Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Conscripted vs Standing Army

123457»

Posts

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    "Wah wah, I would rather move to another country than serve in the military." Great. Most people feel this strongly about joining up. And yet, we keep allowing politicians to send OTHER people to war because, for the most part, they wanted a way to pay for college to have the options in life you have. Why are you not pissed off about them being sent off? Oh, that's right, because you are a selfish fuck. The only way most people care about whether a war is happening or not is if it directly affects them or their loved ones.
    No you dipshit, those people currently in Iraq signed up for the army, they weren't drafted, big fucking difference.

    They signed up for the army mainly because they needed a way to pay for college. Maybe you can relate to that feeling? Except apparently they didn't have other means to do so. It's like what has been said many times in this thread. We have what amounts to a socioeconomic draft. The people being pulled into the army are mainly people who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in the most legal way they see. And these kids are being sent off to get shot at because a decent part of the country didn't care about them enough to be against the Iraq war until RECENTLY.
    hasn't this already been debunked enough times? I could swear I had people screaming at me when I said college was too expensive for many people
    Aldo wrote: »
    I suggest we disband 90% of our standing army so that, in order to make war, our democratic government must instate a draft to raise an army. Of course, this idea placing EVERYONE in potentially in the front lines of a conflict and most people are too lazy to give a shit about wars we are involved in otherwise.

    How much did the Iraq war cost us again? How much people protested again? What happened during the latest elections? Oh right, people *do* give a shit about wars currently fought.

    There are protests every day. You guys almost voted a president out of the office while the country was at war, you didn't even do that during the Vietnam war! Now you've got a democratic majority in Washington, mostly because people don't appreciate the shit going on in Iraq and the whole War on Terror.

    Wow, after the war has been dragged on for a few years, the public is tired of it. It's taken how many years of kids losing their lives for people to start voicing against it en masse? Only recently has "no Iraq war" begun to drown out "Support Our Troops!" My point is that if, instead of slyly thinking they could win the Iraq war before the nation got pissed about it, our government would not have started it at all if they needed a draft. Admittedly, they actually did need a draft to win it to begin with, but they thought they could fudge it because they were close enough. Which, I don't believe, would happen if they didn't have such a large standing army that we do have.

    If I recall correctly, the US government had to convince both the UN and American people that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq and that the only way to protect all that we hold dear is to get rid of Saddam Hussein. After nothing was found, it was considered our job to save Iraq from civil war, so that's what happened. Only after it dawned to the general public that this whole situation was far more deadly to our boys than Afghanistan, protests started.

    Also: look up the history of the Vietnam war, how long did it take for people to voice their opinion en masse? =)

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think many people who oppose conscription just really don't like being told what to do no matter what it is. They like having at least the semblance of a choice (being able to quite your job if you want to, for instance, regardless of the fact that you'd not be able to pay your bills). Incenjucar's position seemed to basically boil down to "you can't make me do things I don't want to!!!" and in the end seemed to have little to do with the whole "killing people" thing.
    I think its probably the opposite - most people object to the draft because it may well put them in a position where their life is in immediate danger and they might have to kill someone. I think the german system (if they still have it) lets you work in the emergancy serives for your national service but I've never seen stats to say how popular that is, that said I don't think they would be used as aggressively as the US military. I know a lot of europe (Greece and Norway definitely) have similar systems but not sure if you have other options and how limited the positions are within them.

    Another thing I don't think is fair, in the Greek and Norweigan system, it is only the men who have to take part in national service - would a US draft be everyone 18-35 or just the men? Seeing as if its the latter, that pretty much implies that you're there in case we need more people on the front lines.

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    There are protests every day. You guys almost voted a president out of the office while the country was at war, you didn't even do that during the Vietnam war! Now you've got a democratic majority in Washington, mostly because people don't appreciate the shit going on in Iraq and the whole War on Terror.

    In all honesty, Iraq War was actually a war only during the first several stages. After that it was war in the technical sense only.

    I mean, I'm pretty sure war (or at least my understanding of war) doesn't involve soldiers sitting in their base having Halo tournaments.
    Spoiler:

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    There are protests every day. You guys almost voted a president out of the office while the country was at war, you didn't even do that during the Vietnam war! Now you've got a democratic majority in Washington, mostly because people don't appreciate the shit going on in Iraq and the whole War on Terror.

    In all honesty, Iraq War was actually a war only during the first several stages. After that it was war in the technical sense only.

    I mean, I'm pretty sure war (or at least my understanding of war) doesn't involve soldiers sitting in their base having Halo tournaments.
    Spoiler:

    Although getting blown up on roadside-patrols does sound more like war. Frankly we're not going to beat suicidal-guerilla tactics their without inside help, which we can't get because everyone hates us.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Too stupid to feel pain. San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Whatever the case is, that video on Blackwater scared the shit out of me. Something needs to be done about them, and fast. They're one step away from being Bush's secret police, if not already.

    Overall, I would say a Standing Army would be better in the long run. Conscripted armies tend to buckle under pressure a -lot- faster most of the time. Nowadays that sort of thing is saved as a last resort and I'm really hoping it'll never get past the drawing board here.

    Although getting blown up on roadside-patrols does sound more like war. Frankly we're not going to beat suicidal-guerilla tactics their without inside help, which we can't get because everyone hates us.

    No amount of training and equipment can ever beat out suicidal guerilla tactics in the long run. Those employing said tactics almost always have plenty of brainwashed fanatics with nothing to lose to throw at us. They don't hold back. We do. With brute force in mind, the only way to really beat out that sort of enemy would be to raze the entire region to the ground and destroy everything. Absolutely everthing. And everyone.

    However, there's obvious reasons as to why that should never, ever be done.

    makosig.jpg
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited April 2007
    If someone is a pacifist, or otherwise has some ethic against killing, they're probably not well-suited to the military. I don't believe this is controversial.
    Genuine pacificism (there are no circumstances under which you would kill anyone) I have no problem with. I disagree, but it's principled and consistent. It's also why they invented CO status, so if this is intended to be an argument against the draft, it's really pretty stupid. I have a problem with the idea that military service demands that you be willing to kill people under circumstances that would not be independently justifiable to someone who doesn't think killing someone is invariably evil.
    You're mistaken. I would be ordered to kill people not because "the Govmint says they should die" (and honestly if you're going to try to mock me you should have at least noticed that I would never capitalise "government") but because the government would like to further some agenda enough that they just really don't care if people die over it. That agenda could be anything, good bad neutral whatever, it doesn't matter what the agenda is. I still have to do it. Because soldiers don't get a say in when where or why to go to war.
    You missed what my mockery was aimed at. Otherwise - yes, that's exactly the stance I said you should have just brought in in the first place two posts ago. And in response you went off like an explosive simile.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    We don't primarily prevent wars with our military presence by detering "hostile war bound powers." We prevent wars by providing third party security, lowering the level of tension between groups that would otherwise engage in arms build ups due to mutual suspicion.

    Yes, but is this what has been going on in Iraq?


    No.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.

    Having to do shit I don't want that isn't very free. Having to do shit that I find abhorrent is -super- not very free.

    As aware as I am that the American Ideal is a sham, I still strive for it. Those who get in the way of that are NOT my allies. Freedom of thought without a hint of freedom of action is little better than hell on Earth.

    If someone says to me, "Your ideals are being violated here, will you help us stop it?" I may well get involved.

    If someone says to me, "My ideals, which you oppose, are being violated here. Help us or you will be punished." I may well get somewhat upset.

    This cannot be a difficult concept.

    I will NOT be made to do that which is antithetical to my nature. I will not violate my ethics. I will not allow myself to be destroyed for the gain of someone I have no love for.

    My body belongs to me. My mind belongs to me.

    I will defend that until both are dust.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Once again: higher then average chance of dying. Very high chance that it will have fuck-all to do with actually defending the country. Spectacularly high chance that it will prevent me from contributing to society in other ways which I'm better at (oh snap! You mean someone has to build GPS devices and clotting factor immobilized bandages? I'll be damned!)

    It's completely disingenuous to suggest that anyone here would not actually fight to defend their country if it was actually invaded. It's also disingenuous to go with the immediate assumption that since some people sign up and go off to other countries to do things which (ideally) are in the interests of the security and protection of a country and it's freedoms, that firstly we should drop those freedoms and make everyone fight for them and secondly (and this is the one I really hate) that there is no other possible way that people might do something like that, by you know, furthering their education, running businesses that produce goods, even being factory workers etc.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Just an aside: If you are a soldier, not only do the taxpayers pay your salary, they pay your taxes, because your taxes come from your salary.

    So unless you're like a national guardsman or something, or some private company is paying soldiers and nobody told me...

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Just an aside: If you are a soldier, not only do the taxpayers pay your salary, they pay your taxes, because your taxes come from your salary.

    So unless you're like a national guardsman or something, or some private company is paying soldiers and nobody told me...

    Right. And once it's mine, it's mine and that's it.

    This was unnecessary and far off and away from the drive of the thread. By your logic, my vehicle belongs to the taxpayers. So I guess if you ever need a ride, I'll leave the keys in it.

    Would you then be willing, since the taxed levied on servicemembers is clearly just a double tax of the true, real American taxpayers, to do away with taxing servicemembers?

    :edited because I didn't want to call Incenjucar an idiot:

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Just an aside: If you are a soldier, not only do the taxpayers pay your salary, they pay your taxes, because your taxes come from your salary.

    So unless you're like a national guardsman or something, or some private company is paying soldiers and nobody told me...

    This is the dumbest shit ever written.

    So by this logic a fuckload of people "don't pay taxes." Firefighters, police, teachers, etc. Hell, even privately employed civilians working for companies with government contracts...I mean, just because the money gets filtered through a corporation before hitting their salary doesn't mean it wasn't taxpayer's money, right?

    I should go let the guys out front fixing the street know that they shouldn't bitch, because it's not like they pay taxes or anything.

    Fucking dipshit.

    EDIT: Also, I am a National Guardsman...but that doesn't matter because your statement was dumber than dogshit to begin with.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Good lord you're idiots.

    The point is that the military does not PRODUCE.

    Without the civilian base, the military (or any other governing body) starves to death.

    Your taxes are meaningless; you're basically just getting your pay reduced. Civilian taxes actually come from labor and goods produced. The military is a service that protects the ability to produce that labor and goods. Basically, super-elite security guards.

    But you don't get paid unless you're guarding something damned valuable.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Good lord you're idiots.

    The point is that the military does not PRODUCE.

    Without the civilian base, the military (or any other governing body) starves to death.

    Your taxes are meaningless; you're basically just getting your pay reduced. Civilian taxes actually come from labor and goods produced. The military is a service that protects the ability to produce that labor and goods. Basically, super-elite security guards.

    But you don't get paid unless you're guarding something damned valuable.

    I restate my question: should the military not pay taxes then? If it's just a pay reduction.

    And, scooter, you're gonna have to back off the name calling. It's uncalled for, and you're derailing the thread. You've got some crazy anti-military hard on, and this really aint the place for it. You dont want to be told what to do. Okay, you unique lil snowflake, we get that. But apparently what you don't want to do is listen to people who know what the hell it is they're talking about.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    Back to conscription, please.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Taxing them is easier than factoring in paycuts every year based on what would be deductible for taxed persons.

    Ultimately, the fact that the military is taxed is null. They get a voice like every other American of proper age. But they're in the service industry, they are serving a customer. They are not contributing to themselves because they produce nothing TO contribute. They do not grow the food they eat or sew the textiles they wear or build the houses they live in (exceptions, of course). You cannot dismiss the people whose work creates your pay just because you give some of it back to yourselves.

    As for the rudeness, when people are acting like juveniles and bitching because their romanticism about their profession isn't shared by others, it's deserved.

    Being part of the military does not automatically grant you the right to respect.

    Being part of the system does not make that system automatically -right-.

    And, again, -idiot-.

    I am not against the military in and of itself. I am not against KILLING in and of itself.

    I am against SPECIFIC choices that are being made. I am against having my life horribly disrupted and possibly ended for SPECIFIC choices that I do not agree with.

    It's why I can never even consider joining the military. My conscience does not allow me to divorce my actions from my ethics.

    Others can. That's good, and useful, and all that jazz.

    But who I am does not allow me to ignore who I am.

    --

    As such, I could not function under conscription unless I -happened- to agree with things, in which case I would have volunteered to begin with.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Good lord you're idiots.

    The point is that the military does not PRODUCE.

    Without the civilian base, the military (or any other governing body) starves to death.

    Your taxes are meaningless; you're basically just getting your pay reduced. Civilian taxes actually come from labor and goods produced. The military is a service that protects the ability to produce that labor and goods. Basically, super-elite security guards.

    But you don't get paid unless you're guarding something damned valuable.

    I restate my question: should the military not pay taxes then? If it's just a pay reduction.

    It is just a pay reduction. Furthermore, it's interesting to note that we also just give a rather diverse range of benefits to those in the military to compensate many of the extensive activities they undertake outside of what we might expect of civilians.

    Now, why exactly we do tax military personnel is an interesting question, but I'm more then averagely sure there's a half-decent answer that is probably tied up in the way the taxation beurocracy works. At a guess it's that the government alots a budget, the budget gets spent, a good deal of government money ends up back in the pocket of private citizens, but effectively tracking that would be impossible so it's easier to tax everyone equally and then give tax exemptions for hazard pay.

    What I really want to ask you though is, what exactly does the military produce other then security for production?

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Good lord you're idiots.

    The point is that the military does not PRODUCE.

    Without the civilian base, the military (or any other governing body) starves to death.

    Your taxes are meaningless; you're basically just getting your pay reduced. Civilian taxes actually come from labor and goods produced. The military is a service that protects the ability to produce that labor and goods. Basically, super-elite security guards.

    But you don't get paid unless you're guarding something damned valuable.

    I restate my question: should the military not pay taxes then? If it's just a pay reduction.

    And, scooter, you're gonna have to back off the name calling. It's uncalled for, and you're derailing the thread. You've got some crazy anti-military hard on, and this really aint the place for it. You dont want to be told what to do. Okay, you unique lil snowflake, we get that. But apparently what you don't want to do is listen to people who know what the hell it is they're talking about.

    :lol:

    No, you don't get it. Because if you did, you would have admitted defeat and dropped from the discussion a long time ago.

    Look, you cannot force people to drop what they are doing and go fight a war in Lala Land. This is very simple to understand. No, really, it is. This is the center of the debate, the point that is the heart of the discussion. The other arguments don't really matter; even if we found a way to make conscript armies more effective than volunteer armies, even if we found a magical way to make it so that people who are drafted do not stop contributing to the economy and still go on with their normal lives, at the and of the day it would still be that you cannot force people to do something against their will.

    How can you get it, and still argue for a draft? I can't help but think Incenjucar's name-calling is actually very valid here.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    What I really want to ask you though is, what exactly does the military produce other then security for production?
    That's not really a minor thing. The corps of engineers builds some stuff as well, and the Coast Guard provides rescue, among other things.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    What I really want to ask you though is, what exactly does the military produce other then security for production?
    That's not really a minor thing. The corps of engineers builds some stuff as well, and the Coast Guard provides rescue, among other things.
    Right, but you can see where I'm going with this - the military provides security for the continued productivity of a country, if not also it's ability to independently operate its social and cultural values.

    Now, it's obviously true that to do this they've vertically integrated where they have specialist building requirements but I would contend in the case of the engineering corp this can be generally said to be a sensibility for the military to operate.

    It's also definitely true that R&D by places like DARPA represents very real productivity and contribute major technological and scientific progress to the world, as well as doing some of the more exciting completely risky (in terms of expected outcomes) research.

    But! None of this has anything to do with arguing that conscription will in some way actually result in an increase in this type of productivity. DARPA is a research organization, staffed by scientists as much as it might be by military engineers. You can't conscript people to do the work they do.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "Wah wah, I would rather move to another country than serve in the military." Great. Most people feel this strongly about joining up. And yet, we keep allowing politicians to send OTHER people to war because, for the most part, they wanted a way to pay for college to have the options in life you have. Why are you not pissed off about them being sent off? Oh, that's right, because you are a selfish fuck. The only way most people care about whether a war is happening or not is if it directly affects them or their loved ones.

    Man what? Most of the people in the military right now joined after the war. They knew there was an armed conflict going on, they knew there was a high likelihood they'd be sent to some God forsaken desert, and they knew there'd be a chance that they'd be put in danger. It's not selfish of anyone in the slightest. Nobody was forced to join. If they joined so they could get the same benefits as other people, that's fine, but they knew what the risks were.

    Not to mention with your plan you'd basically be giving that ten percent a bunch of people who don't want to be there, hate their jobs, and would probably have no issue doing the bare minimum. I can't help but feel that most people in the military at the moment would not be happy with that particular situation.

    PSN: allenquid
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited April 2007
    But! None of this has anything to do with arguing that conscription will in some way actually result in an increase in this type of productivity. DARPA is a research organization, staffed by scientists as much as it might be by military engineers. You can't conscript people to do the work they do.
    But has anyone suggested productivity as an argument for conscription?

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    But! None of this has anything to do with arguing that conscription will in some way actually result in an increase in this type of productivity. DARPA is a research organization, staffed by scientists as much as it might be by military engineers. You can't conscript people to do the work they do.
    But has anyone suggested productivity as an argument for conscription?
    No but people have been arguing that the military can be regarded as a direct contributor to economic productivity because soldiers pay taxes on their wages. That this bit of beurocratic circuity exists doesn't make the soldier himself an actual producer, but as was said, more a guard of that production ability.

    The rest of that was just to jump on anyone who was about to argue that DARPA and similar do contribute production, but as is apparently obvious, they do not benefit from conscription - in fact probably quite the converse.

    And all of this comes up because some idiot is making a thinly veiled argument at some point that you're not contributing to the nation if you don't serve in the military.

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007

    And all of this comes up because some idiot is making a thinly veiled argument at some point that you're not contributing to the nation if you don't serve in the military.

    That's not why it camed up. Not that I saw. You're gonna have to find that post for me, please.

    And, Incenjucar, aside from the part where you feel it's justified to insult me, I'm glad you made your opinion out to be something other than 'neener, no one tells me what to do.'

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    deowolf wrote: »

    And all of this comes up because some idiot is making a thinly veiled argument at some point that you're not contributing to the nation if you don't serve in the military.

    That's not why it camed up. Not that I saw. You're gonna have to find that post for me, please.

    And, Incenjucar, aside from the part where you feel it's justified to insult me, I'm glad you made your opinion out to be something other than 'neener, no one tells me what to do.'

    It started about here:
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I really don't want to have to physically defend my freedom from those who are supposed to protect it.

    You're really gonna have to explain that one to me, because I'm failing to understand it right now.

    If I could not avoid a draft legally, I would, for one reason or another, have to deal with an arrest attempt.

    I am not fond of being imprisoned.

    Right, I get that. And I get the opposition to this 'war'. You have, I think already stated no opposition to other wars, such as WWII. But It begs the question - "When do you stop putting other people in charge of defending your freedom?"

    With the basic implication that you're not serving the country unless you're in the military. Coz you know, I happen to think my early death might have some unfortunate effects on my ability to make future contributions to science.

    EDIT: Also this -
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Because it's sort of hard to go to school in California and go home every night to be with the people I love if I'm being carted off to Afghanistan for drills.

    Well, yeah, but you wouldn't be drilling in Afghanistan. Your drills, prolly for you, would be in Fresno, maybe Sac, but -

    Hey, look, the idea here is that you're willing to put off the defense of your freedom on others. And that's fine and dandy, but to be so actively unwilling to defend it yourself is weaksauce, baby.

    And maybe that's not what you meant when you said it, but the idea I'm getting is that you're too good to put on a uni no matter what the circumstances. The fact that you're waving the lawyer about adds to this for me. Like you better than that, than anybody who can't or won't wave a lawyer about. And I'll take issue with this.
    Same problem - "unless you fight you clearly don't care about our freedoms!" - well fuck me, I guess Bush is right and we do need to sacrifice our freedoms to have freedoms. You know, freedom to choose your own destiny, right to life, liberty etc.

    Incenj. copped a range of bullshit which essentially amounted to everyone saying because he does not want to be forced to fight, clearly he's unwilling to fight at all and is a freedom hating communist.

    Maybe you should change the question to "USA invaded by Red army" and then see what post people would say.

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    deowolf wrote: »

    And all of this comes up because some idiot is making a thinly veiled argument at some point that you're not contributing to the nation if you don't serve in the military.

    That's not why it camed up. Not that I saw. You're gonna have to find that post for me, please.

    And, Incenjucar, aside from the part where you feel it's justified to insult me, I'm glad you made your opinion out to be something other than 'neener, no one tells me what to do.'

    It started about here:
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I really don't want to have to physically defend my freedom from those who are supposed to protect it.

    You're really gonna have to explain that one to me, because I'm failing to understand it right now.

    If I could not avoid a draft legally, I would, for one reason or another, have to deal with an arrest attempt.

    I am not fond of being imprisoned.

    Right, I get that. And I get the opposition to this 'war'. You have, I think already stated no opposition to other wars, such as WWII. But It begs the question - "When do you stop putting other people in charge of defending your freedom?"

    With the basic implication that you're not serving the country unless you're in the military. Coz you know, I happen to think my early death might have some unfortunate effects on my ability to make future contributions to science.

    EDIT: Also this -
    deowolf wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Because it's sort of hard to go to school in California and go home every night to be with the people I love if I'm being carted off to Afghanistan for drills.

    Well, yeah, but you wouldn't be drilling in Afghanistan. Your drills, prolly for you, would be in Fresno, maybe Sac, but -

    Hey, look, the idea here is that you're willing to put off the defense of your freedom on others. And that's fine and dandy, but to be so actively unwilling to defend it yourself is weaksauce, baby.

    And maybe that's not what you meant when you said it, but the idea I'm getting is that you're too good to put on a uni no matter what the circumstances. The fact that you're waving the lawyer about adds to this for me. Like you better than that, than anybody who can't or won't wave a lawyer about. And I'll take issue with this.
    Same problem - "unless you fight you clearly don't care about our freedoms!" - well fuck me, I guess Bush is right and we do need to sacrifice our freedoms to have freedoms. You know, freedom to choose your own destiny, right to life, liberty etc.

    Incenj. copped a range of bullshit which essentially amounted to everyone saying because he does not want to be forced to fight, clearly he's unwilling to fight at all and is a freedom hating communist.

    Maybe you should change the question to "USA invaded by Red army" and then see what post people would say.

    Totally not what I was going for there. I was curious to see under what circumstances I.J. would be willing to do something, considering the amounts of bile he was putting out towards those who, one reason or another, feel the need to do something now, or five years ago. Or ten. Or a hundred. In no way was I trying to put out that the only way to contribute to the country was military service, and it's a pretty big stretch to say I'm putting that statement out thinly veiled.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    So are we going to get back to conscription ever?

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Conscription has the benefit of producing a tangible impact on the citizenry when a war is on, so there would be fewer attempts at "police action" style secret campaigns (at least as a draft). It has the drawback of not actually being a super way to build an effective fighting force, unless the more technical stuff is already fully staffed.

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Conscription has the benefit of producing a tangible impact on the citizenry when a war is on, so there would be fewer attempts at "police action" style secret campaigns (at least as a draft). It has the drawback of not actually being a super way to build an effective fighting force, unless the more technical stuff is already fully staffed.

    The drawback is though that without a professional career military you have less professional people in a war zone.

    It seems to me that increases the likelihood of soldiers acting unprofessionally. I could be wrong about that though, I don't have studies to back it up or anything like that.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm not so certain, actually. I don't have anything on hand, but there have been some studies suggesting that a lot of military misconduct is situation-based, a lot like that famous Stanford Prison experiement. It would be interesting to see if something like full military training made you more likely to obey the rules of conduct, or more likely to bow to the situation and do something unprofessional.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Conscription has the benefit of producing a tangible impact on the citizenry when a war is on, so there would be fewer attempts at "police action" style secret campaigns (at least as a draft). It has the drawback of not actually being a super way to build an effective fighting force, unless the more technical stuff is already fully staffed.

    The drawback is though that without a professional career military you have less professional people in a war zone.

    It seems to me that increases the likelihood of soldiers acting unprofessionally. I could be wrong about that though, I don't have studies to back it up or anything like that.

    Depends what type of conscription we're talking....if we're really just talking about filling the lower ranks (which is what would be likely) then I'd think this isn't really an issue. Having seen first-hand the "professionalism" of the average junior enlisted man who just signed up for a few years to pay for college/get out of whatever shithole he came from, I'm not impressed.

    EDIT: I just realized I was wrongly singling out a class of people. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of unprofessionalism to be seen from people who signed up to put a boot in some ass Toby-Keith-style, too. And people on their second or third deployments who think they're wasting their time there. Or from pretty much any other class of soldier.

    Maybe I can tell you guys a couple of stories (to add to the obvious and heinous ones you've already seen covered in the news) when I get back. Maybe not.

123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.