The Founding Fathers were not in favor for a standing military because they were creating a Republic, not another British-like Empire that America has become today.  In fact, certain 2nd Amendment scholars reiterate the fact that the reason the populace were allowed to have similar type of arms to that of the military was because the militia would become the military in times of war and disbanded, once the war ended.  Hence, there would be no need for a standing military.  Standing armies is a telling sign of the road to empire and the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see what they fought against, their nation has become.  In fact, I would offer that they would probably be the people today, who call for another revolution to end the American empire and create another Republic.

Anti-military guys irritate me,
I despise cops,
but Military is ethical
honorable people.

Don't believe me?
Cops murder people all the time,
no problem.
A US Marine urinates
on a dead Moslem enemy
combatant, and needs a Presidential
pardon.
Y'all figure it out.

Not having a standing army was something much more feasible back when the country was founded. WW1 and WW2 showed us that there were significant downsides to having to suddenly raise an army. In today's world it simply isn't a feasible option when we are the leader of the free nation and attacks can come from across the world in a matter of hours. Could we cut back on the military budget a bit? Sure, but doing away with a standing military would be a mistake.

And drug cartels are hardly a way to measure the effectiveness of our military, that just doesn't make any sense.

And there were a number of good reasons to get into the war. Can start with the Nazis for starters and it would have been difficult to remain neutral in the pacific.

Hitler showed an insatiable desire for more territory regardless of the cost and they had developed a bomber that could nearly reach New York. The Nazi's were a threat even before any open hostilities. We are beyond the point of sitting out genocides.

Not having a standing army was something much more feasible back when the country was founded. WW1 and WW2 showed us that there were significant downsides to having to suddenly raise an army. In today's world it simply isn't a feasible option when we are the leader of the free nation and attacks can come from across the world in a matter of hours. Could we cut back on the military budget a bit? Sure, but doing away with a standing military would be a mistake.

And drug cartels are hardly a way to measure the effectiveness of our military, that just doesn't make any sense.

And there were a number of good reasons to get into the war. Can start with the Nazis for starters and it would have been difficult to remain neutral in the pacific.

Hitler showed an insatiable desire for more territory regardless of the cost and they had developed a bomber that could nearly reach New York. The Nazi's were a threat even before any open hostilities. We are beyond the point of sitting out genocides.

Your opinion.

What makes you think serving in the military automatically gives you a greater knowledge of national defense strategy and or tactics?

Oh wait, let me guess, you were part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when you served and part of the staff that advised the President on national defense strategy.

That is irrelevant.

The Founding Fathers knew all too well what the purpose was for standing armies and navies in the British Empire: to police their empire that is no different for America today.  If missile are your concern, build more missiles and lay off the global garrisons.



You make it sound that America has been innocent in the affairs of the Middle East and that they have never done anything to provoke the people of that region.  America has been messing around and participating in illegal overthrows of governments in that region for decades, which has resulted in countless numbers of Muslim dead as a result.  In fact, according to Chalmers Johnson's national bestseller, "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire", the attacks on 9/11 should not have been a surprise.

A former Cold Warrior, he notably stated, "A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist,
but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our
system was modeled, lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship."

Simply put: every bestseller list is a lie because no bestseller list measures the best selling books.

Maybe you need to read what he actually wrote.  We ARE a republic, NOT a democracy.  Why do people lament so often that we are supposed to be something we were never created as?

Do you think we should do away with a standing military?

Wrong, the republic has long since been dead for decades, if not for the last 100 years.

It is the American empire now and you better get used to giving up your personal liberties, as all empires demand obedience not only from their neighboring countries by its own citizenry as well.

Wrong, the republic has long since been dead for decades, if not for the last 100 years.

It is the American empire now and you better get used to giving up your personal liberties, as all empires demand obedience not only from their neighboring countries by its own citizenry as well.

Was Emperor Palpatine's Death Star actually a Debt Star? In the original Star Wars trilogy, the rebel alliance
blew up two Death Stars, which may have thrown the galactic economy into a financial crisis.

Professor Zachary Feinstein and Bloomberg's Peter Coy tell us why.

SNIP

He's dead.  I saw it in Return of the Jedi. . . So the Empire fell.  Or did it?  Were they just lying in wait on Exegol?

How The Death Star Triggered a Galactic Recession

Emperor Palpatine's had a $500 Quintillion Double indemnity Life insurance policy.
Duh !   

really?
developed as in mass produced? or just a concept?

To be quite honest I’m not really sure. It depends I guess on what we value. I value freedom. I believe that the cost of having a military as enormous as it is right now far outweighs the good it does. I would imagine that a military consisting of the people (a militia I guess) would be far better for our country. I am probably in the minority on this but I believe citizens should have access to ALL types of armaments as per the 2A. Tanks, fighter jets, everything needed to protect your country should be available for the average American in my opinion. I know it sounds crazy haha but from a logical standpoint if tanks can be regulated Then so can muskets and I don’t believe that is what the framers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.

I believe certain restrictions can be put in place for the above  scenario that don’t interfere with the 2A

I understand the problems with a standing army and I do have problems with how massive the cost is but I think that we would have to recognize that if we did away with a standing military that the technological, strategical, and tactical advantages we have would be severely hampered. Is that worth the trade off? We would have severe difficulties fending off an attack from a nation with a standing experienced army. The oceans would give us a bit of protection but not enough in my opinion. I am not sure I am comfortable with that risk.