Can an american explain me their view on their military?

[StarCecil]

-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.

You're idealistic to the point of naivety. There's no real fault in that. Unfortunately, global politics and warfare are gray. Very, very gray.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Because our Military is made up of volunteers, volunteers that know that they will be giving up a lot to have the "privelidge" of serving Uncle Sam. They know they will be giving up a shitload of time they could be spending with their family, they'll be putting their lives on the line to help people they don't know, and they are damn proud to do it.

That is why I personally respect any voluntary professional army.

 

[Herbsk]

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

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

In response to your question - I would say - they are indeed a hero until proven otherwise -each and every one of them.

 

[Navvan]

I hold the U.S. military in the same regard as every other military- that they're armed men/women that are trained to kill or assist in killing, and the fact that we need such a group of people around at any given time is a testament to how humans can be WORSE than animals.

The soldiers themselves though, I treat them as any other human, nothing special.

Worse than animals? You do realize animals kill each other over territories and resources too right?

I do fully realize that, but do animals have so many of their own solely (spelling?) dedicated JUST to fight over territory and resources and not to, say, gathering food? Very few do, I can only think of ants and wolves- aren't humans supposed to be better, not the same or worse?

Many kind of social insects perform this behavior actually including ants, termites, and bees. Also there is a mole species that has a similar structure. Specialization in tasks is one of the main reasons insects and humans are thought to be so successful as well.

Humans don't actually dedicate specific members of society solely for fighting over territory the way social insects do either. Those humans in the army are likely to perform other tasks in their life at the very least prior to being enlisted. Many enlisted have or will have children which is a rather important function for society.

When you then expand it animals have that defend territory then you get any animal who holds territory. Any social animals that hold territory have members of their group who are responsible for fighting. Be they chimps or lions there are always members who are responsible for this.

None of that is an endorsement for war mind and it doesn't really matter what other members of the animal kingdom do. Naturalistic fallacy and all that.

As for how I regard the military and members I don't "respect" with the sense I respect people. The military has so many people with so many differences that I can't just bring myself to blanketly say I respect them. I'm sure there are plenty of people serving that I would respect if I met them though.

I can and do respect the purpose of the military and what members of the military have to risk and give up to uphold that purpose.

 

[CiB42]

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

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

In response to your question - I would say - they are indeed a hero until proven otherwise -each and every one of them.

Do you believe that being involved in torture (as in, actually torturing people) proves them not to be heroes? Or that knowing about it and letting it happen proves them not to be heroes- after all "evil can only succeed when good people do nothing."

If so, I completly agree with the idea that a person who volunteers to do dangerous work to uphold the values of a nation is a hero to that nation (be they military, law enforcement etc) unless they do something to disgrace the institution of which they are a member (for example- the US troops who tortured people disgraced the institution that is the US army, and the Metropolitan police officers who were selling case details to News of the World journalists in the UK are a disgrace to the Met), but a perosn (any person) is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[New York Patrick]

Alright, do yourself, me, my sanity, this thread, and sensibility a favour. Go to sleep, wake up tomorrow, and RE-READ MY POST. Maybe, just maybe, it will dawn on you exactly what I am argueing if you are better suited to actually read my post, and note just spout generic anti-fighting bits.

Maybe you'll notice that this thread is NOT about fighting, it is about what Americans think about their military, and that the only reason our DEBATE seems to be limited to the topic of fighting has something to do with you constantly jumping back to it, or limiting yourself to it.

I am going to assume it is because you are tired, and not that you are incapable of responding to the fact that I have continuously pointed out OTHER THINGS PEOPLE DO THAT ANIMALS DON'T. Maybe you will realize that my entire arguement IS that we do things on a greater scale then animals, therefor we are superior.

And maybe, you might realize that acting self righteous and scorning "those no good humans" isn't going to win you any favours on the internet, which was invented by, is run by, and is populated by HUMANS. And assuming you are not some sort of scientific miracle (no doubt a product of HUMAN effort and brilliance,) you are human to.

Did I ever call them 'those no good humans'? Did I ever claim myself better than every other human in my 'acting self-righteous and scorning'? Did I EVER say humans are totally incapable of doing good things like inventing the internet, the single greatest information-sharing accomplishment in human history? The answer to all those is, of course, no.

My first post was exactly what this topic asked of me- that being my opinion of the U.S. Army, I gave my honest opinion, someone argued against it, I argued against them, and it eventually escalated into... this, happens all the time, it seems.

You're ignoring the fact that there IS bad things that humans do by saying 'oh, but we did something good to make up for it!' The fact is that if we are so much better as you 'continually claim', we should be able to advance past the bad things we do to become better on the whole; if we stay where we are now, there will always be war and killing, but apparantly that's what you want as long as there's still 'other things' to make up for it.

I don't need sleep, you need to wake up.

Do your pride yourself in your inability to directly respond to an arguement? Your ability to contradict yourself each time you post something new to the dribble that is your side of this conversation, or to blatantly ignore other points and run around in the same small diluted circle? Have you ever heard of paraphrasing? The answer to all those must be, of course, no.

My entire arguement has hinged upon the fact that you have refered to humans (in your first post) as worse than animals. This statement, given the multitudes of evidence we are capable of so much more than what animals are, whether that be our capablity of destruction which you constantly jump back to, or the vast amount of creative and positive things we are capable of. I have not ignored nor denied the fact that we are capable of bad things, but I have pointed out the VAST amount of things we do to make up for it. And the conclusion I, and the others who have argued against you, is simple: We are so much more than animals that it is irrational to compare us to them, let alone say we are worse.

Now, I was originally intending to mirror your post with my arguement, but that last bit where you rambled on about how people need to change, how I must obviously want a world with fighting, etc, was too diluted, angsty, and blatantly naive to respond to, among other things.

And opposed to ending with some sort of psuedo-meaningful phrase,I'm going to give you some advice: Just stop now. You aren't doing anyone any favours by attempting to argue your sad, poorly thought out analysis of humanity as animalistic monsters. And quite frankly, you are starting to sound obnoxious.

Goodbye.

 

[Suicida1 Midget]

The only reason i dont talk shit about them is that they volunteered to fight for what our gov. calls rightous causes.(ex just invading Iran to get oil, stop the Taliban since they are a lead to our coldwar anti russian force, ect.)Dont blame the middle man. But its the guys leading them that i would talk shit to. Mostly to answer you the media heavily supports them cause of wartime filtered info, laws, and many of the outputs are bought out. The moment it takes a more isolationist approach, or we get invaded is the only time i would accually join. The only issue with our army is the guys leading it.

 

[Truth Cake]

And opposed to ending with some sort of psuedo-meaningful phrase,I'm going to give you some advice: Just stop now. You aren't doing anyone any favours by attempting to argue your sad, poorly thought out analysis of humanity as animalistic monsters. And quite frankly, you are starting to sound obnoxious.

Goodbye.

Couldn't have said it better myself- you're also starting to sound obnoxious by apparantly ignoring my argument because it sounds 'too angsty'. So sorry I'm trying to help advance society by pointing out the fact that there are wrongs that should be corrected, not ignored.

But since you're acting just as blind and stubborn as me; likewise, goodbye.

 

[Burst6]

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?

War is defined as "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. " The reason animals dont have them is because they dont have weapons, and they arent smart enough to form large organized groups.

But dolphins do kill other dolphins for no apparent reason. They were always considered pretty smart, it's quite possible they're doing it because the other dolphins are from somewhere else.


And no humans are not "better" than animals. We're smarter yes, and we have better technology, but our instincts are still there. These are hard wired. You cant get rid of them. They grew into our brains over a very long time and they helped us survive. Trying to get rid of them with mental practice is like trying to upgrade a computer's CPU by downloading it off the internet.

 

[Truth Cake]

And no humans are not "better" than animals. We're smarter yes, and we have better technology, but our instincts are still there. These are hard wired. You cant get rid of them. They grew into our brains over a very long time and they helped us survive. Trying to get rid of them with mental practice is like trying to upgrade a computer's CPU by downloading it off the internet.

I tried that same general point right worded a differently right around page 1 or 2 when people argued against my first post.

Animals do as animals do- they survive, because they lack the higher congitive function to do much else; if that means they must fight, they'll fight. Humans, supposedly being smarter than animals, should learn to move past resorting to killing to achieve an end, that's all I'm trying to get across.

 

[Burst6]

And no humans are not "better" than animals. We're smarter yes, and we have better technology, but our instincts are still there. These are hard wired. You cant get rid of them. They grew into our brains over a very long time and they helped us survive. Trying to get rid of them with mental practice is like trying to upgrade a computer's CPU by downloading it off the internet.

I tried that same general point right worded a differently right around page 1 or 2 when people argued against my first post.

Animals do as animals do- they survive, because they lack the higher congitive function to do much else; if that means they must fight, they'll fight. Humans, supposedly being smarter than animals, should learn to move past resorting to killing to achieve an end, that's all I'm trying to get across.

Yeah that's going to take a while. Humanity isn't exactly a huge ancient race. Heck they only started to ban duels about 400 years ago. I believe we'll get there eventually (if we don't all die that is), but don't expect it to be in our lifetime.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Just a job basically, just a bit more glorified over here.

I plan on joining the Navy or Air Force after college as an officer, really discipline myself, get ready for the real world.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Firstly, and I can't stress this enough, we are a group of over 300 million people, we have just as many opinions about the military.
That said, to answer your question, we respect our military because it's voluntary. Enlisting is being willing to risk your life for your country's values. Also, it has a lot to do with what happened after Vietnam. Many people here blamed the soldiers for the war, which was incredibly unjust and cruel, and that was recognized as an injustice so we now have all these groups trying to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again.

As to your point about needing action to be a hero, in the US signing up is voluntary, and is therefore a heroic action in and of itself. It is the willingness to risk your life that is heroic, not doing so. Any more specific questions, I will do my best to answer them.

 

[Bloodysoldier]

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:

Then your not a pacifist, your nothing more than a non-aggressor. You may want to think a bit about what you say before making another wasteful post.

 

[Kenko]

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

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

Torture is the oldest form of getting information. Every nation has done it since the beginning of time. It is a scar among all nations, however we all deal with it. 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

Torture has also been proven to rarely work, if ever. In the end the person always "Confesses/lies" if only to stop the pain for a moment. There is no way to justify it.

OT: Meh, the americans have been brainwashed into thinking that their troops are heroes and are saving the planet, while in reality they are little gremlings who are doing the dirty work for a corrupt state, raping and plundering the less fortunate places in the world. Imho.

 

[Truth Cake]

Then your not a pacifist, your nothing more than a non-aggressor. You may want to think a bit about what you say before making another wasteful post.

You misunderstand- although that's mostly my fault since I explained it poorly to begin with; it's not that I'll fight as long as I'm not the aggressor, it's that I'll ONLY fight back if I perceive my life in danger. I've been in 'fights', if you can call them that, where I've just stood there and let my opponent beat me because I knew they weren't going to bring me to serious harm; and I was obviously right, since I'm still typing this.

I think that warrants more than just 'non-aggressor'; but who honestly cares about me, anyways? This is a topic about the U.S. Military, not myself, so let's just move on, believe what you want to, I don't care anymore.

 

[Herbsk]

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

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

In response to your question - I would say - they are indeed a hero until proven otherwise -each and every one of them.

Do you believe that being involved in torture (as in, actually torturing people) proves them not to be heroes? Or that knowing about it and letting it happen proves them not to be heroes- after all "evil can only succeed when good people do nothing."

If so, I completly agree with the idea that a person who volunteers to do dangerous work to uphold the values of a nation is a hero to that nation (be they military, law enforcement etc) unless they do something to disgrace the institution of which they are a member (for example- the US troops who tortured people disgraced the institution that is the US army, and the Metropolitan police officers who were selling case details to News of the World journalists in the UK are a disgrace to the Met), but a perosn (any person) is innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed I would tend to agree with your interpretation of things - its very difficult (or impossible) to call someone who participates in touture a hero. However, I do not and cannot believe that a majority of the US military would fall into this category. For my part, the friends and family in the military that I know personally are honorable people, and I would be at fault if I did not support the choices they have made in my mind.

Of course, your question brings up a bigger topic - do we consider German soldiers to be villians just because the fought for Germany in WW2? Unless they were directly involved in the atrocities commmited, I don't think many people would agree with that notion. The same could be said for your average Japanese soldier from that time period.

 

[Blunderboy]

It's HUA and stands of Heard Understood Acknowledged.
Or so I am told.

 

[Stilkon]

I'm going to get a lot of shit for this...

I don't know what's wit the worship either. Now, that being said, I wouldn't disrespect someone on their choice to become a soldier, marine, etc. But calling every person who goes into the military seems a bit ridiculous to me, and knowing large groups of people, it probably serves as an ego boost to a few of the conceited ones.

However, I will say that Leroy Petry (the soldier who received the medal of honor recently), is indeed a brave man for throwing a grenade away from his fellow soldiers.