Not really sure where this topic would go or if its already been covered previously (I apologize if it already has been mentioned before).

I am a military member serving in the USAF and due to the fact that I have been in for awhile now I've learned lots of differnt viewpoints on military standings. By that, I mean how we are viewed as a whole. What I was wondering is how the Dollars view the military and what would you as the general public like to see changed?

Reason I'm asking is due to the fact that I tend to see so much dislike of the military as a whole, and while it may seem like a futile effort, I would like to at least try to turn around the general publivs view on military members as a whole.

I can't speak for others, but I hold a lot of respect for the military. Though I am biased, since I grew up on military bases around the country.

Even I have my issues with some things though, but that has more to do with how some soldiers behave. There are some that do not show respect to civilians or that seem to act in idiots in general. (Again my views are skewed by soldiers I've know in my life.) Some just project a bad image about the military with how they behave.

An organization where the employees are mainly taught to kill professionally and follow orders without questioning them based on how sensible they are, but instead following them in a hierarchic way, building out a system which ultimately puts life and death decisions in the hands of a few with the empowerment of many doesn't sound like anything to me which I should respect or like or appreciate, as a whole. At best, it saddens me, that there may be lots of good men serving this kind of system.

What I'd like to see changed? Well, I'd like to see the military feed and house the homeless. I'd like to see them build technically improved road crossings where a child can't physically get hit by a car, I'd like to see them disarming nuclear weapons around the world, and see them help nations bridge their differences without human casualties. I'd like them to protect any innocents, I'd like them to at least engage in conflict without civilian casualties, if it can't be solved any other way. I'd like them to analyze the root cause of a source of agression, and try to solve it in a non-violent way, before engaging in conflict. I'd like them to give resources to countries which are suffering from poverty. Clean water, electricity for example. I'd like them to become problem solvers.

>>3 >I'd like them to become problem solvers
So would they, when they get back from service. Most of them find themselves wanting to do something for society, but society not giving them anything to do.

I think you are looking at that problem the wrong way. There is not one source of blame, anyway.

>>3 That's what the National Guard is for :p

>>1 I can't take the military seriously, nor trust it, mostly because of how it is managed. Teaching people to follow orders without following their personal logic is a no-go to me. After Vietnam, people insulted and assaulted those in the army coming back after the war because of the atrocities that happened there. However, the footmen that got spit on weren't the ones at fault; they were simply following orders. If they didn't follow orders or ran away, then they would have been considered deserters and faced legal penalty upon returning. So even though they were ordered to do inhumane things, they could not argue against it. Yet people still enlist willingly and show pride about it! That's just one of many examples of this happening. Even GitS mocks it with Batou's experiences as a special force in the US army.

That whole concept makes it really hard for me to look someone in the eye when they join the military, the army especially. The oaths you make are the equivalent of promising to torture a child if your superior told you to. There's no place for that disgusting level of loyalty in my book.

>>4 Not blaming anyone.
>"So would they, when they get back from service. Most of them find themselves wanting to do something for society, but society not giving them anything to do."
Yeah, that's a trickier one, cause I'd like to say, "no society has a lot of things to offer that need solving", but also, it's not like you can just come back from service snap your fingers and start solving problems all suddenly. But I also don't know if the military offers voluntary work(take the clean water for example), because they can always become volunteers after that, and do something for society, but in that instant, they become irrelevant from "our point of view" (military as a whole).

>>5 The National Guard houses and feeds the homeless? Every day I learn something new.

I'd hate to come across as the bad guy here, but there are some things that need to be cleared up. So I have this to say about the US Army mostly.

>>5 >>3 The way it sounds is you think that the chain of command is followed blindly. The soldiers have to use their individual judgment in every situation to figure out how to best fulfill their orders. Yes, there are those who will follow their orders blindly, BUT they are not suppose to. They go through extensive training just so they can asses their actions in the field. They ARE NOT however trained to torture children. Most soldiers would rather risk everything than to do such.

As for the military helping people, they do it quite often. It just gets over looked or taken for granted. They often help out with programs like Toys for tots, Habitat for humanity, as well as food and blood drives. They even help out at soup kitchens.

Once they come back from active duty, or leave the military, they often need the programs that they once participated in. It's not that they no longer want to help, it's that they now need the help themselves as well. It's no secret that many soldiers develop PTSD, or end up homeless and unemployed.

How can you honestly accuse them of not trying to help others, when that's normally why so many people join the military to begin with. They join because they want to protect our country and all of it's citizens. They want to help.

/quiet facepalm/
>>7 Of course they're not trained to torture children.

I'm not discussing the semantics of their training - I'm talking about the results of their hierarchy and what's been proven through wars in our nation's history. We'd be bullshitting ourselves if we tried to say our soldiers, or the soldiers of many other countries, have never committed war atrocities on the orders of their superiors. And we'd be bullshitting ourselves just as much if we pretended it could never happen again.

Of course soldiers face mental problems after serving. You're killing people - this is usually what happens when you do that. Yet, people still choose to enlist knowing this. They are the only ones responsible for what comes of them during and after the wars. They enlist knowing that they may be beaten and broken at the end.

"Most soldiers would rather risk everything than to do such." Until they're stuck in some foreign country, surrounded by people ready to kill them, and know it would literally be suicide to try and desert their post. Nevermind if you have a superior who isn't right in the head; they have the whole team to shoulder their orders should you choose to fuck off. You can't always just go home. You can't always say No. You know that when you sign up.

[Pardon me in advanced since this post is pretty rude and opinionated, but OP is the one who opened up this can of worms.] Beyond that, though, I think my #1 issue is the hero mentality >>7 mentioned. It's the fact that they think they're protecting "their people" by shooting at foreigners that bothers me the most. Those higher up in the military? I can understand that. But the foot soldiers who do the dirty work going off about how they're protecting everyone seriously irks me and makes me lose a lot of respect for them.

Don't go to the military on some misguided notion that you're helping people. You're tearing up foreign families and just pushing the political agendas of your country. You're not protecting your own kids by spending months across the ocean. You know who protects people? Politicians. People who study and learn and at least try to keep the country afloat. No matter how well you do on the field, if the politicians and gov't officials don't do their jobs, this country will collapse, and you'll be left wasted on the field as no more than an abandoned puppy.

Soldiers are just the minions in a videogame that go wherever on the map the politicians click, yet they're the ones with the hero mentality. Yes, they're important, and it'd be difficult to win the game without them, but they don't have as lasting of an impact as they like to think. People who willingly sacrifice themselves as those minions, then think of themselves as the lvl98 tanks protecting the world, don't get much respect from me despite the periodic necessity of their presence.

>>6 That is something that could be improved on the military's part, for sure. Having a program in place to make it easier to integrate veterans back into society is something that's been a problem for a while, but I think if it were redirected towards community service type work rather than a job for money it would have more success.

>>9 This is not really looking at the big picture, though. Are you going to tell the people of Holland that they should stop sending tulips to Ottawa every year because Canadian soldiers had to kill people to save them? They were being starved to death, and all they could eat was tulips. This was done to them by men with families, and those families were broken up when they died, but they were killing people, too.

Now, this is in the past. World War 2 was a long time ago, yes? Maybe it's not as relevant anymore. However, what is relevant is that idea. The idea of protecting your country and helping others. As you said, politicians help keep this country alive. Should all of the politicians quit because many of them are very bad at doing their job? There are countless cases of politicians ruining hundreds if not thousands of lives with their combined power and incompetence. However, there are also numerous cases of politicians doing great things for society, like they are supposed to. It's not logical to say, "Don't be a politician on some misguided notion that you'll actually help people. You're playing with people's lives and there's no way you can help them all. All politicians end up being corrupt and do more harm than good."

In this same sense, it is not logical to say that about the military. Personally, I think there are much better ways to serve your country than by killing other people, but I recognize that is not the sole purpose of the military, and it is certainly not all they do. I have pretty much the exact same opinion as you do on the military, but I recognize it's heavily bias. You say "pushing the political agendas of your country", but that's really just another way of saying "serving your country". Yes, it's what the military does, but I don't think you can make it out to be such a basically wrong idea when politicians do the same thing in a different way. Killing people does not only accomplish breaking up families, it can also reunite them. There are many cases of good that has come from it. We just need to figure out how to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Unfortunately, I don't really know how, I'm not really knowledgeable in politics in general. I think it can be done, though, no?

I see so much of what you all are upset about its crazy. I joined the Air Force almost 4 years ago and have recently been promoted to the rank of SAmn in Security Forces.

I hate the "I'm so much better than civilians" mentality that so many of the people I'm around display. It gives all of us a bad rap and I'm sick of it. The teasing, rude behavior and taunting of civilian personnel is awful and I don't tolerate it when I'm around.

I'm not going to lie, there are multiple orders I have been given that I disagree with wholeheartedly and the feeling of not being able to control my own life brings with it a feeling of hoplessness. There are times that I wish that I hadn't gone into the military simply because I disagree with the orders that are given to me. I REFUSE to blindly follow an order and will promptly call out a superior for a reason if I deem it unorthodox.

At times I realize how seemingly difficult it is to be able to do what you think is right and be in the military. When I first joined, I did have the "hero" mentality. I wanted to be that person that people saw in the airport and said 'there goes the US military'. After having been in now for quite awhile, I almost find it strange when people thank me for my service. I honestly don't know how someone could thank me for doing/seeing some of the things I've seen/done.

I just want to be able to change how people see me as well as others in uniform, no matter how hard it might be.

>>11 If everyone in the military had this mindset, I don't think we'd have many problems with it.

Congratulations on the promotion!

I mostly just want to know whst civilians see and what they'd like me as an individual to try to change within the hierarchy of how things are accomplished. While I am by no means "high on the totem pole" so to speak, I do lead a smaller fire team. Being in that position of leadership over young airmen I'm hoping that by getting some ideas of what civilians see and dislike, perhaps I can teach younger airmen to uphold the same values? It's so easy to lose your civilian mindset and forget why you joined in the first place.

>>10 Hold up, this is a big bundle of misinterpretation. I don't personally care about the killing. The military's got to do what it's got to do. War is war. People die. Whatever. I'm talking about the mentality that killing some other powerless soldier in another country and ruining their family is going to save your own and the rest of the populace.

"Now, this is in the past. World War 2 was a long time ago, yes?"
In the history of people and the military, absolutely not.

"Should all of the politicians quit because many of them are very bad at doing their job?"
No. I never mentioned how "good" anyone was at doing their jobs. It's got nothing to do with this.

"'Don't be a politician on some misguided notion that you'll actually help people.'"
It's one thing to think you're helping people. It's another to think you're saving the lives of millions of people just by participating in the army or, in this case, politics. Politicians regardless usually don't have the same hero mentality that those in the army do because they're busier dealing with their job. They don't get a whole populace of civilians thanking them just for being politicians or multiple holidays dedicated in their honor or days to mourne for those who're assassinated. If they want to be thanked, they have to earn it by proving themselves to the public. I respect that more than kids waving an American flag and a machine gun around claiming they've saved their country.

"You say 'pushing the political agendas of your country', but that's really just another way of saying 'serving your country'."
No, it's a way of saying, "serving your politicians." The politicians and gov't officials create the agendas that they believe will be the best things to do to keep the country balanced and survive another year. Whether those agendas are right or wrong for the country, the military just does what they're told to make the international agendas that require force happen.

The rest of that post seemed to talk a lot about death and killing, which I believe came from misunderstanding my point of view on the matter.

>>12 This.

>>13 I'm not sure that you can change the points of views of a lot of people, especially since a lot of them have no real reason behind it.

My personal respect goes to militants and people who don't take the army to be such a serious matter in the grand scheme of things, but I understand why that's hard when you're putting your life on the line for it. It's scary to consider that your time spent killing people and nearly being killed yourself doesn't have a major impact on the world worthy of having a metaphorical parade in your honor when you return.

However, being humble about your accomplishments and position despite this deserves respect.

>>3 I am currently in the military as well (USAF as well) and while I cannot speak for every job within the Air Force or across the other branches, I can tell you that while the "shut up and color" mentality is there, it's in a very small portion. While in the office that I'm currently assigned to, I've seen my supervisor (TSgt/E-6) shoot down ideas or concepts for programs of those who outrank him (from SMSgt/E-8 to officers). He even has officers that he used to teach telling new recruits to "shut up and listen, he knows what he's taking about." Now with all that said, I have to say that I'm stationed in the US and don't see any fighting at all, and the only reason that we're trained to handle weapons (shotguns personally or assault rifles for Security Forces) but that's only because of what we work with in the proverbial "big picture." There's even a policy in place called "knock it off" that states that anyone, even the lowest Airman, can tell anyone else to stop, including the commander, to stop whatever they're doing due to anything from an unsafe situation to simply not understanding why/what they're doing.

In a nutshell I guess what I'm trying to say is that whatever the military was like before, it's nothing like what it is now. Heck, I've seen the Air Force change drastically since I've been in (2010-now). Everything from repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" (allowing gays to serve openly in the military) to the Secretary to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (if I remember right, the highest civilian position) putting in place a Force Improvement Program which we could tell them anything and everything that we find wrong or could be improved, and I mean anything, from processes within the chain of command, to the chain of command itself, to equipment, to housing and office buildings.

Now on the flip-side, I will not deny that there are occurrences of people in the military going out and not doing what one might define as "good." Things like Guatonomo Bay (sp?) shouldn't have happened. We have a set of rules that I imagine you could find online called the UCMJ. The UCMJ is actually closer to our own set of laws that we have to obey on top of whatever laws exist in whatever country we are stationed in at the time. I know a few people who have even gotten in trouble for breaking the UCMJ and don't think that every time that you break it you go to jail, because that isn't true. Now, that's a possibility if you do something really bad, but depending on the severity they can dock your pay, demote you a rank, or even remove your pay for a predetermined amount of time. Following any of that, if you get into any financial trouble and can't pay your bills, you can get in trouble for that as well and (please don't quote me because I'm not sure on this part) take away more of your rank or paycheck. And if you didn't know, rank is directly related to how much you get paid in the military.

All I ask at this point is that you do some more research on today's military, even talk to some people who have been in for a while and those who are just starting, just so that you can get a better idea of what we actually do to (shameless plug) protect our borders and everyone's rights, even if you use those rights to, for lack of a better term, insult those who protect you and give their lives on a daily basis.

>>15
>Politicians regardless usually don't have the same hero mentality that those in the army do because they're busier dealing with their job

This is where I would disagree, I guess. They don't exactly get the same 'hero' mentality, they get a different "nothing's going to get better, so fuck it," mentality. Still, I think the same kind of logic applies to that thinking since it's similar.

You did say if politicians did not do their job, the country would collapse, so that would imply they are doing their jobs since we're all still alive. So, should no one join now knowing that many of them become corrupt and stop caring about their job? No, they should not, because a few people that have the wrong idea don't destroy the idea. Isn't this true with the military too?

I guess I have a similar opinion of politicians. The good are far and few between. There are too many people that go into politics, thinking they will change the whole system, they're tired of the way things are playing out, when really they can't do much at all.

But, people think that about a lot of jobs. People that join a restaurant and think they are going to be the best chef and cook the best meals ever, or people that aim to become actors and think they are going to dazzle millions with their acting talent and become famous. There are a lot of jobs people over-glorify, I don't think it's limited to the military. Maybe it is worse, though, I'm not sure.

It doesn't seem like I misinterpreted anything. You don't think the military is protecting its country by going to foreign countries and killing their soldiers, no? If not, I have misread what you wrote.

I guess the main problem is that most people, myself included, haven't done a lot of research on the military or talked to anyone actually serving there before coming to conclusions about it.

>>17 I'm glad to hear there's been change, then.

>>18 You're still talking about something completely unrelated to what I've said. You're talking about QUALITY. I'm talking about MENTALITY. I'm not talking about how good or bad the military is at their job, which is what you're complaining about with politicians. I'm talking about what they *think* of their jobs regardless of how well they do it.

And yes, you've misread what I wrote. I don't think each individual foot soldier has protected millions of people every time they serve, but I understand and agree with the purpose of the military in general and know the overarching organization protects people in times of war.

Missed that second to last paragraph in >>18

There's a difference about look forward to things that could happen over time in your career versus thinking you've already accomplished them, nevermind putting yourself on a higher moral level because of those fictitious accomplishments. There's also a big difference between thinking you're saving millions of lives versus that you're making good food or becoming popular. It's not really comparable in my opinion.

>>20 I am talking about mentality, am I not?

>They don't exactly get the same 'hero' mentality, they get a different "nothing's going to get better, so fuck it," mentality.

>There are too many people that go into politics, thinking they will change the whole system, they're tired of the way things are playing out, when really they can't do much at all.

This is mentality, no?

As for the soldiers, if they are contributing to what you say is the protection of people in times of war, can they not say they themselves are doing it? Do they have to make the distinction between contribution and direct participation for you to respect them? It seems like a reasonable link.

I guess, I don't know what your problem is.
>You're tearing up foreign families and just pushing the political agendas of your country.

>I understand and agree with the purpose of the military in general and know the overarching organization protects people in times of war.

I'm not really sure if you think the military itself is okay, but the people that glorify it to hell? Or, after reading >>21, it seems the problem is when they get on a higher horse because of it? I think the problem was that I thought you held 'pushing political agendas' in a bad light, it's usually how that's said where I'm from. But, you don't seem to disagree with the agenda, only with people who don't realize their role is propagating it. Is that correct?

>>21 I have met many an actor that thinks they will become as famous as Tom Cruise and live off their talent. When I suggest otherwise, they think I just don't realize how talented they really are. Similar things happen with other professions I mentioned. That's why I mentioned that, I thought that kind of high horse, "you just don't get it" attitude was comparable.

>>22 It's a mentality that relies on the politician to be so mediocre that they can't accomplish what they set out to or so unintelligent that they lack realistic expectations. How much of an impact you have in politics depends on how good you are at it. The same goes for the army, but that's not what's being discussed. You could say the expectations go with the hero mentality in thinking that they're going to save more than they realistically will, but it's not going thinking they're *going to* and failing and, rather, thinking they've already done it by enlisting.

"if they are contributing... can they not say they themselves are doing it?" You tell me. If you're a janitor at Apple, can you not say you yourself created hundreds of computers and are making millions of dollars? If you pay your employee and he buys a water bottle for a homeless man with it, did you save that man? Did you save every homeless man in the city along with it just by association because you participated in something to do with helping someone that was homeless? No.

"I thought that kind of high horse, "you just don't get it" attitude was comparable." In a way it is, but it also isn't. The problem is that when you have that attitude in the military, you're under the impression that you saved the people you're talking to. I get cussed off all the time by people in the army who usually back up what they have to say with, "I'm out here saving your ass, and this is how you thank me?" The belittling belief that you deserve to be thanked because you think you serviced another person doesn't come with those examples.

Fair warning, I'm not sure where this debate is supposed to be going, but I'm probably too biased to have my opinion changed by it :o It's one of the few topics that I've got a pretty static stance on.

>>24 I never have discussions with the intent of changing someone's view. I want to change my view, but first I need to understand other people's views. Mostly, other people's opinions resound some of the thoughts I have had from time to time, and I have been unable to disprove them. However, with a real live person who believes it, they can! Unfortunately, I usually end up sounding like I'm trying to prove something most of the time, so I don't get much from it...

>>25 Nah, I understand. There's nothing wrong with using a debate to get a better perspective of your own opinions. It can be pretty insightful when done right :> My bias probably doesn't make the best environment for it though lol

>>26 Actually, that makes it better. In a more self-centered sense, I don't want to sound like an idiot when I am talking about something, oblivious to any other point of view. The firmer-standing your opinion is, the more I can learn from it. The only issue is the person in question has to be able to communicate it to me and trust me enough to do so. They have to trust that I won't try to rip to shreds their most prized possessions. Their experiences, the summation of their life, essentially. It can be a very personal thing.

I think I'm getting better at it, though.

Originally I was juat wonderinc how the 'outside world' views the military's actions and how you would like to see it changed (if you were able to do so).

The conversation surrounding this topic is of great interest to me though because more often than not, especially living on base, I rarely get to see and hear what people truely think of the military as a whole.

>>28 More often than not, they are uneducated as a whole, and 'know' what they have been told by the news and movies. I'm not distancing myself from that group, either. I haven't talked to very many people who served about how it works or what policies they had in place.

I dislike the concept of the military just based on ideals. However, accepting that this is not an ideal world, I can understand the necessity of the military as a defensive force. One of the big problems I have with the military at the moment is less a problem with the military itself and more with America's absurd foreign policy.

That said, I do have issues with the military. First of all, sexual assault in the military. You can say all you want about that only being a few people, you can say that most soldiers don't do that, but it remains a fact that 37 percent of female veterans report being raped at least twice. And I don't care if that's a small number of people; it's unacceptable.

Furthermore, I disagree with the military budget. There is no way that we should be paying to kill other people while we leave people in our own country to starve. I don't understand the culture that can spend so much on wars but is not willing to provide for the less fortunate in their society.

People dont like the military because you're all just a bunch of braindead pawns, marching to the beat without thinking.

If you defend your country that's great. But you don't.

You don't fight for justice, you fight for money- the highest bidder. You fight to keep America's war economy going. You fight to let Israel take more land from native people. You don't have ideals, you just do what someone else tells you to do. This is not admirable. The fact that you would want to throw away your life for something like that is rather pitiable in fact.



And for gods sake, OP, youre trained to fucking kill.
Stop shitposting on empty message boards.

>>31

Case in point.

I've been reading this thread for the past half an hour, and since >>31 already wrote down what was getting ripe for me too to put in words, let's throw up the ball on something I've seen alot here, protecting your country. If there were no military on the planet, would the country really need protecting?
Also an interesting thing. I mostly see US specific discussion. From what exactly does the US need protecting? What other country's military force is threatening to invade the US? What's all the protecting business about? Who is getting protected against what external threat?

Also I haven't really seen my arguments completely disaffirmed or denied since I posted them. How the military technically works, or what the source of each individual soldier's motivation or the kind of attitude they have has nothing to do with the military as an organization/as a whole.

Also, I'll let you guys find out how much nuclear weapons the US military currently has in total for yourselves, but just for fun: the military has 71 active nuclear submarines currently, some of these carry up to 24 nuclear missiles, each of them with the destructive power 10 times of Hiroshima. Honestly, what purpose does that serve? To have so many? What will that accomplish? A radiating planet if worst come to worst? I don't get how that will solve anything or protect anyone...

Also, is protecting someone, by killing another truly the best way to protect that person? To solve a problem? Bloodshed, killing and war always ends in human suffering. There is, and never was no war in which people, any side of them lived happily ever after. It's like boxing. Even if you win, your opponent still may kick the shit out of you. Have you truly won then? What have you gained compared to what you lost?

( Also, something that was on my mind. When you think you're protecting your country, don't you think that the person on the other side has his own reason to have to fight? That he's also been told to protect something. So then we decide the conflict through measuring the two countries' battle prowess, like it has been done the last 1000 years? Unless we start to think of these things as problems that have to be solved so that possibly everyone's interests are fulfilled, one side is going to be labeled wrong and the other victorious, only to produce the same problem later on, since the causes of conflict have never been truly stopped. )

>>33
fast correction on the last paragraph: " There *never is, and never was no war in which people, any side of them, lived happily ever after."

>>33 "If there were no military on the planet, would the country really need protecting?"
You don't need a military for there to be a threat. Terrorists aren't part of any country's military, but they can still fuck people up. By not having a military, you have no way to fight against it. Also, not having a military means it's everyday people fighting, which brings the fights into the home territories rather than being able to follow military regulations. Keep in mind that parts of the military also protect people in times of crisis, such as when a natural disaster hits. It's just a matter of having a trained and organized force.

"From what exactly does the US need protecting?" Terrorists and other countries. The US has been in many wars that threatened its people. However, because of the scope of our military, we have been able to keep the fighting outside of our own country (--other than terrorist attacks, which invade our land). It's *because* of the military that you can be ignorant to other countries being treats, and were it gone, those threats would be at your front door.

"Honestly, what purpose does that [number of nuclear weapons, etc] serve?" Would you rather we *didn't* have them and instead just accept it when other countries bomb us with nukes? It's a scare tactic first and foremost, but it's also insurance. Every major country has nuclear weapons not because they intend to use them but rather to create a level playing field in case some asshole country does decide to use it.

"Also, is protecting someone, by killing another truly the best way to protect that person?" If someone has a knife to someone's throat and I've got a a sniper rifle, I'll sure as hell shoot them straight in the head. Killing can be justified. Besides, it's also a form of population control. Not everyone can survive to old age and still leave us with a functioning society; that's just how life works. When your country is facing a threat, are you supposed to just lay down and take it because you're afraid of bloodshed? Is that going to make the other country stop? No.

The fact of the matter is that there will never be a time when there is no opposing force. Because of that, you have to be prepared to defend yourself from whoever, or whatever, takes that opposing role.

"There never is, and never was no war in which people, any side of them, lived happily ever after." Of course not. That's not the point. You hope to increase your quality of life, but "happily ever after" doesn't happen. Most wars are fought for money (99% of them), pride (ex The Crusades; The Civil War), or survival (ex The American Revolution).

I'm not saying war is right, but it's not something that's going to go away, nor is it something that we can blame on the existence of the military. Native American tribes fought one another for hunting land, and most of them didn't have a highly trained and organized military waiting to get called to war. Conflict will always exist whether guns or nukes or trained killers exist.

threats* not treats xD

>>35
>"It's just a matter of having a trained and organized force."
That's why it doesn't specifically have to be military. Take SWAT for example, or police force. I have my own opinion of them too, but let's put that aside, they're there to uphold public safety, as in case of the military it's a secondary goal, compared to being the main attacking force of a particular country (from any non point of view, before we start to shitride the definition of attack and defence).

>"You don't need a military for there to be a threat. Terrorists aren't part of any country's military, but they can still fuck people up."
Yes, that is true. But also consider that they have (for themselves) their own valid reasons too. And no one ever tries to analyze the root cause of it. Countries which are rich from a monetary and military perspective always mean a threat to other countries. Having the military in all countries cease it's existence could be part of a solution. Also we could have 77 million people on the world doing something instead. For example coming up with a system which prevents terrorism in the first place, and not through violent retorsion. I think it would work better than the good old, "Oh, you killed mine? I'll kill yours then!" Killing doesn't bring back bomb victims to life, or puts artificial limbs on their legs. Problem solving, engineering, science does. You can of course deny my point by responding that if we kill the agressors, the threat is at least gone, and no other civilians are harmed by terrorism, but since the root cause for their (the terrorists') behavior is still there, the reason why they concluded they have to resort to acts of terror in the first place, there will just be another group later, and the whole ride starts again. And guess again, who gets the short end of the string.

>"The US has been in many wars that threatened its people. However, because of the scope of our military, we have been able to keep the fighting outside of our own country"
I already wrote down my opinion on terrorists.
Could you give me 5 different examples of wars where another country attempted to invade the US, but failed due to the military fighting it outside of borders. I guess that still fits the scope of many right?
Also, I might consider the definition of defending here:
resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger
That means you defend, if you are attacked. That gives you the reason to do it. I rarely hear the US being attacked, and retaliating in course of defence. Also there are ways of defence which do not include attack.
(also just so we don't mix up the two arguments: if you go back to what I wrote previously, if there would be no military at all, there would be no other countries' military to defend against)

>"Would you rather we *didn't* have them and instead just accept it when other countries bomb us with nukes?"
I'd rather not live on a radiating planet after the first idiot shoots the missile, since if that happens, we're all in for it, it will be fucking genocide, no stopping it. If there is an attack to retaliate to. Also, consider the case of hiroshima and nagasaki. Scientists pleaded the military to just throw the bombs next to them in the ocean, to demonstrate the destructive power making japan capitulate. Well, that didn't go quite as the inventors (who you have to thank for that great security resource) planned it. If it's about someone else's life, the military has no respect at all, and that proved it well enough. It's not because the people aren't kind enough, it's because the system is fucked up.
Anyways, what I think might be achievable compared to what I would find ideal would be to at least have a marginal amount of nuclear warheads. Like, you can't have more than to blow up half of earth or something, because 5,113 nuclear warheads in total is just a teaspoon above what I expect to be "a scare tactic first and foremost, but also insurance"

>"in case some asshole country does decide to use it"
You know, there are no asshole countries. There are reasons and causes to every human beings behavior, they aren't born pushing the "Nuke those motherfuckers" button. And mostly those reasons come from inequality in the people's resources to please their necessities. Food, clean durable shelter, clean water and so on. You won't see countries or certain parts of countries making terrorist groups where people live like shit, but have enough to buy food and sleep in a bed with a roof over their heads. Where they have access to their necessities. (All this macho jihad bullshit also comes from the delusion of being rewarded with a better (quality of) life). But also this problem runs deeper than only the military and would need a discussion all in itself.

(="_"=) why do my replies always become so fucking long *sigh*

>>37 Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but I have no idea what you meant by that first paragraph. How does it address the point at all? SWAT isn't trained to take on an entire opposing force, nor are the police. They each have their own purpose the same way the military does.

"But also consider that they have (for themselves) their own valid reasons too."
Everyone has an excuse. We all have reasons we do things the way we do. Their reasoning is usually just as valid as ours.

"And no one ever tries to analyze the root cause of it."
No, people are always trying to understand the root cause. Do you think we just shoot terrorists without trying to analyze the reasons for their actions? Do you think modern countries go to war without trying to figure out why the other side is offended first? Just because these efforts are tucked into educational studies and essays doesn't mean they don't exist. Are many everyday people biased and not thinking straight about the opposing party in a war? Yeah, that happens a lot, but those declaring it have to put a *litttttle* more though into it.

"For example coming up with a system which prevents terrorism in the first place, and not through violent retorsion."
Do you really think nobody considers how to avoid terrorism before the war starts? Wars are expensive as shit. We don't just go into it for fun. But you know what - go right ahead. You should come up with that non-violent system that magically keeps terrorism from ever happening. Write and publish an essay documenting your findings and send it to as many gov't officials as you can. Maybe you can fix the world.

"Could you give me 5 different examples of wars where another country attempted to invade the US, but failed due to the military fighting it outside of borders."
My whole point is that we've never had to experience that during a major war because all of our wars except the Civil War and Revolutionary War have been off our soil. If America showed that it couldn't defend itself on enemy soil, then there definitely would have been more attempts to invade us through the years.

"there would be no other countries' military to defend against"
No, but again, it's not just about other countries' military. Threats come in all forms -- organized, rogue, or otherwise.

"I'd rather not live on a radiating planet after the first idiot shoots the missile, since if that happens, we're all in for it, it will be fucking genocide, no stopping it."
If the country that starts it gets the shit bombed out of them and no one goes to their side (which they most likely won't because that country would have broken all the various international pacts there are about), then they certainly will stop. The idea that that world is going to end the day a nuclear war starts is overrated. America and other countries have so many so that they can shut those countries out before they become an issue.

"consider the case of hiroshima and nagasaki"
What happened there wasn't right; we didn't understand it fully at the time. There's a reason there are so many regulations about using nukes now compared to back then.

"5,113 nuclear warheads in total is just a teaspoon above what I expect to be 'a scare tactic first and foremost, but also insurance' "
Nukes go far, but they don't go *that* far. As an example, it would take almost 33,000 nukes to destroy the territory of Russia by blast radius. I assume far less would be fired than that (just in key places), but were there a situation where countries needed to be removed for breaking their pacts, a reasonable number may be needed. Either way, it's still insurance. The number of them doesn't change it. Do you think it's not life insurance if it covers someone a million dollars just because it's a high number?

It is what it is.

"You know, there are no asshole countries."
Not asshole countries, no, but there are asshole dictators. There are a people in power who shouldn't be in power in places all over the world. All it takes is one unstable dictator in some country with a stock of nukes to cause an issue. (Hence the tension with the North Korea scare.)

"And mostly those reasons come from inequality in the people's resources to please their necessities."
Not always. A lot of those reasons come from greed, as we've seen in history. Just like not every bully has a sob story, not everybody who's done something wrong has a complex reason behind it to explain their actions. Not everyone is "just misunderstood." Some people are, some people aren't, and it's not always safe to give the benefit of the doubt.

Here we go again :D

>>39:
What I meant by the first paragraph is that in cases of non-military conflict there is trained inland security. Not only the military can fight off a terrorist attack.

"but those declaring it have to put a *litttttle* more though into it." great, and so after they've put a little effort in it, and we understand their reasons, it's time to bomb the shit out of those motherfuckers, right Bill? I mean, come on, you can't be serious about this. There's no point in root cause analysis, if we don't do something with it. I'm not talking about how to use the military force to prevent a terrorist attack. I'm talking about how to stop the factors which give rise to organized acts of violence. Bombing the shit out of them still didn't make anyone smarter.

"Wars are expensive as shit." Wars are lucrative as shit. They can be funded by the same global banking institution from both sides, putting both countries in great dept, it can also be controlled through monetary methods. It's also a goldmine in terms of resources.
"But you know what - go right ahead. You should come up with that non-violent system that magically keeps terrorism from ever happening"
There's nothing that magically changes the world overnight. But there are alternatives to work with. Take the venus project for example. If only half of what they think can be done, could be brought to attention, there would be far less need for bullshiting ourselves about why war is needed.
Also, alternatives will never be implemented exactly because war is profitable, and the current regime will uphold that until the goldmine is emptied, and they find another great source of profit.

"My whole point is that we've never had to experience that during a major war because all of our wars except the Civil War and Revolutionary War have been off our soil"
That did not provide an answer to my question. I already understand your opinion, that wasn't what I was asking for. Read what I wrote again, please.

"No, but again, it's not just about other countries' military. Threats come in all forms -- organized, rogue, or otherwise. "
No military --> no national borders. Every act of organized violence becomes a unified domestic issue, an interest of all nations regardless of geographical location. It could be handled with a force very similar to the military, but that wouldn't be the military anymore, which we currently understand under the word.

"If the country that starts it gets the shit bombed out of them and no one goes to their side (which they most likely won't because that country would have broken all the various international pacts there are about), then they certainly will stop."
Nothing is certain when someone shoots off a nuclear missile. Things aren't always that black and white. Absolute good and bad only exist in fairy tales. Want insurance? The US got 2 million soldiers ready to fight. I think that's enough insurance.

"What happened there wasn't right; we didn't understand it fully at the time."
That's cute. But science does not work that way. These things are tested, tried out before, made sure they work as intended. The US fully understood what it was doing that time. At least as much as those incompetents do who make these decisions currently.

"I assume far less would be fired than that (just in key places)"
Oh, great. That sounds unbelievably comforting. Great. Really. It's just that you don't need to cover the whole area, it's enough to make a wasteland out of the key points of a country to not make it livable again. Also, water in the soil, rainwater, wind, and animals carry radiation from one place to another. It's not like you can draw the line for the bomb, like "Hey bomb, you can only radiate 'till the Ural mountains! From there on it's illegal!"

"but were there a situation where countries needed to be removed for breaking their pacts"
Are you out of your fucking mind? Countries needed to be removed??
You have to consider that there is no country in which the majority of people agree in engaging in a nuclear war. If there is a dictatorship, there is always a leading regime. When a country is bombed, countless civilian lives are lost. Have a conscience for fuck's sake. As long as you agree to nuking any country, you're as bad as a killer as any other guy who takes an innocent life.
I don't understand the need for nuclear weapons to be legal in the first place. They are dangerous, they pollute any land, crippling it into unlivable condition for anyone who steps foot in there, it has no other purpose than pure destruction, it pollutes anything in it's vicinity, it's a waste of arable land, of human lives and resources. I say, nuclear weapons should be dismantled in _every_ country.
Also, in a war, it won't boil down to a dictator or a terrorist wanting to launch a nuke. There won't be this bad guy good guy bullshit. In a war, those who have more firepower blast the shit out of the other country. Do you honestly think the US will care in a time like that if several civilian lives are lost to a nuclear attack? They didn't care the last time either. Today's bombs are many times as destructive as back then.

"Do you think it's not life insurance if it covers someone a million dollars just because it's a high number?"
If every dollar had the destructive power of a nuclear warhead, I'd believe the same thing. There is a difference you know...

"Not asshole countries, no, but there are asshole dictators. There are a people in power who shouldn't be in power in places all over the world"
Yes. And instead of doing research in how to prevent that (with a new governmental system, or the individual through behavioral studies) we just calm ourselves down, that if he even tries to shoot a nuke (which is already way terrible), we can at least bomb the shit out of him and his (who knows how many innocent) peers. Great solution. Thank you America for saving the day again!
Out of half of that money spent on those warheads, research could be funded in this and many other areas of life about relevant human problems. How a dictator evolves in society, what factors contribute to it? Etc.
They aren't born assholes you know. Nobody is. They learn it, like they learn everything else.

" lot of those reasons come from greed, as we've seen in history"
And where do you think greed comes from? What do you think affects a person's value system to evolve greed in it? People aren't born greedy you know. People aren't born anyhow. When you're born, you don't even know what sight or colors or mommy or daddy is. You don't know anything about your environment, that's why you probably can't remember your first 2-3 years as a baby. Not because your memory is crap. But because you didn't have an understanding about your environment. The same with greed. It's a learned habit, a subconscious survival tactic. People become greedy, when there's a scarcity of resources.

Actually, forget that. Your post was way too disrespectful towards me personally to warrant my >>41 response. I'm not damn killer just because my point of view doesn't align with your blissfully constructed ignorance to how the world works, but since I apparently am anyway according to your logic, killers have better things to do than explain why an international utopia can't be formed by removing the military, or why greed doesn't come from poverty, or why the conduction social studies won't turn all dictators into fluffy bunnies.

I'd rather skin little girls alive, so I'm out to do so. Try to be a little less rude to whoever wastes their time joining in debate with you next time.

>>42
I also don't agree with most of what you wrote there about my views, since you don't know enough about it, and also misinterpreted it as it seems, but given the circumstances I can accept your opinion about it.
Listen, I won't say that I don't think what I wrote down there, because that truly is my opinion and I'd rather sound offensive and be honest than sound polite and lie to both of us, but you also have to know, that I did not mean to offend you with it, it wasn't meant in any way to disrespect you. If you felt offended by it, by all means I apologize.
Also I'm interested in what you have to say, I wouldn't be wasting my time in the first place with writing a berlin wall of text as a response.
Anyways, I don't expect you to reply, but you also don't have to, nobody is forcing you, but if you do, please consider that I'm not apologizing for what I wrote, but for how it was interpreted. I still mean what I wrote.

>>43 There's a difference between being honest and being inappropriate. Debates are not a place for your opinion on a person but rather to discuss the points brought up by them. The second you start criticizing their mentality for those points or putting them down for the morals you assume they have based on it, you lose credibility, and it's no longer worth that person's time to debate with you.

I'm not offended because I wasn't debating my point of view and usually am not. I was debating based on my observations. My personal opinions tend to align somewhat closer to yours; I simply had no intention of pulling that bias into the discussion. Your assumptions were thus more laughable than offensive, but it doesn't change that they were disrespectful inappropriate for the discussion.

Don't worry about apologies; no one was hurt beyond your image.
Have a good evening.

>>44
"Don't worry about apologies; no one was hurt beyond your image." As long as only that's hurt, I couldn't care less.

hey sorry but i personally dont like like the millitary for the individuals like those but hole who go over seas and beat on people for no reason