Does the United States military have any valid purpose other than the ACTUAL defense of the USA?

[Sebastian Doyle]

Poll question: Does the United States military have any valid purpose other than the ACTUAL defense of the USA?

Why should we be the world corporate police? :shrug:

[oneplanet]

1. This poll is based on the false assumption

That our involvement in Afghanistan is not necessary for our national defense.

Un'reced based on false premise.

[Sebastian Doyle]

That's not a false assumption

Afghanistan is not, has never been, and never will be a threat to the USA. And all the hysteria about a dead kidney patient and his mostly exaggerated terra army will not change that.

[yurbud]

11. can the Taliban invade the US? Could al Qaeda do ANYTHING if we cut off their support from

Saudi and Pakistan and various money laundering operations?

If the national security issue you are referring to is terrorism, occupation is a non sequitur. It creates not reduces terrorism.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. Listen to Jim Jones back in October

when he told CNN that there are less than 100 AQ fighters in Afghanistan and it poses no imminent threat to the US.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Afghanistan?? National Defense?? LMAO.

Wow, been reading rove speeches lately?

[Orsino]

52. You don't understand.

If we don't kill them over there, they might follow us home and kill us until we agree to go back and kill them some more.

[jgraz]

2. You're assuming that it's valid to maintain a standing army for ANY purpose.

I don't share that assumption.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Well, that's a whole other discussion

Though probably one worth having. We would probably need to lose this ridiculous world occupation crap before we ever thought about taking that step though.

[Chulanowa]

4. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are in the list as equals

I notice a lack of Bosnia.

Oh yeah. we were in Bosnia to stop a fucking genocide. Pffft, can't have that tarnishing up your poll...

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. Bosnia was a UN operation, not a US occupation for profit.

And yeah, when you have a genocidal asshole like Milosonofabitch, there might need to be a multi-national response under the UN or NATO or both. Though if it's a European situation, as Bosnia was, then the majority of the troops deployed in such an operation should be from Europe.

[jberryhill]

39. Korea was also a UN action /nt

[Chulanowa]

40. "It's different because I say it's different"

Gotcha

[quiller4]

5. The answer to your question is "Yes" . I fully approval of military action in Afghanistan

which should not be lumped together with Vietnam and Iraq.

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Why shouldn't it?

The bullshit about "terrorism" now is just as big of a lie as the bullshit about "communism" was in Vietnam.

[Chulanowa]

12. Just like the bullshit...

About Iraqis yanking babies out of incubators... but you didn't seem to include Gulf War 1 in there.
About Iranians threatening "our friends" in the region... But you don't mention US military aid to Iraq to invade them.
About the attack on Pearl Harbor being "unprovoked" and "a surprise attack"... Our entry to World War 2 isn't on your list.
About how the Lusitania was carrying a military cargo set for England and thus a legit target for the Germans... But our entry into World War 1 isn't questioned

Apparently you have a pretty wide allowance for some forms of bullshit but not others. Do tell, what's your criteria?

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Why?

[MercutioATC]

6. Yes, it exists to protect American interests.

Whether one agrees with what "interests" are important and how they're protected, the sole purpose of the U.S. military is NOT to simply defend the homeland from aggression.

[boppers]

7. You forgot Japan, Qatar, Germany, Cuba, (etc. etc. etc.)

So, here's how it works.

The US could be isolationist, no standing army, something we tried for a long time.

We got dragged into major global wars anyways.

The US could have bases all over the globe, and thus respond (theoretically) to wars faster and more effectively, thus acting as a deterrent to war.

As far as the "why US?" question, it's not just us, many nations do this. We just happen to look at it from our perspective.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Japan & Germany were an actual threat to the US at the time.

Japan bombed what was then an established US territory (and now is a state) and clearly had intentions of hitting the west coast. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire planet. World War II was clearly a justified war, though arguably it too was the fault of the Bush Crime Family, because they're the ones who funded Hitler's rise to power in the first place. Now having said that, it's a bit ridiculous to have troops occupying those two countries 60 years after that war ended, when both countries are now functioning democracies in their own right.

Cuba only represented an actual threat during that brief period where they almost had Soviet missiles, and JFK took care of that.

Qatar? When the Hell were we at war with them. Is that even really a country?

[murdoch]

13. Japan was not a threat

What was the US doing in Hawaii in the first place? The 1898 takeover of Hawaii by the US was a disgusting, bloody affair. At the same time period the US was invading the Philippines.

Then the US started an embargo on oil etc. for the Japanese, which is an act of war. The act of war was the US embargo, Pearl Harbor was just the Japanese response to the act of war.

Also - Japan had a somewhat moderate government until the U.S. and European powers started trying to carve Japan up among themselves like they did with China. When the US and Europe began going after Japan, the moderate government was pushed aside and Japan became more militarized.

Also - Japan had no relations with the rest of the world until the US Navy showed up with a fleet of warships in the 19th century and demanded Japan sign trade treaties with the US.

If history starts on December 7, 1941 then Japan was a warmonger. If history goes from the day the US Navy's fleet arrived in Japan up until that day, then I can't see a more justified response to an embargo than the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor had just become the US's Navy HQ soon before 1941 - it had been California right before that, moving it to Hawaii was another aggressive US move.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Are you a LaDouchie? Or maybe one of those (government badged) fake "anarchists" from the WTO rally?

Because this and your post about overthrowing the government in the other thread really makes you sound like one.

[Mimosa]

49. ^ Good analysis, Murdoch^

Dayum, I HATE WAR.

[rockymountaindem]

50. This post is so full of factual errors it's a shame I don't have more time to refute them

1) The US put an embargo on war materiel sales to Japan in 1939 because of Japan's ongoing war in China (which was 100% a war of aggression on their part). That was an action we undertook to stop Japan's military operations on foreign soil. What's wrong with that?

2) Japan's moderate government (the "Taisho Democracy" of the 1920's) didn't fall because we tried to "carve them up like China". By that point Japan was already an established major power and we would never have had the ability to carve them up. Their moderate civilian government collapsed, like that of Germany, because the population believed it had failed to deal with the consequences of the Great Depression and due to some technical aspects of the constitution under which Japan then operated.

3) Commodore Perry's arrival in Japan is something we could debate, I suppose. Attributing Japanese aggression in China 90 years later to Perry's actions in 1853-54 seems like a big-time stretch. That would be like saying the Kennedy assassination was 100% predetermined by the Civil War.

4) A better Japanese response to the oil embargo than the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Oh, I don't know, maybe pulling out of China would have done the trick. Keep in mind that the US already had stationed a large portion of our fleet in the Philippines, not to mention a large army, while we were ALLIES with Japan during WWI. Evidently they didn't feel encirclement was underway at that point. It was only the rise of their aggressive military government that changed that calculus.

[boppers]

47. Qatar is one of our main middle east sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar

Highest GDP in the world (depending on source), home of Al-Jazeera, etc.

Were you joking, or not aware?

[smalll]

8. Yes. The defense of the world.

Becuase no other nation today is either good enough, strong enough or forthright enough to take on the job.

Kinda sad, but sorry, (as the kids say) -- it is what it is. :shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. What you really meant to say was

It is what the "defense" industry wants it to be.

Eisenhower was right about those fucking bastards. Too bad they didn't listen to him :evilfrown:

[Dr Robert]

15. what a shit poll. did you train at Fox News?

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. What don't you like about the poll?

The fact that it points out that there have been no legitimate wars since August 1945?

The fact that I don't frame the situation in the neocon lie mythology as the President (who clearly knows better) did last night?

FAUX Noize? Shit, I guarantee you that those douchebags are cheering this escalation this morning. They may not actually admit it on the air (except for Rove, who already did) but they're happy with it.

[Dr Robert]

21. the fact that you hate Obama and have created a poll to diplay that

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. I do NOT hate Obama

I hate wars of corporate imperialism. And that's what the poll "diplays".

[Dr Robert]

26. you fooled me. Every post I have seen from you is critical of Obama.

find me one that supports him.

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. Oh, so critical thinking equals "hate" to you?

Well, excuse me if I don't carry my pom-poms around at all times :eyes:

I will criticize this President when he gets it wrong. And this escalation (framed in Chimp/PNAC 911 mythology) is about as wrong as it gets. :evilfrown:

[Dr Robert]

29. so you can't find one post of yours that supoprts Obama? I rest my case.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. Why should I do your homework for you?

Mr. "I've been here for a month and think I know everything". I assume you know how to use a search engine.

[Dr Robert]

32. It's not my homework. I really don't care what you think.

You know there's nothing to find anyway.

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. So how much is Bruce Reed paying you to act like a 12 year old online?

Or are you actually 12 years old?

[Dr Robert]

34. do you accuse everyone who points out your negativity of being a paid operative?

is that the only means you have to insulate your extremist views from being questioned?

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. You're the one who came in here throwing around the negative accusations, Bobby.

And I'm hardly an "extremist". :eyes:

[Dr Robert]

37. I didn't post that poll, Bastian

and you knew damn well what you were doing when you typed it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. Yes I did.

I was speaking out against the escalation of a neocon bullshit corporatist war.

Now go away, Bobby.... you bore me to tears.

[treestar]

17. Even Bush didn't claim that for Afghanistan

Though you could say it was his real intention.

But the reason was 911 - haven't we called that Cheney's Pearl Harbor? The neocons wanted a new one, remember? They used 911 for it. Thus they tried to make it as legitimate as our involvement in WWII.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. Right. So why did Obama start off his speech last night by affirming their mythology?

He sounded like Chimp or Rotten Rudy with all that 911terra911terra911terra911gottafightemthere911orwillfightemhere911 crap.

Al Qaeda originally trained in Afghanistan because that's where Poppy Bush's CIA created them, with the purpose of annoying the Soviets. That's not in dispute. But that's not where the 911 operation was planned (no matter what version of that event you believe) and we have nothing, other than the word of the corrupt Chimpministration, that proves Bin Laden was anywhere near Afghanistan after 911. And in either case, he's dead now. Khalid Sheik Ron Jeremy is in custody, and the guys who were flying the planes were mostly Saudis, none were Afghani, and all are dead.

So the only thing I'm seeing in Afghanistan is poppies and pipelines. And that isn't worth one more American life. Or Afghani life, for that matter.

[treestar]

44. To be like Bush, he'd have to mention 911 a lot more

Much of what he said was stuff Bush never ever would have said.

And to be Bush, he's have to use 911 on other issues. Call Health care reform a matter of national security and that Cheneyesque kind of crap.

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. Actually, it might be better if he had pulled that card on health care

It really is a matter of economic national security, at the very least, and the most cost effective approach would be single payer. As Harry Truman said in 1947, as the post war occupational governments in Germany and Japan were setting up health care in those countries. And as the puppet government of Iraq set up for their people.

So you might say that "national security" has been used in matters of health care. Sadly, just not here :(

[ItNerd4life]

19. LOL. What a bogus poll. What about Germany in WWII?

They didn't attack us but that is in your poll. Should we only have gone after Japan?

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Adolf declared war on the US right after we declared war on Japan

Even without Japan, he would have eventually gotten around to it anyway, as his goal was a WORLD empire.

God damn, you cheerleaders are coming up with some pathetic arguments today. :rofl:

[onenote]

20. self delete

[hughee99]

28. I'm not suggesting that every time the military is used is for a valid purpose

however, stopping genocide, for example, is a valid use of the US military whether it's as part of a larger UN effort or not.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. See my response in post #25 above n/t

[hughee99]

43. Regardless of who's running the operation, it's the same

US military that's involved. The same soldiers and equipment are deployed for both (asshat wars and legit UN sponsored actions), and therefore, in my opinion there is a legitimate purpose for the US military other than strictly national defense. One purpose would be to lend military support for a broader UN effort.

[Posteritatis]

45. Push polls suck and I refuse to vote on this one. (nt)

[PBS Poll-435]

48. NATO

:shrug:

[Orsino]

51. Defense of allies, at least.

Defense of innocents abroad, maybe.