Can an american explain me their view on their military?

[Kolby Jack]

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.

Ah, well now we are agreed. But I think we are at least making progress in that area, even if the going is slow. Old habits die hard, as they say.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

That's the thing, none of the prototypes are failed, all of them work perfectly well, and they don't end up as stepping stones to ANYTHING. The government just ends up funding things it has no interest in actually using. They spend billions and billions funding R&D, billions more making the prototypes as perfect and efficient as possible, and then they say "you know, this has cost us an awful lot of money, lets start work on something else instead" when the project is just a couple of weeks away from finished.

My friends have actually had this happen to them a few times now and they always walk away completely and utterly pissed off, because everything they made works perfectly, and to the military's exact specifications, and the military is just throwing away good money by not using any of it.

The military's budget is a complete joke, it's so over-blotted that they spend money left and right on completely needless things. It's like the people who win the lottery, don't know what to do with the money, blow it all, and then end up just as poor as they were before, except that the military wins the lottery every single year.

 

[Truth Cake]

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.

First, a nation doesn't HAVE to rely on war to get the resources it needs, diplomacy is an option, too, war generally results when neither of the opposing forces accepts that.

Second, I've already admitted my point on humans are worse than animals was off-the-mark... and then some, I'd rather not admit that again. (too late)

Third, (going back a little here) to your wolf pack example- militaries aren't JUST for defending, they do invade too- Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? Vietnam, anyone? The list goes on. Also, the defending military isn't at fault for defending themselves, since at that point it's for survival, but it's the attacking army's, for making it come down to fighting to begin with.

 

[Kluge]

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.

The concept of "Blowback" (basically, covert US intelligence/military operations being frequently exposed and providing enemies with passion and material for propaganda) is becoming pretty popular in the US currently. I believe many people have begun looking at that concept and extrapolating, considering whether or not our occupations of various countries in the world (atop our "covert" military actions against inhabitants of Pakistan and other regions) are doing more harm than good.

The US does not fight standard wars, anymore. We are not seeking to liberate nations from oppression, or end threats to us posed by specific governments in power. Now, the USG strategy is to war with the people inhabiting the area to change their minds about repressing themselves through government. The Bedouins and other anti-Western forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere are not going to accept Western culture or government, so it becomes a PR war, reinforced by killing the opposing propagators. This is a new type of war for the USG, and unfortunately, civilian deaths (recently reported the US Pentagon & other USG officials call "bugsplat") are severely undermining this PR war - perhaps to the point where our wars are doing more harm then good, even with deaths negated.

Consider the horror stories which have come out of these regions. There was - a year or two ago, I believe - a particular story which has always stuck with me. The British RAF was proceeding with a propaganda campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were dropping enormous boxes of leaflets around villages. When the boxes fall, a parachute is supposed to deploy, allowing the pamphlets to safely scatter throughout the area. On a particular box the RAF dropped, the parachute did not deploy. It fell fast from an RAF plane, landed on a 7-year-old village girl, striking her dead. There was the story of the 7 or so villagers in Afghanistan out cutting wood murdered without verbal contact by NATO forces for being out after curfew. Just ten days ago, violent protests erupted in Afghanistan after NATO raiding killed a second child within a span of three days. These protests are not against the anti-Western forces, but the West, and I have a hard time believing they aren't justified. What NATO's participating leaders and soldiers are doing is inflaming the youth, parents, and friends of those killed -- and what's the reasoning the USG gives? Their deaths will secure the Western nations and citizens. The USG has been in Afghanistan for ten years. TEN YEARS! Over 50,000 human beings have died - and for what? The Afghanis still hold violent protests against the NATO occupation.



It may seem like I've gone off-topic, but my point of talking about this was to suggest the idea of joining the US military as a noble act has died -- that to join the US military is considered - at least by some - to make a conscious decision to ignore your ideals for wealth. Speaking as a 20-year-old, I can certainly say the idea is ridiculous to the vast majority of the US youth, even having spent much of my time at a predominantly conservative, Christian, White suburb. I've talked to kids who've joined the military, and in the last year or so, I cry after doing so. The reason they've put their lives on the line is so they can afford to go to college. The US is experiencing the greatest recession ever to unquestioningly not be called a depression by the media. Tuition rates have gone from out-of-control to you-really-have-to-be-extremely-privileged-or-join-the-military. State subsidies for college are drying up fast. In my home state of Michigan, the state gov't previously gave $4,000 to just about every student (you had to perform at least mediocre on standardized tests). No more -- the program has been cut and replaced with nothing.

And with these considered, I (and many youths in the US) do not consider military service noble, but practical. We've been fed - over and over by the Media, our teachers, the servicemen they have come into our classrooms and have us give over contact info to them so our house phones are spammed with recruiters, and parents - that we must enter into college to live a comfortable life, which is absolute bollocks. Without rich parents or access to well-paying jobs, the only way believed by many to achieve a comfortable life is to join the military. Many older folks in the US will call military service voluntary, but so many youths are led to believe it's not.


... And a note to the OP -- there are plenty of people in the US opposed to USG military intervention, diplomatic bullying, and even wealth redistribution. - Just not enough. Apologies if I've touched on topics already covered.

 

[walrusaurus]

It kills me to see the amount of effort we exert on militaristic endeavors, spending billions upon billions of dollars every year in an effort to more efficiently blow the fuck out of some bastard halfway around the world.

Just so we're clear we spend a lot more money than that. The base budget for our defense operations (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc.) in the 2012 budget is between 1.1 and 1.4 trillion dollars. Trillion. With a T. That's more than double what the rest of the G20 spends, combined.

 

[Chicago Ted]

First, a nation doesn't HAVE to rely on war to get the resources it needs, diplomacy is an option, too, war generally results when neither of the opposing forces accepts that.

Second, I've already admitted my point on humans are worse than animals was off-the-mark... and then some, I'd rather not admit that again. (too late)

Third, (going back a little here) to your wolf pack example- militaries aren't JUST for defending, they do invade too- Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? Vietnam, anyone? The list goes on. Also, the defending military isn't at fault for defending themselves, since at that point it's for survival, but it's the attacking army's, for making it come down to fighting to begin with.

First, I am not advocating war to obtain these resources. I for one believe very much in free trade. The best and most efficient way for us all to advance as a society is not to clash over these resources, but to barter and exchange them for similar resources that the other is unable to obtain. However, when these methods aren't adhered to, conflict for these resources, if there is a significant need for them, will break out, as they are as vital to the nation's survival.

Second, alright, I accept that. I'll explain though that the moment I described watching is something I will forever remember as showing me what animals are capable of. For a statement such as that, that we are worse than animals, to be made triggers that memory in my mind, and causes me to react accordingly.

Third, the thing with conflict is that there always will be an aggressor. Packs of animals that will fight against each other for territory or some such reason will have an aggressor as well, that will attempt to usurp the other pack for what it has. Because of this, I do not think that there is much of a difference between our conflict and those experienced by animals, as on the most basic level you can reach, there will always be one side on the offence, another on the defence, regardless of the situation. The exceptions may come from something like a Cold War or something, but I really don't think animals can get into a state such as that.

 

[Ir0n Squid]

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?

You know what would happen if that man were shot in the head? Nothing. The world will go on. But that wasn't my point:

War will always exist. ALWAYS. As long as one group feels their god is superior, or another group wants their neighbor's land for their own, War will always exist.

As for your second paragraph, you misunderstand. In a nation AT WAR, those who fight -be they conquerors or defenders- do so for the betterment of those they fight for. So that the deaths of thousands of men will benefit a nation of millions.

 

[metal mustache]

you guys should tone down the 'volunteer' talk; they are getting paid after all!

Perhaps such sites support the army to contrast themselves against the WBC? Among other reasons, of course.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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.

To most Americans, insulting the soldiers is worse than spitting in your mother's face. Even though most American's disapprove of the current conflicts they are involved in, the US has a great history of support for it's troops, and I'm sure it will continue. It's patriotic, and supporting the troops is right at the heart of the American Spirit.

 

[ks1234]

They are war heroes each and every single one of them.

Even the ones who torture people at places like Abu Ghraib?

Especially them

 

[t3h br0th3r]

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.

In the United States the military is an all volunteer organization, therefore meaning the only people who join (especially during a war) are those who are wiling risk their lives. Anyone with the balls to risk their lives in service to their country (regardless of why they join) is someone who automatically deserves respect.

The other reason why the military is held in such high regard in the US is because we, as a nation, remember how horribly veterans of the Vietnam War were treated when they returned home and are hell bent on never letting that happen again. The generation who fought in Vietnam is trying to give current members and military veterans the treatment they should have received.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

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.

In the United States the military is an all volunteer organization, therefore meaning the only people who join (especially during a war) are those who are wiling risk their lives. Anyone with the balls to risk their lives in service to their country (regardless of why they join) is someone who automatically deserves respect.

The other reason why the military is held in such high regard in the US is because we, as a nation, remember how horribly veterans of the Vietnam War were treated when they returned home and are hell bent on never letting that happen again. The generation who fought in Vietnam is trying to give current members and military veterans the treatment they should have received.

Or they are a dropout with no career prospects. Or they are see it as a simple job with lots of benefits. or they are psychopaths who just want to kill people. By no means are all of them like this, but a lot of them are, In every country.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I never got that to be honest. Now I'm Australian mind, so I'm going to be much help, but it just seems to be part of the "manly-man" culture they have over there.

 

[loc978]

As an ex-poor person who joined the US military out of desperation... and one who is now reaping the benefits of being a war vet in a time when the US is desperate not to treat us like trash again...
I think we spend a bit too much on folks like me. I mean, I appreciate it, I really do... but I get free health care, the best insurance on the market and no-charge banking that might as well be direct from the Federal Reserve... while my dad can't even pull from the Social Security fund he paid in to for over 40 years.
Also

Spoiler

This one was fairly harmless, but I saw entirely too much mean-spirited shit done to Iraqi civilians in my time. We never should have started that invasion... and I'm glad I'll never have to go back... but I feel bad for the people.

 

[Craorach]

The only experience I have with the military in any nation is through my father who was in the British military. He always told me that the American military, and the attitude of it's citizens, is a terrible and frightening thing.

In the area I grew up, in England, we had alot of military bases. The soldiers were expected to be on their best behaviour both on and off base. Drunken foolishness during leave was punished just as strongly as that on base. They were expected to be the best of the best.

When they are in a foreign nation, for whatever reason, they are representatives of Queen and Country. They should behave as such at all times, with honour and dignity, wars should be fought not only with arms but by winning hearts and minds.

Soldiers are not infallible, and should be held at all times to a higher standard of behaviour than civilians.. perfection should be demanded of them, while impossible to attain it should be something every last member of the military demands of themselves.

 

[Phoenix_XIII]

My view on war:

Don't make citizens fight wars. Make the politicians that start them fight wars. We didn't do anything to fuel the fires, so why should people risk their lives for a cause they may not even believe in?! Politicians start wars, not citizens.

Military: People willing to risk their lives for their country is great and all, but your country's military shouldn't be what your country is known for. The US takes a lot of pride in it's military when what we've kind of done is fuck things up for the world. But then again, we can blame war for the fuck ups of our country. Nukes were because of WW2 and the Nuclear Arms Race. So yeah.

 

[Mr_Paisley]

Apologies for being unable to browse seven pages of discussion (I am quite literally on a time crunch. There is a void behind me, and it is actually gnashing time into small bits). I figure I'd still give my two bits on our military.

My PERSONAL opinion, is that the military as a whole is necessary. I don't really think it needed to be America in particular, just that a large world military force in the world is necessary in the world to some degree, to help police or curb evil really. As corrupt as American military (or the country in general) might be viewed, I also think that the military is primarily a force for good in the world. We definitely have cases where soldiers do wrong. Torture, killing, etc. All are horrible things, but these are things committed by a small minority, not America's entire military, or even a big of it.

Now I think America's personal views on it's on military are a bit different. Firstly America is pretty much the posterboy for patriotism. Everyone is pretty patriotic to their own country but America will take it to a new level if they think someone is "out patriot'ing" them. Point is, we as a country, are PRETTY fond of our roots, and of our "journey to the modern day". Aka, we KINDA think we're the shit. What with our "First Amendment rights" or our "Amendments thing". So as far as the military is concerned, they often are regarded as 1: Heroes and 2: The guys in charge of making the world of a better place. If there is something wrong in the world, it's America's job first, to try and fix it.

This is really just my interpretation of past events and my knowledge of both living here and, a lot of the people that live here but it is of course all opinion ^_^

 

[Gutkrusha]

I read that The Marince Corps was reluctant to do so. I think thats douchebagery at it's worst, so how do you, as an american, express your disagreement with a US Military institution? Without getting:

We destroy anyone who says shit about the armed forces!

See my point?

A lot of people saw the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy as simple discrimination. While some may have wanted it in action because of that, the main reason most military branches were hesitant to repeal is because of this simple fact:

You are a soldier. You're not gay, straight, male, female, black, white, asian, latino, etc. You're a soldier; most branches don't want to put an emphasis on the differences of the soldiers because it can cause segregation among the service members(not by the heads of the branch, but the soldiers themselves.)

There have been openly gay members in the military for quite some time, and most soldiers don't actually mind it, the large majority of soldiers are just happy to have someone watching their backs when shit gets hairy. I don't particularly agree with how Don't ask, Don't Tell was carried out for a lot of time (dishonorable discharges or charges raised against some gay soldiers who just wanted to serve.), but I understand the reasoning behind their hesitation to repeal it.

A lot of soldiers are worried that if anyone starts getting acknowledged more than any other, they'll start getting special treatment. True or not, that's a scary thought for any military.

I may have rambled a bit in there, but I hope I was articulate enough to get my point across.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I don't really know what my country sees in it. I mean unless you fall for a lot of the brainwashing, it's actually a pretty terrible job. I mean, some of the benefits are nice, but it's getting harder and harder to see if it's worth it.