Freepers conflicted on national defense

On the one hand, Freepers love the tough guy army. On the other hand, Obama's in charge, and he's using it and gaying it up. As usual, when pulled two ways, Freepers respond by choosing a third way - batshit insanity.

Thus we have a number of hairbrained ideas about how to Freeperize our foreign (read: military) policy:

ClearCase_guy plans to nuke everyone he doesn't like, bringing about peace through lack of humans:

I'm not totally convinced, but I do see some advantage to having a very small army.
Yes, we can still go in quickly, in a small way, to do small jobs.
Other than that, unfortunately, if you annoy us, we'll have to nuke you.

So don't p*ss us off.

paladin1_dcs thinks the Constitution requires unlimited defense spending:

No, the US shouldn't follow the UK's lead in this. They have a different situation than we do, starting with the fact that one of the very few things that our Constitution actually explicitly names as being a responsibility of Congress to fund is the military.

paladin1_dcs knows history:

military weakness only invites war. Every time that a major power has reduced it's military, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it has led to war, without fail.

SALT is why 9-11 happened!

JudgemAll:

It depends. I could get rid of a lot of useful units and add some very useful ones around the army.

Reductions for sake of reduction is wrong.

Hmmm. Sounds wise if I didn't think he only meant the military.