Why would anyone want to fight for a country that is so callously disinterested in the welfare of it's citizens?
In the last quarter-century it has become extremely apparent that the US Military is not the "global force for good" that it wants to portray itself as. Most young people probably aren't interested in joining up to commit war crimes in the name of making money for the military industrial complex.
Every branch of the military has become increasingly toxic, cutting things like training and cleaning up black mold in favor of new uniforms every 2 years
How's training and cleaning up mold supposed to line the pockets of the senator's buddy who owns the uniform company?
@kvasir476@throws_lemy Suggested edit: After "In the last quarter-century" insert "I've finally noticed".
Butler saw the scam first-hand, 100 years ago. Every generation seems it must relearn the lessons of our grandparents.
As for young people not enlisting for wars of convenience - exactly. That's partially why a draft was around, and why it was so unpopular. And why the money each service pays for college benefits goes way up when there's a shooting war and goes down in peacetime.
My time in the Navy overlapped with the VEAP program, which would give me a 2-to-1 match for college - up to the maximum contribution of $2700. What a joke.
Compare that to the current GI Bill plus extra money each service pays directly.
\4. They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
What really? That was the biggest reason anyone joined when I was in. Wow. So the headline should be "Military reduces benefits of service, less people willing to serve"
Never has been the global force for good
I mean... defeating the Nazis?
After Germany declared war on them? They didn't defeat them out of good will, in fact, I'd say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich
Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so.
Not if you're quite similar to that bully
There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia.
Not really
Bad countries can't do good things?
If they did they'd be good countries
So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates?
No, we don't want to fight for racist, corrupt, misogynous, traitorous shitheads like Trump and DeSantis.
As pretty much any political minority will tell you, the country constantly uses us like ping pong balls and cat toys to win elections or internal battles.
I am sick of my rights, welfare, sense of safety, and hope for the future being dangled in front of me and ripped away over and over again so billionaires and career politicians can be greedy.
So, yeah. Not interested in serving. If my country wants me to fight for it, then it should fight for me as well.
I have two sons in their early 20s and I’m scared to death one of these fascist chucklefucks decides to get us into some conflict we don’t need to be in just because he wants to prove he has BDE and reinstates the draft.
I was in the Air Force in the late 70s. Twenty years ago (roughly) I pushed both my boys into the military, because they were being fuck-ups and I didn't know any other way at the time.
I'm thankful as all hell that they had the good sense to tell the military to get fucked when in Basic and got out.
Learn from my stupidity.
Some people can thrive in the military for sure. I have a stepson that’s one of the hardest workers I know. He has issues with basic life skills (anxiety and stress) and taking care of things on his own but thrives in an environment with lots of discipline and order. He’s too old know but had he gotten into the military I’m sure his life would have been much better now.
But given some of the things they send the military to do recently (cough cough …Afghanistan) it seems like a waste of human life and resources. I’m glad your boys were smart enough to understand it wasn’t a good fit for them at the time and had the courage to make that decision. Hopefully it’s worked out for them.
That was honestly the main reason why I didn't join the military over the last few years.
That and I just refuse to be a part of it.
Ah well, soldiers haven't fought for their country for decades. Instead they've been fighting for the interest of industrialized military, and the whims of politicians.
the american military-industrical complex is little more than a welfare/jobs program for americans with profits made overseas while at home were prostetlized that were 'defending' ourselves with overt patriotism
its absolutely revolting, and it boggles my mind how anyone in the military can find this a good thing for humanity.
Remember the video of the Iraq vet that was screaming at Bush to apologize in 2021 I think? He talked about all his friends being dead and a million Iraqis being dead all because of a bunch of lies. And while Iraq was one of the latest foreign failures, it was far from the only one. It just so happened to occur right around the same time the internet started connecting everyone. MSM couldn't whitewash or ignore what was actually happening like it could a few decades prior.
Eustice, who served 26 years in the Minnesota National Guard, noted that young adults were the military's prime target for new recruits—currently Generation Z, or those born after 1997—and argued that growing up in the internet age had made them used to "immediate gratification."
Oh look, another out of touch boomer. ItS tHoSe DaMn CeLlPhOnEs! Gen Z grew up watching America get involved in, then stay involved in, a deeply unpopular war. Gen Z grew up in an age where you can fact check someone on the spot and it makes it that much harder for recruiters to lie. They grew up in an age where half of the government is trying to drag the country backwards by any means.
I am in the military. I overheard my leadership talking with a woman who wanted to get out. When they asked her why she said it was because of the Roe V Wade decision. "Why would I fight for a country that won't fight for me?" I don't blame her.
A person saying kids don't want to join the military because they're too used to "instant gratification" is some of the most obnoxious shit I have ever heard lmao
If someone went up to me and said that, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves and leave, because fuck all of that.
Such edge
be nice to the blow highs
I have a child who was born in 1999. The other thing men and women of that general age group has heard is "DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY" from their parents, starting at a young age.
Yeah. I was in the military, the Marines in fact. I will tell my two children don't join the military, especially don't join the Marines, and if you need to join the Air Force and work on AC units or some shit.
Everyone here suggesting joining the military means you're going to combat is mistaken. When I was in a combat role, the number we always heard was 10% of people in the military are in combat ops jobs, and 10% of those people see actual combat. The military absolutely offers opportunities to learn a trade for folks who are in a tough spot, and you can make it work for you.
Everyone who says shits fucked now and the country is just billionaires, I'm totally on board. But if you're some poor kid from Mississippi, being an engine mechanic in the Army might be your best shot at a decent life, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that.
A country is supposed to provide 4 things to it's citizens, and the united states are failing on all 4.
additionally, nearly every fundamental system (education, healthcare, insurance, car-dependent city designs, etc.) within the united states is designed to take everything away (or restrict access to everything) from it's citizens through poverty, thus making the above problems exponentially worse.
What is there to fight for?
Exactly. The same idea can be used to explain voter disengagement. Why bother voting when both parties have engaged in scuzzy tactics, manipulation, lies and/or outright illegal activities?
CNN, CBS typical mainstream liberal propaganda, and you lemmings lap it up. 🤡
There you go, 4 different conservative news sources that point out the same issues. the facts that I had stated in that comment are agreed upon on both sides of the political spectrum, the only thing that's up for debate is the solutions. and regardless of what you think the solutions are, they are not currently happening withing the united states of america.
again, I'll ask, what is there to fight for?
Imagine thinking the Washington times and NPR are conservative. You're out of your fucking mind. WSJ for Christ sakes the biggest lib rag there is.
I don't watch any of that shit. I don't even own a TV. I simply have my eyes open.
Raise a hand. Who wants to sign up as cannon fodder for the rich?
Bonus; if you survive no one will help you!
Thoughts and prayers.
brought to you by autocomplete (seriously)
War Pigs starts playing in the distant background
I'd definitely fight FOR our country. But I would not fight for our country and those that currently control it. They're after all, the ones we have to fight against.
... so what period in history was this ever a country worth fighting for lol
Almost never. FOR however, almost always.
... you'll have to explain that. I think you're contradicting yourself lol
Not really. You just need to go back to my first post in this thread. Explains it perfectly. The country itself. I would fight to save it from the people that currently run it. But I would not fight for (in service of) the country and the people that currently run it.
The country isn't, like, its own entity. America isn't real. There isn't some ideological spirit of America that you can separate from the people that run it. At most you could argue that America is also its culture, but uh, the culture has been pretty fucking bad since the start!
American society is terrible. America's government is terrible. American culture is terrible. It's an irredeemable shithole country.
What the fuck would you fight for?
Actually there is. They talk and talk and talk about it ad nauseam. They simply just do it rhetorically and always fail to embody it. Even countries with a traditionally large immigrant population like the United States have a lot more culturally that tends to bind, then they have differences that divide. And after all what is a country? If not the people in it?
As an internationalist I guess I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned we should be fighting for everyone, not soloing the world off along imaginary lines on map. What makes an American different from a Canadian? Or a Mexican?
We're all the same, more or less. Let's work together.
You are misrepresenting intentional or unintentional fighting for something with fighting against something. And even then, fighting for your community or neighbors. Isn't a synonym for armed conflict. Every community will have slightly different needs and desires. And there will never be a large body, especially not an international one. That will be able to address them adequately.
Everyone has the same needs! We all need food, healthcare, shelter, safety, community, family, etc. We're all the same. Sure, some communities might have different wants, but need is universal.
Family, community, shelter, etc etc etc can all be quite different from group to group. There is no one size fits all.
why in the fuck would any sane person sign up to die in a failed attempt to implement some shitty politician's whim half a world away? no one has fought for America in decades, they fight for the aristocrats.
Centuries. Up to ww1 they're was an official policy of isolationism militarily, we only got into ww1 because Germany was pissed off we were selling everyone arms, WW2 happened because Germany was pissed off we were selling everyone arms.....
If we kept to ourselves we wouldn't likely have ever entered either war and the "moral war" excuse only cropped up after we were attacked in both wars.
“moral war” excuse only cropped up after we were attacked
I think a lot of people would agree that the US had at least some moral authority to enter WWII after pearl harbor. Did it happen because we used diplomatic and economic policies in provocative ways that essentially amounted to taking a side? Yeah, but it also happened. The people who were killed really did die.
We are also kind of white washing the US's imperialist murdering before WW1. We were at war with Spain for dubious reasons and then we invaded the Phillipenes and murdered anyone that didn't like us extracting wealth and resources from them.
And that is a single instance.
We don't like to call it war when it isn't against Europeans.
Sure, that said we did not enter the war because it was a moral obligation, we got into the war because we did capitalist bullshit that got us attacked. The only moral war in the last two centuries is arguably the civil war and that could easily be argued to be a economic decision not at all a moral one.
I imagine I'm going to get pushback about the civil war thing but let me be clear, slavery is immoral no question. It just isn't actually why we got involved in the civil war, that was purely an economic decision.
I would call WWII a moral war, at least for the allies. WWI was just imperialist bullshit plus an arms race. WWII was a very different beast.
It may be because we can look at it from a modern perspective, but yeah, I would gladly sign up to kill some nazis. At the time, many, many Americans were actually sympathetic to the nazi party. Pearl Harbor is what galvanized us against the Axis.
We did not enter either way for moral reasons. There's also no moral war but that's another issue entirely given wars throughout history tend to be for land or resources with the occasional excuse otherwise.
That's because Democrats are brainwashing people to hate their country and has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans voting AGAINST any and all help for veterans, Republicans constantly stopping service member pay with government shutdowns, billionaires killing us so they can make an extra dollar, billionaires using us to do dangerous tasks for minimal pay or Republicans voting to dismantle the VA. It's OBVIOUSLY the Democrats fault!
Huh. To me, it looks like an across-the board issue.
Killing brown people so the oligarchy can exploit their natural resources is not fighting for your country.
This is the correct answer.
I don't think it is that (it should be).
Unemployment is at historic lows and real wages are starting to grow again.
There plenty of alternatives that don't involve risking your life.
This lie is akin to "No one wants to work anymore"
It's not remotely true. It's just some bullshit the employer says when they're not paying enough and they treat their employees like shit.
I don't think this is true. I lived in a big military town and not fighting for an America whose policies I didn't agree with was one reason I avoided the military when so many of my friends and classmates joined and served.
Nobody joins the military because they want a job where they are treated well. Pay and benefits definitely factor into it big time though, and are probably the main reason my late brother joined. He and I talked about how that is effectively mercenary though. Of course there are a lot of great things in America to join the military and defend, and we still do have a lot of freedoms that other countries do not, but it's pretty clear that it's not what it used to be. America isn't even in the top 10 on the human freedom index (we're 14th). https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
We're right there with Australia well within the top 10. STFU already.
Millennials are killing the killing industry.
I was in 7th Grade when the towers fell. That whole day nothing happened and we just watched the news.
Once we had a day or two to digest it my Social Studies teacher talked to us about what it meant. She talked about how the Vietnam war lasted nearly 20 years and that was not triggered by an attack on US soil. She basically told me that everything was going to change and that we were going to be fighting someone forever.
I'm sure she wasn't quite that precient at the time and I am colouring my memories, but she really got it to stick that the world had changed overnight for us.
Long story short, we have been murdering brown kids in their homes my entire life. Even if more death and destruction is justified in response, we really went overboard. Why would people my age and younger have any fucking desire to support more of that?
PLUS we finally talk a little more about mental health in this country and it is clear that when you brainwash young people to be ok with murdering humans, and then have them do that while watching their friends get blown up, they fuck their brains up.
I was on track to go in to the military as a kid. I wanted to serve my country and get college paid for, but by the time I was 18 it no longer seemed like a fair trade. I'll go in to debt to the capitalists to start my life, seemed like a better deal than a pension and a lifetime of demons from my past to battle.
I'm not convinced a soldier has been sent to fight for my country at any point during my lifetime.
I'm an oif veteran, and I honestly don't think we've fought for our country since pearl harbor
what's an oif?
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" in quotes because that's its name, I should clarify I find the name ridiculous because we freed no one
managed to turn a 2nd world country into a 3rd world country and boy howdy did we stop all those wmds :|
but honestly, thanks for serving when so many never consider it. hope you got your disability and bennies covered.
Operation Iraqi Freedom I believe, wild guess really.
Ukrainian soldiers being sent right now.
Ukraine isn't my country. They're fighting for their country.
My point wasn't that "fighting for your country" isn't a thing that happens; my point was that the many fights the United States involved itself in over the last 30+ years...aren't that.
They are pretty much fighting for all of Europe and America.
If there's one thing I can guarantee is on no Ukrainian soldier's mind right now, it's "What will happen to America if we lose?"
A foreign power has invaded their country, and they're fighting back. Ukraine is on the right side of history here. They don't need you to grandstand for them.
Weird it's an argument their president makes all the time.
See? They can grandstand for themselves.
Is it grand standing if it's true? There are absolutely Ukrainians who believe they are fighting to stop a modern fascist form invading all of Europe and pressing through to America, the country which led the international response to the invasion and which is Ukraine's political and economic partner over the past decade. I know they aren't defending America so to say as fervently as they are defending their home, but they know what is at stake.
AHAHAHHAA well I've got some great news for the Ukrainian troops: They can rest a little easier. Ukraine is not defending Western Europe from the Russians. That's what NATO is for. And seeing how Russia has done against Ukraine...I think we gonna be okay. Notice who Russia very much has not invaded? They know they can't take the heat so they've kept out of the kitchen.
Your understanding of this situation is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Doesn't feel like my country cares about me, so why would I die for it?
Where they ever fighting "for their country?"
How has the majority of people in the US benefited from the US-caused wars in Vietnam, Panama, Iraq or Afghanistan?
Stonks go up /s
Raytheon was the true blue chip stock all this time
Forced draft ruined the lives of my father and uncle. (Vietnam) My husband is permanently disabled from his time in the balkins and the VA fought us tooth and nail for every cent of his disablity pay. I would never, ever, ever join the miltary. All you get is a broken mind, body, and a shitty flag when you die.
I mean why would someone want to fight for a country that doesn't care about them?
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
Is anyone surprised
Korea, too.
And dozens of “minor” conflicts in South America and Africa over the years (for example, task force ranger and the battle of Mogadishu… as imortalozed in black hawk down,)
Yeah. Us military might as well be fighting for big corporations.
Korea was not as disheartening as the other 3 on that list. Gulf War would be the next example. In Korean War the US had a major victory, created a long term ally, and the soldiers were met with overwhelming positivity that continues to this day. (At least among the older generations... younger Americans are making an ass of themselves in Korea now and drawing more ire).
Even now with two wars the US isn't even fighting in, their corporations are making billions.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are a couple of their largest buyers.
When people go on and on about fighting for our freedom, I'm at a loss as to exactly what they're talking about.
Fighting for our freedom to continue bombing the middle east.
"Fight for their country"
...
Ten thousand miles away
Of course not, what sane American would buy into that bullshit?
Fighting for a shit government full of crappy politicians is already a weird choice.
Going in other countries to kill random innocent people for the profit of said government is an even weirder one.
i won't fight for people who voted for Trump.. not ever, for any reason.. i won't protect you people from any enemy..
I mean when we watch decades of wars that kill thousands of American's and MILLIONS of people in their own countries for no reason, maybe we need a little additional justification rather than "fight for your country". Nah! Probably just the fault of the "instant gratification" generations being selfish again.
We see more, and trust less now. Seems like a good first order explanation to me anyway.
It wasn't for no reason, it was because the government lied about wmds in Iraq. They lied, and invaded two countries that didn't attack us.
Hmm, maybe it's because they're actually fighting for their country's billionaire's interests instead?
You'll end up with PTSD, divorced and homeless, but think of all the brown people you'll get to kill in the name of our Lord and Savior, Walt Disney.
The GOP abandoned Disney. Never thought I'd see that. Maybe we can get sane copyright reform now.
Do you remember when the US Army asked "how has serving impacted you?" on Twitter and the most common answers were PTSD, harassment, rape?
Maybe that's why.
They give us every reason not to, a country that doesnt care for its own is not worth fighting for.
As a veteran - at some point it starts to feel like it's all about oil and colonialism.
Government sees this and thinks: time to make college more expensive and regulate more professions to require college.
I've finally reached the age where I don't ruminate about being drafted anymore. I turned 18 shortly after 9/11 and registering for the SS was terrifying. Now I just have to worry about my two sons coming of age and being drafted into WW3. 😞
Americans don't want to fight for their country the fossil fuel industry anymore
Ftfy
Terrible title. People are still patriotic and would fight for our country. They don’t want to join our military that is not currently fighting for our country to enter adulthood with worn out joints and PTSD.
Any country that is a threat to American sovereignty has nukes. We don't use armies against those countries. Ergo, joining the army is not fighting for your countries freedom. So, asks recruits, what are we fighting for?
I'd wager a good portion of Americans would rather literally go to war with other Americans than deploy to some foreign conflict.
I'd rather kill the ruling class than some other working-class soldiers.
Wars would end overnight if soldiers killed their ruling class instead of each other.
They ever heard of "The boy who cried wolf"? You bullshit people enough times about defending the country and other noble causes and they going to stop believing you. It's been 80 years since the US fought a war that was even remotely plausible as defense.
Won't anyone think of the profits!
Which America? The US is so divided they should split into three separate countries.
I have a proposal....
I, for one, welcome our new Sioux overlords.
Accepted.
However for this to work, we have to physically relocate Miami.
we have to physically relocate remove Miami.
Give it 25 years or so, and the sea will do it for free.
There's an upside to everything
I'd sign up to fight Russia or China but otherwise the armed forces can suck a dick.
Why?
If they invaded my city maybe.
Same reason I would have signed up to fight nazis. Authoritarianism is always worth fighting.
Inb4 someone says "the us army is authoritarian," as if the inherent hierarchy in an army is in any way equivalent to the violations of civilian rights that actual authoritarian regimes commit
Hostile militaristic dictatorships with unchecked power will eventually be my problem or my children's problem or their children's problem, I would like to try to nip the problem in the bud. Of course, if the USA were to invade and conquer Russia right now it would create whole new problems of civil rights and complete lack of representation just like the Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico but at a massive scale, but that's in my opinion still better than the risk of allowing them to expand and grow in power to the point where nothing can be done to stop them.
Why does nobody wanna die no more 😭
Maybe aligning a large portion of the state budget to the perpetual growth of the arms industry may not have been such a good idea.
After I realized that I fell for the lies that pushed us into Iraq (the second time) I was determined to educate any kids I might eventually have about why they should never trust and never join the US military. I then proceeded to do that. To be clear, my issue has less to do with the military itself than the civilian leadership.
Miss leading. People with still fight for their country in the US. Just not offensive wars.
I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to fight our own country pretty soon so it's not surprising a lot of people don't want to fight for it.
Why are we going to fight for our country? Because some rednecks are uppity about some orange dumbass? Who are they fighting with? The cops? I don't see civil war as plausible.
One party is supporting fascists, that should be a red flag and not something to just ignore because Trump is a moron
But how are WE going to fight them physically? No one is that dumb.
Almost everyone I know that went into the military did it for the experience and to be able to go to college. That was when people believed a college degree would set you up for a stable future. Now that millennials know this isn't true and we're not lying to gen Z, they sure as shit don't believe it either.
The military should add to its incentives. If the military could for example, build you a modest home then I'm sure people would start joining again.
I mean, in a roundabout sort of way, the military does do that. If you're active duty, you earn an okay salary (compared to other jobs whose entry requirement is a passing GED), but a significant portion of your paycheck is composed of nontaxable benefit payments. For example, BAH or Basic Allowance for Housing. As a junior NCO in a low cost of living state, I was getting nearly a thousand dollars a month specifically to offset housing costs. That afforded me the opportunity to rent a very nice apartment I would not have been able to afford on my salary alone. If I had chosen to rent a cheaper place, or cohabitate with someone, I would have been able to pocket the difference. I also received something like $400 ish for food in the form of the Basic Allowance for Subsistence stipend. Not to mention free healthcare through Tricare. Additionally, most veterans qualify for the VA Home Loan program, in which the government guarantees a portion of your mortgage, which can mean better rates from lenders vs a civilian.
So, while the military isn't necessarily out here building homes for folks (that being said, I've stayed in on base housing before, and most places certainly qualify as modest single family homes), they do provide tools that vets can use to make that a reality.
Does the incentives balance out against the cons of military service? For me, they did. For others, maybe not.
Thanks, yeah I think in service benefits are great but life after the military is always the pain point. The military sometimes has crazy signing bonuses and you get the GI bill as well, I think if the military appealed to people's life after service more then more people would sign up. Maybe do that in place of the GI bill. Homes are crazy right now because there aren't enough homes, not so much because they're expensive to build.
Unless you go with an MOS that you'd like to do after the military, a lot of the time the skills you learn don't really transfer to civilian life. Young adults don't usually know what they'd find rewarding and the recruiters can often trick you into some job you didn't want. I wouldn't recommend it to most people.
Yeah I'm not trynna make the world worse
FTFY country -> rich resource extraction corps
Fight who? Our biggest threat climate change caused by multinational corporations. Often the same ones that our soldiers are deployed for.
Best news I've seen today.
Isn't the stat on "how long do empires last on average" about 250 years?
How old is the US again?
That is indeed the number floating around, citing some work I admittedly haven't read by John Bagot Glubb.
Average lifespan does, however, make little sense as a metric. The Roman Empire is commonly understood to have lasted around 1500 years; you would need five extremely short-lived ten-year empires (I'm not sure that's even possible) just in order to cancel out the effect of Rome down to an average in the mid-200s.
Then comes questions of measurement. When did Rome really fall? Did the Abbasid Caliphate last 770 years, or was it two different empires lasting 500 and 250 years? These things matter a lot when calculating averages.
It would make a lot more sense to speak of the median lifetime. And still it's a wildly complicated thing to measure.
To run through the examples given by Glubb one by one:
Neo-Assyrian - 859 - 612, 247 years
Achaemenid Persia - 538 - 330, 208 years
Macedonian - 331 - 100, 231 years
Roman Republic - 260 - 27, 233 years
Roman Empire - 27 BCE - 180 CE, 207 years
Arab Empire - 634 - 880, 246 years
Mamluk Empire - 1250 - 1517, 267 years
Ottoman Empire - 1320 - 1570, 250 years
Spanish Empire - 1500 - 1750, 250 years
Romanov Russia - 1682 - 1916, 234 years
British Empire - 1700 - 1950, 250 years.
Neo-Assyrian Empire
859 BCE marks the start of the reign of Shalmaneser III, by which point Shalmaneser's two predecessors have already made Assyria the dominant power of the region. Perhaps it would be fair to place the date sometime in the previous reign, but I understand this one. 612 BCE is the fall of the capital Nineveh to a combined campaign of Babylonians and Medes. Fair choice.
Achaemenid Persia
550 BCE is Cyrus' victory against the Medes, at which point he assumed control of the Medean empire. 538 BCE might have been chosen instead as the date of Cyrus' defeat of the Babylonians, perhaps marking that as Persia removing its last challenge to hegemony. Not sure about this choice, but if we do take the earlier one it actually moves the empire's span closer to 250 years. 330 BCE is when the Achaemenid capital fell to Alexander the Great.
Macedonian Empire
Now things get weird. 331 BCE is the battle of Gaugamela, which more or less marked Alexander's defeat of Persia. Seems odd to pick a different marker for this and the end of Persia, but it's only one year apart so whatever. The end date is a problem though. Alexander's empire shattered within a few years of his death in 323 BCE. By 100 BCE Macedonia had already been a Roman province for 46 years. I'm honestly not sure of anything that happened in 100 BCE that might mark the death of the Macedonian empire. The Seleucid empire, one of the most powerful successors, had been more or less broken by the Parthians a few decades earlier, and the other big successor in Ptolemaic Egypt still had 70 years to go before Rome annexed it. Either way, Alexander's empire broke in 323, lasting just 8 years, and if you include the Diadochi its either less than 200 or more than 300 depending on which you count.
Roman Republic
The author gives some attempt at justification for splitting the Romans in to two empires like this. I don't think they're very convincing, but let's take him at his word. 260 BCE is the battle of Mylae, the first time Rome defeated Carthage at sea. It seems to me that if you're going to mark Rome's ascendancy to empire status by when it defeated Carthage then you should pick the victory in in the second Punic war. If the first one made Rome hegemon, there wouldn't have been a second in which Hannibal tore up Italy for 15 years. Hannibal's defeat in 202 BCE seems a better marker to me. 27 BCE is the proclamation of the Roman empire under Augustus. With Hannibal's defeat as the starting point, it lasted 175 years.
Roman Empire
180 is the end of the period known as the "five good emperors". The author writes: "It is true that the empire survived nominally for more than a century after this date, but it did so in constant confusion, rebellions, civil wars and barbarian invasions." the western half of the empire would last for almost three hundred more years, and the eastern half for well over a thousand more, including reclaiming most of the western half under Justinian. Roman hegemony in Europe and north Africa would not be challenged for centuries and this date makes no sense at all.
Arab Empire
I think this is mashing up the Rashidun caliphate, Umayyad caliphate, and the Abbasid caliphate prior to the Anarchy at Samarra. This entire listing is ridiculous to call a single empire when he counts Rome as separate for the republic, the empire, the western empire, and the eastern empire.
Mamluk Empire
This one is fine, running from the mamluk overthrow of the Ayyubid sultanate to the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluk sultanate.
Ottoman Empire
Not sure why the author picked 1320 specifically, but the rise of the Ottomans isn't well-recorded and it was around this date so it's fine by me. The end date is utterly baffling though. In 1570, the Ottomans launched a war against basically every naval power in Europe, and they won it. How is that end of their power? They would, of course, survive until their defeat as a major power in the First World War for ~600 years.
Spanish Empire
Not sure why 1500 specifically was picked, but it's roughly when Spain got a foothold in the Americas so okay. Nothing of particular significance happened in 1750 either, though, and it would be another 58 years before the wars of independence from its colonies started (and Spain's defeat by Napoleon soon after). Spain's "lifetime" as an empire should be over 300 years.
Romanov Russia
1682 is the start of Peter the Great's reign, but he didn't proclaim the empire until 1721 and he inherited the tsardom before it from family that had ruled it since 1613. Nothing special happened upon Peter's accession itself. 1916 is one year early for the end of Russia as it collapsed in to civil war during the First World War, but one year isn't much. Russia should be either 303 or 196 years depending on how you count it.
British Empire
Not sure why he picked 1700 as the start date when there's the obvious 1707 as the actual creation of the kingdom of Great Britain. 1950 seems a fair date for the end of Britain as a leading world superpower though
All in all I don't understand how this ever got popular when something as simple as the dates he gives for his foundational examples are so questionable. Never mind that he only uses examples from Europe and western Asia either. China and India, famously places with no large empires ever of course. How about Aksum, undisputed top dog of eastern Africa for 800 years?
Amazing write-up, thank you! I learned a lot from this.
And indeed, it seems like he started out with the number 250 and the British Empire in mind, and took it from there. Maybe an attempt for the Brits to feel better about themselves after the end of Empire.
Yea some of these are pretty cherry picked.
I mean "the Roman Empire" in the loosest term, from the beginning of Rome's expansion out of Italy, to the fall of Constantinople in the east, was over 1700 years.
And the Ottoman Empire was still very much alive and threatening Europe into the 18th century before they began their terminal decline.
In 2023, the Army and Air Force fell short of their respective goals by around 10,000 recruits, while the Navy was under by 6,000.
That's expected to be per year though, ain't it? Which means the air force will be about 40,000 underneath it's wanted amount? 40,000 seems like a large percentage of the ~330,000 reported as their ranks in 2021. The navy has a hair more personnel, I believe, around 350k? So 24,000 below that, not quite 10%. Those numbers probably aren't telling the full story, either. If the overall quality of the enlisted suffers, oof. Maybe those 10,000 that aren't coming in now were the smarter ones.
Hello robot soilders.
cough bull shit cough
Empires have to fall because of something
Have to or need to?
Considering nearly every empire that didn't get ganked due to major natural disasters, be they volcanos, storms, earthquakes, multiyear heatwaves or multiyear coldwaves was an absolutely horrible shithole to live as anyone not the ruling class.
Two things not mentioned it that article:
Why would anyone want to fight for a country that is so callously disinterested in the welfare of it's citizens?
In the last quarter-century it has become extremely apparent that the US Military is not the "global force for good" that it wants to portray itself as. Most young people probably aren't interested in joining up to commit war crimes in the name of making money for the military industrial complex.
How's training and cleaning up mold supposed to line the pockets of the senator's buddy who owns the uniform company?
@kvasir476 @throws_lemy Suggested edit: After "In the last quarter-century" insert "I've finally noticed".
Butler saw the scam first-hand, 100 years ago. Every generation seems it must relearn the lessons of our grandparents.
As for young people not enlisting for wars of convenience - exactly. That's partially why a draft was around, and why it was so unpopular. And why the money each service pays for college benefits goes way up when there's a shooting war and goes down in peacetime.
My time in the Navy overlapped with the VEAP program, which would give me a 2-to-1 match for college - up to the maximum contribution of $2700. What a joke.
Compare that to the current GI Bill plus extra money each service pays directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley\_Butler
\3. Pay hasn't kept up with civilian work.
\4. They stopped offering student loan repayment as a benefit.
What really? That was the biggest reason anyone joined when I was in. Wow. So the headline should be "Military reduces benefits of service, less people willing to serve"
Never has been the global force for good
I mean... defeating the Nazis?
After Germany declared war on them? They didn't defeat them out of good will, in fact, I'd say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich
Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so.
Not if you're quite similar to that bully
There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia.
Not really
Bad countries can't do good things?
If they did they'd be good countries
So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates?
Vultures can kill each other
Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad.
Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered?
You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you!
It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population
stopped clocked fallacy.
the united states is in so many wars, they were bound to achieve one somewhat correctly.
The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two.
thats 2!
shut it down, shut this all down!
Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example...
Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good
Global force for better
Good would’ve involved them allowing Spanish civil war vets to fight
We've seen the bullshit reasons the US government use to send people to war and we've seen how the veterans are treated by Congress.
No, we don't want to fight for racist, corrupt, misogynous, traitorous shitheads like Trump and DeSantis.
As pretty much any political minority will tell you, the country constantly uses us like ping pong balls and cat toys to win elections or internal battles.
I am sick of my rights, welfare, sense of safety, and hope for the future being dangled in front of me and ripped away over and over again so billionaires and career politicians can be greedy.
So, yeah. Not interested in serving. If my country wants me to fight for it, then it should fight for me as well.
I have two sons in their early 20s and I’m scared to death one of these fascist chucklefucks decides to get us into some conflict we don’t need to be in just because he wants to prove he has BDE and reinstates the draft.
I was in the Air Force in the late 70s. Twenty years ago (roughly) I pushed both my boys into the military, because they were being fuck-ups and I didn't know any other way at the time.
I'm thankful as all hell that they had the good sense to tell the military to get fucked when in Basic and got out.
Learn from my stupidity.
Some people can thrive in the military for sure. I have a stepson that’s one of the hardest workers I know. He has issues with basic life skills (anxiety and stress) and taking care of things on his own but thrives in an environment with lots of discipline and order. He’s too old know but had he gotten into the military I’m sure his life would have been much better now.
But given some of the things they send the military to do recently (cough cough …Afghanistan) it seems like a waste of human life and resources. I’m glad your boys were smart enough to understand it wasn’t a good fit for them at the time and had the courage to make that decision. Hopefully it’s worked out for them.
That was honestly the main reason why I didn't join the military over the last few years.
That and I just refuse to be a part of it.
Ah well, soldiers haven't fought for their country for decades. Instead they've been fighting for the interest of industrialized military, and the whims of politicians.
the american military-industrical complex is little more than a welfare/jobs program for americans with profits made overseas while at home were prostetlized that were 'defending' ourselves with overt patriotism
its absolutely revolting, and it boggles my mind how anyone in the military can find this a good thing for humanity.
Remember the video of the Iraq vet that was screaming at Bush to apologize in 2021 I think? He talked about all his friends being dead and a million Iraqis being dead all because of a bunch of lies. And while Iraq was one of the latest foreign failures, it was far from the only one. It just so happened to occur right around the same time the internet started connecting everyone. MSM couldn't whitewash or ignore what was actually happening like it could a few decades prior.
Oh look, another out of touch boomer. ItS tHoSe DaMn CeLlPhOnEs! Gen Z grew up watching America get involved in, then stay involved in, a deeply unpopular war. Gen Z grew up in an age where you can fact check someone on the spot and it makes it that much harder for recruiters to lie. They grew up in an age where half of the government is trying to drag the country backwards by any means.
I am in the military. I overheard my leadership talking with a woman who wanted to get out. When they asked her why she said it was because of the Roe V Wade decision. "Why would I fight for a country that won't fight for me?" I don't blame her.
A person saying kids don't want to join the military because they're too used to "instant gratification" is some of the most obnoxious shit I have ever heard lmao
If someone went up to me and said that, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves and leave, because fuck all of that.
Such edge
be nice to the blow highs
I have a child who was born in 1999. The other thing men and women of that general age group has heard is "DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY" from their parents, starting at a young age.
Yeah. I was in the military, the Marines in fact. I will tell my two children don't join the military, especially don't join the Marines, and if you need to join the Air Force and work on AC units or some shit.
Everyone here suggesting joining the military means you're going to combat is mistaken. When I was in a combat role, the number we always heard was 10% of people in the military are in combat ops jobs, and 10% of those people see actual combat. The military absolutely offers opportunities to learn a trade for folks who are in a tough spot, and you can make it work for you.
Everyone who says shits fucked now and the country is just billionaires, I'm totally on board. But if you're some poor kid from Mississippi, being an engine mechanic in the Army might be your best shot at a decent life, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that.
A country is supposed to provide 4 things to it's citizens, and the united states are failing on all 4.
food: “We are in danger of running out of food,” said Vince Hall, Feeding America’s chief government relations officer. “We are doing everything we can to avert a major hunger crisis.
safe to drink water: Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ government study finds
shelter: Homelessness rates have been climbing nationally by about 6% every year since 2017, the alliance said.
safety: The record 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021 reflect a 23% increase since 2019
additionally, nearly every fundamental system (education, healthcare, insurance, car-dependent city designs, etc.) within the united states is designed to take everything away (or restrict access to everything) from it's citizens through poverty, thus making the above problems exponentially worse.
What is there to fight for?
Exactly. The same idea can be used to explain voter disengagement. Why bother voting when both parties have engaged in scuzzy tactics, manipulation, lies and/or outright illegal activities?
CNN, CBS typical mainstream liberal propaganda, and you lemmings lap it up. 🤡
food (fox news): But food banks are struggling to meet the higher demand due to decreased donations, supply chain delays and inflation, according to NPR.
safe to drink water (the wall street journal): Nearly Half of U.S. Tap Water Contains ‘Forever Chemicals,’ Study Says
shelter (the national review): Neglect won’t be an option. Left unaddressed, street homelessness tends to expand. Twenty-person encampments have a way of becoming 40-person encampments
safety (the Washington times): If we take the example of health care workers, the extent of the issue is made painfully clear. A recent nationwide survey highlights that almost half of hospital nurses report an increase in workplace violence, a 119% rise in nurses compared to March 2021.
There you go, 4 different conservative news sources that point out the same issues. the facts that I had stated in that comment are agreed upon on both sides of the political spectrum, the only thing that's up for debate is the solutions. and regardless of what you think the solutions are, they are not currently happening withing the united states of america.
again, I'll ask, what is there to fight for?
Imagine thinking the Washington times and NPR are conservative. You're out of your fucking mind. WSJ for Christ sakes the biggest lib rag there is.
I don't watch any of that shit. I don't even own a TV. I simply have my eyes open.
Raise a hand. Who wants to sign up as cannon fodder for the rich?
Bonus; if you survive no one will help you!
Thoughts and prayers.
brought to you by autocomplete (seriously)
War Pigs starts playing in the distant background
I'd definitely fight FOR our country. But I would not fight for our country and those that currently control it. They're after all, the ones we have to fight against.
... so what period in history was this ever a country worth fighting for lol
Almost never. FOR however, almost always.
... you'll have to explain that. I think you're contradicting yourself lol
Not really. You just need to go back to my first post in this thread. Explains it perfectly. The country itself. I would fight to save it from the people that currently run it. But I would not fight for (in service of) the country and the people that currently run it.
The country isn't, like, its own entity. America isn't real. There isn't some ideological spirit of America that you can separate from the people that run it. At most you could argue that America is also its culture, but uh, the culture has been pretty fucking bad since the start!
American society is terrible. America's government is terrible. American culture is terrible. It's an irredeemable shithole country.
What the fuck would you fight for?
Actually there is. They talk and talk and talk about it ad nauseam. They simply just do it rhetorically and always fail to embody it. Even countries with a traditionally large immigrant population like the United States have a lot more culturally that tends to bind, then they have differences that divide. And after all what is a country? If not the people in it?
As an internationalist I guess I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned we should be fighting for everyone, not soloing the world off along imaginary lines on map. What makes an American different from a Canadian? Or a Mexican?
We're all the same, more or less. Let's work together.
You are misrepresenting intentional or unintentional fighting for something with fighting against something. And even then, fighting for your community or neighbors. Isn't a synonym for armed conflict. Every community will have slightly different needs and desires. And there will never be a large body, especially not an international one. That will be able to address them adequately.
Everyone has the same needs! We all need food, healthcare, shelter, safety, community, family, etc. We're all the same. Sure, some communities might have different wants, but need is universal.
Family, community, shelter, etc etc etc can all be quite different from group to group. There is no one size fits all.
… And its 1, 2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5, 6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we're all gonna die
why in the fuck would any sane person sign up to die in a failed attempt to implement some shitty politician's whim half a world away? no one has fought for America in decades, they fight for the aristocrats.
Centuries. Up to ww1 they're was an official policy of isolationism militarily, we only got into ww1 because Germany was pissed off we were selling everyone arms, WW2 happened because Germany was pissed off we were selling everyone arms.....
If we kept to ourselves we wouldn't likely have ever entered either war and the "moral war" excuse only cropped up after we were attacked in both wars.
I think a lot of people would agree that the US had at least some moral authority to enter WWII after pearl harbor. Did it happen because we used diplomatic and economic policies in provocative ways that essentially amounted to taking a side? Yeah, but it also happened. The people who were killed really did die.
We are also kind of white washing the US's imperialist murdering before WW1. We were at war with Spain for dubious reasons and then we invaded the Phillipenes and murdered anyone that didn't like us extracting wealth and resources from them.
And that is a single instance.
We don't like to call it war when it isn't against Europeans.
Sure, that said we did not enter the war because it was a moral obligation, we got into the war because we did capitalist bullshit that got us attacked. The only moral war in the last two centuries is arguably the civil war and that could easily be argued to be a economic decision not at all a moral one.
I imagine I'm going to get pushback about the civil war thing but let me be clear, slavery is immoral no question. It just isn't actually why we got involved in the civil war, that was purely an economic decision.
I would call WWII a moral war, at least for the allies. WWI was just imperialist bullshit plus an arms race. WWII was a very different beast.
It may be because we can look at it from a modern perspective, but yeah, I would gladly sign up to kill some nazis. At the time, many, many Americans were actually sympathetic to the nazi party. Pearl Harbor is what galvanized us against the Axis.
We did not enter either way for moral reasons. There's also no moral war but that's another issue entirely given wars throughout history tend to be for land or resources with the occasional excuse otherwise.
That's because Democrats are brainwashing people to hate their country and has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans voting AGAINST any and all help for veterans, Republicans constantly stopping service member pay with government shutdowns, billionaires killing us so they can make an extra dollar, billionaires using us to do dangerous tasks for minimal pay or Republicans voting to dismantle the VA. It's OBVIOUSLY the Democrats fault!
Huh. To me, it looks like an across-the board issue.
Killing brown people so the oligarchy can exploit their natural resources is not fighting for your country.
This is the correct answer.
I don't think it is that (it should be).
Unemployment is at historic lows and real wages are starting to grow again.
There plenty of alternatives that don't involve risking your life.
This lie is akin to "No one wants to work anymore"
It's not remotely true. It's just some bullshit the employer says when they're not paying enough and they treat their employees like shit.
I don't think this is true. I lived in a big military town and not fighting for an America whose policies I didn't agree with was one reason I avoided the military when so many of my friends and classmates joined and served.
Nobody joins the military because they want a job where they are treated well. Pay and benefits definitely factor into it big time though, and are probably the main reason my late brother joined. He and I talked about how that is effectively mercenary though. Of course there are a lot of great things in America to join the military and defend, and we still do have a lot of freedoms that other countries do not, but it's pretty clear that it's not what it used to be. America isn't even in the top 10 on the human freedom index (we're 14th). https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
We're right there with Australia well within the top 10. STFU already.
Millennials are killing the killing industry.
I was in 7th Grade when the towers fell. That whole day nothing happened and we just watched the news. Once we had a day or two to digest it my Social Studies teacher talked to us about what it meant. She talked about how the Vietnam war lasted nearly 20 years and that was not triggered by an attack on US soil. She basically told me that everything was going to change and that we were going to be fighting someone forever.
I'm sure she wasn't quite that precient at the time and I am colouring my memories, but she really got it to stick that the world had changed overnight for us.
Long story short, we have been murdering brown kids in their homes my entire life. Even if more death and destruction is justified in response, we really went overboard. Why would people my age and younger have any fucking desire to support more of that?
PLUS we finally talk a little more about mental health in this country and it is clear that when you brainwash young people to be ok with murdering humans, and then have them do that while watching their friends get blown up, they fuck their brains up.
I was on track to go in to the military as a kid. I wanted to serve my country and get college paid for, but by the time I was 18 it no longer seemed like a fair trade. I'll go in to debt to the capitalists to start my life, seemed like a better deal than a pension and a lifetime of demons from my past to battle.
I'm not convinced a soldier has been sent to fight for my country at any point during my lifetime.
I'm an oif veteran, and I honestly don't think we've fought for our country since pearl harbor
what's an oif?
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" in quotes because that's its name, I should clarify I find the name ridiculous because we freed no one
managed to turn a 2nd world country into a 3rd world country and boy howdy did we stop all those wmds :|
but honestly, thanks for serving when so many never consider it. hope you got your disability and bennies covered.
Operation Iraqi Freedom I believe, wild guess really.
Ukrainian soldiers being sent right now.
Ukraine isn't my country. They're fighting for their country.
My point wasn't that "fighting for your country" isn't a thing that happens; my point was that the many fights the United States involved itself in over the last 30+ years...aren't that.
They are pretty much fighting for all of Europe and America.
If there's one thing I can guarantee is on no Ukrainian soldier's mind right now, it's "What will happen to America if we lose?"
A foreign power has invaded their country, and they're fighting back. Ukraine is on the right side of history here. They don't need you to grandstand for them.
Weird it's an argument their president makes all the time.
See? They can grandstand for themselves.
Is it grand standing if it's true? There are absolutely Ukrainians who believe they are fighting to stop a modern fascist form invading all of Europe and pressing through to America, the country which led the international response to the invasion and which is Ukraine's political and economic partner over the past decade. I know they aren't defending America so to say as fervently as they are defending their home, but they know what is at stake.
AHAHAHHAA well I've got some great news for the Ukrainian troops: They can rest a little easier. Ukraine is not defending Western Europe from the Russians. That's what NATO is for. And seeing how Russia has done against Ukraine...I think we gonna be okay. Notice who Russia very much has not invaded? They know they can't take the heat so they've kept out of the kitchen.
Your understanding of this situation is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Doesn't feel like my country cares about me, so why would I die for it?
Where they ever fighting "for their country?"
How has the majority of people in the US benefited from the US-caused wars in Vietnam, Panama, Iraq or Afghanistan?
Stonks go up /s
Raytheon was the true blue chip stock all this time
Forced draft ruined the lives of my father and uncle. (Vietnam) My husband is permanently disabled from his time in the balkins and the VA fought us tooth and nail for every cent of his disablity pay. I would never, ever, ever join the miltary. All you get is a broken mind, body, and a shitty flag when you die.
I mean why would someone want to fight for a country that doesn't care about them?
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
Is anyone surprised
Korea, too.
And dozens of “minor” conflicts in South America and Africa over the years (for example, task force ranger and the battle of Mogadishu… as imortalozed in black hawk down,)
Yeah. Us military might as well be fighting for big corporations.
Korea was not as disheartening as the other 3 on that list. Gulf War would be the next example. In Korean War the US had a major victory, created a long term ally, and the soldiers were met with overwhelming positivity that continues to this day. (At least among the older generations... younger Americans are making an ass of themselves in Korea now and drawing more ire).
Even now with two wars the US isn't even fighting in, their corporations are making billions. Israel and Saudi Arabia are a couple of their largest buyers.
When people go on and on about fighting for our freedom, I'm at a loss as to exactly what they're talking about.
Fighting for our freedom to continue bombing the middle east.
"Fight for their country"
...
Ten thousand miles away
Of course not, what sane American would buy into that bullshit?
Fighting for a shit government full of crappy politicians is already a weird choice.
Going in other countries to kill random innocent people for the profit of said government is an even weirder one.
i won't fight for people who voted for Trump.. not ever, for any reason.. i won't protect you people from any enemy..
I mean when we watch decades of wars that kill thousands of American's and MILLIONS of people in their own countries for no reason, maybe we need a little additional justification rather than "fight for your country". Nah! Probably just the fault of the "instant gratification" generations being selfish again.
We see more, and trust less now. Seems like a good first order explanation to me anyway.
It wasn't for no reason, it was because the government lied about wmds in Iraq. They lied, and invaded two countries that didn't attack us.
Hmm, maybe it's because they're actually fighting for their country's billionaire's interests instead?
You'll end up with PTSD, divorced and homeless, but think of all the brown people you'll get to kill in the name of our Lord and Savior, Walt Disney.
The GOP abandoned Disney. Never thought I'd see that. Maybe we can get sane copyright reform now.
Do you remember when the US Army asked "how has serving impacted you?" on Twitter and the most common answers were PTSD, harassment, rape? Maybe that's why.
They give us every reason not to, a country that doesnt care for its own is not worth fighting for.
As a veteran - at some point it starts to feel like it's all about oil and colonialism.
This is quite old now, but it still works.
Jello Biafra - Die For Oil Suckers
The myth is real LET'S EAT!
Government sees this and thinks: time to make college more expensive and regulate more professions to require college.
I've finally reached the age where I don't ruminate about being drafted anymore. I turned 18 shortly after 9/11 and registering for the SS was terrifying. Now I just have to worry about my two sons coming of age and being drafted into WW3. 😞
Ftfy
Terrible title. People are still patriotic and would fight for our country. They don’t want to join our military that is not currently fighting for our country to enter adulthood with worn out joints and PTSD.
Any country that is a threat to American sovereignty has nukes. We don't use armies against those countries. Ergo, joining the army is not fighting for your countries freedom. So, asks recruits, what are we fighting for?
I'd wager a good portion of Americans would rather literally go to war with other Americans than deploy to some foreign conflict.
I'd rather kill the ruling class than some other working-class soldiers.
Wars would end overnight if soldiers killed their ruling class instead of each other.
They ever heard of "The boy who cried wolf"? You bullshit people enough times about defending the country and other noble causes and they going to stop believing you. It's been 80 years since the US fought a war that was even remotely plausible as defense.
Won't anyone think of the profits!
Which America? The US is so divided they should split into three separate countries.
I have a proposal....
I, for one, welcome our new Sioux overlords.
Accepted.
However for this to work, we have to physically relocate Miami.
Give it 25 years or so, and the sea will do it for free.
There's an upside to everything
I'd sign up to fight Russia or China but otherwise the armed forces can suck a dick.
Why?
If they invaded my city maybe.
Same reason I would have signed up to fight nazis. Authoritarianism is always worth fighting.
Inb4 someone says "the us army is authoritarian," as if the inherent hierarchy in an army is in any way equivalent to the violations of civilian rights that actual authoritarian regimes commit
Hostile militaristic dictatorships with unchecked power will eventually be my problem or my children's problem or their children's problem, I would like to try to nip the problem in the bud. Of course, if the USA were to invade and conquer Russia right now it would create whole new problems of civil rights and complete lack of representation just like the Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico but at a massive scale, but that's in my opinion still better than the risk of allowing them to expand and grow in power to the point where nothing can be done to stop them.
Why does nobody wanna die no more 😭
Maybe aligning a large portion of the state budget to the perpetual growth of the arms industry may not have been such a good idea.
After I realized that I fell for the lies that pushed us into Iraq (the second time) I was determined to educate any kids I might eventually have about why they should never trust and never join the US military. I then proceeded to do that. To be clear, my issue has less to do with the military itself than the civilian leadership.
Miss leading. People with still fight for their country in the US. Just not offensive wars.
I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to fight our own country pretty soon so it's not surprising a lot of people don't want to fight for it.
Why are we going to fight for our country? Because some rednecks are uppity about some orange dumbass? Who are they fighting with? The cops? I don't see civil war as plausible.
One party is supporting fascists, that should be a red flag and not something to just ignore because Trump is a moron
But how are WE going to fight them physically? No one is that dumb.
Almost everyone I know that went into the military did it for the experience and to be able to go to college. That was when people believed a college degree would set you up for a stable future. Now that millennials know this isn't true and we're not lying to gen Z, they sure as shit don't believe it either.
The military should add to its incentives. If the military could for example, build you a modest home then I'm sure people would start joining again.
I mean, in a roundabout sort of way, the military does do that. If you're active duty, you earn an okay salary (compared to other jobs whose entry requirement is a passing GED), but a significant portion of your paycheck is composed of nontaxable benefit payments. For example, BAH or Basic Allowance for Housing. As a junior NCO in a low cost of living state, I was getting nearly a thousand dollars a month specifically to offset housing costs. That afforded me the opportunity to rent a very nice apartment I would not have been able to afford on my salary alone. If I had chosen to rent a cheaper place, or cohabitate with someone, I would have been able to pocket the difference. I also received something like $400 ish for food in the form of the Basic Allowance for Subsistence stipend. Not to mention free healthcare through Tricare. Additionally, most veterans qualify for the VA Home Loan program, in which the government guarantees a portion of your mortgage, which can mean better rates from lenders vs a civilian.
So, while the military isn't necessarily out here building homes for folks (that being said, I've stayed in on base housing before, and most places certainly qualify as modest single family homes), they do provide tools that vets can use to make that a reality.
Does the incentives balance out against the cons of military service? For me, they did. For others, maybe not.
Thanks, yeah I think in service benefits are great but life after the military is always the pain point. The military sometimes has crazy signing bonuses and you get the GI bill as well, I think if the military appealed to people's life after service more then more people would sign up. Maybe do that in place of the GI bill. Homes are crazy right now because there aren't enough homes, not so much because they're expensive to build.
Unless you go with an MOS that you'd like to do after the military, a lot of the time the skills you learn don't really transfer to civilian life. Young adults don't usually know what they'd find rewarding and the recruiters can often trick you into some job you didn't want. I wouldn't recommend it to most people.
Yeah I'm not trynna make the world worse
FTFY country -> rich resource extraction corps
Fight who? Our biggest threat climate change caused by multinational corporations. Often the same ones that our soldiers are deployed for.
Best news I've seen today.
Isn't the stat on "how long do empires last on average" about 250 years?
How old is the US again?
That is indeed the number floating around, citing some work I admittedly haven't read by John Bagot Glubb.
Average lifespan does, however, make little sense as a metric. The Roman Empire is commonly understood to have lasted around 1500 years; you would need five extremely short-lived ten-year empires (I'm not sure that's even possible) just in order to cancel out the effect of Rome down to an average in the mid-200s.
Then comes questions of measurement. When did Rome really fall? Did the Abbasid Caliphate last 770 years, or was it two different empires lasting 500 and 250 years? These things matter a lot when calculating averages.
It would make a lot more sense to speak of the median lifetime. And still it's a wildly complicated thing to measure.
To run through the examples given by Glubb one by one:
Neo-Assyrian - 859 - 612, 247 years
Achaemenid Persia - 538 - 330, 208 years
Macedonian - 331 - 100, 231 years
Roman Republic - 260 - 27, 233 years
Roman Empire - 27 BCE - 180 CE, 207 years
Arab Empire - 634 - 880, 246 years
Mamluk Empire - 1250 - 1517, 267 years
Ottoman Empire - 1320 - 1570, 250 years
Spanish Empire - 1500 - 1750, 250 years
Romanov Russia - 1682 - 1916, 234 years
British Empire - 1700 - 1950, 250 years.
Neo-Assyrian Empire
859 BCE marks the start of the reign of Shalmaneser III, by which point Shalmaneser's two predecessors have already made Assyria the dominant power of the region. Perhaps it would be fair to place the date sometime in the previous reign, but I understand this one. 612 BCE is the fall of the capital Nineveh to a combined campaign of Babylonians and Medes. Fair choice.
Achaemenid Persia
550 BCE is Cyrus' victory against the Medes, at which point he assumed control of the Medean empire. 538 BCE might have been chosen instead as the date of Cyrus' defeat of the Babylonians, perhaps marking that as Persia removing its last challenge to hegemony. Not sure about this choice, but if we do take the earlier one it actually moves the empire's span closer to 250 years. 330 BCE is when the Achaemenid capital fell to Alexander the Great.
Macedonian Empire
Now things get weird. 331 BCE is the battle of Gaugamela, which more or less marked Alexander's defeat of Persia. Seems odd to pick a different marker for this and the end of Persia, but it's only one year apart so whatever. The end date is a problem though. Alexander's empire shattered within a few years of his death in 323 BCE. By 100 BCE Macedonia had already been a Roman province for 46 years. I'm honestly not sure of anything that happened in 100 BCE that might mark the death of the Macedonian empire. The Seleucid empire, one of the most powerful successors, had been more or less broken by the Parthians a few decades earlier, and the other big successor in Ptolemaic Egypt still had 70 years to go before Rome annexed it. Either way, Alexander's empire broke in 323, lasting just 8 years, and if you include the Diadochi its either less than 200 or more than 300 depending on which you count.
Roman Republic
The author gives some attempt at justification for splitting the Romans in to two empires like this. I don't think they're very convincing, but let's take him at his word. 260 BCE is the battle of Mylae, the first time Rome defeated Carthage at sea. It seems to me that if you're going to mark Rome's ascendancy to empire status by when it defeated Carthage then you should pick the victory in in the second Punic war. If the first one made Rome hegemon, there wouldn't have been a second in which Hannibal tore up Italy for 15 years. Hannibal's defeat in 202 BCE seems a better marker to me. 27 BCE is the proclamation of the Roman empire under Augustus. With Hannibal's defeat as the starting point, it lasted 175 years.
Roman Empire
180 is the end of the period known as the "five good emperors". The author writes: "It is true that the empire survived nominally for more than a century after this date, but it did so in constant confusion, rebellions, civil wars and barbarian invasions." the western half of the empire would last for almost three hundred more years, and the eastern half for well over a thousand more, including reclaiming most of the western half under Justinian. Roman hegemony in Europe and north Africa would not be challenged for centuries and this date makes no sense at all.
Arab Empire
I think this is mashing up the Rashidun caliphate, Umayyad caliphate, and the Abbasid caliphate prior to the Anarchy at Samarra. This entire listing is ridiculous to call a single empire when he counts Rome as separate for the republic, the empire, the western empire, and the eastern empire.
Mamluk Empire
This one is fine, running from the mamluk overthrow of the Ayyubid sultanate to the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluk sultanate.
Ottoman Empire
Not sure why the author picked 1320 specifically, but the rise of the Ottomans isn't well-recorded and it was around this date so it's fine by me. The end date is utterly baffling though. In 1570, the Ottomans launched a war against basically every naval power in Europe, and they won it. How is that end of their power? They would, of course, survive until their defeat as a major power in the First World War for ~600 years.
Spanish Empire
Not sure why 1500 specifically was picked, but it's roughly when Spain got a foothold in the Americas so okay. Nothing of particular significance happened in 1750 either, though, and it would be another 58 years before the wars of independence from its colonies started (and Spain's defeat by Napoleon soon after). Spain's "lifetime" as an empire should be over 300 years.
Romanov Russia
1682 is the start of Peter the Great's reign, but he didn't proclaim the empire until 1721 and he inherited the tsardom before it from family that had ruled it since 1613. Nothing special happened upon Peter's accession itself. 1916 is one year early for the end of Russia as it collapsed in to civil war during the First World War, but one year isn't much. Russia should be either 303 or 196 years depending on how you count it.
British Empire
Not sure why he picked 1700 as the start date when there's the obvious 1707 as the actual creation of the kingdom of Great Britain. 1950 seems a fair date for the end of Britain as a leading world superpower though
All in all I don't understand how this ever got popular when something as simple as the dates he gives for his foundational examples are so questionable. Never mind that he only uses examples from Europe and western Asia either. China and India, famously places with no large empires ever of course. How about Aksum, undisputed top dog of eastern Africa for 800 years?
Amazing write-up, thank you! I learned a lot from this.
And indeed, it seems like he started out with the number 250 and the British Empire in mind, and took it from there. Maybe an attempt for the Brits to feel better about themselves after the end of Empire.
Yea some of these are pretty cherry picked.
I mean "the Roman Empire" in the loosest term, from the beginning of Rome's expansion out of Italy, to the fall of Constantinople in the east, was over 1700 years.
And the Ottoman Empire was still very much alive and threatening Europe into the 18th century before they began their terminal decline.
“Anymore”
Seems a bit hyperbolic considering the numbers.
That's expected to be per year though, ain't it? Which means the air force will be about 40,000 underneath it's wanted amount? 40,000 seems like a large percentage of the ~330,000 reported as their ranks in 2021. The navy has a hair more personnel, I believe, around 350k? So 24,000 below that, not quite 10%. Those numbers probably aren't telling the full story, either. If the overall quality of the enlisted suffers, oof. Maybe those 10,000 that aren't coming in now were the smarter ones.
Hello robot soilders.
cough bull shit cough
Empires have to fall because of something
Have to or need to?
Considering nearly every empire that didn't get ganked due to major natural disasters, be they volcanos, storms, earthquakes, multiyear heatwaves or multiyear coldwaves was an absolutely horrible shithole to live as anyone not the ruling class.
Whatever helps you cope