tpaine, you brought up why the military is an abusive entity and should be hindered but let me add some of my own points explaining why the military is being so awful.



If you want moral and legal support for reining in the military there has to be a political will and for there to be a political will you have to have a clearer understanding of what the military did in Iraq for example.



What was the overall strategy in Iraq?



Keep in mind this wasn't the plan from the beginning, just sort of happened. But basically what happened was the military began hoping Al Qaeda (less than 5% of the insurgency, mostly Saudis) would gain a foothold and kill innocent Iraqis so the U.S. military would have a common enemy that made the U.S. military not look as bad by comparison and then they could "save" the Iraqis from a problem the U.S. military itself created. If Al Qaeda didn't gain a foothold the U.S. military would have been fucked because the insurgency would have been Iraqis against a foreign military which was violating all of their rights so basically dead civilians was vital for the U.S. military strategy.



Think about it: If the U.S. military had a choice between innocent civilians dying and winning and innocent civilians living and losing, which would the average soldier choose? Do I really need to ask?



Note the average Iraqi citizen couldn't hide like a coward in a military base when things got tough and so they had to bear the brunt of the hatred the U.S. military created. Why is that?



Well, unlike their victims, those soldiers have a political voice and representation in this country. Someone like me can't act as a proxy for people who deserve far more sympathy than the average soldier ever did because the United States is a nationalist country.



The United States also won't subordinate itself before an international legal body which would give the weakest and poorest who are against what the U.S. military does any legal or political rights so any real change has to happen with individuals here who take it upon themselves to go against the inhuman majority. Your job is to drag those people out of subhuman territory by acting as their voice; basically somebody who would call the U.S. out for murdering all those Iraqi and Afghan peasants because the U.S. is too cowardly to face the Saudis who finance and produce most of the world's terrorists as a byproduct of their corrupt and illegitimate rule because they provide the United States with its cheap oil and high standard of living.



Now let's look at another decent political argument against the military.



Using this nation's own history and the average right-wing nationalist soldier's beliefs, you can make them look like ridiculous hyprocrites. Here's an example of how to do this:



Three major historical reasons why soldiers have zero credibility politically.



1. The United States had a revolution becaused it was taxed without representation after the British military saved the colonists from the French and Indians and (gasp) the colonists had to pay for it. That was considered the height of injustice.



Soldiers can go into places like Iraq and Afghanistan and torture, imprison, and kill people with no political or legal rights, no voice or representation in this country and have no mechanism through which they can punish soldiers and hold them accountable.



And soldiers are fine with it.



2. Ever hear of when the large standing army of the North infringed on Southern state's rights during the War of Northern Agression? Well, most of these soldiers themselves come from the South. What do they do when that mean large standing army infringes on the rights of foreigners?



First to sign up for it, first to hate and ostracize anyone who would speak against it.



3. Remember when a tank was used at Waco? Not to fire on it, but to take down the side of the wall of the compound? Civilians did die but I personally doubt the federal government wanted to burn dozens of civilians to death on live television in front of the entire world on purpose.



Didn't stop the Oklahoma city bombing. It's almost as if it didn't matter that it was an accident and that killing civilians still provokes a violent response regardless.



Now, how many people were punished for the Oklahoma city bombing? Two: Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh. Were there airstrikes on every right-wing militia compound in the country? No. If there were would federal buildings be blown up all over the Midwest? You better believe it.



If the Oklahoma city bombing was done by foreigners how many have been killed? Judging by the aftermath of 9/11: thousands.



Notice that when Tim McVeigh is brought up it's put within a domestic argument involving racial profiling (white people can be terrorists too) rather than a broad humanistic context illustrating that it really doesn't matter if you're an American citizen or Afghan or Iraqi, killing a bunch of innocent people is likely to have the same violent response. That's because the average American and, of course, the average soldier is nationalist and considers non-Americans different (read: subhuman).



See? Not hard.



Also note that 1.7 million Cambodians died because the U.S. military was considered top priority since the Viet Cong were using Cambodia to attack precious U.S. soldiers. The average Cambodian had no voice or representation in the United States and none in any international body that could exert reasonable pressure on the United States.



30,000 Pakistanis have also recently died because of the hatred protecting soldiers with predator drone strikes has created. If the Taliban are attacking U.S. soldiers then their deaths are a small price to pay for protecting the Pakistani population who have to deal with the terrorist backlash those strikes create. Of course, innocent people dying is vital to U.S. strategy and that fact would have to be pointed out and confronted in any argument against the U.S. military.



800,000 Rwandans died because the U.S. military lost 18 precious soldiers in Mogadishu. Once again the United States has proven that any ideal involving actually caring about genocide is worth nothing compared to the life of a precious troop.



Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans died because soldiers are considered top priority rather than civilians and ideals. Changing this is vital to any real political change against the U.S. military.



Occupy protestors are meandering around in the middle of the street and getting arrested on a misdemeanor because the majority don't care about what they have to say so they have to block traffic, but if you have a viable argument involving the considering of ideals and civilians over the lives of soldiers then that would likely have a more resonate effect. It's just then most people would want to kill you than just ignore you but at least you would have a real argument rather than "rich people bad, me want be more equal but economics hard so me no have specific demands."

Edited by internationalist ( Nov. 22, 2011 06:45:21 )