5 ms·

>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amoun

>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amounts of soldiers to "keep us safe"? If anything, the US military has made me unsafe. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Torture and drone warfare have created scores of "terrorists" - people angry that their civilian family members were killed in a war of aggression. You can trace a direct path in history from the invasion of Iraq to the rise of ISIS. Meanwhile, money that could have been spent of social services funded these wars - leading to an economic climate so bleak that voters elected a fascist president in hopes of changing their station in life. I'm no pacifist, but wars of aggression are not "keeping us safe" in any sense of the phrase.

skybrian 8y ago
Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. And, it's not wrong to do what we can to reduce risk both for soldiers and civilians. Adding more risk wouldn't be an improvement. Military spending is certainly tremendously wasteful, though.
- ianleeclark 8y ago
  The military is the enforcement of the leadership, so it's valid to criticize them. Just taking orders wasn't an excuse at nuremberg and it shouldn't be today, either.
  - albntomat0 8y ago
    At what point should the military refuse the orders of civilian leadership? A tactical level order to shoot civilians (or similar, non-cliche situation) should be disobeyed. However, is it the military's responsible to disobey the decisions of a duly elected civilian government, such as the Iraq War resolution[0]? Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and allowing/requiring the military to go against it would have wide ranging consequences. There are definitely unique cases to be explored, but credit/blame need to be assigned to the party responsible for the decision. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
- greggarious 8y ago
  >Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. We have a volunteer army and have been engaging in "adventures" as far back as Vietnam. No one goes in not knowing what they'll be asked to do.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > We have a volunteer army and have been engaging in "adventures" as far back as Vietnam. No one goes in not knowing what they'll be asked to do. Vietnam prominently featured draftees, and in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for.
    - greggarious 8y ago
      >Vietnam prominently featured draftees Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. >in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for. Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists). And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11.
      - mieseratte 8y ago
        > Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices. > Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists). I, too, sussed this out in my teenage years but by then the Iraq war was "waning" and the writing was on the wall. Perhaps you're just much more prescient than I, as well as the millions of young men and women who signed up to serve their country with the belief that Iraq had truly done wrong. > And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11. In the lead up to the invasion, our borderline state media apparatus was heavily reporting that Hussein was building WMDs. There was also much accusations of him either funding or supplying Jihadis.
UncleEntity 8y ago
Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner on an overpass: "thank you for our freedom, now go home". I kind of think they expected it to be a repeat of Panama with a quick game of "capture the dictator" followed by installing a puppet government but the general level of incompetence (i.e. de-Ba'athification of the government) didn't let that happen. And, yes, I do kind of consider myself a pacifist who just happened to have gone down to Panama and was involved in both Iraq invasions.
- frickinLasers 8y ago
  This has nothing to do with the parent's comments. Whoop-de-do, so we toppled an unpopular dictator and left a power vacuum in his place; how does that "keep [America] safe"? We should not be the World Police. We can't even afford to keep our own people out of poverty.
- cncrnd 8y ago
  Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people blame for the poor state of things...are we really the good guy? I don't know if your ignoring this fact or just talking nonsense. The US destroyed Iraq and it has never recovered, and this is a widely accepted fact. Stupid comment imo, can't believe this is serious and hasn't been called out already.
  - cmndrkeen 8y ago
    Saddam was an aggressive expansionist and brutal dictator. There will always be tragic tradeoffs when dealing with such people.
    - cncrnd 8y ago

skybrian 8y ago

Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. And, it's not wrong to do what we can to reduce risk both for soldiers and civilians. Adding more risk wouldn't be an improvement. Military spending is certainly tremendously wasteful, though.

ianleeclark 8y ago
The military is the enforcement of the leadership, so it's valid to criticize them. Just taking orders wasn't an excuse at nuremberg and it shouldn't be today, either.
- albntomat0 8y ago
  At what point should the military refuse the orders of civilian leadership? A tactical level order to shoot civilians (or similar, non-cliche situation) should be disobeyed. However, is it the military's responsible to disobey the decisions of a duly elected civilian government, such as the Iraq War resolution[0]? Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and allowing/requiring the military to go against it would have wide ranging consequences. There are definitely unique cases to be explored, but credit/blame need to be assigned to the party responsible for the decision. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
greggarious 8y ago
>Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. We have a volunteer army and have been engaging in "adventures" as far back as Vietnam. No one goes in not knowing what they'll be asked to do.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > We have a volunteer army and have been engaging in "adventures" as far back as Vietnam. No one goes in not knowing what they'll be asked to do. Vietnam prominently featured draftees, and in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for.
  - greggarious 8y ago
    >Vietnam prominently featured draftees Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. >in post-9/11 America the public was heavily led to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible or related to the 9/11 attacks such that one would have not reasonably known what they were signing up for. Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists). And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11.
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices. > Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prominent columnists). I, too, sussed this out in my teenage years but by then the Iraq war was "waning" and the writing was on the wall. Perhaps you're just much more prescient than I, as well as the millions of young men and women who signed up to serve their country with the belief that Iraq had truly done wrong. > And the official line on Iraq was that the possessed WMD, not that they did 9/11. In the lead up to the invasion, our borderline state media apparatus was heavily reporting that Hussein was building WMDs. There was also much accusations of him either funding or supplying Jihadis.

UncleEntity 8y ago

Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner on an overpass: "thank you for our freedom, now go home". I kind of think they expected it to be a repeat of Panama with a quick game of "capture the dictator" followed by installing a puppet government but the general level of incompetence (i.e. de-Ba'athification of the government) didn't let that happen. And, yes, I do kind of consider myself a pacifist who just happened to have gone down to Panama and was involved in both Iraq invasions.

frickinLasers 8y ago
This has nothing to do with the parent's comments. Whoop-de-do, so we toppled an unpopular dictator and left a power vacuum in his place; how does that "keep [America] safe"? We should not be the World Police. We can't even afford to keep our own people out of poverty.
cncrnd 8y ago
Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people blame for the poor state of things...are we really the good guy? I don't know if your ignoring this fact or just talking nonsense. The US destroyed Iraq and it has never recovered, and this is a widely accepted fact. Stupid comment imo, can't believe this is serious and hasn't been called out already.
- cmndrkeen 8y ago
  Saddam was an aggressive expansionist and brutal dictator. There will always be tragic tradeoffs when dealing with such people.
  - cncrnd 8y ago