2 ms·

Idealistic as that may be, we will always need a protection force.

• jstanley 8y ago
  According to this article: https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-weste... Western militaries have killed at least 4 million people in foreign countries in the last ~30 years. That's not my kind of "protection force". The most sickening part is that we're paying for this, with our taxes. We're paying for people to go to foreign countries and kill people on our behalf. In the name of "protection".
  • borski 8y ago
    With all due respect, just because casualties happen in war does not mean we shouldn't have a military. You could make an argument for slimming it down, and that we've overextended our military capabilities past where they need to be, and into foreign soil where we shouldn't have been. I might even agree with aspects of that argument. But to advocate for removal of the military leaves the US vulnerable to anyone who hasn't gotten rid of theirs (read: the rest of the world). We fought to get out from under British rule, so that we could establish a democracy and not live under a monarchy. If we abolish the military, there is literally nothing stopping someone from coming in and ending this experiment in democracy that has lasted as long as it has.
  • Retra 8y ago
    That's really a problem with the politicians, not the military.