@Storin because then your state is implicitly at war with the population it governs

That's why I put the <:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

You already have the police to do that as well

exactly

which is why I didn't suggest that

Yeah, but the people don't see it that way. It becomes much more obvious with a military presence

sorry, which people, and to what end?

The real you should be asking what would they be doing to benefit the country

Well as I said soldiers are usually working class men that don't "fit" in society, that is why they go to the military 🤔

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/politia#Latin
I'm talking about how people interpret their reality

And a lot of them (self included) have been on operations and I loved it

The general public sees a police presence as a "state presence"

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/militaris#Latin

....yes...? Not seeing where you're going with this. we've already established just putting the army on domestic soil isn't a solution

The biggest problem for the army is basically the home population, because most of them do not have the stomach for war and thus tend to turn what could be a victory into a route

Or limit the actions of the military and its services so much that they can not achieve the killing blow

But do you see the police themselves as a "military presence" by another name? @Jokerfaic. I thought that's what you were implying

um no?

I never mentioned such terms at all

I said the US constitution forbids a standing army on home soil, and that the national guard is a separate entity

If I understand what Joker was saying is that the staying in Middle east has no benefit for the US but has a benefit for the Saudis

That is what it sounded like Ordis

the police also being a separate entity, and not comprable to military bodies, regardless of their equipment

at least in the case of the US

Okay, i guess I misunderstood. Maybe it would make sense to have a hybrid system established in the form of private security which can be deployed.

Have different people trained in the same system for different things and then as it's not a state actor there's greater ambiguity about whether or not it's a military actor

I really don't see where you're going with this

Establish chapters in multiple countries unified under a core set of beliefs...

And......implicit empire time

oh christ, this still?

Why not?

I thought I made very clear why

And your wrong

You made it clear why an American empire would be wrong

so not only do you want to pursue the ill-fated title of empire, you want to empower armed militas to patrol the streets?

But what about a corporate empire?

Well then Have fun with McMilita all over the place

fuckin basically

Corporate empires are terrible

America cant even fix its own healthcare system

yeah, too busy giving it to Israel and afganistan for free