Mandatory Military Service [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Sam Wiley

01-01-2003, 08:45 AM

The word military comes from the Latin word militaris, from the root milit-. Milit- means "soldier." And the word military means characteristic of or having to do with soldiers or armed forces. To soldier is to serve in an armed force, and a soldier then by definition serves in an army. An army by definition is a large group gathered for a common purpose or a force of soldiers trained to fight on land. To fight is to take part in a violent exchange of physical blows or weapons. A war is a particular armed comflict.

I suggest you all look up "war" in the online Oxford English dictionary. It is interesting to note that I had to page through about 10 pages of entries for different wars throughout history and things associated with war before finally finding the definition for war itself...

...and upon finding the definition for the word "war," discovered it comes from the same Germanic root as the word "worse."

I do not mind fighting for something I believe in. There are some people I would kill or die for, such as family, friends and loved ones. But these are personal things. I do not ask anyone to die or kill for me. Liberty is freedom from oppression, by definition, and that freedom includes freedom from having my behavior dictated to me by someone else. The Declaration of Independence states that America broke free from English rule because America felt that every man, equal in the eyes of God, had the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, and they felt that not only had the king of England trampled on those rights, but that they felt it necessary to establish a government to protect those rights from tyrannical imposition.

I recognize that sometimes it is necessary to fight to preserve that way of life, to protect the government that guarantees my inalienable rights. But that government also gives me the right to tell right from wrong on my own and voice that opinion when I wish. Mandatory military service, besides being something I would never ask from any of my fellow Americans, is something I believe is wrong on a fundamental level because it dictates behavior. By definition, mandatory military service oppresses, and a government cannot simultaneously oppress its citizens and guarantee them freedom from oppression. It doesn't work that way, and that's one of the reasons the Draft was gotten rid of.

Remember that the last time the Draft was used, it was used to fight a war that even the US government did not approve of. And remember that England, America's original oppressor, that we broke away from because we felt they went too far, was famous for kidnapping people to serve in the navy, and that for many, that ended up being a death sentence. What is the next step after mandatory military service? Quartering soldiers in our houses against our wishes in times of peace? The removal of firearms from the possession of the citizenry (remembering that that fact that many many households in the US possess at least one gun, which is one of the reasons the Japanese didn't invade the west coast after Pearl Harbor)? The slope is slippery, indeed.

Remember that the Declaration of Independence states that when any form of government becomes oppressive, and does not uphold the inalienable rights of life liberty, and pursuit of happiness it guarantees to those whose consent it requires to govern, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government founded on those principles that will fulfill those ends.

I do not believe in this war. I do not believe in any war in which the politicians send others to fight and possibly die so that the politicians can personally or financially gain. Has no one but me noticed that Iraq, a country the US supposedly wants to go to war with, exerts great control over oil-producing nations upon which the US is dependent? Has no one but me noticed that at the very thought of war, gasoline prices once again skyrocketed? Has no one but me noticed that our President, so desparate to go to war to atone for the mistakes of his father in the previous war with that same nation, has a vested interest in selling the US his family's oil if we cannot get oil from overseas? Does no one but me believe that gasoline prices will become truly outrageous once we go to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein will stretch his hand of terror across the sand and once more wreak havoc in the oil fields upon which the American economy depends? Those people are shaking in their boots as we speak, afraid that America will throw down the hammer of war and Saddam will take it out on them. And if that happens, the Bush family's oil will be the first lot to be bought up on the desperate market for exhorbitant prices, and the price for gasoline will go even higher.

I refuse to be some goofball's war pig. I refuse to fight a war in which I do not believe. And I refuse to risk my life so that a wraith can gain while I might get nothing but a grave marker.

If the US wants to wage war, and the people and government both agree on it, then by all means wage war. Level mountains and cities to acheive just ends and end the campaign as quickly and humanely as possible. But do not devastate your economy in the process, as the current government has been doing, so that they must depend on empty souls to fill their needs. Just go in, do the job, and get out. All this political baloney is getting out of hand. Politicians have lost sight of their purpose, and the military is restricted from fulfiling theirs.

And all the people who say that the people or the schools need discipline and militaristic enforcement of it...frighten me. People do not need discipline, nor do they need to live in fear of their own government. As practitioners of arts founded on philosophies both compassionate and noble, those of you who have said these things should be ashamed of yourselves. The very idea that you would say such a thing when you have the moral responsibility as warriors to see to the people's welfare and defend them when others would oppress them saddens me and makes me ashamed to be counted in your number.

Ask me to fight for you, and I might. If necessary, I'll bleed for you. Offer to stand with me, and I'd die for you. But ask me to do these things to serve a hidden agenda or benefit greedy politicians while hurting the economy upon which my livelihood depends and making my fellow countrymen suffer in the process, and I'll turn you down. Require these things of me to serve a hidden agenda or benefit greedy politicians while hurting the economy upon which my livelihood depends and making my fellow countrymen suffer in the process, and I'll fight you tooth and claw.

And the reason is because, it is wrong, it is oppressive, and distinctly un-American.

Should the dark hour come when I must fight, or die and have the noble philosophical timbers upon which my beloved America is founded shaken to splinters by tyranny, terror and oppression, then fight I will. But tyranny, terror, and oppression do not always come from outside forces. Sometimes, they creep up on you from within. And that is the greater enemy, more difficult to defeat, and upon you before you know it.

Lao-tzu once wrote that governing a nation was like cooking a small fish. You do not need a raging inferno.

The bottom line: If what you're fighting for is right, just, and noble, the army will have all the men it can use. If not, well then you shouldn't be fighting it.

Sam Wiley

01-01-2003, 08:58 AM

How do you explain to your wife that you helped sign a bill into law that will send your son to his death?

How do you explain it to your son?

You people need to think more.

David Jamieson

01-01-2003, 09:10 AM

hey sam-

some good points. I would think however that when it comes down to brass tacks that to be prepared for the ensuing onslaught is better than not being prepared.

there is a saying (and someone here uses it as a sig) that it is better to be a warrior in the garden than a gardener at war.

for each cause there is an effect, that is the reality we live in. I agree and am in fact against the idea of serving a geopolitical agenda of the wealthy to maintain their wealth as opposed to fighting for an ideal.

ideals are what brings out our passivity and constructive nature, but we cannot ascribe to these things without understanding the things that would wash this away from us.

ignorance ensues when both sides of the storu are not saught.

war is a constant in human history, the reasons for war are the reasons worth arguing about, not the fact that someone, somewhere would see you fall for their own agenda be it the leaders of a wealthy country or the leaders of a poor country.

oppression is foul no matter who doles it out. There is on the other hand nothing wrong in my opinion with instilling discipline in the young and old alike by having them participate in a militaristic regimen. It teaches people to work together towards a common goal and the military methods of doing so work very quickly to this end whereas the philosophical methods are slow and open to far more subjectivity. a balance is best drawn in a personal perspective.

the more decisions you are called upon to make, the more black and white your wthinking will become. if you are just a simple person living a simple life then you have the allowance of being slow to make your decisions. Again, balance is key to understanding.

how does one gain this understanding but through the trials and tribulations of others who have come before. new thinking and new ways are welcome but they are not necessarily the best methods.

we have after all been around for so long that we have the knowledge and experience of others to gain from. One thing is certain, to achieve you have to set your sights and act. Military thinking and methodolgy cuts out the proselytization that would occur if you have no previous knowledge or understanding. It simply states, do this to achieve that. very cut and dried and very effective. when scholarship is brought into the mix you wouldn't be surprised one bit by the quality character that comes from a taste of both.

cheers

Sam Wiley

01-01-2003, 10:38 AM

Prepared, yes, best to be prepared for the eventuality. But to start an unnecessary war? To start a war so many people do not believe in? That is a war destined to be lost. You prepare to defend with righteous self-preservation...not to work your way through a list of enemies.

As a reminder, the last time the US tried this, the US lost the war. Hitler tried it, too, and, yep, he lost big time.

Warrior in the garden...I agree and disagree. The words are nice and really sound meaningful, but they are empty. War is for warriors, and gardening is for gardeners, but the war is fought to benefit the gardeners of the world. If it does not, it is wrong. Besides that, the gardener is a warrior in his own right. Who knows better what he is fighting for, the warrior stuck in the middle of war, or the man protecting his garden (to bring a little martial arts philosophy into it). Just because a man cannot handle a rifle or spear, does not mean he will not face down an entire army with his two hands to protect what he loves. See, it's not about winning and losing, it's about making your stand and fighting the good fight. And in the end, it is the gardener who is the true warrior.

You cannot justify a needless war by masking greed or oppression with sentiments like "the more you sweat in a time of peace, the less you bleed in war." Those sentiments may be true, they may be noble, but to use them to justify needless evil perverts them.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. And what separates the noble man from the normal man is the fact that when it comes down to the choice between the greater and lesser evil, the noble man will choose neither.

Governments are founded on ideals, and wars should be fought to preserve them. What ideal is being preserved by measuring d!cks with Saddam? Eliminating a possible future threat because he was a real threat in the past...okay, I might let that excuse fly if I didn't know better. But North Korea? They are next on the list. And there is no real justification.

Ignorance ensues when only two sides of a story are found...because there are always three. And it is ignorance, delusion, that causes one person to think their motivations, needs, beliefs, etc., are any more important than someone else's, leading to attachment, hatred, and suffering.

You're mistaken. Wars are about greed. When one nation wages war on another, it is for gain and nothing more. Defending yourself because you've been attacked is defending the ideal. And defending yourself is not the same as waging war.

Young and old needing discipline...what garbage. People do not need to be disciplined or have it instilled or whatever, They need to be left alone to pursue the ends the government guarantees them. That's what those guarantees are there for. Nobody should be forced to go to war. Being drawn into it because you must make a stand is one thing, but being required as a matter of policy is completely against the American ideals.

And by the way, some of the greatest warriors and generals that America has ever produced were scholars and philosophers.

"Military thinking and methodolgy cuts out the proselytization that would occur if you have no previous knowledge or understanding."

What you just wrote is that in a militaristic society, the need to think and judge for yourself is negated.

A joke: One day, an Army General, a Marine General, and a Naval Admiral were arguing over whose people were more loyal, disciplined, brave, and who was the best trained. They decided to prove it by example. They travelled to the Army base, where the General pulled aside one young soldier and yelled, "Private! Attack that firing squad!" Without hesitation, the soldier attacked the riflemen and was shot down. The Marine General and the Admiral both agreed that the young soldier was well trained and disciplined. Then they travelled to the Marine base, where the General pulled aside one young Marine and yelled, "Marine! Attack that tank!" And without hesitation, the Marine attacked the tank and was summarily mowed down. The Admiral and Army General both agreed that the young man was loyal and disciplined. They then travelled to the admiral's ship, where he pointed to one young seaman high up on the mast and shouted, "Seaman! jump down here this instant!" The Seaman, without hesitation, shouted, "**** you! I'm not stupid!" And the Admiral turned to his friends and said, "Now that is a loyal, disciplined, brave, and well-trained man. And he has brains to boot."

Not only do I not want the people with their finger on the triggers to be brainless dolts, I do not want society to be be rendered to brainless dolts because of governmental policy.

Sharky

01-01-2003, 10:52 AM

Er, it's a good idea as long as you don't live in a country that is actually going to go to war with anyone.

Ask how many iraqi's wanna be in the army.

SaMantis

01-01-2003, 10:57 AM

OK, here's my thoughts:

1. Military service in and of itself is not a bad thing, even when required.

2. Using the military to attack a potentially profitable target under the thin guise of stopping terrorism (a clear link between Iraq & Al Queda has NEVER been drawn) wastes all the ideals and discipline the military works so hard to instill. Soldiers aren't stupid automatons. They know when they're being used.

3. However, we DON'T know for sure if Iraq plans to attack us (directly or through terrorism) and we sure as hell don't want to find out the hard way (again).

What I'd like to know is, can a nonmilitary solution to Iraq be found? U.N. inspections just aren't enough to guarantee peace. Any ideas?

guohuen

01-01-2003, 11:53 AM

The idea that people think mandatory military service is a good idea vote makes me thankful I don't have children. Confusius was correct when he said people get the government they deserve.
Carry on all you brilliant little social engineers. And I thought Kurt Vonegant Jr. was a clever fiction writer.

rogue

01-01-2003, 12:14 PM

a clear link between Iraq & Al Queda has NEVER been drawn Wrong, bin Laden and Iraq have been linked since 1993 where al Queda recieved training and support for their operations in Africa, notably Somalia.

And someone on record for reinstating the draft is Representative Charles B. Rangel of NY. He believes that by having a draft people will protest the war.

Also during WWII there was a draft and I think we can all agree that was a good(?) war.

Blast from the past (http://www.embargos.de/irak/post1109/english/iraq_terrorism_geopolitics.html)

David Jamieson

01-01-2003, 12:18 PM

All politics aside, inclusive of the current situation regarding Iraq and the Bush administration.

Military service is not a bad thing any more than seminary is.

Kung Fu Tze (confucious) was a pragmatist. He delineated things and categorized the human condition and in many parts was correct in what he surmised. Of course, his thinking is still pondered today and adhered to in many respects, especially in regards to the martial arts.

It is very easy to sit and think about our own individual little worries and problems, it's even easier to complain about the gorvernance practiced by others. Instillation of national pride and service is not a bad thing. Perhaps it would be better to have one world, one government, one way of life?

I really think that it would work well to have mandatory service in some fashion to the community you live in. It can be military or it can be social service. It wouldn't hurt the west to become more concious of their fellows in some way. any way. The general swing is apathy and the ramification of that apathy.

am i wrong?

cheers

rogue

01-01-2003, 12:38 PM

I really think that it would work well to have mandatory service in some fashion to the community you live in.

Always bad to make people do things they don't want to. The draft should only be a last resort and it should be long term and/or until the reason for the draft is resolved.

Leimeng

01-01-2003, 01:18 PM

~ As an active duty military member I am totally opposed to mandatory military service. (Unless we could somehow get the welfare bumbs and others who think they are entitled to freebees from the government {AKA liberals}) :)
~ Mandatory military service is slavery! Confiscatory taxation is theft. Public schools are child abuse. (But I digress)
~ Conscription based militarys generally perform significantly lower in combat than volunteer armies.
~ I have enough of a time dealing with the whinning from those who joined the military and dont want to work as it is. I have no desire to waste my time on someone who is drafted.

___________________________________________

I do not believe in this war. I do not believe in any war in which the politicians send others to fight and possibly die so that the politicians can personally or financially gain.
___________________________________________

~ What sort of war would you believe in?

___________________________________________

Has no one but me noticed that Iraq, a country the US supposedly wants to go to war with, exerts great control over oil-producing nations upon which the US is dependent?
___________________________________________

~ The last I checked, Iraq has precious little influence on the oil producing nations the US depends on. Do you even know where our oil comes from? Do you know how much of our oil comes from Iraq? Do you know who our biggest supplier of oil is? Do you like the idea of paying $8.00 a gallon for gasoline?

___________________________________________

Has no one but me noticed that at the very thought of war, gasoline prices once again skyrocketed?
___________________________________________

~ Actually the rise in gasoline prices is more attributed to the current labour and transportation strike in Venezuela (can you find that on the map?) where we get about 25% of our oil supply. They are producing about 5% of what they normally produce and have been over the past few weeks.
~ Ohh, also! There is this little organization called OPEC. (Do you know what that stands for? Do you know who the members are?) The members produce and control the prices over 75% of the worlds oil supply. They can increase or decrease their prices and production anytime they want! It puts more money and power into their own personal pockets.
~ Do you support drilling of oil in ANWAR? Off the coast of california and florida? What about drilling in the USA? Where should we get our oil from?

___________________________________________

Has no one but me noticed that our President, so desparate to go to war to atone for the mistakes of his father in the previous war with that same nation, has a vested interest in selling the US his family's oil if we cannot get oil from overseas? Does no one but me believe that gasoline prices will become truly outrageous once we go to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein will stretch his hand of terror across the sand and once more wreak havoc in the oil fields upon which the American economy depends?
___________________________________________

~Do you have any facts beyond paranoia to back up this conspiracy theory? What mistakes did the presidents father make inthe previous war with the same nation? He did exactlly what he said he would do. Removed Iraq from Kuwait. Horrors of horrors....
~Why is Iraq such a problem now? Do you remember Wild Bill? Everytime he needed a distraction from his daliances he created a demon overseas to distract the American populace. Cant deal with demons like normal human beings. Have to drive them to stupidity. But then again, the leftwing has always been like that.....

___________________________________________
Those people are shaking in their boots as we speak, afraid that America will throw down the hammer of war and Saddam will take it out on them. And if that happens, the Bush family's oil will be the first lot to be bought up on the desperate market for exhorbitant prices, and the price for gasoline will go even higher.
__________________________________________

~ More unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Do you know who much oil the Bush family controls? Are you aware that the Gore family has significant oil holdings? If Mr Bush was such an oil man with such vast sums, do you honestly think he would put himself in the limelight for all the trash talking the moronic left does when he could hire someone else to do it for him?
~ High oil prices mess up the US economy which actually drives demand DOWN for oil due to lost jobs, lowered production and higher costs. That is basic economics.
~ Oil producers make about 5 cents a gallon on gasoline they produce and sell. How much money in federal, state, local and excise taxes does the govt make off of a gallon of oil? If you are concerned about the price of oil, perhaps you can persuade the politicians to stop their sucking from the public teet! Tell them to LOWER your taxes and stop wasting your money on hiring strippers for queers in San Fran!

__________________________________________

And all the people who say that the people or the schools need discipline and militaristic enforcement of it...frighten me. People do not need discipline, nor do they need to live in fear of their own government.
__________________________________________

~ People do need discipline, they dont need it forced on them by a public schooling system or any form of slavery.

___________________________________________

As practitioners of arts founded on philosophies both compassionate and noble, those of you who have said these things should be ashamed of yourselves.
__________________________________________

~ Martial arts were founded to and created with one general purpose. To kill someone else who was trying to kill you. The techniques were developed on the battle field where blood and guts were spilled. Some of it was to protect a family. Some of it was to advance a cause or defend a village. Most of it was for the benefit of enriching or furthering some political cause. Don't try to make yourself sounding so sanctimonious and superior by hiding the intent of martial arts. Historically a person did not practice the sword to obtain harmony. You learned to use the sword so you could cut the other SOB's guts out before he cut your head off. It is not pretty now, it was not pretty then. Get over it.

_____________________________________________

The very idea that you would say such a thing when you have the moral responsibility as warriors to see to the people's welfare and defend them when others would oppress them saddens me and makes me ashamed to be counted in your number.
_____________________________________________

~ Being a warrior does not give you a moral responsiblity! Being a father or a man of GOD gives you moral responsiblity. Defending the oppressed is not a moral responsiblity of the warrior. The responsiblity of the warrior is to enforce with the threat of violence certain behaviour on another person.
_____________________________________________

~ Given that as a basis. Your rights that you assume you have require responsiblity. If you think that your government owes you something then you should be willing to pay for it. You should not ask the government to steal what ever it is you think you are entitled to from those who work hard to produce it.
~ As soon as you ask for any form or support from another person or instition you become its servant and slave. The founders of our nation understood that and proposed that the populous have a very limited government made up of representatives of the citizens. We have degenerated as a society where we demand dictatorship because we choose to be subjects.

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Sam Wiley

01-01-2003, 01:33 PM

WWII and Vietnam were different situations. WWII pretty much necessitated a draft because millions were dying on the front lines and had to be replaced, and in that situation it was a last stand. America tried to stay out of war and was attacked. It was right to join, and America's presence in the field made a huge difference for the positive. But in the end, if it had come down to Americans defending their very streets, the draft would not have been necessary. To fight was right.

But Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought, and the draft was instituted because nobody wanted to fight there.

I have known people who have fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and conflicts into the modern day. Those who fought in WWII are resigned. Those who fought in Vietnam are lost. And I believe one of the reasons they are so lost is because they were made to fight a battle that never should have happened and that they didn't believe in.

The point is that no one should be forced to do something they don't want to do.

"one world, one government, one way of life"

"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them.
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie."

I used to think the same thing. But I wised up. That would be a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship, and an empire.

"What are you? His bodyguard?"
"No...hisgardener! ;)

If you want to join the military, join it. If you want to fight a war, fight it. But it is pure solipsim to think that just because you feel that way everyone else also must. And solipsism is delusion, ignorance.

We have mandatory community service for criminals here in the US. Drive drunk, you're likely to end up on the side of the road picking up other motorists' litter. Vandalize a building, you're likely to end up repairing it yourself. Does that stop those people from committing those same crimes again? NO. Will mandatory service, federal or community, make people take pride in their nation or government? HELL NO. Look back over history, and you will find that when people are oppressed enough, they rebel, as I stated above. It is their right, and according to some, their duty.

Same with the priesthood. Would you be willing to force people into the priesthood (say, Catholic), who were Jewish, or atheist? They have no interest in becoming Catholic priests. It's really going to upset them when they are forced to do so.

The way to make people more aware of others' plights, is to get them to place themselves somehow in the other person's shoes. Want to know how they feel? Experience it first-hand, with no guarantees that you will ever be able to divorce yourself from the new experience and go back to your previously complacent reality. Or you can teach people compassion, by teaching them to meditate on these things.

If you want people to take pride in their nation, show them the good things about it, such as the freedoms they guarantee, and what might happen if those freedoms no longer existed. And have your government work in earnest for the good of the people. People will fight for what they love. But take them and force them to perform sevice to the government, and they're not going to care one way or the other when the government comes under attack.

It hurts me very deeply when I see an American flag burning, as I grew up very patriotic. The American national anthem makes my heart swell and brings tears to my eyes. But the same potential for greatness that makes me feel such pride and makes me outraged when I see it profaned, is the same thing that prevents me from trying to punish those who do so. Would I have it any other way? No. Those people make me think, question my beliefs, and make certain that if I act on behalf of my country, my actions are right and just. America is a mass of contradictions sometimes. I don't have the right to try and make someone believe the same way I do, or act in the same manner. Nor do I have the right to ask them to do something I would or wouldn't do simply because we live in the same country.

How many politicians do you think are willing to go to the front themselves just because service is mandatory? Don't you think someone would be pulling strings so they got some cushy desk job? Don't you think they'd pull strings to protect their sons and daughters? That would **** sure happen, and there is solid proof that it happened in the past with every other war America has fought. The rich and influential exert their money and power, and the poor are left in the trenches. So you see, even if things were "fair" they would not be fair.

Sit and philosophize from your armchair all you like, Canadian. But I don't see you marching down to the nearest US Army recruiting office and requesting to be rushed out to war.

Your tone is light, but the matter is quite heavy.

Sam Wiley

01-01-2003, 01:37 PM

Leimeng,
Go back and study harder. And learn to read between the li(n)es.

David Jamieson

01-01-2003, 02:26 PM

Always bad to make people do things they don't want to. The draft should only be a last resort and it should be long term and/or until the reason for the draft is resolved.

I don't think it's bad to have public education slated as mandatory. IN fact, what do you think the world you live in would be like without education? Why are so many countries desperate to have any education system?

Let's get serious here, people decide amongst themselves over time and generations how they want to run their piece of the earth. in the west it's a social safety net such as schools and a welfare system.

Many people are not so enlightened as to be able to educate their children to help them be competitive in the job market, the school system is an equalizer for that. Sure some folks pay for a "better" education for their kids vis a vis a private institution.

Anyway, I'm not interested in the current war on terror, on iraq or for that matter any of it except from an outsiders point of view which really has little value in the grand scheme of things, but I do think that service in your youth should be mandatory.

I'm not saying send out the tainted and jaded 45 year olds to serve in the army, by that age people are firm in whether or not they are going to help someone else. But in your youth, basically very few have any sense of direction at all and spend much time in a state of ignorance and listless whiling away of the hours doing whatever.

It wouldn't hurt to have the young and the strong serve the nation they live in and I might add do NOT pay any taxes in or support in any other way than to absorb from their families or the rest of society.

Learning is generational, that which we are taught, we learn by doing. We learn to help each other by doing just that. If people are so called "forced" to help themselves and others please explain what the harm in that is.

cheers

Laughing Cow

01-01-2003, 03:25 PM

Not sure why so many people assume that joining a national service means that you need to strut around with a rifle all day long and learn to kill people.

Yeah, during basics you do that. After that like I said you get assigned to do your stuff.

A Military needs a lot more non-combatants than soldiers to support the soldiers.

Depending on your fitness level and skill you will do what you can do best.

IT-People will work on the Military IT-Staff or simialr work.
Engineers will be assigned to the mechanised sections.
etc.
Example: My Father was a Driver for a Major during his Military service. (i.e. non-combatant)
But everyone that underwent national service can also fight in addition to his actual role within the forces.

Besides that you can also get great training during your national service:
Drivers licences for FREE
Engineering courses.
etc.

Seeya.

rogue

01-01-2003, 03:44 PM

Sam, this time you've got some of your facts wrong.

WWII and Vietnam were different situations. WWII pretty much necessitated a draft because millions were dying on the front lines and had to be replaced, and in that situation it was a last stand.

US Military dead 407,000
UK Military dead 403,000

Countries with hightest amount of killed,
USSR Military Dead 12 million, Civilian Dead 17 million, total 29 million
Poland Military Dead 597,000, Civilian Dead 5.86 million, Total 6.27 million
Germany Military Dead 3.25 million Civilian Dead 2.44 million, Total 5.69 million

Those who fought in WWII are resigned. Those who fought in Vietnam are lost. And I believe one of the reasons they are so lost is because they were made to fight a battle that never should have happened and that they didn't believe in.
Those in WWII knew they weren't going home unless it was in a box, a million dollar injury or they finished the **** war. This helped their resolve. Length of service in Vietnam was if I remember correctly 24 months. This probably did more harm than good for producing an effective fighting force. Also the draft in WWII had more to do with fighting on so many fronts and the logistics of that than on front lines being wiped out.

ZIM

01-01-2003, 04:15 PM

I'm rather shocked and ashamed to see my countrymen support the idea of adapting the system Heinlein wrote about in 'starship troopers'. He wrote this as a criticism of Fascism and did NOT support it himself in any way- indeed, he wrote: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
- Robert Heinlein
To limit the excersize of liberty and voting only to those who understand it would leave precious few ppl truly free, further this number would shrink continually as the many proceeded to limit the influence of minority opinion. This is a recipe for tyranny, pure and simple- or aristocracy, if you like. Both are what the USA fought against originally.

I'll throw in another:
"Let no pleasure tempt thee, no profit allure thee, no ambition corrupt thee, no example sway thee, no persuasion move thee to do anything which thou knowest to be evil; so thou shalt live jollily, for a good conscience is a continual Christmas." --Benjamin Franklin
This is/should be a guide for political will. I do not support the enslavery of my fellow countrymen, nor would I pass legislation requiring Military service, even though I agree that it is a POSSIBLE means for any citizen to better his/her circumstances.

Requiring National service, OTOH, may be a better solution- but I'd want further details on the exact legislation to be passed. Governements do not tend to relinquish things you give to them, after all.

Why not a last quote?
"Always remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."- Frank Zappa
:D

Braden

01-01-2003, 04:33 PM

Starship Troopers was such a great book. Aliens was such a better Starship Troopers than Starship Troopers was though. That was my favorite book as a kid though. So frustrating... such great childhood memories ruined in a single naked shower scene.

Man... story of my life.

P.S. Oh yeah, mandatory military service is totally not cool, mmkay.

Xebsball

01-01-2003, 06:02 PM

Mandatory Military is crap, anyone that says blah blah sense of nation, thats all bull****
No one has the right to tell me what to work on, i choose my ****, if you dont like it **** you. If im paying my taxes you can hire someone (with the money i just gave you) to do your soldier boy work.
Ahem... as i was saying... we have mandatory military here, but i (and lots and lots of people) dodged it with our awesome skills. And yeah im very proud of it.

One more thing, theres a huge difference between fighting for your country then fighting at the command of some cock sucking greedy politician.

Radhnoti

01-01-2003, 06:49 PM

Just for clarity's sake...I don't support Heinlein's idea for "service" in the U.S. I'm a pretty strict Constitutionalist.

BUT, if someone were starting a new nation somehow...say a terraformed Mars :D . I don't think that only letting people who sign up for some sort of community service vote would be so bad.

You don't HAVE to serve, you just can't vote until you do.

I'm trying to stay away from the war with Iraq issue...unless the guy that started this thread indicates for certain that's where he wants to go with this thing. Just trying to stay lighthearted and hypothetical. ;)

I guess we could look at Israel's record for mandatory military service to determine whether or not it's a successful policy. Anyone know anything about how they handle the whole thing?

Sasha

01-01-2003, 07:21 PM

Various loosely connected points to explore...

1) Starship Troopers was a really dire book, and hardly anti-fascist. The dedication at the start reads:

'To "Sarge" Arthur George Smith - soldier, citizen, scientist - and to all sergeants anywhen who have labored to make men out of boys

R.A.H.'

The book was originally aimed at children, and it was only because it was rejected as being too violent that it wasn't marketed as such.

I've heard claims that Heinlein wrote some relatively liberal books, but you can't seriously dispute that Starship Troopers was extremely right wing. If it was a satire it was *phenomenally* subtle in its satiricism, to the point of being almost imperceptibly so. You don't aim such things at children - if you want them to believe something, you simply tell them, since it takes several years to develop the sensitivity needed to pick up such things. Meaning, if Heinlein had had his way, a generation of kids would have been indoctrinated with this crap.

The movie on the other hand, was a work of genius, IMO, but that's another story.

2) Through this thread, I keep seeing some of the most ardent of the liberals making concessions like 'it can't hurt to make people more patriotic.'

Can I ask why? What is it about patriotism that's so desirable? I can give several examples of the damage it has potential to do, and apart from airy, abstract phrases like 'it's good to feel part of something,' I never see any reason given *why* people should be patriotic. I feel part of something whenever I'm with my close friends, or whenever I go to my Kung Fu club. I resent someone telling me that they know better than I do what's in my own interest; ie. serving my country.

3) People seem to be talking about national service as distinct from military service in two different contexts: as support for the military (ie. as a medic/engineer etc.). How is this any different from military service in the end? If I was drafted for military service, I'd refuse to go on the grounds that I'm a pacifist, and also that I feel no love whatsoever for the arbitrary political boundary I chanced to have been born into. If I'm serving the military in any capacity at all, both of these objections still apply.

If we're talking about being forced into a paid job that benefits the country as a whole, surely, in theory, that's not really any different from expecting people to get a job anyway? The government's efforts would be much better spent in trying to make the less scrupulous employers adhere to more people-friendly policies than in accepting large bribes from them to leave them alone and forcing the 'little people' into given roles while they still get regularly and repeatedly screwed over by large and small businesses alike.

4) Can I ask who cares what martial arts were originally invented for? No-one knows whether it was for some big conquest, self defence, advanced wife-beating 3rd edition, or just for the amusement of a few tigers and preying mantises who found it funny watching soft squidgy pink things trying to imitate slashing with claws with their fragile little blunt semi-paws.

In the end, the martial arts are what they are today, or they're nothing at all, which still has very little to do what they *should* be.

So let me ask: Would it be better, universally speaking (in a Kantian sense, if that means anything to anyone), to teach them militaristically: as a primitive form of warfare for people who can't afford guns (and are too scared to join the army), or peacefully: as a voluntary form of self-discipline which can, if necessary, and as a last resort, be used to forcibly calm violent situations?

I know which attitude I'd choose. One (of many) things I really like about my teacher is that he won't take people beyond a certain level unless they can control their aggression. He's left a couple of really advanced students in a state of limbo with an ultimatum: sort your attitude out or find a new teacher.

If you claim to believe the second approach, then how can you possibly justify using martial arts to justify a war that isn't absolutely necessary?

Xebsball

01-01-2003, 07:44 PM

They will never take me alive!!!
NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!

Serpent

01-01-2003, 08:08 PM

Hey Xebs, how did you dodge the draft?

Xebsball

01-01-2003, 08:17 PM

Well you have to sign up and show up at this thingy at your city aight. So if i do it in my city, theres a change i could or not be choosen to get in the military (they check your background, do some tests...). But since im not originally from here i didnt have anyone "from the inside" to garantee me i wouldnt be choosen.
So tactics were to sign up on another city that doesnt take anyone at the moment (cos they have enough, or something). So i did that, and of course, i had to pretend i lived on this one city for such. My uncle lived on this one, so i signed up with his adress and made up like i lived with him.
When i got there i also found this dude i knew that had the exact same idea :D

Serpent

01-01-2003, 08:51 PM

Nice work! ;)

iron thread

01-02-2003, 12:04 AM

I do not mind fighting for something I believe in. There are some people I would kill or die for, such as family, friends and loved ones. But these are personal things. I do not ask anyone to die or kill for me.

It doesn't matter what the cause of war is, as long as it is a war, these people you would kill and die for could be in harm's way. You can't predict where the war will be fought. To say that the US is able to keep the Iraq in its place and have the war fought on Iraq grounds is threatening to the Iraq reputation as a nation. At that point, who is being the agressive, who is being terroristic? If you don't intend to be aggressive or terroristic, then you should understand that the war could be fought on US grounds--in which case, the people you would kill and die for can be hurt. Then would you mind military service? When you are drafted, you may not want to be in the military, and you may not want to serve the country. Then don't. Nobody forces you to serve the country. If you don't believe in the war, then don't. Nobody forces you to believe in the war. Draft means you are selected for mandatory service and doesn't mean in any way that the service is due to the country. If you get drafted, you could just as well go out there and perform your mandatory service for the people that you do believe in. For the people that you do want to protect and serve.

I recognize that sometimes it is necessary to fight to preserve that way of life, to protect the government that guarantees my inalienable rights. But that government also gives me the right to tell right from wrong on my own and voice that opinion when I wish. Mandatory military service, besides being something I would never ask from any of my fellow Americans, is something I believe is wrong on a fundamental level because it dictates behavior. By definition, mandatory military service oppresses, and a government cannot simultaneously oppress its citizens and guarantee them freedom from oppression.

You say that it's necessary to fight to preserve guaranteed rights, but that has nothing to do with oppressing to guarantee liberty. To the criminal-minded, is it not oppressing to have laws constrict them from stealing, bashing, and killing? To the extreme perverts, is it not oppressing to have laws constricting them from harassing, and raping? To the people who don't appreciate education, is it not oppressing to have mandatory schooling? But, in the end, aren't these "oppressions" set up to guarantee us freedom? Liberty free of oppression was ideal when the Articles of Confederation were set up, but the idea of oppressing to free from oppression was what stuck when the US Constitution was written. Laws aren't termed "oppressing", but any other term is a euphemism. This oppression, in your own terms, is dictated behavior. It TELLS us that we cannot steal, that we cannot kill, etc. If dictated behavior is wrong, then our Constitution is wrong, and to challenge our constitution is to challenge your rights. When you challenge your rights and support dictated behavior, how can you say that mandatory military service, as a dictation of behavior, is wrong?

What is the next step after mandatory military service? Quartering soldiers in our houses against our wishes in times of peace? The removal of firearms from the possession of the citizenry (remembering that that fact that many many households in the US possess at least one gun, which is one of the reasons the Japanese didn't invade the west coast after Pearl Harbor)? The slope is slippery, indeed.

I agree that the slippery slope factor is something to caution in many things, but it is a theory not proven--right or wrong. Following your example of WWII, did the draft turn into a slippery slope? Did a citizen quarter soldiers against her/his wishes in post WWII? Did people still have their firearms safely kept in their house in post WWII?

And all the people who say that the people or the schools need discipline and militaristic enforcement of it...frighten me. People do not need discipline, nor do they need to live in fear of their own government

If someone is disciplined, wouldn't it be less likely that she/he is scared? When someone becomes disciplined because of the military, that person is more likely to be grateful to the government than fear it.

As practitioners of arts founded on philosophies both compassionate and noble, those of you who have said these things should be ashamed of yourselves. The very idea that you would say such a thing when you have the moral responsibility as warriors to see to the people's welfare and defend them when others would oppress them saddens me and makes me ashamed to be counted in your number.

Since when does the word warrior associate with any moral responsibility other than war? My martial art, taijiquan, is created on philosophies of creation and destruction in harmony. Having both yin and yang, you must understand that there has to be both war and peace, both liberty and restriction of liberty. Chinese martial arts seemed to thrive during the Ching Dynasty, but many were the cause of rebelling the Ching and returning the Ming--"Fan Ching, Fuk Meng".

MonkeyBoy

01-02-2003, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by GLW
Mandatory MILITARY service - never cared for it much.

Mandatory NATIONAL service is another matter.

Mandatory national service such as military, civil or social were the foundatiions of the largest Chinese Empires and that of Rome.

They were a prerequisite to a full citizenship and granted access to education.

And should be.

You don't need large military to fight a war, that's never been the case. The American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, WWI and a few others all were lost for purely economic reasons. If you do win a war, you will need a large army for occupation purposes, to secure plunder and maintain territorial gains.

Since the US does not fight wars of conquest and currently uses military might for political/economic purposes, we won't need an army to occupy anything. But we will need more technology, so go out and buy some nice GE electric and DOW chemical products or tank up on their stock for the current "War Drum" effort.

Pax.

ZIM

01-02-2003, 07:55 AM

Just for clarity's sake...I don't support Heinlein's idea for "service" in the U.S. I'm a pretty strict Constitutionalist. [...]
You don't HAVE to serve, you just can't vote until you do.

Well, sure I can see that. The Constitution as originally written was framed so that only those who were white men of property could vote. Didn't even matter if you were a veteran...and it was all for the same reasons that are involved here. You don't HAVE to be a white property holding male, you just can't vote until you are. How enlightened. I wouldn't support that dreck anywhere.

Through this thread, I keep seeing some of the most ardent of the liberals making concessions like 'it can't hurt to make people more patriotic.'

Sure it can. Thats what brought about the pre-conditions for WWI & II. "My mother, drunk or sober...er...my country, right or wrong..."

The government's efforts would be much better spent in trying to make the less scrupulous employers adhere to more people-friendly policies than in accepting large bribes from them to leave them alone and forcing the 'little people' into given roles while they still get regularly and repeatedly screwed over by large and small businesses alike.
Hear, hear! :) I was fence-sitting on the issue of national service, but now I like it even less. You're right: its a dodge to control & exploit the populace by corporations. Nature of the beastie, boys.

Still quotin': "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. "-Thomas Jefferson ;)

Xebsball

01-02-2003, 09:11 AM

**** you pro-mandatory **** people

ewallace

01-02-2003, 09:48 AM

You are a dumb arse Xebs. You could finally get laid if you went to foriegn destinations and told the ladies you were from Brazil. Military service isn't about fighting wars, it's about traveling to other countries and breeding with their women so that one day we will all be of the same race.

Xebsball

01-02-2003, 09:53 AM

no way, here you stay on a camp or is sent to amazon to the borders man

Xebsball

01-02-2003, 10:06 AM

ah yeah but your guys country never been under military dicatorship... just a side note.

next one mocking my non-getting-laid will have a horrible slow and painfull death.

thank you for your attention.

Ging Mo Fighter

01-02-2003, 10:34 AM

why fight to defend a government that wont even tell its people the truth about roswell
:)

but in all honesty, the war against iraq is a bit dodgy, weapons of mass destruction? like america doesnt have HEAPS of those, and has used them against inocent people before..

theres definately a hidden agenda, and if george bush doesnt tell us what the war is REALLY over, then why fight for him

why die not knowing what you were fighting for

pure stupidity

ZIM

01-02-2003, 12:22 PM

why die not knowing what you were fighting for

Its about cooties. :rolleyes: That, and Saddam keeps making faces at Bush over lunch.

Saddam: "Did NOT!"
Bush: "DID!":D

but in all honesty, the war against iraq is a bit dodgy, weapons of mass destruction? like america doesnt have HEAPS of those, and has used them against inocent people before..

Yep. Sure do. If we're really serious about disarmament we'd unilaterally disarm. Would you prefer that? Really, I'm curious, no baiting going on.

Radhnoti

01-03-2003, 10:05 AM

I thought we were just talking about this as an abstract concept, but here's a story I just ran across. It's obviously a political ploy to try to get people worked up and worried about "the war", but I thought it fit into the discussion:

Two key members of black caucus support military draft
-Washington Post

"Two prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus have
voiced support for a nationwide military draft, saying that children of
the rich should serve alongside less privileged Americans in the
war on terrorism. Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John
Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), both armed services veterans, said this
week they would ask the House to consider legislation to
reinstitute the draft, perhaps as early as next week, at the start of
the 108th Congress. The United States has not drafted troops
since 1973." (01/03/03)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3398-2003Jan2.html

[Censored]

01-03-2003, 04:23 PM

It would better for everyone, if Echelon simply drafted everyone who posted one of these phrases on KFO:

"I am a fighter, not an artist..."
"...modern reality-based training..."
:)

ZIM

01-04-2003, 08:12 AM

Firstly, instituting a draft merely guarantees that the 'rich' will NOT fight alongside the poor- they've more means for getting away from a draft than the poor do.

Unless Congress is expecting to specify income ranges of parents? I can easily see that fly, sure. :D

Secondly- truly tired of hearing how mis-informed we all are and what fools we must be to die with out knowing 'the truth'. I'm sure those youngsters attending Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan are better informed than us and know exactly why they're going to die.

It's for Allah. They're going to defeat the great Satan. They'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife.

I'm frigging GLAD we don't have certainty here. It means the system is working. The press can still ask questions & publish what they know, at least for now. The ppl can still think, fer gawd's sake, and still protest and question.

One other thing for the USA haters- I don't mind criticism, but the hate thing is just as stupid & racist & nationalist as what you decry. Bush called for an independent sovereign Palestinian state [the 1st us pres to do that], and was seconded by Powell, *after* the 9/11 attacks. That is not the action of a knee-jerk warmonger.
</rant>

"If ye love...the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
--- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1st, 1776.

David Jamieson

01-04-2003, 08:23 AM

a little something from the left.

what do you guys think?

http://www.rabble.ca/images/posters/

cheers

scotty1

01-04-2003, 09:23 AM

Some of those made me giggle KL.

In certain situations, I would accept conscription and do my bit. I'd be sh!t scared, but I'd do it. If I could see the reason for doing it, and I believed in it. When lil' ole' England looked in danger of being invaded in WWII, I'd do it, and by extension when the Nazis started rampaging, I'd do it.

But to go fight in Iraq, with all the propoganda and bullsh!t surrounding the whole mess, no f-in way.

And in North Korea (cos if your boys went, ours would be sure to follow)? No way. Clear and present danger, or situations which could conceivably lead to such, would be neccessary for me to not mind being drafted.

Sasha

01-04-2003, 12:49 PM

I still fail to see how that's an argument in favour of conscription?

Everyone has different boundaries on what they consider an acceptable war, and conscription is imposing your boundaries on others, which is tyranny. When you say you 'wouldn't mind being drafted', all it sounds like you really mean is you wouldn't mind fighting in those circumstances. How can you justify forcing others to based on what you believe is right?

Frankly I'm against war altogether. There has never been a war that couldn't have been avoided by greater tolerance on either side. If governments of the world spent half the money they do on the military on diplomacy the world would be an infinititely nicer place. But if you really have to fight, let the people who're in favour of it be the ones to go off and die, and those of us who're a bit more sensible be the ones to contribute to the gene pool.

Radhnoti

01-04-2003, 02:04 PM

Sasha - "There has never been a war that couldn't have been avoided by greater tolerance on either side."

Sasha is right. World War II could have EASILY been negotiated away. Just give Mr. Hitler control of...well...probably the world, and sacrifice whatever minority he took offense to at the time. And, really, it wouldn't have hurt to just let Japan bomb Pearl Harbor and not respond. Right? They'd never have pushed us again after that I'm sure. :confused: I'm SURE that in retrospect you regret that statement...

FACT - War can or will happen as long as one (weaker) group has what one other neighbor (which is hard to define in today's world) wants.

Sam Wiley

01-04-2003, 03:08 PM

Rogue,
My facts were right. I never said that the US had lost millions, and WWII was not simply the US against one other nation. It was millions dying, period. It was a "world" war, after all.

And I did not mean they were resigned or psychologically wrecked during those wars, I mean they are that way now. It's just my impression.

The fact is that I do not like the idea of war. It's not something I care to experience. And I would not ask someone else to do so.

Mandatory military service definitely means learning to run around and kill people. Don't be mistaken. Mandatory "national" service means almost the same thing. Where do you think most of those people are going to end up doing there mandatory time? That's right, in the military, where there is room for them.

And in any case, as has been said countless times here, forcing people to do something can be a very bad thing.

Iron Thread,
If you are studying Taijiquan, I suggest you read the writings of some of the old masters from the Yang family, in which it is clearly stated that only good people be taught. And surely, you realize that the creation/destruction philosophy entails more than it seems. And you did say creation/destruction, not defence/destruction, so I gather you already know this at heart.

By moral responsibility, I do not mean that we should take to the streets armed to the teeth to arrest muggers and rapists and that sort of thing. Vigilantism is, if I remember, illegal, in America at any rate. What I mean is that, we are all on the same road to self-perfection, and along the way gather a sort of personal power. Self-defense is just one aspect of it, though I understand that a few will stop there. In taijiquan, for instance, we learn to first heal ourselves, then defend ourselves, and then to heal others (and I would say this involves a little defence of others, since you can't heal a dead man). Why bother to learn to heal or help others, if you're not going to do it? For that matter, why start down the path, if you're not going to go all the way to the end?

Many people pick pieces of the philosophy they like and abandon the rest. Not quite un-Chinese, but not exactly getting the benefit of the whole. And there seems to be, by a general consensus, a sort of moral decay taking place today. Everyone wants to solve the problem, but nobody wants to shoulder responsibility to another person.

But the fact is that if you want to solve that problem, if you want to stop moral decay, if you want to make the world a better place in which to live, not only must the process start with you, but the first step to the solution is accepting the fact that you are responsible for others' well-being and not just your own. We've all heard the parable of the butterfly's wings creating a hurricane across the world. Life is very similar. Making your effects on others' lives a positive instead of a negative influence is where you must begin.

You cannot try to be a better person without realizing that, to a certain extent, you are your brother's keeper. And you cannot better yourself if you keep telling yourself and everyone else, "I owe you nothing." The reason for gaining power is to use it. You learn to heal yourself to keep yourself healthy. You learn to defend yourself to keep you living long enough to learn to heal and help others. And you heal and help others because compassion is the way of man. You may truly owe them nothing, but maybe they truly need more than that from you.

Criminals are not oppressed, they oppress. That is why they are criminals. The laws which bind them bind all of us. I have no intention to kill, so laws against killing are not oppressing me. The reason there are laws against killing, for instance, is to insure the right to life. One man kills another, and he must pay the price. Do you know where the phrase "pay the price" came from? It came from the tradition of having to pay Weregild (man-gold) for killing someone. The family demanded a certain price, and it had to be met by law. For the killing of a great man, sometimes the price was his "weight in gold." However, killing was not the same as murder. We make this same distinction today, though the line has been blurred a bit. The price for murder was more severe.

So to use that argument, is to use flawed logic, because the laws and restrictions are not there to oppress, but protect. The basic laws against theft, murder, etc, are common courtesy laws. The golden rule, as it were. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Has Iraq sent bombers or anything to attack, say a Naval port? No. They just point fingers right now. The Japanese did more than point fingers. They pointed a gun, and pulled the trigger. There's a difference. And the two situations, though spoken of in the same breath often here, are wholly different.

One does not need to learn military discipline to battle fear. And those who do not want to join the military and yet are forced to, are unlikely to retain much of what they learn. Should a battle take place on US soil, they would not need to be drafted. Nor would I, for that matter. And should someone I love be killed, I cannot say that compassion for the killer would be my first response. I will not lie to you, in anger I am more likely to slaughter them, eat what I want, and wear their intestines as a necklace. Uh...so to speak.

Just out of curiosity...who in their right mind would want 72 VIRGINS? I'd take 72 *****s over them any day. At least then I wouldn't have to spend all that time talking them into stuff.

ZIM

01-04-2003, 03:45 PM

SW- I do realize you were speaking to rogue. This was a good post, well reasoned.

one point:
Has Iraq sent bombers or anything to attack, say a Naval port? No. They just point fingers right now.
This is correct- they've not. However, as i'm seeing this situation currently, the Middle East as a whole, from Israel to India, is entering into a Cold War phase...and Israel is *freaking out*.

Daily it seems, we hear of attacks and reprisals taking place there. Iraq is not helping matters, Kashmir is blowing either up or over, depending on whom you ask. And then, atop this, OBL issues fatwas and jihads, despite the fact that he has no legitimacy to do so, and the Muslim clerics are silent.

Its a mess. At least once, during the Yom Kippur War of 1972, Nuclear war could've started there [tho only the Israelis, Russians and Syrians remember]. Its clearly gearing up again. Intervention [and this includes diplomacy], for the love of humanity [not to mention the environment], is called for- by the UN. if the US does not respond, who will?

The Russians are busy in Chechnya. The Chinese don't really care. Believe me, I'm not blind to the reality that Bush and Co. derive profits from oil- far from it. But there is a great deal more at stake as well.

gazza99

01-04-2003, 03:47 PM

I agree completely with it.

It saddens me to see how many Americans do not appreciate their Millitary. There will probably come a time when they will only remain alive because people like me are willing to risk my life to defend this Nation.

While many people are safe at home complaining about millitary action, people like Hitler and Saddam H. are thinking up ways to destroy us, and kill our children for no reason other than insanity. Anyone who thinks the war on Iraq is unjustified needs to get better educated. Perhaps the scope of my knowlege is greater due to a security clearance, and my job duties requires it since im the one going to be flying over Iraq, but I believe president Bush lined everything out in a speech awhile back.

Anyhow thats all I wanted to say, I dont wish to debate any points on this matter, Sam is doing a nice job already.

regards,
Gary R.

Sasha

01-04-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Radhnoti

Sasha is right. World War II could have EASILY been negotiated away. Just give Mr. Hitler control of...well...probably the world, and sacrifice whatever minority he took offense to at the time. And, really, it wouldn't have hurt to just let Japan bomb Pearl Harbor and not respond. Right? They'd never have pushed us again after that I'm sure. :confused: I'm SURE that in retrospect you regret that statement...

Not in the slightest. If the post WWI 'treaties' hadn't been so narrow-mindedly punitive, there wouldn't have been the level of xenophic anti-democratic feeling that allowed the Nazis to seize control of Germany with relatively little resistance.

Also, for the record Hitler had no plans to invade the UK; on the contrary, he had great admiration for past British policies (makes you think, no?), and wanted it as as an ally.

And Pearl Harbour is an unknown quantity. Several historians believe that it was a pre-emptive strike by a desparate country who knew that the US was already drawing up plans to invade them. 60 years on, it's impossible to be sure, but to assume the ultimate victor was in the right simply because that's the accepted view is nothing but ignorant.

Originally posted by gazza99

Anyhow thats all I wanted to say, I dont wish to debate any points on this matter, Sam is doing a nice job already.

regards,
Gary R.

:confused: He's saying the opposite to you!

Radhnoti

01-04-2003, 05:29 PM

...OK...about Hitler...

"Calling his top military aides together at the "FÅhrer Conference" in November 1937, he outlined his plans for world domination. Those who objected to the plan were dismissed.
Hitler ordered the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938. Hitler's army invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, sparking France and England to declare war on Germany. A Blitzkrieg (lightning war) of German tanks and infantry swept through most of Western Europe as nation after nation fell to the German war machine.
In 1941, Hitler ignored a non-aggression pact he had signed with the Soviet Union in August 1939 (again attacking).
He killed himself on April 30, 1945...By that time, one of his chief objectives was achieved with the annihilation of two-thirds of European Jewry."
-source: remember.org

Which of these facts are disputable, and in what way do you imagine diplomacy would have benefitted the rest of the world?

Actually...forget it. This IS getting a bit off topic...I was just surprised that someone would think WWII an unnecessary war. My grandfather...and many others... lied about their age (too young) so they could go fight.

scotty1

01-04-2003, 05:30 PM

"Everyone has different boundaries on what they consider an acceptable war, and conscription is imposing your boundaries on others, which is tyranny. When you say you 'wouldn't mind being drafted', all it sounds like you really mean is you wouldn't mind fighting in those circumstances. How can you justify forcing others to based on what you believe is right?"

Good point. Although Radnohti pointed out the naivety of your following statement.

OT: I noticed that your profile says "Kung fu/kickboxing". I wouldn't mind chatting about your experience of the KF/ kickboxing phenomenon in the uK. On another thread of course.
:)

Sasha

01-04-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by scotty1

OT: I noticed that your profile says "Kung fu/kickboxing". I wouldn't mind chatting about your experience of the KF/ kickboxing phenomenon in the uK. On another thread of course.
:)

Any time, start one up...
If you want a forum on topic but a little less crowded (and with a greater proportion of UKers) try this forum, which I post on under the same name:

[edited to actually *include* the link, duh!] http://pub39.ezboard.com/btaekwondo67109

Good point. Although Radnohti pointed out the naivety of your following statement.

I'll deal with him in a moment :D

Sasha

01-04-2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
...OK...about Hitler...

"Calling his top military aides together at the "FÅhrer Conference" in November 1937, he outlined his plans for world domination. Those who objected to the plan were dismissed.
Hitler ordered the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938. Hitler's army invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, sparking France and England to declare war on Germany. A Blitzkrieg (lightning war) of German tanks and infantry swept through most of Western Europe as nation after nation fell to the German war machine.
In 1941, Hitler ignored a non-aggression pact he had signed with the Soviet Union in August 1939 (again attacking).
He killed himself on April 30, 1945...By that time, one of his chief objectives was achieved with the annihilation of two-thirds of European Jewry."
-source: remember.org

Which of these facts are disputable, and in what way do you imagine diplomacy would have benefitted the rest of the world?

None. This is what I said: 'If the post WWI 'treaties' hadn't been so narrow-mindedly punitive, there wouldn't have been the level of xenophic [sic. oops - xenophobic!] anti-democratic feeling that allowed the Nazis to seize control of Germany with relatively little resistance.'

By 1937 war was pretty much inevitable, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been avoided 17, 10, or possibly even as little as 5 years earlier, simply by the allies acting more civilly towards Germany. WWII was pretty much a resolution of WWI which never would've had to happen if it weren't for petty human pride and greed at the time.

iron thread

01-04-2003, 10:50 PM

Criminals are not oppressed, they oppress. That is why they are criminals. The laws which bind them bind all of us. I have no intention to kill, so laws against killing are not oppressing me. The reason there are laws against killing, for instance, is to insure the right to life.

Bind is just a euphemism for oppression in the definition you provided for me. Oppression, in your words, is dictated behavior, and to say law is binding is saying that law dictates behavior because it restricts--in this case, telling you what not to do--you from breaking laws. That means law is oppression. You said that laws against killing aren't oppressing *you* because you have no intention to kill. In other words laws against killing oppress those who do have the intention to kill.

So to use that argument, is to use flawed logic, because the laws and restrictions are not there to oppress, but protect.

Protect who? The common, protected. The criminals, oppressed.

However creation/destruction can go to greater lengths, you can't disregard its more simple meaning. That of creation and destruction. As for the taijiquan, I don't mind saying I lost that debate. I am a beginner, and have much to learn.

yu shan

01-05-2003, 07:17 PM

So what do you actually think of mandatory military service?

iron thread

01-05-2003, 08:30 PM

Mandatory military service, like many things, is good in theory but it stops making sense in practice. So to be realistic, I don't support mandatory military service. I don't want another thing for the government to corrupt.

Serpent

01-05-2003, 08:46 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-03.htm

Published on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 by the Dallas Morning News
We Won't Be Fighting for Freedom in Iraq
by Robert Jensen

The Defense Department's "Defend America" Web site reads, "Dear member
of the U.S. military: Thank you for defending our freedom." Fill in your
name and hometown and click to join the more than 2 million who have sent
the message.

The sentiment seems hard to argue with. No matter what one thinks of
the coming war against Iraq, can't we all send such a message to those who
serve?

Not if we want to be honest about U.S. war plans, for those troops
won't be defending our freedom but defending America's control over the
strategically crucial energy resources of the Middle East. They will be in
the service of the empire, fighting a war for the power and profits of the
few, not freedom for the many.

To some, that statement may seem disrespectful. But resistance to the
coming war against Iraq doesn't signal a lack of respect for those who do
the fighting. I never have served in the military, but my family and friends
have, and I have empathy for people on the front lines who face the risks.

If I truly am to respect them – as human beings and as fellow
citizens – I should be willing to state clearly my objections to this war.

That requires distinguishing between the rhetoric and the reality of
U.S. foreign and military policy. Every great power claims noble motives for
its wars, but such claims usually cover an uglier reality, and we are no
different.

For most of the post-World War II era, the United States' use of force
against weaker nations was justified as necessary to stop Soviet plans for
world conquest. The Soviet regime was authoritarian, brutal and
interventionist in its own sphere, and it eventually acquired the capacity
to destroy us with nuclear weapons.

But the claim that the Soviets were a global military threat to our
existence also was a political weapon to frighten Americans into endorsing
wars to suppress independent development in the Third World and accepting a
permanent wartime economy.

With the Soviet Union gone, American planners needed a new
justification for the military machine. International terrorism may prove
more durable a rationale, for organizations such as al-Qaeda are a real
threat, and we have a right to expect our government to take measures to
protect us.

But the question is: Which measures are most effective?

U.S. intelligence officials have acknowledged that the U.S. attack on
Afghanistan did little to reduce the threat and may have complicated
counterterrorism efforts. But the war was effective at justifying a
continuing U.S. military presence in Central Asia. A war against Iraq, being
marketed as part of the war on terrorism, is even more obviously about U.S.
control of the region's oil.

So, we have to separate what may motivate people in the armed forces
from the real role of the U.S. military.

I have no doubt that many of the people who serve believe they are
fighting for freedom, an honorable goal we should respect. But they are
doing that for a government with a different objective – to shore up U.S.
power and guarantee the profits of an elite – that we shouldn't support.

There is no disrespect in urging fellow citizens who have joined the
military to ask, "What am I really fighting for?" and, "Who really benefits
from the risks I take?"

If we civilians truly care about the troops – as well as the innocent
people of Iraq who will die in a war – we should make it clear to Washington
that we won't support wars for power and instead demand a sane foreign
policy that seeks real freedom and justice, not dominance and control.

My message to the troops would be: "Thank you for being willing to
defend freedom, but please join the resistance to this unjust war."

That is a message of support for the troops and a plea for solidarity
among ordinary people who want to build a better world, not serve the
empire.

It is a reminder that, as John McCutcheon put it so eloquently in
song: "The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame/And on
each end of the rifle we're the same."

Robert Jensen is the author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas
From the Margins to the Mainstream and a journalism professor at the
University of Texas at Austin.

JusticeZero

01-05-2003, 10:12 PM

Here's what I WANT:
I want to be able to walk down the street and know that if required, any of them can, if handed a firearm, check the weapon and do basic maintenance, and hit a target at at least a basic level of proficiency. I want them to have had some basic glossing over of survival techniques and first aid. I want them to have some understanding of leadership from a practical standpoint.

I do not, however, see the above as advocating conscription. Just because I think that everyone should own and be able to fire a rifle and run an obstacle course before they get a diploma doesn't mean I think that it should have any relation to military training. I detest the draft.

And, so does the military, from all I hear - there is no joy in the idea of having to figure out how to invest $2,000,000 into each and every male American between the ages of 18 and 25. Modern infantry is like a fighter jet with feet - a major investment of time and equipment in an attempt to create intelligent troops who won't get their own unit killed by their own idiocy.

Serpent

01-05-2003, 10:21 PM

The last thing the US (or any other) government wants is intelligent troops. Taking orders and running to do as your told is all that's required. Intelligent troops might think too much about what they're doing and why.

Laughing Cow

01-05-2003, 10:29 PM

Hmmm.

It appears that there is a bit of a misunderstanding of what national/military service entails.
National service is also very different than the "draft".

It is about cutting the time short that it takes to get the "draftee" from the street to the battle field.

The national service is to give every male citizen "basic" training and nothing more, it is NOT designed to create combat ready troops as are currently serving in the US armed forces and elsewhere.

Thus time spend in national service can be short (6 months) and costs are kept low.

The main idea behind national service is that each male citizen is capable to defend the homeland when invaded or attacked. Simply issue gear and weapons. Ranks and command structure is mostly in place already.

Kinda like the whole male population doubles as reservists who can be deployed quickly.

From a personal point of view. I have done my national service, and have seen the chances it did to my friends and myself. And it was good.

Okami

01-06-2003, 09:15 AM

Mandatory military service for citizens of the United States could have some positive results.

However, service in one of the active duty branches should not be necessary. Let's look at this from a different angle.

Mandatory service in the National Guard for all citizens upon their 18th birthday or graduation of high school, whichever comes last.
Service in an active duty branch needs to be kept voluntary.
The Kentucky National Guard offers FREE tuition to any KY college for a 4 year commitment. This needs to happen to every state.

Have a 2 year commitment mandatory for everybody. I am not excluding female citizens from this.
That means basic training, AIT (job training) and one weekend a month and a 2 week annual training each year. This boils down to 10 weeks for basic, 4 to 26 weeks for job training depending on the job, 20 or less weekend training events, and two 2-week training periods. Then the commitment is over.

If the individual wants to, the commitment can be extended to 4 years which adds another 24 weekends and two more 2-week training periods, and the full payment of college tuition.
The great thing about how the tuition is paid is that it is paid to the college and the extra GI bill money goes into the soldier's pocket. The active duty branches require the soldier to use the GI bill money to pay tuition. This increases the Private's weekend drill pay from about $100 to about $300. If the soldier enrolls in ROTC there is another bonus. $300 a month is just about rent for a college student. And since it is only one weekend a month he or she can get a part time job for extra money.
There are National Guard units in many areas of each state, so travel should be less than 100 miles to get to weekend training. The National Guard provides per deim or meals and lodging for soldiers that travel over 50 miles to drill.

Mandatory service in the National Guard is more practical because it allows the citizen to pursue their education or a job while serving their State. That's right, their state! National Guard units are only under federal control in times of national emergency or during overseas missions. Some 2-week training periods are done overseas. I am a member of a National Guard unit and we have travelled all over the world. And our missions have not been all combat related. We have built schools and hospitals in Ecquador and Barbados (That was a great trip). I know of other Guardsmen/women that have travelled to Egypt or Korea to do similar projects.
Also, in times of local emergency the Guard unit is mobilized for State duty. This can be for floods, forest fires, or any other type of distaster. The soldiers get to perform service for their own community. Remember, the soldier gets Full-Time pay for this.

If the citizen completes the 2-year commitment or the 4-year commitment, let them volunteer to active duty if they want. If not, then their service is complete. Or, they can continue their service with the National Guard. Currently National Guard soldiers that complete 20 years of service get full military retirement benefits. The retirement pay is relative to the time served, to include any extra duty they might have performed, but military benefits such as commissary, PX priviledges and medical care are the same as active duty retirees.

If the government is considering mandatory military service for all citizens, they need to look deeply into utilizing the National Guard. Not only would it be cheaper for the government, it would benefit the individual that is serving and the local community.

My two cents worth.