Why nations call it Defense Service when the army is for offense?

1. 73

   jainismusposted 13 years ago

   Many countries are using their army to invade other countries. So I think that the armies should be known as Offense Services. What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You sound like a fan of Ron Paul

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That makes two, congratulations.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            lobobrandonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            This guy is only after wars...

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "HEY!! LAT'S BOMB I-RAN!!! WE BROKE, BUT I DO SHORE LIKE BOMBS!!! I CAN'T POINT TO IT ON A MAP, BUT EVERY MAJOR INSTITUTION SAYS THEY DON'T HAVE NUKES!!! NUKE THEM FIRST!!"
            
            edit: I believe the above statement would be best served by ending with a --
            
            "YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW"

            replyreport
   2. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a good question. We used to call what is now the Defense Department the "War Department" which was more accurate.

      replyreport
2. 72

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   I would say that your perception is tainted?
   
   Military isn't for offensive, but is for defense of domestic protection(against invasion from internal sources) and in defense of foreign attack.
   
   Being attacked first and then attacking back is a defensive position, not offensive.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like our invasion of Iraq I presume? Or Vietnam? Or Korea? If my memory serves the last war that fits your definition is WWII.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Which battle would you like to discuss Ralph? The first battle was in defense of another Nation. The second battle was in defense of people?
         
         Or Vietnam? Wasn't this in support of another Nation?
         Or Korea? Wasn't this in support of another Nation?
         I wouldn't want your memory.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "Military isn't for offensive, but is for defense of domestic protection(against invasion from internal sources) and in defense of foreign attack."
            
            Cagsil, please explain who was attacking the United States from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. The Korean and Vietnam wars resulted from an unjustified, as history has shown, fear a threat from the spread of Communism. Our invasion of Iraq was insane. Our invasion of Afghanistan was also a great mistake as proven by our killing of Bin Laden by a small Navy Seal mission. Attempting to civilize Afghanistan is a waste of our lives, money and time.
            [I recognize that the 9-11 attack was masterminded by Bin Laden who was based in Afghanistan, but the government, such as it was, didn't attack the United States.)

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The majority of Afghani men have NO IDEA that there was an attack on America on 9/11.   They do not have tv, cable, cell phones, FB, Twitter  etc......
               
               All they KNOW is that there are invaders occupying THEIR sovereign Nation....
               
               
               They are defending their homeland!
               
               
               Bin Laden is dead!  Mission accomplished!
               
               
               Bring our soldiers home NOW!!!!!!!!!

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  +++Amen, brother!

                  replyreport
3. 67

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Most countries are using their armies purely for defense, search and rescue, disaster responding and UN-controlled peacekeeping.

   replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Are we really that immature that we can't understand the need for pre-emptive  military action?  Do we forget our history that quickly ? Does Pearl Harbor ! ring a bell for you?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You mean pre-emptive action like Iraq? You sound like George Bush and the neocons. Arguably, Bush was the most immature president in the 20th century.

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Fraid not , Obama is a social worker on steroids Ralph, And Clinton was even worse. Niether were real patriots!

   replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   And I always get a kick out of liberals that squeal like sissies at a prom where the liberties of freedom of speech are concerned. You ride the waves of freedom until the crap hits the fan and then move on to another less troublesome country. Isn't it time to look at Switzerland or someplace neutral!

   replyreport
7. 61

   Judi Burtonposted 13 years ago

   I'm a liberal and my ancestor signed the Declaration of Independance. I am a true patriot and I will stand up for this country. My great grandmother fought for the right to vote. My father fought in the Vietnam War. I think it laughable when a republican believes they are the only true patriots. Get off your high warhorse there Mister.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Being the daughter of  patriot s, you have no excuse for not understanding the need for pre-emptive military action , your ancesters understood this well,  Wasn't the actual signing of the declaration of independence .....a pre emtive action against another country?  Or was that all he did by for the  upcoming   war by signing it?  Just asking !

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Judiburton, Alright liberal ,cconservative , it doesn't realy matter does's it?
   But what does matter is  a realization that some leaders of this world are truely evil, and that taking a defensive posture isn't going to stop that evil BUT allow it  a free reign  to do as it wishes.  Who then  will survive a Hitler for instance . You would be speaking German or perhaps Japanese as a language if it wern't  for offensive military intervention.
   
   Evan Rodgers ...you're response is typical of the comedic mentality of the P.C. liberal .  All consevatives  are rednecks.! My advice to the  poster children of immaturity  as yourself....read your history and put your crayons away!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't be a sap OW. He's right. For every good intention the average American had while supporting military conflict since the last WW, our government, in cahoots with big corporations, have used those conflicts to make the rest of us look like greedy and insensitive jerks who care only for what we can gain.
      
      From where I'm standing this inability to recognize the ulterior motives shows the good heart and naivete of our citizens, but I'm not living under the barrage of bombs and I haven't lost loved ones because of a conflict I didn't ask for.
      
      Our military commanders have been following the directives of an aggressive government for quite some time and it's past the time that we should take both back and reset their courses. Because they've started turning inward now and viewing our own citizens as the enemy also. If we wait much longer, it will be too late.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ROFL - if you think I'm a liberal, then you sure haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing!
      
      I bet I'm more conservative than you are! Quit bailing out failing companies, quit using my tax money to fund welfare, quit stealing my money to pay for failed wars...
      
      I'm an anarchist, but I'll settle for the Constitution.
      
      Ron Paul 2012.

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   I truely understand the O.P.s question and intention. There is now in America a military industrial complex that is far more influential than the labor unions when it comes to politics and policy. In fact it actually over shadows our very government!  That has also been around sinse the beginning , and I ask you this , who do you all work for , G.E.?   , Boeing? General Motors , or are you in the benificial shadows of these giants of our  great war economy. Chemical engeneering? Nasa, ? Do you tech our children science ?......where does it end ? The tenticals of our economy run deep. That very industrial complex often only functions in the shadows when it comes to political influence . Lobbyism , thier donations to political campaigns are at an all time high. and all your Congressman has to do is quietly function behind the scenes in thier behalf!...Want to sell more of your manufactured product , create a demand .......boom ....war!

   replyreport
10. 66

    maxoxam41posted 13 years ago

    So far your question is only appliable to the United-States! Don't make it a false generality?

    replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    The US had a Defense Department until it became an empire. Since most Americans don't know they live in an empire, it would hardly be prudent for them to call it an Offense Department.

    replyreport