- 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
re: When did it become conservative to support a large standing army?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:24 am to Boatshoes
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:24 am to Boatshoes
quote:
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.
While I agree with your post, I'm not debating what would happen if the US were invaded nor how the Geneva convention handcuffs our soldiers. I'm responding to a post about having a large standing army. Which the point of having one is so what you mentioned above wont be necessary.
0
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:33 am to cokebottleag
My main problem with the military is that it is an unwieldy behemoth full of waste and corruption.
It is seen as a jobs program and economic engine, rather than just a defense force.
We could reduce spending by half and be no less safer.
It is seen as a jobs program and economic engine, rather than just a defense force.
We could reduce spending by half and be no less safer.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:33 am to xiv
quote:
What I said is true.
Debatable.
quote:
What you said is sort of true. “The left” isn’t a monolith.
Neither are conservatives or "faux conservatives."
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:35 am to NIH
quote:
Also - I recall liberals being against Trump's ME troop reductions. "Muh global image"
They had a collective stroke when he said he was pulling out of Syria
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:45 am to upgrayedd
quote:
They had a collective stroke when he said he was pulling out of Syria
Kinda makes it seem like "faux liberals" just automatically take the opposite stance of those they hate, huh?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:05 pm to NIH
quote:Not what I said. Not having this stupid dance with you.
Obama hated war? Link?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:20 pm to xiv
quote:
Not having this stupid dance with you.
Getting called out on your bullzhit isn't a dance.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:22 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Why is it conservative to want a large, strong standing army?
....cause we almost got our arse handed to us at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Had our Carriers been anchored in Pearl Harbor the Japs would have completely destroyed our Pacific Fleet. Imagine Jap Troop Ships and Carriers attacking along the California coast. Fortunately by the Grace of God our Carriers were out patrolling in the Pacific when the Japs attacked.
Times have changed. Peace through Strength. Doesn't help we had a fricking Muslim President in office for eight years who handed Iran billions of dollars. Including pallets and pallets of money to a country led by Islamic mullahs. Obama's foreign policy towards Iran (and our enemies) can be described this way.........give them what they want. Let's just hope and pray they haven't figured out how to stick a miniaturized nuke warhead on top of one of their stupid rockets.
Even as I write the lousy demoncrats are accusing Donald Trump of preparing to start a war with Iran. Thanks to Obama Iran is emboldened and want control of the Middle East, especially the Straits of Hormuz. They believe Allah is on their side and we're the infidels. Nothing more dangerous than a radical Islamic Iranian Mullah.
Peace through Strength!
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:38 pm to cokebottleag
Military industrial complex doe.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:46 pm to Boatshoes
There is a great book recently released by a guy named Sean McFate called “The New Rules of War”. It should be required reading for the PT Board. It’s eye-opening to say the least.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:49 pm to GnashRebel
The 19th century US Army was very heavy on NCOs and officers. So in times of war they had the experienced leaders they needed to support a much larger force.
There are real trade offs, but it worked, for the most part.
There are real trade offs, but it worked, for the most part.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 12:56 pm to oogabooga68
quote:You can’t possibly understand why, but if you respond with posts like this ever, you aren’t smart enough to discuss anything with me. Have a great day.
Getting called out on your bullzhit isn't a dance.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:02 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
When did it become conservative to support a large standing army?
It was the 1890s.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:03 pm to xiv
quote:
You can’t possibly understand why, but if you respond with posts like this ever, you aren’t smart enough to discuss anything with me. Have a great day.
Pretentious delusional azzhole says what?
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:05 pm to xiv
BTW, at what age did you start enjoying the smell of your own farts?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:06 pm to cokebottleag
Technology wins wars now not large standing armies
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:11 pm to Jake_LaMotta
Errr.... yes and no.
There will always unfortunately be a need for boots on the ground in some situations and it's better to have the numbers and not need them than need them and not have them.
There will always unfortunately be a need for boots on the ground in some situations and it's better to have the numbers and not need them than need them and not have them.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:18 pm to TideCPA
quote:
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.
Thats actually a good point. The two wars most Americans bank on when discussing the military were won with relatively small standing armies at the start of each war.
Why do we need huge armies when they arguably slow us down and create poor performance?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:26 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Technology wins wars now not large standing armies
Absolutely not.
Men, fighting and dying, in close quarters, wins wars.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 1:27 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The 19th century US Army was very heavy on NCOs and officers. So in times of war they had the experienced leaders they needed to support a much larger force.
There are real trade offs, but it worked, for the most part.
We put a large burden on our enlisted people in terms of what we expect of them. What you are describing doesn't always work with the skillsets required. Additionally, war takes place quickly and you won't have time to train up people when shite goes down in a big way.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News