I guess it’s because I have very little patience for Freepers - who should understand and value our Armed Forces - saying things that are more appropriate for Leftist fora.
History tells us that there have been many preeminent civilizations but none of them survived when they neglected their ability to defend themselves. In a world where we could be annihilated from any spot on Earth within 30 minutes or so, we have no choice but to be the best there is at keeping the potential enemies at bay.
I have traveled all over the world and found that there are millions of wonderful, gracious people - who you would never want to be in charge of you and your future.
For some reason you are arguing about something I did not say in the first place. Of course we need a vibrant military. It must be the best in the world. And of course that military should be valued and respected.
My point (and that of central_va and pfflier as well) is that we do not need a HUGE military. A strong military, yes! A huge military, maybe not. That is the topic under debate.
Europe does not have to defend itself because we do it for them. Japan does not have to defend itself because we do it for them. Why is that OK?
As you noted, civilizations have fallen because of an inadequate military. But civilizations have also fallen because they felt the need to maintain huge, expensive armies - armies that just had to be everywhere at once. The Roman Empire is a good example of that.