Not incorrect. I know what my nations military and police are for. Maybe in where ever the fuck you are from it's not, but where I'm from I know damn well it is.Bubbalo wrote:
Incorrect. The police job is to uphold laws, even if the benefit the government more than the people. The army's job is to kill what they're told to kill, sometimes to keep the people safe, sometimes to keep the government safe, sometimes to keep the economy safe.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Common goal of both = keeping the people safe.
Well then why haven't they intervened in places like Rwanda and Sudan? Or do your nations values include genocide?
You make many good points but the peace you talk of never existed.- you won the war in the end and many years of relative peace ensued. I didn't see ye attacking any 'potential' or 'maybe' enemies.
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Grenada
Lebanon
Kosovo
And that's ignoring all the covert wars in Africa S.America and Asia.
Last edited by Snakestyles (2006-06-13 04:15:11)
are you refering to this post ?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Read up a bit. I said something about imperialism and democracy. It gets annoying repeating yourself over and over again even when you made your point in your first damn post. I don't like to go into large detail everytime but for some reason people can't figure things out when I put it simply.B.Schuss wrote:
now, that's an interesting point of view. Isn't it rather:Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Basic principle of the police - to uphold the the peace of domestic affairs
Basic principle of the military - to protect and uphold a nations values
If you can't see the similarities you are dumber than I thought.
Police - upholds and enforces national laws inside the nation's borders
Military - protects the nation's against foreign enemies and military aggression from outside
"to protect and uphold a nation's values" - what's that supposed to mean ? Sounds like a justification for nearly unlimited use of a nation's military forces....
what does that have to do with me questioning your definition of "Military" ? to be honest, it looks like you are not even making a difference between the two. Or rather, you seem to think that any nation - as long as it is democratic and non-imperialistic - is free to use its military to "protect and uphold a nation's values".Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Well, I think we can agree, whether by military action or by government intelligence, you need to assertive when dealing with these groups.
And I'm sorry but the military is essenstially the same thing as the local police. At least in a democratic, nonimperalistic nation they are
I am sorry, but to me that sounds more like "we use the military to feed our national ego". It is what the germans did pre-WWII. And guess what, they became imperialistic...
The strict separation between a nation's police forces and its military is one of the backbones of a democratic society
B-I-N-G-OBubbalo wrote:
Well then why haven't they intervened in places like Rwanda and Sudan? Or do your nations values include genocide?
and a plus one
Because they have no recources of note, however in area's of Africa were diamonds,gold and oil are easily found, so is U.S. infulence, for example Angola,Nigeria and the Congo basin.Only difference is that they get away with far more there because its really easy to run covert operations in Africa due to instability,lack of telecomunications and a media presence.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
B-I-N-G-OBubbalo wrote:
Well then why haven't they intervened in places like Rwanda and Sudan? Or do your nations values include genocide?
and a plus one
You deal with the grass roots issues. The grass roots of crime are poverty, lack of education, lacklustre social systems. I am not anti police or anything like that. Not sure where you are going with that. Police will always be needed. But treating the symptoms rather than the illness is the easy way out.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Questions for you both. How do you stop terrorism? How do you stop crime?