Japan maintains a quite effective self defense military without the expeditionary focus the U.S. has. But I’ll wait for your explanation as to why we need to maintain a military in other nations which are being used to overturn governments and police the citizens of another nation.
1 Like
The glorification of the military in the USA is one of the things making me very nervous. I’m not exactly picturing Nazi Germany but the time before WW1 in Europe - societies idolizing war and the military, seeing war as extension of politics not as ultima ratio to be avoided at all cost. Soldiers seen as heroes and not as necessary evil is a dangerous mindset because you don’t hesitate using heroes - heroes can do no wrong. The end justify the means, Might makes right - War becomes something you seek and don’t try to avoid.
This and several other attitudes e.g. towards non-citizens/foreigners (see the ICE thread) compound the situation. Non-citizens/foreigners perceived as lesser humans, with fewer or without rights - in regard to extrajudicial killings, torture, surveillance etc.
The over-exaggerated nationalism/patriotism and “manifest destiny/shining city on the hill”-attitude preventing self reflection …
… I often think that all puzzle pieces are there, they only need to fall into place …
7 Likes
Doctor Phil is less about therapy and more ‘here i swoop in to save people.’ Doctor Oz is a well trained heart specilist… that peddles woo such as homeopathy in place of real medicine while wearing scrubs on a show that touts him as a doctor…
Oprah gave those two their push into the limelight and endorses them. So no. Again and furthermore. Hell No.
5 Likes
I’d be very interested in your views on why militaries exist.
I’ve always know them to be the way the rich and powerful use violence to get what they want when the other methods haven’t worked. Though I wouldn’t use “fetish” for how Americans view their military. “Victims of unceasing propaganda” is probably better. This is also why, despite it being obvious that they’re little more than cannon fodder to those in power, people keep volunteering for the military.
However, there’s no point in railing against it. Humans are violent and tribal apes. We’re always going to want a way to kill strangers and take their stuff because the alpha ape said so. An army is the best way we’ve invented so far and we’ll be stuck with it until we go extinct… which I’m saying will happen within the next ten thousand years.
BTW: The last human will die choking on the innards of the second last human they just cannibalized.
1 Like
Is that an intentional twisting of Clausewitz or just accidental?
Considering that the JSDF is entirely untested, and the recent troubles in the neighborhood, I most certainly hope that if (God forbid!!!) they are called upon to do their duty, they do prove to be quite effective.
Politicians are con-artists. Surprise, surprise.
You argue the phrase “quite effective” in response to my query about your views on why we need a standing expeditionary military and still you have the temerity to suggest I’m not arguing in good faith? That’s an impressive level of unaware right there.
Yes, the Japanese SDF is untested. Amazing how having a self defense force can deter invasion. But that’s not the point in question at all now is it? Or perhaps it is. Perhaps the fact that the SDF is untested is all the proof we need that no expeditionary force is needed. But let’s dispense with the red herrings and misdirection and return to your original premise; namely your suggestion that I may have “ignorance of history and why militaries exist” to which I asked for your view of why we need a standing expeditionary force whose primary mission these days has been regime change and invasion of foreign sovereign powers who have never attacked the U.S… I’ve asked a couple of times now with no response from you on the subject despite your accusation of my “lack of good faith” as well as your intimation of ignorance on my part. So, I’ll ask you to defend your position one last time.
1 Like
You are now twisting things. My response regarding the JSDF was not about your general statement regarding expeditionary military but specifically in regards to your own description of the JSDF.
I won’t respond wo that looks like a personal insult.
This statement is only true if one ignores both the regional power levels in the second half of the 20th century and the 1952 security treaty with the US. That is to say once the JSDF was created in 1954 from what at the time was segments of the National Police Force , essentially at the behest of the US, no regional nation state or would be nation state had enough military capacity to mount an invasion to begin with. That plus once the 1952 treaty was in effect, Japan was for all intents and purposes under the US nuclear umbrella (as well as of course conventional forces) and thus again were any regional nation state or would be nation state attempt to mount an invasion it would be suicidal.
As of 2017 the regional power balance has of course changed significantly such that China, North Korea & Russia all routinely test Japan’s airspace and maritime borders and even officials from the JSDF are unwilling to go it alone for national defense.
Which is to say your argument her does not hold water.
By now you’ve noticed that I’ve not answered that. As per the first reply because you have predetermined the parameter and the answer to the question. In theory, the US could nullify its security treaties with various nations, withdraw from NATO and essentially tell the rest of the world to sort out its squabbles on its own. Eventually the Messiah will come and one day we’ll beat our swords into plowshares but I’m not holding my breath for either case.
And yet you have no problem dishing them out. I see you fam.
That never was my argument. I suspect you already knew that but thanks for the trip down unrelated sidenote lane.
Oh please. My asking why we need a standing expeditionary force currently being used to overthrow foreign governments that have never attacked the U.S. does not predetermine your response. It only serves to frame the argument in the reality in which we all live instead of the fantastical jingoism displayed by those who think we should “support the troops” who volunteered to be a cog in a death machine.
Why?
And what’s wrong the using the same policy most of the rest of the world uses? Why do we have to suffer the losses both human and financial in order to prop up corporate interests?
Your follow on strawman of beating our plows to sword shares while waiting for the Messiah is exactly what I expected.
From the BBS’s resident Orthodox Jew, what else could you expect?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
