Do you support the military?

[QuietConfidence]

Do you support the military? Unconditionally?

If you support it but not unconditionally? What would they have to do for you to not support them anymore?

[Lucid]

Support them in what?

[Synchronicity]

Well, the military's purpose is to fight enemies of the state, as determined by the government. Supporting the actions of the military is therefore merely supporting the decisions of the government (which I certainly don't do unconditionally). The exception would be if the military went rogue, which I certainly wouldn't support without a very, very good reason.

[True Rune]

Not really, no. But I don't hate them either.

[Arkeph]

My views: cut military spending and withdraw soldiers from conflicts entered into for unethical reasons. I don't view cutting military spending as cutting off support for the military, but as a necessary consequence of cutting programs which harm its functioning. Withdrawing from unethical conflicts is, in my view, one of the best ways to support the military, as it prevents it from being turned into a political tool.

[SirJac]

While I always support the military, I don't always support those who tell them where to go. Most who join the military do so with noble intentions and I respect them for it. While I may not agree with conflicts they are sent to, I recognise that our men in uniform where not the ones who made that choice and so my opinions of the conflict should not colour my opinions of our soldiers.

[Dodeca]

Military's will become obsolete when we reach a type 1 civilization.

[Warrior]

Yes, I support the military. The military allows the government to carry out one of its relatively few proper functions - national defense. The US military is one of the single most capable organizations on the planet that can get aid to places like Haiti when it is needed. Research and development in the military produces technologies that have found there way into practically every aspect of everyday life. Finally, the military provides training and educational opportunites to a lot of individuals. For those that take advantage of what it has to offer, the military can provide tremendous benefits.

[Night Runner]

It's complicated...

I understand the need for having the military, so you could say I support it in theory. However, the military we have here and now is bloated with bureaucracy, addicted to spending for the sake of spending, and irrational (e.g., not allowing women to fight on the front line, banning gay people from serving, etc.). When it comes to the numerous "support the troops!" initiatives, my usual rebuttal is, "were they drafted?" If they joined of their own accord and free will, they don't mean more to me than any other people working in a potentially dangerous occupation: firefighters, the police, etc. We pay them and they do their jobs. Nothing heroic about that...

I suppose that, at least in theory, it is possible for me to actively support the military if it becomes involved in a just war in which the national security itself is at stake. Seeing how we haven't had one of those in 65 years, I'm not going to hold my breath. :rolleyes:

[whitey]

Do you support the military? Unconditionally?

If you support it but not unconditionally? What would they have to do for you to not support them anymore?

Fuck no. They're brain washed Don Quixote's. That makes them extremely dangerous. Having noble intentions is secondary to the fact that they are mercenaries. Fuck that. I'll trust my neighbor to get my back any day over some stinkin' mercenary.

I support militia's 100%. Militia's = family, friends, and local community. Mega power structures such as the military are bad fucking news for every one but those at the top.

[acyckowski]

Fuck no. They're brain washed Don Quixote's. That makes them extremely dangerous. Having noble intentions is secondary to the fact that they are mercenaries. Fuck that. I'll trust my neighbor to get my back any day over some stinkin' mercenary.

I support militia's 100%. Militia's = family, friends, and local community. Mega power structures such as the military are bad fucking news for every one but those at the top.

Is your ignorance of reality willful, or just the natural result of aimless rage?

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 10:46 PM ----------

Well, the military's purpose is to fight enemies of the state, as determined by the government. Supporting the actions of the military is therefore merely supporting the decisions of the government (which I certainly don't do unconditionally). The exception would be if the military went rogue, which I certainly wouldn't support without a very, very good reason.

Correctly stated, the military's purpose is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as determined by the President. It does not support the government's decisions or fight enemies of the state, per se. This is an important distinction. Per the Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, and as long as the orders he issues do not violate the Constitution, we uphold them. This understanding is what allowed the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling to integrate Little Rock High, and through a somewhat more legalistic path allows the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every officer is obligated to challenge orders that he believes to be unconstitutional; in practice, this takes the form of a resignation. By extension, refusal of an order is justifiable on ethical/moral and legal grounds: again, the traditional form of refusal is an offer of resignation. On minor points, an officer may choose to "fall on his sword" and simply refuse to comply with orders he believes are unethical or illegal: in this case, if he is correct, he risks administrative blow-back in form of a poor evaluation or the denial of a deserved award.

At no point is a military officer in a position to refuse orders on grounds of policy disagreement. This would be, as you described, a military "gone rogue." That was why MacArthur was fired: open challenge of the President's policy is unacceptable under any circumstances, and borders on mutiny.

[zibber]

No I do not "support" death dealing sheep.

It is important to see the distinction between orders and those who follow them. If I disagree with the orders, that doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for the boneheaded donkey executing them.

[thod]

Yes, I support the military. The military allows the government to carry out one of its relatively few proper functions - national defense.

But the US military is not designed for national defence, it is designed as an overseas attack force. All those aircraft carriers would not be particularly useful in a battle taking place in Idaho.

Who is this threat to the nation? There is not a single country which has the shipping and production capacity to move the soldiers and supplies across the oceans to reach the US. Those countries with large armies cannot move them out of their own country, due to supply lines, thus they are defensive. Quite the opposite of the US forces.

I find the notion of the Canadian horde sweeping down across the US silly. There are too few of them and they quite happy in their tundra. The Mexicans are more numerous, but they sneak across the border and the military does nothing to prevent that kind of invasion. Perhaps you are still worried about the British returning. They too are few in number, the country is smaller than Oregon, and would have no chance of occupying the US land mass.

[zibber]

No! We gotta fight TURRAH!

[phej]

[..]The Mexicans are more numerous, but they sneak across the border and the military does nothing to prevent that kind of invasion.[..]

Unless we declare that Mexico is invading the U.S., I don't think that is under the military's scope. The military in the U.S. generally cannot participate in civilian law enforcement.

[Mikk]

Can't we go back to beat each others with sticks instead? More manly than shooting someone, and more honest.

[Autoptic]

Can't we go back to beat each others with sticks instead? More manly than shooting someone, and more honest.

How's using outdated technology favoring almost pure brute muscle and numbers more honest? Never heard of arrows, spears, and knives? How about rocks?

[Mikk]

I'd rather face the one I'm fighting and die than being shot by, lets say, a sniper rifle.

EDIT: And brute force is not favored in face-to-face fighting. Any melee fighter knows that.

EDITEDIT: The sticks were just an example. Don't take it literally.

[Warrior]

But the US military is not designed for national defence, it is designed as an overseas attack force. All those aircraft carriers would not be particularly useful in a battle taking place in Idaho.



You understand that aircraft carriers carry airplanes, right? Idaho is well within striking distance of an aircraft carrier parked off the west coast. The ability to strike fairly deep inland is one of the things that make an aircraft carrier so useful.

However, you larger point is valid concern. I do not think "national defense" is limited to watching an enemy come on over and only attack once they get here. The abilityto project force anywhere in the world is a necessary component of a good defense strategy.

This isn't to say I favor invading every country where someone holds up an anti-US sign (nor do I oppose all action on foreign soil, either).

[Ytterbium]

Do I support the military? Yes. Do I support the politicians telling the military what to do? No.

[phej]

Do I support the military? Yes. Do I support the politicians telling the military what to do? No.

So is the military supposed to be autonomous then? Unfortunate as it may be, "politicians" are the leaders of the country.

[Il Prodigio]

No. In this specific circumstance I do not support an organization that is wasting my tax dollars. There was no reason we needed to be in Iraq. Now that billions of dollars have been spent in a cluster-fuck of a situation, unfortunately we are screwed.

and what were the billions spent for?
-To find weapons of mass destruction? : Wait, there actually weren't any.

-To capture "Al fake-da" and the terrorists responsible for 9/11? : Wait, according to top intelligence officials there actually were never any connections between Iraq and 9/11(which is also a whole different rant) .

-To make Iraq a safer place? : Wait, Iraq is now so destabilized that all hopes of it being the way it was before(from what I hear quite a beautiful place) are completely extinguished.

-To stop Saddam Hussein the evil dictator? : Oh wait, it was the United States that gave him all his absolutely horrifying chemical weapons that he used with our knowledge.

Doesn't anyone see we are just going through the motions? On the plus side, Haliburton and all of Dick Cheney's investments are protected so I guess we can all feel good about that......

Why should anyone be supporting the military? When will people wake-up and realize its all about vested interests of the small elite? When will people wake up and realize that the human race has to live on planet earth for eternity?(or until we destroy it or ourselves because of our stupidity)

When will people wake-up and realize we should "LOVE" our neighbors all around the world, and not Kill or rape and pillage. Think about it. I understand the troops, oh the troops. Lets face it, all those "good and noble troops" would be doing a better service to humanity and to themselves and their families in the peace corps.

We have to live here. All of us together. When people start waking up, and understanding that they are being led around like a horse with blinders on....I think we might actually have some progress. There is no such thing as race. There is the HUMAN RACE. WAKEUP---

[Ytterbium]

So is the military supposed to be autonomous then? Unfortunate as it may be, "politicians" are the leaders of the country.No. Politicians lead the country and what they do and don't is the problem not the military. This obviously applies to all goverment organisations.

[OwenF]

If supporting the military means approving of every action of every member, then no. I don’t, for example, “support” what happened at My Lai in 1968. But it's generally true to say that I strongly support the military, by which I mean the U.S. military. For me, the question is about both results (weighing positive and negative consequences) and values.

I can certainly see how there can be empirical disagreements about consequences, and I can also imagine plenty of reasons to disagree about values and about the circumstances in which these values ought to be asserted by military means. If I were convinced that the U.S. military caused more harm than good, or that the values it was defending were bad, or that it was continually asserting good values in the wrong circumstances, I would have to qualify my support, perhaps radically. If I had been a citizen of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, I would not have supported the military, with the exception of the Soviet military from June 1941 to May 1945.

Based on what I at least think I know empirically and value-wise, my support and admiration for the U.S. military is very high.

[Autoptic]

I'd rather face the one I'm fighting and die than being shot by, lets say, a sniper rifle.

EDIT: And brute force is not favored in face-to-face fighting. Any melee fighter knows that.

EDITEDIT: The sticks were just an example. Don't take it literally.

Melee in war isn't street-fighting. Pointy sticks paired with planks in tight rows and columns did the trick. Nice and relatively straightforward and impersonal. Of course, barring epidemic retardation, ranged weapons would be reinvented thus getting back to hiding and shooting like non-romanticizing intelligently violent folk.

[Angel1]

Military's will become obsolete when we reach a type 1 civilization.
Nah, we'll just run into alien civilization and a conflict will spark somewhere/somehow. A planetary military will become necessary at some point. (Though we may not have to call it a military or even make war its primary responsibility; we could make an exploratory/scientific force with military capabilities vis a vis StarTrek/Starfleet.)

But the US military is not designed for national defence, it is designed as an overseas attack force. All those aircraft carriers would not be particularly useful in a battle taking place in Idaho.

Who is this threat to the nation? There is not a single country which has the shipping and production capacity to move the soldiers and supplies across the oceans to reach the US. Those countries with large armies cannot move them out of their own country, due to supply lines, thus they are defensive. Quite the opposite of the US forces.

I find the notion of the Canadian horde sweeping down across the US silly. There are too few of them and they quite happy in their tundra. The Mexicans are more numerous, but they sneak across the border and the military does nothing to prevent that kind of invasion. Perhaps you are still worried about the British returning. They too are few in number, the country is smaller than Oregon, and would have no chance of occupying the US land mass.
Truly consider just how much area the US has to defend (for ourselves alone). From Maine south to the Carribean Sea and westward all the way to the eastern edge of the Philippine Sea. Not to mention that once you get to the West Coast, you have to go North to Arctic Ocean and the water that claim there. With just our states and our territories, we have a huge part of the world to defend. Add to that, helping with the defense of our allies and our military almost seems to be innadequate to the job. We have a huge military, no doubt about it, but we have a huge area to defend and that can't be denied either.

Summary: The US is not just in North America. The United States is spread over a huge piece of the Earth.


On the Topic: For the most part, I always support the military. When I don't support the military is when they aren't punishing people appropriately. Either they are punishing people who shouldn't be punished or they are protecting people who should never see the light of day again. I don't care which side of the situation it falls on, I can't support the military (not that part and those military personnel involved in that part of it). At any one point in time, I support the vast majority of the military, but some part of the military is almost certainly doing something I wouldn't/don't support. That being said, give them the equipment they need to survive.

It's the decisions of where to send the military/how to utilize the military that I don't always support. Granted (for disclosure), I do/did support the Iraq war. I realize that a war on Terror is fundamentally a war against destabilizing forces the world over; to leave the single most destabilizing factor in the Middle East in power would have rendered our war on terror a joke. The War on Terror is above all NOT A JOKE. We had legal and moral justification for removing Saddam Hussein, period. The way that the war was run for the most of the conflict left much to be desired. Furthermore, the timing may not have been the best, but Saddam Hussein's time was quickly running out.

[Silence]

Yes. I support the US military. Unconditionally? That's a loaded question. The military doesn't decide where to go and who or what to blow up.

[Mikk]

Melee in war isn't street-fighting. Pointy sticks paired with planks in tight rows and columns did the trick. Nice and relatively straightforward and impersonal. Of course, barring epidemic retardation, ranged weapons would be reinvented thus getting back to hiding and shooting like non-romanticizing intelligently violent folk.

Are we talking about beating each others with sticks or the development and progression of military warfare?
All I said was that it is more honest to stand toe-to-toe with the one you fight instead of hiding in a bush several hundred meters away. The evolution of war was not what I intended to discuss.

[hubcap]

The question doesn't make sense.

[Holiman]

Unconditionally is simply too loaded a word for a reasonable expectiation of an afirmative answer. However I support the US military 100% and am a proud veteran myself. I suport them even when theyre wrong or do bad things. People make mistakes and accidents / bad decisions happen this doesnt mean the organization itself should be blamed. Regardless of how and where your politics align yourself we can admit the US military is one of the largest humanitarian organizations. Not to mention that the US military has kept our territories safe for 200+ years.

Lets remember the US military IS NOT part of the political climate, theyre a tool just like all the rest of us, only its their blood that is first spilt not the other citizens or politicians.

[OwenF]

The military doesn't decide where to go and who or what to blow up.

This is a vitally important qualification. I should have included it in my post.

[Yhor]

I'd say unconditionally is just a theory and can't be measured. I don't support, or believe in, anything unconditionally. I support our military (US), but I don't always support those leading it (politicians and ranked military 'officials' alike). If it's supported by the constitution (not amendments), then I am pretty confident I will support it. Otherwise, it's non American and those supporting should be looked at closely by the gen pop for possible actions against them.

[Angel1]

I'd say unconditionally is just a theory and can't be measured. I don't support, or believe in, anything unconditionally. I support our military (US), but I don't always support those leading it (politicians and ranked military 'officials' alike). If it's supported by the constitution (not amendments), then I am pretty confident I will support it. Otherwise, it's non American and those supporting should be looked at closely by the gen pop for possible actions against them.
Yhor, the amendments are legally part of the Constitution. They cannot be separated. You can disagree with parts of the Constitution and that's fair, but to deny that part of the constitution is even the constitution is simply irrational. The amendment processs is in place precisely so that people will be hard-pressed to feel justified in resorting to open rebellion.

That being said, military actions being constitutional go a long way to me supporting the actions.

[freeeekyyy]

I support the concept of a military. I do not support many of the actions of the US military. We have troops across the world, in areas where they are not at all necessary, by any means. I think having a powerful military is important, but it needs to be exercised very conservatively.

[ElstonGunn]

I have a certain amount of sympathy for individuals in the military. It is a hard job that carries the possibility of involving people who are intentionally trying to hurt you (which is also why I have sympathy for police officers). I especially sympathize with the recruit who joined the military because he didn't see any other options. If "the military" means the individual rank-and-file people in it, then I do have some support for them, but only to a certain extent.

But supporting the individual isn't the same as supporting their work, their commanders, or the institution itself. I think the American military is mostly a grossly over-funded relic of the Cold War. The resources required to fight the Soviet Union are different in many ways from the resources needed in counter-terrorism. I'd like to see military spending cut significantly, maybe by 50% as a starting guess, or something in that neighborhood. In that sense, I see the military as the biggest leech on the US Treasury department that there is.

I wouldn't ever join the military for any reason or under any circumstances-- feel free to fill in whatever crazy scenario you want; the answer is still no. If there was a draft and I got called up, I'd claim conscientious objector status. If that was denied, I'd go to prison. I'd rather spend time in jail than kill someone, regardless of whether or not I had a personal problem with him.

As for the specifics of what the military is doing now, I'm on the fence. I think both wars weren't worth their costs (at least given the way that they've been executed), and if I were in charge seven or eight years ago, the US wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, and would only have gone into Afghanistan if my advisers made a much better case than they did in reality. On the other hand, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. It's easy to look back and say what would have happened if you were the one calling the shots. But that in itself doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for whatever part they may have in the whole situation. As an institution, and in its current situation, I have essentially no support to offer the military.

[TheLastMohican]

Financially, of course. The government doesn't give us a choice on that.

Ethically? Well, I recognize that we'd be in serious trouble without the military, so I support its existence. If you're asking about supporting its actions, then the question is far too broad.

[azelismia]

unfortunately if you live in the USA you support the military as they tax you for it if you like it or not. If the question is am I in favor of our current regime of the middle east than no. I am not. I think we should be the hell out there.

[Yhor]

Yhor, the amendments are legally part of the Constitution. They cannot be separated. You can disagree with parts of the Constitution and that's fair, but to deny that part of the constitution is even the constitution is simply irrational. The amendment processs is in place precisely so that people will be hard-pressed to feel justified in resorting to open rebellion.

That being said, military actions being constitutional go a long way to me supporting the actions.

For the purpose of stating what I would/would not support, I can separate it all I care to, even by article. I might choose to support one amendment, but not another (ie. 16th Amendment). It's my choice, because I have the ability to choose. ,,, speaking only on what grounds I support military action,,,

Now, if the actual question of the OP were.. "Would you defend the constitution (in it's complete present day form), unconditionally?"
The answer would be quite different. I would, and I have. The difference may not be clear to many of you, but there is a difference to me... which is all that matters.

[astrolite]

First, let it be known I work for the military.

The military structure is built on trust, from the private up to the commander (president). To go to war is the president's doing and, if official, congress. Intelligence is provided to each decision maker and they can interpret that as they will. The military, as a whole, didn't decide to go in to Afghanistan or Iraq - they aren't structured that way. If the president says we are going to war, the military trusts his decision is virtuous. If it turns out that going to war wasn't the right thing to do, that does have reverberations.

I've personally not been witness to any thing but excellent service and dedication from every one I have worked with. The general disconnect between the citizens and the military is that most things must be kept secret....

[whitey]

Is your ignorance of reality willful, or just the natural result of aimless rage?


Are you capable of more than ad hominem or have elicited emotions inhibited that possibility?

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 01:56 AM ----------

There is not a single country which has the shipping and production capacity to move the soldiers and supplies across the oceans to reach the US.

China. The board is being set. Look at who supposedly owes who some fiat currency. At least one container was found a few years back with living quarters and bathrooms installed as modules...but that's one thing you won't hear or find much about.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 03:08 AM ----------

First, let it be known I work for the military.

The military structure is built on trust, from the private up to the commander (president). To go to war is the president's doing and, if official, congress. Intelligence is provided to each decision maker and they can interpret that as they will. The military, as a whole, didn't decide to go in to Afghanistan or Iraq - they aren't structured that way. If the president says we are going to war, the military trusts his decision is virtuous. If it turns out that going to war wasn't the right thing to do, that does have reverberations.

I've personally not been witness to any thing but excellent service and dedication from every one I have worked with. The general disconnect between the citizens and the military is that most things must be kept secret....


You have a number of people of the highest integrity who go to serve in the military; however, they are managed by those with the wickedest intentions. The function of the military is directed by those who are pathological liars. If those in the military wish to protect their family's, friends, and communities then they should form militia's where the command structure is simplified and people with wicked intentions can be dealt with easily. As it stands, the mechanism for the supposed goal of security is such that it NEVER functions as it is claimed it will.

[Fenrir]

Can't we go back to beat each others with sticks instead? More manly than shooting someone, and more honest.

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. Give me a rifle anyday, preferably bullpup, I'm SAR-21 trained.

[Zsych]

Well, the military would no longer deserve support if it no longer served its purpose and went rogue - no longer listening to the government.

Otherwise, your complaints relate to the government's choices... which I admit could be better.

[ocean316]

I think you should always support the military because they simply follow the orders of the executive. They questions is really do you support the external policies of the executive.

[acyckowski]

Are you capable of more than ad hominem or have elicited emotions inhibited that possibility?

(sigh)

Referring to an opponent in the second person is not an automatic Ad Hominem (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) fallacy. Read the definition and be enlightened.

Let's dissect what I said:

"Is your ignorance of reality willful..." You make categorical assertions about the character of a group based on personal bias, without substantiation. Since your argument is quite incoherent, I'm guessing that you meant to use one or more of the following devices:
Poisoning the well (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Hasty generalization (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Emotional appeal (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I understand that logic is not your strong suit, so I would recommend you start by learning to avoid common mistakes.

or just the natural result of aimless rage?
To the casual observer, the tone and language of your otherwise brilliant soliloquy seem to indicate that you are existentially offended by the fact that there are people who are not like you. Rage against the machine is, by this point, fairly trite.


A style note...if you're going to use profanity, please have the common courtesy to do it well. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate your at about a 3...technically accurate, but completely unimaginative and uninspired. You're about as shocking as the weird nephew with Tourette's.