Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan
You feel free to dismiss the opinion of a professional soldier. You feel qualified to state the primary function of a military without any facts or support for your position. You think you know the role of defence/deterrence is to stand in a line to be shot at at leisure.
I think I will listen to someone that has been there and been trained before you. People that think they know better just because they pay the taxes piss me off. Pick up a rifle and walk the wall or just say thank you, to misquote the line.
As I said you are free to have an opinion, no matter how misinfored it may be and inspite of what a professional tells you.
|
I guess I should spell this out to make it clear for you since my OP seems to have gone over your head. I propose that an army's primary role is to stand in a line and look menancing. I mean this in a figurative way. No country wants to be invaded, which is a key reason for building an army - defence/deterrence. Armies/countries like to display their power (eg North Korea's Nuclear testing) in a menacing way. I have a large army so don't invade/threaten me or I will kick your ass. I have a nuke so don't invade me or I'll drop da bomb on you. North Korea has the bomb so it is
very unlikely anybody is going to invade them any time soon. They are standing in a line and looking menancing and it is deterring aggression towards them. Again, the primary purpose of a military, IMO.
The OKA example was a literal interpretation of the stand in a line and look menancing, but it was following the same global logic as above.
I didn't think I needed to cite sources for you on such a basic and obvious concept. And we certainly don't need a professional soldier to help us with that.
As for the opinion of a professional soldier, btw, bfd. I don't mean that as a disrespect to him, but I don't see how his opinion on matters such as these is any more valid than mine. I'm sure he knows a million things about battle strategy, use of fire arms, etc. that I don't have a clue about, but that isn't what we're talking about here.
In fact, if you've ever spent any amount of time talking to Americans in forums about the occupation of Iraq, the soldiers that have been there always have the most biased view of all. They'll say things like "we're doing a lot of good work out there" and "I've lost some good friends fighting for our freedom" etc. But what they miss a lot of the time is the broader issues, like the fact that they are a party to an unprovoked attack and occupation of a foreign country. I
always take what soldiers say with a grain of salt.