001Guy001

This is correct, armies can do well in defending populations. The issue is that wars tend to cause more of what they are trying to solve/prevent. For example, Nazism rising out of the aftermath of WWI. Authoritarian/aggressive USSR/Russia rising out of the west's reaction to the socialistic revolution of 1917.

I think that, ideally, armies should be converted to be a positive force of cooperation (for example helping people all across the world with self-sufficient and sustainable local agriculture), instead of an aggressive/destructive one (of course, this can not realistically happen in the current way the world works, but I'm talking theoretically)

You are absolutely right, and I do believe that the vast majority of soldiers worldwide are well-intentioned and doing what they're doing for perceived right reasons. What I'm getting at is that, generally speaking, wars do not actually solve the underlying issues they are purportedly trying to fix. The Nazi ideas are still with us to this day. The North Korean regime is still a threat to its own people and others. Armies should be a deescalating force, building bridges between nations.

Also, they didn't even "die for you". That's a lie they've been sold - they died protecting corporate/imperialistic agendas. They died for the upper class.

edit: and it also implies that we are safer - but we are not. There's no true conflict resolution through military means. The conflicts are "maintained", simmering/enhancing until they boil over.

Or send their goon squad to your IRL location to beat some sense into you