The thing that Chewie said about not needing military - Page 4




 
--
 
April 5th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Quote:
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)
Now you truly are living in a fantasyland if you think anything short of military force would've been able to remove Naziism.
no no....hypothetically. i'm just saying that when the external force is removed, society will return to normal.

don't confuse my opinion of the worlds actions during WWII with my opinion of the US's actions today
and how, do tell, will the foreign force be removed without a millitary? I'm sure Hitler, Stallin, Saddam, and Atilla the Hun would have gone back to their respective lands if only someone would have given them a flower and a hug and asked them to go.
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death

and how, do tell, will the foreign force be removed without a millitary? I'm sure Hitler, Stallin, Saddam, and Atilla the Hun would have gone back to their respective lands if only someone would have given them a flower and a hug and asked them to go.

if you just take a moment, wipe the froth from your mouth and read my posts, you may see what im talking about.


the origional comment that started this was about society, so what i have been refering to was any external force (ie a factor not part of the society) so it could be anything....a repressive regieme, invading army or influence from a stronger society.

the statement that a strong society may not need a military to defend it has nothing to do with the country, or the leadership or anything else. society is something that comes from the people. and people like to do things in a way that history, or experience has shown them to be the best way.
April 5th, 2005  
Knightraptor
 
If i'm understanding correctly, its like how the Tibetans, even under Chinese rule, continue to do what they do as a social structure despite outside conditions. Or am I way off?
--
April 5th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
If a society are the relations betewen people, the relations betewen economic powers, the culture, the traditions, the way of thinking...you can not defend that with an army, this all things changes with the pass of the times, with the technological improvments...Defending a society with an army is a contradiction. You are not defending, you are making the society stay the way you want.
April 5th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Strauo, cultures and societies change with time this is true. But there is a difference between yours just evolving and having an invading power force you to completely change your ways.
As for things going back to normal after the external force is removed, well I don't think it actually goes fully back to normal. Rather it probably heads to some sort of compromise. You won't believe the level of influence 35 years of Japanese colonization on Korea has had.
South Korea's school systems, laws, infrastructure, corporate culture, etc etc. mimmick the Japanese quite closely... at least initially it did. Not so much anymore since we've had independence for so long but a lot of the basics are still the same and a lot of laws are still from the colonial era. Early music was practically identical to Japanese music (I'm talking colonial era to 1960s and even 70s) and modern K-pop branched out of immitations of J-pop.
During the colonization, Koreans who were of any certain status were referred to by their new Japanese names. Korean was banned in schools (but it came back because you couldn't completely control EVERYONE back in those days). In fact, for quite a number of people going into the 60s, Japanese was their first language.
Anyways cutting to the chase... if Japan still had control of Korea for ANOTHER 20 or 30 years, could Korean culture have been suppressed long enough for it to never quite recover? It's entirely possible. They nearly succeeded even with 35 years, and fewer years of attempted assimilation.
April 5th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Strauo, cultures and societies change with time this is true. But there is a difference between yours just evolving and having an invading power force you to completely change your ways.
You are right, an invading power force might change many things in a society. But we were talking about needing the military to defend the society in a democratic country. I find this premise quite scary. The military is made for defending the soberanity, the territorial integrity...
April 5th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
It's the territory where the rules of your values apply. Therefore it's not JUST territory.
Basically it's the area in which your culture is protected by default.
April 5th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
society is something that comes from the people. and people like to do things in a way that history, or experience has shown them to be the best way.
In that one word you defeat your whole arguement. The "experience" of the Nazi era and WWII showed the Germans the "best way". So society did not return to as it had been. Do not mistake Hitler for being an aberration in German society. Hitler was a long time coming and was the apex of a spirit in Germany that had been there for centuries. That he took it montrously afar was the result of that and the impetous for the change in society. Only military action caused this to be.
April 5th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
No, Chewie, it is you who are for some reason blind to the obvious. You are making the assumption than any foreign power would allow your society to be free, which everyone who has read a history book knows is quite rediculous. Your undefended society is only able to thrive because it has its freedom and if they are not willing to defend their freedom then someone else is likely to take it.

The only other way around it is to have a poor rural society that barely meets its needs and does not have art, theater, money, luxuries, entertainment, or anything that another power would want. And even then as modern Africa has shows us over and over, that poor society would be likely to be attacked and slaughtered even when there is little rational reason to do so.

Your theory reminds me of an ancient Confucious quote that goes "Study without intellection is vain but intellection without study is dangerous"
April 5th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
it's an abstract idea sure...and i would never think that it would be possible in todays world...but i stick to my guns that society is not what the military is there to protect. it's the state.

man has't moved past thinking "if i have nice things, people will take them" and while such huge inequalities exist this will certianly be true. i just hope that at some stage we manage to shake our selves out of it.

personally i believe that the biggest threat to some societies aorund the planet is the US's dominance in entertainment. movies, music etc. but thats my opinion.