fchan

>>138

"If someone were invading you and threatening to kill you then your ideals would quickly change"

Yes, I could see them turning to revenge and personal survival, but why patriotism? It's never played a part in my life; it's simply a "n/a" for me. If my country was singled out for its values alone, then I might see value in defending it, but that is virtually an impossibility at this point in time. Internationalization has worked the world. If any one of the Western/European civilized nations gets into a war over values, we'll all be dragged into it, whether values are the root cause or not. So I would still only consider military service if it was for a more important entity than only one country.

Why limit beliefs and pride to physical borders? This is what I've never understood.

>>140

"If someone invades that is YOUR problem"

No, you've missed the point entirely. It doesn't become my problem the moment someone attacks my country, it becomes my problem the moment someone attacks a country which shares the values mine does. It's the 21rst century already. Our biggest threats are no longer national. People need to start thinking BIGGER. This is exactly why the Bush gvt has failed so miserably. These people are going backwards in time.

"Be thankful instead of being a big douchebag"

Excuse-me, where did I show disrepect for militarymen anywhere? The fact is, U.N. contributions excluded, they fulfill a role that is becoming obsolete and is unfortunately destructive more often than otherwise, even if troops mean well. War is more complicated than it once was. Any situation today requiring military draft in this country would inevitably stem from something far more catastrophic than a national crisis, and would transcend borders; in fact that is what I am arguing.

>>142

Of course it won't change any time soon. Who would expect it to. But globalization is very slowly yet permanently diminishing national influence in the West and in Europe. Former tools of war (Armies) have become swiss army knives much better suited to localized U.N. missions, and full-blown man-on-man country-vs-country war is ancient practice.

Certainly you need some local defense in case of emergency. But to go so far as to isolate your entire pride in patriotism and kill in the name of one country is fighting a war which is long over, in my opinion.

>>141 >>143

People like you worry me.  I can never tell if your attitude is due to naivety, arrogance, or ignorance.

Unless you've come across some great new way to solve the negative aspects associated with the Human Condition you're argument is completely wrong.  Humans are motivated by a variety of things, chief among those being: anger, envy, greed, and religion.  As long as you have something everyone else doesn't, there will be war/fighting. As long as you aren't the same religion as everyone else there will be war/fighting.  It doesn't matter how "advanced" civilization becomes this will always be the case.

This is one of the chief reasons the UN is a complete waste of time. Sure it's a nice idea, but in practice the UN is little more than a world court and police (a police that uses member country's armed services as it's force).  Some people seem to think that if the Earth were united under a single world government that wars and fighting would stop.  Unless this solves the problems I state above, the argument is false.

After World War I, people all over rejoice knowing that after such terrible and dark times, the world could never fall into war like that again.  People would unite, a world governing body would be founded, and war would become impossible.  It's quite apparent how well that turned out.

Globalization has greatly changed how economies and politics work, but it hasn't really impacted armed conflict. The single biggest factor in this case is probably technological advances such as nuclear weapons that have made state-sponsored war against another nation a serious faux-pas.  That's why right now the biggest problem we're facing comes from smaller groups that don't have these kinds of weapons.

Blah blah blah, this got too long.  The tl;dr version is that the world isn't rainbows and lollipops yet, and likely never will be. As long as people inhabit the planet there will be conflict.

>>146
I'm fairly sure that people who claim that rat/similar lives are worth more than a human aren't doing it from a mathematical standpoint. More often that not they're the kind of drugged up hippy who sincerely believes that people driving cars bigger than a mini-cooper are the anti-christ.
"A rat doesn't pollute! A rat doesn't destroy the o-zone layer!"
Bla bla bla.

Besides, "years of life" isn't a very good method of determining value. Are galapagos turtles worth more than people? And is 1 year of a homeless meth-addict's life "worth" as much as 1 year of a top surgeons?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the aforementioned drugged up hippies saying rats are worth a damn, just pointing out the bizarreness (is that a word?) of your logic.

>>147
I was never implying that "years of life" was my only logic on the matter. I was simply making a point that even with barebones information disregarding all of the other things such as intellect, appreciation of life, place on food chain, etc etc that the rat is still nowhere near the worth of a human. If you add in all that other stuff the rat is astronimically far from the worth of a human life.

It doesn't matter what argument you use...a human life is always worth more than a rats. Using nature? Well nature says "survival of the fittest, top of the food chain dominates" How about science? Once again, our potential lifespans are longer, our intellect and social conciousness is higher, our appreciation of life, emotion, etc is larger. How about religion? God says we are the top dogs. I could keep going all day long.

My point still stands though...they are truly frighteningly stupid people in the world who will ignore all logic, facts, religion, etc etc and just spout stupid bullshit from their mouth.

>>148
I agree with that as well. A meth addict is contributing more negative than positive to whatever community they are a part of. Even if they don't do anything criminal in order to obtain money...at best they are "worthless bums supporting crime" and at worst they are dangerous criminals who may rob and kill you to support an addiction.

>>150
Air Force, thank God.  So you went to MEPS?  How went the ASVAB?  Did you talk to the one shifty master sergant about what job you want yet?

One more thing.  I know that it's not my decision to make and that it is none of my business how you live your life, but for my conscience's sake I have to say this.  DON'T FUCKING DO IT!

>>151

Ha, I took the ASVAB in high school. I think I even still have my magic star marker!

The test itself was interesting, and I remember actually enjoying taking it. The only real downside was that for the next 2 years the Navy harassed me on a regular basis trying to get me to join their nuclear engineering group.  I guess that means I passed :)

>>151
Well, I took the ASVAB and scored pretty high on it. Then I went through the physical stuff the next day (God that was awful -_-').  I didn't actually see the Air Force job guy that day because of a medical thing they wanted to check out. And honestly, I'm not entirely devoted to the idea anyway. The things I could do once I'm established in the military are better than me sitting around at home ( even though I know what they're going to DEMAND in return). But I've never really been a military kind of person and the person I want to be with is worried about my safety going in. Really it's his input that has me on the fence. Had I just been alone and single, I probably wouldn't even hesitate to sign the paper.

>>154

You've got me curious now.  Spare details if you like, but I'm wondering about what you meant by "be glad you didn't sign up".  I never seriously intended to sign up, but I did think about pursuing it via ROTC.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, for somebody who was in the armed services, you seem very anti-military (US military anyway). What do you have against it?

>>157
>but I'm wondering about what you meant by "be glad you didn't sign up".

Long tours, cramped quarters, hot bunking, endless drills, and maximum security are all things my friend complains of.

>What do you have against it?

More than anything else, it's the bullshit.  In your first term, from the moment they tell you to fold your undershirts with tweezers to the point that you discover the good ol' boy club that dictates who gets promoted you will be amazed at the colossal pile of bullshit that the actual mission gets buried under.  Nothing is run efficiently, and particularly not services like the hospital or the payroll.  Common sense is always trumped by "the way it has always been done."  After a couple of years it leaches out all the idealism that an airman used to have when he signed up.  Military bullshit is like the IRL version of the cancer that is killing /b/.

Of course, there's also the whole indentured servitude thing.  Some people react differently, but I chaffed at notion of being literally owned by someone else.

>>160
And to continue...like Bizzle said...there is still all kinds of bullshit involved even if you don't apply for a combat job. It's simply not worth it.

>>160
>This is why they make you do arbitrary bullshit that has no purpose other than to break down your mind and get you to say YES SIR at the drop of a hat.

The bullshit is far more organic than that  In the Air Force, they really do not expect to break down every trainee and rebuild them.  Everyone knows, whether they admit it or not, that the only airmen who may ever actually discharge a weapon are tacps and PJs.  Airmen are not supposed to be soldiers.  No, the bullshit exists in spite of the mission, not because of it.

>>162
Maybe, maybe not.  I used to work on a training base where we trained butter-bars and the occasional 1lt to do a specific job, and those lieutenants went through their own brand of hell.  Even as an A1C I actually kind of pitied them.  There was a certain comeraderie between the airmen and the junior officer trainees there just because they could appreciate what each other was going through.  And because some of the 2lt chicks were hot.

>>144

>>Globalization and the brotherly familiarity that comes with it have not marginalized conventional forces, but rather nuclear weapons have.

The argument for nuclear weapons is limited by the fact that very few countries would even consider using them, and countries know this about each other. Intertwining of the world's economies is a much stronger incentive at our stage. You don't attack other countries, because your economic prosperity depends on them. Again, the cold war is over.

>>Armies are not well suited to the task of peacekeeping at all.  They only find use in that capacity, because we haven't worked out a better system.  Soldiers are still trained and equipped exclusively to kill other soldiers, and armies are built to destroy other armies.  Soldiers are not policemen.

Some of that may be so, but armies are the ONLY tool of substance we have for peacekeeping. That alone justifies my point. Not to mention that armies can and are trained to do MUCH more than simply kill people, which is one thing I would say you are wrong about.

>>145

>>Globalization has greatly changed how economies and politics work, but it hasn't really impacted armed conflict.

This is where you are wrong. Globalization has made armed conflict more complicated than it has ever been, and this is what limits your own argument. Where do you come off assuming that I expect the "human condition" to just vanish? It's what keeps our world globalized!!! Don't put words in my mouth please!!!

The fact is, world powers are selfish; they aren't stupid. But this is also what drives them to cooperate. Economy has been the #1 issue for decades and they are all painfully aware of that. We are ideologically opposed to China in almost every way, yet we are willing to turn every blind eye on *every* count just to please the big $. The only war we wage with them is an economic one (such as the war for African resources), but even then we don't dare make any threats because our economic relationship is still too valuable. The day we go to war with China will be the day our competition *greatly* outgrows our trade with China and other countries which support China; in other words, the day globalization receeds.

Of course China is one example, but it's the same everywhere. If you haven't noticed, national military intervention today exists almost squarely where there is little economic activity (i.e., Iraq before the war), and where this does happen, the motivation to increase it usually accompanies it almost magically. This is, again, globalization at work. Of course, once it sets in, some form of peace usually follows, because peace is profitable in a globalized economy! There is nothing Utopian about it. It does, however, happen to present us with a unique opportunity the world probably has never seen (since technology has shaped trade in a way the world has never seen).

The desire for armed conflict will always exist, but if you can't see how much globalization has restricted it, you are staring at a historybook from the 50s. No, the "human condition" hasn't changed; we've just changed the way we use it!!!

tl;dr: It's the economy, stupid.

>>165
>The argument for nuclear weapons is limited by the fact that very few countries would even consider using them, and countries know this about each other.

On the contrary, the MAD plan operates under the assumption that any country with a nuclear stockpile will indeed use them if they are cornered and feel as though they have no other options.  Make no mistake, they will do so.  Any nuclear nation facing invasion and occupation will at the very least put their fingers on the red button.  At the same time, any leader of a nuclear nation knows the dire consequences of anyone at all pushing that button.  Thus, leaders of unfriendly nuclear nations will avoid driving another nuclear nation into such a corner at all costs.  Instead they engage in clandestine operations and employ proxies to do their dirty work.

>Some of that may be so, but armies are the ONLY tool of substance we have for peacekeeping. That alone justifies my point.

Not at all.  It merely justifies finding an alternative peacekeeping tool.  You can tighten screws with a pocket knife, but you should really get a screwdriver.

>Not to mention that armies can and are trained to do MUCH more than simply kill people, which is one thing I would say you are wrong about.

They're people.  They can be trained to do a lot of things, however the purpose of a soldier is to kill other soldiers.  And, the purpose of a ninja is to flip out and kill people.

>The day we go to war with China...

The world ends.  China is nuclear.  That's why Nixon went there, not to tap a huge potential market.

>If you haven't noticed, national military intervention today exists almost squarely where there is little economic activity (i.e., Iraq before the war)

Iraq was a member of OPEC and a powerful player in the Middle East until Saddam got the fool idea to invade Kuwait.  Even after the first war, I would hardly classify Iraq among the poorer nations of the world.

>Of course, once it sets in, some form of peace usually follows, because peace is profitable in a globalized economy!

So is war.  In fact, war is probably the most profitable business in the world.  Now I'm not talking about nations themselves making money by fighting wars.  They can drive themselves to bankruptcy.  No, I'm talking about the businesses who supply those nations.  From aluminum and JP-8 to ammunition and armored vehicles to mercenaries and computer parts, war makes for unparalleled business opportunities.  If you want to know why countries go to war now, most often all you have to do is follow the money.  The no-bid contracts, cleverly concealed donations, and politicians' stock portfolios will lead right to the culprits.

>>166
>Is this moral?

Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

fucking yankfags, still believe you rule the world, heh?

>>164

Now that wasnt very nice.

Isn't nice to bump a dead thread... (sage)

I actually really enjoy what you people are discussing. It's the ultimate expression of freedom, even if you all are arguing.

But what really gets me is how most of you probably bitch about how slow traffic is or how you missed the early morning special at Starbucks. While I have to worry about getting my men fresh water so they don't get the shits and picking up whats left of my friend after he tripped a stray mine.

It's ok though, each and everyone of you have the right to complain about how the guy at McDonald's forgot your fries. You all have a right to freedom.

And if you don't agree I have the right to punch you in the fucking face.

pardon my language.

>>176

Wow, an asshole _and_ a moron: what a combination!