NationStates Jolt Archive

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

Yes, for my own Country. The UK would do well to keep it's hands out of the United States' deranged wars, or any other for that matter.

Right, but we never really wanted Japan to have an Article 9. We thought we did at first, then the US fought the Korean War and decided a Japanese proxy army would be pretty handy to have around, just as long as they don't use it against us. Us propping them up economically did the trick for us there.

But to answer the general question, we do need a military to "ensure the common defense".

...But to answer the general question, we do need a military to "ensure the common defense".

Yes, but more than that, especially a military the size of the rest of the nations of the world combined, smacks of empire, not common defense.

Dude, they tried to get us one of those in the 1920's and 1930's.

Yes, but more than that, especially a military the size of the rest of the nations of the world combined, smacks of empire, not common defense.
Well, at least more costly, not as large. The Chinese army is far larger than the US army.

No, I wouldn't endorse an "Article 9" for the USA. In fact, isn't Japan starting to reconsider their self defense force's purpose? I heard they want to be more active in international affairs.

Dude, they tried to get us one of those in the 1920's and 1930's.

You are thinking of the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928, which attempted to outlaw war. Unfortunately nations did not reduce their military spending.

This is somewhat different in that it calls nations to build militaries for defense only. Can we honestly say the U.S. military is built for defense only?

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?
Not only "no," but "HELL no!" That accomplishes nothing except to tie your hands in the event war is necessary.

Yes, but more than that, especially a military the size of the rest of the nations of the world combined, smacks of empire, not common defense.
Empire? Why to do that, we would need an emperor who would control both houses of congress and the presidency so they could stack the judicial branch, too. Ha ha ha ha! You make me laugh, Ogiek.

You are thinking of the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928, which attempted to outlaw war. Unfortunately nations did not reduce their military spending.

This is somewhat different in that it calls nations to build militaries for defense only. Can we honestly say the U.S. military is built for defense only?
No, the US military is built for supporting US policy, which typically is defense oriented, but can be for other things. Things like peacekeeping efforts are one example we can all agree are a good thing. It can also be used for things like the invasion of Iraq, which while I don't fully agree with it, I don't feel it is a sufficient argument that the US is bad for the world.

And beyond Kellog-Briand there were calls for the US to totally disband it's navy and the like from certain groups. Others called for an amendment to the US constitution similar to this.

Empire? Why to do that, we would need an emperor who would control both houses of congress and the presidency so they could stack the judicial branch, too. Ha ha ha ha! You make me laugh, Ogiek.
Uh, doesn't bush's party control both houses now? Isn't he expected to be able to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices during his second term?

Rather than an Article 9, I would implement isolationist foregin policy if I was in power - while I don't like war, I still understand that sometimes it is a necessary evil as to protect one's nation

Uh, doesn't bush's party control both houses now? Isn't he expected to be able to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices during his second term?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Uh, doesn't bush's party control both houses now? Isn't he expected to be able to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices during his second term?

I believe that was Davistania's point.

I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, I get it. ha ha ha I get jokes.

Oh, I get it. ha ha ha I get jokes.

It's okay. You're drunk.

Uh, doesn't bush's party control both houses now? Isn't he expected to be able to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices during his second term?
Actually, even though his party controls both houses, Bush himself doesn't have total control over them. As can be seen from the troubles he had with the 9/11 intelligence reforms and his support for the assault weapons ban.

And 4 supreme court justices is a very high number. The most I've heard is 2, possibly three. The only one who's retirement is really being thought about is Reinquist, and he's very conservative anyways.

The only one who's retirement is really being thought about is Reinquist, and he's very conservative anyways.

Yeah, but not about Roe v. Wade. Reinquist goes, and that's the ballgame.

Actually, even though his party controls both houses, Bush himself doesn't have total control over them. As can be seen from the troubles he had with the 9/11 intelligence reforms and his support for the assault weapons ban.

And 4 supreme court justices is a very high number. The most I've heard is 2, possibly three. The only one who's retirement is really being thought about is Reinquist, and he's very conservative anyways.
Note that I said UP TO four justices. I could have said up to nine and still been telling the truth. I learned that from TV commercials. You too can lose up to 20 pounds in one month!

Note that I said UP TO four justices. I could have said up to nine and still been telling the truth. I learned that from TV commercials. You too can lose up to 20 pounds in one month!
Ah, semantics.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

What is truly amazing is that in "the most important election of our lifetime" not once was military spending brought up. Is it conceivable that we don't even deserve a debate over whether or not the U.S. NEEDS to spend $400 billion on the military? Who exactly is this enemy that is obviously more powerful than the Soviet Union at its height that we now spend more on an offensive military than ever in our nation's history? Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?

Military spending has become a matter of blind faith with little or no oversight and no public discussion or debate.

Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?Yes.

What is truly amazing is that in "the most important election of our lifetime" not once was military spending brought up. Is it conceivable that we don't even deserve a debate over whether or not the U.S. NEEDS to spend $400 billion on the military? Who exactly is this enemy that is obviously more powerful than the Soviet Union at its height that we now spend more on an offensive military than ever in our nation's history? Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?

Military spending has become a matter of blind faith with little or no oversight and no public discussion or debate.
You're right. It should have been brought up because we could stand to spend more on our military.

[QUOTE=Ogiek]Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?/QUOTE]Yes.
That's why we need to spend more.

What is truly amazing is that in "the most important election of our lifetime" not once was military spending brought up. Is it conceivable that we don't even deserve a debate over whether or not the U.S. NEEDS to spend $400 billion on the military? Who exactly is this enemy that is obviously more powerful than the Soviet Union at its height that we now spend more on an offensive military than ever in our nation's history? Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?

Military spending has become a matter of blind faith with little or no oversight and no public discussion or debate.
And it's getting a cut.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/30/pentagon.cuts.ap/index.html

That's why we need to spend more.
You're crazy man! You're crazy. I like you, but you're crazy.

What is truly amazing is that in "the most important election of our lifetime" not once was military spending brought up. Is it conceivable that we don't even deserve a debate over whether or not the U.S. NEEDS to spend $400 billion on the military? Who exactly is this enemy that is obviously more powerful than the Soviet Union at its height that we now spend more on an offensive military than ever in our nation's history? Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?

Military spending has become a matter of blind faith with little or no oversight and no public discussion or debate.
OMG! I can't believe I'm doing this, but I actually tend to agree with you on this! Wow! Ever heard of Dwight Eisenhower's farewell speech, the one where he warned about the possible abuses of a "military/industrial complex?" You might want to read that sometime.

Wanna know why you never see Japanese peacekeepers? Because Article Nine ties their hands to the point where they needed to modifiy their laws so they could actually do something with their military in support of the war on terror. An article nine in the US would mean the US which contributes peacekeepers on a regular basis wouldnt be able to do so anymore. The US wouldnt be able to effectively fight a war anymore.

Japan has Article Nine because it was figured, Japan would be able to hold off any invader long enough for the US to deploy sufficant amount of forces to the region to not only beat back the invader but take the fight to the invaders home and so on. But yea..during the Korean War we saw that Article Nine was a big mistake. Further more..it isnt a Japanese idea..Article Nine is part of the MacArthur Constitution implemented in Japan..(as far as I know the only other world power to us a constitution made by an American)

Sieg Heil
Dude, are you trying to call me a nazi? I don't like nazis, and I do like Jews.

Sieg Heil
Now, that's just crude. Just because he believes in a strong military doesn't make him a Nazi. There is a very big time difference between Nazism and military preparedness. As in the difference between FDR and Hitler.

What is truly amazing is that in "the most important election of our lifetime" not once was military spending brought up. Is it conceivable that we don't even deserve a debate over whether or not the U.S. NEEDS to spend $400 billion on the military? Who exactly is this enemy that is obviously more powerful than the Soviet Union at its height that we now spend more on an offensive military than ever in our nation's history? Does anyone believe that even if the rest of the world combined to attack the U.S. that this country would still not win?

Military spending has become a matter of blind faith with little or no oversight and no public discussion or debate.

Inflation, pay, technology upkeep, and development, pensions, retirement benefits etc. etc. etc.

That all plays a role in why the US spends so much. Keep in mind the US has cut defense spending repeatedly since the end of the Cold War and hasnt raised it expect to fund research and development or construction projects. Or do you really think the US can continue on with 30 year old aircraft and nearly 45 year old carriers? And 20-30 year old submarines...

Keep in mind our Carriers are nuclear, so are our submarines..we cut back on funding, cut back on upkeep, and the potential for a Kursk type situation increases. And thats a bad thing.

Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.


Ah yes..the traditional blind to history arguer. The Indian Cavalry Wars, numerous interventions in South America, the annexation of Hawaii, the Mexican American War, the Civil War...all conflicts in which the US didnt traditionally hold the view you think it did. Much as I love my country we've never been entirely pacifist and defensive.

Right, but we never really wanted Japan to have an Article 9. We thought we did at first, then the US fought the Korean War and decided a Japanese proxy army would be pretty handy to have around, just as long as they don't use it against us. Us propping them up economically did the trick for us there.

But to answer the general question, we do need a military to "ensure the common defense".

You mean you'll (the U.S) will be able to police the world more effectively.
goddamn do I hate America. Yes I know there are some bright sparks among you but the main part of the population has sawdust for brains and so does your government.

And by this I don't mean to make this thread into a mud throwing contest, and yes I'm fully aware that I generalise the Americans, but in average i don't like them.

Inflation, pay, technology upkeep, and development, pensions, retirement benefits etc. etc. etc.

That all plays a role in why the US spends so much. Keep in mind the US has cut defense spending repeatedly since the end of the Cold War and hasnt raised it expect to fund research and development or construction projects. Or do you really think the US can continue on with 30 year old aircraft and nearly 45 year old carriers? And 20-30 year old submarines...

Keep in mind our Carriers are nuclear, so are our submarines..we cut back on funding, cut back on upkeep, and the potential for a Kursk type situation increases. And thats a bad thing.
agreed

Inflation, pay, technology upkeep, and development, pensions, retirement benefits etc. etc. etc.

That all plays a role in why the US spends so much. Keep in mind the US has cut defense spending repeatedly since the end of the Cold War and hasnt raised it expect to fund research and development or construction projects. Or do you really think the US can continue on with 30 year old aircraft and nearly 45 year old carriers? And 20-30 year old submarines...

Keep in mind our Carriers are nuclear, so are our submarines..we cut back on funding, cut back on upkeep, and the potential for a Kursk type situation increases. And thats a bad thing.

Matters of defense are relative to the enemies the U.S. might possibly encounter. So relative to the rest of the world consider:

• The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.
• The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
• The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.
• It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
• The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
• The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

Also, the U.S. exports far more arms than the rest of the world combined--$33 billion versus $18.6 billion. In essence this country funds many of the regimes that we then need to build up our military to protect us from.

Ah yes..the traditional blind to history arguer. The Indian Cavalry Wars, numerous interventions in South America, the annexation of Hawaii, the Mexican American War, the Civil War...all conflicts in which the US didnt traditionally hold the view you think it did. Much as I love my country we've never been entirely pacifist and defensive.

I am well aware of the military history of the U.S. I'm not arguing for pacifism or that the U.S. has ever been pacifist. However, this country has not traditionally been a nation with a permanent standing military. Jefferson would role over in his grave at the size and scope of our modern military.

Dude, are you trying to call me a nazi? I don't like nazis, and I do like Jews.

Withdrawn with apologies

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

Hell, no.

a)The war in Iraq is not illegal... unless maybe you're a fan of Saddam Hussein or were owed large.. cough.. sums.. ribbit.. of money by him and his regime.

b)I'd be aggressive with those insurgents too if they were trying to kill me in an effort to try to delay or eradicate a POPULAR VOTE IN IRAQ. (does nobody get this? lol)

c)With folks like Hitler we realized it was naive and dangerous to just take a laissez-faire attitude. The world has dangerous people who need to be killed, deposed, and/or captured and brought to justice for atrocities. We do that sometimes. We do the world favors (and see what it gets us? No good deed goes unpunished I guess).

I just completely disagree with your entire statement and the premise on which it teeters.

Matters of defense are relative to the enemies the U.S. might possibly encounter. So relative to the rest of the world consider:

• The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.
• The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
• The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.
• It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
• The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
• The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

Also, the U.S. exports far more arms than the rest of the world combined--$33 billion versus $18.6 billion. In essence this country funds many of the regimes that we then need to build up our military to protect us from.

Yet Russia, China, and North Korea combined have larger standing militaries than the US. That the US has a typical larger and more flexable military than our NATO parters and allies. (The Germans and Japanese only need defense forces. By law they cant have anything else). Israel has a small population and is suplemeted by the US in terms of defense spending. Even some Canadians think what they spend on their military is horribly low. Australia may end up spending more if they begin to view China as a threat to their interests.

You again fail to realize that a lot of US spending is related on equipment. As it is with most other countries with high technology levels. Okay the Chinese have a larger military than us, but they still use T-55s. They have a crappy navy compared to the USN, and they still use MiG-15s. The North Koreans are pretty much the same. And the Russians can no longer afford to play keep up with the US.Now as for our own numbers...300 million population and how many active military? 1 million? Thats .3% of the population enlisted. That remains standard of what the US has had throught most of the nations history.

As for Jefferson rolling in his grave..he'd be rolling in his grave because we arent an agrian nation like he wanted..however our other founding fathers didnt agree with Jefferson. Or do you seem to forget there are more than just a handful of names on this nations three most sacred documents.

I am well aware of the military history of the U.S. I'm not arguing for pacifism or that the U.S. has ever been pacifist. However, this country has not traditionally been a nation with a permanent standing military. Jefferson would role over in his grave at the size and scope of our modern military.

Correction, we've always had a permenant standing military. It hasnt been a big one. But we've always had one. Even after the revolution we kept a force of about 3,000 troops supplemented by local milita.

Without the US military, Article 9 would not work. Japan depends on the US military for protection. Contrary to popular belief, the world is not a place full of shiny, happy people; giving up the military would perhaps be the most assinine move ever. Furthermore, without the US military, Article IX would not even exist... it was part of the post-WWII constitution, which was heavilly influenced by the US, and only possible because the US military defeated Japan in WWII.

And Japan is doing a bang-up job following this "no military" policy: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/japan.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/weapons.htm

You know, what with an army, air force, navy, and surface-to-surface missiles, they're just a shining beacon of peace! Then there's the $42.4 BILLION they spend on their military each year! ( http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2067.html ) And finally, on 15 December 2001, the Japanese Government approved a new mid-term procurement plan for its Self-Defense Forces totaling 25,160 billion yen (US$223.6 billion) over the next few years. Research projects planned for the next five years include the development of a new battle tank with advanced command-and-control capabilities. And let's not forget the standing 240,000 military personel.

Ah, but could there be a silver lining? For the "Peace Constitution" also says that while these "self-defense forces" may be maintained, they cannot be deployed outside of Japan. Oh, but wait... "The 7,250-tonne Kirishima, equipped with a high-tech Aegis missile detection system, left its home base of Yokosuka, southwest of Tokyo... for the Indian Ocean." source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/japan.terrorism/)

God, if only all countries could all not maintain a military like Japan! What a world it would be!

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

We already have that, in a way. It's just that, since Lincoln, the US government merely gives lip-service to the US Constitution. The document is virtually meaningless with our illegal out-of-control Federalist Tyrany.

Constitutionally, the only governmental authority that can call troops, is the Legislature... Except the unconstitutional "War Powers" law, lets the President do this.

Constitutionally, the military can only be funded for 2 years; yet ours has been for decades, over a century really.


Adding an Amendment to a Constitution the Federal Government refuses to abide by; will do no good.

Dude, they tried to get us one of those in the 1920's and 1930's.
And we all know how the 1930's ended.

Face it...whether you like it or not, the United States of America is the de-facto policeman of the world. The useless United Nations has renounced its responsibilities.

BTW, did anyone notice it took Kofi Annan 3 days to come out of HIS skiing vacation to respond to the tsunami? And his response was to schedule a meeting for NEXT WEEK?

Think about that next time you want to criticize GW Bush.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

HELL NO!!!

I am Australian, and while I believe the current actions of the US Government are over-aggressive and internationally destablising to say the least, I don't quite think that this pacifist who wrote this quite comprehends how important the existance of the US as a superpower is to the rest of the world.

Being an Aussie, I have a different viewpoint on the topic. The USA has never really faced a serious threat of invasion, as opposed to us who had the Japanese knocking on our door in 1942. However, thanks to the Americans, Australia survived the war.

While there isn't really any major military threat of invasion anywhere nowdays, any ammendment to a constitution is the kind of thing that hangs around for hundreds of years, and by then the world will most likely need an international peacekeeper like the US. While they are not doing a very good job at the moment, you must keep the long term in mind.

No,

Much as I disagree with the foreign policy of the current regime in the US I accept that without a militarised US there would me much less deterrent against rogue states. Basically, even under the most incompetant regime imaginable the US would still be a benefit to world peace, IMHO.

Hell no.

I should point out that in American tradition, sovereignity comes from the "just consent of the governed". Dictatorships have no sovereignity. We don't have an "international dispute" with dictators, we consider them common criminals. It's that simple.

"international peace based on justice and order" - A noble sentiment, but how to deal with in-justice and dis-order when they occur? By talking? It worked real well in Rwanda, didn't it? It's working real well in Sudan now, isn't it?

"use of force as a means of settling international disputes" - Interesting wording. I would say most American uses of force post-WW2 were in order to settle intra-national (internal/civil war), not international disputes. Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples. In both cases we were *invited* by an organized faction hostile to the regime. In both cases we have the solid support of a sizeable fraction of the population. You may try to pretend that isn't true, but it is.

As a general sentiment, I offer you the following:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill

I think we learned September 11th, give them an inch and they'll fly planes into you.

In all seriousness, the United States military has done far more good than bad. And that's not just because I get my paycheck from them.

Things overlooked in the military budget:
-Sending kids to college for free
-Upkeep and maintenance of bases worldwide which are also rented (not stolen, we pay for our overseas babses)
-Research and Development
-Surveillance technology that we use to inform other nations of problems they didn't catch themselves

Et cetera.

Yet Russia, China, and North Korea combined have larger standing militaries than the US.

The number of people you can put in the field has not mattered since the battle of Angincourt...oh, wait, it didn't much matter then either. Technology has trumped numbers for centuries. All the more so today.

The number of people you can put in the field has not mattered since the battle of Angincourt...oh, wait, it didn't much matter then either. Technology has trumped numbers for centuries. All the more so today.

Yes, but as the world wars of the previous century proved, a willing country with large numbers will drag out a war for a long time.

The number of people you can put in the field has not mattered since the battle of Angincourt...oh, wait, it didn't much matter then either. Technology has trumped numbers for centuries. All the more so today.

Really? Tell that to the average American soldier in Korea circa 1952. Numbers sure seemed to do a hell of a lot when all those Chinese came over that river. And the NVA/Viet Cong. Well, the Viet Cong was actually pretty much wiped out after Tet but still managed to defeat technology with numbers, albeit creative numbers, but numbers nonetheless.

Yes, but as the world wars of the previous century proved, a willing country with large numbers will drag out a war for a long time.

Yes, but only in a defensive battle. What good are Chinese numbers except in defense? And actually large numbers aren't even needed as the Iraqi's are proving. What is terrorism but asynchronous warfare?

Why does the U.S. need an offensive army? Are we now aspiring to Empire?

Withdrawn with apologies
It's cool.

The number of people you can put in the field has not mattered since the battle of Angincourt...oh, wait, it didn't much matter then either. Technology has trumped numbers for centuries. All the more so today.

Exactly..now you're getting the point...now how do you think one aquires said technology to defeat a numerically superior force?

Yes, but only in a defensive battle. What good are Chinese numbers except in defense? And actually large numbers aren't even needed as the Iraqi's are proving. What is terrorism but asynchronous warfare?

Why does the U.S. need an offensive army? Are we now aspiring to Empire?


The U.S. doesnt have an offensive army, the US has a flexable military..hence why we're still in Korea. Hence why for whatever reason we're still in Germany(Those blasted Poles will never learn :rolleyes: ) I'd attempt to appeal to you further but somehow I figure that would be an exercise in futility you seem to think that the US is supposed to only have a small insignifficant military..sorry not all the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you.

Definately. The only use of a military is for defense.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?
i would support this for any country. bring on world disarmament!

The U.S. doesnt have an offensive army, the US has a flexable military..hence why we're still in Korea. Hence why for whatever reason we're still in Germany(Those blasted Poles will never learn :rolleyes: ) I'd attempt to appeal to you further but somehow I figure that would be an exercise in futility you seem to think that the US is supposed to only have a small insignifficant military..sorry not all the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you.

Why would you suppose the only choice is between world-wide hegemony and total disarmament? The question is: how much military does the U.S. need and what do we need it for. I would attempt to appeal to you further but you seem to think any discussion of military waste or restraint on military growth is a call for total disarmament.

Why would you suppose the only choice is between world-wide hegemony and total disarmament? The question is: how much military does the U.S. need and what do we need it for. I would attempt to appeal to you further but you seem to think any discussion of military waste or restraint on military growth is a call for total disarmament.

And yet you avoided my other point..again I ask you how do you think the US manages to maintain its technological and military superiorty? Maybe I should spell it out m-o-n-e-y. You seem to ignore everyone elses point as well where do you think all the money goes to? Only so much can be attributed to grafting and waste.

Do you want to know what our Founding Fathers feared? They feared any power becoming strong enough in any other region that they could then turn and focus their attention across the Atlantic and potentially be hostile toward the US. How does the US maintain its security? Through promotion of its interests across the globe. How does that happen? Depends on the situation. Sometimes that is a requirement of military force.

After WWII, the US military was drastically reduced in size and strength. Most of the carriers from WWII had been sent to mothballs and were being systemmatically scrapped along with large chunks of the navy, aircraft development was stagnant and we cut the size of the Marine corps and Army. Where did that lead the US? Having to protect its interests in Korea or risk a possible attempt at hopping the Sea of Japan by the communists into a still very vulnerable Japan.

Now suppose at the closing stages of the Cold War we begun to disarm massively along with the Soviets, where do you think that would have left us in the Gulf War?

No Superpower remains a Superpower for long when they scale back their militiaries. It leaves them weak and vulnerable.

I am well aware of the military history of the U.S. I'm not arguing for pacifism or that the U.S. has ever been pacifist. However, this country has not traditionally been a nation with a permanent standing military. Jefferson would role over in his grave at the size and scope of our modern military.
Of course, then again Jefferson's weakening of the military is heavily responsible for many of the American military failures during the War of 1812. Our navy was insufficient for any real naval combat. Our army was a few thousand infantry and incompetent officers. We had loads of militia, but they weren't capable of doing anything, and many governors kept their militia in the state for "local defense."

Jefferson may just have been wrong.

The number of people you can put in the field has not mattered since the battle of Angincourt...oh, wait, it didn't much matter then either. Technology has trumped numbers for centuries. All the more so today.
And tactics, as part of the English plan at Agincourt was to lure the French knights into a mudpit. Where they could easily be taken out with arrows.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.
It makes you think, are the US building up for a new world war?

Of course, then again Jefferson's weakening of the military is heavily responsible for many of the American military failures during the War of 1812. Our navy was insufficient for any real naval combat. Our army was a few thousand infantry and incompetent officers. We had loads of militia, but they weren't capable of doing anything, and many governors kept their militia in the state for "local defense."

Jefferson may just have been wrong.

Well, you are correct that the United States was not prepared to fight an offensive war of aggression, which is what the War of 1812 was. It was instigated by Southern politicians anxious to grab land from Spain and Western politicians anxious to grab land from Canada.

The United States did not have the military necessary for a war of aggression, but it did have a military necessary to protect itself from invasion, which is my point. Why does the United States need a military designed for conquering others as opposed just enough to protect ourselves from others?

Well, you are correct that the United States was not prepared to fight an offensive war of aggression, which is what the War of 1812 was. It was instigated by Southern politicians anxious to grab land from Spain and Western politicians anxious to grab land from Canada.

The United States did not have the military necessary for a war of aggression, but it did have a military necessary to protect itself from invasion, which is my point. Why does the United States need a military designed for conquering others as opposed just enough to protect ourselves from others?

You fail to realize the US is interlocked with the rest of the planet..we cant just pack up our military and say screw off to the rest of the world. Thats not how it works, and frankly the war of 1812 had nothing to do with Spain, that was several decades later in 1898. It was France and Britain. I return to the point though that no nation remains a superpower without an adequate military to protect its interests.

You fail to realize the US is interlocked with the rest of the planet..we cant just pack up our military and say screw off to the rest of the world. Thats not how it works, and frankly the war of 1812 had nothing to do with Spain, that was several decades later in 1898. It was France and Britain. I return to the point though that no nation remains a superpower without an adequate military to protect its interests.

Hey, read the post correctly. You are getting Southern hopes to take Florida confused with the Spanish-American War.

Hey, read the post correctly. You are getting Southern hopes to take Florida confused with the Spanish-American War.

And your mistaking your history. The Adams-Onis treaty didnt occur until 1819. Four years after the War of 1812 ended.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution famously states:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although Prime Minister Koizumi continues to flagrantly ignore his nation's constitution in favor of supporting Bush's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq, the idea that a nation should have no more military than required to defend itself is a sound one.

The U.S. military budget for 2004 was $400 billion - more than at any other period in our history - and it continues to grow each year. The U.S. spending on military is almost as much as the combined military spending of the rest of the world. Up until the middle of the 20th century the U.S. traditionally only kept a military for defense.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

You do know that the only reason why that is in there is because the U.S. made them put that in there right? Plus we are thier millitary.

the main part of the population has sawdust for brains and so does your government.

And by this I don't mean to make this thread into a mud throwing contest, and yes I'm fully aware that I generalise the Americans, but in average i don't like them.
Yippie fucking kay yay. First, the main part of any population has sawdust for brains ,and secondly, was the last bit even necessary? I mean, the whole sawdust bit pretty much illustrated your opinion.

And your mistaking your history. The Adams-Onis treaty didnt occur until 1819. Four years after the War of 1812 ended.

Noooo..., I'm afraid you don't know your history as well as you think you do.

Western and Southern "war hawks" stampeded the nation into the War of 1812 on the basis of their expansionist dreams. Western war hawks wished to wipe out the Indian threat in the western territories and were looking to expand the United States northward into Canada. Southern war hawks coveted Florida, both as a territorial prize and also to eliminate a destination for escaped slaves (do you think Adams-Onis just popped out of thin air?).

Both Western and Southern war hawks used the used the issue of free trade and sailors rights as cover for their territorial ambitions, citing impressment of U.S. sailors. However, the region of the country most affected by the maritime policies of the British (and the French), the New England and mid-Atlantic states, voted against the war.

The War of 1812 was about expansionist policies of Western and Southern politicians.

Noooo..., I'm afraid you don't know your history as well as you think you do.

Western and Southern "war hawks" stampeded the nation into the War of 1812 on the basis of their expansionist dreams. Western war hawks wished to wipe out the Indian threat in the western territories and were looking to expand the United States northward into Canada. Southern war hawks coveted Florida, both as a territorial prize and also to eliminate a destination for escaped slaves (do you think Adams-Onis just popped out of thin air?).

Both Western and Southern war hawks used the used the issue of free trade and sailors rights as cover for their territorial ambitions, citing impressment of U.S. sailors. However, the region of the country most affected by the maritime policies of the British (and the French), the New England and mid-Atlantic states, voted against the war.

The War of 1812 was about expansionist policies of Western and Southern politicians.
Adams-Onis wasn't a result of the War of 1812. What it actually was a result of was an incursion into Florida, that occured well after the war, chasing some Indian raiding parties by Andrew Jackson, during which Jackson decided that he'd just take over Florida. The Spanish weren't too happy about this, but they weren't really in a position to do anything about it.

I didn't say Adams-Onis was the result of the War of 1812. However, the impulse to possess Florida that was part of the cause of the War of 1812 came to fruition in the Adams-Onis Treaty.

I didn't say Adams-Onis was the result of the War of 1812. However, the impulse to possess Florida that was part of the cause of the War of 1812 came to fruition in the Adams-Onis Treaty.

Adams-Onis wasnt even a result of impulse. The Spanish were dealing with serious internal strife as a result of having been under Napoleans jackboot and they couldnt exactly defend their colony. Going to War with the British wasnt exactly going to get them Florida :-T.

Also Western Expansion wasnt exactly delt with through the war of 1812, the Louisanna Purchase having occured before that time. Yes there were Warhawks who wished to get into the conflict but if it were about expansion it would have been northward into Canada alone. And that itself was a complete and utter mess due to an inadequete military.

Would you support an amendment to the Constitution similar to the Japanese Article 9?

I would for the US, but it's not really all up to just me.

Adams-Onis wasnt even a result of impulse. The Spanish were dealing with serious internal strife as a result of having been under Napoleans jackboot and they couldnt exactly defend their colony. Going to War with the British wasnt exactly going to get them Florida :-T.

Also Western Expansion wasnt exactly delt with through the war of 1812, the Louisanna Purchase having occured before that time. Yes there were Warhawks who wished to get into the conflict but if it were about expansion it would have been northward into Canada alone. And that itself was a complete and utter mess due to an inadequete military.

Primary source statement by a southern politician calling for war against Britain:

"What, Mr. Speaker, are we now called on to decide...?

This war, if carried on successfully, will have its advantages. We shall drive the British from our continent--they will no longer have an opportunity of intriguing with our Indian neighbors, and setting on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children. That nation will lose her Canadian trade, and, by having no resting place in this country, her means of annoying us will be diminished. The idea I am now about to advance is at war, I know, with sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia. I am willing to receive the Canadians as adopted brethren; it will have beneficial political effects; it will preserve the equilibrium of the government. When Louisiana shall be fully peopled, the Northern states will lose their power; they will be at the discretion of others; they can be depressed at pleasure; and then this Union might be endangered. I therefore feel anxious not only to add the Floridas to the South, but the Canadas to the North of this empire."

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/AP/War1812.htm#Southerner

Primary source statement by a southern politician calling for war against Britain:

"What, Mr. Speaker, are we now called on to decide...?

This war, if carried on successfully, will have its advantages. We shall drive the British from our continent--they will no longer have an opportunity of intriguing with our Indian neighbors, and setting on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children. That nation will lose her Canadian trade, and, by having no resting place in this country, her means of annoying us will be diminished. The idea I am now about to advance is at war, I know, with sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia. I am willing to receive the Canadians as adopted brethren; it will have beneficial political effects; it will preserve the equilibrium of the government. When Louisiana shall be fully peopled, the Northern states will lose their power; they will be at the discretion of others; they can be depressed at pleasure; and then this Union might be endangered. I therefore feel anxious not only to add the Floridas to the South, but the Canadas to the North of this empire."

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/AP/War1812.htm#Southerner

And yet we didnt get Florida until some time after the war...

However what does this have to do with the US military and article nine? We've gone off the topic as it where..

And yet we didnt get Florida until some time after the war...

However what does this have to do with the US military and article nine? We've gone off the topic as it where..

That is because we did not win the War of 1812.

You are correct that we have strayed....

Really? Tell that to the average American soldier in Korea circa 1952. Numbers sure seemed to do a hell of a lot when all those Chinese came over that river. And the NVA/Viet Cong. Well, the Viet Cong was actually pretty much wiped out after Tet but still managed to defeat technology with numbers, albeit creative numbers, but numbers nonetheless.
Oh we took losses certainly, but without the AgitProp stateside we never would have pulled out. Of course, if the French hadn't suppressed the populaiton like they had we probably never would have gone in there in the first place.

Yes I would support it. Or at least saying that we need real proof before commiting our armed forces. And it should also say that if a president has any sons or daughters, then they should be enlisted and sent to the battleground. That way, our troops would surely have the equipment they deserve.