Giving posts a response at roughly the same level of detail is the only way one can play here without being abused.

I am sure that RGS, Reality or myself could easily debate any single element of these issues in much greater and informative detail if we had the time and desire to do so.

AGreed, all?

You just can't say it ALL in this venue.

Sure you can----just ignore the picky comments like mine and see if anyone else cares to comment on them. Generally I think our military is quite justified. More countries outta have em to protect themselves with so we don't have to do it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I suggest several of you READ some history. The Soviets captured almost a million Japanese Prisoners in Manchuko and else where. All military equipment intact. All munitions not expended intact.

Roosevelt made a deal with Stalin that Chiang Ki Chek would allow the Communists back into his government after the war. If he did not we would cut aid as long as the Soviets provided no aid.

Chiang Ki Chek was of course never informed of this "Deal" until after the war. He wisely refused, having made that mistake in the 30's and seeing those Communists in his Government attempt to over throw him from with in.

Truman cut aid to China and the Soviets agreed to also. Well except they allowed the Communists to have the 700,000 weapons they captured from the Japanese, plus heavy weapons, vehicles and ammunition and artillery. Since those weapons were Japanese the Soviets claimed innocence on them.

In 1948 Marshall made a fact finding mission to China and discovered the ruse. He adviced Truman to rearm and reequip Chiang's Forces, a tad to late though.By Early 49 the Communists had pretty much won the war. With us supporting the forces retreated to Taiwan.

 

[Reality]

I suggest several of you READ some history. The Soviets captured almost a million Japanese Prisoners in Manchuko and else where. All military equipment intact. All munitions not expended intact.

Roosevelt made a deal with Stalin that Chiang Ki Chek would allow the Communists back into his government after the war. If he did not we would cut aid as long as the Soviets provided no aid.

Chiang Ki Chek was of course never informed of this "Deal" until after the war. He wisely refused, having made that mistake in the 30's and seeing those Communists in his Government attempt to over throw him from with in.

Truman cut aid to China and the Soviets agreed to also. Well except they allowed the Communists to have the 700,000 weapons they captured from the Japanese, plus heavy weapons, vehicles and ammunition and artillery. Since those weapons were Japanese the Soviets claimed innocence on them.

In 1948 Marshall made a fact finding mission to China and discovered the ruse. He adviced Truman to rearm and reequip Chiang's Forces, a tad to late though.By Early 49 the Communists had pretty much won the war. With us supporting the forces retreated to Taiwan.

What is your source for any of this? Marshall was out of China by '47 and had arrived in '45. Marshall was instrumental in stopping the '46 Nationalist offensive made possible by American weapons. Marshall was replaced by a board. Soviet withdrawal from China happened in early '46, and Mao and Stalin smashed heads almost constantly afterward.

And Truman ordered that US diplomatic reps stay in mainland and make contact with the communists and specifically to not follow Chiang. Most Marines were pulled in '48.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is your source for any of this? Marshall was out of China by '47 and had arrived in '45. Marshall was instrumental in stopping the '46 Nationalist offensive made possible by American weapons. Marshall was replaced by a board. Soviet withdrawal from China happened in early '46, and Mao and Stalin smashed heads almost constantly afterward.

And Truman ordered that US diplomatic reps stay in mainland and make contact with the communists and specifically to not follow Chiang. Most Marines were pulled in '48.

Like I said take a real history class. Mine was Soviet History in College.

 

[sealybobo]

Like I said take a real history class. Mine was Soviet History in College.

Yours was revisionist history.

And we spend so much on the military because it is a way for the GOP to empty the treasury. Half of the spending was good, the other half was theft and fraud.

Fleecing of America!!!! Makes welfare look like a drop in the bucket.

 

[Reality]

Like I said take a real history class. Mine was Soviet History in College.

And in my Russian History II: Stalinist Era, Russian History II: Russian since Stalin and Far East History courses, taught by a man who served this country in Korea and did his primary research in Moscow both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union and got his PhD in Comparative Communist Studies at BC. I took 18 history classes to get my degree.

Now instead of telling me what I don't know, tell me how Marshall was in China after being recalled.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Thiland and Burma? LOL, hell, they might have been better off if the commies took them over. We know Cambodia would have been better off if we didn't destroy the place with B-52s

 

[Orange_Juice]

Yours was revisionist history.

And we spend so much on the military because it is a way for the GOP to empty the treasury. Half of the spending was good, the other half was theft and fraud.

Fleecing of America!!!! Makes welfare look like a drop in the bucket.

All history is revisionist history

 

[BrianH]

What's the point? No one can or wants to invade us. While the rest of the world is building for the future the United States is living its glory days past of the second world war. Time to move on

Why does no one want to invade us? Think about it.......

(Hint: LARGE MILITARY)

Same reason we don't want to go do war with China.