Military Aggression and the United States (split from Random Thoughts 2)

[Commodore]

The military has rarely if ever been a service that benefited the people more than it endangered it.

No. The military protects the population just by existing. Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812? I'll give you a hint: It's not the diplomats or our economy that make our enemies afraid to invade. It's the knowledge that if they invade us, not only will we beat them here, but we'll make sure they don't have a homeland to retreat to.

And this is true of every nation's military to some extent. The mere existence of a large number of soldiers armed with increasingly deadly weaponry is why we live in an age where diplomacy has become the primary means of conflict resolution between nations. Despite all the little wars we hear about in the news, this is still the most peaceful time in recorded human history. And it is the various military forces around the world that make this age of peace possible just by their very existence.

 

[Traitorfish]

No. The military protects the population just by existing. Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812?

Because you stopped picking fights with countries that were bigger than you.

 

[Commodore]

Because you stopped picking fights with countries that were bigger than you.

It's hard to fight someone bigger than you when there is no one bigger than you.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's hard to fight someone bigger than you when there is no one bigger than you.

Nuts, you spent the entire nineteenth century picking on Native tribes and sad little Latin republics, while the Europeans gobbled up three-quarters of the Earths surface. When you eventually worked up the nerve to go up against one of them, it was Spain.

Spain.

 

[Lexicus]

Nuts, you spent the entire nineteenth century picking on Native tribes and sad little Latin republics, while the Europeans gobbled up three-quarters of the Earths surface. When you eventually worked up the nerve to go up against one of them, it was Spain.

It's not like the Europeans were picking on anyone their own size during that time period either, though. And you left out the chief foe the US defeated in the 19th century: the Confederacy.

 

[rah]

Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812?

Having a couple of BIG oceans on either side doesn't hurt either.

 

[Lexicus]

Having a couple of BIG oceans on either side doesn't hurt either.

Commodore may have been in Intelligence but he sure doesn't seem to know much about Logistics.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The neutrality of Switzerland and Lichtenstein have kept them much safer than the armies of the USA. Their prosperity shows that a standing army is a liability more than an asset.

 

[Arakhor]

It's hard to fight someone bigger than you when there is no one bigger than you.

Are we talking land size (USA is 4th) or population (USA is 3rd) here?

If you rate things by nominal GDP, the US is first, but the EU is a fairly close second, so the whole exceptionalism thing is isn't actually looking that exceptional.

 

[cardgame]

No. The military protects the population just by existing. Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812?

O C E A N S
C
E
A
N
S

But yeah, Commodore is actually right (earlier...) - you can't post political photos if you're active duty military because it is absolutely divisive and if you're wearing the uniform it can be seen as an endorsement (the military and x are a natural fit, here's pics). Imagine uniforms + nazi imagery, that would hurt recruitment efforts to say the least, if people saw the military and nazi regalia linked together like that.

 

[Ajidica]

Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812?

I mean, I'm just spitballing here. How many times has Canada been invaded since the War of 1812?

 

[Takhisis]

Or Grenada, really.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because you don't understand the culture. People who have never served recognize that military life is different, but you don't really understand how different. The problem with this guy is he acted like an individual, and acting like an individual is a mortal sin in the military, especially in combat units. And that's because individuals and those who want to "do their own thing" get people killed.

Okay, at this point, I have to ask: What's your Borg designation, and how is it that you're expressing yourself like an individual right now? As you've seen, your point of view isn't going over well. So that could potentially change the mind of some poster or lurker reading your words who was originally considering joining the military.

Oops.

No. The military protects the population just by existing. Why is it the mainland of the US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812? I'll give you a hint: It's not the diplomats or our economy that make our enemies afraid to invade. It's the knowledge that if they invade us, not only will we beat them here, but we'll make sure they don't have a homeland to retreat to.

Why is it that most Americans (that I've noticed) who bring up the War of 1812 usually forget that A. It wasn't Canada that did that, because Canada didn't exist as a separate country until over 50 years later, and it's the British you should be complaining about; and B. The British didn't start it. The Americans crossed the border first.

It's hard to fight someone bigger than you when there is no one bigger than you.

LOL. As Arakhor pointed out, you are not the biggest.

It's not like the Europeans were picking on anyone their own size during that time period either, though. And you left out the chief foe the US defeated in the 19th century: the Confederacy.

It's not quite the same thing when it's your own countrymen you're doing your best to kill, is it?

I mean, I'm just spitballing here. How many times has Canada been invaded since the War of 1812?

We had a war with Spain in 1995.

Over turbot.

We won.

Granted, it happened on the ocean, rather than on land, but it's a fact that the Spanish were illegally fishing in Canadian waters.

 

[Commodore]

LOL. As Arakhor pointed out, you are not the biggest.

Is there anyone out there who can defeat us in a conventional military conflict? No? Then we are the biggest kid on the block.

A. It wasn't Canada that did that, because Canada didn't exist as a separate country until over 50 years later,

Where did I mention anything about Canada? Seems like you just took this opportunity to get on some weird War of 1812 soapbox.

B. The British didn't start it.

Yeah, they did. They started it through their constant raiding of our shipping and the kidnapping of US citizens and pressing them into the service of the Royal Navy. Not to mention, the British were also attempting to use the native population as proxies against the US.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm sure you understand the difference between a casus belli and a declaration of war.

 

[Commodore]

I'm sure you understand the difference between a casus belli and a declaration of war.

And I'm sure you understand that just because someone declares war first, doesn't necessarily mean they started the war.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is there anyone out there who can defeat us in a conventional military conflict? No? Then we are the biggest kid on the block.

Then you should have specified this, because in any other context your claim to be "the biggest" is obviously absurd.

Where did I mention anything about Canada? Seems like you just took this opportunity to get on some weird War of 1812 soapbox.

Your own president brought it up, when he was trying to justify calling Canada a "security threat to the United States" (when he and Trudeau were discussing the bizarre reasons why the steel and aluminum tariffs were recently levied). Trump said that Canada invaded the U.S. in 1812 and burned down the White House.

So Trump brought up 1812, and so did you. I'm just pointing out that Canada did not invade your country, nor did we "burn down the White House" (which wasn't occupied by the president of that time, and wasn't even white).

Yeah, they did. They started it through their constant raiding of our shipping and the kidnapping of US citizens and pressing them into the service of the Royal Navy. Not to mention, the British were also attempting to use the native population as proxies against the US.

Nope.

You're talking about things that happened before the war.

As the article says:

However, President James Madison was intrigued by the analysis of Major General Dearborn that in the event of war, Canada would be easy pickings – even that an invasion would be welcomed by the Canadians. Furthermore, the "War Hawks," a group of Congressmen from the south and west, loudly demanded war. Motivated by Anglophobia and nationalism, these Republicans encouraged war as a means to retaliate against Britain for the economic distress caused by the blockade, and for what they perceived as British support for the First Nations in resisting American expansion into the West. On 18 June 1812, President Madison signed a declaration of war against Great Britain, supported by both the Senate and Congress.

So... your side started it.

The article goes on to state:

Upper Canada was defended by about 1,600 British regulars, formed mostly from the 41st Regiment of Foot and detachments from other units. However, the badly outnumbered British were in fact better prepared than the Americans knew. The 41st Regiment of British regulars had been reinforced by a number of militia units (although their loyalty and reliability was uncertain). The Provincial Marine controlled Lake Ontario. Much of the preparation was thanks to the foresight of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, administrator of Upper Canada. Brock had a thorough grasp of the challenges of the upcoming conflict and had been preparing for five years, reinforcing fortifications, training militia units and, perhaps most important, developing alliances with the First Nations.

Source: The Canadian Encyclopedia: War of 1812

Here's a fun fact. I went to school with a descendant of Sir Isaac Brock, and her sister-in-law and I were friends and debate partners in high school, we both worked in the same theatre company, I tutored her in French in college, and we used to room together at science fiction conventions. They still have the family farm and are doing very nicely, some distance east of here.

Funny how this "6 degrees of separation" stuff works.

 

[Arakhor]

And I'm sure you understand that just because someone declares war first, doesn't necessarily mean they started the war.

Well, unless you're writing a history book, it's difficult to have an argument about who actually started something without sounding like you're in the playground.

 

[Commodore]

Well, unless you're writing a history book, it's difficult to have an argument about who actually started something without sounding like you're in the playground.

Not really. All you have to do is ask simple questions when analyzing the event. For the War of 1812, to find out who the aggressor was you have to ask the question "Would the US still have declared war on Britain if the British were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?" If the answer is "no, the US would not have declared war" then it becomes clear the British were at fault for the War of 1812. Just like it is reasonable to say that although the Japanese initiated hostile action against the US with the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US could still be seen as the aggressor since it was our deliberate attempts to destroy the Japanese economy that led them to the decision to initiate combat operations against the US.

It's only when people start denying simple facts like that, that these discussions devolve into schoolyard shouting matches. To go back to the WWII example: I won't deny that the US was the aggressor against Japan. I certainly think such aggression was justified given what the Japanese were doing at the time, but I'm not going to deny historical fact by saying they started the war with the US.

 

[Lexicus]

Not really. All you have to do is ask simple questions when analyzing the event. For the War of 1812, to find out who the aggressor was you have to ask the question "Would the US still have declared war on Britain if the British were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?" If the answer is "no, the US would not have declared war" then it becomes clear the British were at fault for the War of 1812.

This is bad logic. I don't disagree that the British were technically the "aggressors" in the War of 1812, but let's apply this logic to another conflict in history: World War II. See, if the Polish hadn't held on to German territory illegitimately conquered and taken away during World War I, then Germany wouldn't have invaded Poland, therefore Poland was the aggressor.

See the problem?

Now, the British were impressing the crews of US warships because they were involved in an actually important war against Napoleon. I'm not going to defend the practice but you can see why they were doing it. Indeed, you use similar "well it was a war and you have do what's necessary" logic to defend various unsavory things the US has done.