I can't say whether weapons training is good for the public as a whole, but I certainly learned respect for my weapon the first time I saw a 240 lb. drill sergeant do a flying tackle off a 4 foot stand onto a 150 lb. private for accidentally pointing his rifle at said drill sergeant, on a dry fire course....
Some people will just never learn, it is true with everyone. It is like saying we shouldn't promote people to be fit because they would use thier newfound strength to beat everyone up. That is just how life goes sometimes...
Just1life2live4 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So basically your argument is that a standing army artificially insulates the general public from the ill effects of war. Could I not just as easily argue that abolishing a standing army would artificially sensitize the public to the ill effects of war? Both arguments are based on a preconceived notion of what the effects of war should be, rather than what they might be in actuality; it's that notion which is artificial.
If a war is bad - unnecessary, evil, misguided - then that is the only reason we should need to make the decision to oppose it. So if a nation decides it can finance and maintain a standing army, it's not for us to prevent it from doing so in order to create a built-in disincentive to war. Besides, the first thing the nation will do when it perceives a need is eliminate those artificial roadblocks anyway, so the exercise would be futile.
I'd love for the public to be more vocal and active in its opposition to war, but I also think they need to base that opposition on the actual problems with those wars, and not ones we've created in order to manipulate their response.
I find your belief that citizens will make informed, reasonable, and intelligent decisions when they themselves see no significant personal cost to be wildly optimistic. An important part of a functioning democracy is perspective. Honestly, I don't think that compulsory military or civil service has turned out so badly in nations which employ it, and it would likely do much to deter unnecessary and ill-though-out conflict.
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Is what I am thinking. Certainly, gun violence is a big problem either way, but don't tell me that giving everyone free combat training is going to do much good in this respect.
Honestly, I'm not sure how combat training is going to increase the amount of casualties/incidents. If you have your hands on a gun and intend to use it to commit a crime, I believe you'll probably do some damage with it, combat training or not.
Also, people spraying Uzis around in a drive-by and hitting random civilians is probably not a result of quality combat training.
Not that I'm advocating boot camp for that reason; but the problem is far more nuanced than some people are letting on in this thread.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
LondonBridge on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2007
This concept that combat/ gun training would decrease violent crime is retarded. Compulsory military service would decrease violent crime in the US if it provided a life path for poor kids to join society rather than shoot at each other, but a lack of gun training has nothing to do with violent crime in the US, and there's no reason to think that combat training instills some sort of moral sense.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
You should know that isn't what he meant. He means that teaching teenagers how to kill is teaching a ton of often unstable and potentional criminals how to kill more easily. Teenagers are probably the most likely people to become criminals in the near future though I don't have any stats.
I would like this not to turn into some sort of mandatory service debate, because making everyone serve 2 years in the military is the same as having a standing army. Always having a half million trained soldiers on hand would, in my opinion, create the same sort of apathy and business as usual-ness that we have now.
My ideal, I suppose, would be to have a very small professional force to be used in relief missions and the like that we do routinely, and also to act as an experienced officers corp during time of war. Fill up the grunt work with conscripts, and go at it. Obviously some specialists would have to be kept on full time as well, and probably some parts of the air force and navy. I mean, it worked for the Germans at the beginning of WWII, although they did bend the rules of the treaties a bit.
I would rather see a return of the CCC on a federal level than a draft. Barring national emergency, I do not see the overseas deployment of conscripts being anything but damaging to our military.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
Yeah, cause its not like the Army hasn't traditionally had a problem with gangs joining to get combat training.
Oh wait..
And for the record you're a pretty scrawny dude. I'm pretty sure one of those "fat" people could hand your ass to you.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
You were the one who made a connection between teenagers and crime. I think it's interesting that you think combat training is going to convert a teenager who is involved in crime into an upstanding citizen.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
You were the one who made a connection between teenagers and crime. I think it's interesting that you think combat training is going to convert a teenager who is involved in crime into an upstanding citizen.
Yes I do. Because I've seen it, some of my best soldiers were former gang members. Combat Training is no joke, you have to be very disciplined and patient to complete it. An average thug will get kicked out before he/she even starts if they have an attitude and won't listen.
In some ways I support a draft but not for political reasons nor to fight a war really. We all know America has a weight and crime problem and I think every teenager could benefit from 13 weeks in boot camp and possibly a good MOS. If we had a draft I do not think it should be active service, should be treated like the Reserves or National Guard.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
You were the one who made a connection between teenagers and crime. I think it's interesting that you think combat training is going to convert a teenager who is involved in crime into an upstanding citizen.
Yes I do. Because I've seen it, some of my best soldiers were former gang members. Combat Training is no joke, you have to be very disciplined and patient to complete it. An average thug will get kicked out before he/she even starts if they have an attitude and won't listen.
It's a good thing that criminals don't have any patience or discipline then.
Yes I do. Because I've seen it, some of my best soldiers were former gang members. Combat Training is no joke, you have to be very disciplined and patient to complete it. An average thug will get kicked out before he/she even starts if they have an attitude and won't listen.
Because we're going to be just like that with a conscription in place, eh.
"Oh, you're not listening? YOU'RE OUT! NOW LETS SEE WHAT YOU'LL DO! ... Oh, going home and enjoying life...oh well."
Aldo on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
In some sense, the draft is more fair than a volunteer army. After all, the draft targets all socio-economic classes, especially now that they've gotten tough about exemptions (as opposed to the 'socio-economic' draft). In addition to this all being more equitable, it would also mean the public at large would be less rash about going to war. After all, the human costs of the war would be more evenly distributed. Hence, rah rah draft.
However, I'd like to raise a couple of points of doubt. First, to the fairness of the draft: the draft still fundamentally involves people telling strangers that they have to go die. According to some website, the 18-25 year old demographic accounts for 14.7% of the United States population. Hence, we can guestimate that only 7.3% of the population is eligible for the draft (the men), and that's not even accounting for the physical and religiously exempt. If we're worried about how unfair it is that the poor are disproportionally sent to war by the rich in the volunteer system, then why would we not worry about the young being sent to war by the old in the draft system?
Even if we have a draft, the vast majority of the population will never have to worry about going to war. At worst, they will have to worry about a friend or family member, and there are plenty of fuckers who think it makes you a man, and would be happy to send you. Dolche et Decorum Est, and all.
At least the volunteers are, in fact, volunteers. They're getting something out of participation that's worth it to them (or was worth the risk of war when they enlisted--it's probably not worth the war itself). Yes, this is a choice made under a duress of sorts: everyone needs food, and everyone wants the sort of decent life that going to college can help you secure. Some don't have the resources to achieve those things without resorting to the army. But this is not a new thing, and this is not confined to the draft.All of our decisions are informed by our economic standing, by what we need, what we can afford, and how desperate we are. The poor are penalized in all arenas of life by their various needs for which they can barely account. To help the poor, one does not cut off their favored avenue (military enlistment) because one deems it 'not worth it.' (They sure seem to think it's worth it). Instead one alleviates the conditions that put them at a disadvantage in all bargaining situations, whether they be over enlistment, dental coverage, day care, or living conditions.
Personally, I'd be fine with an all-volunteer military...just as soon as we beef up our social programs and institute free college education for everybody so that nobody is pressured to enlist due to poverty/lack of upward social mobility. As it stands we have an "all-volunteer" military where some people have just a little more incentive to volunteer than others.
So, I would agree that we need to beef up our social programs so that the poor aren't routinely forced by need into situations the rest of us would never give passing consideration to. However, it's important to realise that's true for almost every area of life.
The real solution is to create the sort of social situation in which the poor are well enough taken care of that they aren't in a desperate bargaining position, and then pay our volunteers enough that they are willing to enlist (which will most likely be quite a bit). The draft doesn't really enter into it anywhere.
So, I would agree that we need to beef up our social programs so that the poor aren't routinely forced by need into situations the rest of us would never give passing consideration to. However, it's important to realise that's true for almost every area of life.
While it's true that military service is not the only choice that the poor are routinely "forced" into, there are two main problems I have with "encouraging" the disadvantaged to take on military service. One, it's often much more destructive than other situations they might find themselves in...few people lose limbs or lives cleaning toilets at Burger King. But the larger of the two, to me, is that in this situation the government is taking advantage of their situation since we need bomb/bullet magnets over in places like Iraq. Why bother to put more funding into financial aid for everybody, when you can instead just beef up military education benefits...two birds, one stone don'tcha know.
The real solution is to create the sort of social situation in which the poor are well enough taken care of that they aren't in a desperate bargaining position, and then pay our volunteers enough that they are willing to enlist (which will most likely be quite a bit). The draft doesn't really enter into it anywhere.
Yes, that would of course be the optimal solution. Of course, sometimes the optimal solution to a problem is something that you could never actually get passed through the government...whereas something that might help a little can be made to happen. Of course, in this case (draft vs. fixing poverty) neither one seems like something that's ever going to happen, so we'll continue seeing a disproportionate number of poor people wasting their lives over in places like Iraq. But of the two, I think that instituting a draft is probably easier than improving our social programs so that a draft isn't necessary.
Also, the number of family members who think that forced military service will turn somebody into a man, or other such nonsense, is probably far outweighed by the number that would prefer their kids have four limbs. Also, the number of people in this country who are of draftable age, or for whom somebody they care about is of draftable age, probably outweighs those that aren't/don't.
Why does everyone keep lumping all soldiers into the category of being situationally or financially pushed into the military? I know that there is a huge percentage that do use the military as a way to solve problems in their lives, but there is also a significant portion, myself included, that want to join. I have dreamed of being a soldier for as long as I can remember.
Why does everyone keep lumping all soldiers into the category of being situationally or financially pushed into the military? I know that there is a huge percentage that do use the military as a way to solve problems in their lives, but there is also a significant portion, myself included, that want to join. I have dreamed of being a soldier for as long as I can remember.
I believe I've specifically mentioned that all soldiers are not in this situation. I'm not sure whether I would have or not, had I been in a different financial position. I had always considered joining, and there was a tradition of service in my family going back several generations. However, I do know that as I stood coming out of high school I really didn't necessarily have any other viable options.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that every soldier is forced into it by poverty or circumstance. But a significant portion surely are. Nobody is questioning your motives, so calm down.
In case anybody's wondering, generally having joined for college money is strongly looked down upon...especially in the Army, and even more so in combat arms.
Interesting, considering I'd bet that's the one portion of the military where the largest number of enlistees are there for exactly that reason.
mcdermott on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
Nobody openly says that in the AF, but there's some folk, you can tell that's what they think. My TI was one of those people.
I have no problem with a bit of militia training in case something absolutely strange happens and we have to actually defend our country itself.
I have insanely large problems with people actually being forced to go and be shot/shoot at people against their will and temperament.
Teach people the basics, hell, make it a PE class.
But my answer to a draft is 1/2 Canadian+1/8 Native American+Mentally Unstable enough that I don't do jury duty, and as a last last last resort, good aim.
Teenagers are probably the most likely people to become criminals in the near future though I don't have any stats.
So you're saying most criminals are in their twenties, or what? Can you clarify that bizarre statement?
If I'm recalling my sociology of crime text, yes, most criminal acts are perpetuated by young males, largely against other young males. Them's the breaks. Although I seem to recall that females are committing more thefts than they used to, or are at least being convicted more often.
The Cat on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
I have no problem with a bit of militia training in case something absolutely strange happens and we have to actually defend our country itself.
I have insanely large problems with people actually being forced to go and be shot/shoot at people against their will and temperament.
Teach people the basics, hell, make it a PE class.
But my answer to a draft is 1/2 Canadian+1/8 Native American+Mentally Unstable enough that I don't do jury duty, and as a last last last resort, good aim.
Wait - so because you're a Hockey-Lovin-Cherokee who disbelieves cops on general principal, but can pick off a can at 500 paces, you're outta the draft? Ira Hayes must be all kindsa proud.
Wait - so because you're a Hockey-Lovin-Cherokee who disbelieves cops on general principal, but can pick off a can at 500 paces, you're outta the draft? Ira Hayes must be all kindsa proud.
It's more that I will continue my father's fine tradition of using a lawyer to tell the military to back the fuck off, because nobody is sending me in to a death trap I didn't set to kill people I don't hate.
If people I care about, or my own person, are threatened, there will fat carrion-feeders wherever I venture.
But only then, and only they.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
While it's true that military service is not the only choice that the poor are routinely "forced" into, there are two main problems I have with "encouraging" the disadvantaged to take on military service.
Except, much like the other choices poor people are 'forced' into, it's actually a boon. Take another example of the forced choice: poor people are often forced to drop out of school for financial reasons. Does that mean that we should prevent the poor from dropping out of school? Fuck no, their families would starve. Just because poor people are sometimes forced by circumstance to do something that a wealthier person would never consider doesn't mean that, given the circumstance, it wasn't the best choice for them.
Given the unequal bargaining ground produced by poverty, military service is often the best deal available to the poor. Sure, you might get shot and die, but in periods of peace there are much fewer worries, and even now, as I understand, the casualties represent only a tiny fraction of the overall armed forces. Weighing that against a quality of education and life that could otherwise be entirely unavailable (or even just the guaranteed room and board), I can entirely see how one would jump at the opportunity. If we want to improve the situation of the economically disadvantaged, it makes no sense to take that deal away from them.
Unless, of course, you're arguing that poor people are consistently confused about their own self-interest, and are joining the army mainly because they're misinformed. This is entirely possible--I wouldn't put it past the army to routinely deceive potential recruits about both the benefits available to them in the course of their service, the pensions they will later receive, and the risks of their tour of duty. That seems like a separate issue, however, and one which would best be combatted by regulating the military recruiting process.
Also, the number of family members who think that forced military service will turn somebody into a man, or other such nonsense, is probably far outweighed by the number that would prefer their kids have four limbs. Also, the number of people in this country who are of draftable age, or for whom somebody they care about is of draftable age, probably outweighs those that aren't/don't.
In the case of the draft, we're still left with a level of compulsion with which I'm uncomfortable. It's the population at large ordering the conscription of the young to go die. It's extremely dangerous forced labor, and while I'm no libertarian, I also generally think that sort of slavery should be a tool of last resort.
Furthermore, one significant advantage of an all-volunteer force is that it places significant bargaining power in the hands of the recruits. When they're serving alongside draftees, the volunteers no longer command nearly the same power that they do when serving alone. After all, rather than having to raise compensation to increase enrollment and retainment, the government can just call up a few more numbers. While it's true that we're already strongarming servicemembers into repeated tours of duty, and otherwise 'cheating' our way out of actually increasing military benefits to the point where we get new recruits, it seems the problem would basically be even worse if we had a draft.
In other words, eschewing the draft pressures the government to actually compensate people for the real cost of their service, rather than relying on legal compulsion. The fact that the compensation is still below what many of us consider fair has to do with the weak bargaining position of the poor. However, that 'injustice' isn't really an injustice in itself, but is just one of the immeasurable symptoms of the underlying inequality of poverty.
Unless, of course, you're arguing that poor people are consistently confused about their own self-interest, and are joining the army mainly because they're misinformed. This is entirely possible--I wouldn't put it past the army to routinely deceive potential recruits about both the benefits available to them in the course of their service, the pensions they will later receive, and the risks of their tour of duty. That seems like a separate issue, however, and one which would best be combatted by regulating the military recruiting process.
And this is why I fucking hate the US military commercials; they are deliberately designed to manipulate and give the wrong impression to the audience about the nature of the work in question. It's always some inspiring short-story, like climbing a mountain and reaching the peak and then saluting the spirit of their ancestors, or the new firefighter fitting right in because he has had experience with teamwork in the military, or some tremendous bullshit like that. But there is no hint whatsoever of the kinds of sacrifices you have to make to be in the military, the kind of shit you have to go through in training and on active duty, or even the life risk involved.
It is dishonest marketing at best. I can't believe no one has sued them yet.
Sure, you might get shot and die, but in periods of peace there are much fewer worries, and even now, as I understand, the casualties represent only a tiny fraction of the overall armed forces.
I'll say this; a deployment to Iraq has some serious lasting negative effects whether or not you actually end up "injured." Also, injuries (as opposed to deaths) are pretty common. Not necessarily pertinent to the discussion at hand, but just felt the need to put that out there.
And this is why I fucking hate the US military commercials; they are deliberately designed to manipulate and give the wrong impression to the audience about the nature of the work in question. It's always some inspiring short-story, like climbing a mountain and reaching the peak and then saluting the spirit of their ancestors, or the new firefighter fitting right in because he has had experience with teamwork in the military, or some tremendous bullshit like that. But there is no hint whatsoever of the kinds of sacrifices you have to make to be in the military, the kind of shit you have to go through in training and on active duty, or even the life risk involved.
It is dishonest marketing at best. I can't believe no one has sued them yet.
Don't get me started. Military recruiters of some of the lyingest liars who ever lied. And mine didn't even lie to me. But I saw him lie to others, and I've had friends to whom they've lied like a motherfucker.
I had a recruiter tell my wife a straight-up lie (back before she was my wife) when she was interested in joining...I called him on it, at which point he told me I was full of shit and that what happened to me could not have possibly happened.
I mean, how full of shit do you have to be before you try and tell somebody that their personal experience is actually a lie, and that you're telling the truth? Holy fuck.
Also, regarding lameass military marketing: go ask a Marine sometime how many dragons he slayed while he was in. Might want to hit the gym and perhaps study some form of martial arts first, though.
Personally I'd rather not return to an Army where officers get fragged and cadets get attacked in dining halls by kids terrified they'll have to go to war. But apparently a lot of people think that's just the kind of situation we need to promote transparency and accountability.
There are a lot of low-paying, dangerous, arduous jobs out there, and no one seems to suggest that we ought to force everyone to perform them for some length of time because otherwise their existence is unfair to poor people.
it became a popular insult for guys who went off and did something stupid
edit: I think that was the first (of many) ad campaigns where an ouside agancy was hired to promote recruiting, they did a survey and decided that young folks were not enlisting because they were scared of losing their individuality; thus, "Army Of One"
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
As for teenagers and crime with the addition of military training...
I'm not sure it would be a good idea with (from what I understand) the military the way it is, where you can leave or drop out if unsuitable. Given the consistant human rights advocacy in the military over the last fifty/sixty years or so, the military no longer seems to have the means or the drive of 'breaking' people, other than to serve in its elite units.
People, like horses or any other wild animal, can be broken and domesticated with the proper application of force and psychological treatment. I would say that if this sort of thing were allowed today, then I would be all for having teens forcibly enlisted in the military until they passed basic. Coupled with extensive psychological testing, one could virtually guarentee each and every citizen had at least been exposed to the means by which they could make a reasonable living and possibly even determine which members of society were not fit to live in it.
I beleive one and half years of intimate observation and psych testing is needed to weed out virtually all possible mental health issues / socially adverse perspectives. Seeing that each citizen served for two years in such a system could go a long ways in sorting out problems before they happened.
Sarcastro on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
Oh my god you're a terrifying fascist.
MrMister on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Now, I question the wisdom of this choice. We live in a democracy. Or at least a republic. Our leaders have to make decisions that keep us content(not happy) in order to keep their jobs. Removing the affects of a war from most of the country creates the ability to engage in military actions that the country would perhaps not allow if the soldiers required for the action needed to be conscripted from the country. It detachs war from the citizens which has the affect of creating less outcry when war begins. This I see as capital B Bad. Wars are never good things, even if we can get by with only a few causalities on our side as in the Gulf War pt 1, the other side is still dying and war always affects the people living in the battefield. That said, a democratic nation in which the citizens are detached from the affects of war is a threat to human life. I do not trust anyone in power with the ability to make war without the population of the nation to keep them in check.
People are terrified of the word draft since Vietnam, and they should be if we continue to live in a nation that is able to get us into wars without us noticing. However, if we lived in a nation that did not have the means to start a war without affecting an evenly spread percentage of the citizenry, we would not have to fear policitians declaring war without consent because the backlash against them would be so great as to assure them a lost reelection bid. This is why things like this terrify me so much. A nation's detachment from war is much more dangerous than a teenager's detachment from violence or sex.
I had never thought of drafts and conscription the way you do. Your idea of "detachment" is particularly interesting. Keep us posted !
mark on
"I think Han Solo is the character we wish we were but we aren't, while Jar-Jar is the character we wish we weren't, but we are."
Didn't Eisenhower and even the founders warn against a military industry and maintaining a standing army, respectively? Because if our business is war, what purpose does peace serve?
Posts
Some people will just never learn, it is true with everyone. It is like saying we shouldn't promote people to be fit because they would use thier newfound strength to beat everyone up. That is just how life goes sometimes...
Honestly, I'm not sure how combat training is going to increase the amount of casualties/incidents. If you have your hands on a gun and intend to use it to commit a crime, I believe you'll probably do some damage with it, combat training or not.
Also, people spraying Uzis around in a drive-by and hitting random civilians is probably not a result of quality combat training.
Not that I'm advocating boot camp for that reason; but the problem is far more nuanced than some people are letting on in this thread.
Yes, because combat training and the discipline involved makes teenagers criminals. You're such a schmuck.
You should know that isn't what he meant. He means that teaching teenagers how to kill is teaching a ton of often unstable and potentional criminals how to kill more easily. Teenagers are probably the most likely people to become criminals in the near future though I don't have any stats.
My ideal, I suppose, would be to have a very small professional force to be used in relief missions and the like that we do routinely, and also to act as an experienced officers corp during time of war. Fill up the grunt work with conscripts, and go at it. Obviously some specialists would have to be kept on full time as well, and probably some parts of the air force and navy. I mean, it worked for the Germans at the beginning of WWII, although they did bend the rules of the treaties a bit.
So you're saying most criminals are in their twenties, or what? Can you clarify that bizarre statement?
- John Stuart Mill
Yeah, cause its not like the Army hasn't traditionally had a problem with gangs joining to get combat training.
Oh wait..
And for the record you're a pretty scrawny dude. I'm pretty sure one of those "fat" people could hand your ass to you.
You were the one who made a connection between teenagers and crime. I think it's interesting that you think combat training is going to convert a teenager who is involved in crime into an upstanding citizen.
thats not what starship troopers taught me :P
Yes I do. Because I've seen it, some of my best soldiers were former gang members. Combat Training is no joke, you have to be very disciplined and patient to complete it. An average thug will get kicked out before he/she even starts if they have an attitude and won't listen.
It's a good thing that criminals don't have any patience or discipline then.
"Oh, you're not listening? YOU'RE OUT! NOW LETS SEE WHAT YOU'LL DO! ... Oh, going home and enjoying life...oh well."
However, I'd like to raise a couple of points of doubt. First, to the fairness of the draft: the draft still fundamentally involves people telling strangers that they have to go die. According to some website, the 18-25 year old demographic accounts for 14.7% of the United States population. Hence, we can guestimate that only 7.3% of the population is eligible for the draft (the men), and that's not even accounting for the physical and religiously exempt. If we're worried about how unfair it is that the poor are disproportionally sent to war by the rich in the volunteer system, then why would we not worry about the young being sent to war by the old in the draft system?
Even if we have a draft, the vast majority of the population will never have to worry about going to war. At worst, they will have to worry about a friend or family member, and there are plenty of fuckers who think it makes you a man, and would be happy to send you. Dolche et Decorum Est, and all.
At least the volunteers are, in fact, volunteers. They're getting something out of participation that's worth it to them (or was worth the risk of war when they enlisted--it's probably not worth the war itself). Yes, this is a choice made under a duress of sorts: everyone needs food, and everyone wants the sort of decent life that going to college can help you secure. Some don't have the resources to achieve those things without resorting to the army. But this is not a new thing, and this is not confined to the draft. All of our decisions are informed by our economic standing, by what we need, what we can afford, and how desperate we are. The poor are penalized in all arenas of life by their various needs for which they can barely account. To help the poor, one does not cut off their favored avenue (military enlistment) because one deems it 'not worth it.' (They sure seem to think it's worth it). Instead one alleviates the conditions that put them at a disadvantage in all bargaining situations, whether they be over enlistment, dental coverage, day care, or living conditions.
So, I would agree that we need to beef up our social programs so that the poor aren't routinely forced by need into situations the rest of us would never give passing consideration to. However, it's important to realise that's true for almost every area of life.
The real solution is to create the sort of social situation in which the poor are well enough taken care of that they aren't in a desperate bargaining position, and then pay our volunteers enough that they are willing to enlist (which will most likely be quite a bit). The draft doesn't really enter into it anywhere.
While it's true that military service is not the only choice that the poor are routinely "forced" into, there are two main problems I have with "encouraging" the disadvantaged to take on military service. One, it's often much more destructive than other situations they might find themselves in...few people lose limbs or lives cleaning toilets at Burger King. But the larger of the two, to me, is that in this situation the government is taking advantage of their situation since we need bomb/bullet magnets over in places like Iraq. Why bother to put more funding into financial aid for everybody, when you can instead just beef up military education benefits...two birds, one stone don'tcha know.
Yes, that would of course be the optimal solution. Of course, sometimes the optimal solution to a problem is something that you could never actually get passed through the government...whereas something that might help a little can be made to happen. Of course, in this case (draft vs. fixing poverty) neither one seems like something that's ever going to happen, so we'll continue seeing a disproportionate number of poor people wasting their lives over in places like Iraq. But of the two, I think that instituting a draft is probably easier than improving our social programs so that a draft isn't necessary.
Also, the number of family members who think that forced military service will turn somebody into a man, or other such nonsense, is probably far outweighed by the number that would prefer their kids have four limbs. Also, the number of people in this country who are of draftable age, or for whom somebody they care about is of draftable age, probably outweighs those that aren't/don't.
I believe I've specifically mentioned that all soldiers are not in this situation. I'm not sure whether I would have or not, had I been in a different financial position. I had always considered joining, and there was a tradition of service in my family going back several generations. However, I do know that as I stood coming out of high school I really didn't necessarily have any other viable options.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that every soldier is forced into it by poverty or circumstance. But a significant portion surely are. Nobody is questioning your motives, so calm down.
In case anybody's wondering, generally having joined for college money is strongly looked down upon...especially in the Army, and even more so in combat arms.
Interesting, considering I'd bet that's the one portion of the military where the largest number of enlistees are there for exactly that reason.
I have insanely large problems with people actually being forced to go and be shot/shoot at people against their will and temperament.
Teach people the basics, hell, make it a PE class.
But my answer to a draft is 1/2 Canadian+1/8 Native American+Mentally Unstable enough that I don't do jury duty, and as a last last last resort, good aim.
If I'm recalling my sociology of crime text, yes, most criminal acts are perpetuated by young males, largely against other young males. Them's the breaks. Although I seem to recall that females are committing more thefts than they used to, or are at least being convicted more often.
Wait - so because you're a Hockey-Lovin-Cherokee who disbelieves cops on general principal, but can pick off a can at 500 paces, you're outta the draft? Ira Hayes must be all kindsa proud.
Pretty much sums up my stance on the issue.
It's more that I will continue my father's fine tradition of using a lawyer to tell the military to back the fuck off, because nobody is sending me in to a death trap I didn't set to kill people I don't hate.
If people I care about, or my own person, are threatened, there will fat carrion-feeders wherever I venture.
But only then, and only they.
Except, much like the other choices poor people are 'forced' into, it's actually a boon. Take another example of the forced choice: poor people are often forced to drop out of school for financial reasons. Does that mean that we should prevent the poor from dropping out of school? Fuck no, their families would starve. Just because poor people are sometimes forced by circumstance to do something that a wealthier person would never consider doesn't mean that, given the circumstance, it wasn't the best choice for them.
Given the unequal bargaining ground produced by poverty, military service is often the best deal available to the poor. Sure, you might get shot and die, but in periods of peace there are much fewer worries, and even now, as I understand, the casualties represent only a tiny fraction of the overall armed forces. Weighing that against a quality of education and life that could otherwise be entirely unavailable (or even just the guaranteed room and board), I can entirely see how one would jump at the opportunity. If we want to improve the situation of the economically disadvantaged, it makes no sense to take that deal away from them.
Unless, of course, you're arguing that poor people are consistently confused about their own self-interest, and are joining the army mainly because they're misinformed. This is entirely possible--I wouldn't put it past the army to routinely deceive potential recruits about both the benefits available to them in the course of their service, the pensions they will later receive, and the risks of their tour of duty. That seems like a separate issue, however, and one which would best be combatted by regulating the military recruiting process.
In the case of the draft, we're still left with a level of compulsion with which I'm uncomfortable. It's the population at large ordering the conscription of the young to go die. It's extremely dangerous forced labor, and while I'm no libertarian, I also generally think that sort of slavery should be a tool of last resort.
Furthermore, one significant advantage of an all-volunteer force is that it places significant bargaining power in the hands of the recruits. When they're serving alongside draftees, the volunteers no longer command nearly the same power that they do when serving alone. After all, rather than having to raise compensation to increase enrollment and retainment, the government can just call up a few more numbers. While it's true that we're already strongarming servicemembers into repeated tours of duty, and otherwise 'cheating' our way out of actually increasing military benefits to the point where we get new recruits, it seems the problem would basically be even worse if we had a draft.
In other words, eschewing the draft pressures the government to actually compensate people for the real cost of their service, rather than relying on legal compulsion. The fact that the compensation is still below what many of us consider fair has to do with the weak bargaining position of the poor. However, that 'injustice' isn't really an injustice in itself, but is just one of the immeasurable symptoms of the underlying inequality of poverty.
And this is why I fucking hate the US military commercials; they are deliberately designed to manipulate and give the wrong impression to the audience about the nature of the work in question. It's always some inspiring short-story, like climbing a mountain and reaching the peak and then saluting the spirit of their ancestors, or the new firefighter fitting right in because he has had experience with teamwork in the military, or some tremendous bullshit like that. But there is no hint whatsoever of the kinds of sacrifices you have to make to be in the military, the kind of shit you have to go through in training and on active duty, or even the life risk involved.
It is dishonest marketing at best. I can't believe no one has sued them yet.
AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
I'll say this; a deployment to Iraq has some serious lasting negative effects whether or not you actually end up "injured." Also, injuries (as opposed to deaths) are pretty common. Not necessarily pertinent to the discussion at hand, but just felt the need to put that out there.
Don't get me started. Military recruiters of some of the lyingest liars who ever lied. And mine didn't even lie to me. But I saw him lie to others, and I've had friends to whom they've lied like a motherfucker.
I had a recruiter tell my wife a straight-up lie (back before she was my wife) when she was interested in joining...I called him on it, at which point he told me I was full of shit and that what happened to me could not have possibly happened.
I mean, how full of shit do you have to be before you try and tell somebody that their personal experience is actually a lie, and that you're telling the truth? Holy fuck.
Also, regarding lameass military marketing: go ask a Marine sometime how many dragons he slayed while he was in. Might want to hit the gym and perhaps study some form of martial arts first, though.
There are a lot of low-paying, dangerous, arduous jobs out there, and no one seems to suggest that we ought to force everyone to perform them for some length of time because otherwise their existence is unfair to poor people.
I was still in when that one hit
it became a popular insult for guys who went off and did something stupid
edit: I think that was the first (of many) ad campaigns where an ouside agancy was hired to promote recruiting, they did a survey and decided that young folks were not enlisting because they were scared of losing their individuality; thus, "Army Of One"
I'm not sure it would be a good idea with (from what I understand) the military the way it is, where you can leave or drop out if unsuitable. Given the consistant human rights advocacy in the military over the last fifty/sixty years or so, the military no longer seems to have the means or the drive of 'breaking' people, other than to serve in its elite units.
People, like horses or any other wild animal, can be broken and domesticated with the proper application of force and psychological treatment. I would say that if this sort of thing were allowed today, then I would be all for having teens forcibly enlisted in the military until they passed basic. Coupled with extensive psychological testing, one could virtually guarentee each and every citizen had at least been exposed to the means by which they could make a reasonable living and possibly even determine which members of society were not fit to live in it.
I beleive one and half years of intimate observation and psych testing is needed to weed out virtually all possible mental health issues / socially adverse perspectives. Seeing that each citizen served for two years in such a system could go a long ways in sorting out problems before they happened.
Gods, what the hells is wrong with you sarcastro?
Wait, now I'm confused. Could you clarify whether you're being satiric?
I had never thought of drafts and conscription the way you do. Your idea of "detachment" is particularly interesting. Keep us posted !