Do we need a military infantry? Or is it the Saudi royals who need our military infantry?

[Cleita]

I was watching two jets in the evening sky, tiny little pinpoints with what looked like three inch white contrail tails behind them. The contrails were the only reason I could see them. That’s how high they were flying and they were moving across the sky so quickly. I live close to Vandenberg AFB so I think that’s where they are coming from. It then occurred to me, why do we actually have a standing military infantry anymore when we have such advanced aircraft among other military hardware that hasn’t been squandered yet? I mean why do we have humans that have to go into a battle to be killed? I haven’t seen armies landing on our shores in numbers that would over run us, ever, the only reason that I can think of as to why we would have a standing army.

We have superior naval power, air power, rocket power and nuclear power. Why do we have an infantry at all except to attack other countries? If we were to come under attack, all we would need to do is lob our missiles and smart bombs at them from our ships and our aircraft. A defensive war could be fought like a video game with no need for an army to actually go into battle.

Yes, I know the National Guard is needed in case of riots in our cities or fires, floods or other disasters, but why are they in Afghanistan and Iraq? We haven’t been attacked by them. Screw the Taliban and Al Queda accusations for 9/11. We know it was the Saudis, but our Executive Office seem to be obedient to the Saudi royals. Our President kisses and holds hands with them. They are allowed to summon our Vice President and to slap him as a medieval sovereign would slap a subject who displeases him. Why is this allowed to happen with no retaliation or at least diplomatic protest?

Which brings me back to why do we need a standing army at all unless it’s to be used as pawns in a chess game played by Middle Eastern kings who have taken hold of our government and our military? Isn’t it time that our military brass in the Pentagon started asking these questions of our commander-in chief and his Vice President, because I don’t think our Constitution gives the commander-in-chief authority to fight battles for other sovereign nations without a really tight treaty involved.

If any of you Generals in the Pentagon are reading this, isn’t it time that you stood your ground? Isn’t it time that you questioned if the commander-in-chief is in fact working for American interests or the interests of other nations? Isn’t it time to stop squandering the lives of young Americans and innocent civilians in foreign lands to keep a corrupt group of royals and American criminals in power before it’s too late and we in fact are conquered by a foreign power from within our own national government and with the complicity of our military?

[BushOut06]

1. Without a standing army, how can we impose our will on other nations?

It's kinda hard to invade other countries without a large standing army!

Honestly, there's a reason why our founding fathers warned against standing armies and entangling foreign alliances.

[Cleita]

3. My point exactly. Thanks. n/t

[Cleita]

6. ...

[babylonsister]

2. We might, who knows? But if the majority of our defense isn't here,

what's the point?
Great post!

[Cleita]

4. Thanks babylonsister.

Coming from you, it means a lot to me.

[babylonsister]

5. Thank you, Cleita; I have a HIGH degree of respect for you and

your posts, always. :hi:

[KG]

7. you are correct.

the only thing the DoD defends is american corporate interests all over the globe.