America And The Military

[oddbird1963]

I don't see the point of taking what is already the largest and deadliest military in the world and swelling its ranks just as a character building exercise.

 

An all draftee military (or mostly draftee) is a different mindset than an all-volunteer armed services. Volunteers take with them into military service an attitude of "I am going to. . ." or " I can do it" attitude while draftees by and large take a "I'll just do what I have to do to get by and then get out!" There is a whole different dynamic at play.

 

In other words, it may not be the grand character building exercise and political unification/homogenization program you think it would be.

 

I think it's best to think in terms of the purpose of the military. That is, to kill people and break things. If we are already the deadliest armed forces on the planet, why would we want to increase the capacity for bringing death and mayhem just in hopes of building character in our citizens?

[The-Captain]

Use your imagination a bit YoYo. I'm sure you can conceive of a more productive way for people to learn discipline.

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

 

A suggestion...if this is important in assessing the consequences of mandatory military service. (I consider it an important factor to weigh in).

 

Phanta

 

 

I agree and will say that, war, specifically, wasn't the direction I was thinking of for the role of this program, though within this process, it would definitely have an adverse affect. I was thinking that war, military effects of war are applicable, but the everyday discipline and experience through the military would be what will shape the mind of the individual.

 

So, are you suggesting that those people who could not be conscripted, for various reasons, disability, either mental or physical, conscientious objectors, people who couldn't pass the medical, would be lesser people than those who did serve?

 

You sound just like my father who for years was telling me that the army would "make a man of me". He was heartbroken when I missed out on conscription because it was cancelled before I came of age to be called up.

 

I turned out to be just as much of a "man" as he ever was.

[Abiyoyo]

Abiyoyo- this thread shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your fellow citizens. You're actually proposing that we FORCE people (under threat of prosecution?) into a couple years of institutionalization simply because you reckon it'd make them more into your liking.

 

There are places in the world where your kind of thinking is pretty mainstream. You should look into emigrating to North Korea.

 

Or maybe look into Israel's economy and military, then make such a bold statement.

 

Citizens? Can one man, one house defend themselves against the North Korean Army? What about terrorist groups?

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

[Abiyoyo]

Use your imagination a bit YoYo. I'm sure you can conceive of a more productive way for people to learn discipline.

 

I actually have thought into scenario B, and have been waiting for someone to actually think past the initial topic. Good job Doc, you passed!

 

So, Doc, I possibly could see a trainer course set up by the military, 1 yr type thing, like boot camp, with the inclusion of some courses that would curtail diplomacy enhancement.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

So, are you suggesting that those people who could not be conscripted, for various reasons, disability, either mental or physical, conscientious objectors, people who couldn't pass the medical, would be lesser people than those who did serve?

 

You sound just like my father who for years was telling me that the army would "make a man of me". He was heartbroken when I missed out on conscription because it was cancelled before I came of age to be called up.

 

I turned out to be just as much of a "man" as he ever was.

 

No, and I agree that the military doesn't necessarily 'make' the man. But, to answer your question, no, and I don't have a clue of how you came to that conclusion from this debate.

 

I am saying that the influence of real life experience through military protocol and discipline could strengthen American citizens individually and our entire country.

[Abiyoyo]

Abiyoyo- this thread shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your fellow citizens. You're actually proposing that we FORCE people (under threat of prosecution?) into a couple years of institutionalization simply because you reckon it'd make them more into your liking.

 

There are places in the world where your kind of thinking is pretty mainstream. You should look into emigrating to North Korea.

 

Also, when considering Israel's conscription policies, consider there economy, education.

[RankStranger]

Like I said, disrespect and contempt. I forgot to mention ignorance and stupidity.

[Vigile]

Abiyoyo- this thread shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your fellow citizens. You're actually proposing that we FORCE people (under threat of prosecution?) into a couple years of institutionalization simply because you reckon it'd make them more into your liking.

 

There are places in the world where your kind of thinking is pretty mainstream. You should look into emigrating to North Korea.

 

Or maybe look into Israel's economy and military, then make such a bold statement.

 

Citizens? Can one man, one house defend themselves against the North Korean Army? What about terrorist groups?

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

 

Oh please. Now you are just being retarded. And the Canadians? What makes them free? I suppose I shouldn't expect anything but mushy thinking from someone who believes in a sky daddy, but it still shocks me a bit when people buy into this type of populist belief.

[Vixentrox]

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

No one serving in the military today is responsible for that. The Continental Army under George Washington and the military from the War of 1812 sure. There hasn't been a real external threat to our freedom since then. You might be able to say WW2 for our citizens in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and other Pacific territories but otherwise neither Germany or Japan (and definitely not Italy) was truly a threat to our national existence. The threat to our freedom has been mostly internal with things like the Patriot Act, excessive laws and governmental control over our private lives.

[The-Captain]

The threat to our freedom has been mostly internal with things like the Patriot Act, excessive laws and governmental control over our private lives.

 

Taxes to pay for foreign interventionism and the massive military machine, the list goes on. Dwight was right.

[Abiyoyo]

Abiyoyo- this thread shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your fellow citizens. You're actually proposing that we FORCE people (under threat of prosecution?) into a couple years of institutionalization simply because you reckon it'd make them more into your liking.

 

There are places in the world where your kind of thinking is pretty mainstream. You should look into emigrating to North Korea.

 

Or maybe look into Israel's economy and military, then make such a bold statement.

 

Citizens? Can one man, one house defend themselves against the North Korean Army? What about terrorist groups?

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

 

Oh please. Now you are just being retarded. And the Canadians? What makes them free? I suppose I shouldn't expect anything but mushy thinking from someone who believes in a sky daddy, but it still shocks me a bit when people buy into this type of populist belief.

 

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

No one serving in the military today is responsible for that. The Continental Army under George Washington and the military from the War of 1812 sure. There hasn't been a real external threat to our freedom since then. You might be able to say WW2 for our citizens in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and other Pacific territories but otherwise neither Germany or Japan (and definitely not Italy) was truly a threat to our national existence. The threat to our freedom has been mostly internal with things like the Patriot Act, excessive laws and governmental control over our private lives.

 

Wow. Didn't expect such a narrow view from either one of you two.

 

To say our freedom is protected by our security and defense 50, 100, 200 years ago and it will not be compromised in the present if we took away what it was protecting us; well, that is like saying that since the security of the President has been effective over the years, we should just not have any protection for the President now.

 

That is basically what you guys are saying here, that the American military isn't needed.

[The-Captain]

That is basically what you guys are saying here, that the American military isn't needed.

 

Or that the size and application of the American military has nothing to do with defense. It is organized as an expeditionary force, not a defense force. Just for kicks look up how much of the US budget is devoted to military spending, the size of our military in personnel proportional to our population, and the number of countries around the world were US soldiers are deployed.

[Vigile]

Wow. Didn't expect such a narrow view from either one of you two.

 

You paint it as narrow, I'd say it's being open minded. Your view is certainly mainstream. It doesn't necessarily fit with reality. As Vix notes, threats and actual erosions of our freedoms have been inside jobs. The gov does a great job at making people feel vulnerable but reality, for those who pay attention, doesn't back up their propaganda.

[RankStranger]

Let me put it in simpler terms that you might understand, Yoyo.

 

Think about those freedoms that we Americans have lost over the past century or so. In the vast majority of cases, this is due to encroachment upon our rights by the goverment- often the Federal Gov't. Not foreign invadors or terrorists- the government. The Patriot Act- propelled through congress via the same nationalism and military-worship that YOU espouse- is a damn good example.

 

And who pays the military? That's right: the government.

 

So when you claim that my right to bitch is defended by and in existence solely due to the U.S. military- that's what's called a plattitude. It's a shallow, meaningless, unexamined statement that SOUNDS GOOD. Some would call it jingoism... which goes hand in hand with American nationalism, it seems.

 

Yoyo- I've got nothing against you, personally. But IMO, you need to closely consider your concept of "freedom". Do you REALLY think that "freedom" is all about waving the flag and supporting America without question? What about the more basic concept being able to do what the hell you want, so long as you aren't hurting anybody else? Surely you can see how your proposal directly conflicts with this "freedom" that you claim to cherish.

[Abiyoyo]

.

 

Yoyo- I've got nothing against you, personally. But IMO, you need to closely consider your concept of "freedom". Do you REALLY think that "freedom" is all about waving the flag and supporting America without question? What about the more basic concept being able to do what the hell you want, so long as you aren't hurting anybody else? Surely you can see how your proposal directly conflicts with this "freedom" that you claim to cherish.

 

i see your point in this, and see where you are conne cting it to what I am saying. That is indeed something to think about. My thought initially was that after so long with this program, the country could be brought back to a time when freedom was defined by military defense, diplomacy throughout the country.

 

I suggest that the pencil pushers that progress on infringing on the foundation of the US constitution could be filtered out by possibly others through this program that have experienced life in a different light, and may think twice before sending convoys of foxholes out in other countries, and build our homeland defense up a little better, while saving some money for other needs within America, like our deficit.

[Shyone]

i see your point in this, and see where you are conne cting it to what I am saying. That is indeed something to think about. My thought initially was that after so long with this program, the country could be brought back to a time when freedom was defined by military defense, diplomacy throughout the country.

 

The military of the US has not always been strong. George Washington hoped the army would be dismantled, and even after WWII Eisenhauer had qualms about the involvement of the military in the business of the nation.

 

What you are describing is the golden days. The "good old days." You may be misinterpreting that time and the causes behind the memory of a golden time. The WWII army largely dissipated after VJ Day and we could date the beginning of prosperity to that time, but the prosperity had more to do with the destruction of European manufacturing than to the military. In the '60s, the growth of the military was terribly disruptive socially and there was unrest, protests, and the country began to doubt the president - first Johnson, who refused to run for a second term, then Nixon who contributed to his own decline even as he ended the war in Vietnam.

 

The military did not bring prosperity, and it sure as hell did not bring peace. A military is for fighting, and when there are no enemies, we make them.

 

 

I suggest that the pencil pushers that progress on infringing on the foundation of the US constitution could be filtered out by possibly others through this program that have experienced life in a different light, and may think twice before sending convoys of foxholes out in other countries, and build our homeland defense up a little better, while saving some money for other needs within America, like our deficit.

 

Unfortunately, pencil pushers are necessary even in war. The civilian component (executive branch) controls the military, and the military has thousands upon thousands of "soldiers" who are glorified paper pushers.

 

They had no qualms about sending "convoys of foxholes out in other countries" when we had the draft (far from it), and there is no reason to think that compulsory military service would do anything other than create a force that would be used to fight as a substitute for diplomacy.

 

Note: I am having some trouble picturing a convoy of foxholes.

[Vixentrox]

Abiyoyo- this thread shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your fellow citizens. You're actually proposing that we FORCE people (under threat of prosecution?) into a couple years of institutionalization simply because you reckon it'd make them more into your liking.

 

There are places in the world where your kind of thinking is pretty mainstream. You should look into emigrating to North Korea.

 

Or maybe look into Israel's economy and military, then make such a bold statement.

 

Citizens? Can one man, one house defend themselves against the North Korean Army? What about terrorist groups?

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

 

Oh please. Now you are just being retarded. And the Canadians? What makes them free? I suppose I shouldn't expect anything but mushy thinking from someone who believes in a sky daddy, but it still shocks me a bit when people buy into this type of populist belief.

 

 

The ONLY reason in fact that you have the freedom to give your OPINION is because of the American military. You do know that, right?

No one serving in the military today is responsible for that. The Continental Army under George Washington and the military from the War of 1812 sure. There hasn't been a real external threat to our freedom since then. You might be able to say WW2 for our citizens in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and other Pacific territories but otherwise neither Germany or Japan (and definitely not Italy) was truly a threat to our national existence. The threat to our freedom has been mostly internal with things like the Patriot Act, excessive laws and governmental control over our private lives.

 

Wow. Didn't expect such a narrow view from either one of you two.

 

To say our freedom is protected by our security and defense 50, 100, 200 years ago and it will not be compromised in the present if we took away what it was protecting us; well, that is like saying that since the security of the President has been effective over the years, we should just not have any protection for the President now.

 

That is basically what you guys are saying here, that the American military isn't needed.

I never said a military wasn't needed though we certainly don't need a military the size we have currently. What I said is the military of today isn't being used to protect our freedoms. There are no external threats to our national existence that our military is actively being used to defend against. Passively, sure. We can deter the Chinese or the Russians, and our nuclear weapons are a trump card. But our military is not actively engaged in anything against them now are they beyond intelligence stuff.

[Phanta]

 

 

A suggestion...if this is important in assessing the consequences of mandatory military service. (I consider it an important factor to weigh in).

 

Phanta

 

Hi Phanta. Long time no see

 

PS: Good to hear from you Phanta

 

I'm ambivalent about participation, it seems. In any case, good to hear from you, too, Abi.

 

Take care of yourself.

 

Lots of love,

Phanta