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

(+) Yeah! (+)

jamieyello3 posted...

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.

While I may argue with half the board throughout the course of a month, at any given moment you're trolling 2/3s of it.

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).

What? If you bothered paying attention to anything I said, I repeatedly mentioned that Japan has declined to rebuild its military and therefore isn't covering its self-defense. More importantly, the self-defense force IS a military. And Japan's lack of a greater military results from a self-imposed restriction in their constitution. More importantly, Article 9 has seen revision in recent years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Japanese_military_legislation

zebatov posted...

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.

It is ultimately for their benefit because the Japanese people have refused to re-arm. Even a mild change to Article 9 drew massive controversy. There's nothing actually stopping them from having an army other than their self-imposed restriction in their post-war constitution. And the housing costs are a bargain compared to the costs of actually having a full-fledged military.


zebatov posted...

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.

Here's the thing: There was no way of knowing the after-effects of Vietnam or Korea at the time and, just a few decades earlier, the US had seen the error in sitting complacent on world issues. In hindsight, Vietnam was ultimately a mistake but, at the time, there were some pretty valid concerns because the growing Soviet influence mirrored Axis aggression and the nation had some strategic importance.

TyVulpine posted...

Public opinion is not always the deciding factor in going to war (most people were against going to war in the Revolution for example).

Public opinion is important for mobilizing the population. As for the claim that "most people" were against revolution, that's simply not true. Even according to the Ellsberg estimate -- the most liberal among the views and based on an inaccurate reading of an Adams letter -- it was 1/3 for, 1/3 against, 1/3 neutral which is hardly the same thing.
---

Again. Worship is a bit overboard. Unbridled respect is another. And without them and others the world would be somehow different.
---

Zeus posted...

While I may argue with half the board throughout the course of a month, at any given moment you're trolling 2/3s of it.

Dare I ask if there's anyone even reading this that thinks I'm a troll

Yeah, total bullshit. I guess when defending Trump gets too hard you have to resort to hollow personal insults.

The simple answer is the US was founded on warfare, it's culturally significant, disrespecting the military is effectively flushing US history down the shitter.
---

jamieyello3 posted...

Zeus posted...

While I may argue with half the board throughout the course of a month, at any given moment you're trolling 2/3s of it.

Dare I ask if there's anyone even reading this that thinks I'm a troll

Yeah, total bullshit. I guess when defending Trump gets too hard you have to resort to hollow personal insults.

The fact that you deny you're a troll may be your most hilarious act of trolling.
---

Lol.

Zeus mad.

jamieyello3 posted...

Lol.

Zeus mad.

Of course because you aren't kissing Trump's ass or supporting that warmonger.
---

jamieyello3 posted...

Lol.

Zeus mad.

Calling a hog a hog doesn't make anybody mad, just concerned with accuracy.
---

Isn't baler French? If so, this totally makes sense. The only thing he is used to seeing the military do is surrender
---

Zeus posted...

Calling a hog a hog doesn't make anybody mad, just concerned with accuracy.

Fyi you being one of the 7 people on this board that actually recognizes me, I have to say I must not be a very good attention seeker.

So if one of us is a troll here, it's...

I am actually with Balor on this one. I've thought for a while that military gets extra special treatment for doing their job. It's no longer a job you get drafted for. They chose to do the job and were paid for their work.

I'm fine with the military discounts. Hell, I get discounts for working at the largest employer in my city. But don't come back from service thinking you're a step above others because you went to work.

And God forbid someone offends a vet. Somehow it's become a near crime.
---