I reckon your right chewi, The millitary is there to protect the state not society and has been like that for years and probly wont change untill the next big milliteristic state falls and more people see what results from millitary empires crumbling. because every country is so bloody worried about what there neighbour might do most countrys fell they need a millitary force of some sort. dobut if that will ever change unfortunatly.

my gosh... a country definelty needs a military, mostly for protection, businese, industralization, patrotic feelings and national factors


a strong country is one with military

I can see your point chewie.

eg Roman military power did not always permanently change the societies of the countries they invaded. eg Palestine during early Christian times.

The Norman Marcherlords who invaded Wales were certainly brutal in their dealings with locals who resisted but over time they were changed by local influences themselves.

I do believe that a country still needs a military defence.

Maybe its my age but I am having difficulty following the thread of this thing.

Baby 700 wrote:

eg Roman military power did not always permanently change the societies of the countries they invaded.

But you have to realize that back in ancient times you conquered land for land, not for its people or culture.



chewie_nz wrote:

ok in the instance of WWII, yes it did take a military action to remove naziism so the german people could return to what their society had been before the war.

however what i was trying to get at was that it would've gone back if naziism had been removed by other means (election, coup etc)

Coup

1. to strike
2. a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act
3. Coup D'etat: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

A coup sounds military to me, in fact I have never heard of non-military coups. And to cover the election thing, read the text books, the Germans were living under a dictatorship.

Dictatorship

1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Under a dictatorship there would have been
NO elections.

My half-assed plan for world disarmament and peace:

The two most powerful countries (USA and China) send inspectors to each other. The most powerful country lowers its defense budget and capability until both inspector teams agree that they are equal. Then these two countries send inspectors into the third most powerful country (Russia?) and vice versa and they disarm until they reached Russia's level. Then those three send inspectors into Britain and Britain sends inspectors into the previously mentioned countries, which disarm until they reached Britains level. etc. until all countries have reached the level of say, Luxembourg (I think 900 soldiers equipped with Steyr AUGs, a few dozen Humvees, some light towed artillery, TOW missiles, .50 cals.

Wait, they should disarm more until they reached the Vatican's level: A few dozen clowns with spears.

This will work until someone like Iran, or north Korea, or worse gets smart and sees that no one has any armies to stop them and them and they start an arms build-up and proceed to conquer the world.

But I guess we could all unite and stop them, ...oh wait I forgot, there are no armies to stop them with.

For those of us who choose to live in the real world I don't think this will work.

Doe what the swiss do, declare neutrality and stay out of other people's business, it seems to have worked for may years.

It worked for the Swiss, but during WWII they were surrounded by Hilter's empire.

There were alot of people who wanted the USA to stay nuetral in WWII, if they did would that have been a good thing?

well thank god for the alps that save them.