Can an american explain me their view on their military?

[Tim Mazzola]

I just respect soldiers. I don't believe in the cause they're fighting for, but that's the government, not the soldiers. I don't respect soldiers killing people, that's not what I'm saying. I just want as many people as possible to come out of these pointless conflicts safe.

 

[ElPatron]

Let's see.

In my country there is no conscription, only volunteer work, which I have decided to do in the Air Force. No big deal. My country is not being invaded. I will most likely never have to defend anyone in my country, and the chances that I will ever have to grab a rifle and fight are null.

Let's look at the truth: People glamorize their lifestyle although it takes almost no education to join. They are mos likely people who have been in bad jobs since they left school before high-school or just high-school drop outs.

They were probably the kind of kid your parents told you not to mess with (this line of thinking is even supported in that Generation Kill series) and found out a way to get a better life.

Respect is not given, it is earned. Imagine I tell you I have been in the US military. How can you respect me if you don't know me? You don't know if I am lying about my service, if I was actually under fire or just posing with my tacticool BLACKHAWK! gear in the safest regions of some country. You don't know if I was disciplined or a trouble maker who got discharged.

 

[OaKleIgHy]

I seem to be in the minority on this, so I find it pretty hard to find someone who agrees with me on the subject.

I do not really like the military, in any sense. Our American military or other countries'. I regretfully concede that, at this point, having at least a defensive military is a necessity. As the U.S. has spent too long kicking other countries in the back of the knees to not have some protection. But I don't really approve all that much of an offensive military. I think it's good to have support from other countries in a defensive capacity, but I don't think offensive tactics are necessarily the best way to accomplish those goals.

I don't particularly see soldiers or even "war heroes" as actual heroes, because it's not what I believe in. I'd say a true war hero is one who is attacked in their own country and responds appropriately and effectively. Not to say I don't have any respect for our troops. It's what they believe in and they're acting on their feelings and doing what they think is right, which I commend. It's just not something I agree with.

As for the defense of the military being that they protect our freedoms and that they "died to give you the freedom that you take for granted". I didn't ask them to and I never would ask them to. I appreciate the freedoms I have, but I don't really think militaristic actions are the way to go about business.

Well said

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Most soldiers are just following orders. Some may not be willing to do, however they will because if they dont a long prison sentence awaits them

Ever read about the Nuremberg trials?

I have, in fact. I don't have an extensive knowledge on all of it, but I know someone who does...


This is just one of many things that Chomsky has said about presidents post World War 2. This man speaks truth with amazing clarity - the main reason he is blacklisted in the mainstream media.

BTW, I spent 8 years in the US Armed Forces and I can say that the military is just like any other similar organization. I realize that there are good people that serve, but it is just another puppet of our theocratic fascist ("corporatist" for those who think fascist is too strong of a word) government at the end of the day. I did a year tour in Iraq, so technically I am a war criminal under the Nuremburg principles. Bill Hicks once said that all the military ever is is a group of "hired killers", and there is some truth in that; though, this line of thinking is just from one's perspective. It all depends on how you view the systems and institutions that we created.

 

[deadxero]

The lack of criticism about our military stems from the mindset of, if you don't support the military you're evil/degenerate/unamerican/whatever, that is crammed down the throats of Americans on a daily basis by all forms of media. Most of us, at least most I know, fall under the category of supporting the soldiers, not what our govt. does with them. Unfortunately the defense industry, and their massive lobby spending, speaks much louder than we the people... so we have little control of where our military is currently killing people.

 

[oktalist]

Personally, I think the war in Iraq is a massive waste of resources.

Not to mention lives.

OT: Our armies don't protect us from anything other than our own collapsing economies (by way of keeping the oil flowing and military-industrial complex ticking over).

As Bill Hicks said, soldiers are hired killers. They kill people for money. That is what they do. Or help other people kill people for money. They also get killed for money, but I don't think that is any soldier's preferred career progression path.

Each of their deaths is as tragic as a road accident victim, or a heart attack, or whatever. Perhaps more ironic, because their death was funded by the taxpayer in the misguided belief that it was for a good cause.

 

[Wintermute_]

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.

Yeah... I know... undersold that number. We maintain a fleet of stealth bombers that each cost a billion or so, for god sakes. WHHHHY? As it stands, being stealthy serves no purpose when your bombing mountains and stones huts. Which we've been at for 10 freakin years.

Seriously, cut the "defense" budget and use those untold billions trillions whatever to do something that doesn't involve explosions. please. August 2nd is looming close congressmen!

 

[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.

Yeah... I know... undersold that number. We maintain a fleet of stealth bombers that each cost a billion or so, for god sakes. WHHHHY? As it stands, being stealthy serves no purpose when your bombing mountains and stones huts. Which we've been at for 10 freakin years.

Seriously, cut the "defense" budget and use those untold billions trillions whatever to do something that doesn't involve explosions. please. August 2nd is looming close congressmen!

August 2nd won't be an issue now, seeing as the democrats latest "compromise" is 3.4 trillion dollars in cuts to the social safety net and no increased revenues: AKA the republican position 3 weeks ago. "Bipartisanship" in our country has come to mean Democrats completely capitulating to the GOP position as the republicans themselves move even further to the right and scream that the democrats aren't going far enough. The republican platform today is the democratic platform 3 weeks from now.

DId you know that the new proposal is to create an entirely new 3rd legislative house. A "super-congress" of twelve people who get to write bills that the rest of congress will not be allowed to debate. And that the people proposing this outlandishly unconstituional idea aren't being laughed out of DC, but taken seriously.

 

[Wintermute_]

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.

Yeah... I know... undersold that number. We maintain a fleet of stealth bombers that each cost a billion or so, for god sakes. WHHHHY? As it stands, being stealthy serves no purpose when your bombing mountains and stones huts. Which we've been at for 10 freakin years.

Seriously, cut the "defense" budget and use those untold billions trillions whatever to do something that doesn't involve explosions. please. August 2nd is looming close congressmen!

August 2nd won't be an issue now, seeing as the democrats latest "compromise" is 3.4 trillion dollars in cuts to the social safety net and no increased revenues: AKA the republican position 3 weeks ago. "Bipartisanship" in our country has come to mean Democrats completely capitulating to the GOP position as the republicans themselves move even further to the right and scream that the democrats aren't going far enough. The republican platform today is the democratic platform 3 weeks from now.

DId you know that the new proposal is to create an entirely new 3rd legislative house. A "super-congress" of twelve people who get to write bills that the rest of congress will not be allowed to debate. And that the people proposing this outlandishly unconstituional idea aren't being laughed out of DC, but taken seriously.

...what? If you could, link an article/source. Because thats... well ridiculous, given the power those 12 would have.
Further more, congressmen, please, just raise taxes already. I know elections loom and no one likes more taxes but its time! YOu need more then some budget balancing and cuts given the IMMENSE debt and without tax raises how do you expect to get the money? I'd rather see taxes hiked then continued debt mounting into a sum my generation can never pay off.

 

[walrusaurus]

DId you know that the new proposal is to create an entirely new 3rd legislative house. A "super-congress" of twelve people who get to write bills that the rest of congress will not be allowed to debate. And that the people proposing this outlandishly unconstituional idea aren't being laughed out of DC, but taken seriously.

...what? If you could, link an article/source. Because thats... well ridiculous, given the power those 12 would have.
Further more, congressmen, please, just raise taxes already. I know elections loom and no one likes more taxes but its time! YOu need more then some budget balancing and cuts given the IMMENSE debt and without tax raises how do you expect to get the money? I'd rather see taxes hiked then continued debt mounting into a sum my generation can never pay off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

thats a good breakdown of the idea. Huffington Post isn't the greatest news site these days, but its still reputable.

 

[Burst6]

Dolphins kill each other for hollow reasons? Please elaborate, I'm eager to hear more.


Cool, I can argue both of these points at once! *Not* killing two brids with one stone because I don't physically harm other creatures, being both a pacifist and vegetarian (ironic how I work in a deli, isn't it?).

Animals kill each other, I understand, I said that in my original post in this topic- but it's all to SURVIVE; do ants kill each other for shiny rocks that really have no bearing on their ability to survive? (Gold, for example) No... they kill each other for food and resources they need to survive and thrive, because if they don't fight, then they die. The vast majority of human wars aren't a 'fight or die' situation, usually a 'fight or subjigate' situation or some variation, even worse, a fight due to greed.

And New York Patrick, you may want to re-read your own post there, in the beginning of the third paragraph you said humans are superior, and then later you say we're no better and then right in the same paragraph you say we are better again? You seem to be contradicting yourself there...

Dolphins tend to gang up on women and rape them. They keep the women for a while too (instead of depositing sperm and going away). They also kill baby dolphins for no seen reason. I don't remember where i read this so feel free to Google it to make sure it's true.

Nature isn't just about survival, its also about dominance. The same way wolves fight to prove they're the best and become leaders, people fight to gain power over others. Countries fight to gain power over other countries. Gold companies want gold so they can be more powerful.

In the end owning something rare and valuable means that you have something other people cant get. Animal instincts then say that that person is more capable. I believe when people wear gold it means they're trying to display superiority deep down somewhere. Either that or they're trying to belong to a group (basic social animal instinct).

 

[StarCecil]

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.

Yeah... I know... undersold that number. We maintain a fleet of stealth bombers that each cost a billion or so, for god sakes. WHHHHY? As it stands, being stealthy serves no purpose when your bombing mountains and stones huts. Which we've been at for 10 freakin years.

Seriously, cut the "defense" budget and use those untold billions trillions whatever to do something that doesn't involve explosions. please. August 2nd is looming close congressmen!

I can't tell you how dumb it would be to get rid of our fleet of bombers (the world's only true stealth bombers) just because we don't need them right now. Those bombers participated in the bombing campaign during the invasion of Iraq and their stealth capabilities made them immune to Iraqi SAM systems. One day we'll be going up against a force much stronger than Iraq and we'll need every edge we can get.

And for that matter, I've already said the greater majority of the budget goes to troops salaries. I don't think there's much point in eliminating any aspect of the military (those bombers require pilots and ground crew, remember; people whose jobs would get cut, too). And you know what else? Most of the government's money doesn't go to defense. It goes to social programs of debatable quality.

So if you were to ask me I'd say cut the social spending and put it towards the deficit.

 

[Truth Cake]

I thought you were a pacifist? Now your saying you will commit an act of violence?

I did say I was a pacifist -since I am- but I DID NOT SAY I would willingly commit an act of violence because I'm a black belt and I can, that's just how you interpreted what I wrote, not how I meant it to be understood.

So... I can't be both a black belt and a pacifist in your opinion? They aren't mutually exclusive things, both of those things are true- being a black belt doesn't mean I'll commit an act of violence, it just means I HAVE THE CAPACITY to defend myself if need be, but I won't ever be the aggressor, since I'm a pacifist.

Put it this way, it's like I own a gun even though I know I'll never fire it, I just have it in case my life is in danger and I need it- that being the only time I'd fight back, if the only alternative is to die.

You may want to think a bit about what you say before you start denouncing the way other people live their lives.

I know at this point we're COMPLETELY off-topic, but if someone argues with me, I'm gonna argue back, even if it leads to... this.

Now, moving on to another quote:

the people fighting our troops are by no means "good men". -snip- they're just a bunch of fucking criminals.

-snip- They get paid with money gotten from the heroin Al Qaeda bakes out of the poppy fields in Afghanistan. That's where Afghanistan gets its cash; heroin.

And the warlords are the worst. They are the most fickle people imaginable. -snip- I even heard of one warlord being bought by the Americans with Viagra!

-snip-

And then there's the Afghan soldiers! They sell their equipment to the warlords so they can get high, and then that stuff ends up in the hands of insurgents.

Half the Iraqis you can't trust and the other half will lie to you.

But, back to my original point, a Sergeant Major I knew told me a story about this insurgent dude from Syria who would plant these huge car bombs and set them off in crowded markets - the idea being to scare people away from supporting American troops. Well, one day he's setting up a car bomb that goes off prematurely. They find him smeared on the inside of his windshield. You ask me, or that Sergeant Major, and we'll both tell you that the world is much nicer place without him.

I think killing is an unfortunate necessity of life. It's never good to take a life, but that doesn't mean it's always bad.

Wow, you speak... type, whatever it is, you do it with such certainty... You are quite the good little brainwashed doggy, aren't you?

Do you honestly believe all that? Do you honestly believe that EVERY SINGLE Afghan or Iraqi soldier fighting against the allied forces is just a terrible person who wants to get high or just scare people or earn his two cents for the day? Do you think that not a single one of them just wants the allied armies out of their country? How would you feel if there was an army from a whole collection of foreign nations' armies in your country, just to get rid of a chosen few criminals and generally everyone who gets in their way? I can say for certain that I'd want them out- oh, but that apparantly makes me a terrorist.

You can't generalize like that, because you'll be wrong every time. Certainly there are SOME scum over there that the world would be better off without, but there are also people that just want all those armed foreigners out of their country. Certainly there are some people that we are killing that could've done good for the world, but how would we know? They're dead, so I guess we'll never know if that last man who was killed would be the world's next Shakespeare (spelling?), or if he was actually going to blow up that orphanage the news said he was going to do before our soldiers killed him.

Oh, and notice earlier I said 'a good man kills a good man', not 'a good man kills an asshole', I wasn't saying ALL killing is bad, I was saying that good men getting killed is bad.

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

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

better: which war they haven't started?
Killing doesn't make you a hero, just a poor murderer.

Thank you! I've been trying to get that across for 7 pages now, so nice to finally see someone who agrees without my needing to argue it out of them!

I seem to be in the minority on this, so I find it pretty hard to find someone who agrees with me on the subject.

I do not really like the military, in any sense. Our American military or other countries'. I regretfully concede that, at this point, having at least a defensive military is a necessity. As the U.S. has spent too long kicking other countries in the back of the knees to not have some protection. But I don't really approve all that much of an offensive military. I think it's good to have support from other countries in a defensive capacity, but I don't think offensive tactics are necessarily the best way to accomplish those goals.

I don't particularly see soldiers or even "war heroes" as actual heroes, because it's not what I believe in. I'd say a true war hero is one who is attacked in their own country and responds appropriately and effectively. Not to say I don't have any respect for our troops. It's what they believe in and they're acting on their feelings and doing what they think is right, which I commend. It's just not something I agree with.

As for the defense of the military being that they protect our freedoms and that they "died to give you the freedom that you take for granted". I didn't ask them to and I never would ask them to. I appreciate the freedoms I have, but I don't really think militaristic actions are the way to go about business.

Well said

Agreed, it's nice to see I'm not alone on this.

What especially sold me was that you 'regretfully concede' that having a defensive military is a necessity, not 'All people from other countries with guns are assholes trying to kill us, so we need MOAR soldiers to defend us from the other side of the world in a totally different country!!!'

 

[Truth Cake]

Dolphins tend to gang up on women and rape them. They keep the women for a while too (instead of depositing sperm and going away). They also kill baby dolphins for no seen reason. I don't remember where i read this so feel free to Google it to make sure it's true.

Nature isn't just about survival, its also about dominance. The same way wolves fight to prove they're the best and become leaders, people fight to gain power over others. Countries fight to gain power over other countries. Gold companies want gold so they can be more powerful.

In the end owning something rare and valuable means that you have something other people cant get. Animal instincts then say that that person is more capable. I believe when people wear gold it means they're trying to display superiority deep down somewhere. Either that or they're trying to belong to a group (basic social animal instinct).

Ah, that is awful, yes, but are those reasons to start a war between dolphins? Do you see dolphins from one region of the ocean just automatically killing dolphins from some other region? War is human's invention, and I think it's safe to say it is the single worst invention in the entirety of man's history.

Power... it's just a word, a feeling and an idea- much like religion, but is that a reason to kill one's fellow man? To most, apparantly yes, following their animalistic instincts; but as so many other people have said to me, humans are better than animals, having created so much, so why can we not move past our animalistic instincts and NOT kill each other for power?

 

[Truth Cake]

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.

First, not all trade-related things that wars have been started over are necessary for a nation's survival- gold? More land to colonize? I understand how those things would benefit a country if they had them, but they aren't necessary for the nation to continue to survive.

Second, oh... we're done on that point... moving on...

Third, since we are better than animals -as has already been established- why must we use what they do as an excuse for what we do if we know we can do better? Why must there be aggression at all? Answer me that.

 

[Truth Cake]

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.

Exactly, but what WOULD'VE happened if that man WASN'T shot in the head? What might he have been able to accomplish if he didn't die? Ask yourself that.

And thus we come to the crux if the discussion- pride... and envy, in a sense. We denounce every other sin in a sense, and yet we can still feel and justify our pride? Why can't we move on? Aren't we better than that?

As for your final point, soldiers fight because they BELIEVE what they're fighting for would benefit those they fight for, and their beliefs can be tragically mistaken- how did the U.S. benefit from Vietnam? And for that matter, how are we benefitting from Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, some dude who might have bombed where I work is dead on the other side of the world, and only at the cost of several american lives! Thank god! *obvious sarcasm*

 

[StarCecil]

Wow, you speak... type, whatever it is, you do it with such certainty... You are quite the good little brainwashed doggy, aren't you?

Do you honestly believe all that? Do you honestly believe that EVERY SINGLE Afghan or Iraqi soldier fighting against the allied forces is just a terrible person who wants to get high or just scare people or earn his two cents for the day? Do you think that not a single one of them just wants the allied armies out of their country? How would you feel if there was an army from a whole collection of foreign nations' armies in your country, just to get rid of a chosen few criminals and generally everyone who gets in their way? I can say for certain that I'd want them out- oh, but that apparantly makes me a terrorist.

You can't generalize like that, because you'll be wrong every time. Certainly there are SOME scum over there that the world would be better off without, but there are also people that just want all those armed foreigners out of their country. Certainly there are some people that we are killing that could've done good for the world, but how would we know? They're dead, so I guess we'll never know if that last man who was killed would be the world's next Shakespeare (spelling?), or if he was actually going to blow up that orphanage the news said he was going to do before our soldiers killed him.

Oh, and notice earlier I said 'a good man kills a good man', not 'a good man kills an asshole', I wasn't saying ALL killing is bad, I was saying that good men getting killed is bad.

That's incredibly rude and presumptuous of you to call me "brainwashed". It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with being a realist. Not every Afghan or Iraqi is a bad guy and not all of them even want us out.

But their culture is so leagues different from ours that you can't even fathom how many problems they have.

You have to understand that the number of Iraqis who actually want to fight to oust the occupation forces are in the extreme minority; only two insurgent cells were Iraqi, at last count. The rest are terrorists or criminals who victimize the populace as much as they "fight" our troops.

And not every Afghan soldier wants to get high or is incompetent. I'm sure there are plenty who joined because they really believe it. Unfortunately heroin use is rampant and tribal lines mean more to them than a government, by and large.

The great majority of fighters are in it for gain, not for ideology. As I said, you have a few who adamantly believe in it for the religion or because they want forces out of the area. But you also have to understand that in Afghanistan there is no unity. A farm boy from Kabul doesn't care two shits about the well-being of a farm boy from Jalalabad. It's just the way it works over there. It's not an issue of cultural identity or nationalism - because to them there is no nation. If you ask one of them, they'll tell you they are from a particular tribe, not that they are Afghani.

No government has had power outside of Kabul, ever. The tribes rule the countryside and the majority of them don't care about the Taliban, a few of them have strong ties to the Taliban because of their poppy crops, and the ones on our side hate everyone else who is on our side and don't want to cooperate.

Iraq is just as bad with all sorts of local interests beating out any sort of national interest. You won't find many Iraqis who love Americans, which is fair enough, but you won't find any that love the insurgency. They do have a tendency to blow up civilians, after all. But you still won't find very many Iraqis willing to help get rid of insurgents.

The insurgents are the real problem, not Americans. We may be there in force but at least we pass out food and water and help rebuild and do all the things the insurgents do the exact *opposite* of. The insurgents take over towns and steal what supplies they need from the locals. They disarm the populace (something the Coalition is unwilling to do, due to the culture over there) and they force civilians to become accomplices.

You're sorely mistaken if you think for an instant that either insurgency is motivated by a desire to liberate. It simply isn't. It's motivated by greed. The Taliban and their supporters want the US out so they can keep growing poppies and make money from heroin. The insurgents want to fight in Iraq because they're getting paid to (largely from the above-mentioned poppies).

And that still doesn't change the fact that is key in all this: the insurgents kill far more civilians than they do soldiers!

They blow up suicide bombers in markets to kill three soldiers, at the cost of dozens of civilians. They set off roadside bombs to take out a truck, when there's a street choked with traffic. They'll fire indiscriminately and they'll bully anyone who cooperates with coalition forces.

 

[Truth Cake]

-snip-

And that still doesn't change the fact that is key in all this: the insurgents kill far more civilians than they do soldiers!

They blow up suicide bombers in markets to kill three soldiers, at the cost of dozens of civilians. They set off roadside bombs to take out a truck, when there's a street choked with traffic. They'll fire indiscriminately and they'll bully anyone who cooperates with coalition forces.

And yet... if we were never there at all, would there be any bombings at just civilians? No, because there'd be no point other than to diminish their already practically nonexistent support.

I'm sorry, but this whole 'protecting the people back home' kinda loses it's effect when they're on the other side of the world- if they're OUR military, WHY ARE THEY OVER THERE? We've determined there are no WMDs, so now the only reason we're over there is to police their country for them? I'd hate any other country if they did that to the U.S., too.

I'm not convinced that what we're doing over there is right, and I likely never will be, and I doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise, too; so we may as well just stop here and get on with our lives.