[insuffi]

Except when you pay police salaries, you're expecting them to maintain order within a society. The end goal of advanced military equipment[0] is to kill people as efficiently as possible. It's the goal, not something out of line.

[0] Doesn't even have to be equipment. Maintaining databases which are required for a functioning military complex means you're still serving their vision. Their visions as of late are often amoral.

[cobrausn]

At the risk of further deviating this thread from the original topic and getting into extremely useless discussion territory, I would disagree that killing people in and of itself is an amoral goal, and even ordinarily peaceful people will often find there are circumstances that will cause them to agree with this assessment.

The large system designed to kill targeted groups of people efficiently, when it works as designed, doesn't actually spend much time (if any) actually doing that job. The mere existence of such a force should prevent that from happening (as it absolutely has for the most part). Having said that, there are circumstances when I absolutely expect them to do just that - if an aggressive foreign army were to roll into your hometown tomorrow, you would likely agree.

I realize that to the rest of the world right now we (i.e., the U.S.) are that aggressive foreign army, which is why I say the system is out of line - certain unilateral actions were a misuse of the system. This is why many people see no hypocrisy in 'supporting the troops', but being 'against the war'.

Anyway, not trying to say you are completely wrong and you should feel bad WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, just trying to provide some explanation of another viewpoint. As you said, it's about perception and morality - not surprising we end up with different stances.

[mpyne]

> The end goal of advanced military equipment[0] is to kill people as efficiently as possible.

I can't speak for other militaries, but for the U.S. military the goal is peace, without abject surrender (which is no "peace" at all), and with the "American way of life" and international law.

The means to achieving that goal is the credible deterrent threat that comes from having ways to blow the right things up. Do not conflate the two, right now you are confusing ends with means.

[lawnchair_larry]

"I can't speak for other militaries, but for the U.S. military the goal is peace"

No, that's not correct. The absurdity of this statement is staggering.

[insuffi]

Perhaps I am confusing the ends with the means. But international law? Several ex US presidents can't even fly to certain countries in Europe because they'd be jailed right away.

International law - indefinite detention, torture; or killing with drones without due process? Doesn't seem like international law is held in high esteem in the US.

[mpyne]

Neither indefinite detention nor drones are contrary to international law per se. German combatants were detained indefinitely during WWII, and a drone is no different from any other aircraft as far as international law is concerned.

Torture is against international law. Even if you want to quibble about whether Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants" I think that even non-treaty customary international law would forbid torture.

So I suppose that's why the U.S. abrogated Bush's policies on torture as soon as Obama took office in 2009.

[dragonwriter]

> Torture is against international law.

True.

> Even if you want to quibble about whether Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants" I think that even non-treaty customary international law would forbid torture.

More importantly, it would be against treaty-based international law even if you ignored the Geneva Conventions completely, since it is prohibited by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.