English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-24 17:27:51 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Andrew - Please look at my previous questions, and I forgive you in advance. Thanks.

2007-01-24 17:38:37 · update #1

So we should wait until we are attacked?

2007-01-24 18:32:20 · update #2

9 answers

To answer your question first, we're gonna win wars with slapping hands saying don't do that!


Freedom Is Not Free
American Armed Forces

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

General George S. Patton

"[L]et us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us re-consecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain."

Dwight Eisenhower

"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

Douglas MacArthur

And who stood in the fore front of our military reduction? President Reagan, and "President Clinton"

So little Miss Spitfire is going to at the us expense...walk into the White House only this time with Bill on a leash...oh wait he was on it before..... We might not be so lucky after surviving the First Clinton in office....

Anyone who is that vendictive and apparently two faced, I really don't want to stand in the spot of President of our country.

Plus remember altho President Reagan began the Military cut backs, President Clinton topped them all off releasing over 300,000 troops all within three or four years of retirement and they received no retirement and some didn't get anything except so long! we don't need you anymore. Thats an ungreatful Government!

If Hillary gets in there, I don't doubt she will finalize the military and since the Dems are so anti war, anti security I see a terrible end for American people.

So all I can say is use your freedom of speech, cause I doubt that won't last long either.

2007-01-24 18:22:25 · answer #1 · answered by snickers 3 · 2 1

We need a military for real contingencies like North Korea and Iran, not for imagined ones like WMDs in Iraq.

Also, if we are going to be in the business of "nation-building," all military personnel need to add a few MOS's, such as "engineer," "psychological operations" and "linguist." That's a scheme that worked really well for the Romans with respect to "nation-building."

I think we need a military as a deterrent ("Peace is our Mission") and to engage military enemies.

According to Clausewitz, the larger army will prevail. Add "force-multipliers" to that in our case, because we have lots. Still, what we are involved in is not a war, per se, and Clausewitz need not apply.

Hopefully the five brigades are all engineers, linguists and psychological operations personnel

For the record, I am not a Democrat. But I reserve the right to vote for whomever I think will govern best.

2007-01-25 01:55:09 · answer #2 · answered by Jonathan T 2 · 0 0

“If really there is never a reason to use military”, then really there is no use to keep military in any country. But who will determine the reason?

Military has a proven utility in the earth since in long; they are not for only a fighting tool to establish democracy and protecting humanity in other country.

2007-01-25 01:55:18 · answer #3 · answered by Zia 3 · 0 0

I attended an event with Cindy Sheehand and other Leftists, invited by the Veterans for Peace group, and they said it outright. Their goal is to eliminate the US military by discouraging young people from joining. At the door, we were handed the Revolutionary Communist Party newspaper.

She said she would rather see Hugo Chavez run the United States. Eliminating the US military is a step in that direction.

I'm not kidding. I shot video and I kept the paper.

2007-01-25 01:32:24 · answer #4 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1 2

The military should be used for defense of America, not policing other countries who never attacked us.

They should be protecting our borders from all illegal immigrants.

2007-01-25 02:26:18 · answer #5 · answered by Jamie R 4 · 1 0

what do you mean there is never a reason to use the military???? you must have some sort of mental stupidity... freedom of speech dude, is because of our military. learn some respect and even if you are against the military, give them the respect that they deserve. i mean, since you're too much of a sissy to fight for your country. and if you do so happen to be in the military, which i doubt, then you are a disgrace.

2007-01-25 01:33:18 · answer #6 · answered by Andrew 1 · 0 3

Who says there is no need to use it!! I don't think there are many liberal who don't agree it should be used to get BEN LADIN!!! To defend and protect America and her constitution!! Not to set up a democracy in the middle east where Allah is there ruler and they are fighting for their own religious sect to rule!!

2007-01-25 01:38:03 · answer #7 · answered by wondermom 6 · 2 1

There can be legitimate reasons to use it. Most of my fellow democrats would say the same thing. We aren't all pacifists.

2007-01-25 01:38:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

To divert the public's attention from their neverending scandals, of course.

2007-01-25 01:32:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers