Instead of increasing the size of the military, shouldn't we decrease the number of conflicts we enter?

Question

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/

http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_Alphabet.jsp

Answer 1

YES--Me Amigo Private is just soo wrong. I'm sure that Osama would be encouraging his followers to enlist at will. I'm sure this will the last ridiculous countermeasure before the draft is initiated--and we all know what a big hit that will be.

Is not the desparation of this political machine becoming more transparent?

Nonwithstanding individual commentary other than the one below.

Answer 2

Hey Jack,

Unfortunately, it is a position that has been placed upon us as a World leader; perhaps THE WORLD LEADER.

Many of the reasons that we become involved with "conflicts" will never really be known; it all comes down to balance of power and not letting it ALL blow up in are faces over something DUMB!

India nukes Pakistan, North Korea has a fit and launches, Iran launches on Israel and we are ALL in DEEP Bandini!

It is NOT about launching against the US but the environmental issue and the ozone layer.

EVERY nuke test burns ozone; it is GREAT for a fast and fashionable tan but it will KILL the plants and evaporate the water supply.

I think that human rights are also an issue.

YES we inflict our culture on other countries and cultures you could call it IMPERIALISM I guess if you took a literal view.

Would you suggest that we turn a blind eye to; female casteration, setting a wife on fire because she displeased her husband, killing a daughter because she fell in love with the "wrong man" or sending 6-year old children to stitch soccer balls for 16 hours a day for $0.50 a day?

Sure it is their culture, but is is RIGHT? Only you can answer that question.

Look at the World Powers; US, England, Japan and that is about it.

Englad is TOO POLITE and Japan is way too busy taking out manufacturing abilty. We beat them up in a war, but they are KICKING our DONKEY economically, HUMMM?

Who else is going to do it?

The UN is a joke with all the hidden agendas.

It would be NICE to become an isolationist country and just back off completely then the oil producing countries cut back and we pay $6 a gallon at best.

If we want to get OUT of all the conflicts we have to cut the deficite to ZERO and become COMPLETELY SELF SUFFICIENT! Maybe ethanol and rebuild our manufacturing capability.

Would you pay $20K for a new Plasma TV, $5K for a new laptop and the list goes on. There just are NOT people that will work for $100 a week.

Gone on way TOO much, sorry but it is a BIG problem that must be dealt with.

It is people like you that cause the rest of us to THINK!

Thanks,
J

Answer 3

We didn't go looking for war with Afghanistan. We gave them the opportunity to turn over Al Queda but they protected them instead.

In Iraq a lot of people are quick to forget the years of troubles that lead up to our invasion. They also forget that one of the motivators for the 9/11 thugs was that the US had troops in Saudi. And why did the US have troops in Saudi Arabia? To act as a defense against Iraq. Something had to give and had we entered with a large enough force to keep the peace in Baghdad the story might be much different now.

Besides all of that, the draw down after the Cold War was too severe. The old way was "peace through strength" and we largely had peace.

Answer 4

Super Power = Big Bully
(and nobody will fight back, right? Wrong! they will lick their wounds and wait to place a well aimed kick to the cojones when you least expect, see what happened on 9/11)
So, to be a world Power, we need to be a helpful (Or Isolationist) nation to others, or else we will keep getting kicked in the balls again (and again).
Therefore, we need to pad up from such sneaky attacks. We will have to beef up on homeland security and rapid deployment of our armed forces till they find a new way to poison our water. And so on and so forth till we spend so much on military that we have to secure and safeguard all the worlds precious natural resources and energy to feed this enormous war industry. Or we go bust like we bankrupted the Russkies in the cold war by constantly upping the ante.
You Choose....

Answer 5

I hate Bush. He is so stubborn. After all he has been advised recently NOT to increase the size of the military, to back out of Iraq ASAP, he STILL continues in his arrogancy to do what HE wants without thinking of the NATION or the troops. So, the question is not that "we" should decrease the number of conflicts we enter, but to STOP interfering in these foreign conflicts all together! Especially if there is no obvious incentive or gain for us! (By us, I am referring to fellow Americans--excluding Bush, who, of course, sees OIL as the only incentive and GAIN.)

Answer 6

That's like saying...instead of buying more oranges, should we decrease the number of oranges we eat? Does that really make sense to you? It's what's called a faulty syllogism. If we never had to worry about any conflicts ever, then we wouldn't need a military right? That's the end game of your discussion...and it would be a logical fallacy if it weren't altogether entirely irrelevant.

Answer 7

I truly believe I heard most Military commanders that are on the ground say that they need more forces to better secure our troops and their operations. Being a father of 2 son's in their second tour in Iraq, I hope that it is true, that they will deploy more troops.

Although people may disagree with me, I see more troops as a way to better support our relentless efforts to get out of a war that no-one truly want to support. But, when your children has made an oath to protect thier country, do I as a dad say, "do not send more troops, when I know that they, the troops there are getting burnt out"? for me, of course not.

Answer 8

We shouldn't reduce our military, no. How many conflicts are we in right now? Two? As long as we are the most powerful country in the world, we're doing good.
With regards to our nations involvement in a conflict- as long as the army is killing people and taking territory, we're successful.
its when we are bogged down by liberals who haven't got the belly for killing or fighting a war that our military appears to work in a less than ideal fashion-

Answer 9

the dimensions of the U. S. militia is getting larger. In 2001 there have been a million,372,352 provider contributors on energetic accountability. immediately there are a million,455,276 provider contributors on energetic accountability. the U. S. military is 70,000 infantrymen larger the U. S. Air rigidity is 23,000 airmen smaller the U. S. military is 40,000 sailors smaller the U. S. Marine Corps is 30,000 marines larger.

Answer 10

The question is, why do we enter conflicts unless we are attacked by that country? And when we do enter a conflict, it should be with a declaration of war.

Or is conflict our natural state?