Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Why do I need to name a nation?"

Because you said this: "Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Does that not imply that you think a country can survive without a military? Even a private military is still a military.

No the implication of that statement was that a country can only survive if there is a band of individuals [ the military ] who use coercion. I should of been more detailed but I didn't think you would outright agree that military force creates a nation. It is rather shocking.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals."

We already have that, they are called police and they do not defend this country.

There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Moral reasons for entering a war?"

Yes?

What are these moral reasons for entering a war?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?"

Babble babble babble? What are you trying to say?

Very simple. Government can externalize the costs of war onto their citizenry through taxation. No politician actually has to foot the bill. Corporations cannot do that obviously. So why would the consumer base pay for a war beyond corporations in which they do not profit from but retain all the costs for? [ This is of course baring the legality of it which is another argument ]

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?"

Think about it some more. I am not against gun control, but I am for tank control. Military grade weapons won't make people more violent, but the already violent people will now be able to receive military grade weapons. Plus the black market would explode, so don't give some spiel about background checks.

Black markets would 'explode'? Black markets are a result in the criminalization of certain items. They exist because there is still demand for products that governments ban. It is not as if criminals can't get military weapons now anyways.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed."

That is NOT defense! Listen to what I am saying because I will keep saying it until it is pounded into your head. There are still Nazis alive, did you know that? Does that mean the Nazis successfully defended Germany in WWII? Defending your country means retaining your government and your national identity, no interim periods of occupation are allowed.

How can you say what the Vietcong did wasn't 'defense' with a straight face? Were they just happening to attack French and US troops that just happened to be in the area? The reason that Nazis aren't in Germany right now isn't because we took over their government but because not enough of them still hold the ideology in that country. You can't kill ideas through guns but you can nullify an idea through reformation. If say 40% of Germany still believe in Nazism, would they still retain the same government they do today?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That doesn't address any of my questions."

Sure it does. I think I made it clear that there DOES NOT have to be a world super power, and then I explained why is DOES NOT MATTER. That is how society naturally evolved, now that we have reached that point I think there is no return. No matter how much you romanticize the return to the stone age, you will not convince the world that progression is bad. We are on to new frontiers and we are not looking back.

Right, US has a pre-determined destiny to police the world. You are the one who is romanticizing your silly position. You cannot coherently state that the world doesn't require a super power but through the mysteries of progression the US has been hand picked by the forces of history to be a super power and we should not shrink from this duty.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest."

It's called unemployment and it isn't worth losing your life over. Is a person more likely to fight for the Bank of America or the the country of America? Most people don't have a lot of pride in their company unless they own it and the owners won't be fighting. They fight for a pay check and that is all, if one business goes under, they find someone else. There's no such thing as fighting for corporate pride.

Well if one were to fight for a business and such a business fails, how likely is one to be viewed as a positive employee in another business?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests."

I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.

argument ad populum.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization."

What?

You said there are people who won't fight for money. Obviously they will not be private security providers. However, there are people who will.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?"

Re-read my paragraph, the answer is in plain sight. A conflict between corporations can never legitimately turn to violent force to solve said conflict.

If defending their property, why not?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Actually I think that is your transgression."

Now I know for sure you aren't paying attention. Go back and read carefully.

No you are displaying the state as some grand institution which defends all and forgoes all pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security."

This doesn't make sense. You said that the nations of the world would not tolerate an illegitimate war started by a corporation, I said you were wrong. How does the free-market have anything to do with that?

I didn't say nations, I said people. Nations are not rational agents. They cannot act. Individuals can act. You stated that the government can fork out security jobs to private industries. I don't believe the government should engage in corporatism or crony capitalism which is essentially favoring certain businesses or markets over others. The free market is devoid of government regulation and interference.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen' "

Seriously, are you really reading what I am writing or am I wasting my time? It isn't their job to be in complete control of every threat in existence on account of it's physical impossibility.

Then to that extent, the government doesn't defend our rights or us and is therefore lying in its claim to be our agents/protectors.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

We could be invaded by Russia and they could destroy all of our cities and kill millions of people, as long as we eventually push them out, the government would have successfully defended the country.

That is absolutely ridiculous if that were to happen. Millions of people hypothetically die but somehow it was a success? You obviously have a bizarre notion of defending a nation or do you mean defending a government? What you label success wouldn't be to individuals who are killed nor their families but if you mean to say that politicians survive and their lives become unaffected by the events, if that is success then I think you are pointing out a powerful claim against yourself. That government only cares about retaining its power in a geographical local and that citizenry are expendable to a certain point.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Obviously the goal is not to allow that much destruction, but you can't cite 9/11 as proof that the government is incapable of defending itself. You know damn well it could crush any nation foolish enough to cross into our borders.

No. I don't think the military could crush any nation right now. But it is obvious that no nation is just going to simply paradrop soldiers within our borders. I mean come on this isn't Red Dawn. No we will be brought to our knees financially, the dollar will collapse and one of two things will happen. We will either get a international currency and start the process over again or we will go back to a commodity based money. I hope its the second option.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Nobody is using the excuse "these things happen," those are your words.

Well I didn't say you explicitly said them. I said it is implicitly in your argument. You shrug off 9/11 as if it is some kind of exception with extenuating circumstances.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat.

Terrorism isn't some new fad and we are certainly not in control of it. If anything what we are doing is making it worse.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

National security agents unfortunately do not posses the capability to read minds or predict the future, which means they can only effectively focus on the most important threats, like a nuclear missle pointed in our direction or more recently, airport security. Your expectations are completely unrealistic for mortal beings and even your magical corporations couldn't provide such flawless security.

I'm not asking them to read minds. I don't see how asking them to do what they have been paid to do is somehow unrealistic. If they can't do it properly then we shouldn't baby them because of what they are. I demand protection without sacrificing rights or living under coercion and I will have my demands meet by someone for the right amount of money. If government can't do that then they should step out of the way and stop their monopoly choke hold on those who wish to satisfy my demand and the demands of others.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity."

Good idea. Lets turn our security system into a giant cluster fuck of corporations trying to prove to everyone that they provide the best security.

Ah yes, you are actually making a complaint that Marxists usually give to the free-market. 'It's anarchy!' they say. I mean look at all these food providers who are trying to prove they produce the best food, it's madness! I mean if only we could have one food provider and thus one choice in the matter, then everything will be solved and we would all go without want.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Since when does the private sector collaborate with the government? How do you avoid redundancies?

Redundancies in protection? Very simple, contractual agreements. It could be individuals or groups of individuals who come together to enlist the aid of private security.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do many small corporations work better than one coherent, organized force?

The same reason the free market beats governmental programs. It establishes a real supply/demand curve, real profit incentive, efficiency through competition and a rise in the standard of living through lowering prices.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How do you synchronize the whole operation? A strong, coherent, organized force is the only way to truely provide thorough security. Its not like there are people multi-tasking, there are separate sectors that are completely dedicated to one aspect of security. Keep in mind we are talking about defending against the large scale attacks on a country, we already contract security forces for small scale operations.

Honestly, have you ever seen how corporations work? 'Its not like there are people multi-tasking'? Are you kidding? What the hell do you think Wal-mart, perhaps the lamest company in the US, does? I mean honestly, what do you envision them doing right now with over a thousand stores in the country?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US. "

The greatest value of the pentagon lies not with the physical building but its employees, the four star generals and all other high ranking officials. How much time out of the year do you think they actually spend in the pentagon? How often are they all in there at once?

Destroying vital communication equipment and killing off generals is a pretty god damn good way of crippling a military.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do you think we have a ranking system? I'll give you a hint, it's a very elaborate system designed to have a predetermined line of succession just incase a superior officer is killed. If any high ranking officer is killed, we have highly qualified and highly trained individuals ready to step up. Smart huh? You act like the entire United States military is permanently stationed in the pentagon.

Yes I know, I nearly went through OCS. However, who is the first person you target in an ambush or who is the first target for a sniper? The leader. Why? Because it creates confusion, distorts command structure and destroys moral. Killing off the top generals of a military and destroying their communication array is again a great god damn way to cripple a military. Sure you have some bumpkin one star general in some god awful bunker in Colorado but after destroying the Pentagon there would be a rush to establish communication, establish leadership roles, organize remaining forces, assess the threat, formulate mission statements, etc. all this while having a primary communication source destroyed and all this while the enemy is prepping for attack or in the process of attack. I never said that one could destroy the entire military at the Pentagon. I said that one could cripple the entire military. Destruction comes after the crippling if the crippling is sever enough.