Why do people associate the military with...

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

26 Mar 2011, 9:23 am

Ikonovich wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
oh ya, and what about Saddam's military before the fall of his regime? Would you say the soldiers were making the world a better place by invading Kuwait and gassing them? What about Gaddafi's military?



I'm not defending every military.


Just the one I'm in.

OK, looks like you did not answer my original question then. I still find no reason to view a military job as something thats doing really good works. I think which military is doing good is in the eye of the beholder.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Mar 2011, 9:40 am

World War II, the Allied forces stomping the Nazi war machine and stopping the Japanese Empire as well.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Mar 2011, 11:44 am

Some of you just don't get it.
Scenario: You live in one country and you’re neighboring country decides it want’s your country for its natural resources or whatever. They don’t want to buy these resources at market value they want to TAKE them and leave you with nothing and possibly enslave your fellow countrymen to extract those resources. They’re massing troops on the border for an invasion and their air force stands by to begin launching strike missions deep inside your borders.
How do you handle that????? :?

Another thought: Aside from the traditional standing army of most nations there is the Swiss military which uses a different approach in that their citizenry makes up a very formidable reserve force. Each member keeps his field equipment and weapons at home in order to respond to a national level mobilization or to defend his community at a moment’s notice. They assemble to train regularly.
Why more small countries don’t adopt the same system is a mystery. It seems the best scenario for any nation without interests outside its borders or one without the financial resources to field a full time standing army.
If a well executed system like that can’t repel an invasion it can at least make a successful one so costly in terms of losses for the invading army that they would think twice before attacking.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Mar 2011, 12:43 pm

Raptor wrote:
Some of you just don't get it.
Scenario: You live in one country and you’re neighboring country decides it want’s your country for its natural resources or whatever. They don’t want to buy these resources at market value they want to TAKE them and leave you with nothing and possibly enslave your fellow countrymen to extract those resources. They’re massing troops on the border for an invasion and their air force stands by to begin launching strike missions deep inside your borders.
How do you handle that????? :?


How does one handle that? By verbally denouncing one's own country for considering violence as a solution while throwing flowers at the enemy soldiers as they bombard your country with shells and rockets. ... I think I rather fight back than do that, but so much of a virtue has been made out of extreme pacifism that to suggest defending oneself is seen as an act of aggression by most people who don't bother thinking for themselves.



Zen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,868

26 Mar 2011, 12:50 pm

I agree with everything Monkey said. :D

One thing that bothers me (please tell me if this isn't actually true) is the guy who leaked info to wikileaks is in serious trouble, but the guys he exposed who murdered civilians? Nothing. That's just not right. I actually really hope someone will tell me this is untrue.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Mar 2011, 12:59 pm

MONKEY wrote:
I wish I was an orangutan, they just don't care. 8)


Actually, at an Imax theatre in a local science museum a few years ago, I remember watching a documentary about orangutans which, at one part of it, the orangutans from one group were attacked and slaughtered by another group of orangutans simply because they had found each other.



MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

26 Mar 2011, 1:23 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MONKEY wrote:
I wish I was an orangutan, they just don't care. 8)


Actually, at an Imax theatre in a local science museum a few years ago, I remember watching a documentary about orangutans which, at one part of it, the orangutans from one group were attacked and slaughtered by another group of orangutans simply because they had found each other.


I think that's chimps you're thinking of, orangutans are mostly solitary. It's the chimps that have big wars with eachother.


_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Mar 2011, 2:00 pm

MONKEY wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MONKEY wrote:
I wish I was an orangutan, they just don't care. 8)


Actually, at an Imax theatre in a local science museum a few years ago, I remember watching a documentary about orangutans which, at one part of it, the orangutans from one group were attacked and slaughtered by another group of orangutans simply because they had found each other.


I think that's chimps you're thinking of, orangutans are mostly solitary. It's the chimps that have big wars with eachother.


Although I've never seen an orangutan at a zoo which wasn't solitary and lethargic, I am fairly certain I remember the film being about orangutans, but I could be wrong.



Ikonovich
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 286
Location: Alabama/Georgia

26 Mar 2011, 2:45 pm

jc6chan wrote:
Ikonovich wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
oh ya, and what about Saddam's military before the fall of his regime? Would you say the soldiers were making the world a better place by invading Kuwait and gassing them? What about Gaddafi's military?



I'm not defending every military.


Just the one I'm in.

OK, looks like you did not answer my original question then. I still find no reason to view a military job as something thats doing really good works. I think which military is doing good is in the eye of the beholder.



I disagree to some extent. Some activities are objectively bad. Wantonly massacring unarmed, unthreatening civilians, for instance. Others are objectively good, like helping people through a disaster. Most fall a little more into a gray zone, but some militaries spend a lot of time doing those bad things.


Anyone who can equate, say, the US or French militaries with those of places like Libya or North Korea needs to do a little more research.

You are however correct in asserting that in a many war scenarios (For instance WW2) both sides believe that they're doing what's best, although in the case of WW2 I believe this is mostly due to the fact that the average soldier or citizen had no idea about what was being done to the 'undesirables'. In most cases there is, from an objective stand point, a fairly clear view of who was the 'bad' side, but on either side of the line it can be a lot harder to see.


_________________
"A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit."
August 1993 issue of the Army's maintenance magazine


Fudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,696

27 Mar 2011, 6:32 am

Raptor wrote:
Some of you just don't get it.
Scenario: You live in one country and you’re neighboring country decides it want’s your country for its natural resources or whatever. They don’t want to buy these resources at market value they want to TAKE them and leave you with nothing and possibly enslave your fellow countrymen to extract those resources. They’re massing troops on the border for an invasion and their air force stands by to begin launching strike missions deep inside your borders.
How do you handle that????? :?

Another thought: Aside from the traditional standing army of most nations there is the Swiss military which uses a different approach in that their citizenry makes up a very formidable reserve force. Each member keeps his field equipment and weapons at home in order to respond to a national level mobilization or to defend his community at a moment’s notice. They assemble to train regularly.
Why more small countries don’t adopt the same system is a mystery. It seems the best scenario for any nation without interests outside its borders or one without the financial resources to field a full time standing army.
If a well executed system like that can’t repel an invasion it can at least make a successful one so costly in terms of losses for the invading army that they would think twice before attacking.


but the US doesn't have 'enemies at the gates' & all countries that do have some desire to destroy them have been at the very least wantonly provoked, if not attacked or invaded. :roll:
yet, other than emergency aid, which is fine & just, those in support of the US military generally seem to maintain that they, the military, fight 'for their country'.. it seems to me, they wouldn't have had to fight for their country, had they stopped doing so after they gained independence.

just a thought from a 'freedom hating' liberal ;)

for the record i don't hate soldiers, don't particularly like them but don't particularly dislike them either.



jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

28 Mar 2011, 11:59 am

Raptor wrote:
Scenario: You live in one country and you’re neighboring country decides it want’s your country for its natural resources or whatever. They don’t want to buy these resources at market value they want to TAKE them and leave you with nothing and possibly enslave your fellow countrymen to extract those resources. They’re massing troops on the border for an invasion and their air force stands by to begin launching strike missions deep inside your borders.
How do you handle that????? :?

.

You just prooved my point that the role of a soldier is not necessarily "good". What about the soldiers who are invading the other country? How can you say that stealing resources is "good"?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Mar 2011, 4:57 pm

jc6chan wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Scenario: You live in one country and you’re neighboring country decides it want’s your country for its natural resources or whatever. They don’t want to buy these resources at market value they want to TAKE them and leave you with nothing and possibly enslave your fellow countrymen to extract those resources. They’re massing troops on the border for an invasion and their air force stands by to begin launching strike missions deep inside your borders.
How do you handle that????? :?

.

You just prooved my point that the role of a soldier is not necessarily "good". What about the soldiers who are invading the other country? How can you say that stealing resources is "good"?


I guess I wasn’t clear.
I was looking at this from the perspective of a citizen of the same country that the military protects. Namely the United States in my case, but any other nation will do.

I’ll also point out that in most nations, other than ones with a military government, that the military follows the decisions of the nation’s leaders (usually politicians). The military is the sword point of that nation’s national defense and policies. Of course that does not relieve them of their ethical and legal responsibilities where the laws of warfare are concerned (i.e. war crimes) which are not always clear and maybe not even practical in all cases.
In a nutshell ¸my position is that a nation that wants to survive as one needs something in the form of armed forces in place to protect its borders and sovereignty, etc………..
It stands to reason that those forces will be used for illegal and/or immoral purposes by some nations. The best way to counter that abuse is by being a formidable force to be reconvened with. In reality that’s just the world we live in……



jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

29 Mar 2011, 10:30 am

Raptor wrote:
It stands to reason that those forces will be used for illegal and/or immoral purposes by some nations. The best way to counter that abuse is by being a formidable force to be reconvened with. In reality that’s just the world we live in……

Its rarely the case that any army is absolutely no blood on their hands. Even the US has many cases of war crimes. On the contrary, you can't say that other army's like Saddam's is completely evil. I do believe that there were individual soldiers in those armies who are generally good moral people and only wants to serve their country.



draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

29 Mar 2011, 10:45 am

We really aren't all that much evolved from our ancient ancestors... we might call them countries now but people are still seperatist and tribal and fight over abstract things like an imaginary line in the sand, which invisible man you worship, or just because that guy over there looks funny...

The military is just the big brother version of the tribal war party... the tribe with the biggest party and the most weapons wins. It's an easy equation.

Until people can stop thinking like cavemen, the military will persist.

And anyone talking about things like one world one government or abolish the failing free market economy is a traitor to their own kind! No self respecting caveman would EVER turn his back on the system that has worked for millenia... what are you? A SOCIALIST? (funny how that word is as good as an expletive these days...)