Should our Armed forces move towards a more humanitarian role?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:11:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should our Armed forces move towards a more humanitarian role?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Should our Armed forces move towards a more humanitarian role?  (Read 2554 times)
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 09, 2010, 09:03:12 AM »

I think this would be a great idea because right now we are spending anywhere from 300 billion to 685 billion dollars a year on our oversea bases( this is a high estimate considering that I mainly looked at the total defense budget). Many of these bases have various purposes, and more then a few are for non-combat purposes. Many of these bases are used to help corporations to continue their trade of non-renewable resources, and to maintain a steady investment without interference. Thus these military bases are often used as a means to protect the capitalist motive of profit, and provide security for international trade.

I think these bases should instead focus on more humanitarian roles instead of providing support for all of these multinational corporations. After all shouldn't the value of peace be considered more important than profit?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2010, 04:02:56 PM »

No, the military is clearly meant for defense. I would suggest looking at the peace corps or the UN for such things.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2010, 04:50:35 PM »

No, 'our' Armed Forces should be disbanded.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2010, 04:52:17 PM »

No, 'our' Armed Forces should be disbanded.

how would that effect the labor market?
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2010, 05:55:01 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2010, 05:57:23 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.

obviously you have never played command and conquer generals......
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2010, 06:32:00 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.

Well can we leave some troops in those countries for defense, or logistical reasons...like needing to get somehwere fast for our defense.

Your solution seems a bit too draconian.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2010, 06:36:39 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.

Well can we leave some troops in those countries for defense, or logistical reasons...like needing to get somehwere fast for our defense.

Your solution seems a bit too draconian.

Well, that would make sense.  It's pretty unnecessary to have troops stationed in Europe though.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2010, 06:54:46 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.

Well can we leave some troops in those countries for defense, or logistical reasons...like needing to get somehwere fast for our defense.

Your solution seems a bit too draconian.

Well, that would make sense.  It's pretty unnecessary to have troops stationed in Europe though.

jets and aircraft carriers need to be refueled. its common sense and it cuts down on costs.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2010, 07:25:09 PM »

We could cut deals with our friends in NATO that operate bases in Europe for refueling, it's not like they don't know how to refuel American aircraft over there.  Refueling isn't the issue as we can and do, do that from the air.  Keeping F15s/F16s and divisions of Marines closer to where we may need them is the big benefit.

(aircraft carriers don't need to be refueled being nuclear powered and all.  The jets do of course, but they do it from other ships in the fleet.  An aircraft carrier fleet doesn't need to "port" for years at a time, by design.  They do, obviously, but they don't need to.)
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2010, 07:32:47 PM »

We could cut deals with our friends in NATO that operate bases in Europe for refueling, it's not like they don't know how to refuel American aircraft over there.  Refueling isn't the issue as we can and do, do that from the air.  Keeping F15s/F16s and divisions of Marines closer to where we may need them is the big benefit.

(aircraft carriers don't need to be refueled being nuclear powered and all.  The jets do of course, but they do it from other ships in the fleet.  An aircraft carrier fleet doesn't need to "port" for years at a time, by design.  They do, obviously, but they don't need to.)

how much of our fleet is nuclear powered, and secondly they still stop off in order resupply.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2010, 08:42:45 PM »

No.  We should withdraw our troops from the more than 130 countries they are stationed in, cut the military budget, and use our armed forces for actual defense.

Well can we leave some troops in those countries for defense, or logistical reasons...like needing to get somehwere fast for our defense.

Your solution seems a bit too draconian.

Well, that would make sense.  It's pretty unnecessary to have troops stationed in Europe though.

jets and aircraft carriers need to be refueled. its common sense and it cuts down on costs.

Begs the question of why we'd need jets and sh-t over there.  Because of our interventionist foreign policy!
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2010, 10:51:28 PM »

YIKES NO!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2010, 11:36:50 PM »

how much of our fleet is nuclear powered, and secondly they still stop off in order resupply.
All the carriers and (most?) Subs.  The carriers can run for years without ever needing to "refuel".  The support ships stop and get fresh supplies, the carriers never have to leave the deep sea if there is a need to avoid doing that.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2010, 03:02:10 AM »

No, they should be a force for self defence and self defence only.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2010, 07:24:13 PM »

No, I don't see why that would be something for the military.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2010, 07:28:59 PM »

I'm pretty sure we do it a lot anyway.  Navy vessels go to areas of natural disaster all the time.  The Army and Air Force bring in supplies all the time.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2010, 08:19:11 PM »

Yes, when it is right to do so, and no, when it is not.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2010, 03:09:49 AM »

Humanitarian work is nice but we can't afford it in times like this.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2010, 05:44:38 AM »

Humanitarian work is nice but we can't afford it in times like this.

Could we afford to bomb bomb bomb Iran?
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2010, 05:46:15 PM »

Yes, when it is right to do so, and no, when it is not.

^^^

I'd like it to be done under an international commandment and mandatory though, for USA or anybody.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2010, 05:53:34 PM »

Yes, when it is right to do so, and no, when it is not.

^^^

I'd like it to be done under an international commandment and mandatory though, for USA or anybody.

I've said it before, but I'm not comfortable with putting our troops under "international command". Especially frightening is a situation in which such international participation would be "mandatory".

If that ever happened, I would likely advocate that no humanitarian help be contributed.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2010, 05:58:07 PM »

Nope, none at all.
Logged
NDN
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,495
Uganda


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2010, 12:30:13 AM »

No, we're overly involved as it is.
Logged
Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.
HoffmanJohn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2010, 09:35:13 AM »

Soldiers are primarily trained to kill and after boot camp they are routinely ordered to simulate war games, and military exercises. In fact even the National Guard ( i think) will sometimes participate in these simulations, and will learn how to deal with various situations. For example one to seven soldiers may be asked to go out into a wooded area and simulate guerilla tactics against an entire company. From what I know a good strategy for the guerilla's is to dump off ammunition, and supplies in particular spots that they can run back and forth to. By doing this they can set up particular ambush, and harassment positions that will keep the entire company occupied for the duration of the exercise. what we have here is an almost vietnam like simulation where our army in this instance is learning how to deal with small groups of resistance that would normally be encountered in countries such as pakistan. Thus the exercise would only provide useful in countries that we are tying occupy, or conduct major military operations for an extended period of time.

In short such Military operations routinely raise the question "why are we training our soldiers to involve themselves in conflicts that are unpopular, or may not require an immediate military solution?".

Finally the military exercise mentioned above is an example of what situations we are training our soldiers for, but as I pointed out the exercise would only apply in various situations where we may not be needed. For example perhaps a strong presence is needed in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, but not the rest of the world. Thus we are training everyone in the military to deploy in such situations, but not everyone in the military is going to be deployed in this region. we have over 1,390,000 active members in the military,but only 100,000 of them are in afghanistan, and finally we all know about the Iraq war winding down. In short their is a large part of the military that may never be deployed in situations that are similar to the military exercise mentioned in the first paragraph. Thus such military exercises should become more limited, and replaced with something that involves peacekeeping. After all maybe the military can train with the peace core from time to time as a combined arms operations?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.