U.S. Armed Forces

[Lou337]

Use this thread for discussions on the pros & cons of maintaining a standing army, deemed illegal by the constitution, except in times of war.

"An Army (an armed force) can be called up by volunteers
from the community *as needed* when there is some threat,
such as the threat of invasion. This is generally called the
'Militia.'"

"But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that
exists before there is any threat."

*****State one con for every pro posted.
Add opinion underneath pros & cons.

Pro- Modern times have made a standing army necessary to maintain peace.

Con- Modern armies are expensive and intervention hasn't worked out so well militarily since WW2.

I realize that certain war skills are lost when an army is disbanded...e.g. the marine command forgetting how to do amphibious invasions in korea or lack of equipment...5 years after ww2, the single largest amphibious-landing related war in U.S. history & snipers having to be retrained after every war thus the sniper school being instituted.

Would the solution be to train the National Guard (militia) in these skills? Or is the volunteer army fine?

Are there aliens? A God? Gods? Cheese that won't go bad?

[Farnan]

Standing Army unconstitutional? Where oh where in the Constitution does it say that? And seeing as we had a standing army continuously since 1775 I somehow doubt that.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

From the US Constitution. Seems that it mentions that there will be an Army of the United States, or standing Army. And nowhere does it forbid it.

[Каие]

Standing Army unconstitutional? Where oh where in the Constitution does it say that? And seeing as we had a standing army continuously since 1775 I somehow doubt that.

From the US Constitution. Seems that it mentions that there will be an Army of the United States, or standing Army. And nowhere does it forbid it.

Its how Militia in this case means a militia but in the 'right to bear arms' it doesn't. Plus by that definition the draft is OK.

[Farnan]

Its how Militia in this case means a militia but in the 'right to bear arms' it doesn't. Plus by that definition the draft is OK.

Actually in the right to bear arms it does too. Don't tell anyone, but every male aged 17-42 is in the militia in the US.

[boofhead]

Actually in the right to bear arms it does too. Don't tell anyone, but every male aged 17-42 is in the militia in the US.

When retards and traitors and fifth columnists with guns have the right to bear arms and spread their words you have problems.

USA is dying.

It is moaning like death. Produce some more guns, guys.

[Каие]

Actually in the right to bear arms it does too. Don't tell anyone, but every male aged 17-42 is in the militia in the US.

Yep, i know 67,000,000 men. All ready to be drafted in case the chinese invade.

[Lou337]

What about during peace time?

[Farnan]

It doesn't say during war or peace. It says that the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia when federalized.

We've also had a standing Army continuously since 1775.

[Lou337]

So a standing army is therefore constitutional since the congress has the power to raise and support armies? Or does that phrase refer solely to the militia?

[Farnan]

Nope, when it means militia it says militia. When it means a standing army it says army.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

From Article 1.

See it mentions army then it mentions militia, indicating it meant two different entities.

But by all means don't let the Constitution get in your way to declare stuff unconstitutional.

[Lou337]

Okie Dokie. I proclaim myself unconstitutional.

[Gaius Flavius Belisarius]

It would be a really really bad idea to have the National Guard be our standing military force. The Guard is there to help out with natural disasters, states of emergencies, and an invasion of the United States itself. They are a decent fighting force, but nowhere near the quality of active duty or reserve military units. I'm not putting the Guard down, it's just that they aren't meant to be an aggressive fighting force. I mean look at the occupation in Iraq, that action alone is pushing the Guard to the breaking point. A huge chunk of their heavy equipment is out of the States, and so many personnel are gone, that when a natural disaster actually does strike they are woefully ill prepared.

Long story short, the Guard is really good at what it does, but it can't be the only line of defense we have. As of right now they are roughly the tertiary level of defense following the Reserves and Active Duty.

[bushbush]

don't take the constitution literally.

US constitution is written in a vague way in many areas that created different interpretations in different eras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa...-proper_clause

just check this out.

[Farnan]

Huh?

You know there are no combat units except one battalion in the US Army Reserve, but there are a couple of divisions in the National Guard. You do know that besides Vietnam, the National Guard has fought in every US war, right? And you do know that many National Guard units, such as the 1/69th Infantry have received acclaim in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

[The King Of Peasants]

I mean look at the occupation in Iraq, that action alone is pushing the Guard to the breaking point. A huge chunk of their heavy equipment is out of the States, and so many personnel are gone, that when a natural disaster actually does strike they are woefully ill prepared.

Thats a lot of ignorance in one statement. The national guard is used as a support in war time in peace to help with disasters. The national guard deploys more then active duty during this conflict. Also do you even realise how much we have used them I would reccomend doing some research!

[Erik]

From wikipedia:

Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jewish.[5] However, Jews[6] of all denominations[7] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[8]

I think it all depends on your definition of "Christian" and "Jewish". (although I, as a neutral bystander, would probably qualify them as Christians)

[Каие]

From wikipedia:
I think it all depends on your definition of "Christian" and "Jewish". (although I, as a neutral bystander, would probably qualify them as Christians)

Wrong thread i think Erik.

[boofhead]

.

Pardon?:hmmm:

[boofhead]

I can't speak as an American at all, nor answer Constitutional questions etc, but I can say my opinion on what would be a smart move (sometimes smart moves don't require rule-books, just a little nouse).

A full-time standing army is unnecessary for any nation when circumstances don't warrant it. But what happens if circumstances change and a measure of preparedness becomes wise....just in case? And all you have is fat ers who couldn't kill a rabbit?

I think National Service is a great idea. Especially in my country, in which guns, unless you are a farmer etc dealing with wildlife, are basically never even seen or touched or spoken about. Why not give an 18 year old instruction in weaponry, discipline, work and balls? Even if he never uses it, he will know how.

Even a year would do. Basic training is 6 weeks in the military......a year of regimentation would do the young men of any nation a world of good sociologically, even if no aggressive foreign threat disturbs the peace.

Be prepared. That is wisdom.

[Sidmen]

Its how Militia in this case means a militia but in the 'right to bear arms' it doesn't. Plus by that definition the draft is OK.

The draft is legal. its just despised...

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment says that since militia are important to the US, the US should not mess with people's rights to keep and bear arms. I don't see any other side to the constitutionality of firearms.