If they are dead, will they care what we think about them?
I see no reason to honor people who may have spent their life or limb while working for an organization which destroys. We don't honor the mafia member who died or was injured. If global armies and the governments who run them are just more sophisticated mafias, why should we honor those involved?
Wow.
It's a difficult pill to swallow, I know. It took me quite some time to reverse the indoctrination I had for most of my life. Objectively, governments and their militaries are not much different than mafias. Give War is a Racket a read and let me know what you think.
Considering I had family in the mafia and the military I don't agree with the analogy. It's an oversimplification. I presume you're going to say they muscle over weaker factions for profit?
I disprove of offensive wars and unprovoked invasions. Having a national defense was one of the cornerstones of America.
While we have had progress with the EU to try and stabilize the region we are always one generation from a war. Japan was an ally for instance in WWI and then became the reason we joined WWII. Power shifts and politics change. I don't like over militarization. But saying that soldiers are not worth mourning is kind of shocking.
I respect your opinion. But I think you're thinking too highly of your reversal of indoctrination.
This is going to be a healthy discussion I feel.
This does seem to be the driving force of most military involvement, at least as far as the U.S. Military is concerned. It's not always this obvious though, might take some digging into the Petrol Dollar and back to the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 (and Nixon Shock of 1971) where the U.S. (and global central bankers) basically screwed the world and had the strongest military (by far) so no one could do anything about it.
Can you clarify this point?
(via wikipedia)
I'm not a constitutionalist (I think it's just a piece of Statist paper), but even back then they realized how bad standing armies can be.
The concept of being one generation from war, to me, says more about how much our nature has changed since then. Pinker's book, The Better Angles of Our Nature had a big impact on me (among others). I don't fully agree with his conclusions about the need for a strong Leviathan (his comparisons to "anarchist" societies are anything but "no rulers" societies). I do think, however, he begins to touch on the changes things like the introduction of the novel had on our species. We're more connected than ever and due to nuclear weapons, for the first time the sociopathic rulers who send others to war might actually be killed themselves as well which has put a pause on the whole thing.
Yes, it is shocking. It's also shocking to say things like "god isn't real, and we should move on towards building a world we want to live in using reason, logic, and evidence instead of dogma and superstition." Not everyone agrees with this or is ready to agree with it. It took me quite some time to lose my eternity.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I certainly appreciate those who disagree with me but still respect my views or at least the way in which I try to share them respectfully.
I am unsure how to quote like you did.
But on your point of clarifying.
James Madison one of the 52 men who framed the constitution.
Wrote in the Federalist papers that "Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union."
While it is only the words of one of the creators. It is surprising because Hamilton and Madison had the same points being argued 300 years ago that you and I are having. Military can be corrupted but they are human beings and a necessary strength. In thirty years Russia or another threat we don't even know about could encroach. We do not know what we don't know.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._41
The Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist discussions are really interesting. From a certain perspective, the United States was so successful because it was a minarchy with the minimum amount of centralized power possible. Then some rich white people came along, did a secret congressional congress meeting, and (from the little I understand) gave more central power to the federal government than the original states anticipated. From my perspective, "security against foreign danger" is an out-dated concept in today's connected world. It's certainly not (again, from my perspective) improved by intervening with military force in any and every country around the world. Blowback is the result, and it's not pretty.
I agree we do not need to be the world's police. Only intervene when nations have legitimately threatened the nation. Case in point, I doubt North Korea's saber rattling has any substance. They can not even launch a missile off their coastline.
I agree and even tho war is not part of my value system, I have to say I support veterans for the most part. I also think the world has to change and violations of veterans in action need to come to an end, just as in all of society. I wonder at their reflections of the whole.