[DESS]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

My question is relevant because your assertation of what the definition of "a soldier's purpose" is, is either worthless or correct depending on your background.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think your opinion falls into and the first two don't dount.

My question is especially relevant because you are arguing the point with a man who was once a soldier himself.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think HIS opinion falls into and the first two don't count.

You don't have to be an expert on the subject to have an opinion, but a little exposure to reality goes a long way in being more correct than incorrect.

I've already addressed your point in a previous post. Here are my thoughts on an army's role. I don't need to wear a uniform to see the obvious.

Originally Posted by DESS

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.