1 vote

When would you use the military?

Im going to make this quick. Please note this question is completely independent of anything taking place in the news right now. I think we need to learn to mind our own business as a nation and that our meddling is what has created the enemies we are fighting. Not to mention we are beyond broke.

My question though is this, is it ever okay to get involved when a situation has no impact on our nation. For example, if there was a group of savages brutally murdering innocent children by the hundreds of thousands. Would everyone object to doing anything? If there ever was a situation where people with power and weapons for no reason except pure malice started murdering huge quantities of people with no ability to defend themselves, would you support in this rare occasion using our military to bring on the pain to these people? Even if we had absolutely no interests in the region.

Personally, while I would demand the issue be brought to congress and there be a vote on a declaration of war, I would in this rare circumstance vote yes if I was a member of congress.Keep in mind what is taking place in Egypt and Syria does not fit this description in the slightest.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Would *not* use...

Even if there were a land invasion by zombies, I would have no use for the military or police. A thousand times no. A free man dies once. A slave dies every day.

Understand this: The colonial militia could have outlasted the British *without* the Continental Army. Acquiesence to the use of the Continental Army was the beginning of the death of the spirit of liberty which started the revolution; it was the source of the repudiation of that spirit in the Constitution which imposed back on the people of America the same tyranny they had rebelled against and produced the much greater tyranny in which we were raised.

A people who cannot defend themselves through voluntarily means, cannot defend themselves against the tyranny of their *own* tax/slave funded or conscripted military. Those who are slaughtered by tyrants using whatever means of defense they have are better off than those who are delivered by the United States' military into the maw of aggression/slavery based civilization.

Spot On

I was going to post it something along these lines, but you said it much better than I ever could have. NO STANDING ARMY.

"AN AK-47 IN EVERY HOUSE."-Ron Paul

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Subsidy To International Corporations

Currently the US military is used as a huge subsidy to international corporations. The nation's treasure and soldiers are engaged in pacifying the planet to make it safe for the globalization of trade. This system has facilitated the movement of producing jobs from the US to parts of the world that are either unwilling or unable to protect industry locally.

It started out as Coca-Cola diplomacy. The US stabilized foreign markets so that US made products could be exported to those markets. Over time the mission morphed into providing military protection for areas that supply cheap labor and raw materials for US corporations. Generally these corporate assets are referred to as "US interests". So, while the US taxpayer is dunned to pay for this endeavor, the good paying manufacturing jobs that used to be the vehicle for less affluent Americans to move into the middle class have migrated to other parts of the planet.

The final nail in the coffin is the corporations have now internationalized. They have moved large parts of their operations overseas to avoid paying the taxes needed to provide the funding for the pacification of the planet. The jobs are gone. The corporate tax base is gone. The US taxpayer is left holding the bag. Great system huh?

I support the troops and believe the motive of the individual serviceman is to defend the US. That is not how they are being used. "US interests" are not the US.

The US military should be used to defend the territorial boundaries and the Navy of the country. The US, by geography, is maritime nation. No country is able to invade it by land except for Canada and the ongoing land invasion by Mexico but that is a different issue.

Therefore the US military should consist of a Navy capable of defending the coastlines of the country with a Marine Corps in support of the Navy. The Army can be reduced to a small highly trained cadre of officers and NCOs who would assume leadership responsibilities in the odd event the territorial US was invaded. The ranks would be filled by the citizenry once the event occurred. The Air Force could go away except for a small nuclear deterrent force. The Navy has lots of planes.

The US should not have defense treaties with nations around the planet. Few of these countries would be able to send any assistance to defend the US from some remotely possible invasion. All defense treaties are therefore merely promises of the commitment of force by the US to other countries. There is no real reciprocal arrangement.

Once defending "US interests" is removed from the equation and the US military is repatriated the need for bogus legislation like the "war powers act" becomes unnecessary. US military bases around the world would no longer be a "trip wire" to obligate the country to become involved in regional struggles around the planet. The use of the military would be clear cut issue where Congress should have no difficulty in performing its Constitutionally defined responsibility.

Getting Congress

Getting congress to actually declare wars, by having its members vote is a step in the right direction, because at least the war would be legal. However, from a representative standpoint, a vote by the elites does not give the declaration of war any true legitimacy.

I would say that the people must have the ability to override any declaration of war, any treaty, or any legislative act, via referendum. As well, the people need the ability to recall any public official, for all 3 branches, especially appointees. Lastly, something must be done to re-establish the credibility of the voting process.

Without these changes (and perhaps more), I don't see how the American people will ever again trust the US government with even the most trivial functions, much less war.

When does Swirtzerland use their military?

Does this give everybody an idea of what is lawful use of military force?

The history of modern Swiss Military actions is one of lawful military use.

America is now the bad guys. Nearly every form of modern military action we know of by America is unlawful military actions. America is the only nation on Earth who has been convicted by the ICC of the equivalent of international state sponsored terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

I do not acknowledge the authority of the ICC but I do acknowledge the facts presented in that case as criminal acts by those who planned and carried out the thousands of criminal acts revealed in Iran Contra and related "military" activities in Nicaragua. The landmarks of the thousands of weapons cast in concrete that stand to this day in Nicaragua is proof of the insanity America committed in Nicaragua. This insanity from the 80's is only one point of the long train of abuses and usurpations carried out by our military.

The American military man who carry out any actions of war against anyone without a Declaration of War issued by the People are completely unlawful and criminal acts by psychopathic tyrannical barbarians who are brainwashed into some other tyrant's BS.

Our Navy does has lawful maritime jurisdiction to protect American commerce in transport across international waters outside of a declaration of war. Protecting American merchant ships at sea is very different from launching a tomahawk cruise missile into a foreign nation or mining the harbors of a prime commercial port of a foreign nation without a Declaration of War sourced directly from We the People.

If the reader is in the military or defense contractor and actively assisting this global insanity, mass murder and terror upon the world then you should be ashamed of yourself for not having the integrity to do what is necessary to uphold the rule of law or at least just leave. If you think your actions are justified then reveal the intelligence you claim and have a public issue of letter of marque for those identified as legitimate threats. There can be no expectation of trust. The trust is gone. Proof is required otherwise it is lies and/or brainwashing BS. From my point of view lack of seeking formal criminal action on those carrying out these activities in your presence will be considered at minimum complicity to the crime from this point forward. The only way this nightmare continues is because of your consent to take orders from other men. All of the weapons in the world would not matter if your mind disregarded their unlawful orders.

All military personnel should read about the details of the Czech's velvet revolution in 1989. I talked to some of the former soldiers who disregarded the orders and heard a great story about how all the soldiers just cluster f%cked the entire situation for their commanding officers by making all weapons inaccessible knowing that the order was coming to go kill their own communities. What happened? Nothing. The commanders huffed and puffed and blew a bag of wind. The bureaucrats and military "authorities" took to the streets on stages to have the "authorities" tell the people what they needed to do and the people held their keys up shook them loud to drown out their BS fiasco and told them to GO HOME. And that is exactly what happened. The criminal commanders and crats, after blowing many bags of wind, WENT HOME.

It seems that the American military man is a breed of man that needs to be given orders by other higher quality men otherwise they would not know how to conduct themselves. This seems to mean that most military men will not concern themselves with matters of Law because they will just follow orders of other men regardless of the lawfulness of those orders. They are essentially another man's slave. Maybe even less then a slave because at least most slaves want to be free. A military man wants to be the b*tch for a bunch of criminals who won't and can't do the dirty work themselves.

The only conclusion I see is that these monsters must not be fed. Feeding these monsters destroys our peace and prosperity and makes the world a more dangerous place. I would argue that the American military is the most criminal organization in the world at this point. If we don't stop feeding them then this nightmare will only grow into another dark ages.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Unless there is a clear threat

to the American people and Congress declares war, the military should not be involved. However, any individuals wishing to aid the people in your hypothetical situation, would be free to do so.

To peel potatoes

In case of natural disaster or severe food shortage

donvino

I like

I like the way the IDF operates, so for me, I would use the military is defense.. if there is a threat to the American people, I would want the American people to know about it, would see what congress wants to do, and I would pray for a peaceful solution.

Military? Never.

The militia, however, may voluntarily defend their homeland in case of an actual invasion of the US.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I would use it right now

to arrest all the traitors in DC and banksters.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

exactly what I was thinking

there ARE a group of savages killing women, men and children by the hundreds of thousands. They are in D.C. on Capitol Hill.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

Not in Syria

However, when police forces are unable to secure our own borders from invaders, I would move the troops in to secure those borders. The troops might as well be defending our own borders from economic invaders, contraband, and possible weapons of mass destruction instead of Middle-east borders.

That would be a Violation of

The Posse Comitatus Act