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

(+) Yeah! (+)

yutterh posted...

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.

Don't use logic on Zeus, he doesn't understand it. Holding teachers in contempt? Oh, yes, that'll improve our school systems....
---

yutterh posted...

Even though your a trump supporter and defender

I'm not a Trump supporter. Arguably I'm a Trump defender as much as I was a Hillary defender (maybe a little more-so because I also knocked Hillary's stupid SJW beliefs), but the closest I came to supporting Trump was voting for him during the general election. I donated more money to Hillary Clinton than I did to Trump, albeit I only gave Hillary a buck and that was more for the chance of seeing Hamilton than it was for supporting her.

jamieyello3 posted...

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

Are you secretly Grim? Because that's Grim verbiage.

jamieyello3 posted...

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

You must have a pretty selective morality.

jamieyello3 posted...

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".

Given our current Middle East policy, the same ISIS will be here 50 years from now. More importantly, it's not really a mainline Republican thing to suggest murdering families (before you say, "Well, Trump suggests it!", he's as mainline a Republican as Bernie is a Democrat) and, other than Trump, nobody really suggests torture either. In both of those cases, he's just talking shit. Nothing could come of either thing.

jamieyello3 posted...

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.

Which is an argument for implementing a real strategy, not an argument for abandoning the region. After all, if you abandon the region, ISIS would create another humanitarian crisis and we'd be stuck resettling more refugees.

In general, there's been this weird expectation among Democrats and Republicans that once you remove a dictator, democracy just flourishes and the land is transformed into a paradise. More than anybody, this is the belief of Hillary Clinton -- whose foreign policy you praised -- which has helped create a space for ISIS to flourish. The US could stabilize the region, but it'd be pretty expensive and a fairly involved long-term process (and require the buy-in of the population)... or we could just back an authoritarian regime which would keep the population in check. However, the US's foreign policy thus far has mostly served to make the region worse, including our policy of arming rebels especially since many of those weapons end up in ISIS's hands.
---

TyVulpine posted...

yutterh posted...

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.

Don't use logic on Zeus, he doesn't understand it. Holding teachers in contempt? Oh, yes, that'll improve our school systems....

The problem that both of you have is that you don't understand that the teachers are a large part of the issue. They're not a separate entity unto themselves, they're literally part of the education system. I know that TyVulpine takes pride in his ignorance and being misinformed -- partly because he's a product of a broken system -- but teachers are not-so-coincidentally also responsible for stymying reforms.

If you wanted to overhaul the system, the first step would be breaking up the unions and firing a large chunk of the current crop of teachers. Otherwise whatever you try to put in will be blocked by the unions and sabotaged by teachers who don't want to change the things they've been doing wrong for decades.
---

yutterh posted...

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.

No, I don't think Russia would want to invade us. The main problem in your thinking is you think prestige matters more than economics. It does not. The financial undertaking needed to invade a country like the U.S. would be enormous, standing army or no (this isn't even mentioning all the people who own guns). And frankly, and this is important, it is more economically sensible to trade with us and do business with us than to try to manage us directly.

Assimilating us would not be a practical thing to try. There are linguistic, cultural, and ideological differences between us and Russia. This is aside from the fact that we have a population nearly three times their size. This is even more true for any of our other enemies, who are smaller and economically weaker. And the natural barriers still matter because it makes it logistically harder and more costly to invade.

You mention getting more man power. This seems severely flawed to me. Do you think a conquered populace (assuming it could even be done) would be so easily managed? Would you want to cooperate with a hostile regime? Or are you suggesting that they would simply enslave us? Let's see how well trying to do that would work out. What you are proposing would need a permanent military occupation that would be immensely costly.

Also, both of you seem to be disregarding the existence of nukes, which don't just go away when we have fewer soldiers. Nukes are a fantastic deterrent against potential invaders, even if nothing else was.

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, this seems to be suggesting slave labor. Still not practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, it would still be a huge logistical undertaking. And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but I never argued against having a military. I argued against having as large a military, or as many soldiers. And once again, we have nukes.

And the colonies actually weren't very financially practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

This isn't a bad argument, but it still assumes that it would be easy to commandeer our resources.

Zeus posted...

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.

I agree with all of this. Once again I am not advocating to get rid of the military entirely.

Zeus posted...

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.

How much "more" should they be funding? It seems to me they're already doing a fair amount. And while I agree that it allows us to more effectively strike threats, I do not think this necessarily directly translates to protecting our territory, which is still pretty safe.

Your arguments seem to rely on several economic and diplomatic assumptions that are simply not the case.

Speaking about the teacher point earlier, there's a report going around that six Baltimore schools didn't even have *one* student who scored proficient in math.

MrZAP17 posted...

Once again, this seems to be suggesting slave labor. Still not practical.

Tell that to North Korea. Or, you know, any of the other countries, groups, etc, which practice it. The cartels certainly seem to think it's practical.

MrZAP17 posted...

Once again, it would still be a huge logistical undertaking. And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but I never argued against having a military. I argued against having as large a military, or as many soldiers. And once again, we have nukes.

And the colonies actually weren't very financially practical.

Few problems: First off, your "logistical" issues aren't as big as you'd think, given modern technology and training. The US was able to occupy large swathes of other countries which *had* an army fighting back. If the US had no military -- or a tiny one (I'll point out that you seemed to say "we don't need the military" in your earlier post, but sure, you might have meant something less literal) -- the invaders wouldn't even encounter those problems. As for "oh, we have nukes!", good luck deploying nukes on ground invaders occupying your cities. Whatever would be left of your population would revolt.

As for your revisionist history, the colonies were actually VERY financially practical (any history book will tell you of their thriving industries), which is why we have a country today. It's no coincidence that the US quickly came to prominence. More importantly, we know that other colonies were practical by virtue of their existence.

MrZAP17 posted...

This isn't a bad argument, but it still assumes that it would be easy to commandeer our resources.

In the absence or near-absence of a military, it probably would be. While we do have civilian forces like the police, they wouldn't be able to hold off an invading force. If you capture a part of the country, you can use the existing infrastructure (or what's left of it) to continue gathering or producing those resources. It's actually *easier* than colonizing a new place since you already have the infrastructure built up.

However, I suspect that you're going to dispute this idea or question it, so I'll point out that it's *already* happened elsewhere in the world:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-islamic-state-oil-empire-iraq-isis

When ISIS captured oil fields from a poorly-defended Iraq in 2014, it continued production and made millions of dollars each week. It's not as hard as you think. After all, the infrastructure and workers were already there.

MrZAP17 posted...

How much "more" should they be funding? It seems to me they're already doing a fair amount. And while I agree that it allows us to more effectively strike threats, I do not think this necessarily directly translates to protecting our territory, which is still pretty safe.

Ah, the proverbial, "but what's a fair share?" While it's hard to pin down a number, it's worth noting that they're actually not funding *that* much on their own in many cases. Japan, for instance, has repeatedly declined to rebuild its military which would represent a significant expenditure; instead, it relies on the US for protection (although it *does* spend on its self-defense force).

As for how it protects our territory, it first gives us the ability to threaten retaliation against hostile powers. Secondly, it allows us to protect allies who, if conquered, would allow hostile powers to get that much closer to us. While countries *should* protect themselves, when they don't, it can result in problems for us.
---

soldiers are stupid idiots sorry not sorry
---

When dumb topics get worse
---

Zeus posted...

As for how it protects our territory, it first gives us the ability to threaten retaliation against hostile powers. Secondly, it allows us to protect allies who, if conquered, would allow hostile powers to get that much closer to us. While countries *should* protect themselves, when they don't, it can result in problems for us.

You'd hope that politicians would nevertheless be responsible enough to choose America's wars wisely, instead of insisting that every conflict is in some way connected -- no matter how indirectly -- to the defence of America (even when it's fought in a backwater in southeast Asia, like South Vietnam) and expecting to drag public opinion along with them by relying on Americans' reluctance to appear unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops.
---

Come on Balor, we all know you love a man in uniform.
---

Apparently worshipping murderers and people who weren't smart enough to make something of themselves as civilians is one of this country's core values.
---

Funkdamental posted...

Zeus posted...

As for how it protects our territory, it first gives us the ability to threaten retaliation against hostile powers. Secondly, it allows us to protect allies who, if conquered, would allow hostile powers to get that much closer to us. While countries *should* protect themselves, when they don't, it can result in problems for us.

You'd hope that politicians would nevertheless be responsible enough to choose America's wars wisely, instead of insisting that every conflict is in some way connected -- no matter how indirectly -- to the defence of America (even when it's fought in a backwater in southeast Asia, like South Vietnam) and expecting to drag public opinion along with them by relying on Americans' reluctance to appear unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops.

That is the whole point that zeus was talking about. You cannot just let parts of the world go crazy. That's exactly how world war 2 got worse. Couldn't have been completely avoided if they didn't let germany take Czechoslovakia.
---

MrZAP17 posted...

yutterh posted...

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.

No, I don't think Russia would want to invade us. The main problem in your thinking is you think prestige matters more than economics. It does not. The financial undertaking needed to invade a country like the U.S. would be enormous, standing army or no (this isn't even mentioning all the people who own guns). And frankly, and this is important, it is more economically sensible to trade with us and do business with us than to try to manage us directly.

Assimilating us would not be a practical thing to try. There are linguistic, cultural, and ideological differences between us and Russia. This is aside from the fact that we have a population nearly three times their size. This is even more true for any of our other enemies, who are smaller and economically weaker. And the natural barriers still matter because it makes it logistically harder and more costly to invade.

You mention getting more man power. This seems severely flawed to me. Do you think a conquered populace (assuming it could even be done) would be so easily managed? Would you want to cooperate with a hostile regime? Or are you suggesting that they would simply enslave us? Let's see how well trying to do that would work out. What you are proposing would need a permanent military occupation that would be immensely costly.

Also, both of you seem to be disregarding the existence of nukes, which don't just go away when we have fewer soldiers. Nukes are a fantastic deterrent against potential invaders, even if nothing else was.

Yeah, i am just gonna side with zeus on that matter. He has a better grasp of all that then i do. If i feel i can add to his, i will. but, I think he answers it really well.
---

Zeus posted...

Are you secretly Grim? Because that's Grim verbiage.

No.

If I was a troll alt I would read your walls of text where you give an essay on every little sentence, because if I was trolling I'd enjoy the responses.

And Grim is a madman.

It's funny you call me a troll alt when there are only 3 people I ever have beef with when you're constantly arguing with half the board. If I was trolling at all the only reason why would be to annoy 3 people, in which case I'm probably just being a dick and not a troll.

JanwayDaahl posted...

Apparently worshipping murderers and people who weren't smart enough to make something of themselves as civilians is one of this country's core values.

Wow. In some places in the world everyone is required to serve time in the military. Dumb fools they must be.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

JanwayDaahl posted...

Apparently worshipping murderers and people who weren't smart enough to make something of themselves as civilians is one of this country's core values.

Wow. In some places in the world everyone is required to serve time in the military. Dumb fools they must be. Be thankful for those that will, when you won't. And many of those are pretty smart I would bet.

And in those cases it's pretty silly to look down upon a MANDATORY service.

Why would I be thankful for complete morons who serve the will of a corrupt government run by corporate America?

Sure, there are exceptions, but by and large the bulk of the US military is full of failures who never did anything while they were civilians. Dropouts, losers with no futures who never applied themselves, etc.-- these are the people that compose the US military.
---

yutterh posted...

Funkdamental posted...

Zeus posted...

As for how it protects our territory, it first gives us the ability to threaten retaliation against hostile powers. Secondly, it allows us to protect allies who, if conquered, would allow hostile powers to get that much closer to us. While countries *should* protect themselves, when they don't, it can result in problems for us.

You'd hope that politicians would nevertheless be responsible enough to choose America's wars wisely, instead of insisting that every conflict is in some way connected -- no matter how indirectly -- to the defence of America (even when it's fought in a backwater in southeast Asia, like South Vietnam) and expecting to drag public opinion along with them by relying on Americans' reluctance to appear unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops.

That is the whole point that zeus was talking about. You cannot just let parts of the world go crazy. That's exactly how world war 2 got worse. Couldn't have been completely avoided if they didn't let germany take Czechoslovakia.

We know that Vietnam was never a necessary war for America. We don't need counterfactuals to speculate what the loss of Vietnam to the communists would have spelt for America, because we have the lesson of real-life history to tell us instead. America lost, and the communists won -- yet the most damaging legacy inflicted on America by NVA tanks rolling into Saigon was simply to American pride, and not to her security or freedom. Those two things were not at stake. Americans came to sense this by 1970, which was why the war increasingly came to be seen as wasteful and futile.

Uncle Sam kept fighting in Vietnam for as long as he did because the truth is, he felt he couldn't afford to look like a quitter. It meant that more and more Americans had to die so those who had already died were not seen as having died in vain. But there's little virtue in sticking with a misguided cause. Any justification for the war has to rest on what a communist takeover implied for the people of South Vietnam and not what it supposedly implied for America's defence. It's not impossible to make a case for the former; it's very difficult to make a case for the latter.

And that's the point I'm making. I'm warning against falling into the trap of thinking that every conflict America fights (or prepares for) must be necessary and inevitable simply because America fights (or prepares for) it. Whether Democrat or Republican, the politicians do not always make the right decision. America has sometimes intervened when it need not have; America has sometimes failed to intervene when it should have. Like you and Zeus, I don't believe that doing nothing is always the safe or right path to take. A power with global responsibilities needs a global reach. But we need to be responsible, and to discriminate.
---

Funkdamental posted...

yutterh posted...

Funkdamental posted...

Zeus posted...

As for how it protects our territory, it first gives us the ability to threaten retaliation against hostile powers. Secondly, it allows us to protect allies who, if conquered, would allow hostile powers to get that much closer to us. While countries *should* protect themselves, when they don't, it can result in problems for us.

You'd hope that politicians would nevertheless be responsible enough to choose America's wars wisely, instead of insisting that every conflict is in some way connected -- no matter how indirectly -- to the defence of America (even when it's fought in a backwater in southeast Asia, like South Vietnam) and expecting to drag public opinion along with them by relying on Americans' reluctance to appear unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops.

That is the whole point that zeus was talking about. You cannot just let parts of the world go crazy. That's exactly how world war 2 got worse. Couldn't have been completely avoided if they didn't let germany take Czechoslovakia.

We know that Vietnam was never a necessary war for America. We don't need counterfactuals to speculate what the loss of Vietnam to the communists would have spelt for America, because we have the lesson of real-life history to tell us instead. America lost, and the communists won -- yet the most damaging legacy inflicted on America by NVA tanks rolling into Saigon was simply to American pride, and not to her security or freedom. Those two things were not at stake. Americans came to sense this by 1970, which was why the war increasingly came to be seen as wasteful and futile.

Uncle Sam kept fighting in Vietnam for as long as he did because the truth is, he felt he couldn't afford to look like a quitter. It meant that more and more Americans had to die so those who had already died were not seen as having died in vain. But there's little virtue in sticking with a misguided cause. Any justification for the war has to rest on what a communist takeover implied for the people of South Vietnam and not what it supposedly implied for America's defence. It's not impossible to make a case for the former; it's very difficult to make a case for the latter.

And that's the point I'm making. I'm warning against falling into the trap of thinking that every conflict America fights (or prepares for) must be necessary and inevitable simply because America fights (or prepares for) it. Whether Democrat or Republican, the politicians do not always make the right decision. America has sometimes intervened when it need not have; America has sometimes failed to intervene when it should have. America has sometimes done the right thing for the right reasons, but America has also sometimes done the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

It's true about why we stayed but the reason why we went to vietnam wasn't because of communism. We put ho chi minh in charge and trained his soldiers to take over the north. It just so happened that he wanted to unify all of vietnam and not just reing over the north. Then we only got called into vietnam because of france. They got their asses kicked and called us in. Then the rest was history. But your right about not every conflict is for the defense of america. I am sure zeus will have something great to respond with though. I can't really think of anything right now.
---

yutterh posted...

But your right about not every conflict is for the defense of america.

For what it's worth, I believe there is such a thing as humanitarian intervention and I believe there are occasions when military action is necessary even when not strictly mandated by self-defence. I think it was right to turf out Cédras in Haiti, while I think it was profoundly wrong to prop up Montt in Guatemala. There were realistic, relatively low-cost options available to Clinton to disrupt the operation of the genocide in Rwanda and his administration's failure to even consider them is, in my view, unforgivable. In fact it's precisely because I feel the US has global responsibilities as well as global interests that I believe the US military needs a long reach. Many of my fellow liberals would argue against me on that score; but I don't see how you can demand in one breath that Uncle Sam "do something" when the world believes it necessary, yet deny in another breath that he should have the heavy lifting capacity to do it.
---

---

Funkdamental posted...

yutterh posted...

But your right about not every conflict is for the defense of america.

For what it's worth, I believe there is such a thing as humanitarian intervention and I believe there are occasions when military action is necessary even when not strictly mandated by self-defence. I think it was right to turf out Cédras in Haiti, while I think it was profoundly wrong to prop up Montt in Guatemala. There were realistic, relatively low-cost options available to Clinton to disrupt the operation of the genocide in Rwanda and his administration's failure to even consider them is, in my view, unforgivable. In fact it's precisely because I feel the US has global responsibilities as well as global interests that I believe the US military needs a long reach. Many of my fellow liberals would argue against me on that score; but I don't see how you can demand in one breath that Uncle Sam "do something" when the world believes it necessary, yet deny in another breath that he should have the heavy lifting capacity to do it.

Agreed with all of this entirely. As crazy as it may sound, i consider my self a right winged liberal lol
---

CountessRolab posted...

yes! lol i love psych
---

OneTimeBen posted...

JanwayDaahl posted...

Apparently worshipping murderers and people who weren't smart enough to make something of themselves as civilians is one of this country's core values.

Wow. In some places in the world everyone is required to serve time in the military. Dumb fools they must be. Be thankful for those that will, when you won't. And many of those are pretty smart I would bet.

It is best not to respond to janway
---

MrZAP17 posted...

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, this seems to be suggesting slave labor. Still not practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, it would still be a huge logistical undertaking. And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but I never argued against having a military. I argued against having as large a military, or as many soldiers. And once again, we have nukes.

And the colonies actually weren't very financially practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

This isn't a bad argument, but it still assumes that it would be easy to commandeer our resources.

Zeus posted...

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.

I agree with all of this. Once again I am not advocating to get rid of the military entirely.

Zeus posted...

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.

How much "more" should they be funding? It seems to me they're already doing a fair amount. And while I agree that it allows us to more effectively strike threats, I do not think this necessarily directly translates to protecting our territory, which is still pretty safe.

Your arguments seem to rely on several economic and diplomatic assumptions that are simply not the case.

LOL at Zeus thinking Japan has a "military"....(Japan is banned from having anything more than a home island defense force after their actions in WWII, just as Germany isn't allowed to have a military after both WWI and WWII).
---

Just like the FBI aren't allowed to arrest people, right Ty?

TyVulpine posted...

MrZAP17 posted...

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, this seems to be suggesting slave labor. Still not practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

Once again, it would still be a huge logistical undertaking. And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but I never argued against having a military. I argued against having as large a military, or as many soldiers. And once again, we have nukes.

And the colonies actually weren't very financially practical.

Zeus posted...

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.

This isn't a bad argument, but it still assumes that it would be easy to commandeer our resources.

Zeus posted...

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.

I agree with all of this. Once again I am not advocating to get rid of the military entirely.

Zeus posted...

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.

How much "more" should they be funding? It seems to me they're already doing a fair amount. And while I agree that it allows us to more effectively strike threats, I do not think this necessarily directly translates to protecting our territory, which is still pretty safe.

Your arguments seem to rely on several economic and diplomatic assumptions that are simply not the case.

LOL at Zeus thinking Japan has a "military"....(Japan is banned from having anything more than a home island defense force after their actions in WWII, just as Germany isn't allowed to have a military after both WWI and WWII).

It is still a military. But it's not like they aren't being defended. We are defending them with our own people. So we can continue with free trade. It is very much to keep stability in the region. When too many people make invasion armies, it is harder to keep control. This is as a stand point for all leaders. Until other groups like NATO become bigger. We have to dedicate our resources to a military for world peace. Zeus may see this differently but thats how i feel anyways. Logically i would probably go with whatever zeus thinks.
---

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

JanwayDaahl posted...

Apparently worshipping murderers and people who weren't smart enough to make something of themselves as civilians is one of this country's core values.

Wow. In some places in the world everyone is required to serve time in the military. Dumb fools they must be. Be thankful for those that will, when you won't. And many of those are pretty smart I would bet.

It is best not to respond to janway

Not everyone is an overweight liberal trigglipuff who can't take criticism. Some people actually like to hear others out before labeling anyone who disagrees with them a "troll."
---

He actually just used 'trigglipuff' for fucks sake

Cacciato posted...

He actually just used 'trigglipuff' for fucks sake

wtf is that even supposed to mean??
---

CountessRolab posted...

Cacciato posted...

He actually just used 'trigglipuff' for fucks sake

wtf is that even supposed to mean??

"Trigglipuff" is a meme based on this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgvxQEp2DEM

Basically, she's a feminist who couldn't bear to hear another feminist who doesn't agree with her speak and threw a tantrum.
---

KroganCharr posted...

CountessRolab posted...

Cacciato posted...

He actually just used 'trigglipuff' for fucks sake

wtf is that even supposed to mean??

"Trigglipuff" is a meme based on this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgvxQEp2DEM

Basically, she's a feminist who couldn't bear to hear another feminist who doesn't agree with her speak and threw a tantrum.

...both sides in that vid are idiots.
---

Lol, what military worship? I'm in the army, and the only. Time. People give a fuck is when I'm in public in uniform. Or I'm off post eating in the local military towns.

When I go back home on leave, the only people who know I serve are the ones I told before I enlisted.
---

MegaMettaur posted...

Lol, what military worship? I'm in the army, and the only. Time. People give a fuck is when I'm in public in uniform. Or I'm off post eating in the local military towns.

When I go back home on leave, the only people who know I serve are the ones I told before I enlisted.

Try every goddamn sporting event ever, and that's just one example.

The country puts them on a pedestal. Hell, there was just a topic here the other day about that dumbass lieutenant that threw a fit over a baggage fee because he was too fucking stupid to check requirements. And if he was on official orders then it wouldn't fuckin matter about the fee because every goddamn time I flew on orders in the army S-1 reimbursed me.

CountessRolab posted...

...both sides in that vid are idiots.

Difference is that CH Sommers was an invited speaker and the other (don't know her name and I think the nickname is stupid) was supposed to listen and maybe ask questions in an orderly manner. Regardless of views, only one of them was behaving improperly.

And for perspective, my opinion: Sommers is decent, although I'm no fan because I think she should focus less on debunking radfems and more on establishing equity feminism, which is what she advocates. Milo would be a decent entertainer if he stopped pretending he was a real journalist and also didn't treat people he disagrees with like shit.
---

bumpo
---

Military worship hurts those in the military more than it helps them.
The government carefully fostered the culture of military worship for one reason only: Cheaper soldiers.
Rather than provide enough incentive to do the job by offering that job a fair wage, they are offering a crappy wage that is subsidized by civilian worship.
By perpetuating the military worship, all you are doing is preventing the soldiers from getting a fair wage. Then again, you are also saving yourself a few tax dollars, so it is probably in your best interest to keep up with the military worship. It really just depends on what is more important to you: saving yourself a few bucks, or making sure the military are getting a fair wage.

Giant2005 posted...

Military worship hurts those in the military more than it helps them.
The government carefully fostered the culture of military worship for one reason only: Cheaper soldiers.
Rather than provide enough incentive to do the job by offering that job a fair wage, they are offering a crappy wage that is subsidized by civilian worship.
By perpetuating the military worship, all you are doing is preventing the soldiers from getting a fair wage. Then again, you are also saving yourself a few tax dollars, so it is probably in your best interest to keep up with the military worship. It really just depends on what is more important to you: saving yourself a few bucks, or making sure the military are getting a fair wage.

Lol.

Anyways don't encourage Balor

Giant2005 posted...

Military worship hurts those in the military more than it helps them.
The government carefully fostered the culture of military worship for one reason only: Cheaper soldiers.
Rather than provide enough incentive to do the job by offering that job a fair wage, they are offering a crappy wage that is subsidized by civilian worship.
By perpetuating the military worship, all you are doing is preventing the soldiers from getting a fair wage. Then again, you are also saving yourself a few tax dollars, so it is probably in your best interest to keep up with the military worship. It really just depends on what is more important to you: saving yourself a few bucks, or making sure the military are getting a fair wage.

Considering the military equipment is built by the cheapest bidder, don't expect fair wages.
---

slacker03150 posted...

I don't get it and I live here.

"I'm a fucking vet"
good for you?

"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.

"Support the troops"
I support them by wanting them to stop risking their lives in unnecessary conflict and I support them getting proper healthcare when they come home.

I think it mostly is a hang up from previous wars. world wars 1 + 2 defending us from the evil threats
korea and vietnam- defending us from communist dictatorships
vietnam - poor young men getting drafted into war to fight.
keep repeating the narratives from those wars over and over through the years and you get what we have now.

Vietnam wasn't your fight, either. I don't understand the US' interest in it, but we certainly said "Fuck that." and never went. As for healthcare, socialise it. I got bit by a dog a week ago. Been to the hospital and clinic a few times, haven't paid shit. Never understand those people who don't want to pay $50/m so everyone gets free healthcare. They act like they'd be the only ones paying the fee...

Zeus posted...

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.

Japan covers 70% of the cost of housing the US military there. It's not for their benefit. The US being there is a situation the US forced them into after that side of WW2 ended. How much more do you want them to be forced to pay? If they were allowed to have an actual army, and attack outside of being directly attacked first, this wouldn't even be talked about.

zebatov posted...

Vietnam wasn't your fight, either.

I agree, I meant that that was the narrative put forward.
---

slacker03150 posted...

I agree, I meant that that was the narrative put forward.

I don't know enough about Korea to speak, but just wanted to clarify that Vietnam was definitely an unnecessary mistake. I thought both those wars were between their own country, though. So why the US would get involved (yet again) is beyond me. I mean, I highly doubt their governments would have any impact on what goes on over here. It read to me like Communism would somehow trickle over to North America if the US didn't get involved.

TyVulpine posted...

LOL at Zeus thinking Japan has a "military"....(Japan is banned from having anything more than a home island defense force after their actions in WWII, just as Germany isn't allowed to have a military after both WWI and WWII).

@TyVulpine Just curious... what actions? Because it sounds to me like you've been reading US "history" books. So I just want to make sure.

zebatov posted...

TyVulpine posted...

LOL at Zeus thinking Japan has a "military"....(Japan is banned from having anything more than a home island defense force after their actions in WWII, just as Germany isn't allowed to have a military after both WWI and WWII).

@TyVulpine Just curious... what actions? Because it sounds to me like you've been reading US "history" books. So I just want to make sure.

In turn, I'm curious what actions you're thinking of provoking him to answer. It sounds like you might be entertaining some very revisionist notions.
---

I know what he thinks, and it's wrong.

Firstly, the attack on Pearl Harbour wouldn't have happened at all if the US hadn't annexed (stolen) Hawai'i just to establish a naval base at sea. (You know, conquering other lands like the Japanese were doing in WW2 - except the US does it for power and control, whereas Japan did it to simply keep their country from collapsing. We'll get to that.)

The US wanted to join the war in Europe, but Hitler wasn't taking their bait to attack "first". The US public was 80% against joining at the time. Japan was allied to Germany, so the US turned to them.

The initial attack against Japan by the US, was the breaking of their treaty with Japan. This would halt the shipment of resources Japan needed (mostly oil at the time) to fuel its economy. Japan needed to seek elsewhere these resources, and a lot of neighbouring countries do have them. So what do you think happened next? Japan did what the US currently does (and has always done) and invaded other countries for the procurement of said resources.

The bombing of Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive defensive, as the Japanese knew the US would eventually send fleets out to defend the countries they were attacking. Similar to Chess, the US had seen this move coming from the start when they broke the treaty, and is exactly what they needed to sway the public's opinion from 80% against joining the war in Europe (as Japan and Germany were allied, as mentioned) to majority-for.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (where the main target was the Mitsubishi factory - but they missed) were to simply end that side of the war, as they never had intended on a full-out ground battle, and they had already gotten what they needed from the Japanese.

This is why "D-Day" took place two years after the rest of us were already fighting in Europe.

In short, the US stole Hawai'i, broke a treaty with evil intentions, and essentially had their own people bombed in Hawai'i, just so they could join the war in Europe. Then they bombed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Japan. Pure evil and murder.

Why? War = $$.

And don't try to say the US broke the treaty with and bombed the Japanese because of what Japan was doing at the time. We all know the US doesn't do anything unless it's somehow helping itself.

zebatov posted...

And don't try to say the US broke the treaty with and bombed the Japanese because of what Japan was doing at the time.

I guess you aren't aware of what Japan was up to back then.
---

zebatov posted...

I know what he thinks, and it's wrong.

Firstly, the attack on Pearl Harbour wouldn't have happened at all if the US hadn't annexed (stolen) Hawai'i just to establish a naval base at sea. (You know, conquering other lands like the Japanese were doing in WW2 - except the US does it for power and control, whereas Japan did it to simply keep their country from collapsing. We'll get to that.)

The US wanted to join the war in Europe, but Hitler wasn't taking their bait to attack "first". The US public was 80% against joining at the time. Japan was allied to Germany, so the US turned to them.

The initial attack against Japan by the US, was the breaking of their treaty with Japan. This would halt the shipment of resources Japan needed (mostly oil at the time) to fuel its economy. Japan needed to seek elsewhere these resources, and a lot of neighbouring countries do have them. So what do you think happened next? Japan did what the US currently does (and has always done) and invaded other countries for the procurement of said resources.

The bombing of Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive defensive, as the Japanese knew the US would eventually send fleets out to defend the countries they were attacking. Similar to Chess, the US had seen this move coming from the start when they broke the treaty, and is exactly what they needed to sway the public's opinion from 80% against joining the war in Europe (as Japan and Germany were allied, as mentioned) to majority-for.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (where the main target was the Mitsubishi factory - but they missed) were to simply end that side of the war, as they never had intended on a full-out ground battle, and they had already gotten what they needed from the Japanese.

This is why "D-Day" took place two years after the rest of us were already fighting in Europe.

In short, the US stole Hawai'i, broke a treaty with evil intentions, and essentially had their own people bombed in Hawai'i, just so they could join the war in Europe. Then they bombed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Japan. Pure evil and murder.

Why? War = $$.

And don't try to say the US broke the treaty with and bombed the Japanese because of what Japan was doing at the time. We all know the US doesn't do anything unless it's somehow helping itself.

But by the Japanese attacking first, Hitler was under no obligation to declare war on the US. (The US breaking a pact is not an act of war) The Germany-Italy-Japan pact was of mutual defense should one of the three BE ATTACKED FIRST. The US was justified in declaring war on Japan, but did not declare war on Germany until after Hitler declared war on the US.
---

TyVulpine posted...

But by the Japanese attacking first, Hitler was under no obligation to declare war on the US. The Germany-Italy-Japan pact was of mutual defense should one of the three BE ATTACKED FIRST. The US was justified in declaring war on Japan, but did not declare war on Germany until after Hitler declared war on the US.

Correct. Except for the justified part. Since they initiated that whole scenario by breaking the treaty, knowing the events that followed would take place. They fully expected it.

But you're also missing the point. The US would not have declared war on Germany at all because the public did not want it, and they also had no reason to. Canada had to go because of the relationship to England via The Commonwealth. The reason Hitler would have declared war first was, as per the pact, due to the fact that the US attacked Japan, after forcing Japan to attack first.

Had the events in the Pacific not occurred at all, the US never would have gone to Europe. And as mentioned, the first "shot" fired was when the US broke their treaty with Japan. If anyone was justified, it was the Japanese in invading other countries in Asia and the Pacific for resources. If you look at it from a more personal perspective - if it was do or die for my family, and there was no other option, sorry, but my neighbours houses are getting robbed.

The Hell of it is, most of the Japanese population truly believe they were in the wrong.

zebatov posted...

slacker03150 posted...

I don't get it and I live here.

"I'm a fucking vet"
good for you?

"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.

"Support the troops"
I support them by wanting them to stop risking their lives in unnecessary conflict and I support them getting proper healthcare when they come home.

I think it mostly is a hang up from previous wars. world wars 1 + 2 defending us from the evil threats
korea and vietnam- defending us from communist dictatorships
vietnam - poor young men getting drafted into war to fight.
keep repeating the narratives from those wars over and over through the years and you get what we have now.

Vietnam wasn't your fight, either. I don't understand the US' interest in it, but we certainly said "Fuck that." and never went. As for healthcare, socialise it. I got bit by a dog a week ago. Been to the hospital and clinic a few times, haven't paid shit. Never understand those people who don't want to pay $50/m so everyone gets free healthcare. They act like they'd be the only ones paying the fee...

First off, vietnam was a strategic location for a base on the border of russia. We were hoping that ho chi minh would become our puppet. But that back fired and he invaded south vietnam. Which was under french control at the time. So The french pulled us into the war and let us do the brunt of the fighting.
---

zebatov posted...

TyVulpine posted...

But by the Japanese attacking first, Hitler was under no obligation to declare war on the US. The Germany-Italy-Japan pact was of mutual defense should one of the three BE ATTACKED FIRST. The US was justified in declaring war on Japan, but did not declare war on Germany until after Hitler declared war on the US.

Correct. Except for the justified part. Since they initiated that whole scenario by breaking the treaty, knowing the events that followed would take place. They fully expected it.

But you're also missing the point. The US would not have declared war on Germany at all because the public did not want it, and they also had no reason to. Canada had to go because of the relationship to England via The Commonwealth.

Had the events in the Pacific not occurred at all, the US never would have gone to Europe. And as mentioned, the first "shot" fired was when the US broke their treaty with Japan. If anyone was justified, it was the Japanese in invading other countries in Asia and the Pacific for resources. If you look at it from a more personal perspective - if it was do or die for my family, and there was no other option, sorry, but my neighbours houses are getting robbed.

The Hell of it is, most of the Japanese population truly believe they were in the wrong.

Public opinion is not always the deciding factor in going to war (most people were against going to war in the Revolution for example).
And no, the breaking of the pact was not the "first shot". it was more of a "we cannot support you anymore" message
---