Yeah, you'd think that. Unless of course you actually looked at the world around you. Then you'd realise no, we, as a whole, are not able to do that, at least not yet and probably not for a long time. Sucks, but it's true.

Again, everyone agrees the world would be better witohut war and famine and all that crap and that if everyone was more rational and genuinelly cared about each other we could start to walk that way. But that's just not how the world is and that's just not how it's gonna be for a long time.

Want to hate something, put your hate in the right place. As you said, it's not the army that starts a war, it's politicians. And they don't do that because they're evil politicians, they do that because they can and it's human nature. You may believe we're so different and above the rest of life. Well, we're not. In a sense we are, sure, and many of us have great capacity for empathy and clear thinking, but not we as a whole. Group thinking is inate to us, as is that us vs them mentality. Just look at a soccer game and think about it. We need a lot of conciouss effort and teaching to try and stop this natural mentality to rise and take control.

So I mantain your anger is misplaced. You hate this part of human nature, but you're still to give us a good reason to hate an army itself.

That's not actually true.  There are plenty of defensive only armies.  Though with military technology to be defensive you NEED to be offensive.  Otherwise there is no way to stop things like Missles.

Armies very much are the will of the people.  Unpopular wars pretty much don't happen.

Wars only become unpopular once the people who supported them realized they were fools for wanting them in the first place.

While the world on the whole may be better off without war, historically many individuals and nations have seen massive benefits from being highly aggressive; and it has only been in the last half century (or so) where the world banding together to counter aggression has made this strategy less successful. Only when being the aggressor becomes a "losing" strategy (when the costs involved greatly outweigh the potential gains) for every nation can the world truly achieve peace; and this can only be obtained if everyone has a viable military and is willing to interfere to preserve peace.

@pizzahut451:

And btw, how many women did you hear (or see on TV) going to war in Middle ages or any kind of warfare before fire weapons were introdced in th west???  War was always something men particapated in, only very few woman. You can try to spin that as much as you want, but thats a fact. And thats the way it should stay.

That's how it should stay? What kind of misogynist are you? And it's good of you that you mentioned the ""west" part. The reason why women were never warriors in the West was because the society was patriarchal, and women were raised and conditioned to behave in a certain way (non-violent, hating physical activities etc.). Men were also conditioned to behave a certain way and have certain ideeas about how women should act (and they appearently still are, just look at yourself). As I said though, in other societies (mainly in Africa) women did act as warriors, engaging in physical combat. And I remember reading about a tribe in Africa where women warriors would beat the crap out of the male European colonists, up 'till they started using firearms against them. Women could definately be dangerous opponents, if they actually spent time improving their physical condition, and trying to liberate themselves from western gender roles.

And if that land on which people live in gets invaded or attacked than my freedom and life depends on defending that land and its people. Cam you understand that? Of course, you dont, you've never experienced war yourself.

No one should be forced to serve. It's no ones duty. The same way the police force or the fire department are voluntary (meaning you have professional who work there, and it's actually their job to do that), the military should be voluntary, just like any other job. A voluntary draft is slavery (like someone else mentioned), and that has no place in a modern civilised state.

Also the conflicts that went on in your home country were due to nationalism, intolerance and other irrational reasons.Pointelss wars and conflicts as usual.

Oh, you're starting to realize,huh? How about living here for a while and than say something like that. Germans are annoyed by immigrants ( Turks, Iraqis and Kurds, to be more accurate, actually) because of whole other reasons, not their views on military.

What I meant by that was that I noticed lots of Western people are annyed by immigrants who move to their country, yet refuse to integrate, and keep considering themselves part of the ir country of origin. You are one of those people, because you immigrated to, and now live in Germany, yet you still consider yourself to be Serbian.

Just on a side note, very few societies throughout history have allowed women to be soldiers in a large part because women are physically not as well suited to being a soldier as a man is. This isn't sexist, or misogynistic, it is physics because a man is more physically able to put on 25 to 50 pounds of armor and swing a 5 pound sword while carrying a 5 to 10 pound shield.

With that said, the invention of firearms has reduced/eliminated the advantage men have when it comes to war; and there is nothing that says that women today could not be as good of a soldier as a man is.

While the world on the whole may be better off without war, historically many individuals and nations have seen massive benefits from being highly aggressive; and it has only been in the last half century (or so) where the world banding together to counter aggression has made this strategy less successful. Only when being the aggressor becomes a "losing" strategy (when the costs involved greatly outweigh the potential gains) for every nation can the world truly achieve peace; and this can only be obtained if everyone has a viable military and is willing to interfere to preserve peace.

That selfishness sounds so sad and depressing. What a terrible world.

As for the bolded part, a solution to tha tproblem would be the existence of a single world state.

@Farmageddon:

Yeah, you'd think that. Unless of course you actually looked at the world around you. Then you'd realise no, we, as a whole, are not able to do that, at least not yet and probably not for a long time. Sucks, but it's true.

There's a difference between "can't" and "don't" want to.

Sure, but their effects on reality are the same in this case.

Again, everyone agrees the world would be better witohut war and famine and all that crap and that if everyone was more rational and genuinelly cared about each other we could start to walk that way. But that's just not how the world is and that's just not how it's gonna be for a long time.

Yes, but as Ghandi said "you must be the change you wish to see in the world". If everyone person just sits back and waits for everyone else to take action, and for the world to change, then no change will ever take place. The reason why it will take such a "long time" is exactly because people often wat change, but wait aroud hoping other people take action.

Sure, by all means, be the change. Just be aware of the consequences of the change you bring about. We should do whatever we can to change what we feel is wrong, but we should base our change in reality and sustentability, not utopia and blind hope.

Want to hate something, put your hate in the right place. As you said, it's not the army that starts a war, it's politicians. And they don't do that because they're evil politicians, they do that because they can and it's human nature. You may believe we're so different and above the rest of life. Well, we're not. In a sense we are, sure, and many of us have great capacity for empathy and clear thinking, but not we as a whole. Group thinking is inate to us, as is that us vs them mentality. Just look at a soccer game and think about it. We need a lot of conciouss effort and teaching to try and stop this natural mentality to rise and take control.

I'm not impressed by such arguments like "it's human nature", or "it's innane in us". People should try to better themselves, and stop making stupid excuses. Your example of football games is good though (it's also linked to the desire to be part of a "tribe", a primitive need which isn't satisified by modern society).

I may not have expressed myself well but, again, that's not an argument for people nt to change but rather and explanation as to why things are the way they are and why it won't be easy to completely change that any time soon. The point there is that this very nature makes armies a necessity for now even if you don't plan on letting it take over yourself, since others will.

So I mantain your anger is misplaced. You hate this part of human nature, but you're still to give us a good reason to hate an army itself.

The reason why I dislike the army is because it's made up of people who lack individuality, who'd blindly follow someone, killing and destroing, all while thinking that what they're doing is right. Not to mention that they lack personal responsability, always blaming the one who gave them orders when they commit an atrocity, as if their free will just magically disappears when they're serving. Not all armies are evil, but all of them can be used for evil, as the soldiers will never know the difference, they'll just be "following orders".

It couldn't really work with people maintaining their individuality and questioning orders in there, and it needs to work. Look, I hate the way some armies are used, but the armies themselves are, unfortunatedly, still necessary.

Oh, and soldiers are alot more human than you seem to percieve them, lot's of them get pretty fucked up in the head because of it all.

The italics is very important, and it's true and that's my point. The real bad "guy" isn't the army, but whoever uses it that way.