What's your opinion on the military?

Post Reply New Topic

Its not impossible. But it would be difficult considering how little contact North Koreans have with the outside world. They do not have the benefit of social networking, the 21st century's revolutionary weapon, apparently.



Honestly, that is despicable, but that alone would not be high on my list of reasons to invade Iraq, especially considering even the US is not innocent of some brutality. They should have just taken Hussein out in 1991 using commandos and let the Iraqis elect their own leadership. Instead they waited more than ten years, for a time period where Islamic nationalism is perhaps at an all time high in centuries, to invade. That is not sound strategic planning. I suspect had Saddam been left in place (as distasteful as that is) he would be among those currently in serious trouble in the MENA. The Iraqis probably would have had a civil war and done most of their fighting themselves. The US and other countries could have eventually gone in as peace keepers, which is still not 100% acceptable to many, but the early 21st century might have gone very differently had long-term strategy and political repercussions been more strongly considered by the W. Bush administration. But alas, we will never know anyways, and thankfully the Iraq War is winding down




When I see vast armies invading countries, with guerrilla campaigns being waged against them, atrocities committed, poor planning, and horrid leadership, I tend to think 'they definitely did not read The Art of War, or did not understand it'

We really should have made good on the promises made in 1991. The civil war was already happening. From what I can tell, politics is what prevented it. That's one of the major aspects of democracy that always annoys me. Everything is half-finished. I think the majority of the people don't understand just how difficult it was to get support in the Middle East following Sept. 11th simply because of all the broken promises that happened with new people getting elected, or people worrying about election year politics.

As bad as some of the stuff that American troops and PMC's did, the things that Saddam did were much worse.



If you get a chance, watch "The Art of War" (a documentary). It's run on The History Channel every few weeks. It compares events of Vietnam, World War II, and the American Civil War with Sun Tzu's military campaigns and his teachings.

Speaking of: I think that Vietnam was a very winnable war. It was just handled horribly.

One of the problems with the American military is the concept of freedom of the press. Everything gets reported ahead of time. It makes it impossible to use deception effectively and also affects the political side of war (most people have little to no understanding of war, not to mention the sensationalism in the media, and therefore misinterpret the information given. There is a similar problem with economic decisions). Some things should just not be reported until after the fact, and those that are reported (before or after the fact) should involve educating the public as much as reporting events.

I don't even know where to begin with this thread.
I’ll just take a shot at this little snippet of cluelessness.

If they’re over there then they are at least the age of young adulthood and have volunteered to join the military as millions have over the centuries. Although often tragic there's nothing new about it and it will always be this way.

Slaughter? To say that implies that our troops over there are all war criminals! No one by definition is being slaughtered over there by Americans or their allies. Busting up the ambush of a convoy, patrol, or troop movement isn’t slaughter it’s survival. Ferreting out terrorists to make the world a better place is not slaughter. A sniper putting a bullet hole in an RPG armed terrorist making a move on innocents is saving the lives of the would be terrorists victims, not slaughter.

The "they don't care about our boys" issue is because we as Americans (or other nations) don't make our elected officials take enough of an interest. If the lack of military benefits and healthcare got enough voters riled up you'd see a change.

Its more admirable, I suppose, when it is an entirely volunteer cause. War has been part of us for a long time, but I don't know about it always being this way. It has been a prime mover of change and in some respects, technological advancement, but its possible that in the future (maybe not so distant) it just won't be profitable to go to war if there are more equitable solutions available that require less blood and financial damage (because though war is profitable for many, it also frequently destroys economies). Looking at the past 200 years it seems to me the traditional idea of 'Empire', while occasionally touched upon by various aggressive powers (from Napoleon to Hitler, and the puppet masters in the following 60 years with their proxy wars and police actions) does not seem to be as relevant and desirable as it once was. None of these great unifying forces have truly succeeded in building a lasting empire with a strong core. Its becoming more evident that great wars are not really the right way to go about things. Though I say this, I naturally assume there is some ambitious (probably Chinese) bureaucrat out there who is not going to heed this and the 21st century will have its Great War



More people need to be riled up for veterans, they deserve it



Oh, certainly. The use of chemical agents against Kurds and Iranians is a good example. Or essentially the entire Iran-Iraq war I suppose. Though the US did provide him some backing during this war as it was against the theocratic Iranians.
When I mentioned American brutality though I was thinking about things in the past. US troops don't have a spotless record and neither does the government, though I am not trying to paint the US as a whole in a bad light, as there are far worse countries. [I'm a big fan of US history and the US itself, but I prefer the whole story of everything]. One thing that comes to mind for me is the My Lai Massacre. This was not something ordered on from the higher ups though but rather undisciplined soldiers. There are numerous other examples throughout history of US foreign policy being imperialistic- particularly the time after the US Civil War. I think having millions of men in uniform and gearing an economy for a 'total war' like this changes a country, and creates a generation of blood thirsty ambition. The late 19th/early 20th century is dotted with US wars, puppet governments and direct military interventions in the Pacific and Latin America



I'll definitely have to check that out! Thanks!!



It was probably winnable but there was too much political interference. And then there was the whole S. Vietnamese government, which was highly corrupt and brutal. Actually that is probably one of the worst things about the whole war, and represented a hypocrisy in the US willingness to support undemocratic regimes if it meant adhering to prevention of the Domino Theory. (Many other examples abound) S. Korea as well had a really bad government, but that changed by the 80s. The US really had one hand tied behind its back in some ways. The circumstances surrounding the US's beginning of direct involvement (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) are also very suspicious.



On the other hand it can be a good way to throw people off. Though I agree. I really dislike modern media, as I tend to view it not really as a source of news but as a source or precooked opinions. It is important to differentiate between the two, and very few people seem to know how to do this

Last edited by Vigilans on 23 May 2011, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the military should exist solely to protect our borders and to respond to national crises.

To go to some foreign land to kill an opposing combatant over differences in ideology is stupid.

Only relevant if you support the existence of nation-states in the first place,
and think that global instabilities and inequalities so great as to need vast militaries to defend them are a requirement of human existence,
as opposed to the product of human choices and the construction of institutions incentivizing domination and oppression.

When it's something like Nazi Germany invading neutral countries and engaging in acts like genocide I think we should stop them, purely on a moral basis.
When a country goes into revolution, other countries should just watch and wait to see what happens; and only get involved to evacuate their citizens and protect installations such as nuclear power stations.

The trouble with Country A invading and overthrowing Country B's government and letting them be 'democratic' about it is that they might vote in a government that A might not like.

Okay i was kinda speaking out of anger there. But they do kill some civilians anyhow, it's unavoidable if you're in war for oil and political power.

people who glorify the Military can't dream of a better world. they are Cynics

And THAT is the problem with all of you Hawks.

It's a reality of the world we live in is what it is.
Myabe someday you'll see that......

It was my understanding that America actually help set up the S. Vietnam government. We supported the rise to power of someone whose only real benefit (in the eyes of the leaders of the time) was how anti-communist he was. That was major mistake #1. The other was appointing inflexible military leaders who persisted with policy that did not work.



People who demonize the military can't understand sacrificing themselves for another.

There are two kinds of people that engage in military conflict: Warriors and soldiers.

Warriors kill for their own gain. Soldiers die for the sake of others.

Warriors will sometimes fight warriors, soldiers will sometimes fight soldiers. Most often, though, it is that warriors fight soldiers.

Those that would dismiss soldiers would be ruled by warriors. Those that do not make the distinction are nothing but fools.