Why are you for OR against the Military??

[Maletalana]

[QUOTE=Skroe;43956206]

For the military as a whole.

Against poor choices made sometimes at high levels of the military...for example:


The F-35 was chosen by civilian officials (and it was the right choice). The military advised, but it was the civilians who sign off on every program, and again, in the form of Congress and the President, civilians who choose to continue them.

In fact there is a VERY sound line of reasoning that returning procurement choice decisions to the uniformed military - something stripped from them in the 1980s in the US - may be a big fix in the military procurement regime.




The US Military was institutionally against The Kosovo War, the Iraq War and the Libya conflict... three wars orchestrated again, by Civilian personnel. The military offered its advice and followed orders in the prosecution of the war, but it was not involved in instigating them. Famously, Donald Rumsfeld (basically) fired General Shinseki for questioning if US post war planning in Iraq Was sufficient.



The CIA mostly does this. Again, civilians.

In terms of weapons, if you're referring to Iraq, it was the Civilian US congress that sold and gifted surplus weaponry to Iraq. Besides training the nascent Iraqi military how to use them, the US military played no role in orchestrating the transfer. When the Iraqi military fled, and ISIS took US weapons from Iraqi bases, that was the culmination of a civilian lead policy failure.




Veterans Affairs is civilian run and civilian funded.



Don't blame the uniformed military for civilian incompetence and civilian crafted policy you disagree with.

Fantastic rebuttal! Well said, completely agree with you, if civilian's could butt out let us do our job .... lol
(this coming from current active duty USMC)

[cubby]

I would love if we can achieve world peace, I really would. If I was able to live in a world where weapons were no longer needed, and wars were fought by discussions rather than blood shed. But that isn't the current reality we live in. If any major power disbanded their military, other nations wouldn't see it as an inspiration to do the same, they would see it as an opportunity to crush them, and profit off of it.

So yeah, i'd really love world peace, but that is absolutely unreachable in this lifetime, so therefore, we absolutely need military to keep the wolves at bay.

I couldn't agree more. When I take a moment and think about all the accomplishments we could achieve as a species if we'd just stop fighting each other, I get a little sad.

But we still live in a violent world and a standing military is necessary (and good).

[Maletalana]

I'm against - I don't want to die for someone's ambitions cause
I'm for - someone has to protect my ass from those who want to die for someone's ambitions cause

Valor, some have it, some do not.

[cubby]

Well.. The social security is literally about to collapse once the baby boomers reach the age.. My generation will never see social security because the baby boomers will have all taken it.

It's only about to collapse because the GOP labels it an entitlement instead of something people pay into. Meanwhile, the GOP is robbing it blind and perpetuating tax loopholes that prevent social security from being permanently funded (social sec tax cut off at $117,000 salary).

[Skroe]

It's only about to collapse because the GOP labels it an entitlement instead of something people pay into. Meanwhile, the GOP is robbing it blind and perpetuating tax loopholes that prevent social security from being permanently funded (social sec tax cut off at $117,000 salary).

A label is irrelevant. The core problem of social security is that it is a program designed to take care of people in the last three to five years of their lives, but instead has been stretched to service pople for ten to fifteen thanks to raising life expectancy. If actually calibrated for the duration that it's recipients are going to live, rather than lived 50 years ago, it wouldn't need to be overhauled every decade or so. It would be permanently solvent.

That would however mean, raising the retirement age to like 74, or dramatically increasing Social Security Taxes.

[videotape]

FOR: Military force is necessary, because humans.
AGAINST: Military force is abused, because humans.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm against the hero worship we've got going on in this country. I'm not against the military itself.

[Exeris]

I enjoy to live so I guess I'm for.

But I would like much more transparency on spending and the power structure to see possible abuse of power and wasteful spending.

[Alvito]

I'm against mandatory draft, im for having an military.

My time in the army was pretty much 50/50, went through alot of shit that made me want to hang myself from the nearest lamp post.
But alot of the social parts, experiencing nature, and experiencing new things about yourself, learning what your own limits truly are, and how much you are able to push yourself was fantastic.
Guns, military vehicles and all that was fun aswell, i miss my rifle, so i'm obviously shaping my opinion from my own time in the army, i didn't have a choice, it was mandatory for me.



Ah, sleeping out in tents in -50 celsius, good times.

- 50 Celsius, did you do a lot of camping on the moon? What was it like being a space marine?

- - - Updated - - -

For the military as a whole.

Against poor choices made sometimes at high levels of the military...for example:

- The F-35 debacle with so much bureaucracy and compromise that it made a plane that is good at everything but master of none.
- Attacking countries/regime change without planning for the power vacuum that's left afterwards.
- Arming rebels of a regime we don't like, when often the rebels are just as bad and/or the weapons fall into enemy hands.
- Treating veterans terribly after service.

Imagine how quickly the VA would be fixed if all government employees had tonuse it. Most importantly make congress and their families deal with that nightmare. It would be tip top be the end of the year.

[Kathandira]

Not as much as welfare spending and entitlement spending. And btw, VA compensation IS NOT an entitlement. Its something myself (when I retire) and every veteran earned.

I just want to jump in here to state that I am not against paying for those who serve, past, present, or future. You do a job, and you are entitled to it, because you earned it, and it was well earned.

[Felicia]

Because I'm a Navy brat, and a majority of my family has served at one point or another. My grandfather served for 20 years, my dad served for 23, my mom served for 10, my uncle served for 26, and my aunt served for 21. Two of my cousins joined the Navy. One has been in for 7 years, the other for 5. My husband is also in the Navy, and just hit his 4 year join date in October. He's also on his 3rd non-combat deployment with a p3 command from Whidbey Island, WA. This seems to be the biggest thing people assume about the military in general... that every deployment is combat oriented. My husband only has pistol training, he's an aviation electrician. He maintains his command's p3 electrical systems :P He loves his job. He'll be up for 1st class soon (March if he gets lucky). He joined late, with a college degree, and graduated top of his class at A-school. He also scored a 97 on his ASVAB. Joining the Navy was something he wanted to do for the benefits.

I'm a type 1 Diabetic, and have been for 20 years. We were having issues getting health insurance. Tricare provides what I need without issue. I know how the system works. He wanted to join anyway. It was an easy decision.

The stigma that all military dudes are jocks, or dumb is a generalizing and insulting statement. One of my cousins is a crypto, the other is an oceanographer (AG, meteorologist). As are both my parents, and aunt/uncle. My husband's job required an ASVAB score of at least 80.

TL;DR... I'm FOR the military, obviously.

[Strangebrew]

- 50 Celsius, did you do a lot of camping on the moon? What was it like being a space marine?

- - - Updated - - -



Imagine how quickly the VA would be fixed if all government employees had tonuse it. Most importantly make congress and their families deal with that nightmare. It would be tip top be the end of the year.

Slight exaggeration, i admit.
But we had nights where we were having field training where the temperature was almost down to that, our record was around -46 1-3 nights, to the point where we were forbidden from exiting the tent and the MP that was supposed to have field training with us had to cancel everything.

This was as far north as you can get in Norway, out in the middle of fuck nowhere, near the ocean and near the russian border, it wasn't fun.

[Army Dreamer]

Valor, some have it, some do not.

Honesty, some have it, some do not.

[Danner]

Alright, your turn.

Pacifist here. A military goes against a fundamental principle of how I believe the world should work. I obviously recognise that it doesn't work according to my ideals. I accept that there is a core of human nature that will inevitably resort to violence. There may even be situations where violence is the only sensible option (the revolution against a brutal tyrant scenario, the assassinate hitler scenario, the invading orc army scenario etc). Nonetheless, pacifism is the ideal, and I wish to live my life towards that ideal. I will be the final judge on where and if I chose to break my own ideals. I cannot make the world a better place by lowering my standards to the lowest common denominator, and the army is an institution designed to that very purpose. I reject it on principle.

But let's break it down. There are two schools of military force; offensive and defensive.

Offensive armies exist to occupy and enslave other countries. These kind of armies are what makes the world a terrible place. Anyone spouting nonsense about the wonders of these armies, I point to any war of your choice that used one, for why it is a terrible idea. The offensive military may win the war, but so what? What has an offensive army really accomplished in this century? Everlasting peace in the middle east? An utopian Afghanistan?

So what about defensive military then? Per the Orc Army scenario, I can at the very least follow the need for this concept. But the Orc Army scenario is unrealistic. It hasn't been realistic since the days of Attila the Hun. Wars these days use guerrilla tactics and bombers, making traditional armies entirely ineffective. It is my claim there is no longer any need for a traditional military defensive force. The days of pre-war trench warfare where wars were won based on headcount is long gone. Wars are won by technology these days. In the Gulf War (1990), two dozen american bombers dismantled the entire military force of Iraq in a week. In the Iraq war (2003) it happened again. The examples are limitless.

If you want to defend against that kind of onslaught, you need mutually assured destruction. Or just have better planes than the other side. And frankly, then we're just back to offensive armies again. The only purpose a defensive army serves is as a skin game. When their fighter planes "accidentally" crosses your airspace for the third time this week, you send your fighter planes up to wave and tell them to cross back. Cue diplomatic incident where someone calls someone else a liar. Business as usual. The entire point is that nobody actually shoots on each other. Because that would be a war. Nobody, including the GPS-challenged aggressors, want that.

I don't see the need for me to participate in that skin game. I have better things to do than play such games. There are much better games out there, which are actually fun.

[Mihalik]

So I had posted a thread in regards to the civilian-military rift that is happening in my country. During the short lived thread, a few people showed their disdain for the military and it's members. There were also people for the military and it's members.

So, I wanted to know exactly WHY you are either for or against the military.

I am FOR, and the reason being is because I come from a military family, and also served myself. I saw what the military is and does and both me and my wife grew in appreciation for it. There were a few people I didn't like while I was in, but I definitely had a ton of experiences that I could have never dreamed of before, and received a lot of job experience in a field that I had no idea I would love as much as I do today. Essentially the military helped me finally decide my path in life, and I know it can do the same for others.

Alright, your turn.

This is not a question of for or against. Nor should it be if you are a grown up in a possession of something called...critical thinking.

I'm for the military and the people who serve, but I'm against militarism.

I'm for, in a sense that I believe that the military is a necessary tool required to protect nations and their interests both domestically and possibly abroad. For that to be achieved the military needs to be adequately funded, trained and lead, and the men and women who serve are ought to be respected, protected and their lives and health shouldn't be misspent.

On the other hand, I'm against a culture that relies on military might over diplomacy and where funding, spending, members and leadership are above and beyond criticism. I'm against the misuse of military might in ill advised wars, often conducted with faulty tactics and miss a clear and achievable strategic goal. I'm against a jingoistic, militaristic culture that is often confused with patriotism.

Patriotism is not synonymous with militarism.

[Deleted]

I love the military because of the interesting people you meet, I also hate the military because of the people you meet

[breadisfunny]

i am for the military just not the big bloated one we have now.

[Jastall]

I don't dislike any military. You need soldiers to defend your country, they do a job that's absolutely required. Economic interdependance does reduce the likelyhood of armed conflicts, but won't eliminate it entirely. I am also anti-war, unless said war is an absolutely necessary defensive affair (which very few wars are).

What I dislike is soldier worship, where any hint of criticism at armed forces is viewed as ''antipatriotic'' or whatever. Ironically, the soldiers themselves don't usually have this viewpoint; it's politicians and self-styled patriots that haven't done a day of military service.

End of the day, soldiers exist to kill (albeit they can also be deployed on relief missions, which is cool). One can call them heroes or monsters, but killing the people their boss tells them needs to die is literally their job description. It's hard to judge them overly for that IMO, better judge the guys who point them at their foes.

Of course, that doesn't apply to soldiers who, negligently or purposefully, harm non-combattants. These guys are just straight up-murderers.

[Mihalik]

But let's break it down. There are two schools of military force; offensive and defensive.

Offense and defense are not strategies. They are tactics. Any military force in human history required the ability to conduct offensive operations. Even if you are on the end that is on the defense.

But I think what you are more likely referring to is related to something called Power Projection. Power Projection is related to how far a military can reach outside the territories it controls. Currently the only nation in the world with global conventional power projection capabilities is the US. There are a few other nations with non-conventional (Nuclear) global power projection capabilities.

There are nations that intentionally restrict their own reach (like Japan or Germany) by refusing to acquire the means to project power globally. And there are many more who either limit their capabilities (France, Italy, Spain, UK, Russia) for financial reasons or rely on non conventional means of power projection (France, UK, Russia, China via nuclear arms) or simply lack the technological means (China) or are simply too small to acquire the means for global power projection.

To some extent this is where organizations like NATO are also worth mentioning, as they allow members greater reach than they would normally have, by either piggybacking on each other's infrastructure, or relying on their allies to do the fighting where they can't reach.

[Theinquisition]

For the military as a whole.

Against poor choices made sometimes at high levels of the military...for example:

- The F-35 debacle with so much bureaucracy and compromise that it made a plane that is good at everything but master of none.
- Attacking countries/regime change without planning for the power vacuum that's left afterwards.
- Arming rebels of a regime we don't like, when often the rebels are just as bad and/or the weapons fall into enemy hands.
- Treating veterans terribly after service.

All three of those are decisions that weren't made by the military