Would Obama Disarm the Military?

We have become "stuck" playing world cop. Yep, but it is something we sought.
That's correct. Those that wished to profit by being a dominant power on the world stage sought involvement is many wars, all unnecessarily.

Today you can look at it and say, we shouldn't be doing this, but consider the point of view of those who set it up. Men who lived through WWII. Men who believed that not being the world cop led us to having to be the world cop in order to stop men like Hitler, Tojo, & Mussolini.
Sigh. Not this old mythology again.

That's a great demonstration of the skill with which Roosevelt and his regime manipulated both events and the propaganda surrounding them. Not only did Roosevelt actively seek involvement in World War Two, he desperately did every conceivable action to drag America into it. Numerous acts of war against Germany and Japan for years finally produced the results he'd hoped for.

If neither Japan nor Germany had attacked America, and we'd remained out of World War Two, like most Americans wanted to do; Japan would still have been defeated and Germany would have been forced back within their borders. That was well on the way to happening by 1942.

Britain wanted American cannon fodder in order to ruin Germany for good, and Roosevelt only too happily provided them.

That only the clear willingness to spend both our money and our blood would contain others with similar desires, and do it before it became necessary to have a World War in order to stop them.
That is simply not true. Many things have changed since 1941.

Although it's clear that corporate interests are still generating war fever at various levels, and still perpetrating the Rooseveltian myths about the desirability of militarism, it's simply wrong and dangerous.

I would love to see us go back into our shell, relinquish those foreign entanglements. Stop being the world cop, tell the UN to find a new country to pay for their hare-brained social schemes, and just mind our own business as we peacably live our lives.
Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Although I'd not use the warmongers term "into our shell" since we were never in one in our history, we do need to stop our world wide warmongering and hegemony.
We could so that (even though it would cost some very rich folks a lot of money, so they would do their best to prevent it). But sooner or later, something in the world would require us to come out of our shell and fight, just to preserve us. And it would cost. Cost like none has seen before.
No, there's no known enemy on planet earth that would require any such thing.

The only such enemy is one created by the US government to gin up more government power. That's really all it's ever been about.

War is the health of the state.
 
Yes, the same old mythology again

Because it is what the people in power in those days believed. Or at least they acted as if it was what they believed. Sure, some of it was pure greed, the never ending capitalist lust for wealth and the power it brings, maybe all of it was, but that isn't how it was sold to us at the time, nor what went into the history books.

And yes, Roosevelt did everthing he could to get us into a shooting war, while pretending to be neutral. And he got one.

The what if game is fun, and I play it myself from time to time. But in this instance, I will disagree about your conclusion of the inevitable defeat of the Axis powers, without the involvement of the United States. It is quite likely that eventually they would have been contained sonewhere short of the grandest dreams of empire, but without the aid given Britian and the Soviet Union by the US, and later our actual combat involvement, I don't think Japan or Germany would have been defeated. It is entirely possible that the Axis could have held on to much of the territory that they had taken by 1942, and without US lend-lease the Allies would have had a much harder time of it. Maybe even hard enough to seek armistice. Imagine where we would be if the Axis had been able to make a peace with a starved and fought out Britian, freeing resources to hold the Soviets at bay. A Japan growing mighty (er) one the resources of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In the Pacific particularly without the US who could have curbed Imperial Japan? The British Commonwealth? The Soviet Union?, Both had their hands pretty full dealing with Germany and Italy.

Where would we be if the Axis had lasted long enough for technology to reach the point of developing atomic weapons, on their side? Without the direct pressure of the war it would have taken longer, maybe many years, but eventually some of them would have figured it out.

Those leading our nation then did what they thought the needed to do (as have all leaders everywhere, always) and the men who followed them kept it going, because it seemed to work, (and it is profitable) so where does that leave us today? Like always, trying to make the best of the mess our forefathers left to us.

Technology has changed the traditional thinking about how and what, but not about why. Our nation has been invaded by foreign military before, they even burned our capitol city. I admit it was nearly 200 years ago, but it did happen. Long thinking Eurpoeans often had a hard time understanding how we could NOT hate the British for doing that. Americans, with only a short term memory couldn't understand how we could, after all, it was so long ago. It could happen again, nothing is truly impossible when dealing with the mind of man, but I don't see it anytime soon, not as long as we continue to be the world cop whether we ought to be or not.
 
Replace "Islam" with "Judaism" and "Christianity" (as both are being practiced today by their leaders) and I'd say you would be on to something... Have you ever studied the Koran? I'm assuming not. Have you actually studied the Talmud? How about the Old and New Testament? You'll find wonderful things and horrid things in all three. I know because I've studied all three.
Correct. All three have substantial amounts of violence in their past. However what one continues to advocate, promote, and celibrate violence against it's non-believers? I have read all three and have read critiques of both Islam and Christianity. I then read the rebuttals to those criticisms. Christianity may have its problems, but Islams are incredibly problematic. I won't delve into details or discuss it further as this is not the forum to do so and I don't wish to get this thread locked.
 
That's a great demonstration of the skill with which Roosevelt and his regime manipulated both events and the propaganda surrounding them. Not only did Roosevelt actively seek involvement in World War Two, he desperately did every conceivable action to drag America into it. Numerous acts of war against Germany and Japan for years finally produced the results he'd hoped for.

If neither Japan nor Germany had attacked America, and we'd remained out of World War Two, like most Americans wanted to do; Japan would still have been defeated and Germany would have been forced back within their borders. That was well on the way to happening by 1942.

Britain wanted American cannon fodder in order to ruin Germany for good, and Roosevelt only too happily provided them.

You know Pat, your view of history is so revisionist and coloured by your hatred of the US it's laughable.

But hey, thanks to Roosevelt, you arent eating with chosticks nor goosestepping.

Read "While We Slept".

And by the way, I agree that to a certain extent we forced japan into WW2...but that started with Commodore Perry.

WildgreencheeseAlaska TM
 
Wow, this thread is way off topic. Maybe we should get back on topic before a mod decides to lock it. The original argument was if Obama would disarm the military.
 
The original argument was if Obama would disarm the military.

Yup. He'll have too many social programs to pay for. It'll be like Clinton again; disarm, downsize, decimate what's left of the intelligence services. It'll be grim!
 
disarming myth or fact

After every war the us has cut back on all aspects of its operations. Troop reductions, aircraft and ship acquisitions and supplies. Is that disarming the military or is that just a supply and demand issue?


The military is always going to be calling for more arms, more troops, more equipment. When is enough enough. Now we are build 179 new refueling aircraft (another issue by itself.) How many do we need? Would ordering 1 less be disarming the military?
 
Obama will try to disarm the militia, which is where the military gets it recruits from. Disarming the militia also has the effect of encouraging the use of the military for purposes it was never intended for, such as violating posse comitatus laws.

If not for his views on internal and external security I would vote for him. Restraints on spending and getting more efficiency out of the military are good things. Disarming the public and gutting the military are bad things IMO. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Obama will try to disarm the militia, which is where the military gets it recruits from. Disarming the militia also has the effect of encouraging the use of the military for purposes it was never intended for, such as violating posse comitas laws.

What you wrote is almost incoherent. So disarming the military will lead to violating Posse Comitatus? By chance have you been drinking?
 
What you wrote is almost incoherent. So disarming the military will lead to violating Posse Comitatus? By chance have you been drinking?

May I then suggest taking advantage of adult literacy training available most everywhere.

I have been drinking coffee, water, and diet root beer today - perhaps it's the artificial sweeteners? Or perhaps I have read about 97 amici briefs in the Heller case and historical documents cited therein?

Disarming the militia (that is the whole body of the people who would take up arms in defense of the nation) may tend to encourage the military being used for things it was never intended for, such as unlawful use against the populace.

At least that was heavy on the minds of the framers when they were hammering out the bill of rights.

Besides, my post involved disarming the militia, not the military. Which brings me to my next point........
 
The shootdown of that satellite using a missle not designed for the task with jury rigged software demonstrates just how technoligially superior the USA is. Belittle it if you want, but the reality was that it was a marvel of technology.

And certain countries agree and have taken notice. Think we just did it to protect the environment?

Signals are important.

WildinlifeasinuinternationalrelationsAlaska TM

Yeah, except the Chinese did it too, last year:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

We've been shooting down sats for a long time, too. I highly doubt this was a situations where countries took notice.

Shooting a sat is much different than a missile. A known trajectory with a long time to do the math is different than a missile just appearing on incoming radar that has guidance control/avoidance. We DID manage to send people to the moon with not much more than calculators.

Basically, you shouldn't overestimate either the act itself or how that act affected international politics.
 
Disarming the militia (that is the whole body of the people who would take up arms in defense of the nation) may tend to encourage the military being used for things it was never intended for, such as unlawful use against the populace.

With a DOJ that is in the pocket of a president, why bother with disarming first?
 
Personally, I wouldn't presume to know ANYTHING about current affairs considering that the media is BOUGHT and PAID for.

You only know what THEY want you to think you know.
 
Personally, I wouldn't presume to know ANYTHING about current affairs considering that the media is BOUGHT and PAID for.
Normally, I would call this nonsense talk, but I really believe that after Watergate, the media think they have a duty to shape the news, because they know what's best for us.
 
Pat H,
"The military hasn’t protected the US in a long time"

You can’t be serious. You know I truly feel sorry for people like you. You live out your life in internet forums spouting your ignorance while those like me and my fellow brothers and sisters in arms who have actually and proudly served our country’s military which has not only protected America from further terrorist attack, but also your very existence, so that you are free to spit upon those who keep you safe. Apparently you have no knowledge of the US military or for that matter US history and the brave souls, who throughout the existence of this great country, have sacrificed all for those like you who will never have to risk a thing for the freedoms you enjoy. Don’t worry though; we who serve will continue to protect you and your ignorance with our lives. I find it truly disheartening that there are so many in this day and age who don’t have the foresight to understand the need for the United States to remain the foremost military power in the world. May we never face the consequences of the wishes of those who strive to weaken our great nation and our military strength. If the US and its policies are so horrible to some of you then I suggest you run for office and show us dazzling intellect and natural ability to fix our nations problems. If not then maybe you would feel free to take advantage of one of our greatest rights, the right to leave, and seek citizenship in another country more to your liking. I have found that those who do nothing but criticize their own country not only have no solutions to the problems they site, but certainly don’t have the fortitude to leave the comforts of this country for another. They know deep down they lack the courage and ability to correct the myriad problems they “believe” they have. This is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. Every country that I have toured throughout my military career and personal travels reinforces this knowledge. I am truly thankful that I am able to serve and for the experiences that I have gained from that service. For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know. With that being said, I am done with this subject. My best wishes to all TRUE Americans.
 
For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know.

I stopped at the local Legion for a sandwich, and asked how business has been? For those of you who don't know as of January 1st. Illinois banned smoking in all bars and restaurants. The bartender said wait until the state gets the sales taxes for January, they'll be in for a shock! Receipts are way down since veterans can't smoke in their own club in a nation where they fought for its FREEDOM.

I'm saying this to reiterate my point: I'm tired of losing our freedoms to spread it. If as an American you truly believe in freedom then you have to let other countries be FREE to make their own mistakes. Do not misinterpret this to mean we don't need a strong national defense. Decimating it for Social programs is not the answer. Pulling back its reach is practical and infinitely American.
 
No he wouldn't

However, he would try to turn the military and LEOs on US citizens though.

I think by now, we all know who are we really voting for.
 
Glen J,
Quote:
"I really believe that after Watergate, the media think they have a duty to shape the news, because they know what's best for us."

Glen J, our government shares the same opinion and has for quite a few decades. I highly doubt this has specifically everything to do with Watergate, but our BIGGEST problem we have is when US citizens actually believe that our government knows what's best for us. Hence the NEED for:
ron-paul-revolution.jpg


Our biggest issues are intentionally NOT being discussed anywhere within the media.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top