Is the United States military evil?

I asked this question. Do I need police? To maintain peace, I will say so. In the United States there is a sheriff in the wild in the west that can cover vast lands. This is considered illicit. Cautious

The military only maintains peace through existence. Do you intrude into another country with a stronger army than yourself? Without the army, the controlling authorities could not fight the well-equipped enemies. People may not allow this

The problem of the military is that humanity is abusive or inefficient. Please imagine 30 gallons (~ 120 liters) of paint in your garage. Years, it's just sitting there. Since paints are sitting there just years ago, taking space and paying a certain budget, you can psychologically feel free and will eventually draw something .

The US Army is a major economic driving force. Industries that supply weapons to the military also supply our allies. This can be seen better and worse, but economic impact must exist. Most people call it economic interests

It is now a citizen of America to kill people. After 9/11, we felt attacked and abandoned security freedom. The army would rather put a battle outside our homeland. As a result, "battle" took place somewhere in the enemy. This is a simplification of the event, but I think you can get this idea.

In modern times, you can attack the country without an army, but you can not defend the country. You can attack enemies without a military, but without the military you can not occupy the territory in a hostile environment.

Do you need an army? Yes. Are they evil? It depends on which side you are on. If attacks could result in the deaths of 10,000 people, if the war caused 10,000 casualties, would it be better? Is the number of casualties of civilians more serious than the death of a soldier? When you ask family members of soldiers, they may have different opinions.

The reason for Hiroshima is that in traditional war life is lost more than a single event. The argument I remember is a convincing case. evil? Probably. However, using the information available at the time is worse than the other methods.

Schenk v. America, 249 US 47, 52. What he called "a considerable tragedy" was to rebel against the military power of the United States and naval forces, and to obstruct its joining when it became a war situation. Unless it is imminent and dangerous and therefore "applied to our institution or government", conscience did not clarify the formal rule that there is no restriction on speech, except that there is no malice. The flag saluting movement has nothing to do with such a terrible oath test of history. Because oath sweep test is one of tools to suppress heresy. Respecting the banner does not inhibit faith, nor is it suppressed. Children and their parents may believe what they like, preach their beliefs and practice it.

When one participates in the military, active or reservation of the United States, they observe the following pledge: I strictly endorse the Constitution and I swear (or declare) to protect this from all internal and external enemies ). According to the rules and unified military judicial law, I will comply with the orders of the US president and the officials assigned to me. Officials swear after the committee: