- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
When did it become conservative to support a large standing army?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:53 am
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:53 am
Let's talk about the benefits of a large standing army:
- Able to protect worthless allies who with whom we have minimal economic ties
- Defend our own borders from invaders
- Protect US commerce on the high seas (doesn't require expensive carrier battlegroups, which are obsolete with modern day in flight refueling, drones, cruise missiles, and expanded aircraft range)
Let's talk about the downsides:
- Congress and the president have ready and waiting military forces to go adventuring into rando shitholes with at a moment's notice
- Huge expenditure from the federal treasury and tax dollars
- Military bases and appropriations are great ways to buy votes and increase corruption.
- We have more Generals today with a <10 division force than we did in 1945 with over 100 divisions in the field. WTF
- Standing militaries are always a threat to freedom.
- Most of the shite we spend billions developing has little real application in a stand up fight with another great power. If you think Strike figthers that cost $2 billion a pop and take factories in 49 states to produce can be readily replaced as they get shot down in a war, you're ignorant.
Why is it conservative to want a large, strong standing army? How did the right get suckered into this?
- Able to protect worthless allies who with whom we have minimal economic ties
- Defend our own borders from invaders
- Protect US commerce on the high seas (doesn't require expensive carrier battlegroups, which are obsolete with modern day in flight refueling, drones, cruise missiles, and expanded aircraft range)
Let's talk about the downsides:
- Congress and the president have ready and waiting military forces to go adventuring into rando shitholes with at a moment's notice
- Huge expenditure from the federal treasury and tax dollars
- Military bases and appropriations are great ways to buy votes and increase corruption.
- We have more Generals today with a <10 division force than we did in 1945 with over 100 divisions in the field. WTF
- Standing militaries are always a threat to freedom.
- Most of the shite we spend billions developing has little real application in a stand up fight with another great power. If you think Strike figthers that cost $2 billion a pop and take factories in 49 states to produce can be readily replaced as they get shot down in a war, you're ignorant.
Why is it conservative to want a large, strong standing army? How did the right get suckered into this?
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 10:57 am
24
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:55 am to cokebottleag
Going forward, as our government becomes increasingly authoritarian and divorced from the lives and values of actual Americans we're going to have to question some things that we took for granted in the past.
Our support for a military establishment that has become a PC pump is one of them.
Our support for a military establishment that has become a PC pump is one of them.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:58 am to cokebottleag
Well, in this era a professional army cannot be mustered overnight. Do we need as large an army as we have? Maybe not. But large standing armies are the way of the world.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:02 am to cokebottleag
We are a victim of our own success
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:02 am to cokebottleag
quote:
If you think Strike figthers that cost $2 billion a pop and take factories in 49 states to produce can be readily replaced as they get shot down in a war, you're ignorant.
Thus the need to have them standing by?
I'm as fiscally conservative as the next guy, and don't think we need to be in the middle east or team America world police.
That being said; war, and being prepared for war, is high tech. It requires high tech training and full time jobs. Its not a bunch of farmers grabbing muskets and hunting rifles coming together to defend the Union.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:02 am to cokebottleag
It became en vogue after WWII, a war which we won convincingly despite having a relatively small standing army at the onset.
Since we've had a massive standing army, our major engagements have been in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq x2, and Afghanistan. Mixed results at best, especially in the nuclear era where large standing armies are useless except as an occupational force.
Since we've had a massive standing army, our major engagements have been in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq x2, and Afghanistan. Mixed results at best, especially in the nuclear era where large standing armies are useless except as an occupational force.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:04 am to cokebottleag
That your post has 0 upvotes and 5 downvotes is proof that neoconservatism is still alive and well in the Republican Party.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:06 am to baseballcatch77
quote:
It requires high tech training and full time jobs. Its not a bunch of farmers grabbing muskets and hunting rifles coming together to defend the Union.
The one error you're making in this is that professional soldiers are hampered by all sorts of rules of engagement and the geneva convention.
A bunch of patriots with AR-15s, on the othe rhand, are only focused on what brings victory.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:06 am to cokebottleag
There are a lot of faux conservatives who base their stances on what the people they hate do. The people they hate—let’s call them “liberals”—hate violence and war and see a giant military as a bad thing. Therefore, the faux conservative takes the cue and decides that it is patriotic, manly, and, therefore, conservative to support a giant army.
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 11:13 am
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:09 am to xiv
quote:
The people they hate—let’s call them “liberals”—hate violence and war and see a giant military as a bad thing. Therefore, the faux conservative takes the cue and decides that it is patriotic, manly, and, therefore, conservative to support a giant army.
Well you conveniently left out the fact that millions of Liberals/Leftists/Democrats LEGITIMATELY hate the country and all the men and women who protect it....
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:11 am to xiv
quote:
There are a lot of faux conservatives who base their stances on what they people they hate do. The people they hate—let’s call them “liberals”—hate violence and war and see a giant military as a bad thing.
This is just patently false. Leftists adore violence, particularly state violence. The issue they have with the military is that it's largely comprised of non-leftists and therefore can't be easily wielded for their own particular set of political aims.
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 11:11 am
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:12 am to cokebottleag
Libs want to abolish the military AND disarm the population...cue the "Bold Strategy Cotton" gif!
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:13 am to oogabooga68
quote:Exhibit A
oogabooga68
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:15 am to TideCPA
quote:What I said is true. What you said is sort of true. “The left” isn’t a monolith.
This is just patently false. Leftists adore violence, particularly state violence. The issue they have with the military is that it's largely comprised of non-leftists and therefore can't be easily wielded for their own particular set of political aims.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:15 am to xiv
quote:
The people they hate—let’s call them “liberals”—hate violence and war and see a giant military as a bad thing. Therefore, the faux conservative takes the cue and decides that it is patriotic, manly, and, therefore, conservative to support a giant army.
My support for a large standing army/strong national defense has absolutely zero to do with what liberals (or conservatives, for that matter) say or do.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:19 am to TbirdSpur2010
Me: Generally speaking, yadda yadda yadda...
You: Yeah but not me
Me: Then it isn’t about you
You: Yeah but not me
Me: Then it isn’t about you
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:22 am to cokebottleag
quote:
When did it become conservative to support a large standing army?
maybe since that little kerfuffle we had against England a couple of hundred years ago
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 11:22 am
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:22 am to xiv
quote:
Well you conveniently left out the fact that millions of Liberals/Leftists/Democrats LEGITIMATELY hate the country
xiv = Exhibit A
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:23 am to xiv
quote:
The left” isn’t a monolith.
In 2019 it pretty much has....
Some of you simply have the common sense to keep your more insane ideas to yourselves.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:24 am to xiv
quote:
There are a lot of faux conservatives who base their stances on what the people they hate do. The people they hate—let’s call them “liberals”—hate violence and war and see a giant military as a bad thing. Therefore, the faux conservative takes the cue and decides that it is patriotic, manly, and, therefore, conservative to support a giant army.
Obama hated war? Link?
Also - I recall liberals being against Trump's ME troop reductions. "Muh global image"
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News