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!

A Draft Thread That Isn't Nine Fucking Months Old

13

Posts

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    widowson wrote: »
    I'd reccommend you actually talk to and get to know people in the military; characterizing all of them as "people who are broken to the will of their government" as some sort of mindless, robotic slaves is a very unfair generalization.

    Gee, maybe that's why I never said that or anything like it. Perhaps if you read the two sentences before that one you'll be able to figure out what I actually said, because it certainly wasn't that. Also in case you missed it, I'm talking about across the board "all citizens 18-21" mandatory conscription, as that's the idea the thread is mostly centered upon. If you'd like to tell me that since the army works fine now it would still work fine if the majority of enlisted people did not want to be there, well I suppose you haven't heard some of the shit that happened to officers in Vietnam just for being officers, at the hands of their own men.

    As far as Switzerland as an example I don't see how that's at all analogous unless you can show me a couple instances in my lifetime of Switzerland initiating a foreign war with a country that poses no significant threat to them or their citizens.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    widowson wrote: »
    But seriously, I think the concept behind Federal Service is simply earning the right to vote. If you're going to exercise power over your fellow citizens, the thought is you earn that right by serving them.

    Doesn't even have to be in the Army, I think, for a lot of nations that do this.

    I instinctively don't like that idea, but I admit it isn't a bad one.

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »
    Efficiency at the expense of excitement is robotic at best.

    Bite my shiny metal ass.

    It is just about possible that neither the exclusive pursuit of excitement nor the exclusive pursuit of efficiency is a good idea. Each has its place, and the world would be less interesting if it lost either.

    Honestly, I can't see the world becoming dull for me on account of focusing on being as economically efficient as possible.

    I mean, RTS's are fun.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    widowson wrote: »
    But seriously, I think the concept behind Federal Service is simply earning the right to vote. If you're going to exercise power over your fellow citizens, the thought is you earn that right by serving them.

    Doesn't even have to be in the Army, I think, for a lot of nations that do this.

    I instinctively don't like that idea, but I admit it isn't a bad one.

    It runs counter to the ideals this country was founded upon. Inalienable rights with which we have been endowed by our creator don't need to be earned, that's not how "endowed with by our creator" works.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Honestly, I can't see the world becoming dull for me on account of focusing on being as economically efficient as possible.

    Try being a high-powered high-paid lawyer / banker / accountant for a while.
    VC wrote:
    It runs counter to the ideals this country was founded upon. Inalienable rights with which we have been endowed by our creator don't need to be earned, that's not how "endowed with by our creator" works.

    I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about a general principle of societal organisation.

  • widowsonwidowson Registered User
    edited October 2007
    widowson wrote: »
    I'd reccommend you actually talk to and get to know people in the military; characterizing all of them as "people who are broken to the will of their government" as some sort of mindless, robotic slaves is a very unfair generalization.

    Gee, maybe that's why I never said that or anything like it. Perhaps if you read the two sentences before that one you'll be able to figure out what I actually said, because it certainly wasn't that. Also in case you missed it, I'm talking about across the board "all citizens 18-21" mandatory conscription, as that's the idea the thread is mostly centered upon. If you'd like to tell me that since the army works fine now it would still work fine if the majority of enlisted people did not want to be there, well I suppose you haven't heard some of the shit that happened to officers in Vietnam just for being officers, at the hands of their own men.

    As far as Switzerland as an example I don't see how that's at all analogous unless you can show me a couple instances in my lifetime of Switzerland initiating a foreign war with a country that poses no significant threat to them or their citizens.


    That draft failed in 'nam because it was unfairly applied and for an unnecessary war. The draft worked in WW2 and universal service works in South Korea because it *is* and was necessary for the Nation's survival.

    I get your point about 'nam, but what's ironic is that if we *still* had a draft and there was a fairly distributed chance that any 18-21 year-old could get drafted, we would be a *lot* less generous with the lives of our soldiers.

    You and I both know support for Iraq would disappear overnight if there was a draft. Good! That's how it *should* be, when it's everyone's neck on the line, people actually care more about what's going on.

    After 'nam, the average american will not tolerate their kids being drafted for a frivilous war. Good! Why not fight wars that really only have to do with survival? Why not have that force a less meddling foreign policy?

    Just for arguments' sake...

    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Honestly, I can't see the world becoming dull for me on account of focusing on being as economically efficient as possible.

    Try being a high-powered high-paid lawyer / banker / accountant for a while.

    Amassing wealth isn't economically efficient, but that is neither here nor there.

    Back on the point: Some people enjoy working with numbers. I am not one of them. But a lawyer? Sure, if you want to get me into law school. I'd love to be a lawyer.

    Widowson: I think you've misinterpreted VC. Had he made any such generalisation about military personnel, I'd be ripping into him right now and quite possibly jailed.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    VC wrote:
    It runs counter to the ideals this country was founded upon. Inalienable rights with which we have been endowed by our creator don't need to be earned, that's not how "endowed with by our creator" works.

    I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about a general principle of societal organisation.

    I don't think you have to be from the U.S. to believe that having a voice in your own governance is a fundamental right, not one that you have to earn through service.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Honestly, I can't see the world becoming dull for me on account of focusing on being as economically efficient as possible.

    Try being a high-powered high-paid lawyer / banker / accountant for a while.

    Amassing wealth isn't economically efficient, but that is neither here nor there.

    Back on the point: Some people enjoy working with numbers. I am not one of them. But a lawyer? Sure, if you want to get me into law school. I'd love to be a lawyer.

    Widowson: I think you've misinterpreted VC. Had he made any such generalisation about military personnel, I'd be ripping into him right now and quite possibly jailed.


    I apologise then.

    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Honestly, I can't see the world becoming dull for me on account of focusing on being as economically efficient as possible.
    Try being a high-powered high-paid lawyer / banker / accountant for a while.
    Amassing wealth isn't economically efficient, but that is neither here nor there.

    *cough* you probably don't want to get into economic arguments with me.

    They are high-powered and high-paid because they work all the hours God invented (and some he didn't), and their skills are highly prized by the market, ie the basic measure of economic worth. They are the human equivalent of the latest robotic wonder in industrial efficiency, thus a fairly good example of someone who is economically efficient.
    I am not one of them. But a lawyer? Sure, if you want to get me into law school. I'd love to be a lawyer.

    Not this kind of lawyer you don't. Even this kind of lawyer often doesn't want to be this kind of lawyer.

  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »
    VC wrote:
    It runs counter to the ideals this country was founded upon. Inalienable rights with which we have been endowed by our creator don't need to be earned, that's not how "endowed with by our creator" works.

    I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about a general principle of societal organisation.

    I don't think you have to be from the U.S. to believe that having a voice in your own governance is a fundamental right, not one that you have to earn through service.

    Oh for gods sake, he was specifically referencing it to the US! And I specifically said I instinctively disliked the idea! Where's the fucking debate here?

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »

    *cough* you probably don't want to get into economic arguments with me.

    No, I don't. Arguments about what is economically desirable are, in my eyes, worse than the obligatory religion "debate". Everyone has his or her own idea.

    Not this kind of lawyer you don't. Even this kind of lawyer often doesn't want to be this kind of lawyer.

    Try me.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    I worry about the mindset that apparently holds being "an economically productive citizen" as the highest good and aim of education. And I'm not even French.

    Certainly, I don't want to have a society that is comprised 100% of economically productive citizens. That would be most dull.

    Economic productivity is essential to things like paying rent, paying for electricity and water, buying food and a bunch of fun stuff like videogames and sports and building models and collecting movies/anime/CDs/whatever and building a super-wardrobe and pretty much everything else that most people enjoy doing, and wider economic productivity improves everyone's lives by jacking up demand for goods and services not only of the essential variety but also the indulgent sort. The vast majority of people want to be economically productive, and economic productivity is pretty close to essential for survival in this country, so if the government is going to try to force people to be "better" people I can't think of a better metric for "better" than economic productivity.

    Yeah, but holding that productive capacity above all other human values does cause problems. Its the kind of mindset that leads to things like the way they tried to privatise the water supply in Bolivia, when left unchecked. Its certainly the kind of mindset that completely fucks over anyone who's body doesn't allow them to participate in society at the level of an able-bodied young person of sound mind.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »
    I worry about the mindset that apparently holds being "an economically productive citizen" as the highest good and aim of education. And I'm not even French.

    Certainly, I don't want to have a society that is comprised 100% of economically productive citizens. That would be most dull.

    Economic productivity is essential to things like paying rent, paying for electricity and water, buying food and a bunch of fun stuff like videogames and sports and building models and collecting movies/anime/CDs/whatever and building a super-wardrobe and pretty much everything else that most people enjoy doing, and wider economic productivity improves everyone's lives by jacking up demand for goods and services not only of the essential variety but also the indulgent sort. The vast majority of people want to be economically productive, and economic productivity is pretty close to essential for survival in this country, so if the government is going to try to force people to be "better" people I can't think of a better metric for "better" than economic productivity.

    Yeah, but holding that productive capacity above all other human values does cause problems. Its the kind of mindset that leads to things like the way they tried to privatise the water supply in Bolivia, when left unchecked. Its certainly the kind of mindset that completely fucks over anyone who's body doesn't allow them to participate in society at the level of an able-bodied young person of sound mind.

    But I'm not holding it above all other human values, I'm saying it's the only one the government has any business instilling, and the only one it has any real need to instill. I'm not saying they should stamp out other values, but no one's saying we should draft everyone and make baptism mandatory so that whole conversation is a different conversation that I don't want to have unless I'm really drunk.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »

    *cough* you probably don't want to get into economic arguments with me.

    No, I don't. Arguments about what is economically desirable are, in my eyes, worse than the obligatory religion "debate". Everyone has his or her own idea.

    I've got to disagree. Religious debate by it's very nature is subjective and ONLY subjective. Economic debates at the very least have an objective basis. There may be debate over how much we value the different factors in each outcome, but at the very least everyone who's competent is in agreement on what those factors are and how they are impacted by different plans.

    Basically, you and I may disagree on how desirable or feasible communism is, but at the very least we both understand how it works, what it is, and what the trade offs and benefits are (even if we consider the impact of those benefits and negatives differently).

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    werehippy wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Sarastro wrote: »

    *cough* you probably don't want to get into economic arguments with me.

    No, I don't. Arguments about what is economically desirable are, in my eyes, worse than the obligatory religion "debate". Everyone has his or her own idea.

    I've got to disagree. Religious debate by it's very nature is subjective and ONLY subjective. Economic debates at the very least have an objective basis. There may be debate over how much we value the different factors in each outcome, but at the very least everyone who's competent is in agreement on what those factors are and how they are impacted by different plans.

    Basically, you and I may disagree on how desirable or feasible communism is, but at the very least we both understand how it works, what it is, and what the trade offs and benefits are (even if we consider the impact of those benefits and negatives differently).

    I understand the difference between a debate about economics and religion. I wasn't saying they're both impossible, I'm just saying I don't want to get involved in either one.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    I understand the difference between a debate about economics and religion. I wasn't saying they're both impossible, I'm just saying I don't want to get involved in either one.

    Man, I was just getting up a good head of steam to defend economics from someone who was blowing it off. Way to ruin things for me :)

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    But I'm not holding it above all other human values, I'm saying it's the only one the government has any business instilling, and the only one it has any real need to instill. I'm not saying they should stamp out other values, but no one's saying we should draft everyone and make baptism mandatory so that whole conversation is a different conversation that I don't want to have unless I'm really drunk.
    I understand where you're coming from, but I'm living in a culture that absolutely does, if not stamp out, at least sacrifice all other values to the economic, and has been for a long time. Only now is some grassroots effort to keep that tendency in check emerging, but its limited to compromise values like flexible work hours, and significantly hampered by the necessity of competing with nations that aren't at that point and are perfectly content to keep their citizenry in a mild state of misery for a few extra bucks on the GDP.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    werehippy wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I understand the difference between a debate about economics and religion. I wasn't saying they're both impossible, I'm just saying I don't want to get involved in either one.

    Man, I was just getting up a good head of steam to defend economics from someone who was blowing it off. Way to ruin things for me :)

    Ha. As it turns out, economics is my favourite class. Unfortunately, other people make just about everything less fun.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    But I'm not holding it above all other human values, I'm saying it's the only one the government has any business instilling, and the only one it has any real need to instill. I'm not saying they should stamp out other values, but no one's saying we should draft everyone and make baptism mandatory so that whole conversation is a different conversation that I don't want to have unless I'm really drunk.
    I understand where you're coming from, but I'm living in a culture that absolutely does, if not stamp out, at least sacrifice all other values to the economic, and has been for a long time. Only now is some grassroots effort to keep that tendency in check emerging, but its limited to compromise values like flexible work hours, and significantly hampered by the necessity of competing with nations that aren't at that point and are perfectly content to keep their citizenry in a mild state of misery for a few extra bucks on the GDP.

    Yes but I'm not advocating that. Look, when I'm Emperor, I'll grant you an audience and explain to you that as long as I'm the one setting the rules, everything will be great. And I can train a successor. After that you guys are pretty much screwed, I'll be honest. :P

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Another Israeli.

    I'm blind so I don't need to serve. I would not dodge if I was capable of serving, though.

    I don't think the draft should be compulsory.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Another Israeli.

    I'm blind so I don't need to serve. I would not dodge if I was capable of serving, though.

    I don't think the service should be compulsory.

    Fixed that for you - as far as I know the draft is pretty much by definition compulsory service.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Another Israeli.

    I'm blind so I don't need to serve. I would not dodge if I was capable of serving, though.

    I don't think the service should be compulsory.

    Fixed that for you - as far as I know the draft is pretty much by definition compulsory service.

    Er, yeah. Sorry, multitasking.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    here is what I think. For anyone that really wants to know.

    The military needs to be divided into two forces.

    One which fights overseas wars of aggression.

    And another which only defends your own country's soil.

    There should be a compulsory draft service between 18-21 for the defence force, but NOT for the offensive force.

    Tube-san wrote:
    I apologise for my rudeness desu.
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    here is what I think. For anyone that really wants to know.

    The military needs to be divided into two forces.

    One which fights overseas wars of aggression.

    And another which only defends your own country's soil.

    Isn't that... Isn't that how it already is in most countries? That's how it was in the USSR, and that's how it was in the Republic of Ichkeria, and that's how it is in the Russian Federation, and that's how it is in the United States... Right?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    here is what I think. For anyone that really wants to know.

    The military needs to be divided into two forces.

    One which fights overseas wars of aggression.

    And another which only defends your own country's soil.

    Isn't that... Isn't that how it already is in most countries? That's how it was in the USSR, and that's how it was in the Republic of Ichkeria, and that's how it is in the Russian Federation, and that's how it is in the United States... Right?

    I'm uninformed. Australia has no draft of any sort.

    I assumed that the current nature of the draft was that you could be forced to join the military, and could possibly go to Iraq against your wishes.

    That makes more sense.

    Tube-san wrote:
    I apologise for my rudeness desu.
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    here is what I think. For anyone that really wants to know.

    The military needs to be divided into two forces.

    One which fights overseas wars of aggression.

    And another which only defends your own country's soil.

    Isn't that... Isn't that how it already is in most countries? That's how it was in the USSR, and that's how it was in the Republic of Ichkeria, and that's how it is in the Russian Federation, and that's how it is in the United States... Right?

    I'm uninformed. Australia has no draft of any sort.

    I assumed that the current nature of the draft was that you could be forced to join the military, and could possibly go to Iraq against your wishes.

    That makes more sense.

    I'm not clear on how the Federation's military works, exactly, any further than which colours to shoot at.

    But the USSR and the Republic of Ichkeria both had branches of the military that were intended specifically to defend the mother land.

    The United States has the Coast Guard, which, as I understand it, is a branch of the military independent of the others that sort of functions as a Navy for the Yankee mother land. The National Guard is not an independent branch, but a subset of the Army (The Army, rather than being a generic term for military, is an independent branch) that is meant to handle disasters and to defend the mother land in case of an attack.

    However, seeing as the United States just isn't going to be invaded, the National Guard has been called to Iraq in small numbers as only of recently, which I think is horse shit.

    Also, if you are under the impression that the United States has a draft... Either you are misinformed, or I am. But I've only been here as a permanent resident for two years, and have been isolated within a single installation that entire time, so I may very well be.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    The United States has the Coast Guard, which, as I understand it, is a branch of the military independent of the others that sort of functions as a Navy for the Yankee mother land. The National Guard is not an independent branch, but a subset of the Army (The Army, rather than being a generic term for military, is an independent branch) that is meant to handle disasters and to defend the mother land in case of an attack.

    Your grasp is (roughly) correct. One minor clarification, though: while the Coast Guard is indeed one of the five components of the United States Armed Forces, it is not purely a military installation. Four of the five uniformed elements of the Armed Forces (Army (which is the parental unit of, as you said, the National Guard), Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) generally only perform 'active' service during war time except for extraordinary events such as riots or the installation of martial law. The Coast Guard, however, is regularly active within United States territory during peace time. When war is not declared, the Coast Guard is under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security.

    Also, if you are under the impression that the United States has a draft... Either you are misinformed, or I am. But I've only been here as a permanent resident for two years, and have been isolated within a single installation that entire time, so I may very well be.

    The United States has not employed conscription since 1973. You are correct.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There should be a compulsory draft service between 18-21 for the defence force, but NOT for the offensive force.

    I'm against this purely on the grounds that I don't think it's generally a good idea to put everyone through military service.

    EDIT: Also because mandatory service is by no means any general indicator that military forces will be used responsibly. 'Nam still took 10 years to end.

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There should be a compulsory draft service between 18-21 for the defence force, but NOT for the offensive force.

    I'm against this purely on the grounds that I don't think it's generally a good idea to put everyone through military service.

    EDIT: Also because mandatory service is by no means any general indicator that military forces will be used responsibly. 'Nam still took 10 years to end.

    The American defence forces were not sent to Viet Nam, if I'm not mistaken, and without their conscripted army, Viet Nam would have been completely destroyed.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    The American defence forces were not sent to Viet Nam

    Conscripts did serve in Vietnam. However, certain branches spent little time on the ground and in the jungles so many draftees aimed for those branches- namely, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    romanlevin wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The fallacy was comparing encouraging military service to encouraging genocide.

    I was not equating. I pointed out that "X had some good consequences" does not in any way equal "X is a good idea".
    Church wrote: »
    To be perfectly clear, I believe in compulsory military service, but I also believe that people who are only in the military because of such a policy should not be used in foreign conflicts.

    If you're not using the military, then why have a military? Why not make it compulsory public service? That is, why does it have to include guns and shooting?
    Church wrote: »
    Maturity doesn't just happen. It comes by experience, not by time.

    Yes and no. Maturity is very obviously biological. A retarded person that has been through a war isn't any more mature or less retarded. Since he did not have the mental faculties to process the experience in the same way a mature person would, it has caused him only suffering.

    You admit yourself that an 18 year-old would have better motor skills 14 (I don't know what you mean by "theory of mind"). Then why would he not also be better equipped to understand people other than himself and understand long term consequences?

    It seems as if maturity, to you, is completely spiritual - an idea that strikes me as unscientific and odd regardless. By this I mean to say that saying maturity is derived solely from experience is akin to saying that morality is derived solely from religion - ie disregarding any innate biological factors.

    retarded people dont acquire maturity?

  • 12gauge12gauge Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I am just happy I could dodge the draft by being a german not living in germany - honestly, maybe it's because I basically lived all over Europe but I don't feel any duty to take up arms for "my" country.
    And to be more specific - if I ever find my self in country going to war you can bet your ass I will be out of there as fast as possible.
    I just don't get the whole patriotism thing. If you want to go killing and dying for your country, great, but don't expect me to do the same just because I have the same nationality and don't fucking force me to do it. (I know the army does other things too, but those things are also done by the THW, the place I would have joined if I would have been drafted)

    davidoc0.jpg
  • romanlevinromanlevin Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Sam wrote: »
    retarded people dont acquire maturity?

    First of all, I wasn't making a point about actual retarded people. It was a thought experiment to demonstrate that experiencing something that you are not mentally equipped to process will yield you little, if any, benefit.*

    Second, trim down that fucking quote tree, man.

    *EDIT: The wider point I was making is that maturity is in great part biological. That is, someone who remained biologically a child could never become as mature as a fully developed adult.

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The American defence forces were not sent to Viet Nam

    Conscripts did serve in Vietnam. However, certain branches spent little time on the ground and in the jungles so many draftees aimed for those branches- namely, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

    Was the National Guard sent there?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There should be a compulsory draft service between 18-21 for the defence force, but NOT for the offensive force.

    I'm against this purely on the grounds that I don't think it's generally a good idea to put everyone through military service.

    EDIT: Also because mandatory service is by no means any general indicator that military forces will be used responsibly. 'Nam still took 10 years to end.

    Yeah, I'm interested in hearing Dhalphir's reasoning as to why it would be okay to use all 18-21 year-olds as forced labor instead of simply letting them get jobs or go to school.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The American defence forces were not sent to Viet Nam

    Conscripts did serve in Vietnam. However, certain branches spent little time on the ground and in the jungles so many draftees aimed for those branches- namely, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

    Was the National Guard sent there?

    It happened, but very irregularly. I think the aggregate number for Army and Air National Guard to serve in Vietnam was only 8 and a half thousand. I may be off by a bit, but I'm nearly certain it was under 10 thousand.

    Something like 20-25 thousand were 'called up', but only about a third of those actually deployed to Vietnam.

    I'm not sure if you're asking this as purely curiosity or if you're making a point about conscripted soldiers serving at home versus on the battleground, but people weren't drafted only into the National Guard.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    The American defence forces were not sent to Viet Nam

    Conscripts did serve in Vietnam. However, certain branches spent little time on the ground and in the jungles so many draftees aimed for those branches- namely, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

    Was the National Guard sent there?

    It happened, but very irregularly. I think the aggregate number for Army and Air National Guard to serve in Vietnam was only 8 and a half thousand. I may be off by a bit, but I'm nearly certain it was under 10 thousand.

    Something like 20-25 thousand were 'called up', but only about a third of those actually deployed to Vietnam.

    I'm not sure if you're asking this as purely curiosity or if you're making a point about conscripted soldiers serving at home versus on the battleground, but people weren't drafted only into the National Guard.

    I'm well aware that conscripts served in Viet Nam, but I was under the impression that the National Guard's job was just... You know. Guarding the nation. Like I mentioned in a previous post, deploying National Guard troops in foreign conflicts is bullshit.

    @ VC: I don't think it's as neccessary in a country like the United States, but for countries for whom full-scale invasion is a real threat, it's practically a given that serving in the border guard is a civic duty. At least, that's how it was in Ichkeria (In the what, three years we weren't being invaded) and in Belarus (I briefly stayed there between the time I left Ichkeria and the time I became a permanent resident in the US).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • romanlevinromanlevin Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    ...but for countries for whom full-scale invasion is a real threat, it's practically a given that serving in the border guard is a civic duty. At least, that's how it was in Ichkeria (In the what, three years we weren't being invaded) and in Belarus.

    I don't think anyone's disputing the necessity of a draft when it is crucial to national security.

    "Getting these damn hooligans of the street for a while" isn't crucial to national security.

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    He asked for an explanation, so I gave him one. Believe it or not, there are people that will dispute the necessity, even with a foreign power breathing down your national collective neck.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.