I see your point and yeah, I agree why should innocent people risk their lives for people who probably don't know when the safety is on or not. Although it has been an acceptable way of showing power for many, many years now...

In an ideal world disputes between countries would be settled with either:

A) Words.
B) The leaders stand on opposite podiums over a giant pit of goo and hit each other with big foam poles until one of them falls off.
C) Eating competitions.

But this isn't an ideal world and humans are violent creatures.
The fact that armies exist in countries without conscription show that this isn't an issue of leadership.
It's an issue of humans being willing and prepared to commit violent acts.

Personally, I have no more respect for soldiers over any other occupation, maybe even less respect.
I think their willingness to exist in a capacity which says that violence is not only OK, but that it can also be justified by the opinions of fallible leaders, only perpetuates the cycle of violence in the world.
How does training people to commit violent acts with more precision and effectiveness lower the rate of violence in the world?
It doesn't, it says to the world that it's OK for wars to happen, it demonstrates a willingness to participate in them.

We need people to say no to joining the military and not venerate them as heroes.

It's all because of greed and the demand for something.

The government isn't the one profiting from war. It's the private industries that are making all the money.
The only way to end warfare is to give the entire human species a lobotomy and keep us under the rule of a single dictator.

I get your idea, but understand that the government does not make money off war. Look at our last war (US), after 8 years of continuous war, we (the US) became bankrupt. The 2008-2009 housing market crash is dead proof of that. The government spends the tax payer money on guns, ammo, bombs, war ships, planes, etc. You constantly need that stuff, so they keep buying more and more and more which makes the US government broke (which funnels down and makes the middle class and below broke), but the companies that manufacture these guns, ammo, bombs, planes, etc. are making a killing. Sure the government gets a tax break, and I'm sure a steep discount, but they are still buying a ton of product.

The idea is that we don't understand politics. We as the normal citizen don't dedicate our lives to politics, we do computer engineering, we built stuff, we fly planes, we drive boats, we drive taxi's, we do plumbing, etc. A country needs people that understand politics, so that's where the politicians come in. Even though they seem to screw us over in every way possible, we need them to live. If they all die tomorrow, now you have a bunch of blue collar rednecks running the country, No offence beings that's who I am lol, but the point is, the people who will be left to run the country won't know what to do.

002 wrote I get your idea, but understand that the government does not make money off war. Look at our last war (US), after 8 years of continuous war, we (the US) became bankrupt. The 2008-2009 housing market crash is dead proof of that.

Although I agree with your first statement, the second isn't true. The war isn't what bankrupted us. Negligent and greedy bankers did.

Lavish wrote

002 wrote I get your idea, but understand that the government does not make money off war. Look at our last war (US), after 8 years of continuous war, we (the US) became bankrupt. The 2008-2009 housing market crash is dead proof of that.

Although I agree with your first statement, the second isn't true. The war isn't what bankrupted us. Negligent and greedy bankers did.

So billions and billions and billions of dollars that went into planes, ships, ammo, guns, training, etc. had no part in it?

EDIT: In 2014, we (the US) spend 618 billion dollars on the military. Second place, China, only spent 171 billion.

002 wrote

Lavish wrote

002 wrote I get your idea, but understand that the government does not make money off war. Look at our last war (US), after 8 years of continuous war, we (the US) became bankrupt. The 2008-2009 housing market crash is dead proof of that.

Although I agree with your first statement, the second isn't true. The war isn't what bankrupted us. Negligent and greedy bankers did.

So billions and billions and billions of dollars that went into planes, ships, ammo, guns, training, etc. had no part in it?

EDIT: In 2014, we (the US) spend 618 billion dollars on the military. Second place, China, only spent 171 billion.

Yes, we spent a lot of money on war, but that still isn't what caused the recession.
There were many factors that played into it, the war effort not being one of those.

They were giving out free money to people who didn't qualify for loans, several big banks went bankrupt, etc.
Here's a pretty good list -
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Lavish wrote

002 wrote

Lavish wrote

002 wrote I get your idea, but understand that the government does not make money off war. Look at our last war (US), after 8 years of continuous war, we (the US) became bankrupt. The 2008-2009 housing market crash is dead proof of that.

Although I agree with your first statement, the second isn't true. The war isn't what bankrupted us. Negligent and greedy bankers did.

So billions and billions and billions of dollars that went into planes, ships, ammo, guns, training, etc. had no part in it?

EDIT: In 2014, we (the US) spend 618 billion dollars on the military. Second place, China, only spent 171 billion.

Yes, we spent a lot of money on war, but that still isn't what caused the recession.
There were many factors that played into it, the war effort not being one of those.

They were giving out free money to people who didn't qualify for loans, several big banks went bankrupt, etc.
Here's a pretty good list -
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Think about it. If we spent what China spent (almost half of what we spent now), we would have an extra 447 billion dollar buffer zone. Our military spending with out a doubt plays into the depression (some may argue it was a depression, other recession, either way it happened).