Flowers For Algeria posted:

Armies are fundamentally immoral, OP. [1]


[1] Source: Kant, I., Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, 1795

Arglebargle III posted:

blowfish posted:

IMO we should give the UN a standing army with carriers and other force projection toys, and America should just have a token military for local defence like most other countries .

Of course, given that the UN mainly exists to provide an arena for superpowers to swing their dicks in without immediately starting WW3 rather than with enforcement authority of its own (against any country with more than a glorified goon squad in Toyotas and/or early Soviet leftover tanks), that won't happen.

Ocrassus posted:

This is an interesting idea. How would the costs for such an army be distributed? And how would you convince the Yanks to give up their billion dollar death machines?

quote:

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

US military bad

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has...-war-ii/5492051

JFairfax posted:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

Ocrassus posted:

Should other nations aggressively militarise in response to this threat if the Americans show no signs of reducing the size of their own military?

Budzilla posted:

Please don't link Globalresearch.ca

My hot take is that we live in a world/universe where people or nations get into conflict not because the people at the top have boners for war but there might be genuine reasons. Look at Chinese expansion into the SCS. There is oil and fishing areas there which would be beneficial to Chinese social order for its food and energy security. It might be belligerent to set up bullshit islands there if you are one of China's neighbours. Although I'm sure the Politburo cares more about internal stability than military expansionism.

blowfish posted:

Would it matter, given that the ludricous size and firepower of the US military turns any conventional military that isn't similarly bloated into a barely-noticeable speed bump for the US Army, including those of any single current second-tier major power?

JFairfax posted:

the funny thing about the US military is that for all the money that is spent on it, all the tech, it cannot defeat guys with rocket launchers, home made bombs and toyota hilux's

Ocrassus posted:

I think something like the EU could feasibly construct a military as large and powerful as the US if it and it's constituent nations committed to it. Similar GDPs.

And besides, I don't think the goal of any modern military vs another modern military is to 'beat' the opponent by destroying them. After all, Nukes are a thing. It would be enough just to cause lasting economic damage such that it became unpopular to continue the conflict. This is why DnD is laughing at Trump saying he wants to go after Iran. A single carrier group could probably wipe out the government of Iran, but the death toll would still be large and it probably only takes one lucky shot to send something expensive crashing to earth or sinking to the bottom of the sea.

blowfish posted:

Yeah but if the US wants to invade, say, Germany that's just not going to happen regardless of a hypothetical EU army. If Trump decides to send the Marines on vacation in sunny foggy North Germany the Bundeswehr's like two dozen Leopard IIs and ten Eurofighters that aren't currently broken down due to lack of maintenance funding won't matter. What matters is that every single EU and non-EU NATO country along with most other allies will poo poo a brick and go "holy gently caress did you guys just go totally nuts we don't want to trade with you anymore" while the world economy implodes.

The countries that actually have to worry about US invasions are poo poo tier developing countries that would have trouble matching Iraq's useless Soviet vintage army from the first gulf war if they pooled all their rusty tanks and broken migs together, let alone hope to take the world economy down with them if they get invaded.

e: or Iran I guess but they've been cut out of the world economy for so long they don't have anything to resist with or any commited superpower allies unless they build nukes or become a Russian client state.

Ocrassus posted:

Isn't the US basically self sufficient if it wants to be though? Trump already seems to not give two craps about the world economy.

JFairfax posted:

do you have a problem with the numbers quoted in that article?

quote:

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

Ardennes posted:

Iran would certainly be worried about the US bombing its infrastructure (especially its energy industry) but it is pretty doubtful the US could actually occupy it.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Iran is a country of mountains with a huge population that has good reason to dislike the US already. The US trying to occupy Iran would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a walk in the park. It would be a goddamn bloodbath and would most likely end up as the most expensive and humiliating failure since Vietnam.

JFairfax posted:

look at all your clothes and electronics and see where they're made

quote:

"Most of my predecessors in this place have commended him who made this speech part of the law, telling us that it is well that it should be delivered at the burial of those who fall in battle. For myself, I should have thought that the worth which had displayed itself in deeds would be sufficiently rewarded by honours also shown by deeds; such as you now see in this funeral prepared at the people's cost. And I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill. For it is hard to speak properly upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearers that you are speaking the truth. On the one hand, the friend who is familiar with every fact of the story may think that some point has not been set forth with that fullness which he wishes and knows it to deserve; on the other, he who is a stranger to the matter may be led by envy to suspect exaggeration if he hears anything above his own nature. For men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves of their own ability to equal the actions recounted: when this point is passed, envy comes in and with it incredulity. However, since our ancestors have stamped this custom with their approval, it becomes my duty to obey the law and to try to satisfy your several wishes and opinions as best I may.

"I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honour of the first mention on an occasion like the present. They dwelt in the country without break in the succession from generation to generation, and handed it down free to the present time by their valour. And if our more remote ancestors deserve praise, much more do our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess, and spared no pains to be able to leave their acquisitions to us of the present generation. Lastly, there are few parts of our dominions that have not been augmented by those of us here, who are still more or less in the vigour of life; while the mother country has been furnished by us with everything that can enable her to depend on her own resources whether for war or for peace. That part of our history which tells of the military achievements which gave us our several possessions, or of the ready valour with which either we or our fathers stemmed the tide of Hellenic or foreign aggression, is a theme too familiar to my hearers for me to dilate on, and I shall therefore pass it by. But what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my panegyric upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage.

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.

"Further, we provide plenty of means for the mind to refresh itself from business. We celebrate games and sacrifices all the year round, and the elegance of our private establishments forms a daily source of pleasure and helps to banish the spleen; while the magnitude of our city draws the produce of the world into our harbour, so that to the Athenian the fruits of other countries are as familiar a luxury as those of his own.

"If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from our antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. In proof of this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbour, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes. Our united force was never yet encountered by any enemy, because we have at once to attend to our marine and to dispatch our citizens by land upon a hundred different services; so that, wherever they engage with some such fraction of our strength, a success against a detachment is magnified into a victory over the nation, and a defeat into a reverse suffered at the hands of our entire people. And yet if with habits not of labour but of ease, and courage not of art but of nature, we are still willing to encounter danger, we have the double advantage of escaping the experience of hardships in anticipation and of facing them in the hour of need as fearlessly as those who are never free from them.

"Nor are these the only points in which our city is worthy of admiration. We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it. Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot originate, and, instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all. Again, in our enterprises we present the singular spectacle of daring and deliberation, each carried to its highest point, and both united in the same persons; although usually decision is the fruit of ignorance, hesitation of reflection. But the palm of courage will surely be adjudged most justly to those, who best know the difference between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger. In generosity we are equally singular, acquiring our friends by conferring, not by receiving, favours. Yet, of course, the doer of the favour is the firmer friend of the two, in order by continued kindness to keep the recipient in his debt; while the debtor feels less keenly from the very consciousness that the return he makes will be a payment, not a free gift. And it is only the Athenians, who, fearless of consequences, confer their benefits not from calculations of expediency, but in the confidence of liberality.

"In short, I say that as a city we are the school of Hellas, while I doubt if the world can produce a man who, where he has only himself to depend upon, is equal to so many emergencies, and graced by so happy a versatility, as the Athenian. And that this is no mere boast thrown out for the occasion, but plain matter of fact, the power of the state acquired by these habits proves. For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation, and alone gives no occasion to her assailants to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been worsted, or to her subjects to question her title by merit to rule. Rather, the admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs; and far from needing a Homer for our panegyrist, or other of his craft whose verses might charm for the moment only for the impression which they gave to melt at the touch of fact, we have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us. Such is the Athens for which these men, in the assertion of their resolve not to lose her, nobly fought and died; and well may every one of their survivors be ready to suffer in her cause.

"Indeed if I have dwelt at some length upon the character of our country, it has been to show that our stake in the struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such blessings to lose, and also that the panegyric of the men over whom I am now speaking might be by definite proofs established. That panegyric is now in a great measure complete; for the Athens that I have celebrated is only what the heroism of these and their like have made her, men whose fame, unlike that of most Hellenes, will be found to be only commensurate with their deserts. And if a test of worth be wanted, it is to be found in their closing scene, and this not only in cases in which it set the final seal upon their merit, but also in those in which it gave the first intimation of their having any. For there is justice in the claim that steadfastness in his country's battles should be as a cloak to cover a man's other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual. But none of these allowed either wealth with its prospect of future enjoyment to unnerve his spirit, or poverty with its hope of a day of freedom and riches to tempt him to shrink from danger. No, holding that vengeance upon their enemies was more to be desired than any personal blessings, and reckoning this to be the most glorious of hazards, they joyfully determined to accept the risk, to make sure of their vengeance, and to let their wishes wait; and while committing to hope the uncertainty of final success, in the business before them they thought fit to act boldly and trust in themselves. Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonour, but met danger face to face, and after one brief moment, while at the summit of their fortune, escaped, not from their fear, but from their glory.

"So died these men as became Athenians. You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue. And not contented with ideas derived only from words of the advantages which are bound up with the defence of your country, though these would furnish a valuable text to a speaker even before an audience so alive to them as the present, you must yourselves realize the power of Athens, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!

"Comfort, therefore, not condolence, is what I have to offer to the parents of the dead who may be here. Numberless are the chances to which, as they know, the life of man is subject; but fortunate indeed are they who draw for their lot a death so glorious as that which has caused your mourning, and to whom life has been so exactly measured as to terminate in the happiness in which it has been passed. Still I know that this is a hard saying, especially when those are in question of whom you will constantly be reminded by seeing in the homes of others blessings of which once you also boasted: for grief is felt not so much for the want of what we have never known, as for the loss of that to which we have been long accustomed. Yet you who are still of an age to beget children must bear up in the hope of having others in their stead; not only will they help you to forget those whom you have lost, but will be to the state at once a reinforcement and a security; for never can a fair or just policy be expected of the citizen who does not, like his fellows, bring to the decision the interests and apprehensions of a father. While those of you who have passed your prime must congratulate yourselves with the thought that the best part of your life was fortunate, and that the brief span that remains will be cheered by the fame of the departed. For it is only the love of honour that never grows old; and honour it is, not gain, as some would have it, that rejoices the heart of age and helplessness.

"Turning to the sons or brothers of the dead, I see an arduous struggle before you. When a man is gone, all are wont to praise him, and should your merit be ever so transcendent, you will still find it difficult not merely to overtake, but even to approach their renown. The living have envy to contend with, while those who are no longer in our path are honoured with a goodwill into which rivalry does not enter. On the other hand, if I must say anything on the subject of female excellence to those of you who will now be in widowhood, it will be all comprised in this brief exhortation. Great will be your glory in not falling short of your natural character; and greatest will be hers who is least talked of among the men, whether for good or for bad.

"My task is now finished. I have performed it to the best of my ability, and in word, at least, the requirements of the law are now satisfied. If deeds be in question, those who are here interred have received part of their honours already, and for the rest, their children will be brought up till manhood at the public expense: the state thus offers a valuable prize, as the garland of victory in this race of valour, for the reward both of those who have fallen and their survivors. And where the rewards for merit are greatest, there are found the best citizens.

"And now that you have brought to a close your lamentations for your relatives, you may depart."

Main Paineframe posted:

The purpose of the US military is to project US power and influence around the world, largely in service to US economic and political ambitions. It is neither a defensive army nor a defender of justice. To quote Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", and the modern US military is very much built around that. The mere existence of the US military is enough to exert political pressure on many governments, and the conventional military might of the US allows it to maintain a global sphere of influence comparable to the European empires of the last century, except without the inconvenience of having to directly rule and govern countries like Egypt and South Korea.

The point of the US military isn't to beat fascists or act as the world police. The point of the US military is to further US interests, influences, and profits, while extracting concessions of some sort from much of the world in exchange for favorable treatment from the US military.

Ardennes posted:

Iran would certainly be worried about the US bombing its infrastructure (especially its energy industry) but it is pretty doubtful the US could actually occupy it.

One thing is that the US does far better in land operations when an enemy is divided against each other, and the government has relatively little popular support. Saddam in 2003 could only really count on Sunni Arabs to fight for him. Vietnam was very much the opposite and the difference in results was fairly clear.

quote:

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

JFairfax posted:

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

US military bad

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

quote:

In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)

JFairfax posted:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

LeoMarr posted:

Its so great when the hodgepodge of Russophiles turn any non-railed thread into a spit drama party with RT and Globalresearch links being swung while no one who cares tries to stop them knowing the thread will be gassed in a week.

blowfish posted:

IMO we should give the UN a standing army with carriers and other force projection toys, and America should just have a token military for local defence like most other countries .

Of course, given that the UN mainly exists to provide an arena for superpowers to swing their dicks in without immediately starting WW3 rather than with enforcement authority of its own (against any country with more than a glorified goon squad in Toyotas and/or early Soviet leftover tanks), that won't happen.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Ahahaha I missed it before but that article also directly blames the U.S. for killing Chinese soldiers during the Korean War *and* for the Iran-Iraq War. Pretty dank!

Sun Wu Kampf posted:

The UN's existing peacekeeping forces have generally been incompetent at best and horrific bands of child rapists at the worst. And you want to hand them more power?

Fojar38 posted:

Globalresearch.ca is literal Kremlin propaganda. Don't cite it.

JFairfax posted:

come on let's not act like the US doesn't have child and adult raping incompetent murderers.

JFairfax posted:

global research is based out of Canada, I know v. little about it. have you got anything that shows it's kremlin propoganda?

quote:

In 2001, Chossudovsky founded the Centre for Research on Globalization, becoming its editor and director. Located in Montreal, Canada, it describes itself as an "independent research and media organization" that provides "analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media".[11]; others describe it as pro-Putin and anti-NATO.[12] It maintains websites in several languages, including English, which are critical of United States foreign policy and NATO as well as the official explanation of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the war on terror.

quote:

Common conspiracy theories are frequently advanced, and stated as facts by authors including Chossudovsky himself on his website Global Research. A few examples are: The New World Order (conspiracy theory),[18][19] 9/11 conspiracy theories, such as the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation,[20][21] The HAARP conspiracy theory, that the installation is a "secret weapon used for weather modification, electromagnetic warfare",[22][23] (Also included by Chossudovsky in one of his books.), Global warming conspiracy theory,[24][25] Charlie Hebdo shooting conspiracy theories,[26][27] and the FEMA camps conspiracy theory.[28][29]

Fojar38 posted: