...
If you want to interject why "Mister XXXXXX YYYYYY said that blah blah blah blah", I really could not give a flying ****. Talk to me about Socialism or Fascism or Communism, or talk about the US President (ANY US President) in a less then respectful manner, and I will see you as nothing but a ****ing political hack and ignore 90% of what you say. Be it President Reagan, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Barack Obama. I may, or may not like any, none, or all of the Presidents I just listed. But they are all (or were) my Commander in Chief, and I give them all the proper respect their office demands.
Why?
If you do not get it by now, you are absolutely ****ing hopeless.
But the point is we have not ever been attacked (with the intent of invasion), since 1812.
So we have never really even needed a military, and citizen soldiers would likely have done fine, and saved us trillions every year.
The problem with the military is they do not try to find the best solutions to problems, but only know about the last resort and least desirable solution, the use of force. And except MAYBE WWII, likely force was never the best solution.
If you go back to the Indian wars, Civil War, Mexican Wars, Spanish American War, WWI, Korean War, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., they were all wrong.
There were much better choices than war.
And usually we actually lied in order to start the war for profits.
And by not complaining or saying anything when a war is obviously wrong, the military has dishonored its image.
For example, the military knew for sure Iraq had no illegal WMD or terrorist ties.
The military swore an oath to uphold the constitution and US law, which includes the UN Charter after Congress ratified it in 1945.
So then the US of force is only legal in defense from an immediate attack.
And fake pre-emptive invasions, like with Iraq, are totally illegal according to US law.
So why did not the US military say so?