Quote:
Originally Posted by Back Atcha
As it always has. However, in the absence of the military-industrial complex, they had other ways of achieving this through the creation of militias and, if needed, a draft. Respond away.
Again, I never said there should be no army. If you look closely at what I wrote, I said "LARGE STANDING ARMY". I'm starting to understand how it is that you get so easily confused.
|
Yes this country relied upon a draft to raise a large enough army to fight in WW 1, WW 2, and Viet Nam, and in every case we went to war with an under trained, ill equipped force that took major casualties while learning what they should have already known, and acquiring equipment that should have already been "in service".
Our current standing military is to small to even support itself in combat. They must rely upon civilian contractors for logistic support. Totally unsatisfactory. And after 8 years of Clintoon neglect our forces again went into combat without the proper equipment (ie. body armor, and armored vehicles), and a shortage of precision guided munitions.
You argument is so weak on so many points as to be laughable.