SWOLF FOR PRESIDENT! lmao. maybe only enlist those that are unemployed and not studying at uni etc and making no attempt in life lol
Poll: Required Enlistment
- Thread starter swolf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There was a time I thought it was a good idea...then I tuned the radio to some guy saying that we should require four years of service in the armed forces, a high school deploma, and a vow of loyalty to the republican party as requirements for citizenship, and the deportation of anyone who wouldn't. He went on to list a bunch of people who wouldn't be eligable, including Jews, Homosexuals, Middle eastern people and Mexicans. It left a sick taste in my mouth.
For the record, I don't think it would work. The whole point of something like that is to have a standing army in times of war; times have changed, though, and armies like that have been outdated.
Apologies Abound
For the record, I don't think it would work. The whole point of something like that is to have a standing army in times of war; times have changed, though, and armies like that have been outdated.
Apologies Abound
Only useful in times of a great war ala WW2. A large, standing army is a HUGE drain on resources otherwise. Well technically it is always, but you actually need it when fighting a proper war.
It's like how people keep talking about them having guns to defend their homes. No, guns aren't defensive, guns are inherently offensive. Anyone who buys them for defence technically buys them to retaliate against aggressors. Anyone who really buys things for defence buys things like sturdy locks, safety glass, heavy doors, fences, that sort of thing.
If we're going to be bitchy about semantics; you'll still be learning attack skills, skills used in retaliation against aggressors. This is defence:Cpt_Oblivious said:
It's like how people keep talking about them having guns to defend their homes. No, guns aren't defensive, guns are inherently offensive. Anyone who buys them for defence technically buys them to retaliate against aggressors. Anyone who really buys things for defence buys things like sturdy locks, safety glass, heavy doors, fences, that sort of thing.
There is a compelling argument to be made. It forces an individual to grow up in a hurry, it ensures every citizen has the same perspective when judging nebulous phrases like "providing for the common defense", and would almost certainly reduce politicial bickering by virtue of increased nationalism.
The problem however is many, many people do not want to go and fight in a war that they see no reason for fighting - something at least one of the two major conflicts struggles with. After more than two years in Iraq, my perspective on that particular issue changed radically as did the nation's. Such a move during a time of war would almost certainly result in increased agitation similar to what was seen during the Vietnam era, and I'm not sure the nation needs more revolutionary vigor. In a time of peace the problem is, what would one do with an military that suddenly balooned from a strength of around 1 million to 10 million or more? This is an enormous pool of manpower that could almost certainly be better applied to other tasks. Unless they replaced the manpower on any of a number of federally funded projects (road construction for example) you'd basically be paying a LOT of people to do nothing of use. Considering such an undertaking would involve extensive base expansion and gear acquisition, the associated costs would be astronomical - as in hundreds of billions of dollars.
The problem however is many, many people do not want to go and fight in a war that they see no reason for fighting - something at least one of the two major conflicts struggles with. After more than two years in Iraq, my perspective on that particular issue changed radically as did the nation's. Such a move during a time of war would almost certainly result in increased agitation similar to what was seen during the Vietnam era, and I'm not sure the nation needs more revolutionary vigor. In a time of peace the problem is, what would one do with an military that suddenly balooned from a strength of around 1 million to 10 million or more? This is an enormous pool of manpower that could almost certainly be better applied to other tasks. Unless they replaced the manpower on any of a number of federally funded projects (road construction for example) you'd basically be paying a LOT of people to do nothing of use. Considering such an undertaking would involve extensive base expansion and gear acquisition, the associated costs would be astronomical - as in hundreds of billions of dollars.
There could be some benefits of a two years of mandatory military service, the first of which being good physical training and learning some useful skills. Also, not enough people have the slightest idea what our military does, so it could serve as a good educational experience.
But I'm schizophrenic and can't join or be drafted into the military, so I probably shouldn't talk.
But I'm schizophrenic and can't join or be drafted into the military, so I probably shouldn't talk.
You have a strange understanding of the term "defense". In your view, it is a passive obstacle apparantly, something that is appalling incorrect. A door will only serve to slow an intruder, and even a bank vault simply requires time to bypass. Any static defense serves as little more than a deterrant or hinderance. Minefields can be cleared, wire can be cut, fences can be climbed and doors can be smashed in. A passive defense in and of itself is no defense at all. A fortress without defenders can be taken without trouble and the same goes for any other thing ever created by man.Cowabungaa said:Only useful in times of a great war ala WW2. A large, standing army is a HUGE drain on resources otherwise. Well technically it is always, but you actually need it when fighting a proper war.
If we're going to be bitchy about semantics; you'll still be learning attack skills, skills used in retaliation against aggressors. This is defence:Cpt_Oblivious said:
It's like how people keep talking about them having guns to defend their homes. No, guns aren't defensive, guns are inherently offensive. Anyone who buys them for defence technically buys them to retaliate against aggressors. Anyone who really buys things for defence buys things like sturdy locks, safety glass, heavy doors, fences, that sort of thing.
From a different perspective, the military definition for a defensive operation is simply an operation designed to set the conditions for a renewed offense. You don't win a war by holding your ground after all. In a famous example, the Battle of the Bulge in the second World War saw a light infantry unit, the 101st airborne defending a crossroad city of Bastogne against a vastly superior force. Were they simply left unsupported, the city would have inevitably fallen. Instead, their purpose was to delay and impede the rapid advance of a substantial portion of the German Forces engaged in the offensive, thus allowing other units to maneuver into a position of advantage where they halted the offensive and regained the initiave. The purpose of holding the city was, quite simply, to allow the rest of the army time to properly respond to the new action of the enemy.
I'm definitely going to have to go with a vote of "No" here... I might be willing to debate a kind of 'Weekend Warrior' system where people train with the National Guard or militias for home defense and, especially in America, physical fitness, but a conscript army? Unless your planning to steamroll the enemy with massive casualties, I can't see that being a functional plan... Besides, not being able to recruit anyone for a war in a democratic country might mean it's a war you shouldn't be fighting. Not enlisting is the common man's vote against invading another person's country.
And before anyone gets uppity about me saying Americans have a weight problem, or that I'm prejudiced against the fluffy segment of the population, yes, I am an obese American myself.
And before anyone gets uppity about me saying Americans have a weight problem, or that I'm prejudiced against the fluffy segment of the population, yes, I am an obese American myself.
No. Bad idea. People will lose a signifigant amount of jobs for a war that isn't affecting out country.
It would be quite possibly the worst decision ever made, on so many points. Firstly you can not(in this day at least) make people fight in a war they dont want to fight it, and given the fact that the majority of the american ppl think that they should pull out of Iraq, you are asking for trouble.swolf said:
And from the us govs point of view it would be disasterous, as right now the only way that they can continue with their attrocious foreign policies(drone bombing civilian areas etc) is because they have managed to instil a sence of almost apathy in the american ppl, where they dont really think about the wars(apart from mindless 'patriotic' chants) that the gov has waged in their name, as it doesnt rly effect them, or at least not in a way so that they can see that it is effecting them. but, if you start drafting ppl, all of a sudden ppl will start to wake up and take an interest in the foreign policy of the us, and then they will see what they really get up to, and that would be the end of both political parties.
And also if you are really concerned about reducing gun deaths you should want to introduce proper rules and regulations on gun ownership, not kid ppl into thinking that if we make ppl more aware of how to use guns they will be safer. the problem in america is not there are too many ppl who cant use guns properly, the problem is that everyone and their mother has a gun, which will always lead to trouble
The war in Afghanistan is actually now, officially, the longest running American war by a month or two, just edging out Vietnam. Iraq is the third longest war, since we didn't invade there til approximately three months later, and we consider the two to be separate wars. We have been using drone strikes against multiple targets, on an almost daily basis. It's reported in the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, though to be honest, I don't have a link to any specific article from the Journal. The drones are typically reported as being used more frequently by the CIA offensively, and have been credited for the deaths of a few higher ranking insurgent leaders, and a large number (dozens? hundreds? more?) of kills against 'suspected insurgents' though that term could be a catch all for anyone they think looks suspicious or is walking in the wrong field.
Times articles about Drones:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/asia/30drone.html?scp=1&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28drones.html?scp=3&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/baitullah_mehsud/index.html?scp=2&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
Really, just go to any credible news site and hit 'drone strike' into the search bar.
Times articles about Drones:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/asia/30drone.html?scp=1&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28drones.html?scp=3&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/baitullah_mehsud/index.html?scp=2&sq=drone%20strike&st=cse
Really, just go to any credible news site and hit 'drone strike' into the search bar.
in soviet russia, you had to join the army when your 18, and after 2 years, you have a choice stay, or leave
Whatever happened to freedom? Oh yeah, the government...
On a more serious note, if someone is stupid enough to want to join the military and go kill people's brothers, sons, fathers or whoever else so that some fat guy in a suit can make a profit from their deaths then by all means, let them join the military, but I'm very against the idea of forcing people to join the military.
On a more serious note, if someone is stupid enough to want to join the military and go kill people's brothers, sons, fathers or whoever else so that some fat guy in a suit can make a profit from their deaths then by all means, let them join the military, but I'm very against the idea of forcing people to join the military.
Service, yes. I reckon it should be two or three years, depending on the trade chosen. People would be far more mature and ready for university life when they finished that, and they'd have something on their CVs to show to prospective employers. Everyone would have a "previous employer" who could give a letter of "recommendation" when they go for another job. This would make better use of our universities and let people get "first" jobs more on merit as well as providing a supply of litter pickers, hogweed killers, playground cleaners, safety barrier inspection teams, footpath repair crews and so on.
Military service, though? No. The armies have a hard enough job in Afghanistan without a bunch of dickheads who don't want to be there getting shoved into uniforms they don't respect, handed automatic weapons and put out there among a population they hate. Look up Lieutenant William Calley and Sergeant Paul Cortez for why not.
Military service, though? No. The armies have a hard enough job in Afghanistan without a bunch of dickheads who don't want to be there getting shoved into uniforms they don't respect, handed automatic weapons and put out there among a population they hate. Look up Lieutenant William Calley and Sergeant Paul Cortez for why not.