This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Militarism.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that it is to protect your home against those when someone attacks or invades, EVEN when that includes pursuing the conflict into the country of the government who has attacked you in order to neutralize the threat. If someone attacks you, and you push them out of your country, are you bound to leave them be after they leave, or can you go and remove the person who ordered the attack in the first place and is likely to order it again. (I'm not talking in terms of waging war on a country because of the actions of a civilian group- I'm talking about authorized military actions by one government against citizens of another).
Also, some people would argue that there are atrocities that are committed by some governments that no one on the inside has the power to stop. In instances where a country is practicing genocide on its own people, do other nations have a moral obligation to get involved, even if it's not in self defense, because of the nature of the crimes involved?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Ok, I'm prior military, so I'll try to field this one, but I'm just going to cut right to the heart of this:2) Should their purpose be aggressive, and kill anyone their government/commanders doesn't like?
I suppose there are a few ways to approach this sentence. Taken from JUST face value, the answer looks like this:
No.
But, that really doesn't satisfy the problem I see with this question. This question reflects an entire misunderstanding of the purpose of armed forces. It is true, that in the past, governing agencies have used military arms for the purpose of silencing opposition, or undesirables, and sometimes those people have been civilians. This is still happening in some despots around the world. In places where the totalarian government is the military, like in N Korea, you better believe that if you show opposition to the commanders and governing bodies, that you'll have a military unit at your door. If your concern with those regimes is the purpose of your post, then I echo your concerns. However, there are three specific parts of your post that seriously bother me.BBC
This part tells me that this is probably a debate about British, or at least, first world military. This draws into question how you arrived at the conclusion that there is even any question that British, American, Canadian, or other first world military could conceivably be used as rampant kill squads.
better ways to spend my lifeThis part sounds extremely derogatory toward military. The military, in certain parts of the world, is a very noble undertaking. People who didn't need to otherwise join the military, or had other things they could do, did so just because they believed they were doing something very good, and in the process lost their lives. Business owners, famous persons, rich people, have all voluntarily laid down their lives toward what they believed to be the betterment of humanity, and in many cases I would agree. People have set free entire nations, including their own, for the future generations to come after them, at the cost of their own blood. Besides actual fighting, most military entities have peacetime assistance offered to their population. When I was in the Air Force, I dedicated hundreds of hours to my local community. It could be argued that there is no greater love, than he who lays down his life for his friends. I'm really curious as to what you believe you've found that's "better". I didn't re enlist because I have other things that I prioritized, but to say that my endeavors are "better" than the endeavors of someone who serves and risks their life for me would an egregiously prideful comment, born out of a complete lack of perspective.
Should their purpose be aggressive, and kill anyone their government/commanders doesn't like?This is the third part that bothers me. The military, and its commanders, in nearly every nation on Earth, from as small as Vatican City, to as large as Russia, has used its force for nefarious means. Yet, through all of this, humanity has made larger and larger efforts toward peace, restraint of military, and civilian oversight. How did you arrive at the conclusion you have? What did you hear on BBC that painted this picture for you? Far be it from me to paint a rosy and perfect picture of the first world militaries of the world, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore unwarranted and maligned slander either.
Post by
Squishalot
I think you're reading a bit much into it, MyTie. If I were to reword Pikey's question, I'd go down the following path:
1) Is the military for national defense from international threats (e.g. invasion of local airspace)?
2) Is the military for national defense from domestic threats (e.g. assistance in tracking down fugitives)?
3) Is the military for domestic humanitarian purposes (e.g. US army, Hurricane Sandy clean-up)?
4) Is the military for international humanitarian purposes (e.g. US army, Japanese tsunami clean-up)?
5) Is the military for national aggression against domestic threats (e.g. domestic counter-terrorism activity)?
6) Is the military for national aggression against international threats (e.g. Iraq / Afghanistan)?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
(I'm not talking in terms of waging war on a country because of the actions of a civilian group- I'm talking about authorized military actions by one government against citizens of another).
Lets look at the US invasion of Afganistan.
Al-Qaeda attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. It was, for the most part, accepted that they were funded by, trained by, and given safe harbor by, the Taliban, who were the somewhat "unofficial" government of Afganistan at the time.
Now, the Taliban did not attack us, nor did Afganistan. In fact, no specific country or militarty waged the war against us.
So how would you propose the US had reacted? There is really no logistical way to actually only attack "militant Islam", as there is no one group of people, or one country, or one group of countries that actually make up that group. How do you wage a "proper" war, against an "inproper" enemy?
Post by
Squishalot
So how would you propose the US had reacted? There is really no logistical way to actually only attack "militant Islam", as there is no one group of people, or one country, or one group of countries that actually make up that group. How do you wage a "proper" war, against an "inproper" enemy?
To use a counterexample, hackers in the US run cyberattacks across the globe, some of whom are government sponsored, and all of whom would be indirectly trained by the government through educational services.
Would you accept that other countries such as Iran would therefore have justifiable cause to launch an attack on the United States, given that there is "no logistical way to actually only attack "?
Edit: Sanctions against the Taliban and Afghanistan, along with UN pressure to identify and rein in Al-Qaeda terrorist forces, would have been the appropriate response. Cutting off their international funding by freezing related accounts and transfers (as was done) would have severely hampered their ability to mount another attack of anywhere near the same scale in the US again anyway.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
The OP seems to be very leading.
2) Should their purpose be aggressive, and kill anyone their government/commanders doesn't like?
3) If you agree with both 1 or 2, why don't we all take up arms against anything we don't agree with?
Hrm, no hint of any bias here.
I'd go with 1.
How'd I see
that
one coming?
Post by
Magician22773
Edit: Sanctions against the Taliban and Afghanistan, along with UN pressure to identify and rein in Al-Qaeda terrorist forces, would have been the appropriate response. Cutting off their international funding by freezing related accounts and transfers (as was done) would have severely hampered their ability to mount another attack of anywhere near the same scale in the US again anyway.
Do you honestly think that sanctions against Afghanistan, a country that is effectively at least 100 years behind the western world in nearly all areas, would have had
any
reasonable effect on them? I mean, their standard way of life really relies very little on western aid. Much of the country still lives in earthen structures, has little or no electricity, and practices holistic medicine....thus making most forms of sanctions pretty ineffective.
They also were under a brutal "rule by force" that meant almost certain death to anyone who would have even attempted to overthrow them from power. They gained control of the country by force, so expecting them to be removed from power by an uprising of the small portion of the population that would have been effected by sanctioning is not very realistic.
Even a more much modern nation, like N. Korea, has not exactly given in to heavy sanctions, so I would expect a country that was still mostly living in tribal, almost barbaric conditions to be even less likely to care if their foreign aid was cut off.
And, this does not take into consideration the fact that retaliation is a part of war. This group killed 3000 people on our soil....just limiting their ability to do it again is simply not enough. That is not how this game is played. You do not get to sucker punch me in mouth, then walk off without a fight.
I respect your choice to be a pacifist, that is your right. But that's not me, and that's not America.
Post by
Adamsm
Of course the largest irony to that is that American created the danger in the first place. If you want to not make deadly enemies, don't train and arm them in the first place, use them to take out other terrorists, then be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass or they do horrific things.
Post by
Squishalot
And, this does not take into consideration the fact that retaliation is a part of war. This group killed 3000 people on our soil....just limiting their ability to do it again is simply not enough. That is not how this game is played. You do not get to sucker punch me in mouth, then walk off without a fight.
Of course the largest irony to that is that American created the danger in the first place. If you want to not make deadly enemies, don't train and arm them in the first place, use them to take out other terrorists, then be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass or they do horrific things.
By cutting off their funding from international sources, you're neutralising their ability to be a threat in the future. Also, you didn't answer the core part of my question - if another country were to use the same argument to mount an offensive on the US, would you propose that it were an appropriate course of action?
I think that your argument comes back to a very key part of the discussion - how much of military action is for defense purposes (where offense and neutralisation of enemy forces on enemy soil is a part of defense), and how much is retributive and emotive. I would argue that the former can be reasonable in certain instances when invited (e.g. the current French action in Mali), but I would suggest that the latter is condemnable. The cost of human lives is not a
"game" to be played
.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If somebody came to my door, and tried to attack me, I'd defend myself. Yet I wouldn't go to their home looking for them.
I think this is actually quite a reasonable comparison, but I would escalate it a bit more to make it appropriately comparable including the loss of human life.
If for one reason or another, one of the school shooters got away alive, would it be a fair response for the parents to go out and firebomb their house? Especially if they're currently under house arrest and being prosecuted by the courts?
This is what I mean about neutralising threat vs retribution.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
If somebody came to my door, and tried to attack me, I'd defend myself. Yet I wouldn't go to their home looking for them.
pikey,
I know from your posts here that you have a very strong love for your family. I have a very strong love for my country.
So, lets just say I came to your house, not just to attack you, but I killed your wife. In cold blood.
Now, to make my analogy fair, you and I have had some very poor relationships in the past. I supported your enemies with aid. And you had had some pretty serious fights with my friends over the years. My friends had stolen some land that once was owned by your family. You and I have very different beliefs on what is right and wrong. Neither of us are innocent parties, we both have wronged each other many time in the past, and we both have harmed each other in the past, just never quite to this extent.
Now, out of nowhere, I show up, and I murder your wife. I spend 102 minutes killing her, while you watch, helpless.
Now, you know who I am. You know where I am hiding. And, you have the ability to do 1 of 2 things.
You can come and kill me.
You have superior weapons and skills, so you have little chance of failing in this. I have, however, surrounded myself with other people, Some of those people are innocents. Some of those people disagree with what I did, but they will do nothing about it. And some of those around me are there to protect me, and will fight to the death to do so. But your might is enough that you will eventually be able to kill me, although you will take the lives of a few of the innocent, and few more of the ones that did nothing, but think I was justified in the killing of your wife, and you will kill many of those that are protecting me. And you will kill me.
Your second option is to exile me.
Your exile will still effect everyone around me, innocent and the like. Now this exile will only remove me from your society. I will still be well fed. I will still have shelter. In fact, I will suffer very little from this exile. All you hope to gain from this choice is that I will be unable to harm you again.
You hope.
That is the other part of this choice. I do have a chance, however so slight, that I will be able to escape this place, and if I do, I will be returning to your home, to murder more of your family. If I succeed in escape, your might is no longer enough to stop me, and you will lose another family member.
These are your only options in this scenario. You must either choose A or B, or you can choose to do neither, but that choice will result in me returning, and killing more members of your family. You could try to fortify yourself, but you have no guarantee that I will not succeed again. In fact, you thought you were well protected the first time, but I was able to penetrate your defenses.
So what option do you choose?
Post by
MyTie
list
Not on list: kill anyone their government/commanders doesn't likeyou're reading a bit much into itand you not enough, though I do find it hilarious that you tell me I've reading into it too much, but then go on to take his 3 points and make 6 out of them, all the while completely sidestepping the elephant in the room. How
did
you manage that?American created the danger in the first placeMind placing a little context on this? I mean, give us the cold war backdrop, Soviet proxy warfare, Taliban involvement, and middle east despots we were trying to upend. Leaving it without context makes it sound like we flew over to a group of non violent goat herders, gave them all machine guns, dared them to fight us, kicked them in the balls, and then flew back home. Drop the hate America first routine, and try to see it with a sense of honest balance. I admitted that first world military forces have made and continue to make mistakes. You admit that this isn't just "America's fault for everything". Seriously, I don't understand that mentality at all. Do people subscribe to it because it is trendy, or because they heard some rebel like Chomsky say it first? I honestly don't understand it. I really don't.
One way you can test out your theory is to try to imagine yourself in the position where you are explaining your theory to victims or victim's families. Could you go up to a 9/11 widow and explain that it was really all America's fault? If you think there is a good chance they would get pissed off at you, try to imagine why. That feel. That's empathy. I know we don't base arguments on emotion, but in this particular instance, the emotion is ignited by an egregious omission of fact.
Post by
b4xx
I'm with Squish on the "neutralizing threat vs. retribution". I'll be back on the subject after putting some more thought into this.
Post by
gamerunknown
n instances where a country is practicing genocide on its own people, do other nations have a moral obligation to get involved, even if it's not in self defense, because of the nature of the crimes involved?
This is called the "Responsibility to Protect". Chomsky addresses it
here
(and
here
, if you have the time to spare).
But, I always thought that purpose of military is defend, that is why in most countries the guys in charge usually called "Ministry ( or whatever) of Defense".
The US had a
United States Department of War
until some time after the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell.
2) Is the military for national defense from domestic threats (e.g. assistance in tracking down fugitives)?
This is the role of gendarmaries. The action of one squadron from a Salvadoran gendarmarie backed by the US is described
here
:
The results of U.S. military training are evident in abundance in the documentation by human rights groups and the Salvadoran Church. They are graphically described by Rev. Daniel Santiago, a Catholic priest working in El Salvador, in the Jesuit journal America. He reports the story of a peasant woman, who returned home one day to find her mother, sister, and three children sitting around a table, the decapitated head of each person placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top "as if each body was stroking its own head." The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.
6) Is the military for national aggression against international threats (e.g. Iraq / Afghanistan)?
These wars are justified as "
preventive
" rather than pre-emptive.
Anyway, there are four criteria which inform international law in deciding whether intervention is warranted: genocide, aggression, harbouring terrorist groups and violating Nonproliferation Treaties.
Post by
1070246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.