Explain?

Are we talking about militaries invading for poor reasons? Or are we talking about the actions of specific individuals within a military?

Either way, you can't generalise like that. Just because a government or individuals in a military are bad eggs, doesn't mean you should define an entire army as detrimental to worldwide stability. Most members of a military are simply patriotic, or feel like their people are worth that ultimate sacrifice that they may well make.

Of course, if you think that militaries simply existing destabilises world peace, then in a way, you're right. The first caveman who got a bunch of his mates and went and killed his neighbours definitely upset the balance. The neighbours banding together rebalanced it.

If one country has a military, then it can easily take down a no-military country the moment it decides that there are things it wants in that country. If both countries have militaries, then the first country is less likely to go and take the country by force, and more likely to open negotiations.

Banned for stuff.

Good good.

So I'm guessing you hate PMCs then.

But nonetheless what you mean is that you dislike a military who doesn't take responsibility for the actions of its members? That's fair enough. I think the most serious offence I've heard of recently is a pair of British soldiers in Germany getting drunk, insulting a bunch of people and starting a brawl. They're not soldiers anymore.

Except for those suicides at an army base. Problem is, you can't really prove who was making their life hell when they bottled it up, not talking about it until they killed themselves, when it's too late.

Banned for very good explanation of reasoning.

So which militaries do you think are lacking in disciplinary procedures?

And friendly fire. Not saying any military's innocent of it, but after the two A10 pilots fired on a British convoy, the two pilots were sucked straight out of Afghanistan to somewhere in America where nobody foreign could ask them any questions.

Surely if they were asked why they fired on a group of armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, we'd be able to better identify our convoys so it wouldn't happen again.

Of course, don't know why a group of armoured vehicles would be considered hostile when the Taliban has nothing like that kind of thing, but I suppose that the same applies to the Challenger 2 which fired on another Challenger 2, believing that it could be an enemy tank when it showed up on thermal. I know that you react differently in a wartime situation, but surely common sense would tell you that the Taliban probably wouldn't have that kind of tech. Not disrespecting our guys out there, but some of these accidents seem to be, in a sad way, rather silly.

That's what I was somewhat more subtly implying, but oh well...

I mean, if you think about it, a scared soldier in the midst of, say, urban (as in close-quarters) combat shooting somebody as they round a corner into them is one thing, but an aircraft (which, at the moment, is pretty much untouchable in Afghanistan) firing from complete safety is something that the pilot had time to think about, it wasn't kill or be killed, and the convoy wasn't moving out of the A10's reach. Same with the Challenger 2, though I suppose there is the added factor that a single shell can kill a tank, but any tanks the Taliban could get there hands on probably couldn't take down a modern Western tank. I mean, look at Iraq. Scimitars (a sort of light tank/recon vehicle often used with Challengers to find threats before the Challengers do) destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the Challengers did, simply because even a light tank from the 1970 was practically impervious to Iraq's poor quality shells and tank training, and could punch straight through the Iraqi armour with a 30mm cannon.

Did you know that an Iraqi tank crew could only have one practice shot per year? That's how little tank ammo they had.

If there was no army, there'd be private militia run by the richer people in the area. Then we'd have war within countries. BTW, if we were to all stand down in the West along with any allies in other countries, do you reckon that, say, North Korea would? No, because it's run by a loony with a busted economy. I bet he'd love to take over the newly-pacifist South Korea for its resources, and,unless he suddenly got better at running the country, South Korea would sink to the poverty of North Korea. Israel would have the crap beaten out of it by its surrounding nations if it stood down. China (who doesn't care what the rest of its allies do really) would take Taiwan. What could we do to stop them? Trade bans? On China, the single largest exporter of goods possibly in the world, certainly in Asia? Mutually Assured Economic Destruction.

So in conclusion, there will be militaries as long as you have people who see the advantages to having a whole lot of people with guns who will usually do what you tell them.

Banned because world peace is a slow process.

Banned because I see the point of a standing army. I do not, however, see the point of an over-sized, horribly flawed standing army like the US has. That thing sucks up a good third of the American deficit, second only to social security or Medicare (I forget which, and it might actually be third to both of them, but still, big-a$$ money sucker).

Banned because unfortunately a lot of people assume that the military approach to "counterterrorism" is at all effective. With organic, theocratic organizations like the Taliban, killing the grunts just encourages more people to join them, especially if you kill civilians while doing it.

The Twin Towers mean anything to you? London Underground Bombings? I nearly lost my dad and an aunt to one of those bombs, and quite a few people did lose relatives and friends. The 9/11 bombers would have hit more than just the Twin Towers as well, but guys on the aeroplanes sacrificed themselves to stop that happening.

For the record, how many times has Greece suffered terrorist attacks? I don't count many in your lifetime, though be free to tell me otherwise. So yeah, I'm sure these terrorists are really nice guys who are protecting their families and friends by killing themselves and others. Not soldiers, oh no. Civilians. So don't tell me it's about our soldiers one day going to Iraq that caused terrorists to blow up the Twin Towers pre-emptively.

It wasn't invasions that were worrying. Iraq was highly suspected of having chemical and biological weapons. Saddam Hussein claimed he had them, though he never showed them to investigators. He had used chemical weapons before. Therefore, I think that it's better to play it safe and invade. Of course we could have let Israel sort it out. Bloody mess that would've been.

I don't care whether some Yanks have an itchy trigger finger (note how I don't generalise. Some yanks, not all) or not. I have a right to protect my country against those who hate it. Britain doesn't have a history of many civilian killings this century or last century.

You've got something intelligent to say to it? My point is that someone will always pick up a gun, because it gives them a leg up over the next guy.

For the record:

I shall take this opportunity to remind you that I am British. We do things differently to the Americans, just as you do things differently to us. Though to be fair, the USA is representative of your country as it is of mine, so I'm sure you can hate your military for all the civilians that America has killed.

Banned for still numbering your points. Just because I want to join the army doesn't mean I can't count.

Banned because I think you are more or less justified in being angry at him. He is being rather indescriminate about who is actually responsible for the militarism. That sort of I-don't-care-who-gets-hurt-as-long-as-I-hit-a-guy-with-a-turban (or in your case a helmet) attitude sounds a lot like.... I dunno..... the USAF.

Banned because I spent Thanksgiving at home, not at Grandma's. She lives twenty minutes away.

It's raining.

ROTFLMAO

Ha ha, dont tell me that you believe that the twin towers was a terrorist attack?? Nice joke

Oh you do believe it? Oh poor poor Snipe....

I dont know much about that so I cant really say anything. I'll take your word for it though.

Ooooh those poor fellows, they SACRIFICED themselves to stop the terrorists from hitting bigger buildings than the Twin Towers! Thats so tragic!!

Wait whaaaat? The Twin Towers were the 2 tallest buldings in New York?? But Snipe implied that the "terrorists" only hitting the Twin Towers was fortunate, that there are other, bigger targets to hit, with more potential casualties.

Non-sense, we must be glad that these guys sacrificed themselves. They are heroes!

...........

The US government seems to be specialized in making the whole world, believe whatever they want them to believe. If someone wants to investigate the 9/11 matter, they might find more than they were expecting to. Otherwise, just believe whatever your president tells you, and be a good citizen.

Many times, although every single one of these attacks has been executed by greek terrorists, and since  they dont threaten any country other than Greece, you might not even classify them as terrorists. There are many terrorist organizations here, but none is really dangerous enough to cause whole wars to happen. The most infamous one is called "17 Νοέμβρη". Plus there arent exactly any skyscrapers in greece, you know.

I never said that. You are constantly putting words in mouth, and this is the 3rd time you've done this. Pretty mature.

I just said they arent as Evil as you think.

God, you really are immature, you know that? Does it really matter who started it?? I'm sure that "those evil sons-of-the-Devil terrorists started these wars", but that doesnt mean that you should kill as many people as you'd like to, just to get revenge.

Btw, you, the "good guys" have killed quite a lot of civilians as well. So dont try to tell me that you are the saints, and they are evil, ok?

Meh, why am I telling you all that? Your moto is: "kill more people than our enemies", well, go ahead and do so. That doesnt make anything better though. It just makes things a lot worse. Like I already said, if a terrorist wants to bomb a building and kill hundreds of people, they WILL succeed 90% of the time, and you cant stop them

If you cant understand all that, then I'm sorry for you. If you do, then stop making excuses, and avoiding common sense.

I pretty much already said my piece.

So what? The United States of America has more Nuclear weapons than all of the rest of the world's countries put together. That doesnt mean that EU or China should go ahead and invade USA killing hundreds of people, just because they are dangerous.

And DONT you DARE tell me that USA doesnt use them. Dont you dare say that. I dont have to mention Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the Americans displayed an incredible amount of "dangerous" there.

And how on earth can you be so dumb? Honestly, I dont want to offend you, but come on!!

You said: "Saddam Hussein claimed he had bio-weapons, he had used them before...." etc. Declaring a war with the people that have these biological weapons, is like poking a sleeping dragon. Its like saying: "Come on, use those weapons of mass destruction, we DARE you."

Try to push them a little more please, that way they might actually use them, kill millions of people, and then you (MAYBE) might realize that you shouldnt have poked that dragon in the first place.

What? Whats that? You are gonna nuke the bastards?? Yeah that will solve the problem, man. Why dont you go ahead a destroy the whole planet and exterminate mankind, how does that sound? Will that solve the terrorist problem? I guess it will.

Naivety is your worst enemy.

I know you dont care. I can see that, quite clearly. If you did, then you wouldnt be saying all that crap.

Then go ahead and protect your country, by going to another country and kill as many people as you are instructed to, or as many as you want, for that matter.

And by the way, nobody has the right to take another human being's life. I dont see how you specifically got that right.

Also, if you think you are protecting your country, and that you are some kind of hero, or fit in a group of heroes/saviors, then go ahead and do so. Whatever makes you sleep at nights mate.

Yes, I do have something to say, but I didnt bother to do so:

Your are so damn naive, you know so little, that even if someone presented real live evidence in front of your eyes, you would not believe anything else other than your own personal beliefs. So I dont see how something I might say, can change these beliefs. But anyway, since you asked/provoked me.....here it goes.

These people picked up a gun, for a reason. Because something happened, and forced them to pick a gun in the first place. Then, somewhere along the way, that changed, and it became pure hatred towards certain countries/nations because they got really desperate.

Instead of saying: "These people hate, and threaten my country, so its my duty to protect my people." you could at least investigate a little, and find out what happened and forced them to pick up a gun and fight.

FYI, most terrorists hate the United Nations, and more specifically the USA, because something happened long before you were even born, and it caused them to fight, and retaliate against the real terrorists. Because most powerful nations, including the USA, seem to want to get as much profit as they can, from millions of people living (and dying) in misery, often dont getting a chance to live. Why? Because these countries, these governments are the real terrorists. I dont know the real reasons as to why they (the real terrorists) are doing this. They just want profits.

So when when this happens originally, when these people dont even have enough food or water to live, and not only they dont get ANY help from powerful and rich countries like the USA and the UK, but instead they steal whatever riches and energy sources they have left in their soil, then you can imagine that YES, they do hate these countries and they want to see them suffer like they themselves do.

All this happens, while at the same time the USA have the money and resources to feed 3 times more people than the whole starving population of Africa. They can do that, if they stopped feeding this powerful and hungry machine, called "military". Its pretty scary, if you think about it.

But why dont they do it? Why dont they help these poor people? It would be written in history forever with golden ink, if the Americans, and/or other nations did that. But why, why dont they do it??

The answer is very simple and scary at the same time: They dont want to. They want to remain powerful and wealthy, at the top of the pyramid, while at the same time other people suffer for it.

So my answer is this: Someone will always pick up a gun and fight, because THEY WANT TO LIVE, because they dont want to suffer, because they dont like being abused and being killed like they do, because they have become desperate, because they cant stand this whole f*cking system, because they hate these terrorists called *insert any nations name here*, because some people pushed them really hard, because they are human beings.

It doesnt take too much wisdom or intelligence to understand all that. It doesnt take much willpower to find out the truth. It doesnt take much humanity to see and understand something bad that happened to a person you have never met.

If someone wanted to get his brain un-brainwashed, he can do so very easily.

It seems as though you cant read though:

I said: "I took USA as an example only, regarding counter-terrorist tactics and policy."

And you quoted this part in your post. USA is the best example of all that, so I am constantly referring to them.

Banned for all of the above.

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."

Banned because I was referring to your apparent inability to discriminate between actual supporters of dangerous, destabilizing militaries and supporters of the military of people who sort of look like those supportes but have cooler accents.

I'm not saying you would be willing to shoot Oatsey, but it's really the spirit of the thing.

Well, let's get started.

So you do disagree, that much is obvious. However you also disagree to lay down your "weapons" of debate/argument. Interesting.

It certainly fits my definition of a flamewar, which is a discussion that rapidly turns into... something less pleasant where one or both parties find themselves in violent unresolvable disagreement with one another. Basically, neither of us cares what the other is saying, and virtually shouting unheeded arguments at one another isn't very productive. It's also scared away the population of the Banned Game.

So you refuse to "agree to disagree." You do understand the term, right? It means to both lay down your weapons (of debating) and move on. If you refuse to do so, then we will both achieve... nothing. Neither of us has anything to gain from continuing this debate. As you have noticed, I'm not even going to comment on your post before this one, except for one thing. You are just as guilty as I am of putting words in your fellow debater's mouth.

I never said or implied this.

I never said or implied this either.

I was showing my disagreement as to whether the theory would work in practice. I don't need the approval of a bunch of people on a forum to be clever.

No, I don't think it is.

I never said they were evil. The leaders perhaps, depending on their motives. If it's personal power, then yes, I don't think they are very good people. If it's fear or wanting to help their country, then I would say they are misguided. If I wanted to resolve a disagreement with America, armed conlict would not be on my list of options. I wouldn't win that way. There is a reason that the military takes up 1/3 of their deficit.

And finally,

I am not the USA.

I could go into more detail, but I would achieve nothing.

Consider this one step towards world peace.

Good day to you sir.

I shall ban Scoutdog for his loyalty to the Ban Game. Jolly Good Show, Sir.

Banned for, Manchester accent sounds really cool.

And if you were born in the UK, then you'd probably have a British accent. Can you say "Bollocks" with an accent?

No, I didnt understand the term. Now I do, though (lol).

I will lay down my weapons because of this:

Very well Snipe, very well done indeed   You have proved yourself to me.

I shall now grant you the title of Sir Anti-Troll. You have permanent immunity from now on.

Overall, I have to admit I am a little surprised of your skillz.

I could have pushed you a little further, but I thought that this level was enough to make you snap. Before Altaux comes in, and says that I FAILED, allow me to say that I could have kept this going for days, but I just dont want to drive everyone away from the Ban game. (they are all gone already.....) (except for SD)

He he, you have passed my test

Good day to you too.

*Alpha_Snipe003 resist troll (20) check: 18 + 3 = 21*

*Alpha_Snipe003 resist troll success* *Immune* *Immune* *Immune*

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."