A Strong Military is Essential

[DMT]

Of course we need a massive military to bomb hospitals full of patients and staff! This is sick shit and the fact that no one will be charged with war crimes is appalling.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

So now we’re into full-on justification mode: yes, we did it; yes, we did it on purpose; and we’re not sorry because we were right to do so since we think some Taliban fighters were at the hospital, perhaps even shooting at us.

MSF response.

Today the US government has admitted that it was their airstrike that hit our hospital in Kunduz and killed 22 patients and MSF staff. Their description of the attack keeps changing—from collateral damage, to a tragic incident, to now attempting to pass responsibility to the Afghanistan government. The reality is the US dropped those bombs. The US hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and MSF staff. The US military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the US and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.

[The Feral Slasher]

Spending obscene amounts of money on our military should be saved for special circumstances, such as 1941-1945. Otherwise, a reasonably sized force to defend our borders is all we truly need.

Should the military be downsized? Not now, not if we keep running from this country to that country and back protecting our interests.

So do you think our force is "reasonably sized" to defend our borders ? Or is the war on terror equivalent to World War 2 ?

What evidence is that all the running from country to country is protecting our interests ? Terrorist organizations appear to be many times more powerful now than they were when we started the war. Does our strategy seem to be working at all ? Is the problem we just aren't spending enough money to defeat the enemy ? Unless are purposely trying to create civil wars and chaos throughout the Middle East (except in countries where we support dictators) then it seems we are failing miserably. I don't see us winning this by dropping bombs, hiring mercenaries, and training "friendly" troops to fight the battle. It seems to me we have wasted a whole lot of lives and money and things are worse off than when we started.

Really curious to hear what you have to say.

[Pogues]

So do you think our force is "reasonably sized" to defend our borders ? Or is the war on terror equivalent to World War 2 ?

What evidence is that all the running from country to country is protecting our interests ? Terrorist organizations appear to be many times more powerful now than they were when we started the war. Does our strategy seem to be working at all ? Is the problem we just aren't spending enough money to defeat the enemy ? Unless are purposely trying to create civil wars and chaos throughout the Middle East (except in countries where we support dictators) then it seems we are failing miserably. I don't see us winning this by dropping bombs, hiring mercenaries, and training "friendly" troops to fight the battle. It seems to me we have wasted a whole lot of lives and money and things are worse off than when we started.

Really curious to hear what you have to say.

Absolutely our military is of reasonable size to defend our borders...probably bloated sized. In other words, we could trim down numbers.

Protecting our interests are the claims being given by military. I'm not claiming we should, just claiming that while we are still knee deep in "interests" we cannot start reducing the size of our forces.

The War on Terror, I'm really starting to believe, is like many of the other wars we have fought in this country, a pile of shit to cover for the "protecting our interests" rhetoric.

I don't believe we are wholly responsible for things appearing to be worse than when we started. We didn't start this mess, a team of terrorists did that. It woke this country up that terrorism doesn't just happen elsewhere, it can happen in this country. More focus, more funds, and more personnel should be used to stop attacks, not retaliate after the attack.

I do think ISIS is one of those instances where we do need to get involved. The signs are pointing toward genocide or other atrocities against the local people. Big hint are the thousands of refugees leaving the area. Our country, along with the rest of the United Nations, needs to deal with ISIS soon, or the deaths in that region will pile up.

Right now our forces, including reserves, are .7% of our population. One person defending 142 in this country. Could we go down to 1 defending 199? That would be a reduction of 686375.

[Fresno Bob]

I'd rather make a force of combat doctors and civil engineers, people that can build and destroy, they'd also be more productive after they've left the military

[DMT]

We are the evil empire.

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/find-fix-finish/

[nots]

After saying on 16 different occasions that we would not have boots on the ground in Syria, the President announced we will have approx. 50 sets of boots on the ground in Syria. Apparently, due to some nifty word semantics, this does not represent a change in our strategy there so that's good, right? I mean it would seem that actually putting boots on the ground does represent a change in strategy, so it's good to hear it doesn't from the President.
Who's up for another military spending increase?

[nots]

Most of the GOP candidates, obviously smelling the napalm in the air, and wanting to seem like they are tough on ISIS, supports this foolhardy deployment. Rubio, Fiorina, Graham (go away already) and Trump all think we should have MORE boots on the ground. We can assume Christie feels this way too because he's always trying to talk tough. I imagine there are others.

[Mithrandir]

Is there a way to institute some program where certain types of criminals have to go into the armed forces? Or would this be too difficult for any number of reasons?

[TranaGreg]

Is there a way to institute some program where certain types of criminals have to go into the armed forces? Or would this be too difficult for any number of reasons?

I'm not sure I would want them fighting alongside well trained infantrymen & women; maybe part of minesweeper patrol.

[baldgriff]

This is one area where I do not agree with the conservatives. I am of the mind that we spend way to much being the police for the world and if we put that money to work here maybe we could feed and clothe some of the less fortunate in our country.

[johnnya24]

This is one area where I do not agree with the conservatives. I am of the mind that we spend way to much being the police for the world and if we put that money to work here maybe we could feed and clothe some of the less fortunate in our country.

It would be nice to think of military spending in that way. The money invested the military and intelligence services is, for want of a better word, borrowed ... it's not really transferable. Cutting the military budget would cut the level of borrowing, not increase opportunities for spending elsewhere.

No political party would be elected under the banner of raising the national deficit for the benefit of the "less fortunate". That's a harsh reality. There are enough people out there who just don't care about other people, and will always put self-interest ahead. Neither would a party be elected under the "raise taxes" for the "less fortunate" banner ... that only happens in enlightened countries (Scandinavia), desperate economies (depression era USA) and desperate situations (post-war Europe).

But maintaining military spending to protect against evil doers etc, well, no politician who desires a career can seem weak on military these days. It's just not an issue. That part of the budget must be protected at all costs.

In some senses, looking after the less fortunate is an archaic 20th century idea. It's just not relevant in the far-right 21st Century neo-liberal world. It's the job of spin doctors and strategists to use the familiar language of 20th century political dialogue (left/right, capitalism/socialism), while in the background, power continues to be relentlessly shifted to the neo-liberal power structures - global finance & banking. Maybe chuck the "less fortunate" the odd loaf of bread dressed up as a slice of cake (i.e. ACA), but nothing real. The ACA turned a broken, unfair private healthcare system into a mildly functional private health system ... yet it was dressed up as the onset of COMMUNISM ... the death of the American dream. The sad part is, I think the people who spouted that nonsense actually believed it.

[johnnya24]

Most of the GOP candidates, obviously smelling the napalm in the air, and wanting to seem like they are tough on ISIS, supports this foolhardy deployment. Rubio, Fiorina, Graham (go away already) and Trump all think we should have MORE boots on the ground. We can assume Christie feels this way too because he's always trying to talk tough. I imagine there are others.

Bad political decisions leads to zero-sum choices.

ISIS is the spawn of US foreign policy. ISIS is the overflow of the Iraqi Insurgency, and the fact they are running amok through Syria and Northern Iraq is the fault of the US and her Allies.

So the US and UK are sitting on the sidelines and washing their hands of a situation they created is, in my mind anyway, just as bad as helping to do something about it. It's a pretty disgusting situation we created. In fact the only thing that the US and UK have done since Iraq is to attempt to weaken the hand of Assad, which proved to be the launching pad for a regrouped ISIL.

Completely fucked up situation.

[Fresno Bob]

Is there a way to institute some program where certain types of criminals have to go into the armed forces? Or would this be too difficult for any number of reasons?

Well, for one thing it would be SOCIALIST!

National Socialism (that's the Nazis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafbattalion
USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat

my middle son is always calling for "Order 227" when playing the Soviets in Company of Heroes. "Not One Step Back!" he yells too loud when playing!