Poll of the Day > I dont understand the military worship in America.

(+) Yeah! (+)

military can be a good career. you don't have to join up and go to hostile territory and all that stuff. my brother joined the air force and is some tech or whatever those people are called that assist doctors during surgeries. he works at a hospital. he's seen some crazy stuff.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

CountessRolab posted...

It is a job. A dangerous job, but a job nonetheless. That doesnt make you some sort of hero.

I can understand being respectful to those who fought in a war to protect their country but these days it seems the Army is fighting wars that really doesn't concern them and in that case I don't understand. Of course by sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong they are in turn increasing the chance of their country being involved in another major war such as World War 3.

I wouldn't hold that against your average soldier. Maybe high-ranking brass, but the vast majority are just following orders. They don't get to pick and choose what conflicts they take part in. The military only get involved where the politicians deem it necessary to get involved.

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.
---

Far-Queue posted...

I wouldn't hold that against your average soldier. Maybe high-ranking brass, but the vast majority are just following orders. They don't get to pick and choose what conflicts they take part in. The military only get involved where the politicians deem it necessary to get involved.

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

I don't necessarily agree with this argument in a volunteer service. The army works the same way a business does. They have a need for soldiers to fight wars, their supply is the american people. If the american people stopped volunteering to fight in these wars the government would have 3 options

1.institute a draft, which if people are already not joining the army because they are not in favour of the war would be political suicide.

2. Raise wages to tempt people to join, but then you are still spending more money on less resources.

3. Stop getting involved in unrelated conflict.

And even for the people in the army, The military oath makes it clear soldiers have a duty and responsibility to defy unlawful orders. So yes I can and should be mad at the generals and political leaders who are allowing an illegal torture regime to go on or the use of drone strikes even though the pentagons own figures say they get the wrong target 90% of the time, but I can and should be equally mad at the soldiers who are carrying out the orders knowing full well they go against international law.
---

slacker03150 posted...

Far-Queue posted...

I wouldn't hold that against your average soldier. Maybe high-ranking brass, but the vast majority are just following orders. They don't get to pick and choose what conflicts they take part in. The military only get involved where the politicians deem it necessary to get involved.

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

I don't necessarily agree with this argument in a volunteer service. The army works the same way a business does. They have a need for soldiers to fight wars, their supply is the american people. If the american people stopped volunteering to fight in these wars the government would have 3 options

1.institute a draft, which if people are already not joining the army because they are not in favour of the war would be political suicide.

2. Raise wages to tempt people to join, but then you are still spending more money on less resources.

3. Stop getting involved in unrelated conflict.

And even for the people in the army, The military oath makes it clear soldiers have a duty and responsibility to defy unlawful orders. So yes I can and should be mad at the generals and political leaders who are allowing an illegal torture regime to go on or the use of drone strikes even though the pentagons own figures say they get the wrong target 90% of the time, but I can and should be equally mad at the soldiers who are carrying out the orders knowing full well they go against international law.

It's not always so black and white though. War is very complex. Even moreso nowadays. Sometimes you have to follow orders without understanding the repercussions or having all the answers to questions you might have. No soldier will ever have 100% clarity when it comes to war

As others said it's respect not worship

And people around my city certainly respected the police officers as well, our last mayor ran a campaign highlighting police forces!
I don't get how you people can sit around and trash talk people who risked their lives doing things an average person would never do
Saying it's just another job or another business is just so naive, man.
---

OhhhJa posted...

It's not always so black and white though. War is very complex. Even moreso nowadays. Sometimes you have to follow orders without understanding the repercussions or having all the answers to questions you might have. No soldier will ever have 100% clarity when it comes to war

Not always no. And war is messy. I don't expect it to always be clear cut. It is often a hard decision to make but if you knew you had a 90% chance miss the target and kill multiple innocent civillians every time you pulled a trigger how many times would you pull the trigger?

How about shooting unarmed people attempting to help wounded civilians?

Would you torture a man if you didn't know if they were guilty or innocent? Hell, lets give them the benefit of the doubt, would you torture a guilty man knowing it is against the law to get information you know is probably not accurate anyway?

There are a lot of bad things that happen in war and the politicians do indeed shoulder much of the blame, but the soldiers carrying out the orders are far from blameless.

There are soldiers who deserve respect for their work, but I feel they are in the minority not the majority.
---

Far-Queue posted...

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame.

Oh I agree with to some degree but surly the army or the most higher ups of the army can simply refuse. It's not like they are just lemmings. If they are though then they need more backbone and not praise.
---

If the US really worshiped the military, veterans would be getting more medical care to deal with PTSD, we would have next to no Vietnam Vets homeless, and most soldiers' pay would be a lot higher than it is. But the politicians in Washington don't care about our military vets.
---

Thing is, how often is it clear that the orders from higher up are unlawful? Plenty of times soldiers go to war without fully believing in the cause for doing so, but it's pretty tough to define orders as unlawful in most cases. And even then, if you don't have some high-ranking officers willing to take the stand against the politicians, then you risk getting thrown in jail or being dishonorably discharged.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Thing is, how often is it clear that the orders from higher up are unlawful? Plenty of times soldiers go to war without fully believing in the cause for doing so, but it's pretty tough to define orders as unlawful in most cases. And even then, if you don't have some high-ranking officers willing to take the stand against the politicians, then you risk getting thrown in jail or being dishonorably discharged.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief (regardless of whether s/he actually served in the military, and we have had presidents that never served), so if they give an order, it cannot be disobeyed or you'd risk charges of insubordination.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Thing is, how often is it clear that the orders from higher up are unlawful? Plenty of times soldiers go to war without fully believing in the cause for doing so, but it's pretty tough to define orders as unlawful in most cases. And even then, if you don't have some high-ranking officers willing to take the stand against the politicians, then you risk getting thrown in jail or being dishonorably discharged.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief (regardless of whether s/he actually served in the military, and we have had presidents that never served), so if they give an order, it cannot be disobeyed or you'd risk charges of insubordination.

Except for that whole, you know, Nuremberg defense not being allowed.

Far-Queue posted...

I wouldn't hold that against your average soldier. Maybe high-ranking brass, but the vast majority are just following orders. They don't get to pick and choose what conflicts they take part in. The military only get involved where the politicians deem it necessary to get involved.

They got the choice when they signed up.
If they didn't support the wars we're engaged in, they shouldn't have signed up. If they somehow signed up to fight in wars they don't believe in, then I consider them more stupid than honorable.

TyVulpine posted...

If the US really worshiped the military, veterans would be getting more medical care to deal with PTSD, we would have next to no Vietnam Vets homeless, and most soldiers' pay would be a lot higher than it is. But the politicians in Washington don't care about our military vets.

That's more of a mess related to how shitty American healthcare is. It's not that we don't venerate vets enough to help them with their PTSD, it's that as a culture we don't consider PTSD to be a big deal.
---

Funkdamental posted...

OhhhJa posted...

And whether you realize it or not every country needs some kind of military force in order to preserve itself.

Some are prepared to take the risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces#Countries_without_armed_forces

I'd point out, by the way, that there are more than a few places where civilians feel themselves just as much at risk from their own country's armed forces than from other countries'. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to trust their government's security forces.

Monaco - Renounced its general military investment in the 17th century because the advancement in artillery technology had rendered it defenseless, but still self-identifies as having limited military forces. Although defense is the responsibility of France, two small military units are maintained; one primarily protects the Prince and judiciary, while the other is responsible for civil defense and fire fighting. Both units are well-trained and equipped with small arms. In addition to the military, an armed national police force is maintained for internal security purposes.

Huh, interesting. I know monaco has one of the largest police forces per capita in the world.
---

Far-Queue posted...

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, though. You can't thank soldiers for a good job well done if the cause in which they're fighting is blatantly unjust. You can't treat them as heroes, saints and martyrs if they get killed while serving as military advisers to a brutally repressive dictatorship that's having self-inflicted problems with popular resistance.
---

In all honesty, the US military is the best in the world, and being number one can be impressive. It's too bad it isn't in education or something that stops more people like DaddyOFive from being born and raised that way, but it is what it is.
---

Funkdamental posted...

Far-Queue posted...

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, though. You can't thank soldiers for a good job well done if the cause in which they're fighting is blatantly unjust. You can't treat them as heroes, saints and martyrs if they get killed while serving as military advisers to a brutally repressive dictatorship that's having self-inflicted problems with popular resistance.

Sure you can. If somebody jumps on a grenade to save someone else or puts the self in the line of fire to protect a fellow soldier, then that person is a hero.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

In all honesty, the US military is the best in the world, and being number one can be impressive. It's too bad it isn't in education or something that stops more people like DaddyOFive from being born and raised that way, but it is what it is.

#Murica
---

Mead posted...

Funkdamental posted...

Far-Queue posted...

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, though. You can't thank soldiers for a good job well done if the cause in which they're fighting is blatantly unjust. You can't treat them as heroes, saints and martyrs if they get killed while serving as military advisers to a brutally repressive dictatorship that's having self-inflicted problems with popular resistance.

Sure you can. If somebody jumps on a grenade to save someone else or puts the self in the line of fire to protect a fellow soldier, then that person is a hero.

I wouldn't put up memorials speaking of the courageous self-sacrifice of SS-panzergrenadiers who got killed by Jewish resistance fighters during the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto just because they bravely volunteered to be first to enter a building in the house-to-house fighting. I think there's a point where the bigger moral picture looms above the moral "worthiness" of individual actions.
---

Many jobs can get you killed, but there's a difference between the possibility of an accident and voluntarily facing violence so others don't have to. As to priviledges such as discounts, we need to make sure volunteers keep coming so nobody has to be forced to fight.
---

TC, please try to understand that without the military, Prince Charles would take the next ship over here and take back America for the crown.
Do you want that, huh?
You want that?
---

Funkdamental posted...

I wouldn't put up memorials speaking of the courageous self-sacrifice of SS-panzergrenadiers who got killed by Jewish resistance fighters during the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto just because they bravely volunteered to be first to enter a building in the house-to-house fighting. I think there's a point where the bigger moral picture looms above the moral "worthiness" of individual actions

Are you even in charge of putting up any memorials?
---

Foppe posted...

TC, please try to understand that without the military, Prince Charles would take the next ship over here and take back America for the crown.
Do you want that, huh?
You want that?

Really?! Cool!
---

Longest running troll topic of all time.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Longest running troll topic of all time.

I thought you were an alt but this clearly proves you haven't been here very long.
---

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Longest running troll topic of all time.

I thought you were an alt but this clearly proves you haven't been here very long.

And so? What else do you have to say?
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Longest running troll topic of all time.

I thought you were an alt but this clearly proves you haven't been here very long.

And so? What else do you have to say?

I have a coupon for this free "dippable" yogurt, and I feel like they are just trying to compete with hummus.
---

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Longest running troll topic of all time.

I thought you were an alt but this clearly proves you haven't been here very long.

And so? What else do you have to say?

I have a coupon for this free "dippable" yogurt, and I feel like they are just trying to compete with hummus.

Good job.
---

Kill random people on the street because the voices in your head told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Allah told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Obama/Bush told you to do it,



If someone made it legal in the country you were born in, it's obviously gospel.

When in doubt, them bad, us good.

jamieyello3 posted...

Kill random people on the street because the voices in your head told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Allah told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Obama/Bush told you to do it,



If someone made it legal in the country you were born in, it's obviously gospel.

When in doubt, them bad, us good.

Speaking for most of the world. Them, you know who I'm speaking of, bad. Us good.
---

Regardless, random people on the street are random people on the street.

jamieyello3 posted...

Regardless, random people on the street are random people on the street.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need a military. But you really think if we got rid of our military other nations wouldn't just march right on in and try and take us over? Until all other enemy nations put down arms, i say we keep the military. The stronger the more fearful. If nations are not afraid to fight us then we are in deep shit. Yes it is horrible that innocents die, it is horrible that we have to kill other soldiers too. But unfortunately we live in a world that requires a military. I am thankful for all our soldiers that sign up to put their lives on the line so i can live here in relative piece. I have deep respect for the military and what our soldiers do.
---

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......
---

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......

Russia is not Isis. And the UN is not about to prevent Russia from doing what they are doing
---

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......

Russia is not Isis. And the UN is not about to prevent Russia from doing what they are doing

What you mean they are not isis? Where did i bring up that they were isis? They invaded ukraine and crimea. The whole cold war/world war 3 we have going on right now is because they want a full on invasion. If no one had a military to stop russia, they sure as heck would attack. If we didn't have a military they definitely would attack us and try to take us over. Russia is a real threat. Then we have the whole north korea thing. They would love to invade south korea and take them over as well. Luckily both of these nations fear us and china. Other wise we would be hearing about the conflict of millions dying do to full on invasions. We have the military we have because we have too.
---

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......

Russia is not Isis. And the UN is not about to prevent Russia from doing what they are doing

What you mean they are not isis? Where did i bring up that they were isis? They invaded ukraine and crimea. The whole cold war/world war 3 we have going on right now is because they want a full on invasion. If no one had a military to stop russia, they sure as heck would attack. If we didn't have a military they definitely would attack us and try to take us over. Russia is a real threat. Then we have the whole north korea thing. They would love to invade south korea and take them over as well. Luckily both of these nations fear us and china. Other wise we would be hearing about the conflict of millions dying do to full on invasions. We have the military we have because we have too.

Like I said Russia is not Isis. The world will crush Isis. Russia is a bit different. Because the UN is a joke
---

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......

Russia is not Isis. And the UN is not about to prevent Russia from doing what they are doing

What you mean they are not isis? Where did i bring up that they were isis? They invaded ukraine and crimea. The whole cold war/world war 3 we have going on right now is because they want a full on invasion. If no one had a military to stop russia, they sure as heck would attack. If we didn't have a military they definitely would attack us and try to take us over. Russia is a real threat. Then we have the whole north korea thing. They would love to invade south korea and take them over as well. Luckily both of these nations fear us and china. Other wise we would be hearing about the conflict of millions dying do to full on invasions. We have the military we have because we have too.

Like I said Russia is not Isis. The world will crush Isis. Russia is a bit different. Because the UN is a joke

I am confused : /
---

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

yutterh posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Nobody "marches in to take over" anymore. Other than bad people. And who does the world look too? Maybe that's where the worship come from.

um what? russia is in the dog house for that exact reason......

Russia is not Isis. And the UN is not about to prevent Russia from doing what they are doing

What you mean they are not isis? Where did i bring up that they were isis? They invaded ukraine and crimea. The whole cold war/world war 3 we have going on right now is because they want a full on invasion. If no one had a military to stop russia, they sure as heck would attack. If we didn't have a military they definitely would attack us and try to take us over. Russia is a real threat. Then we have the whole north korea thing. They would love to invade south korea and take them over as well. Luckily both of these nations fear us and china. Other wise we would be hearing about the conflict of millions dying do to full on invasions. We have the military we have because we have too.

Like I said Russia is not Isis. The world will crush Isis. Russia is a bit different. Because the UN is a joke

Like we said we would crush Al-Qaeda? How's that going anyway?
---

Mead posted...

Funkdamental posted...

I wouldn't put up memorials speaking of the courageous self-sacrifice of SS-panzergrenadiers who got killed by Jewish resistance fighters during the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto just because they bravely volunteered to be first to enter a building in the house-to-house fighting. I think there's a point where the bigger moral picture looms above the moral "worthiness" of individual actions

Are you even in charge of putting up any memorials?

I'm getting the sense that you've lost a little focus there.
---

jamieyello3 posted...

Kill random people on the street because the voices in your head told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Allah told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Obama/Bush told you to do it,



If someone made it legal in the country you were born in, it's obviously gospel.

When in doubt, them bad, us good.

No military is perfect. If you have reforms that decrease civilian harm while not endangering the soldiers, we're going to listen. But nobody can seriously suggest that we could do with no military at all. And by the way, I'm not even American, I'm German and I still appreciate the US forces. They don't just defend America, they defend the entire NATO. It's also in large parts thanks to US soldiers that when we talk about "Nazis" today we mean some moron saying dumb things, not a fascist organization that rules my homeland.
---

yutterh posted...

jamieyello3 posted...

Regardless, random people on the street are random people on the street.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need a military. But you really think if we got rid of our military other nations wouldn't just march right on in and try and take us over? Until all other enemy nations put down arms, i say we keep the military. The stronger the more fearful. If nations are not afraid to fight us then we are in deep shit. Yes it is horrible that innocents die, it is horrible that we have to kill other soldiers too. But unfortunately we live in a world that requires a military. I am thankful for all our soldiers that sign up to put their lives on the line so i can live here in relative piece. I have deep respect for the military and what our soldiers do.

No, no one would invade us, because it would make no sense by any measure.

We have two generally friendly nations on our borders. We have thousands of miles of ocean protecting us. We have natural resources, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to take over and administrate the country to get them. It would be way too costly to occupy us, even if we didn't have a standing army. Our area and population are larger than most other countries. Aside from that, any country or group of countries that tried to invade us would receive universal international condemnation and would very likely be heavily economically sanctioned at a minimum, removing any financial incentive.

Despite the DOD's name, our military does very little in the way of defending our country, simply because we do not need it. It is almost entirely about projecting power and influence around the world. And that's not a terrible thing to be able to do, but it's just not the same as keeping the Constitution alive or defending our homes.

I don't mind have military bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. I don't mind having aircraft carriers. I have no problem with the idea of protecting allies who are generally not as secure as we are. I would even admit that this defends our interests. But it does not defend our people, or our homes or livelihoods.

slacker03150 posted...

"They're risking their lives to defend our country!"
They are getting paid to do a voluntary job securing oil in the middle east that involves risk of life.

If that's what you were gaslit into believing it's about, no wonder why you hate the troops and want them to die.

yutterh posted...

Personally, I feel we should also be doing the same for our teachers, firefighters, and police officers. military though protects your freedoms and rights to say what you say whenever you want to say it. Without them, our country wouldn't exist.

No, why the fuck would you do shit for teachers? For starters, they don't risk their lives like our valiant firefighters, policemen, and soldiers. More importantly, it's a cushy job with almost guaranteed security -- because of union practices -- where most teachers aren't even qualified to do their job, which is unsurprising since more than half of all teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating classes so we shouldn't expect terrible students to be good teachers. Given the state of the education system, teachers should be held in contempt rather than praised.

Firefighters and soldiers are deserving of all the praise they get. Cops should be held in some esteem. Teachers I view the same as any other pink-collar profession.

Far-Queue posted...

If the military is in an unnecessary or unjust war, it's the politicians who should shoulder the blame. Soldiers who see combat should be recognized for their service regardless of the political motivations behind whatever conflict they took part in, and the politicians should draw the ire of the public if that conflict is found lacking any real sense or reason behind it.

This, pretty much. More importantly, in the absence of a volunteer military, we'd be drafted to serve those roles.

jamieyello3 posted...

Kill random people on the street because the voices in your head told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Allah told you to do it, evil.
Kill random people on the street because Obama/Bush told you to do it,



If someone made it legal in the country you were born in, it's obviously gospel.

When in doubt, them bad, us good.

Wait, so is Jamie just a troll alt? Because I've been generally taking his nonsense seriously.
---

Zeus posted...

Given the state of the education system, teachers should be held in contempt rather than praised.

Whenever I say this people call me a monster. :(
---

MrZAP17 posted...

yutterh posted...

jamieyello3 posted...

Regardless, random people on the street are random people on the street.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need a military. But you really think if we got rid of our military other nations wouldn't just march right on in and try and take us over? Until all other enemy nations put down arms, i say we keep the military. The stronger the more fearful. If nations are not afraid to fight us then we are in deep shit. Yes it is horrible that innocents die, it is horrible that we have to kill other soldiers too. But unfortunately we live in a world that requires a military. I am thankful for all our soldiers that sign up to put their lives on the line so i can live here in relative piece. I have deep respect for the military and what our soldiers do.

No, no one would invade us, because it would make no sense by any measure.

We have two generally friendly nations on our borders. We have thousands of miles of ocean protecting us. We have natural resources, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to take over and administrate the country to get them. It would be way too costly to occupy us, even if we didn't have a standing army. Our area and population are larger than most other countries. Aside from that, any country or group of countries that tried to invade us would receive universal international condemnation and would very likely be heavily economically sanctioned at a minimum, removing any financial incentive.

Despite the DOD's name, our military does very little in the way of defending our country, simply because we do not need it. It is almost entirely about projecting power and influence around the world. And that's not a terrible thing to be able to do, but it's just not the same as keeping the Constitution alive or defending our homes.

I don't mind have military bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. I don't mind having aircraft carriers. I have no problem with the idea of protecting allies who are generally not as secure as we are. I would even admit that this defends our interests. But it does not defend our people, or our homes or livelihoods.

You don't think russia would want to invade us? I get your point about us not having much in the way of natural resources but the point of invading isn't just for the natural resources. It would be to assimilate us into their country. You would get land and man power, there is more to taking over a country then just natural resources. It be like taking over europe, which is mainly about land grabbing then the resources. Also the ocean doesn't matter as much as it used to. We live in a world where we have extremely fast flying vehicles. But your right, i really can't think of a reason for invading us besides trying to bring us under their banner.

I agree with everything else though. Only thing i like to add is that our strength around the world does help defend us in the way that no one would ever attack us because of fear. Having a huge and high tech army really makes fighting us not worth.
---

Zeus posted...

yutterh posted...

Personally, I feel we should also be doing the same for our teachers, firefighters, and police officers. military though protects your freedoms and rights to say what you say whenever you want to say it. Without them, our country wouldn't exist.

No, why the fuck would you do shit for teachers? For starters, they don't risk their lives like our valiant firefighters, policemen, and soldiers. More importantly, it's a cushy job with almost guaranteed security -- because of union practices -- where most teachers aren't even qualified to do their job, which is unsurprising since more than half of all teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating classes so we shouldn't expect terrible students to be good teachers. Given the state of the education system, teachers should be held in contempt rather than praised.

Firefighters and soldiers are deserving of all the praise they get. Cops should be held in some esteem. Teachers I view the same as any other pink-collar profession.

Well of course right now most of our teachers are failing us. But they are teaching our youth and the good ones should be praised. Unfortunately our education system sucks and teachers are not the heroes they should be. We really need a education overhaul fast, before we fall behind anymore to other nations.
---

MrZAP17 posted...

No, no one would invade us, because it would make no sense by any measure.

Actually, it'd make a lot of sense given both the number of hostile regimes and the fact that the US is exceptionally wealthy by most standards.

MrZAP17 posted...

We have two generally friendly nations on our borders. We have thousands of miles of ocean protecting us. We have natural resources, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to take over and administrate the country to get them. It would be way too costly to occupy us, even if we didn't have a standing army. Our area and population are larger than most other countries.

Which wouldn't make a lot of difference if we had no military to protect us. And, if it wasn't cost-effective to export from the USA, we wouldn't have been settled in the first place. Keep in mind that once you've taken over a chunk of the country, you also effectively have free labor to transport and refine those materials.

MrZAP17 posted...

Aside from that, any country or group of countries that tried to invade us would receive universal international condemnation and would very likely be heavily economically sanctioned at a minimum, removing any financial incentive.

Because that universal condemnation matters so much as it is. Not to mention that already-condemned nations could do it. More importantly, the sanction system could be become meaningless if a second bloc of influence was created because then they'd have trading partners anyway; however, even by invading us and utilizing our resources they're already far better off.

MrZAP17 posted...

Despite the DOD's name, our military does very little in the way of defending our country, simply because we do not need it. It is almost entirely about projecting power and influence around the world. And that's not a terrible thing to be able to do, but it's just not the same as keeping the Constitution alive or defending our homes.

Few problems with that argument:

1) We need protection. The fact that we don't get attacked at all is because we have the protection in place.

2) Foreign policy is an important part of keeping our nation safe. The last time we believed that we just needed to concentrate on ourselves, a world war started. You can't keep a nation safe while ignoring the rest of the world.

3) The DoD also handles things like terrorism, which is going to be a continuing issue for quite some time.

MrZAP17 posted...

I don't mind have military bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. I don't mind having aircraft carriers. I have no problem with the idea of protecting allies who are generally not as secure as we are. I would even admit that this defends our interests. But it does not defend our people, or our homes or livelihoods.

It benefits the US to have bases abroad because it protects *us* and defends *us* by allowing our forces to more effectively strike threats. Generally speaking, though, SK, Japan, etc, should be funding more of their own military so any presence beyond that isn't needed.
---

Zeus posted...

MrZAP17 posted...

No, no one would invade us, because it would make no sense by any measure.

Actually, it'd make a lot of sense given both the number of hostile regimes and the fact that the US is exceptionally wealthy by most standards.

MrZAP17 posted...

We have two generally friendly nations on our borders. We have thousands of miles of ocean protecting us. We have natural resources, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to take over and administrate the country to get them. It would be way too costly to occupy us, even if we didn't have a standing army. Our area and population are larger than most other countries.

Which wouldn't make a lot of difference if we had no military to protect us. And, if it wasn't cost-effective to export from the USA, we wouldn't have been settled in the first place. Keep in mind that once you've taken over a chunk of the country, you also effectively have free labor to transport and refine those materials.

MrZAP17 posted...

Aside from that, any country or group of countries that tried to invade us would receive universal international condemnation and would very likely be heavily economically sanctioned at a minimum, removing any financial incentive.

Because that universal condemnation matters so much as it is. Not to mention that already-condemned nations could do it. More importantly, the sanction system could be become meaningless if a second bloc of influence was created because then they'd have trading partners anyway; however, even by invading us and utilizing our resources they're already far better off.

MrZAP17 posted...

Despite the DOD's name, our military does very little in the way of defending our country, simply because we do not need it. It is almost entirely about projecting power and influence around the world. And that's not a terrible thing to be able to do, but it's just not the same as keeping the Constitution alive or defending our homes.

Few problems with that argument:

1) We need protection. The fact that we don't get attacked at all is because we have the protection in place.

2) Foreign policy is an important part of keeping our nation safe. The last time we believed that we just needed to concentrate on ourselves, a world war started. You can't keep a nation safe while ignoring the rest of the world.

3) The DoD also handles things like terrorism, which is going to be a continuing issue for quite some time.

MrZAP17 posted...

I don't mind have military bases in Japan, Germany, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. I don't mind having aircraft carriers. I have no problem with the idea of protecting allies who are generally not as secure as we are. I would even admit that this defends our interests. But it does not defend our people, or our homes or livelihoods.

It benefits the US to have bases abroad because it protects *us* and defends *us* by allowing our forces to more effectively strike threats. Generally speaking, though, SK, Japan, etc, should be funding more of their own military so any presence beyond that isn't needed.

Damn zeus, i jsut need to shut up and let you handle everything hahaha i couldn't come up with anything and you jsut blew everything out of the water. I am glad we have similar political minds. Of course not everyone can agree on everything but i tend to side with you a lot. Even though your a trump supporter and defender, i still respect you because you at least respond back with logic. I know kind of random but i appreciate ya dog : p
---

Zeus posted...

Wait, so is Jamie just a troll alt? Because I've been generally taking his nonsense seriously.

I'm a troll alt the same way fertilized eggs have souls, so I might as well be a troll alt.

The only moral recent war the US has fought has been WWII. The rest have been moronic crusades.

The Republicans in 2030 will be yelping about "ISIS 5.0" and how we need to torture people and murder families to "take them out".

Because there's totally an end game in the middle east. There's totally a way we "win this war".

We bomb the shit out of them, then we wait until a new ISIS pops up, then we do it again because that's what works. Doesn't really matter where all our tax dollars are going or who foots the bill, as long as we don't have bob the clock man blow up five people last year. And they call dems overly sympathetic.

Cowards, the lot of ye.
---