Should we abolish our military? Would wars end if we did?

[Skip Intro]

Would we be safer?

[letemrot]

1. I see where you are going with this.

I hope you have donned your asbestos suit. I wish you well.

[Skip Intro]

13. Yes. And thanks, but it'll be alright.

Worst case scenario, a few anonymous people will try to yell at me through the internet.

Best case scenario, an actual honest discussion will break out.

Of course, the first scenario is far more likely.

Either way, I'll still have my hot pocket and fries and watch some tv tonight, and wake up tomorrow and be thankful for my blessings, and deal with my challenges and burdens as best I can.

[rDigital]

27. .... Lean Pockets too.... nt

[Skip Intro]

41. Ack, I meant lean pockets!

Chicken and broccoli.

Somewhat healthful. Somewhat tasty.

[letemrot]

33. I'm surprised that this hasn't been alerted

Yet.. And that's a great outlook BTW.

[Skittles]

2. gawd

REEKS of desperation

[Walk away]

3. You are not our military so the comparison is useless. nt

[rrneck]

4. No.

People have been fighting and killing each other since there have been people. There will always be a need for self defense of country and of person.

But shit we could sure shrink the damn thing. All it is really doing is defending our empire which only exists to make the rich richer. I'm tired of our military defending corporate interests.

[morningfog]

5. Asinine.

[FarCenter]

6. The only active war is the Korean War and that is in a ceasefire.

There are no other declared wars that I know of.

[Skip Intro]

8. There are wars in which the US is involved, then there are others.

If not current, past is prologue.

Btw, we've had something going on in Afghanistan for a like a decade.

[FarCenter]

42. Afghanistan is some sort of authorized use of force

There has been no declaration of war by any of the states involved in the conflict there.

[Skip Intro]

43. A rose by any other name...

[FarCenter]

46. You asked about war, not about the many varieties of Low Intensity Conflict going on around theworld

[Pholus]

7. Yea, argument by analogy! My turn and you deserve the full Godwin.

The Third Reich's military would have prevented a war if it had been disbanded in 1935.

And everyone would have been safer and millions would have lived a longer life.

Would it have been okay to do that? Or would it be a violation of Hitler's God-given rights?

Now what we're actually arguing is closer to the long forgotten third amendment. Gun owners (like the british military) demand that their guns can be quartered on the public commons. It is not a time of war, and the rest of us are kind of tired right now of being put upon by an oppressive vocal group.

[Skip Intro]

9. Who is "the rest of us"? And who is being oppressive again?

[Pholus]

10. Sounds like you have some ponderin' to do thar, Tex.

[Skip Intro]

14. Well, that isn't exactly an answer to either question, but ok. nt

[Pholus]

16. It's okay. You were already torpedoed by the first part you ignored anyway.

[Skip Intro]

19. oh, okay.

[Pholus]

21. You certainly have no ready comeback for your oversimplistic question going down in flames.

Sorry pal, but I am fully savoring your discomfort tonight.

[Skip Intro]

25. Oh, I'm quite comfortable, thanks.

I merely meant to foster a conversation, or witness the resort to insults instead.

Either way is cool with me, pal.

But thanks for your concern.

[Pholus]

26. I am thanking YOU. Not often that Godwin becomes so appropriate.

[Skip Intro]

32. ok, then. bye now. nt

[Pholus]

37. So....would it have been a good thing to take Hitler's military away from him?

Hehehehe. I crack myself up sometimes.

Good night Skip. It's been fun!

[cthulu2016]

11. Silly fellow... you think these are rhetorical questions

But as you know, some folks would sincerely answer yes, yes and yes.

[Skip Intro]

15. I think they're bititng their cyber tongues.

[ellisonz]

12. This post is effing stupid. n/t

[Skip Intro]

17. Your post?

[ellisonz]

20. Wow. Look at the big brains on Brad.

[RetroLounge]

52. Not much big on that one

RL

[ellisonz]

56. Yeah, that was probably an overstatement.

Its stench precedes its size.

[renie408]

18. Should we stop using false equivalencies and pretending like they make us look smart?

Yeah, we really probably should.

[Chorophyll]

22. Countries with gun control still have militaries, and sometimes enter into wars.

Their children don't get shot so much in school, though. I know it's a small thing, but geez.

[OldDem2012]

23. Consider yourself skipped on this particular topic. nt.

[Arugula Latte]

24. No, but we should slash it down to a fraction of its current size

and stop wasting billions of our tax money subsidizing war profiteers instead of healthcare and education.

[Coyotl]

44. That would be a great start. Costa Rica doesn't have an army.

I don't see anyone invading Costa Rica.

[Telly Savalas]

28. Yes, we'll make it a rider on a bill to outlaw asinine rhetorical techniques.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Confusing the disease and the cure is exactly the type of false equivalency

that creates problems instead of solving them.


Should our military be able to run amok without any restrictions what so ever?

Ask that question and you will be closer to the truth.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. This is possibly the stupidest false equivalence re gun control I've seen yet.

[apocalypsehow]

31. Stay tuned: our "pro gun progressives"* are just getting warmed up. n/t.

*( )

[morningfog]

36. The babies' bodies aren't even in the ground and they have launched a disgusting assault.

It is all about them and their precious fragile egos and their precious toys.

[Skip Intro]

40. No, it's all about your political agenda. Sheesh, the hypocrisy.

How do you not choke on it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. What, you mean "no, we don't need any gun control" isn't a political agenda?

Mote, meet beam.

[renie408]

53. If the murder of a bunch of children does not bring gun violence to the forefront

what does?

When will YOU be ready to talk about changing our gun laws? When is it appropriate to discuss this?

And the other poster is right. It is Ok for YOU to push YOUR agenda, but it is just gross for anyone else to push theirs. Even if their agenda is about saving the lives of children in the future.

[apocalypsehow]

49. They have not a shred of shame; not an ounce of compassion; not a thimbleful of

meaningful humane feeling or sensitivity to the complete and utter horror of either this shooting nightmare nor any of the other wanton massacres that have occurred with ugly regularity over the last few years.

The NRA talking points continue unabated; the gun-lobby shilling is ceaseless; and the flipping of their metaphorical middle finger at the vast, vast majority of DU'ers who support sensible gun control measures continues apace.

It really is quite callous, and quite reprehensible.

[Skip Intro]

59. That is delusional. And using those murdered kids as stage props for a

long-held agenda is despicable.

I've seen a few DUers, myself included, make the argument that it is people who use guns to kill who are responsible for these crimes. That the question that needs to be answered is "why," not "how."

But the bullshit coming from you and a few others slamming anyone who challenges your "guns are to blame" meme is absurd.

No one is unmoved by what happened. To attack those who hold views that differ from yours as heartless and uncaring is sickening.

Even more sickening is using those tragic deaths to further your own political ideology.

I don't know how you don't faint from the sheer volume of your own hypocrisy.

[exboyfil]

34. Well we have two examples

in the 20th century. You could say we almost disbanded prior to WWI and WWII and that did not stop the other countries engaging in war. 174K in 1915 (after some mobilization the number was 126K in 1900). 256K in 1930.

Wars did not end.

[Coyotl]

35. We fail to realize they would if everyone did.

Humanity is one family. I think Obama gets that much very clearly.

[BainsBane]

38. We'd be a hell of a lot safer

with a smaller military rather than one that goes around invading one country after another. I'm open to compromise. Cut it to 25% it's current size. I'll make the same compromise on guns.

Oh, did you think you were on a pro-military, right-wing website?

[Coyotl]

45. Good point. If we had no overseas military, would we have prevented 9/11.

When does conflict beget more conflict.

[BainsBane]

48. If we had not occupied Mecca and Medina

They wouldn't have been nearly so pissed off. That was the reason Bin Laden gave for the attack. Imagine if we were a nice civilized country that minded our own business, like Canada? We'd be much safer. A smaller military, lower gun ownership and gun deaths, universal health care. Our culture of violence has many deadly consequences, and it is intrinsically linked to the absence of decent health care and a social safety net.

[Coyotl]

58. Imagine if the military had rebuild our infra-structure instaed of bases all over the world.

Imagine all the jobs in the USA instead of the cost of global policing.

Historians may well conclude that the US economy was impaired by US military spending. We are in a very deep hole and that story is yet to conclude.

[NashvilleLefty]

39. Are apples oranges? nt

[darkangel218]

55. To you, obviously they are.

[RetroLounge]

50. Should we abolish your posts or just not read them?

Would we be smarter?



RL

[renie408]

54. Yeah, I have to think we all just lost a few IQ points just opening this dog.

[Skip Intro]

60. Consider ignore your friend. nt

[RetroLounge]

62. Consider no one here your friend

RL

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. Should we abolish vanity posts?

Think of all the wasted bandwidth saved.

[Coyotl]

57. What are you trying to do, flush out all the Republican trolls?

kidding

[Hekate]

61. Twaddle. Armed civilians are NOT our military, though some are veterans

False analogy all the way. What part of "well-regulated militia" is unclear to people?

Also -- are you actually trying to claim we have a "war" going on here at home? If so, kindly describe for me the various sides and who their actual leaders are, and whether we will ever know if anyone "wins." Oh, and when the actual declaration of war took place and by whom. It's all a bit unclear to me here on the ground.

[peaceofmind]

63. Skip, I understand where you are trying to go with this, but...

your logic is flawed. The U.S. is just one country on earth. It would be akin to abolishing guns in one state, while all other states around it still have access to them. So the answer to your question is no. One lone nation giving up it's military would not stop wars from ensuing and is likely to invite danger given that the majority of non-U.S. citizens don't see us in a positive light.

However, if all other nations were required to do the same, then yes, we should. It would go a long way toward seriously reducing the number/likelihood of wars. Just as it would go a long way toward greatly reducing the likelihood/number of shootings if we abolished or regulated guns in all states around the nation.

Look, I'm not against guns completely. I have family members/friends who own guns and I don't see them committing murders. However, everyone is not stable. So, if getting them out of the mainstream will make the majority of Americans safer, then they should go.

There is NO WAY I should fear for my, or my loved ones, lives when going to the mall, the theater, or sending my kid to school. But I do. So MY "unalienable rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are being infringed upon. The country was founded on those principles. You remember the Declaration don't you?

It is also worth noting that I wouldn't want the U.S. to give up it's military because of the crazy militia, neo-Nazi, KKK, anarchist type "Americans" who want to return the country back to the 1700s. I believe the citizens of this nation pose more of a threat to our national security than any foreign invader. Hence, I'd like federal protection if/when these neo-cons start civil war part deux.

[socialindependocrat]

64. Hey Skip, did anyone read your question...

I figured we'd get a discussion about cutting the military and look what happened?

I have never seen so many people regurgitating emotion in my life!

My answer: Yes, I think we should reduce the military but I think it should be in increments.

I have made posts suggestng that they put their air craft carriers in port once every couple of months
and stop wasting energy.

Then they could give the troops a couple of extra days leave every month.

After all, if we have a military that is larger than the next 10 largest countries combined,
we have to be able to cut some waste from somewhere.

Anyway.... back to the regularly unscheduled chaos...

I also, see where you were going with this.
I hope your Hot Pocket was good!

Later.