You attacked one of my friends!

>you attacked one of my friends!
>I will send a bunch of teenage boys invade your territory and attack you and your group of teenage boys in retaliation!
Literally what's the difference between a street gang and a nation's army? Inb4 "they're protecting your freedom retard" the majority of the wars that the US army has been involved in for the past 20 years have nothing to do with my freedom.

Attached: 6CB9E3AA-3D83-4E3B-AD49-486D1A853B96.jpg (483x483, 33K)

Because every country apart from mine is irrelevant

>Literally what's the difference between a street gang and a nation's army?
Numbers and taxpayer funding.

Fifty years.

There are many parallels between street gangs and nations. Dem vs Reps is basically just crips vs the bloods. Same colors even.

>what's the difference between small tribal warfare and BIG tribal warfare
Size, idiot.

>every hood apart from mine is irrelevant
>10th Street Rifa homeboy

Attached: 81A04016-CF60-414C-A5A6-A7FE3B04A8B6.jpg (750x259, 77K)

But why is the small tribe considered bad and the big tribe considered heroes when they're doing the exact same thing, just on a larger scale? Why do I have to treat veterans like gods? Why does a member of the US Army Gang get free shit? How is this any different than a member of some mob intimidating business owners and getting free shit?

Because the big tribe is fighting for the country's interests and the small tribes are fighting to the country's detriment

Attached: DZtvp1BVAAEFBXV.jpg large.jpg (960x689, 105K)

The big tribe is fighting for the interests of very few people at the top, not the interests of the common person. If the big tribe were fighting for OUR interests, they wouldn't do half the shit they do.

The small tribe, on the other hand, also fights for the interest of a select group of people, but they're honest about it.

>why do I have to treat veterans like gods
Who says you does? Veterans are about as likely to be drug addicted, homeless or suicidal as fucking trannies. Nothing godlike about them.

If you don't 'support our troops', people act like you're ungrateful scum who doesn't appreciate all that these glorified gangbangers do to "defend" or democracy.

The best way to get someone on your side is by telling them that you're a veteran. Imagine a gang member announcing their affiliation and people telling them "thank you for your service"

Attached: EA2892DE-DC1F-413D-8C81-2EF78793AD90.jpg (307x300, 25K)

I guess me not being an American makes me unable to understand that. It sounds almost satirical.

Whether or not you think the military is working in your interests, the common person believes they are.
Also the average person could care less about the horrors of a foreign war, but they do care about Jose doing drive by's in their neighborhood.

>the majority of the wars that the US army has been involved in for the past 20 years have nothing to do with my freedom.
If by "majority" you meant "all" and by "past 20 years" you meant "past 200 years" then yes, you are correct.

There is no difference. But it is the only option. In this world, it's fight or die. The only reason gangs are seen as 'bad' is because the government sees them as threats, so in that sense it's merely propagfanda.

>me, 7th grade
>make friends with some gang members at my new middle school
>neighborhood bully walks around telling everyone how he's gonna kick my ass
>gang members tell me that they'll beat him up for me
>they do
>bully never talks about me again
Gangs have done more to protect me than the military has

There's no difference except that the military has better weapons and absolute control of a much larger territory that they can level taxes from.

Think about it. Just like gangs and mafias, you are extorted to pay tax to the government if you live in their territory. You also have to do whatever they say whether you like it or not.

If you don't pay up or do what they tell you to, they will send the cops to hunt you down and haul you into prison. If you do not co-operate with the police, they will kill you.

So what is the difference? There is none.

the small tribes threaten the authority of the big tribes.

Soldiers are cowards. In reality the death toll for soldiers is very low, it's not WW2 anymore, nowadays they sit in air-conditioned bases and remotely operate drones to kill defenceless people and so-called "terrorists" (in reality people far braver than them who are actually willing to die for what they believe in).

On top of this have the balls to came back home and demand additional welfare on top of the welfare they already receive for their service in the military for bullshit like PTSD. Soldiers are the ultimate welfare-queens and parasites on society more than any gangbanger could ever hope to be. On top of this, they enforce the government's downright tyrannical laws on its citizenry at the point of a gun, all for a simple paycheck.

If the government ever took away guns or whatever, it would be American soldiers busting down doors, killing people who did not want to give up their guns and drone-striking "hostile combatants" AKA civilians that they think might have a pistol... maybe.

I think that the reason for the "global police" thing, apart from having good relations so bad shit doesn't happen to us, is actually against globalism. In that people don't have to retreat their countries in the hundreds of thousands, ruining other countries in the process because nobody's willing to make sure their home countries are safe. Trouble-makers have to be taken out to prevent what's happening right now with all the refugees.

Because one is a nation's military it's first and primary form of defence where people put their lives on the line voluntarily to protect their nation and its ideals that their forefathers built. The other is a small time criminal organisation that only serves itself to the detriment of everyone else it comes into contact with.

A full half of the military would rebel and kill their khakis if it came down to that, based on DoD projections. You're more likely to have a foreign group of "peace keepers" come and kill the local populace.

>protect their nation and its ideals
You must not be American. Bombing some random African village does nothing to protect the US and its ideals. Starting offensive wars with countries that have done nothing to you is not protecting the US and its ideals. Overthrowing leaders of other countries because they refuse to do what you tell them to is not protecting the US and its ideals. Waging illegal wars and killing civilians does not protect the US and its ideals.

Gangs do all of these things, maybe. The military will definitely do all of these things and be called heroes for it.

Please, soldiers aren't going to walk into what is essentially certain death just to protect the gun rights of citizenry. Maybe half of soldiers would be disgruntled, but very few would be so suicidally brave to oppose the rest of the army and essentially get slaughtered by overwhelming force, especially since the tanks, jets and navy would remain soundly in US government hands.

Most soldiers would shut up, take the paycheck and simply do as they're told, regardless of how they feel. Orders are orders, after all.

>US ideals aren't about bombing shitholes for resources

>Orders are orders, after all
This is the way members of more organized gangs think.
>well I grew up with black people and some of my childhood friends were black but the Mexican Macia told me I have to kill them all.
>orders are orders ese
>I really don't wanna bomb this wedding full of innocent people just to *maybe* get one guy but orders are orders

>Literally what's the difference between a street gang and a nation's army?
The only difference is scale.

I recommend reading William Cavanaugh's "Dying for the Telephone Company" or Charles Tilly.

This can be extended to regular people getting into physical altercations. If I went outside and ended up getting into a fight with some guy, society would calls us both a couple of immature dumbasses who can't control their emotions and solve their problems with violence like animals rather than words. But when someone like a police officer or a soldier, etc, uses violence to get people to cooperate, we as a society see nothing wrong with it. When you look at the way things in this culture work, the authority figures in our society are allowed to be as violent as they want and we all understand that it's their job to do so, but if a normal person uses physical force, there's something wrong with him.

because we're part of the big tribe, not the small tribe

Don't you think gang members consider their comrades heroes? To them, they're not thugs, their soldiers fighting for their own. The way they feel about their gang and the way people feel about their country is the same, you've just only experienced one.

Well the army isn't the country and regular people aren't members of the military. I would understand it if our military saw themselves as heroes but it makes no sense for regular civilians to consider them heroes but consider gang members bad people.

Gangs don't really provide anything besides protection from other gangs. The military protects corporate/government interests which aren't always in our interest sure but name one street gang that funded a road paving project.

A lot of gangs provide things to their community so that they'll look good. They'll donate to charities or do community service. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gang out there who funded something that the people appreciated.

But what makes the big tribe any better than the small tribe when they're doing the exact same thing, the only difference being that the big tribe's acts of violence have the potential to destroy the planet?

Your average resident of the projects considers their gang a force to protect their community whether they're a member or not, at least in many situations.

>street gangs
>donating to charity

You understand that gang violence is responsible for the vast majority of homicide in the US, right? They are vicious fucking criminals who need to be wiped from the face of the earth.

Attached: 02 gun.jpg (1000x559, 52K)

You do understand that US military terrorism is responsible for the vast majority of homicide in the Middle East, right? The fact that they're violent doesn't mean they don't donate to charities and do community service. Look it up.

Everything you said in your post can be said for the military.

>the majority of the wars that the US army has been involved in for the past 20 years have nothing to do with my freedom.
>implying the majority of any wars since the dawn of humanity were about political reasons

Attached: hoover dam security legion pointy spears.jpg (625x430, 76K)

Must suck being american lmao