Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is "service" in the armed forces a good thing even if it was a b.s. war in the first place? By extension, one could argue that because world peace would be a far superior state to the current one, it would be beneficial to all if no one, in any part of the world, signed up to fight in any war, ever.
Once one understands why war is a state to be avoided, how can one continue to defend the position that having people willing to go into a war is actually a good thing? I just don't get the whole honor the veterans stuff I see around me all the time, because the implicit assumption is that fighting is a good thing, right?
The problem is that war is really no different than a food fight in a cafeteria - only deadly and on a much larger scale. So if one thinks veterans should be honored, then perhaps it's a bit of a double standard to support disciplining schoolchildren in a food fight? And if throwing food to "get even" with another thrower is not acceptable, then why is killing off another nation's people any different?
I realize that there are non-violent activities one can go into such as the Peace Corps, but these are only a fraction of the total of those in the armed forces. Thus, pointing out that not all veterans were actually in the military doesn't really change the fact that a general and encompassing "high respect" for veterans has the effect of promoting war.
Because some people crave more money and power than their share, and so they take from others. War should be avoided... but not at all costs.
Back to World War II:
Italy invaded Ethiopia and north Africa.
Japan invaded China, then Russia and Mongolia, then started capturing islands in the Pacific.
Germany invaded multiple other countries, first to reclaim lands lost to WWI, but then they blitzkreiged across Poland and started west across the rest of Europe.
All three of the "Axis" powers imprisoned and murdered millions of undesirables. Are you honestly saying that we rest of the world should have just sat back and watched as those three madmen slowly took over the entire world? Just watched as millions of people were executed?
The nation-state, governed by parlimentary pluralisnm, is a relatively "new" idea when viewed in the widest context of human history, and no "tested" democracy (one with a history of the transfer of power solely by free elections for 100 years or more) has since taken up the sword against another tested democracy.
The nature of all societies is that the lesser-educated and more force-minded among the male population are drwan to the promise of security in return for submission to what most of us see as too much authority. In return, they see respect and atention to their needs in later life as a natural repward.
For a lot of them, this works; but some of them also pay a terrible price, and they often drop into what author Paul Fesel calls the "bottom-out-of-sight-class" where they're seldom encountered and easier to ignore.
And like it or not, the emergence of a global culture also gives rise to a small group of "rogue" nations -- or smaller movements with no stake in the system; that unfortunate phenomenon calls for a "global policeman", and international co-operation has not yet matured to a point where the strongest few can abdicate fron that role.
The process will continue to evolve, with the most simplistic among the pacifists and "do-gooders" fighting it every step of the way.
Because some people crave more money and power than their share, and so they take from others. War should be avoided... but not at all costs.
Back to World War II:
Italy invaded Ethiopia and north Africa.
Japan invaded China, then Russia and Mongolia, then started capturing islands in the Pacific.
Germany invaded multiple other countries, first to reclaim lands lost to WWI, but then they blitzkreiged across Poland and started west across the rest of Europe.
All three of the "Axis" powers imprisoned and murdered millions of undesirables. Are you honestly saying that we rest of the world should have just sat back and watched as those three madmen slowly took over the entire world? Just watched as millions of people were executed?
No, I'm saying that the Axis powers should have had no one willing to fight either, and thus there would be no need for fighting. Of course, once such a war like that is already happening (and it's too late to go back and prevent it), then perhaps militia action is needed - but that still is not a justification for the "honor veterans" mentality as applied to other wars - why should the Iraq or Vietnam war veterans be honored?
I hate war and the worship of it. I also hate the zealous admiration of soldiers. I know too many people that couldnt wait to "serve" with this over idealistic image in their head of honor and bravery (clever marketing on behalf of the DoD) who then came home either in a casket or with severe mental issues. War is failed diplomacy. There is rarely a Hitler that comes along that we must rise up and defeat. Look at the last few wars and tell me how that was worth the lives of young men.
No veteran worship does not promote wars, its the other way around.
One could argue that the placement of words like "rogue nation" and "tested democracy" is simply rhetoric and/or propaganda. The truth is, many Americans are sufficiently cut off from world news that our society spin events to make a country sound uncivilized, even if they have had modern culture and advances. For instance, the average Westerner thinks of China as rice paddies and not much else. Type in the words "Yantai" and search for pictures of the city. While it is mainly coastal, it is a fairly big city, and a very modern one at that. And this is not even a well-known city!
Saudi Arabia, and sand dunes, right? Really? So, "rogue nation" or simply a country refusing to abide by our stupid rules?
Let's consider what we are doing when we honor them as veterans, instead of simply loved ones. We are glorifying the fact that they died in war. Well, okay, war is fine because these people were fighting so that future generations might have peace. But that seems to be a lie.
Consider World War I, it was originally dubbed, "The War To End All Wars." And it was sold as if a war this big with this many countries would finally solve our problems with other countries. Ummmm, no, actually, it was fought because of an assassination, and stupid alliances. Before we go any further... An assassination, unless proven otherwise is not an act of war. It is something that happens within a state, and should stay a matter of that state only. Granted, some people might think differently, but unless the ambassador is visiting a country (in which case, he's an idiot for visiting a hostile country, and allies are under no obligation to go war over this), this involves that country. And it solved nothing, and had no reason besides countries making more alliances than was actually good for them. So, what was the point of this war? Then we went and punished Germany with war debts, which they weren't about to pay, so yay crappy political climate that let Hitler and Russian Communism take power. Then the Cold War. Which in turn caused issues with the Koreans and Vietnam. Which because of stuff like rigging an election, the Muslims also hate us. So we get a number of protracted wars over there, which may or may not also be over ownership of oil.
So tell me, have we learned anything? We haven't "declared war" but we have been fighting on and off for most of this last century. Should we honor dead troops? Or view them as idiots who threw their lives away for the vision of democracy?
Memorial day should not be in memorial of our troops. It should be in memorial of our loved ones, who have died recently. Veterans day, sure you can do that. But I don't and won't celebrate veteran's day. We do not need two days honoring troops, but we could use a day to grieve those close to us, like my grandparents. I would like a day to maybe drive to their burial site and place flowers, not to have some old soldiers in uniform try to tell me these guys fought for our freedom. Nonsense, they wasted their lives. They were sold a lie, and died for it. Giving people a medal won't bring them back.
People who were conscripted, yes, they have my sympathy. But conscription should be by definition, illegal.
What will stop wars? Stop remembering these jocks and idiots. Remember those who gave their lives for peace, for fairness, for justice. Here's a good memorial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transge...of_Remembrance (Remembering people who were killed by bullies hoping for a world where those who were seen as odd could have normal lives) Or how about this? http://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial (Remembering people who stood up for equality) People who died in wars? No, we can't prove that they just didn't throw their lives away.
No, honoring veterans does not promote war. Selfishness and greed promote war. It appears that more than a couple people were sleeping during history classes in high school. "Ignorance is bliss." I guess.
Why should we have policemen? If we didn't have them, then following the logic being used by the OP, there would no crime and no one would need protection. So, if we eliminate protection, all possibilities of criminal and violent actions would disappear? The reason we have war is because we honor soldiers?
The OP's premise is just too far out there to address not to mention insulting. As I said, anyone that studied history in high school in the US would not be asking such a question. Ah, but I guess the freedom was won to be able to do that.
Why is "service" in the armed forces a good thing even if it was a b.s. war in the first place? By extension, one could argue that because world peace would be a far superior state to the current one, it would be beneficial to all if no one, in any part of the world, signed up to fight in any war, ever.
Once one understands why war is a state to be avoided, how can one continue to defend the position that having people willing to go into a war is actually a good thing? I just don't get the whole honor the veterans stuff I see around me all the time, because the implicit assumption is that fighting is a good thing, right?
The problem is that war is really no different than a food fight in a cafeteria - only deadly and on a much larger scale. So if one thinks veterans should be honored, then perhaps it's a bit of a double standard to support disciplining schoolchildren in a food fight? And if throwing food to "get even" with another thrower is not acceptable, then why is killing off another nation's people any different?
I realize that there are non-violent activities one can go into such as the Peace Corps, but these are only a fraction of the total of those in the armed forces. Thus, pointing out that not all veterans were actually in the military doesn't really change the fact that a general and encompassing "high respect" for veterans has the effect of promoting war.
The stance you put forth would be a good one in an ideal world, but in reality it becomes similar to control debates. If no one had guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself from people with guns, and we'd all be better off if No One had a gun.
But it falls apart when you start to consider that there are people out there who value their own interests over the greater good. If no one had a military, wars might end. Except there are some people out there who would instead choose to take what they wanted since there was no longer a military to stop them.
In the analogy of the food fight, sure, it's great if no one throws food, but if someone starts throwing food, you need a teacher to step in to make them stop. The question becomes, which side is the teacher though. There are very few people in the world who don't think that they're right when they go to war. Usually it's because they feel they need to defend themselves against some real or perceived threat.
When you understand the rational for why a military will be required, that is why people honor those who sacrifice to join it. They are risking their lives to protect the interest of our country.
If the interests of our country are misaligned, that's a problem with the government and politicians. However it's not the role of the soldier to determine what the interests of the country are. It's their job to protect the interests, while the government determines what those interests are. When the war is a war that we shouldn't be in, the responsibility isn't the soldier's... it's the politician who sent them there.
If the military were one where each soldier got to choose whether or not they wanted to do something, there's be no reliability to the military at all. The structure doesn't allow for that kind of individual decision making. One guy in charge of processing supply requests decides he doesn't think we should be in Iraq and doesn't do his job... hundred die when they don't get what they need.
No, I'm saying that the Axis powers should have had no one willing to fight either, and thus there would be no need for fighting. Of course, once such a war like that is already happening (and it's too late to go back and prevent it), then perhaps militia action is needed - but that still is not a justification for the "honor veterans" mentality as applied to other wars - why should the Iraq or Vietnam war veterans be honored?
You should read up on the concept of "conscription". The US did this for every war up to and including Vietnam. Some countries still practice it. A farmer could object all he wanted; if the government showed up, gave him a gun, and said, "fight", he fought. Willing or not. And unfortunately, if country "A" does this and attacks country "B", country "B" has no choice but to do the same or submit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Why should we have policemen? If we didn't have them, then following the logic being used by the OP, there would no crime and no one would need protection. So, if we eliminate protection, all possibilities of criminal and violent actions would disappear? The reason we have war is because we honor soldiers?
...
The OP's premise is just too far out there to address not to mention insulting. As I said, anyone that studied history in high school in the US would not be asking such a question. Ah, but I guess the freedom was won to be able to do that.
I was going to follow up with the police argument, but decided not to. I'm glad someone did. A police shootout is basically a tiny "war". As long as bad people use force to do bad things, good people have to be willing to use force to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
If no one had guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself from people with guns, and we'd all be better off if No One had a gun.
...
When you understand the rational for why a military will be required, that is why people honor those who sacrifice to join it. They are risking their lives to protect the interest of our country.
If the interests of our country are misaligned, that's a problem with the government and politicians. However it's not the role of the soldier to determine what the interests of the country are. It's their job to protect the interests, while the government determines what those interests are. When the war is a war that we shouldn't be in, the responsibility isn't the soldier's... it's the politician who sent them there.
Ah, that Utopian belief that if all the guns were destroyed we could all live in peace. Until someone picked up a baseball bat or found an old sword in storage.
I didn't serve in the military; it just wasn't my path in life. I graduated during the RIF after GW1 (Desert Shield/Storm). That said, I fully respect and honor the people who put their lives in danger to protect my right to sit here and type this in an air-conditioned room without fear of government censors.
I fully agree that Iraq, Vietnam, and other political wars have nothing to do with my freedom. But the fact that corrupt or misguided politicians choose to waste the lives of our servicemen doesn't lessen their sacrifice in any way.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 05-27-2015 at 03:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Ignorance is bliss." I guess.
The reason we have war is because we honor soldiers?
