should the USA be allowed to have an army?

Question

as an Englishman it has always amazed me, that the USA is allowed to have an army.I mean lets face it, everyone is aware they are not the sharpest tools in the box and are not known for their accuracy in picking the enemy.I feel its about ime this was addressed.

Wrecker-you lost me kid

alfie-in 60 years a lot has changed.

Answer 1

Good luck with that

Answer 2

remember Germany were not allowed to have an army after WWII. But to say the US should not be allowed to have an army, is naive. Imagine the unemployment there then!! -Sorry for being facetious.

And, the Allied forces of Britain, Canada, Russia and the US beat the Nazi's.

Britain lost it's title of being most powerful country in the world due to debts accrued from wars. The US came to their aid with dollars and took over the mantle.
Just a little note , for people to think about.

Answer 3

I had to laugh. That's an outstanding question.

I disagree strenuously of course. And as a conservative Republican (who also opposes George and the Bush league), I do believe we need a strong defense, because there ARE real enemies out there. I also suspect that we'd disagree a lot on policy. It should be clear that we had every reason to go into Afghanistan when we did. We probably shouldn't have attacked Iraq, but seriously, do you think more people are dying than would have under Saddam? I doubt it.

Regardless, I love your question. I hope it makes a lot of people think. Sometimes we need to hear what things sound like from the other side, and this really cuts to the quick.

Answer 4

Easy. Without army, US could not pass through UN decision and invade Iraq. Acquiring a lot of Oil distribution contracts and giving solutions into a troubled internal crisis.

US army do not have same priorities as Russian Army, but its important to keep dolar bills flowing through Wild Capitalism expansion and repression of potencial industries from other countries in development. Without power, fragilized US economy would already fallen many months ago, trowing world into a worst crisis than 29's.

Army didin't assure it, but all those years, building reputation during cold war and gathering power around the world made it happen, nad history is made by decades, centuries and not based on a freezed moment.

Answer 5

This, of course is a question intended to illicit emotion. The question as to whether ANY nation should have an army is one better left to utopists. The terrible reality is that until mankind's penchant for violence, greed, and disregard for all of God's magnificent creations, armies will be necessary.

Having said that, an army is a tool. Judicious use of the tool is a mandate of both history and man kind.

Answer 6

Apparently, our army is good enough for your army to join in and fight alongside us.

If you really wanted to address this, then perhaps your country shouldn't have voted Labor to lead your country, again.

Funny isn't it. My country amazingly re-elected the same moron to another term, and your country later on voted in the same party which followed my moron president into war as well, thus continuing the idiocy.

So I'm admitting that my country made the wrong choice. Are you going to do the same in regards to your country voting in the wrong party? Or are you just the troll that I think you are, wanting to get a rise out of the Americans on this board?

And any attempt to point out that Labor got a smaller percentage of votes as compared to your last election won't work in your favor. In November of 2006, the American voter made both House of Representatives and Senate hostile to Bush, so he has no leeway, and is a lame duck president to boot.

I expect no reply from trolls like yourself. So off you go.

Answer 7

I agree that it ought to be addressed.

My feelings on the matter are such:

Every nation is entitled to a defence force but no nation is entitled to an offence force.

Hence limit mobile forces, including long range ballistic missiles. Have only a meager quantity of high-quality defensive units. Have a wider base of low-power law enforcement units with relatively great mobility. Have a healthy doze of fixed defensive stations such as anti-air guns and the sort, only operable via collective permit and individual operator.

Lastly form unilateral defence agreements, allocating some 25% of nations' existing individual military capability to this purpose.

Hence no nation would be able to afford any offensive action as they would be crushed in their foolishness. Peace by stalemate would ensue.

It certainly beats the current situation where gung-ho nations can decimate other nations with politically-gulvanized impunity...

Answer 8

Hey man, you make no sense. Every civilized nation needs an Army for protection, especially countries such as U.S.A who hold lots of power in this world. It only makes sense. And not just Army, but all military. Check your sources before commenting on something you know nothing about.

Answer 9

I do believe Americans were sharp enought to beat the British, so what does that say about the Englishman? Just who did the English ask for help during the wars over there?

Answer 10

Hmmmm, and do you have any idea of just how many brit soldiers have been killed by brit soldiers in Iraq ?

My bet is you don't.

Heck, you brits have had one of your tanks, fire on another brit tank, that was just a couple hundred meters away.

You would think a brit tanker would know what a brit tank looked like?

Evidently not.

And to answer the question i ask you earlier,

The number is 6 in 4 separate incidents.

Answer 11

In a perfect world, no one would need an army. Granted, we've made some military blunders as of late, but before this war and long after it there will be people that for one reason or another hate America and our way of life. In reality, an army is necessary to us.