As a member of the military, I find it disrespectful to call a day for honoring the sacrifices of those who have served “Rape Day”. Yes, I believe that the rape of women in the military is an important issue and it should be brought into awareness; however, it should not be emphasized on this one specific day. There are many problems within the military, problems which should be addressed in a continual basis. This one day is time spent to positively think about our servicemen and women. By focusing on the darker aspects within the military on this one day spent to celebrate good, you are taking away respect for the military as a whole. It is much like celebrating a friend’s birthday or an anniversary with a loved one. Would you try to bring up any disagreements that are on going? No, you would take your time to try to celebrate what they have given to the world. In tainting the celebration, you are being disrespectful. My 2 cents.

@BimmerPhile - Not everything is as black and white as you believe. Also, I think you might need a history lesson or two. 

@BimmerPhile - What about the Zimmerman Telegram? President Wilson did not want to go to war. This is accounted in many history books and is largely accepted as fact. His aids wanted otherwise, but he stuck to his ground, despite the sinking of merchant ships. Let me place emphasis on this: only when the Zimmerman Telegram (a secret telegram sent from Germany to Mexico) was intercepted, did the Americans go to war. Yes, France did mobilize troops after Germany mobilized their troops, but this was to be expected. Germany expected it enough that they devised the Schlieffen Plan (revised 1906) prior to WWI and subsequently utilized that very plan.

In my initial statement, what I was trying to illustrate was that Germany wasn’t defending themselves. This was a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. However, my new argument is that Austria-Hungary ultimately started the war. Serbia had no intention in going to war. Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia was extremely hard to achieve for any nation with dignity. Because both Russia and France were weak militarily compared to Germany, they urged Serbia to concede to the ultimatum. Serbia agreed to all 10 terms except term number 6: that Austrian police be allowed to operate within Serbia. Any country would not allow such a deal. Upon hearing the news of Serbia not accepting term number 6, the German government talked amongst themselves. It sounded like they were praying for war. Statements like, “Everything must be done to ensure that he [Wilhelm] (German Emperor) does not interfere in things with his pacifist ideas.” -German Foreign Ministry. As well as, “Here, every delay in the beginning of war operations is regarded as signifying the danger that foreign powers might interfere. We are urgently advised to proceed without delay.” -Austria-Hungarian ambassador to Berlin’s message to Count Berchtold (Imperial Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary). Because of these facts, one can see that Austria-Hungary was looking for war. They were the aggressors. Serbia lacked the power to afflict any sort of damage upon Austria-Hungary in a war effort and were looking to prevent war. Serbia conceded to almost all of the impossible ultimatums. This is proof that they did not want war. Austria-Hungary wanted it and started it. They were the aggressors. The weaker France and Russia also did not want war as seen with their urge to Serbia to comply. Germany can seen as aggressive from the messages sent within their political network. The same can be said of Austria-Hungary. Again, Germany and Austria-Hungary can be seen as the aggressors, not France or Britain. You fail to see the necessary details.

Now, about WWII. In response to your statement, “My family did too when they were hunted during WWII by the Nazi’s” – I’m sorry to hear that. My Chinese family were hunted and mistreated by the Japanese. Yes, at times the military can be a terrible force; however, I’m saying that the military can also be used for good. Without the military to protect innocent civilians from the evils seen in WWII, many more people would have perished. Without American forces, both the African and European front would have arguably been prolonged or even unsuccessful. The British were nearing destruction in Africa. If we hadn’t pushed through Africa, we could not have even made it to Sicily (which put pressure on German forces). Additionally, much of the Normandy Invasion force across the English Channel were Americans and would have likely failed without the aid of American forces. Without establishing this solid foothold in Europe, there wouldn’t have even been a European front at that phase of the war. Without establishing a European front, Germany wouldn’t have been pressured and could divert reinforcements to Russia. Additionally, without pressure on Germany, almost all Jewish men, women, and children would have been killed. The American military was necessary to prevent such a tragedy.

Hm. “People who fail in life.” So, doctors who go to med school and are successful practitioners failed in life? Judges failed in life? Lawyers who pass the bar exam fail at life? I can provide many solid examples of people who have joined the military after such accomplishments. You only provide a general misconception with no factual basis. Once again, you fail to see the details. You only see in black and white and this is your flaw. You are unable to distinguish truth from general misconceptions because of this. People who have multiple degrees from Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford fail at life? Show me that this is not the case. If you try to, I will show you many men who have succeeded in life despite being in the military. You argue with emotion, not fact. This is a major flaw in your intellect.

Now, I have stated bad exists within the military. There are rapists and murderers. I am not deifying anyone. I was stating fact–fact that you do not attempt to refute. The military has been useful. They have been used in international and national aid. That is what I am stating. Fact that can be supported. The military is necessary for national defense. Without a volunteer force, a draft would be in effect which would prevent the freedoms of being a common citizen. The freedom to not fight in unnecessary wars. The freedom of not having your freedoms taken away from you for a year to a couple years. This is my argument. It is simple. You avoid it because you cannot refute it.

I also want to talk about rapists and murderers in general. They exist everywhere in society. Because of this, many organizations are prone to having rapists or murderers. A good amount of rape occurs in the Peace Corps. Does this mean that it is an evil organization that must be put down? No. The Peace Corps does much good. It’s just bad people exist anywhere.

Now, you’re likely going to either not respond (because you don’t know how else to reply or don’t want to put in the effort to reply) or you’ll say that I’m a military warmonger who is not worth talking to. That I have no knowledge and that my information is all fed on lies–lies that many researchers and historians in many countries believe in. However, you’re probably tempted to say that I am not worth talking to because you, yourself, do not know how to argue back successfully with sound logic. If you had actually read my post, you can see that I am not a warmonger. In fact, at times I don’t see why everyone can’t just get along and try to talk their differences. Many psychological studies (Smetana) show that in sincerely working out problems between ingroup/outgroups, any illogical dispute dissipates. I just wish politicians around the world didn’t have to behave like school children in a play-yard.

Once again, I am merely providing logic found on fact. I hope you can do the same. I’m enjoying our discussion. I look forward to reading your response.

@BimmerPhile - No, the Zimmerman Telegram was as issue because Germany offered incentives for Mexico to declare war with the US if the US seemed likely to enter war with Germany (not if the US entered war. It’s if the US appeared as if they were going to enter war). This is a declaration of hostility. It’s much like if someone paid your neighbor sums of money to attack you. You would interpret that someone’s actions as an act of hostility.

And as for WWII. It happened. This is not a hypothetical (like what your argument is based on), this is fact. Without the US military, Hitler would have killed millions more people over sick ideologies. Thus, the US Military was necessary. I rest my case.

And even if the US military didn’t enter WWI, the same outcome could have occurred. The US had a small, inexperienced military. General Pershing had to redesign how the military operated and new equipment had to be constructed to transition the US military from a largely defensive, coastal military to one that could support an expeditionary Army. The support of the American Army was not a decisive reason for the Allied victory. The Allies did not have significant American man-power during the strongest German offensive (when troops from the Russian front could be utilized in the Western Front due to the armistice between Russia and Germany). On the other hand, American manpower in WWII proved decisive.

And with hypotheticals (what your argument is based on), anything could have happened. It is much like predicting the future: you can’t. It is impossible because of the billions of minute details you cannot account for. That is why you cannot trust hypothetical situations which attempt to capture large situations (like WWI). These large situations of near infinite complexity (involving the minds, actions, and luck of entire nations) cannot be accurately predicted. That is why your argument fails once again. Your “proof” never happened.

Ditto on having a life. We really have dragged this on far enough. Good luck with grad school and thanks for the intellectual stimulation.