US military budget: How would you change it?

[Asher]

tl;dr

[Hauldren Collider]

See, this is why you aren't worth debating with. You just make one or two indefensible antagonistic statements and loop through your standard trolls.

[C0ckney]

don't bother asher unless you're after some chest beating combined with some really ****ty thinking.

[Asher]

See, this is why you aren't worth debating with. You just make one or two indefensible antagonistic statements and loop through your standard trolls.

Yet they still work.
Largely because they're true.

[Hauldren Collider]

I can see how they really worked and were really true in that big long thread about random number generators. Or the first amendment. Or fire insurance.

[Asher]

Or here.

Basically what Asher has said in this thread:

1. Abolish the Navy because coastal patrol boats are good enough and other countries don't like losing wars
2. Abolish the Marine Corps because it's another army
3. America doesn't need an army because Canada is sooooo great!
4. Canadians! yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
5. There have been a few friendly fire incidents in the Afghanistan war, therefore see 4

The only thing that has any merit at all is #2, except that you may as well just cut the number of soldiers in the Army by the number that are in the Marine Corps and accomplish the same thing. Everyone (who is intelligent) is basically in agreement that procurement and such should all be under one agency anyways and that the level of separation between branches is counterproductive. So if you're talking about actual cuts and not just making the place more efficient, you really have no reason to believe that getting rid of infantry in the Marines would be a better idea than getting rid of infantrymen in the Army. So I'm just going to assume that you're trying to troll Alby.

At any rate, I think I can condense Asher's views down to one statement: No one will ever attack the United States if they didn't have a military! Or, alternatively: People hate the USA because it fights wars and wins!

Asher, you have no way to support that. Your thesis of "people only hate you because you fight in wars" is one of those things that can't be proven. Yet you like to back it up with "well it's true because your enemies say so!" I'm not sure what sort of brain damage causes you to take anything terrorists and dictators say at face value but I hope you someday make a full recovery.

To give you an example where your thesis could actually (theoretically) be put to the test, one of the proposals for the North Korean problem is for America to entirely withdraw from the Korean peninsula. North Korea insists that this will only promote peace and reduce tensions. China also thinks an American withdrawal would be a very good thing. If you are in any way consistent in your thinking (you aren't), then you would agree with China and North Korea. Given your past history of completely retarded beliefs, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.

So let's do some critical thinking here. America spends say 40 billion dollars keeping troops in the Korean peninsula. In return we have a country we can basically always depend on to be our ally and has, since the end of the Korean war, prospered into an economic giant with which we have enormously profitable trade. But no, we should take our troops out, because it makes the North Koreans hate us! Never mind that if we pulled out they'd try to conquer the South, thus losing us an ally, a trading partner, and allowing millions of people to die needlessly because we were worried about some crackpot dictator thinking we are meanie-heads.

America has to pick sides. We can't just sit everything out, it isn't possible, not for a country of our size and influence. When you are on top you don't have the luxury of trying to be everyone's best friend, because someone will always be trying to take your place. You really have no ground to stand on when you claim it is more in our interest to be a mega-Switzerland than try to arrange the world in our favor.

[Asher]

Your main flaw, HC, is you seem to take an objective viewpoint of subjective things. It's apparently inconceivable to you any argument that does not make the USA the best in any possible way could be correct. You reject any and all criticism without any real thought behind it. It's all talking points and rhetoric with you.

[Lonestar]

Alby thinks "reducing the Marines to their traditional role" means "eliminating them".

We don't need two armies. We do need a large naval force for sea control.

[Egbert]

Your main flaw, HC, is you seem to take an objective viewpoint of subjective things. It's apparently inconceivable to you any argument that does not make the USA the best in any possible way could be correct. You reject any and all criticism without any real thought behind it. It's all talking points and rhetoric with you.

Israel?

[Thorn]

Yes, the American forces are historically quite skilled at locating and bombing the Canadian forces actually on the ground doing the dirty work.

Careful, we'll tighten your leash and burn down your capital again. Remember 1812!

[Hauldren Collider]

Your main flaw, HC, is you seem to take an objective viewpoint of subjective things. It's apparently inconceivable to you any argument that does not make the USA the best in any possible way could be correct. You reject any and all criticism without any real thought behind it. It's all talking points and rhetoric with you.

That's hardly the case Asher. I think you're missing the cause and effect here--you usually open threads with ZOMFG look at how this trivial thing makes America horrible and I usually counter with "no, that's a trivial stupid thing." Maybe if you came up with some valid criticisms of the US (and there are plenty!) I'd actually have some respect for your opinions. But as it stands most of the things you say are so ridiculous I have to assume you're trolling.

[Docfeelgood]

Careful, we'll tighten your leash and burn down your capital again. Remember 1812!

I thought our capital was the one burned down?

[Asher]

trivial

[Felch]

I thought our capital was the one burned down?

Ever seen Canadian Bacon? John Candy et al are invading Canada, and Dan Aykroyd tells them to go to the capital for some reason, and they decide that he means Toronto.

It's funnier in the movie.

[Thorn]

Ever seen Canadian Bacon? John Candy et al are invading Canada, and Dan Aykroyd tells them to go to the capital for some reason, and they decide that he means Toronto.

It's funnier in the movie.

That movie is funny do they have it out on dvd yet?

And technically both capitals were burned down. (I think)