Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

[Kefka]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft


"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.


So much for cut and run.

[Artha]

This happens all the time, it never gets anywhere.

[ElanthianSiren]

This happens all the time, it never gets anywhere.

If you drafted, you would see shit on par with vietnam but directed at government rather than soldiers IMO. Of course, I believe compulsatory service is a good idea, but I don't believe it's a good idea to suddenly start it in the middle of a war to teach everyone a "lesson" about a war that the majority of people are already pissed about.

This is more of the democrats posturing (with things they know won't pass -- like Pelosi's endorsment of murtha) to appear tough on defense IMO. Also, they should be careful not to come off too zealous, though they're not officially in power yet, so most people are probably going :shrug: .

-M

[Gan]

I dont see it happening.

[sst]

This douche has tried before. He just wants publicity

[Goretawn]

That's it. Go from a volunteer Army / Military to one that is made up of people pissed about being there. Way to degrade the greatest fighting force on the planet. Woohoo. Thanks guys. Send me a bunch of Soldiers that don't want to be there. Not the brightest idea out there. Here's your sign.

[TheEschaton]

I think the idea is to make politicians actually care about sending people to war, if it's their own sons and daughters. Not actually if they're effective in war.

It's a political move, looking to insure thought and rational debate on war before sending people in to fight and possibly die.

Because had there been a draft before this war, people would of cared a lot more about the lack of evidence going into the war, and debated it much more strongly.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

I just gave $5 to the USO, so I am exempt from the upcoming draft.

[Kefka]

I think the kind of draft he proposes is deferment proof

[Latrinsorm]

I think the idea is to make politicians actually care about sending people to war, if it's their own sons and daughters. Not actually if they're effective in war.

It's a political move, looking to insure thought and rational debate on war before sending people in to fight and possibly die.

Because had there been a draft before this war, people would of cared a lot more about the lack of evidence going into the war, and debated it much more strongly.Except Bush only has daughters, so what we really need to do is institute a draft and force every family in the country to have at least one son, via sex change operation if necessary, right guys?

It's a pretty despicable character attack to say that "politicians" didn't "actually care" about people dying in the war.

[xtc]

Except Bush only has daughters, so what we really need to do is institute a draft and force every family in the country to have at least one son, via sex change operation if necessary, right guys?

Good idea except they would end up in the Texas Air National Guard and go missing for a year.


It's a pretty despicable character attack to say that "politicians" didn't "actually care" about people dying in the war.

If it was their sons, they may care more.

[Gan]

We should just disband the military completely, bring everyone back home. Sell off all of our military assets and use the money to feed the homeless and reduce the debt. Open up our borders so that anyone can come to America, and meet them with open arms and big hugs.



(NOT)

[TheEschaton]

It's not that they don't "actually care", Latrin, and you should know this. It's that if it affects them personally, their opinion is vastly different and more hesitant.

Any time things are personalized, people give it more serious thought.

-TheE-

[xtc]

We should just disband the military completely, bring everyone back home. Sell off all of our military assets and use the money to feed the homeless and reduce the debt. Open up our borders so that anyone can come to America, and meet them with open arms and big hugs.



(not)


You and Borat need to work on your not jokes, try NOT in capitals and maybe bold.

[Artha]

"...and big hugsNOT."

[Parkbandit]

We should just disband the military completely, bring everyone back home. Sell off all of our military assets and use the money to feed the homeless and reduce the debt. Open up our borders so that anyone can come to America, and meet them with open arms and big hugs.

THEN AND ONLY THEN WOULD WE HAVE REAL PEACE!!

You also need to take it a step further. Change this government into a socialist governement. Divide up all the wealth and split it equally with everyone.

Backlash has a hard on right now I bet.

[Gan]

Backlash has a hard on right now I bet.

Thats definately not an image I want to have in my head... especially on this day of days.

:spaz:

[Back]

Actually I’m more in favor of compulsory service than a draft. Either way I am against illegal and unjustified wars.

[Sean of the Thread]

Actually I’m more in favor of compulsory service than a draft. Either way I am against illegal and unjustified wars.

And PRO Terrorist.

[ElanthianSiren]

And PRO Terrorist.

How's that?

-M

[Back]

How's that?

-M

Sometimes people post things just to see how others will react. I’ve done it. No biggy.

[xtc]

And PRO Terrorist.


Really? I didn't know Backlash was a Bush supporter.

[Sean of the Thread]

Really? I didn't know Backlash was a Bush supporter.

Do you even think about what you post before you do so?

[xtc]

Do you even think about what you post before you do so?

Yes re-read my post until you understand it.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yes re-read my post until you understand it.

Ok double checked. You're still an idiot.

[Latrinsorm]

Any time things are personalized, people give it more serious thought.It's a bullshit position for two reasons: you assume that people are too stupid to really care about people they don't know and you assume that an acceptable way of getting them to care is to abduct their children and put them (the children) in harm's way. The first one is factually incorrect and the second should just make you sick.

[Daniel]

How is that factually incorrect Latrin?

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.

"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.



Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army.

More...
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-20T175623Z_01_N20280714_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRAFT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Back]

You know... this is not really any real news. Rangel has been doing this since the war with Iraq started to make a point about who should go and who decided they should go.

Look it up.

[Latrinsorm]

How is that factually incorrect Latrin?It could be the case that people simply couldn't care about other people that weren't immediate family members; I can think of no logical reason for why it couldn't be. However, as it turns out that is just not the case, and any foreign charity is evidence of that. Hence, it is factually (as opposed to logically or necessarily) incorrect to say politicians can't really care about people who aren't their sons or daughters.

[Daniel]

It's a matter of degree Latrin. I'm sure all the congressmen care about the military. However, the point is that they don't have the vested interest to care enough.

This in turn allows them to make decisions that they would not normally make if they had said interest. Which is the point.

Then again, I'm sure you knew that.

[Latrinsorm]

Are you (two) so disillusioned that you can't conceive of a politician caring about people equally fervently regardless of familial ties? Doesn't that make you really depressed? :(

[Daniel]

Are you stupid enough to think that the average politician really gives a fuck? Or that even if he did, that he would be free to follow his conscious?

Be serious.

Latrin, I accept the world for what it is. I don't need to deceive myself to deal with reality. In fact, I find that I deal with it much better when I approach it realisticly.

It make it easier for you to imagine a world that doesn't exist, but I assure that deluding yourself doesn't change anything.

[Back]

I don’t even need to debate Latrin, he does it himself.

[TheEschaton]

I (try to) care about people, regardless of my affiliation (or lack thereof) to them. But it's a struggle for me and I try and work for it every day.

Most people do not.

I do agree that people shouldn't HAVE to have their sons and daughters in war before they stop to think of it, but that's fact. When you don't know a person, it is easier to put other considerations (IE, balance of power in the world, "stopping terror") in front of them. If they do know the person, and they have to ask, "Is this something so important I'm willing to give up my son for?", then it's a whole other story.

It's like homelessness - my feelings of brotherhood and solidarity towards homeless people changed radically when I first met homeless people. Now, when it's frickin' cold outside, I don't think "Man, it blows that homeless people have to stay out in this", I think "Man, it blows that Oscar hs to stay out in this". Of course, Oscar died in a bus stop during the 2001-2002 winter, but it's an example. Now I simply think, "Man, Oscar died in cold like this..."

-TheE-

[sst]

It's a matter of degree Latrin. I'm sure all the congressmen care about the military. However, the point is that they don't have the vested interest to care enough.

This in turn allows them to make decisions that they would not normally make if they had said interest. Which is the point.

Then again, I'm sure you knew that.

I dont want lawmakers to make decisions with their hearts though, I would rather they be distanced from it and decide only with their minds.
It would be to easy for them to make the easy wrong over the hard right.

[sst]

It's like homelessness - my feelings of brotherhood and solidarity towards homeless people changed radically when I first met homeless people. Now, when it's frickin' cold outside, I don't think "Man, it blows that homeless people have to stay out in this", I think "Man, it blows that Oscar hs to stay out in this". Of course, Oscar died in a bus stop during the 2001-2002 winter, but it's an example. Now I simply think, "Man, Oscar died in cold like this..."

-TheE-

Because Oscar decided to be out in cold like that.

Then again if you care enough you would know if he died in winter 2001 (nov, dec) , or winter 2002. (jan feb)

[Parkbandit]

Actually I’m more in favor of compulsory service than a draft. Either way I am against illegal and unjustified wars.

BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yell it comrade

[Parkbandit]

Really? I didn't know Backlash was a Bush supporter.


BUSH IS HITLER AND A TERRORIST!!!!

YELL IT OUT COMRADE!

[Parkbandit]

Are you stupid enough to think that the average politician really gives a fuck? Or that even if he did, that he would be free to follow his conscious?

Be serious.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2252141


The youngest son of Sen. John McCain has joined the Marine Corps and could be deployed to a war zone in a matter of months, according to a magazine report.

[Parkbandit]

Because Oscar decided to be out in cold like that.

Then again if you care enough you would know if he died in winter 2001 (nov, dec) , or winter 2002. (jan feb)


LOL

Yea.. if someone that really changed my life died.. I'm pretty sure I would remember the day. Or at least the month.

And I suck at remembering shit.

[TheEschaton]

Because Oscar decided to be out in cold like that.

Then again if you care enough you would know if he died in winter 2001 (nov, dec) , or winter 2002. (jan feb)

Or, Bush cut funding for the homeless shelter he normally stayed at, and they had no beds left for him, since the other 500 were already taken.

He died in November of 2001.
Edited to add: Geez, you people are crazy. I didn't think generalizing to which winter it was would be such a big fucking deal.

Anyways, politicians who decide from a distance soon value political power more than human life - which is, always has been, and always will be, wrong.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Because Oscar decided to be out in cold like that.



Because you know, everyone who is homeless CHOSE to be homeless. Don't be a retard.

[Parkbandit]

Anyways, politicians who decide from a distance soon value political power more than human life - which is, always has been, and always will be, wrong.

-TheE-

We need a new amendment to the constitution then.

FROM THIS DAY FORTH, THE ONLY PRESIDENT THAT CAN EVER DECLARE WAR IS ONE THAT HAS A KID IN THE ARMED FORCES... OTHERWISE HE/SHE IS JUST A WARMONGER AND DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HUMAN LIFE.

This post brought to you by the letter E. E can be found in the words rEtardEd and libEral. Two words that seem so synonymous nowadays.

PS - Before any of you tardos go "OMG, PB ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR!!!! No shit.

[Parkbandit]

Because you know, everyone who is homeless CHOSE to be homeless. Don't be a retard.

Because you know, everyone who is 'homeless' really is homeless. Don't be a retard.

[Daniel]

I dont want lawmakers to make decisions with their hearts though, I would rather they be distanced from it and decide only with their minds.
It would be to easy for them to make the easy wrong over the hard right.

I don't want my lawmakers being so out of touch that they can't possibly
approach the situation objectively either.

Tell me Dave. How often do you as a soldier bitch about the civvies that couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be a soldier?

[Daniel]

Because you know, everyone who is 'homeless' really is homeless. Don't be a retard.

and PB? Some people are lying, cheating, bastards? What exactly is your point? How does this even go along with the things that have been said, or change anything in the topic?

[HarmNone]

Here we go again. We're talking about the draft, not homelessness. Get back on topic. Further off-topic posts will be removed.

[Daniel]

The issue is whether or not someone can make an informed decision about something without having any sort of connection to it.

[Daniel]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2252141


Oh, and John Mccain has always been one of the 2-3 people I would actually vote for.

[HarmNone]

The issue is whether or not someone can make an informed decision about something without having any sort of connection to it.


In this thread, as long as posts are related to the draft, or even to service in the Armed Forces, I have no problem with it. That's the topic of this thread. Homelessness has nothing to do with either.

If you want to talk about a broader issue, such as making informed decisions, start a thread about that.

[xtc]

BUSH IS HITLER AND A TERRORIST!!!!

YELL IT OUT COMRADE!

You are a little late to use this line of propaganda. It was in fashion a few years ago. Since then a little more sanity has infused itself into the general populous. Since Army veterans, capitalists, and even Republicans have been critical of Bush and critical of the war.

Yeah I am a real commie, being for a strong military, lower taxes, de-regulation in many business areas. Yeah me and Trotsky two peas in a pod.

[Latrinsorm]

Be serious.Being serious, realism is not pessimism, and optimism is not the result of delusions.

I like how nobody addressed the abduction of children part to make their parents care, btw. Machiavelli would be proud.
Are you stupid enough to think that the average politician really gives a fuck? Or that even if he did, that he would be free to follow his conscious?Current politicians being inadequate in no way makes it so that all politicians will always be inadequate. This is the exact same mistake you made when we were talking about MLK, which is discouraging. Not only is it not realistic, it is the height of delusion to think that what is will always be.

As to the second question, everyone is always free to follow his or her conscience. Fearmongerers notwithstanding, we live in a country where thought is free.

[Daniel]

Lol Ok.

Since you decided to not argue my "Mistake" in the previous thread.

Why is it delusional to assume that something that is and always has been will not always be; without something changing. Please use Logic in your answer, since you decide to use it as your methodology.


P.s. I'm glad Machiavelli would be proud. He is one of the best political minds of all time.

[Latrinsorm]

Since you decided to not argue my "Mistake" in the previous thread.http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=22025&page=3

(aside: It took me about 3 minutes to find the final location of this thread. I found the Iran thread within 1.)

Specifically, post #23. "A thing's continued existence is not proof that a thing has to exist."
Why is it delusional to assume that something that is and always has been will not always be; without something changing. Please use Logic in your answer, since you decide to use it as your methodology.I'm not sure why I didn't see this coming, because this is also something that happened in the last thread: You started out by saying what is will always be (in response to Eschaton in post #17), then later clarified with [unless something changes it].

In any event, it is good that you agree that the inadequacy of politicians is not only not inevitable but downright ephemeral, what with our ability to eject politicians at regular intervals. You must then agree that the draft cannot be reasonably supported for the purpose of "making politicians care", because we have a much cheaper way of doing that.

[Daniel]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...t=22025&page=3

Thanks for the link to this thread. I'm sure I couldn't have found it without you.


"A thing's continued existence is not proof that a thing has to exist."

Actually, Latrin the conservation of Energy says otherwise.

Things do not spontaneously disappear.


I'm not sure why I didn't see this coming, because this is also something that happened in the last thread: You started out by saying what is will always be (in response to Eschaton in post #17), then later clarified with [unless something changes it].

Latrin, you are arguing that the system that is currently in place is sufficient to make politician's "care".

They obviously do not. So unless something changes, then they will always act in this way.

If you believe that all of a sudden that politicians will start caring, then show why.

On the same vein. Violence has always been apart of Human Nature. If you think that they are capable of not utilizing violence, then you have to find out why people resort to violence and then take steps to address them.

Simply stating that things "Do not always have to be" is not objectively, or logically arguing the point. In fact, it is the EXACT opposite.

We call this "Idealism", because your beliefs of what should or will be are based on your "Ideals", and not reality.

For the record, I believe that Peace is definitely an attainable goal. However, I do not believe that is is feasible or even reasonable at this particular time.

I believe that Politicians *can* be made to keep the citizen's best interest in minds, but steps have to be taken to do so. You may not believe that the draft is an appropriate step. That is fine, but acting like things will just "be" because you want it to be is retarded.


In any event, it is good that you agree that the inadequacy of politicians is not only not inevitable but downright ephemeral, what with our ability to eject politicians at regular intervals.

I don't agree. Don't fucking put words in my mouth Latrin.

The benefit from our ability to "Eject" politicians is eclipsed by interest group's disproportionate ability to influence electoral results in this country.

Therefore, I fundamentally reject the notion that we have a cheaper way of influencing politicians in these matters, and thus do not follow your conclusions as to why a draft can not be reasonably supported.

[Latrinsorm]

Thanks for the link to this thread. I'm sure I couldn't have found it without you. You're welcome. :) It's hard for me to keep up with the thread polka that goes on here sometimes too.
Actually, Latrin the conservation of Energy says otherwise.

Things do not spontaneously disappear.Conservation of energy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. "Things" can, and do, spontaneously vanish all the time. Particles decay, fields dissipate, undulations diminish to nothing. There are always by-products in some form (usually heat), but that doesn't mean that what exists will always exist.

This is a very simple misunderstanding. Your position is that spontaneous change does not occur. Sometimes when you say it you leave out the "spontaneous" part, and that's what's slowing this down. In any event, spontaneous change does occur, as any thermodynamics class will tell you, but the point is that it's not reasonable to expect spontaneous change to be in the direction we want it to be.
They obviously do not.Well, obviously. I mean, if you can't tell a person's motives from extremely distant and abbreviated examination, how can you?
If you believe that all of a sudden that politicians will start caring, then show why.If you don't think they care, vote them out. If they still don't care, they can't do anything about it anymore, so problem solved.
Don't fucking put words in my mouth Latrin.So you wouldn't want me to say something like "you are arguing that the system that is currently in place is sufficient to make politician's "care"." or "your beliefs of what should or will be are based on your "Ideals""? :) We have both been mistaken about each other's positions, there's no real point in trying to hamstring our dialogue so we don't "put words" in mouths.
The benefit from our ability to "Eject" politicians is eclipsed by interest group's disproportionate ability to influence electoral results in this country.Interest groups make up at most 40% of the electorate. By definition, you are able to defeat them, because 40% < 51%. It certainly won't be easy, but you cannot claim it is impossible without resorting to an idealized notion of disinterest.

[Daniel]

Latrin, you have to be the most naturally clueless person with an affinity for intellectual discussion that I have ever encountered.

[Back]

Put the Starbucks down and walk away slowly!

[Atlanteax]

A Draft won't happen.

American citizens will fight tooth and nail against anything that threatens their privilege of being lazy and unproductive.

[xtc]

A Draft won't happen.

American citizens will fight tooth and nail against anything that threatens their privilege of being lazy and unproductive.

What he said !

[Gan]

Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness.

That being said, we'll never see another draft. Even if my opinion is that compulsory service would be an excellent option.

[Atlanteax]

Israel is a good example of why compulsive service is not necessary ideal.

Nevermind that Israel is doing so out of necessity (too small of a population), but military planners always have to account for maintaining troop morale (a greater problem as many have no desire to be in the military in the first place) and the duration of mobilization (since all reserves are normally productive private sector workers, and removing them to idle them in war preparation can be an immense disruption to the Israel economy, as demonstrate by the Lebanon conflict).

While the US obviously has a large enough population to support a standing army (of sorts), there is still nonetheless the economic problem/dilemna of removing from the private sector very productive individuals and putting them in a role that is unnatural to them (unnatural as in they do not perform their requirements efficiently as opposed to performance in private sector), which overall hurts the US economy and social well-being (as you obviously want individuals in the industries they're most productive in).

[Gan]

While the US obviously has a large enough population to support a standing army (of sorts), there is still nonetheless the economic problem/dilemna of removing from the private sector very productive individuals and putting them in a role that is unnatural to them (unnatural as in they do not perform their requirements efficiently as opposed to performance in private sector), which overall hurts the US economy and social well-being (as you obviously want individuals in the industries they're most productive in).

Compulsory service would start immediately after high-school and last for 2 years. The trade-off of private sector productivity would be minimal since these compulsory enlistments would not have been in a position to impact the private sector markets with their absence.

You can also look at this from the perspective that compulsory service would demonstrate two paradigms of enlisted troops. Those that wanted to be there, and those that did not. Those that did not, for whatever reason, would serve their 2 year minimum and then return to the private sector where they could pursue their own goals of college or enter directly into the workforce, with the added benefit of what the military represents by way of increased discipline, self pride, and addiitonal transferrable skills learned while in the service. Those that like the military service can enjoy their two years and then have a choice of re-enlistment or returning to the private sector for college then re-enlisting again with the benefits of a college degree to assist them in gaining higher rank and greater responsibilities.

I definately know that my college perspective would have been radically different had I been in the service prior to leaving home for college. Not to mention I would have had the added perks of the GI Bill to assist my efforts of a self-funded college education.

From my perspective, I see nothing but benefits of a compulsory service.

I'd like to hear from those in the UK that particpated in compulsory service, what was your take on being required to serve?

[ElanthianSiren]

You can also look at this from the perspective that compulsory service would demonstrate two paradigms of enlisted troops. Those that wanted to be there, and those that did not. Those that did not, for whatever reason, would serve their 2 year minimum and then return to the private sector where they could pursue their own goals of college or enter directly into the workforce, with the added benefit of what the military represents by way of increased discipline, self pride, and addiitonal transferrable skills learned while in the service. Those that like the military service can enjoy their two years and then have a choice of re-enlistment or returning to the private sector for college then re-enlisting again with the benefits of a college degree to assist them in gaining higher rank and greater responsibilities.

I definately know that my college perspective would have been radically different had I been in the service prior to leaving home for college. Not to mention I would have had the added perks of the GI Bill to assist my efforts of a self-funded college education.

From my perspective, I see nothing but benefits of a compulsory service.


For people going into sciences too, the military is one of the biggest spenders for research in that field. Don't forget that. You might end up assisting a scientist working on things you oppose ideologically (bio weapons for example in my case), but you'd still get very relevent hands on experience. That's one thing that's always pissed me off about college science. There's very little all-encompassing practical approach/observation taken until you're doing graduate work.

-M

[Stanley Burrell]

Israel is a good example of why compulsive service is not necessary ideal.

I would like to find one Messianic family who had any family members join any remote facet of the IDF.

[Latrinsorm]

Put the Starbucks down and walk away slowly!I don't drink the white man's poison, thanks.
The trade-off of private sector productivity would be minimal since these compulsory enlistments would not have been in a position to impact the private sector markets with their absence.You don't think a million workers taking 2 years longer to enter the workforce would cause an impact?

It's a very big mistake to look at a draft only as a means to something else, whether it's making politicians really care or instilling "discipline, self pride, and additional transferrable skills". We also must look at what the draft is in and of itself.

[Gan]

I don't drink the white man's poison, thanks.You don't think a million workers taking 2 years longer to enter the workforce would cause an impact?

Considering current immigration issues as relating to unskilled direct labor (equating to the experience level a high school graduate enters into the marketplace with)... no.

Considering that the initial loss might cause a shortage in direct unskilled labor initially, perhaps, but after the 2 year starting period, it will be a simple observation of input/output with the 2 million (dont know where you got this number from).

[Latrinsorm]

Well there's 10 million kids in high school, 70% go to college, so I reckon that leaves around a million kids going somewhere else. 500,000 - a million, somewhere in that ballpark.

[Back]

Watched a show on Singapore the other night. First thing they did to establish independence was to mandate a compulsory draft. Their reasoning had many facets but I think the one that stood out to me was that the people of the country saw each other and worked together towards a common goal. And Singapore is as rich in diversity as New York.

On top of that, as the socialist leaders saw it, it also made for a more personal vestment for each individual into the country as a whole. It promoted physical ability, thinking ability, subsidized education, and made the country stronger in terms of literacy not to mention technically which equates to a higher GNP.

[Sean]

Well there's 10 million kids in high school, 70% go to college, so I reckon that leaves around a million kids going somewhere else. 500,000 - a million, somewhere in that ballpark.

Be interesting to see what happens when all 70% apply for the GI Bill...

[Daniel]

They'll do what my school does, and take out an equivilent amount from my financial aid package.

[Sean of the Thread]

They'll do what my school does, and take out an equivilent amount from my financial aid package.

Why shouldn't they?

[Daniel]

I'm not complaining.

I'd do it if I was them. It's just my job to find out ways to get mroe aid ;)

[Sean of the Thread]

Get diagnosed with ADD. I got to take a few courses I withdrew from for free :P

[Daniel]

Heh. I'm pretty sure I do have ADD. Fuck it. I'm almost done

[TheEschaton]

I still think 18 is fucking ridiculously young age for a military, and that forcing 18 years old into the service for two years is insane. I mean, think about high school. What the hell in high school (or anything before it) prepares you to possible do what is considered one of the most serious things human beings can do to other human beings (all arguments of whether it's right or not aside).

-TheE-

[Daniel]

What the hell in life prepares you for the military?

Hate to break it to you, but you wouldn't do any better than some kid who is 18 years old.

[Sean of the Thread]

I still think 18 is fucking ridiculously young age for a military, and that forcing 18 years old into the service for two years is insane. I mean, think about high school. What the hell in high school (or anything before it) prepares you to possible do what is considered one of the most serious things human beings can do to other human beings (all arguments of whether it's right or not aside).

-TheE-

Uhm your parents? JROTC. Teamsports.. mentors.. boyscouts/girlscouts.. youth groups.. anything that teaches self respect and discipline.. IE SCHOOL.

MOST 18 year olds are beyond capable of military service. Warclaidhs and Backlashes are examples of those that would not be prepared at that age as they're emotionally handicapped.

In fact I'd suggest serving at 18.. will give you leaps and bounds headstart on life afterwards.

[TheEschaton]

Interesting to see the two responses so close in time be so different in terms of content.

For S2, I'm referring to the killing of another human being, not necessarily the daily rigors of military life. What 18 year old is at a place where he can process that in a good manner?

And Daniel, you're damn right I'm not prepared for it. I hope never to be prepared for it. I was just making the point in that most 18 year olds can't even think for themselves, and most people I know finally did start to think for themselves did so only in college. I'd say kids are more ready for the military after college, but some people might say they're less ready, since they're more likely to question then.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

. I'd say kids are more ready for the military after college, but some people might say they're less ready, since they're more likely to question then.

-TheE-

Considering the military is led by college educated people. And 18-22 = kids?

[Daniel]

The posts were not really different in content. There is nothing that will dramatically change for a person between the ages of 18+. Especially *not* college.

[TheEschaton]

All the ones at my undergrad were definitely kids, legal adulthood notwithstanding.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

That's what basic training is for.

[Sean of the Thread]

That's what basic training is for.

/agree

[Artha]

I like Switzerland's system. You get bonuses like a lower income tax for service, and if you're unfit you still have to serve in civilian positions (eg: the police).

[sst]

I don't want my lawmakers being so out of touch that they can't possibly
approach the situation objectively either.

Tell me Dave. How often do you as a soldier bitch about the civvies that couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be a soldier?


There is no point in bitching about it, since we both know that it is simple truth, and as people on the this message board are quick to point out that they know better than those who have lived it and been there.

It however doesn’t apply to those who make decisions, nor the topic at hand. Just because little jimmy is in the marines doesn’t make daddy a better lawmaker. Decisions with such far reaching ramifications as going to war should be made from a non-emotional point of view. Daddy not wanting jimmy to lose a leg should not effect his decision to send troops to where they are needed.

Maybe we should make military serves required for citizinship, or to hold office.
Maybe they had it right in starship troopers!

[sst]

For people going into sciences too, the military is one of the biggest spenders for research in that field. Don't forget that. You might end up assisting a scientist working on things you oppose ideologically (bio weapons for example in my case), but you'd still get very relevent hands on experience. That's one thing that's always pissed me off about college science. There's very little all-encompassing practical approach/observation taken until you're doing graduate work.

-M

Im pretty sure there isn't MOS for scientist in the military. Things like that are taken care of by civilians. Either private sector or DOD folks

[sst]

I still think 18 is fucking ridiculously young age for a military, and that forcing 18 years old into the service for two years is insane. I mean, think about high school. What the hell in high school (or anything before it) prepares you to possible do what is considered one of the most serious things human beings can do to other human beings (all arguments of whether it's right or not aside).

-TheE-

I have 17, 18 and 19 year old kids around me all the time. They do just as good and bad as 30, 31, and 32 year olds.
And that goes for dealing with killin folks too.

[Daniel]

Im pretty sure there isn't MOS for scientist in the military. Things like that are taken care of by civilians. Either private sector or DOD folks

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=158

Of course, you also miss the point that these things wouldn't have to be handled by civilians in this particular situation.

[Daniel]

There is no point in bitching about it, since we both know that it is simple truth, and as people on the this message board are quick to point out that they know better than those who have lived it and been there.

It however doesn’t apply to those who make decisions, nor the topic at hand. Just because little jimmy is in the marines doesn’t make daddy a better lawmaker. Decisions with such far reaching ramifications as going to war should be made from a non-emotional point of view. Daddy not wanting jimmy to lose a leg should not effect his decision to send troops to where they are needed.

Maybe we should make military serves required for citizinship, or to hold office.
Maybe they had it right in starship troopers!

I disagree. I think these type of decisions should be made from someone who is fully engaged in its consequences.

I feel the same way about the SGM who never leaves the FOB trying to tell combat troops how to run their missions as I do about politicians who would never allow themselves or the ones closest to them wear a uniform make a decision about what is the right thing to do.

Just a matter of personal opinion I guess.

[sst]

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=158

Of course, you also miss the point that these things wouldn't have to be handled by civilians in this particular situation.

Um medical labratory specialist is not what she was talking about.

[sst]

I disagree. I think these type of decisions should be made from someone who is fully engaged in its consequences.

I feel the same way about the SGM who never leaves the FOB trying to tell combat troops how to run their missions as I do about politicians who would never allow themselves or the ones closest to them wear a uniform make a decision about what is the right thing to do.

Just a matter of personal opinion I guess.

I have no problem with the SGM telling me to do a mission, how to do it is a different story.

The politician can go and tell me to fight a way, as long as they dont tell me how to fight it ( nam, iraq) things would go great.

[ElanthianSiren]

Um medical labratory specialist is not what she was talking about.

Actually, it was. I used a bad example, but I was talking about getting the preliminary training that you'd need to have a very firm grasp of biological and technological science (that was why I mentioned hands on experience which is damn near absent in college until you get to your grad work). Also, you see your buddies lose limbs, it'd probably make you more focused on finding a way to fix those limbs later in life, just per an example.

-M

[Daniel]

I have no problem with the SGM telling me to do a mission, how to do it is a different story.

The politician can go and tell me to fight a way, as long as they dont tell me how to fight it ( nam, iraq) things would go great.


That's the problem that you fail to understand. They might not be telling (you) Joe on the groudn what to do, but they are dictacting what needs to be used to get the mission accomplished.

Remember a guy named Shinseki? Probably not, because you were still trying to get your dick wet with the local girls. He said they would need 500k to 600k troops for Iraq. Ultimately, he was right, but he got FIRED because the people in charge didn't want to hear that.

If it was their son who was going to be sweating his balls off for nothing, then it's doubtful that they would have decided to go ahead and only use a fraction of the forces needed.

That's just an example.

As a politician or a person who makes decisions, you have to make difficult ones all the time. It's not about taking emotion out of the equation because that just isn't possible. It's about making sure that someone has the interests that you do when making these decisions.

[Sean of the Thread]

Why do waste your time responding to gap tooth? He's a military r tard.