The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I meant for funding America's military. America should maintain a giant military in my opinion. I firmly believe it has done more good than bad.

I don't know enough about smaller countries to say how I think they should go about government spending. You're right, they're completely different. I wish people would stop comparing them like they're the same.

I think America's level of military spending is so high that they can't really back out of that easily without taking massive losses.

America is playing the sur game in PA. You scout and see how many air factories your opponent is building and then you build 10x that.

Thus making other countries build more to be safe, thus making companies that build airports richer.

And that's how i percieve the American economy

How very basic.
Arse makes some good points. There really isn't a reason to not have a large military as the USA.

It costs tax money?

So do welfare programs, most of which couldn't waste more money if they tried.

But welfare programs help people.

I'm hoping that you're not implying the military doesn't.

Tone is super hard to read and it could either be a simple statement in favor of welfare or a jab at military not helping people.

Well I am sure the ratio of "people helped per $" is insanely better on the side of the welfare program.
If all you want is to help people you have no need to spend insane amounts of money on guns, bombs and tanks.
The main purpose of the military is not to help people. Yes they might do helpful stuff sometimes, but that isn't their main purpose. The main purpose of the military is to fight wars. That's not helping people.

So both: Welfare programs are great and the military is not about helping people.

First and foremost, the primary purpose doesn't mean anything. It's the primary result that matters.

And the military is absolutely about helping people. It's not just about fighting wars. That is one of their jobs. Others include preventing wars by making them too costly and designing security backup plans in the case of everything from armed attacks by hostile nations to natural disasters.

The National Guard exists as a versatile reserve that has helped with disaster relief, event security, and an economic fallback for people without the training to do better.

The money spent on guns, bombs, and tanks helps people. As long as they don't get used they aren't hurting anybody, and even if they ARE used as long as it's in defense of somebody it's a positive result. If a person is going to kill 50 people and we kill him with our guns and bombs, we've saved lives.

Is every casualty justified? Hell no. But ignoring the ones that are is asinine. And ignoring the helpfulness of the military when no lives are lost is ignorant.

It's sure trying hard to sell itself as being helpful, but realistically why do you need the military for anything that doesn't involve wielding tools to kill people? Sure since you spent a ton of money on a standing army you might as well put them to work on odd jobs while they're idle.

Disaster relief, event security, and economic fallback are all things that are required by a working society, but they're all just tasks that the military might help with because you threw so much money at the military that they might as well be help with it. They can all be handled by civilian organisations, if they're given the money to do it.

Yes sure sometimes it seems like a good idea. And sometimes it turns out to be a really bad idea. My simplified understanding of the war-history since WWII goes like this: UdSSR and USA wage war in random places over the world, just not on their own ground for a while => produce chaos and give tons of weapons to people who seemed like they would be helpful => then turn their back on them => get backstabbed => "why is there a plane in our skyscrapper" => "lets take revenge on those people" => there we are in 2016

And I am not really convinced that the reasons behind most war actions by the US, the EU or whoever else in foreign nations are to "save people from the bad guys". If that were true they'd have put more effort into saving people from ISIS. All they're doing is trying to get an advantage out of it for themselves.

Just recently I read an article about findings from investigative journalists that found that some EU-politicians were trying to get secret agreements with dictators from Africa about helping them to keep their population confined under their control. Totally against any value the EU should stand for. And in my mind your military is likely to be worse than that.
Clearly not trustworthy. They're only after their own advantage. All that "we sometimes help people" is nothing more than stupid attempts to make them look good.

Sure that glorious fantasy about going out and bring democracy to a nation under a strict and violent regime is nice, but it's a fantasy and will always stay that way.

So I'd much favor a policy of a lot less intervening. It makes you look less like a hypocrite at least.

It's been tried and it's not been nearly as successful. The fact of the matter is that military discipline and regulation is more strict by necessity. It goes into more aspects of life because it has to, and its funding can shift more flexibly because needs change. If they have water filtration down they can focus on something else that's lacking with minimal bureaucratic interference.

A lot of the military goes into how to stop people from dying. Not just armors, but for instances where people are stranded, post traumatic stress relief, food storage, sound suppression, biohazard supression, water filtration, grid failsafes, healthcare for both field related injuries and non. Explosion, earthquake, fire, and flood resistant structures.

A military isn't about wielding weapons. It's about wielding manpower. Our military focuses on every aspect of war, not just the fighting.

Europe has a colorful history of being a greedy sack of shits that squabble over land EDIT: As nations, not people. Europe has had its hands in other countries since long before the US even existed, and it's no surprise that it has continued. Europe is responsible for a number of the tensions in the middle east and africa.

The US has clear signs of corruption, but absolutely nothing gives me the impression that the EU is any less of a corrupt collective. Get off your high horse.

It's pretty clear I won't convince you of the usefulness of our military. Your simple views on the matter are narrow minded. I'm hoping it's just because you haven't seen the positive benefits of a military locally and just see the **** that's on the news.

The merits of psychologically breaking men and women so that they become obedient tools in a greater machine that can be conscripted for the greater good is . . . well, arguable at best.

Are there advantages? Of course. It's efficient. The world turns on efficiency, it's the best word for making your cost-benefit analyses. Would it take longer for a civilian initiative to do the same? Very likely.

But these don't void the constraints of the foundation, nor do they serve as a defense of criticism. "gets things done" is an "end justifies the means" kind of logic; it's self-referential. And the criticism goes on from there. From the very basic initial indoctrination of the patron nation, to the mental training required to see people of other colours and faiths as "the enemy" without question . . . there are valid criticisms that run across the whole model of a modern military force.

Additionally, saying that Europe as a collection of governed nations is more corrupt than America is . . . . completely worthless when it comes to the relative merits of their military forces. It may speak about their military commanders but Europe isn't a singular defined nation with a single head of state. There is no unity. Let's not go about making this a pissing contest if we're not going to get basic comparisons right.

Oh don't worry I didn't mean it in a very aggressive way

And as Gorbles says: That whole concept and mindset behind "the military" is something I heavily disagree on. Sure it has it's good sides, but at the core the whole idea about the military is that all of its structure is meant to make people into mindless soldiers capable of fighting on battlefields were any sane person would just run away. And that is something I do not agree on.

Now I don't have any numbers in my head about this, but I do not believe in any statement that says that any Government organization can work without tons of bureaucratic stuff. Not even the military

Why would I see benefits of military forces locally? Again even if they help you locally for whatever reason it is probably something that has nothing to do with fighting wars. You just don't need the military to help you locally, unarmed civilian organizations can be just as good at that.

The only local military presence I've ever seen is from a training grounds-area kind of thing that was actually like maybe 1km away from the home of my parents. When I was a child we could sometimes hear them do shooting exercises and rarely they'd fly helicopters around, sometimes even pretty close above our garden. Also groups of young soldiers doing running exercises on the street. Though I think by now they actually closed the place down for the most part.
That's all I've ever seen from local military around here.

The military isn't just soldiers. For every soldier on the front lines we have 3 people backing them up in some way that are ALSO in the military. That's not including the civilians doing work for the military on the military's budget.

Minimal just means as little as possible. Still a shitload.

I knew a math teacher that got his schooling from the military as an engineer. I have a cousin with cancer who was able to get faster treatment through the military. I know several people who could not otherwise get jobs get good jobs by joining. I know red cross volunteers who've worked with the National Guard and appreciated the help.

The military does things differently from civilian organizations. If there is a civilian organization that could do what the military does, I haven't seen it.

And it's very likely that if military infrastructure to support these career paths (and medical expertise) didn't exist, it would exist in some form, even as an exorbitant private outfit.

Though the health thing is a little ironic because, y'know, I'm UK. Part of Europe. We have that thing called the NHS.

It kinda renders military options for healthcare redundant. When it works at the very least

Military hurts and in worst cases kills ... destroys schools, hospitals and infrastucture .... how very helpfull ...

military is only good for one thing and that is display of power ... nothing more ...

my "tone" should be clear enough

I dare to say the reason why the military seems so great at doing helpful things is because they're extremely well funded compared to civilian organizations you compare them to.
Take away the weapons and the "you'll go and fight"-indoctrination from the military and they'll stay the helpful organization they are and probably will be even more helpful since they suddenly have a fortune of extra money to spent. Turns out weapons do cost a lot of money.

Random topic jump, Greenpeace apparently has gotten their hands on a very recent copy of the state of the TTIP talks. (english source)
Apparently they'll release the whole thing into the public tomorrow.
Drama As much as free trading sounds like an awesome idea, the way they currently handle the whole thing is pretty bad.