Why are you for OR against the Military??

[Super Kami Dende]

I'm neither for nor against. I just accept that they are a necessary part of Human life.

[Kithelle]

We need one, but question is do we need to spend as much money as we do on it?

[Total Crica]

We need one, but question is do we need to spend as much money as we do on it?

Ask that question again once someone else's military spent more on theirs.

[Aeula]

For it obviously. A country without a military is a country that won't last very long in a war or in general.

[Theinquisition]

This is definitely not inaccurate lol.

Well put Sir. Lol.

I've always put it this way since getting out.

I miss the circus, I don't miss the clowns

[xero5141]

You don't understand why people aren't happy when their money is used for things they don't like very inefficiently?

Military spending does not equate to a choice of being for or against the military.

"For or against" implies a choice between having and not having a military. Twist words whichever way you like.

If I ask you if you're for or against a haircut, I'm clearly not asking how much you'd like to spend on a haircut.

[Themius]

Wholly against it. War is nothing more than using the poor to kill other poor people, to make rich people more money.

Lol that's just... no... that's not what war is.

[Deleted]

not necessarily disagreeing with a lot of what your trying to say, but why does everyone always say "the west...blah blah blah"

The east never exploits anyone? They never do wrong? I think if most people had to chose, they would chose to live in the "west"

As far as "slave like conditions", not saying its right, but hey, a job is better than no job and the standard of living in countries like China has been steadily rising.

it's the west cause thats what it has historically been for a long time now, but your right the strong exploit the weak wherever you go, it's just the west has been doing it on a global scale. the west are also the only ones really in a position currently where they could make a big difference if they wanted too. (but as i said before, resources are scarce so altruism like that is difficult in reality)

and yes, our exploitation has benefits for the exploitees too, we needed china to be politically stable, have infrastructure, education, etc, in order to make shit on the cheap for us. Over time this vastly improved their country too the point that they are now where we were not too long ago. This just means the cycle will repeat in the next shithole. The only good thing about that really is that its a faster way to get from A to B then to do it on your own, and that eventually a critical mass will become industrialized nations that the system wont work anymore, but it has it's costs in human suffering and death.

[Total Crica]

Lol that's just... no... that's not what war is.

So, rich people are killing each other in war?

[Deleted]

So, rich people are killing each other in war?

Last time I checked the majority of the enlisted were middle class and the majority of Officers were middle-upper/upper class, the idea that only the dregs serve dates back to the time of prison or serving.

[Total Crica]

Last time I checked the majority of the enlisted were middle class and the majority of Officers were middle-upper/upper class, the idea that only the dregs serve dates back to the time of prison or serving.

Those are not rich people. Warren Beatty is rich. Bill Gates is rich. etc.

[Deleted]

Those are not rich people. Warren Beatty is rich. Bill Gates is rich. etc.

http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/w...ilitary-today/

3 out of 4 presidential candidates kids are not considered rich? Being in the military is a status thing, Prince harry was gunning people down in an Apache gunship, Andrew flew during the Falklands.

[Deleted]

Last time I checked the majority of the enlisted were middle class and the majority of Officers were middle-upper/upper class, the idea that only the dregs serve dates back to the time of prison or serving.

you hear a lot that military pay sucks though.

and then there are always stories to be found about people signing up because they have no real other options, stories about people who join for "free" education they couldn't otherwise afford, or even to avoid prison time. i'm sure the percentage of that kind of recruit varies a lot over the years depending on the needs of the military, but surely they are based in some truth.

[Deleted]

you hear a lot that military pay sucks though.

and then there are always stories to be found about people signing up because they have no real other options, or even to avoid prison time. i'm sure the percentage of that kind of recruit varies a lot over the years depending on the needs of the military, but surely they are based in some truth.

Since when? Not been a thing in the USA since Vietnam and has not been a thing in the UK since Napoleon times.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

IMO a military is necessary but, spending a godly amount is well it could be used for other things.

[Daymanmb]

Lol that's just... no... that's not what war is.

Thats exactly what it is. What war has the USA been in since WWII that hasnt been profit motivated?

[Deleted]

Since when? Not been a thing in the USA since Vietnam and has not been a thing in the UK since Napoleon times.

not so much anymore in the sense that a court gives you the choice. but if the army needs warm bodies they are willing to overlook a lot of stuff.

i mean i'm sure a lot of people who are not career military join the military as a means to an end or stepping stone. give some years of your life in exchange for something otherwise out of reach. and i'm sure more poor people make that choice then people well off, out of sheer necessity.

[Hiricine]

You only say that because we are not at war.

If we were, you would be overjoyed at anyone in the military at that time.

IMO, everyone who wants their way of life to continue should sign up to the military as a reserve member.

Unless you think those who invade us are just going to say "go ahead, continue your way of life, civilian" as they take over?

If so, by all means, continue to think having a job in the military is a waste.

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing as how we not only aren't at war, but the nation hasn't seen a threat worth responding to on a national military scale in a little over 70 years now, I would tend to agree with your first statement.

Believe me, there are plenty of people who would step up in the case of a conflict that actually poses a threat. Not to talk bad about the people who actually DO it currently, but I don't feel the need to promote operations in foreign countries I don't give a shit about or the need to join an armed service when I have no feeling that I'd potentially be protecting anyone at all, at least based on any empirical data we have.

Though if I were to agree with the premise that military intervention and personnel are entirely necessary if theres a reasonable expectations the resources will protect lives or freedom proportional to those resources used, would it also be fair to say that a disproportionately high use of those resources to protect lives/freedom is unnecessary?

[Total Crica]

there are plenty of people who would step up in the case of a conflict that actually poses a threat

I don't doubt that for a moment. However, tossing people at war who have no skill at war is not a good idea, which is what you would be doing if you only have a military during times of threat.

[Hiricine]

I don't doubt that for a moment. However, tossing people at war who have no skill at war is not a good idea, which is what you would be doing if you only have a military during times of threat.

Well I think we're coming together a little on this.

I suppose the question really comes down to how much military you do need when there isn't a time of threat, and what is the appropriate amount of readiness to have for an event that you have no empirical evidence for? Also, assuming that you can figure out approximately how many lives will be saved by a level of readiness for a potential threat, would it be more appropriate to be at a lesser level of readiness if it means saving a greater number of lives on average from a provable threat?