3 ms·
Answer to the first question: in the United States, yes. Whether that is a bad thing is debatable and not suited for the site we're on; try a philosophy subredd
by kick 7y ago
Answer to the first question: in the United States, yes. Whether that is a bad thing is debatable and not suited for the site we're on; try a philosophy subreddit.
The United States military has lost its privilege to play any form of moralism or rational justification after their actions over the past 30-50 years. It's no longer defense in most cases, it's assault. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the second Iraq, invading Afghanistan for funsies, there's no point to most of it.
We've only had one success in decades, and it still wasn't even related to defense!
There's a difference between defense and imperialistic invasions, and the United States military hasn't defended much of anything at home in quite a while.
- knowa42 7y agoIf you think that the only thing the U.S. military does is "assault" then you haven't really done any research at all, have you? Read up on force-projection, specifically as it relates to soft-power.
- kick 7y agoNote I said most cases, which, in English, means "not all cases, but most of them." Obviously, the U.S. Military does slightly more than assault. Proportionally not much more, but a bit more. Like football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football
- knowa42 7y agoOh, okay. Unless you're relying solely on your "intuition" of what the U.S. military uses resources for, please post sources or figures for your quantification of U.S. force projection and how it's "mostly" used for assault.
- FpUser 7y agoAssault - direct attack Force projection - do as we say or else.