Can an american explain me their view on their military?

[Warforger]

I'm curious, so if any american browsing the site could spare a few minutes to tell me why they pay their respects, it would be much appreciated.

That's weird, we have a certain honor for it but by no means is it to shoot down every criticism. Personally I really have a feeling of indifference, and it really seems to be spreading more, personally I laugh at the "they fight for our rights!" because that statement is so flawed.

 

[Truth Cake]

The reason you can't think of many examples is that mostly only animals that live in colonies or groups do this. Humans, in a broad sense, live in colonies. What sets us apart from other animals is that we are able to fight for an ideal, a cause, something more than just survival. Our behavior as a species is not any better than animals, because we still are animals. The military doesn't fight for themselves. They fight for whatever their country believes in, because they believe in their country. We don't breed soldiers. We breed people. Who step up and above the masses to fight for the country they love. No one said they enjoy killing.

They don't need to enjoy the killing for it to be wrong- a good man kills a good man, it doesn't matter if he enjoys it, it's still wrong and never should've happened- we don't breed soldiers, but we do kill humans that could've done good if they didn't get shot in the head or whatever.

And when the whole reason they're fighting is for something stupid like a small slip of disputed land or gold, those causes are sadly hollow, as is the sacrifice.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Yes, but why? If humans are so much more advanced thinkers than animals who have the same needs, why must we kill like them? I know we do good things with our knowledge, but why can't we be rid of the bad things, too?

That's what I want to know- if we're smarter, why do we kill each other just the same as the animals we claim ourselved better than? Can't we do better there, too?

It's a mix of the stuff that animals fight over (resources and survival) and things our advanced brains deem worth fighting over (ideologies). The only reasons we seem to fight more than animals is a) there are a LOT more of us divided into a LOT of different factions and b) we are naturally evolved tool users, and we are so awesome at building better and better tools. I'm not saying we should accept that reality as inevitable, however. I firmly believe we can and will achieve world peace probably within the next century or so. Hell, aside from the Middle East and Korea we pretty much have world peace right now.

Anyway, my point is that yes, we debase ourselves with murder and violence just like animals do, but lions don't say... help another group of lions after they've been hit by a typhoon, do they? The bad stuff we do doesn't automatically invalidate the good stuff we do.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Now, on the subject of the actual military, and not the people involved, our military is seriously too damn big. We spend twice as much on our military as the entire European Union and China put together. I mean sure, we have the most technologically sophisticated military in the world because of it, but the fact that we spend so much money on it means that we can't spend money on other things. Hell, if we cut our military budget by just 20% we'd still have the best equipped military in the world, and then we could also pay for universal healthcare for every citizen without anyone needing to pay more taxes, as well as paying more for education, and still have enough money left over to slowly start eliminating our debt, but for some reason the morons in Washington refuse to even consider doing that.

I much rather have money thrown into better technology and equipment with the purpose of preserving the lives of those fighting for us. None of their lives are disposable. Better equipped they are, the better their moral. The more comfortable they feel about putting their lives on the line for us, the better they perform. Yeah, we can do with better funding on the civilian's side, but our lives aren't in potential or immediate danger.

Except that most of that funding isn't used efficiently. We have prototype planes that cost billions of dollars to develop just sitting in warehouses across the country because after they were built the government decided that they weren't cost efficient to mass produce. The same goes with body armor, missiles, etc. I actually have some friends who work in the defense industry (Raytheon to be specific), and they tell me stories about how the government wastes money like you wouldn't believe. In many cases the defense contractors are making tons of money whether they produce anything worth while or not.

None of this is about saving more soldiers' lives, it's about defense contractors having very deep pockets and some very good lobbyists who give kickbacks to politicians to give more money to defense contractors so that the defense contractors can have even deeper pockets.

 

[Tdc2182]

It's pretty much all been said.

The military to us is basically the defense of our country. I certainly don't approve of all the conflicts they send the military do (Despite what you think, I actually approve of our forces in Afghanistan).

They put their life on the line for me. Hard to really get mad at em.

Plus it helps that I have a brother who has served two tours.

 

[UrbanCohort]

I'd completely support our military if it was defending the country from invasion, but our military is bombing, invading, and occupying other countries, which has nothing to do with keeping us safe or protecting our freedoms. I'd argue it makes us less safe, which I obviously can't support.

It might seem that way, but one little fact makes your argument slightly incorrect - they attacked first, and they most certainly will attack again if we leave them alone. Our presence in their country has everything to do with protecting the US.

I suggest you do some research on our actions in the Middle East since the 1950's. We've been interfering in Middle eastern affairs for as long as I can remember and 9/11 was retaliation for our actions. It isn't a fact that they attacked first.

Okay, sure. We TRAINED THEM to fight against the Russians, and I suppose in retaliation for our sheer gall at helping them overthrow communist invaders they decided that killing tens of thousands of us would show us the error of our previously helpful ways. I'm not sure which one of us needs to brush up on their history...

We've been interfering in the middle East long before that. In 1953 America was involved in overthrowing the Prime Minister of Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

I've been pondering how to say this for a while, but it occurs to me that the Afghani soldiers who we trained to fight the invading communists (and who subsequently went on to train Al Qaeda soldiers) likely wouldn't care about the loss of a pro-communist PM from Iran.

If China, Russia, or some other country was involved in overthrowing an American President or was involved in the assassination of John Kennedy, wouldn't you want to retaliate? I know I would and I think most Americans would.

That was 50 years ago and the theoretical plotters from Russia, China, or some other country are most likely long dead. And the answer is no, I wouldn't want to retaliate because there would literally be no point in pursuing a grudge that's 50 years old and when the conspirators are dead or dying...

And it would really depend on the President - I'm more committed to American ideals than I am to the physical nation (and I think our military embodies those ideals). If the president in question was, say...Clinton, Bush, or Obama then sure, I'd be out for blood, but if it were...say...Nixon, then I'd say we're better off.

Luckily, we seem to agree on the question at hand...we have a lot of respect for the people serving in the Armed Forces.

 

[Eggsnham]

Snip.

A lot of Americans tend to hold the military in a very high regard.

I personally don't. I have respect for anyone willing to voluntarily risk their lives for their country, but I'm not going to kiss the ground that a soldier walks on simply because he's been in the military. Of course, like I said before, there are a lot of people who will do just that.

Also, American war efforts have been pretty stupid lately. Can't blame the troops for that, but still. We're involved in 3 (I think) wars right now, and simultaneously trying to keep a failing economy afloat AND pay our trillions of dollars worth of debt.

It doesn't take a genius to see that something's going to give soon.

 

[Truth Cake]

Anyway, my point is that yes, we debase ourselves with murder and violence just like animals do, but lions don't say... help another group of lions after they've been hit by a typhoon, do they? The bad stuff we do doesn't automatically invalidate the good stuff we do.

But the reverse is also true- the good things we do for each other doesn't invalidate the bad, but we claim to be better when we are, in the end, just the same as animals when it comes to killing, thus we are worse by being hypocritical.

 

[Ir0n Squid]

I must throw in my 2 cents here. Respond or not, here it comes:

First let me see if I'm on the right page. You believe conflicts (man vs man, lion vs. lion) are ok as long as the focal point of the conflict is survival. Either it be for food or some other resource, survival is ok. You disagree with conflicts over "nonessential", such as gold or oil. Right so far? General gist? I'll take your stony silence for a yes.

Now the 2 cents. I believe (therefore is of my opinion) that every human armed conflict, War, from the start of history to today has been and will always be about survival. Not survival for the individual, no sir. The survival of the Nation is what war is raged over.

Oil for instance is useless to a biological human being. He can't eat it, and he really can't use it to ensure his genetic line will continue. It's useless to him. But a nation can rise or fall because of oil. Gold is the same story. Useless to me biologically. But gold can bring wealth to a nation. In this case a county's very survival is not threatened but the rewards from this conflict go towards the betterment of the nation, increasing it's chance for survival.

I'm going to keep this short but just one more blurb before I return to the dusty halls from which I came. Two animals fighting -- be it lions, tigers, bears, etc. -- fight for one thing: To ensure that the best genetic line survives to the next generation. And nations do too. I like to think of the nations of the earth as being [giant amoebas]* that fight each other so that in the end only the strongest one will remain.

*Insert any organism. I think amoebas are cool. =D

Of course I'm going to argue, despite the fact that I probably shouldn't and I know I'm not going to convince you.

So war is ok with you as long as someone wins? Why must the weak die so the strong can prove their ego? Do you think you're fit enough that you could survive a war? I'm pretty sure I won't, and the next great thinker or scientist might not be, either. War doesn't make us stronger, it makes us weaker by killing off a man who might find a cure for that next pandemic... or his child that might paint the next Mona Lisa- need I go on?

Your thinking too small. Your error is thinking on the level of the individual instead of the collective. People are going to die in a war, be they the strongest body builder or the smartest researcher. People are going to die. You, me, old aunt Betsy, unimportant in the survival of the country as a whole. A thousand may die so that millions more will live and the Nation as a whole continues on. It's not about ego either, it's a fact of life. The weak WILL die, but in your example you are referring to a single scientist and what-not. In mine I am referring to the entire group.

A nation of people are as of a single wild animal. And how animals in nature fight for survival against one another ,so will nations until only the strongest remain or until the sun swells into a red giant.

 

[Mr0llivand3r]

Sorry for the weird title. Well obviously I am not american myself, and some people might find this post a little weird. I have been thinking about this for some time now. Well here is the thing;

Browsing pages such as 4chan.org, imgur and reddit.com, I find people making fun of basicly everything. Except one thing. The US Military. Everytime its about them it all about heroes, "oorah" (some kind of Marine slogan?) and thanks.

Being born in a country with conscription (Denmark), being in the military really isn't that big a deal. Was in the Army Fire Deparmtent myself. Many males of the danish population has been in the military for a certain amount of time, so the military isn't really that much of an romantic institution. It's just a job.

But during my travels last year in the US, and also on the internet, the military is almost sacred. Every word of criticism is met with harsh reprisals, and sorry to say so, but I just don't get it.

Anyways, what I am most curious about is why it is this way? It's not that I think anythings wrong with it, but I must admit that the praise and respect seems a bit excessive in my eyes. Being a hero (which americans use a lot when talking about their troops) in my country is something you have to earn through action. Not by just signing up.

I'm curious, so if any american browsing the site could spare a few minutes to tell me why they pay their respects, it would be much appreciated.

well, every country should take pride in their military and support them even if they don't support the cause for which they fight.

the problem is that the people who are the most outspoken and "gung-ho" about the military in this country are the hicks and idiots who populate the media and the government. I don't suppose I'd be wrong in imagining that when foreigners think of Americans their thoughts consist of an overweight cowboy with a gun fetish and perhaps a hillbilly accent.

on the contrary, many Americans, most in fact, don't portray this image although i admit there are far too many Americans who DO embody that image.

anyway, part of what American people are taught from a very young age is that we are, or at least were supposed to be, a country that can represent the good of humanity.

we don't, unfortunately. our current incarnation actually represents the opposite, but that's my opinion and I have been an American my entire life.

if you need a good example, watch the new Captain America movie. the main character doesn't fight for America's superiority or cultural significance. He's an "all-American" hero because he fights for the things that America was supposed to stand for: goodness, righteousness, and unity. in the movie, there is no clearer portrayal of this than his companions. His love interest is British, and his troop is a multicultural and multiracial team, including Union Jack, the British "Captain America" as it were. (on an unrelated note, i would LOVE to see a Union Jack movie to compliment Captain America)

But Captain America fights for what our founding fathers believed was right even though they themselves didn't understand it. They rebelled against the, for lack of a better term, "tyranny" of the British reign to build a country that was meant to be free and equal. their military was comprised of everyday people who fought because they believed in their fight, rather than those who were forced into service.

that's exactly what the modern US Military is comprised of and it's the reason why the Draft in the 1960's for the Vietnam War was so widely protested in this country. for the first time, the government was subjecting it's own people to die for a belief that the everyday man didn't share.

so the "obsession" with supporting the military in this country is basically a support of those who put themselves in the bullet's path, regardless of whether or not that soldier likes war. because i believe no soldier in any country likes war. nobody likes to see their friends die around them.

I hate war. But I support my troops because I want them to return home safely. There are many Americans who do not support the troops and those people are called Liberals, which i believe is Latin for "retards". Americans don't like when their fellow man doesn't support the troops because that basically means that they don't care if their brothers and sisters die or not.

You can object a war but support the soldier.


i hope that helps

 

[crystalsnow]

Seriously? Nobody has posted this yet?

AMERICA[/youtube]

OT: I honestly see it as exaggerated. I do feel it is important for keeping our country safe of course, but it's not immediate grounds for a gold star sticker.

EDIT:

There are many Americans who do not support the troops and those people are called Liberals, which i believe is Latin for "retards". Americans don't like when their fellow man doesn't support the troops because that basically means that they don't care if their brothers and sisters die or not.

I only have one reply to the above:

?

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Continuing to think about this:

Part of the idolization of the individual soldier's place in the military and why these everyday people are venerated in life could be a direct result of (a combination of) the survivors of the "Greatest Generation" (WWII era) finally passing away and being honored with biographical movies and increasingly realistic and personalized views of that conflict. Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, (*cough* Captain America in a completely different way, but still) - the list goes on. Sweeping documentaries exist - hell, the History Channel of basic cable here is jokingly referred to as the "Hitler Channel" or the "WWII Channel" because their programing is disproportionately about those subjects. We see less of more recent conflicts, but there's some movies that have done well recently portraying conflicts in the Middle East around.

I put more distant past with more recent present together and there's a gap: Korea, Vietnam, and other proxy wars of the Cold War era are either done in a more negative view (at least of the motives of upper military, or conduct of 'rouge' soldiers who 'lost it' etc.) or they're spy focused rather than soldier focused. Intrigue movies and anti-war toned movies about that span of military history, by and large. Not as popular in the pro-military environment of the now, but evidence that the attitude isn't constant.

We're not special - lots of countries prefer to forget the wars they didn't definitively and spectacularly triumph in.

I mention that phenomena for another reason though. There's a lot of guilt that the generation before mine (between the now and the baby-boomers? I lose track) about the negative response to soldiers getting entangled with negative response to the politics of the war. Soldiers coming home from a war that so many were so openly against were treated very poorly - shamefully. The backlash of the realization that mistakes were made, that anger and derision were misdirected, has been a psychologically crippling sense of guilty obligation to make up for past mistakes. Evidence of this is, I think, put in small form on a popular bumper sticker - which I paraphrase: I support my troops; I question my government. We have to mince the two apart specifically.

 

[Truth Cake]

Your thinking too small. Your error is thinking on the level of the individual instead of the collective. People are going to die in a war, be they the strongest body builder or the smartest researcher. People are going to die. You, me, old aunt Betsy, unimportant in the survival of the country as a whole. A thousand may die so that millions more will live and the Nation as a whole continues on. It's not about ego either, it's a fact of life. The weak WILL die, but in your example you are referring to a single scientist and what-not. In mine I am referring to the entire group.

A nation of people are as of a single wild animal. And how animals in nature fight for survival against one another ,so will nations until only the strongest remain or until the sun swells into a red giant.

No, you're thinking too wide- think person, not nation; can one man not benefit the whole world- WHOLE WORLD, not one nation- with the next great medical breakthrough? Not if he's been shot in the head in a war, then he's not helping anyone.

A thousand may die so millions more will live? So... if there was no war at all then more people would die? That makes no sense. At all. How can peace kill people faster than war?

 

[Kolby Jack]

Anyway, my point is that yes, we debase ourselves with murder and violence just like animals do, but lions don't say... help another group of lions after they've been hit by a typhoon, do they? The bad stuff we do doesn't automatically invalidate the good stuff we do.

But the reverse is also true- the good things we do for each other doesn't invalidate the bad, but we claim to be better when we are, in the end, just the same as animals when it comes to killing, thus we are worse by being hypocritical.

Man killing man = same as animals. Yes.

BUT

Man killing man + man helping man + SCIENCE!!! = better than animals.

If killing one another sets us on the same level as animals, doing the great things that animals don't do is what sets us above them.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Except that most of that funding isn't used efficiently. We have prototype planes that cost billions of dollars to develop just sitting in warehouses across the country because after they were built the government decided that they weren't cost efficient to mass produce. The same goes with body armor, missiles, etc. I actually have some friends who work in the defense industry (Raytheon to be specific), and they tell me stories about how the government wastes money like you wouldn't believe. In many cases the defense contractors are making tons of money whether they produce anything worth while or not.

None of this is about saving more soldiers' lives, it's about defense contractors having very deep pockets and some very good lobbyists who give kickbacks to politicians to give more money to defense contractors so that the defense contractors can have even deeper pockets.

Each failed prototype is just a stepping stone to achievement. What about the projects that actually do work? If the sum of my taxes throughout my entire existence was effective enough to merely comfort a soldier in enemy territory for an entire day, then I'll feel like a hero. But that's just me.

 

[Chicago Ted]

I must throw in my 2 cents here. Respond or not, here it comes:

First let me see if I'm on the right page. You believe conflicts (man vs man, lion vs. lion) are ok as long as the focal point of the conflict is survival. Either it be for food or some other resource, survival is ok. You disagree with conflicts over "nonessential", such as gold or oil. Right so far? General gist? I'll take your stony silence for a yes.

Now the 2 cents. I believe (therefore is of my opinion) that every human armed conflict, War, from the start of history to today has been and will always be about survival. Not survival for the individual, no sir. The survival of the Nation is what war is raged over.

Oil for instance is useless to a biological human being. He can't eat it, and he really can't use it to ensure his genetic line will continue. It's useless to him. But a nation can rise or fall because of oil. Gold is the same story. Useless to me biologically. But gold can bring wealth to a nation. In this case a county's very survival is not threatened but the rewards from this conflict go towards the betterment of the nation, increasing it's chance for survival.

I'm going to keep this short but just one more blurb before I return to the dusty halls from which I came. Two animals fighting -- be it lions, tigers, bears, etc. -- fight for one thing: To ensure that the best genetic line survives to the next generation. And nations do too. I like to think of the nations of the earth as being [giant amoebas]* that fight each other so that in the end only the strongest one will remain.

*Insert any organism. I think amoebas are cool. =D

Of course I'm going to argue, despite the fact that I probably shouldn't and I know I'm not going to convince you.

So war is ok with you as long as someone wins? Why must the weak die so the strong can prove their ego? Do you think you're fit enough that you could survive a war? I'm pretty sure I won't, and the next great thinker or scientist might not be, either. War doesn't make us stronger, it makes us weaker by killing off a man who might find a cure for that next pandemic... or his child that might paint the next Mona Lisa- need I go on?

First I will say to reread the end point of his arguement and maybe you'll see the comparisons that are trying to be made here. Don't think of the person as the being that is needing resources anymore, but the nation as the animal. For a nation to survive, it needs several resources, far more than what is needed biologically by the individual. Oil and gas are the blood of many Western countries. Power is needed to ensure things continue for growth to occur. If you were to cut that resource out entirely, those nations would collapse into chaos. So, the need to fight for these resources and ensure their presence and availability is a fight for the survival of that nation.

As society grows, our need for resources does as well. If these resources are not met, then society will start to die. Now, unless you want to go back to living as an agrarian or nomadic society, there will always be a need for additional resources, this is just a basic fact. I guarentee you, if that child in question was in fact destined to create the next vaccine to cure millions, he would need the resources that would allow him to research and distribute this, and that would be far more than what we would have in primitive societies.

I respect the soldier not the army. Hell I have little respect for the Marine core they indoctrante not train. Even other branch can take a joke the Marin need to thump his chest 90% of the time. I happen to have the dishoner of living next to many of them. I get it your kill mechine just go somewhere else and kill.

Wouldn't it be better if they didn't need to kill at all? Also, try using commas and seperate paragraphs, it'll make it much easier to read.

So, if a pack is attacked, it shouldn't fight back, because it shouldn't be killing anything at all. A military is made for defensive purposes. If you're under attack by an organized threat, you will need an organized response in order to deal with it.

In the end of this, every time I see a post from you, my mind always wanders back to a single episode of National Geographic I watched with my family. It was on hippos. It showed the birth of a baby male hippo, and how it slowly started to come to grips with its surroundings. It showed footage of its first few days of life, still trying to understand everything around it, and learn how to survive in the world it was placed in. Want to know what happened to it? Not even a week after its birth, it was seperated from its mother. Not my much either, only a few metres. What came between the two of them during this time was a bull hippo, a large male. Even though it had bred before, it looked at the young hippo, and saw it as a possible threat to it, and that, in several years, it might be a competitor for mating.

So it killed it.

It wasn't quick, it wasn't clean. The large alpha male brutally murdered this baby. It thrashed it about the pond, driving its head into rocks and stones, snapping at it whenever it could. The baby paniced, tried to escape, try to get back to its mother. Within minutes it was floating, lifelessly in the water around it. The older, larger male continued about its business. Not giving even a moments thought to what it had done. It simply went past, looking for another potential mate to carry his seed.

Animals are not greater than us. They can commit acts of violence that rival the brutally of that we can accomplish. In my mind, there are only two major differences between us. The first being the scale in which we can organize and accomplish. Our 'packs' can number from pairs to millions, and our ability to think allows us to advance far greater than any other being on this planet. The second though, perhaps even more important than the first, is our ability to care. Name another species, where an animal born disfigured or defected isn't left to die. Name a species that will protect its wounded, that will help it get better when it?s lame, instead of leaving it out for a predator to snatch it at the next available opportunity. This is what separates us from animals. This is what allows us to call ourselves better than them.

This is our humanity. Realize why it's called that.

 

[Truth Cake]

Man killing man = same as animals. Yes.

BUT

Man killing man + man helping man + SCIENCE!!! = better than animals.

If killing one another sets us on the same level as animals, doing the great things that animals don't do is what sets us above them.

Ah, that is a good point that isn't drowning in a sea of words that makes it easy for my tired eyes that are now only open due to a 2-liter of Mountain Dew to process...

BUT (yeah, I'm an ass, I know)

(Man killing man + man helping man + science) - man killing man = better than where we are now.

I'll admit I probably made too hasty a judgement on ALL humans in my first post and a few posts since then, but I remain firm where I am: Killing- in war or otherwise- is something we can get rid of, if we are truly better than animals as you and so many others say.

 

[-BloodRush-]

The military is an excessive waste of money and resources that can be used for better things. But in this world we live in, I suppose its somewhat necessary. :/

 

[Kiju]

Well, it's always good to question that which is unquestioned, so, free bonus points for you.

In my opinion, the American Military is what it is because of World War One and Two. We contributed our military forces to a cause, which inevitably tipped the scale towards the Allies' favor. It's one of the few things Americans can honestly be proud of, and that's not really saying all the much. I've seen some pretty bad crap happen in the military...well, not that I've ever actually joined it, mind you.

Maybe it has to do with the concept of it being the greatest way to serve your country, in a form. To lay your life on the line for the belief in your country's right over everyone else's. And of course to kill others in the country's name, but that goes without saying. I wouldn't say I'm particularly proud of the military, or that it's spotless, pure, and whatnot. But I won't really question the members of it either, they're just doing their job, just like the rest of us.