The longest ever period of US peace was the eight years leading up to WWII. Which was spent selling a shitload of weaponry and arguing over which side the US should take in the European conflict.
7 Likes
Same as everyone else.
7 Likes
Not to mention, the US military gives out patches (medals? I forget) if you’re in active duty during a time of war. Although we didn’t call the various engagements since 2001 wars in the traditional sense, those awards got handed out anyways to active duty military.
3 Likes
“Decorations.” The rectangular bits
are known as “ribbons”.
2 Likes
My only coment to every person disparaging military service in this thread is simply this: Next time you pick up a weapon stand to post and defend the freedom of people to shame you and disparage you for having done so.
1 Like
I don’t think we get to decide what respect we’ve “earned”!
No offense intended (I find many of your comments here respectable) but many people such as myself don’t see participation in a military organisation as something deserving a blanket respect. While I always appreciate the sense of obligation to one’s community/tribe I can’t forget that duty was also the Nuremberg defense.
If we consider attempting to overthrow a foreign government an act of war…
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government) (2013)
I got my last gold stars for neat handwriting - these days I need a war?
(edit grammar)
13 Likes
For anyone curious as to how Australia got onto that list:
6 Likes
People who care about family ties and tradition. Basically the topics of every country song ever.
1 Like
Haha I knew that argument would come sooner than later. What freedoms exactly needed defending in the Iraq War?
Or could we just call it what it is: schmaltzy jingoistic propaganda?
The USA isn’t defending anyones freedoms. The opposite is true when one looks at all the "regime change" operations the US has done to topple democratically elected governments in the last 70 years.
9 Likes
I grew up fully expecting that I would go into the military (I was expecting my generation to fight WWIII). I was raised on that line of thinking. And fully prepared to go serve to defend our freedom. When I was old enough, I called the recruiters and asked to join up. But it was during a time of cutbacks, base closures, etc., they said that they would only take me if I already had a college degree in a technical field that they needed. That floored me. It shot down my life plan. But in retrospect, I’m glad it happened that way.
Since then, I’ve realized that the truth is that it’s just wrong. The military are not defending our freedom. What are the chances that the Vietcong would literally have swam across the Pacific Ocean, conquered the United States, and taken away our freedom? 0%. What are the chances that Osama bin Laden and his ragtag band of misfits would have conquered our nation and taken away our freedom? 0%. When the Israelis and Palestinians argue over a plot of desert in the Middle East and we decide to butt in, what are the odds that those Palestinians are going to conquer the United States and take our freedom? 0%.
OTOH, what are the chances that an over-militarized government will take away our freedoms? War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc., SWAT teams conducting armed home invasions against the wrong house, riot squads firing on protesters, TSA strip-searching people in airports, border guards demanding access to social media accounts, etc. 100%.
The military are not defending our freedom. Where are the army battalions when the police take away protestors’ right to free speech? Can a black man in the city call in a company of marines to defend his freedom when he gets pulled over for a traffic stop? Where was the air force when the TSA said that I couldn’t carry a bottle of water into the waiting room at the airport? Has any military unit ever responded to defend someone’s right to bear arms when they were subjected to an ATF raid? No. Never. Not once. The military does not defend our freedom.
The only times that I can think of where they did do so were the War of Independence in the 1700s and the Civil War in the 1800s. Both of those were a very long time ago.
I do still respect people in the military for volunteering to take on an extremely dangerous and shitty job, and I know that if there weren’t volunteers, then we’d have a draft and I might get forced to do it, so I’m quite thankful and do appreciate that other people volunteer for the job, but that job is not in any way related to defending our freedom. And the increasing militarization of our nation is actively achieving exactly the opposite.
I do hope that the military will defend our freedoms again in the next civil war, though, especially given that so many former military personnel have been turned against us to take away our freedom.
11 Likes
As much as that would be a winning strategy. Oprah is responsible for Dr Phil, and Doctor Oz.
No… and furthermore HELL NO.
2 Likes
Hey, it’s your country. You can support a proven winner or let another pencil-necked geek get trounced by a good ol’ boy.
I don’t see why an ex-soldier is in any way better equipped to be a politician than, frankly, anyone else. I would rather if a candidate had published often-referenced research, knew history very well, or studied philosophy and ethics.
If we don’t want the con-artists, ex-military are not the solution. Honest, smart idealists are the solution.
9 Likes
For lots of voters, those might as well be boring old silent movies.
So is ignorance of history in terms of why militaries exist at all.
You might be surprised at how many times the Ven diagram of ex-soldiers overlaps completely with the other qualities you list. Its surely not always but I’ve met many ex-soldiers of a number of countries where its true.
2 Likes
and their family influence to swiftboat actual war heroes.
Amazing that ‘swiftboat’ became a verb. Remember, John Kerry served back then with distinction - regardless of what was said 40 years later by bitter broken partisans in service to wealthy chickenhawks.
2 Likes
Military service certainly shouldn’t be a disqualifying factor for political office. Neither should law, or farming, or mining, or teaching.
Diversity is good; every government should have a variety of perspectives. It’s a good idea to have at least a few people with military experience involved in the foreign policy debate.
But if your country is such that military experience is a substantial advantage when seeking political office, then that’s a clear sign that your country already has much more military influence in the political culture than is healthy.
7 Likes
Have you stopped to consider if you were speaking to enlisted or officer corps? That tends to be -the- difference described.
Yes, and FWIW though certainly more officers regarding published research, I’ve also meant plenty of non officers who were very well read on history, philosophy and ethics.
Sure, but we might agree that retired officers are often better suited and trained for leadership roles such as elected office? I’m trying to clarify what I think led to @pies confusion. I’ve met very few retired enlisted folks who I’d want to see in the planning and compromising and politics of elected office. It’s not a slight or a prejudice, it’s a statement of my own experience. My cousin was the senior enlisted officer in the Navy for a while many years ago. I cant imagine him in politics, but he now runs a massive MASSIVE 400 million dollar public works facility for the state.
I do think retired officers are somewhat better suited to be politicians that most other people. I think retired enlisted ranks are somewhat less well suited. It’s about their training from a young age, and the strength of it.
1 Like
I think it’s safer to say that we tend to elect people based more on charisma than their resume.
Relative to who they’re running against, of course. Bush Jr. wasn’t exactly an exciting candidate, but he ran against incredibly stiff, dull, cranky, boring guys in suits. His down-home good-ol-boy act played well those years.
The Democrats don’t just need to find someone with a good story, they need to find candidates whose charisma and personality engage people, and that’s tougher.
4 Likes
