"Strong military" = meaningless phrase

[eridani]

I think that the expression "strong military" is totally empty of content. Null and void. Meaningless. Luckily, we can make it meaningful just by adding a few words. A military strong enough to do what? If the answer is "strong enough to defend our borders from attack," no problem with that. Our military certainly has to be strong enough to do that.

Strong enough to defend our interests? Who's "we"? The population of the US as a whole, or "the haves and the have mores"? The interests of those two populations are often diametrically opposed. It damned well does not benefit the general public to fight to make the rest of the world safe for dollar a day labor.

Strong enough to dominate the rest of the world? Well, excuse me, but fuck that! The Brits and the Soviets had to give up imperialism because they couldn't afford it. So will we--the only question is whether that will happen before or after we destroy ourselves internally.

[The Witch]

1. Truth in anagrams-> CREEPY!

"strong military" anagrams to

"martyrs toiling"

"mortality rings"

"martyrising lot"

:yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Our "strong military" is getting it's ass kicked in Iraq.

Unless holing up in well fortified bases is called victory. But, the politicians keep voting them more money for more useless toys for the generals to play with.

Anybody remember the "military industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about?

[eridani]

7. That's because genocide is (so far, at least) off the table

There is no conceivable way we can win the political war. No country that has ever been invaded by a foreign country will ever support ongoing domination by that country. (Note that the purpose of WW II was not to occupy Japan and Germany--the former attacked us and the latter declared war on us.)

The only military options for victory are a permanent garrison state which would require many more boots on the ground than we are likely to get, or killing off most of the population.

[TahitiNut]

3. Empire ...

[CornField]

4. $2,000 BILLION annually

That's how much a "strong military" is costing us when you include all aspects of the budget which go to current, past and future military spending (i.e., veterans benefits, current payroll, administrative, weapons development, weapons storage).

The republican congress, with support from the Bush Administration, has cut almost every program to help the working class and the poor in our nation. The military/defense budget continues to rise. Thus, a "strong military" is being built upon the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.

[sweetheart]

5. True isn't it

It is not really a strong military in defense-terms really, but
an unbendable intent to survive and prevail against violent opposition.
Yet, that is with defense. Defense is not talked about, secretly held,
and really about defense, that if not attacked, one would not realize
that defenders were there.

FOr offense, a strong military implies one that can threaten quickly,
that can do terrible damage anywhere on earth, as an act of political
violence, attempting to make facts on the ground when the white-masters
demand the plantation-taxes.

And white masters don't give a toss about slaves in a slave revolt,
as that has become the military purpose in life, to kill slaves.
The roman empire parallels have come full circle. There is no outside
enemy to this neo-roman imperium, but slaves from within.

[xchrom]

6. we're deep into the ''strong enough

to dominate the rest of the world'' phase.

popularized by ronald reagan's ''evil empire'' and brought to fruition through the suckering of the soviets in afghanistan and iran contra -- remember all the blow hard rhetoric re:communism on our door step.

this military however certainly does not serve the interests of the country -- it's serving somebody's interest but not the country's.

and that means -- fuckin freep trolls that our soldiers are not dying to protect and defend the country.
their dying -- but for nothing honourable.

[eridani]

8. The sock heel analogy

The heel area of a sock tends to wear out, and requires reinforcement for its "defense." However, a seriously stupid way to do this is to sew a square of thick sailcloth onto the heel with heavy hemp twine. All that will accomplish is to tear the rest of the sock to shreds. That is unfortunately how our military currently relates to the rest of our society. The smart way to reinforce a heel is to interweave extra thread of the same weight into the vulnerable areas--that's analogous to the current Swiss army, or the original vision of the Founding Fathers.

In designing any material object, reinforcing the areas that break first under testing is not always the right thing to do. Computer modeling that has been tested under real conditions shows that weakening the areas around the broken area will often make the object much stronger as a whole.