I have waited as long as I could to say this to WC. Good thing I remembered that this was not the Pit, otherwise I would have gotten into trouble. But for Fu I mean for gosh sake, do you (WC) really fail to understand that without a military you do not have a country? All you have is a land mass, and some natural resources that might as well have a big target painted on it that basically says “Come and get it”. And if history proves anything, it proves that the first country with a military is going to take both the land and the natural resources from you. I promise you they will not give a rats ass about all your protests and complaints about how unfair it is. I am usually called by that nasty word Liberal, I do not support the current military posture of this country and I despise the havoc imposed on our economy by the defense industrial complex (read HALLIBURTIN) but I do realize that national sovreignty can only be purchased with bullets.
Other uses for the military:
- PR gimmick, drum up nationalism.
- Camouflage to disguise the movement of funds in questionable manners for dubious purposes.
- Keep some of the population busy (those volatile young men with poor educations, for example).
- Another channel to give special treatment and privileges to those in power.
Um, what? Dude, you seriously need to chill. I’m guessing as to what the content of your post is, but I didn’t call anyone a pansy. Go back and read what I wrote again. All I said, in a facetious way, was that some countries might center part of their national identity upon having a military even if all other reasons for having one were removed.
Minor nitpick- according to the Ye Olde CIA World Factbook , Japan has the 4th highest military spending in the world, behind the USA, China, and France, and just ahead of Germany and the UK. I still agree that having all those ships and tanks and airplanes, and not calling it a military is quite silly.
That’s not exactly correct- what I’ve been taught in my political science classes is that to be a country, other countries need to recognize you as a sovereign nation. What is sovereignty? Basically, you have a government that has control over the territory of the state and laws therein, and is not subject to a foreign power. If other nations recognize that this is the case, you have a country. Sovereignty, not militaries, define what makes a nation.
Of course, I’m being a bit cute here - the fact of the matter is that one of the most important measures of sovereignty is the ability to prevent foreign control of your territory - this almost always requires a military. So a military is almost always necessary for sovereignty, and sovereignty is required to be a nation. But a military does not a nation make - warlords have militaries after a fashion, and territory they’ll control, but no one will usually recognize them as sovereign states.
Panama also doesn’t have a military. The “Panama Defense Forces,” previously known as the “National Guard,” were constitutionally abolished after Noriega was deposed. Some of the police, especially those who patrol the Colombian border, essentially act as soldiers, although they are not really a match for the Colombian guerillas active in the area. Although the border police are armed with automatic weapons, they do not have the kind of heavy weapons (tanks, fighter jets) that a true army would possess.
Actually, he barely got started. Lichtenstein doesn’t have a military (defense is the responsibility of Switzerland), Monaco doesn’t have a military (defense is the responsibility of France), Kiribati doesn’t have a military, Tuvalu doesn’t have a military …
Basically, there are some fly-specks of real estate that, due to accidents of history, are “sovereign”, and nobody cares to argue otherwise. Usually a geographic neighbor or country with close cultural / economic ties to the fly-speck has enough of a vested interest in the situation to pledge protection of its status.
As noted, the distinction between a military and a police force or coast guard can be fuzzy, which is why the CIA fact book often mentions these organizations under the “military” heading while noting that a nation has no actual military.
I disagree. The Iraki case is very peculiar since it oposed an impoverished country and the most powerful army on this planet. But most countries don’t expect their millitary to fight off the americans, but to fight whatever neighbour they might be in poor terms with. Hence, as long as your military is strong enough to ward off these potential ennemies, it’s useful even if you don’t overbuild it just in case the US would attack you.
Yes. But you don’t need a military for these tasks. They’re are used for these purpose because they happen to be conveniently here and not needed for more serious tasks. If there weren’t a need for militaries for other purposes, there would be instead civil services in charge of these operations, like say the “protection civile” here, probably better suited for these tasks (because they would be trained specifically and only for them) and probably much cheaper (because they wouldn’t need missiles, for instance). Also, as some posters said, some “militarized” services in charge of these activities are “military” only in name, and would be unable to handle actual military operations.
So, the need of rescuers in case of, say, earthquake doesn’t explain why there are militaries.
That might be true for Malta, but I’m not sure how your three ships would invade the landlocked Andorra and Vatican :;
Just to mention that the Vatican Swiss guards, despite their colorful outfit and halberds, are actually all trained soldiers, and are also equipped with modern weapons. Not preparing a revenge against Italy, but of course in order to be able to actually protect the buildings and officials (and specifically the pope, of course).I just don’t get the issue you have with the OP’s question…even less how it could make you ill to read, for instance, that someone is wondering why Switzerland has a standing army. 
That’s fine and dandy, except for the fact that the japanese “non-army” is considered amongst the most powerful and well-equiped military in the world. That’s the contrary of the cases we were discussing above. Something which is an army in everything except in name.
And constitutions (or their interpretation) may change (or just plainly be ignored) if need be.
I guess you missed the part where I said :
Is ther something unclear about that statement? I will attempt to elaborate if you wish.
Furthermore, the guy from Iceland never suggested that they could invade a “landlocked” country. He jokingly said “Go to war with” the fact that he happened to mention Icelands two ships in the same post, does not suggest that he was claiming the ability to invade the Vatican by ship. :rolleyes:(I am aware you were just trying to be witty, I just didn’t think it was that witty) :rolleyes:
I have got some bad news for you.
What is wrong with relying on others for protection? Don’t countries already deeply rely on each other for things like armaments, oil, technology, etc? This is why UN sanctions can be a very effective weapon of diplomacy, because no country is truly independent, not even countries that try their damndest like North Korea are independent.
Because by the time they get there to help you, you’re already dead. See Poland, Stalingrad, and the Philippines in World War II, and Kuwait 1990 for examples.
Umm… just as an FYI Haliburton is to the Military Industrial Complex what your local Wal-Greens is to the city it’s in.
Seriously. There’s a lot of H bashing that goes on around here. For the life of me I have to wonder how many of those bashers actually understand what H (and subsidiary KB&R) actually do.
They hire civilians to cook meals, using meat they fly in, to an airport they built, and also clean the dirty dishes in the dining hall they built on they base they created out of nowhere. Because it’s cheaper (yeah, it is, a lot actually) to have them do it then to have a US/UK/French/Italian/German Army construction battalions and mess battalions and logistics battalions try and do it.
You don’t seriously think Haliburton works only for the US Gov’t, do you? They’re a contract services company with 120 subsidiaries and 96,000 employees that specializes in construction, logistics and support on every continent on the planet, including antarctica. They do their work in hard, nasty, ugly places most of us can’t even imagine for every major gov’t. And guess what, there’s almost no one who can replace them. There are only two or three major companies that do this sort of worldwide services and support activities and large scale engineering.
You wanna talk about Military/Industrial complex, go talk to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. A combined 54 BILLION dollars in revenues, most of which was from the Military or Gov’t sector.
Haliburton is who these guys go to when they need Northern quilted toilet paper in Tajikistan. They’re also who AT&T goes to when they need TP in Angola and who NASA goes to when they’re thinking about drilling on Mars. The demonization is just silly, in a place devoted to fighting ignorance.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: I’m not trying to be a H cheerleader and I don’t work for them, but people, please, Haliburton doesn’t design or deploy any weapons systems. Walmart is probably a bigger component of the MI complex than Haliburton is.
No, actually I think it is the other way around. :rolleyes:
So in your world view only defense contractors or weapon manufacturers are part of the Military Industrial Complex? :rolleyes:
You may not be trying to be a cheerleader for Halliburton, but you are succeeding extremely well. :rolleyes:
WC:
:rolleyes: 
I am still waiting on the bad news you promised. :rolleyes:
Quick, roll your eyes some more, your sighing teenage angst didn’t come across completely enough.
So define the military/industrial complex. Do you even know what it is? And why Haliburton ISN’T part of it?
Here’s a clue. The definition:
Noun 1. military-industrial complex - a country’s military establishment and the industries that produce arms and other military equipment; “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”–Dwight David Eisenhower
Work with me here. Haliburton NO MAKEE-MAKEE systems of war. Therefore NO part of MI complex.
Or is that too deep for you :rolleyes:
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: I’ve worked alongside KB&R guys in places like Kosovo. Believe me when I say it takes a unique person to do what they do in the places they do it. I doubt I’d ever work for them (I love full time electricity and hot water on demand too much), but most of the folks I met were solid professionals with a few more flamboyant types thrown in to keep things interesting.
Stepping away from the political hijack…
yeah, it’s pretty clear they DO have a military, and calling it a “Self-Defense Agency” is just political fig-leafing to keep up appearances. They use of one of the common dodges – that the troops are considered civil servants. Yeah right. But it looks, walks, and quacks like an army/navy/air force.