Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Did you serve? Just asking.

By the way what happened to the good old days when the left revered the draft dodgers who fled to Canada?  Is their reverence situational?

I never shit my pants or claimed to have bone spurs to avoid the draft. How about you?  Cannons don't count, btw.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hillary said:

The didn't serve BS is just that. There hasn't been a Democrat President who served in over 37 years.  

It's kind of like the "didn't graduate BS." Doesn't mean anything.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Hillary said:

 There hasn't been a Democrat President who served in over 37 years.  

Clinton was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar (Actually like, really smart) and Obama was too young for Viet Nam.

Bone spurs lied and cheated his way out of it. He may as well have shit his pants for the draft board.

He's a cowardly asshole who denigrates true heroes and there's nothing you can pull out of your ass that will change that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

 There hasn't been a Democrat President who served in over 37 years.  

Clinton was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar (Actually like, really smart) and Obama was too young for Viet Nam.

Bone spurs lied and cheated his way out of it. He may as well have shit his pants for the draft board.

He's a cowardly asshole who denigrates true heroes and there's nothing you can pull out of your ass that will change that.

Nicely selected window of time to exclude Carter's Navy service, but include Reagan's WWII years of making Hollywood war movies.  

There are people who stood by their convictions during Viet Nam and either enrolled to fight or actively stood against the war.  Both required courage.  Cadet Bone Spurs took the rich kids way out.  Both the enlistees and the resisters despised them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any strategy to resist the draft that works is a good one.

You know how you can tell that a war is unnecessary? People have to be forced to fight it. It's the least moral thing a government can do and fighting it by any means is always right

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Any strategy to resist the draft that works is a good one.

You know how you can tell that a war is unnecessary? People have to be forced to fight it. It's the least moral thing a government can do and fighting it by any means is always right

That's quite a load of caca coming from a future militia commander.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Any strategy to resist the draft that works is a good one.

You know how you can tell that a war is unnecessary? People have to be forced to fight it. It's the least moral thing a government can do and fighting it by any means is always right

The problem with applying that logic here is that it falls down on it's own.

The the US Army roam the streets with press gangs? No. Dodging the draft was relatively easy and as we have seen, carried relatively light consequences.

In the days of ancient Greece, warriors fought hand to hand, and to protect themselves they used heavy shields. The first thing that a soldier fleeing would do was to throw down his shield, and this became a common expression for cowardice. It's said that mothers told their sons "Come back with your shield, or on it." The consequences of dodging military service were quite severe if one's own family would literally shun you.

I would say that instituting a draft entails a different social contract that paying soldiers enough to induce them volunteer. Different concepts for different times. There have been nations which quite literally flogged or executed to draft-dodgers, publicly of course. That's taking "forcing people to fight" to whole different level, one that the US never approached (although the Confederacy did).

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a number, a pretty low one, but they stopped the draft before my age group would have been called. Not sure what I would have done, but probably Canada.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

The didn't serve BS is just that. There hasn't been a Democrat President who served in over 37 years.  

"Didn't serve" is irrelevant to Trump being president  -  true enough.

But it's extremely relevant to whether he can lecture Tammy Duckworth about respecting the military.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hillary said:

The didn't serve BS is just that. There hasn't been a Democrat President who served in over 37 years.  

When you get in another rare mood to use proper English, try to remember that it is 'Democratic', not Democrat. I'm sure you know better, but why be an asshole on top of being a moron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, frenchie said:

"Didn't serve" is irrelevant to Trump being president  -  true enough.

But it's extremely relevant to whether he can lecture Tammy Duckworth about respecting the military.

 

Does Happy Jerk have a Twitter account? This seems like his sort of rake-stomping move...

  duckworth.thumb.jpg.5a186209d776f4a6028899e9e074a2b1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

I had a number, a pretty low one, but they stopped the draft before my age group would have been called. Not sure what I would have done, but probably Canada.

same boat , Oz old enough to fight BUT not old enough to vote , then along came Gough :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Any strategy to resist the draft that works is a good one.

You know how you can tell that a war is unnecessary? People have to be forced to fight it. It's the least moral thing a government can do and fighting it by any means is always right

The problem with applying that logic here is that it falls down on it's own.

OK. Why?

My assessment seems to me to fit our last draft-enabled war pretty well. It was a stupid unnecessary war. People had to be forced to go fight it. Quite the contrast from WWII, which has endless stories of people lying about their age to get INTO the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK. Why?

My assessment seems to me to fit our last draft-enabled war pretty well. It was a stupid unnecessary war. People had to be forced to go fight it. Quite the contrast from WWII, which has endless stories of people lying about their age to get INTO the war.

um...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_II

https://web.archive.org/web/20080716032056/https://www.sss.gov/induct.htm

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I'm just imagining you trying to convince people to fight in a future constitutional upset and I can't stop laughing.

Tom in the militia. What wild territory we have here. Would he sign? Would he take the oath? If he did either, would his word be worth a damn?

 

7 hours ago, badlatitude said:

That's quite a load of caca coming from a future militia commander.

Commander? Take a look at the recruit, a known grouser. Not a company builder. In a decent militia outfit the rotten apples are given a potato peeler, until they shape up.

7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
I will wear the governor's underwear with full Libertarian dignity.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I did not say there was no conscription. Just that I have never once heard of anyone lying to get into the Viet Nam war.

The wiki article had some interesting stuff on how it was necessary for the government to cen$or things people $aid about conscription. Another indicator that it just should not be happening.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK. Why?

My assessment seems to me to fit our last draft-enabled war pretty well. It was a stupid unnecessary war. People had to be forced to go fight it. Quite the contrast from WWII, which has endless stories of people lying about their age to get INTO the war.

Playing ignorant of history? There have been draft riots in pretty much every US war since 1812 (well, 1813 by calendar).

As for "forcing people to fight" that is a sliding scale, not an absolute. How much effort went into "forcing people to fight" by the US gov't? Approximately the same effort they put into enforcing speed limits (arguably less, actually, although with more capricious and severe punishment for a random few).  How many draft-dodgers were publicly flogged, or executed?

In the past (and not all that long ago), there have been armies that were marched into battle with the front ranks handcuffed and held at gunpoint by their officers/NCOs. Want to guess how many times the US military has done so? How does that fit into your "forced to fight" narrative?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Oh please please please let him tweet a response..lessee..he could call her suzy wong 

Trump knows when to stay quiet. He never responded to Eminem, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Lebron when he called him a bum. But be patient, his next wild rally he'll say a soldier who doesn't have legs knows nothing about bone spurs or something equally stupid and Sarah Hucklebee Sanders will say that we misunderstood him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Playing ignorant of history? There have been draft riots in pretty much every US war since 1812 (well, 1813 by calendar).

As for "forcing people to fight" that is a sliding scale, not an absolute. How much effort went into "forcing people to fight" by the US gov't? Approximately the same effort they put into enforcing speed limits (arguably less, actually, although with more capricious and severe punishment for a random few).  How many draft-dodgers were publicly flogged, or executed?

In the past (and not all that long ago), there have been armies that were marched into battle with the front ranks handcuffed and held at gunpoint by their officers/NCOs. Want to guess how many times the US military has done so? How does that fit into your "forced to fight" narrative?

-DSK

During WWII, Stalin had NKVD units whose sole job was to stay behind the lines and shoot any Soviet soldier trying to escape the battlefield.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

During WWII, Stalin had NKVD units whose sole job was to stay behind the lines and shoot any Soviet soldier trying to escape the battlefield.  

Right, a scenario revived for gamers in "Call to Duty" although the Soviet manufactured burp gun was far more accurate and reliable than the real thing. This is not -quite- as bad as some other historical examples I was thinking of, but it certainly qualifies as a far greater use of force in "forcing people to fight" than the US draft ever was.

This is why libertarian logic is so fucking useless as a policy guide. It only seems to make sense if you don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

This is why libertarian logic is so fucking useless as a policy guide. It only seems to make sense if you don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works.

-DSK

Exactly.

Its biggest flaw is that it doesn't take human nature into account.

It operates on about the same level of wishful thinking as the hippies and their communes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Exactly.

Its biggest flaw is that it doesn't take human nature into account.

It operates on about the same level of wishful thinking as the hippies and their communes.

But WAAAAAY less fun.  At least to visit on a sunny weekend.   

Libertarian vs Libertine.  Game, set, match to the hippies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Playing ignorant of history? There have been draft riots in pretty much every US war since 1812 (well, 1813 by calendar).

As for "forcing people to fight" that is a sliding scale, not an absolute. How much effort went into "forcing people to fight" by the US gov't? Approximately the same effort they put into enforcing speed limits (arguably less, actually, although with more capricious and severe punishment for a random few).  How many draft-dodgers were publicly flogged, or executed?

In the past (and not all that long ago), there have been armies that were marched into battle with the front ranks handcuffed and held at gunpoint by their officers/NCOs. Want to guess how many times the US military has done so? How does that fit into your "forced to fight" narrative?

-DSK

Forcing people to fight has always been done but never been right IMO.

20 hours ago, frenchie said:

Now I've heard of one, making him the exception that proves the rule. It was an unpopular war and could not have been the disaster it was without a draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Forcing people to fight has always been done but never been right IMO.

Now I've heard of one, making him the exception that proves the rule. It was an unpopular war and could not have been the disaster it was without a draft.

My point is not that the Vietnam War was good, or even that the draft was good, but that demonizing the US draft in the Vietnam era is just ignorance on display.

Just last week I met a man wearing a POW-MIA bracelet. Remember those?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

My point is not that the Vietnam War was good, or even that the draft was good, but that demonizing the US draft in the Vietnam era is just ignorance on display.

Just last week I met a man wearing a POW-MIA bracelet. Remember those?

-DSK

Tom demonizes the draftees that couldn't buy their way out of the service like Trump and others did.  Probably a Libertarian thing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'd been one year older, my low draft number would have called me up.  Not sure what I'd have done, maybe tried for a college deferment, or tried for a job other than infantry.  My daddy wasn't rich enough to be a Republican and buy my way out.   I'd just been prescribed glasses, so Pilot was out....But in '73, Vietnam was falling apart already.  I remember a phonecall from a recruiter who said "you'd be safer stationed in Germany than you would crossing Main Street", but I just said I'd take my chances on Main.

 

Here's the warning from US President #34, An Army General and Republican (50+ years ago):

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society."

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

 

Or as Mad Magazine put it:

"War is good business.... Invest your $on!"

 

Why is it that the "small government" fans are also pro Big Military? 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Tom demonizes the draftees that couldn't buy their way out of the service like Trump and others did.  Probably a Libertarian thing.  

disagreeing with the draft is demonizing draftees?  I don't think so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 8:37 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Any strategy to resist the draft that works is a good one.

You know how you can tell that a war is unnecessary? People have to be forced to fight it. It's the least moral thing a government can do and fighting it by any means is always right

Does this mean

 

7 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Tom demonizes the draftees that couldn't buy their way out of the service like Trump and others did.  Probably a Libertarian thing.  

Not to me. Any strategy includes low budget ones. And yes, thinking that we should not be forced to fight is kind of a libertarian thing. I guess you think that means it's wrong. Can you say why it's wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It gave you, big, powerful, black guns to beat off to.

Actually, my assault weapon is an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine. If you want someone who gets sexual pleasure from a powerful rifle, I'd suggest trying badlat. Apparently, one of his is worth about the same as all of my guns combined. If I had a gun that expensive, it better damn well give me an orgasm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Actually, my assault weapon is an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine. If you want someone who gets sexual pleasure from a powerful rifle, I'd suggest trying badlat. Apparently, one of his is worth about the same as all of my guns combined. If I had a gun that expensive, it better damn well give me an orgasm.

Does anybody else believe this? I don't. Tom is an old-school gun nut, he probably has an arsenal, especially considering the number of times he has publicly fantasized about engaging the Feds in combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Does anybody else believe this? I don't. Tom is an old-school gun nut, he probably has an arsenal, especially considering the number of times he has publicly fantasized about engaging the Feds in combat.

Considering that the number of times is zero and that I reveal my real name and post pics of my guns, I'd say I'm a bit more believable than some anonymous guy who claims to own  assault weapons and claims to want to ban them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

Considering that the number of times is zero and that I reveal my real name and post pics of my guns, I'd say I'm a bit more believable than some anonymous guy who claims to own  assault weapons and claims to want to ban them.

Just look up any thread about registration and you make Charlton Heston look like a rank amateur with your cold dead hand's insinuations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And...it's yet another gun thread. Fuck.

On 12/6/2017 at 3:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Congrats on proving that's the kind of thread that interests you enough to draw a response, unlike our fourth amendment, our fifth amendment, our idiotic drug prohibition, cryptocurrencies, or any number of political topics besides guns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

.. Any strategy includes low budget ones. And yes, thinking that we should not be forced to fight is kind of a libertarian thing. I guess you think that means it's wrong. Can you say why it's wrong?

 

9 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

 

"Can you say why it's wrong"

 

 

No.

OK, but "because libertarians are stupid" has never seemed a convincing reason to me, no matter which partisans are saying it nor on what subject.

The draft will have some interesting social repercussions. For example, drafting women pretty well clarifies that they're not only The People but part of the militia. Like illegal immigrants, women are sort of people too.

I still think forcing people to fight is wrong and would only enable more wars. Fundamentally, it's about whether we own the government or the government owns us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...     ...     ...

I still think forcing people to fight is wrong and would only enable more wars. Fundamentally, it's about whether we own the government or the government owns us.

Is paying them "forcing them to fight"? How about if that's combined with all the other economic twiddles the gov't engages in, with the effect to keep wages low and the job market tight? How about showing glamorous seductive advertising about how cool it is to be a soldier? What exactly is the threshold for being "forced"? How about when people join up for the pay, the glamor, and the educational benefits, thinking that the odds are enormously against their being in combat, and then when they roll snake-eyes decide they want out? Guess what, that's being forced.

This is important in other contexts too.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...     ...     ...

I still think forcing people to fight is wrong and would only enable more wars. Fundamentally, it's about whether we own the government or the government owns us.

Is paying them "forcing them to fight"? How about if that's combined with all the other economic twiddles the gov't engages in, with the effect to keep wages low and the job market tight? How about showing glamorous seductive advertising about how cool it is to be a soldier? What exactly is the threshold for being "forced"? How about when people join up for the pay, the glamor, and the educational benefits, thinking that the odds are enormously against their being in combat, and then when they roll snake-eyes decide they want out? Guess what, that's being forced. %

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

 

I still think forcing people to fight is wrong and would only enable more wars. Fundamentally, it's about whether we own the government or the government owns us.

According to you I've been enlisted in a well regulated militia against  my will. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fundemental concept of society (Social Contract), we give up some individual rights to obtain communal benefits.  If we want collective security, I don't see a real problem with taking on a collective responsibility.  I would support government service until 24 years of age; schooling counting as  government service unless it goes over the age limit, then two years out of school service.  Choose americorps, Peace Corps or military.  Drop out at 16, you owe 8 years, get a doctorate at 26 , owe 2. One of the disadvantages of the "volunteer army" has been th ability to ignore the use of the mulitary sine it's increasingly professional military families or the underclass that is sserving.   There are fewer and fewer places where people from all wakss of life are put in the same room for extended periods of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

It's a fundemental concept of society (Social Contract), we give up some individual rights to obtain communal benefits.  If we want collective security, I don't see a real problem with taking on a collective responsibility.  I would support government service until 24 years of age; schooling counting as  government service unless it goes over the age limit, then two years out of school service.  Choose americorps, Peace Corps or military.  Drop out at 16, you owe 8 years, get a doctorate at 26 , owe 2. One of the disadvantages of the "volunteer army" has been th ability to ignore the use of the mulitary sine it's increasingly professional military families or the underclass that is sserving.   There are fewer and fewer places where people from all walks of life are put in the same room for extended periods of time.

That's true but keep the military out of it.  The military has no problem recruiting qualified people.  The military is not a social labratory, a babysitting service, a school to learn about life, or anything but a fighting force.  Today's military is a well trained, well disciplined professional force.  We do not need to go back to the post draft 'hollow army' that we had in the '70s and early 80s.  Because of the aftermath of Viet Nam and the draft, the military had trouble getting enough people , so the ended up taking anybody. It wasn't very pretty.

If a worldwide conflict erupts, perhaps a draft will be necessary.  Until then, mandatory government service is fine but not at the expense of the quality military of today.  I would support such a program only if the recruiting standards are not lowered or the amount of military members increased, just to accommodate such a program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is paying them "forcing them to fight"? How about if that's combined with all the other economic twiddles the gov't engages in, with the effect to keep wages low and the job market tight? How about showing glamorous seductive advertising about how cool it is to be a soldier? What exactly is the threshold for being "forced"? How about when people join up for the pay, the glamor, and the educational benefits, thinking that the odds are enormously against their being in combat, and then when they roll snake-eyes decide they want out? Guess what, that's being forced. %

No.

Still no.

Still no.

Being forced means being compelled by law, not having another choice.

The last question can only come up after someone has signed up and is subject to military justice. I'm no expert, but my guess would be that the answer is, "Fulfill your agreement."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No.

Still no.

Still no.

Being forced means being compelled by law, not having another choice.

The last question can only come up after someone has signed up and is subject to military justice. I'm no expert, but my guess would be that the answer is, "Fulfill your agreement."

You always have another choice. That's what "consent of the governed" boils down to.

I see you have nothing to say on the concept of obligation to the community. Why do you want to live in the US if you're not willing to fight to defend it?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You always have another choice. That's what "consent of the governed" boils down to.

I see you have nothing to say on the concept of obligation to the community. Why do you want to live in the US if you're not willing to fight to defend it?

-DSK

But having another choice and having another LEGAL choice are different things. One involves a level of coercion absent in the other.

Who said I'm unwilling to fight? I'm unwilling to be forced. If I saw a threat or some reason to fight, I would. I haven't seen a war we should have fought in my lifetime. Nor a declared one in even longer.

I think depending on the Congress to vote for a war and the people to volunteer to fight in it helps ensure we'll go to war only when necessary. I could go on to ask you why you favor unnecessary wars, but that would be kinda ridiculous. Like assuming I would not fight because I don't wish to be forced to do so

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But having another choice and having another LEGAL choice are different things. One involves a level of coercion absent in the other.

Who said I'm unwilling to fight? I'm unwilling to be forced. If I saw a threat or some reason to fight, I would. I haven't seen a war we should have fought in my lifetime. Nor a declared one in even longer.

I think depending on the Congress to vote for a war and the people to volunteer to fight in it helps ensure we'll go to war only when necessary. I could go on to ask you why you favor unnecessary wars, but that would be kinda ridiculous. Like assuming I would not fight because I don't wish to be forced to do so

That's the typical Libertarian attitude.  "If I saw".  Never mind doing something for the common good, it's all about the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

That's the typical Libertarian attitude.  "If I saw a threat or some reason to fight, I would.".  Never mind doing something for the common good, it's all about the individual.

Never mind the last part of the sentence. The part that was about fighting for the common good.

I just think a war without popular support should not be fought and is not any kind of a common good. It's a common evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

It's a fundemental concept of society (Social Contract), we give up some individual rights to obtain communal benefits.  If we want collective security, I don't see a real problem with taking on a collective responsibility.  I would support government service until 24 years of age; schooling counting as  government service unless it goes over the age limit, then two years out of school service.  Choose americorps, Peace Corps or military.  Drop out at 16, you owe 8 years, get a doctorate at 26 , owe 2. One of the disadvantages of the "volunteer army" has been th ability to ignore the use of the mulitary sine it's increasingly professional military families or the underclass that is sserving.   There are fewer and fewer places where people from all wakss of life are put in the same room for extended periods of time.

Generally I agree with you, I think 24 is a bit much though. 2 years 18-20 or 16-18 no exceptions.. volunteer work on minimum wage.

The bolded bit is not on..Just perpetuates the great devide.

Could be civil or military..but no active service unless volunteered for and then proper wages.

Delaying tertiary education until kids have seen a little real life won't hurt em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
18 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

It's a fundemental concept of society (Social Contract), we give up some individual rights to obtain communal benefits.  If we want collective security, I don't see a real problem with taking on a collective responsibility.  I would support government service until 24 years of age; schooling counting as  government service unless it goes over the age limit, then two years out of school service.  Choose americorps, Peace Corps or military.  Drop out at 16, you owe 8 years, get a doctorate at 26 , owe 2. One of the disadvantages of the "volunteer army" has been th ability to ignore the use of the mulitary sine it's increasingly professional military families or the underclass that is sserving.   There are fewer and fewer places where people from all wakss of life are put in the same room for extended periods of time.

Generally I agree with you, I think 24 is a bit much though. 2 years 18-20 or 16-18 no exceptions.. volunteer work on minimum wage.

The bolded bit is not on..Just perpetuates the great devide.

Could be civil or military..but no active service unless volunteered for and then proper wages.

Delaying tertiary education until kids have seen a little real life won't hurt em.

How did the draft suddenly drift from a defensive necessity to a government make-work social engineering project?

Who here really wants to be locked in a room with me for his own edification?

My reaction to it is a rather old one.

Quote

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 8:04 PM, SloopJonB said:

Clinton was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar (Actually like, really smart) and Obama was too young for Viet Nam.

Bone spurs lied and cheated his way out of it. He may as well have shit his pants for the draft board.

He's a cowardly asshole who denigrates true heroes and there's nothing you can pull out of your ass that will change that.

There was/ is a US military after Vietnam. It's been in the papers. Obama certainly could have enlisted and Clinton most certainly could have as well. Your implication that Clinton didn't serve because he was "really smart" is an insult to all the men and women who serve both of our countries. You know all of  them who aren't smart. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 6:43 PM, badlatitude said:

Does anybody else believe this? I don't. Tom is an old-school gun nut, he probably has an arsenal, especially considering the number of times he has publicly fantasized about engaging the Feds in combat.

It's quite a mental exercise with Tom. A state of mind. (But his mind doesn't get very far.) 

His guns seem pretty modest. For example,  his carbine is an offbrand Winchester 84 copy. The family LCM platform is a .22.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, chinabald said:
On 1/21/2018 at 10:08 PM, frenchie said:

"Didn't serve" is irrelevant to Trump being president  -  true enough.

But it's extremely relevant to whether he can lecture Tammy Duckworth about respecting the military.

 

I agree 

+1

Active military service is not a factor in whether or not a person could/should serve as President IMHO.

Parroting fascist blather is not "respecting the military" though. I'm amazed at the number of Americans who don't seem to realize this.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Never mind the last part of the sentence. The part that was about fighting for the common good.

I just think a war without popular support should not be fought and is not any kind of a common good. It's a common evil.

I essentially agree that drafting people for a stupid war isn't good.  The trouble is sometimes it is a hard thing to distinguish when a war is 'good' or 'bad'.  Deep down inside, in spite of having been in the Army twice, I think any war is bad.  A war such as WWII sounded good, it solved some immediate terrible problems, but like any war, left more problems and more violence in the aftermath. 

War is terrible, it is a shitty, juvenile way to solve problems that adults should be able to resolve.  We have the ability to think rationally, every problem has a reasonable solution. Maybe not an easy one, but violence is the most crude and ineffective way to resolve any problem in the long run.  The idea that might makes right is bull shit. I am an atheist but the worlds religions contain some pretty good lessons.  Although many religions have twisted these ideas to their own nefarious purposes of course.  The first commandment says, quite simply, Thou shall not kill.  Period.  Not you shouldn't kill unless.., just no.  Would I want to kill somebody that harmed my daughter?  I would certainly want to and if given the chance I would probably try.  Does that make it right?  Absolutely not.  Killing anybody for any reason would haunt me for the rest of my life. The world will never be a good place as long as we are ready to turn to violence to resolve problems.  It isn't good in a bar fight or a world war.  People like Gandhi  and Martin Luther King had the right idea and were willing to lay down their own lives to save many others.   That is the apogee of human behavior.  We need to put aside our stupid ego and always take a non violent approach to any problem.  I would rather lose my life in the pursuit of a better world than to live a life of selfishness and stupid violence to get my way.  An easy ideal to profess but difficult to do for sure.  But I can try, dreamers gonna dream.  Don't do it for it for some pie in the sky promise of eternal bliss to satisfy some imaginary supreme being, ultimately that is selfish too.  Do it because we live on a small planet with 7.6 billion people, everyone of them just like ourselves.  Doh!

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

I essentially agree that drafting people for a stupid war isn't good.  The trouble is sometimes it is a hard thing to distinguish when a war is 'good' or 'bad'.  Deep down inside, in spite of having been in the Army twice, I think any war is bad.  A war such as WWII sounded good, it solved some immediate terrible problems, but like any war, left more problems and more violence in the aftermath. 

War is terrible, it is a shitty, juvenile way to solve problems that adults should be able to resolve.  We have the ability to think rationally, every problem has a reasonable solution. Maybe not an easy one, but violence is the most crude and ineffective way to resolve any problem in the long run.  The idea that might makes right is bull shit. I am an atheist but the worlds religions contain some pretty good lessons.  Although many religions have twisted these ideas to their own nefarious purposes of course.  The first commandment says, quite simply, Thou shall not kill.  Period.  Not you shouldn't kill unless.., just no.  Would I want to kill somebody that harmed my daughter?  I would certainly want to and if given the chance I would probably try.  Does that make it right?  Absolutely not.  Killing anybody for any reason would haunt me for the rest of my life. The world will never be a good place as long as we are ready to turn to violence to resolve problems.  It isn't good in a bar fight or a world war.  People like Gandhi  and Martin Luther King had the right idea and were willing to lay down their own lives to save many others.   That is the apogee of human behavior.  We need to put aside our stupid ego and always take a non violent approach to any problem.  I would rather lose my life in the pursuit of a better world than to live a life of selfishness and stupid violence to get my way.  An easy ideal to profess but difficult to do for sure.  But I can try, dreamers gonna dream.  Don't do it for it for some pie in the sky promise of eternal bliss to satisfy some imaginary supreme being, ultimately that is selfish too.  Do it because we live on a small planet with 7.6 billion people, everyone of them just like ourselves.  Doh!

 

Thank you!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chinabald said:

There was/ is a US military after Vietnam. It's been in the papers. Obama certainly could have enlisted and Clinton most certainly could have as well. Your implication that Clinton didn't serve because he was "really smart" is an insult to all the men and women who serve both of our countries. You know all of  them who aren't smart. 

I take it the sarcastic reference to Trump went over your head?

Dishonestly dodging the draft in wartime is a much different thing that not enlisting in peacetime.

Especially when you later disparage true heroes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The military has no problem recruiting qualified people."

Not sure I agree having seen some of my kids get accepted.  The lowering standards on special ed, and fitness tend to argue against that.  Wile the economy hase driven quite a few otherwise employable people into some portions of the military, it looks like some of the less popular specialties (ie: infantry) may be struggling. If wages are indeed going up, it may get even harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

"The military has no problem recruiting qualified people."

Not sure I agree having seen some of my kids get accepted.  The lowering standards on special ed, and fitness tend to argue against that.  Wile the economy hase driven quite a few otherwise employable people into some portions of the military, it looks like some of the less popular specialties (ie: infantry) may be struggling. If wages are indeed going up, it may get even harder.

Yes, if the economy continues to improve, that always hurts recruitment.  But compared to Project 100,000 initiated by Secretary of Defense McNamara in 1966 and ended in 1971, which virtually eliminated all but the lowest standards, to get bodies to fill the ranks, and the post Viet Nam 'Hollow Army', the military of today is the best and the brightest. I served 2 years in the Army immediately after the draft in my first stint in the Army and 12 years later when I went back in the Army, the difference was remarkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

It's quite a mental exercise with Tom. A state of mind. (But his mind doesn't get very far.) 

His guns seem pretty modest. For example,  his carbine is an offbrand Winchester 84 copy. The family LCM platform is a .22.

Tom is preparing for battle and you don't do that with a .22. I think he has an inventory that gun stores would be jealous of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Tom is preparing for battle and you don't do that with a .22. I think he has an inventory that gun stores would be jealous of.

Come on. In a all fairness to Tom, and I don't support him, he has posted photos of his house, his land, his white truck, and some of his boats.  I doubt that his arsenal rises above the level of basic Florida redneck, like all of the other stuff.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Come on. In a all fairness to Tom, and I don't support him, he has posted photos of his house, his land, his white truck, and some of his boats.  I doubt that his arsenal rises above the level of basic Florida redneck, like all of the other stuff.  

All I'm saying is you don't insinuate "From my cold dead hands" with a .22.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

All I'm saying is you don't insinuate "From my cold dead hands" with a .22.

I don't want to get shot with any firearm, not even a little .22 short.  At close range they can still make you quite dead.  I have seen dead people with all kinds of holes in them, from .22 rounds (nice neat small hole) to close range 12 ga. shotgun blasts (usually one very large, jagged hole).  Although in the inner city, 9 mm appears to be the perforater of choice, with AK47, 7.62 rounds coming a close second.  The good thing about dead people is that they don't bleed anymore, at best they just ooze a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I essentially agree that drafting people for a stupid war isn't good.  The trouble is sometimes it is a hard thing to distinguish when a war is 'good' or 'bad'.  Deep down inside, in spite of having been in the Army twice, I think any war is bad.  A war such as WWII sounded good, it solved some immediate terrible problems, but like any war, left more problems and more violence in the aftermath. 

War is terrible, it is a shitty, juvenile way to solve problems that adults should be able to resolve.  We have the ability to think rationally, every problem has a reasonable solution. Maybe not an easy one, but violence is the most crude and ineffective way to resolve any problem in the long run.  The idea that might makes right is bull shit. I am an atheist but the worlds religions contain some pretty good lessons.  Although many religions have twisted these ideas to their own nefarious purposes of course.  The first commandment says, quite simply, Thou shall not kill.  Period.  Not you shouldn't kill unless.., just no.  Would I want to kill somebody that harmed my daughter?  I would certainly want to and if given the chance I would probably try.  Does that make it right?  Absolutely not.  Killing anybody for any reason would haunt me for the rest of my life. The world will never be a good place as long as we are ready to turn to violence to resolve problems.  It isn't good in a bar fight or a world war.  People like Gandhi  and Martin Luther King had the right idea and were willing to lay down their own lives to save many others.   That is the apogee of human behavior.  We need to put aside our stupid ego and always take a non violent approach to any problem.  I would rather lose my life in the pursuit of a better world than to live a life of selfishness and stupid violence to get my way.  An easy ideal to profess but difficult to do for sure.  But I can try, dreamers gonna dream.  Don't do it for it for some pie in the sky promise of eternal bliss to satisfy some imaginary supreme being, ultimately that is selfish too.  Do it because we live on a small planet with 7.6 billion people, everyone of them just like ourselves.  Doh!

 

There's an "all war is bad" camp among my elk but I would say bad things can also be necessary.

I just think that we'll know if we are in danger. That's why we gave Congress the power to declare war: the people will know.

We've had various forms of conscription since colonial times so I know the community service view has generally prevailed. I just don't share it and note how, even in this thread, it tends to grow from necessary defense to social engineering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

There's an "all war is bad" camp among my elk but I would say bad things can also be necessary.

I just think that we'll know if we are in danger. That's why we gave Congress the power to declare war: the people will know.

We've had various forms of conscription since colonial times so I know the community service view has generally prevailed. I just don't share it and note how, even in this thread, it tends to grow from necessary defense to social engineering.

I have to agree with most of that.  I prefer to think that we can evolve to the point that "bad things" don't need to be necessary.  A lofty goal indeed, but the potential is there, anyway.  But I rarely allow myself to think that way, it's far more comfortable to sit back and be all cynical and critical.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

The first commandment says, quite simply, Thou shall not kill.  Period.  Not you shouldn't kill unless.., just no. 

I don't want to make it look like I'm disagreeing with anything else you said  -  but this bit  -  you're giving the old testament WAY more credit than it deserves.

It translates more accurately as "don't murder", than "don't kill". 

And it's not the first rule.  It's the 6th.  First there's 4 rules about stroking God's ego, then the one about honoring your parents, THEN the one about murdering.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frenchie said:

 

I don't want to make it look like I'm disagreeing with anything else you said  -  but this bit  -  you're giving the old testament WAY more credit than it deserves.

It translates more accurately as "don't murder", than "don't kill". 

And it's not the first rule.  It's the 6th.  First there's 4 rules about stroking God's ego, then the one about honoring your parents, THEN the one about murdering.

 

 

OK, I'm no expert on the bible, but I think the principle remains.  I think the better part of the wisdom and good advice is in the New Testament anyway.