john titor
Captain
Whatever man, it should never have been in the first place.
is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
Whatever man, it should never have been in the first place.
Re: Post #238:
That's not how I read squire's remarks. The government provides services to the citizenry, but it should not allow some taxpayers to support other able-bodied taxpayers for indefinite lengths of time. In other words, there should be incentives for people to get back to work as quickly as possible if they lose their jobs while still ensuring that they do not become destitute.
I still don't believe a draft will ever become necessary for the major powers of the world, but I'm not opposed to it in principle, even though I would be one of the likely candidates for the front lines. I have no cause to believe that women would be exempt from a draft if the U.S. ever had one again. There are plenty of positions in today's military that just need two hands, an able mind, and discipline, which are not gender-specific qualities.
That's not how I read squire's remarks. The government provides services to the citizenry, but it should not allow some taxpayers to support other able-bodied taxpayers for indefinite lengths of time. In other words, there should be incentives for people to get back to work as quickly as possible if they lose their jobs while still ensuring that they do not become destitute.
I still don't believe a draft will ever become necessary for the major powers of the world, but I'm not opposed to it in principle, even though I would be one of the likely candidates for the front lines. I have no cause to believe that women would be exempt from a draft if the U.S. ever had one again. There are plenty of positions in today's military that just need two hands, an able mind, and discipline, which are not gender-specific qualities.
Now this I can agree on.
Which doesn't address the underlying problem which is how you (and all nations) relate to your young males.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Not saying it's simple, John. But it's a better idea in principle than believing the government is going to take care of us!
So, you admit then that the citizens cannot rely on the goodwill of their government? That the government does not "take care of" and provide for the citizens? That that is not the nature of your government? So, a draft would indeed then be subjugation to that government, would it not? It imposes on you but does not provide back. An exploitative arrangement.
I certainly do admit that. That's what's so amazing about the supporters of the current administration. It's a power grab. It has nothing to do with really helping the "disadvantaged". AT ALL.
Government's role should be a limited one that allows the individual to prosper and to stay out of the individuals life for the most part.
However, in the unterest of national security there sometimes needs to be a draft. Not often, but there is a need to defend the country. I don't see it as subjugation.
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with power for the government. It about catching up with the rest of a civilized world in providing for the well-being of its people. I'd rather not get caught uninsured and have to get in with the mob just to be able to have an operation, or be forced to choose between saving one limb or the other because I can't afford both. You want to see a power grab? Take a look at the Bush administration.
Why is it that conservatives have no problem with getting their nipples twisted by a corporation, and are fine with socialized schools, police, fire departments and so forth, but see red about this whole nationalized health care thing?
Should be up to the people, hence - volunteer. If a war is unpopular, not enough people will join, and it won't be pursued. Simple as that. What more resounding vote could you wish for?
--- The fault was mine, I apologize to both you and the individual who should have recieved credit for the quote.
--- Pre-war Saddam Hussian was more than happy to sell us all the oil we wanted, Saddam wanted to increase the amount he was exporting, wanted to ease or remove restrictions on exports, restrictions America help put in to place. If Americia went to war over oil, why aren't we just taking it? The southern oil fields are seperate from the population centers. We could drive out or kill the ethnic arabs in the north, leaving the nothern oil fields in the hand of our friends the Kurds. The Kurd are the people who cheered and threw flowers at our soldier when we FREED them from Saddam.Lol. What about US interference in South America? Or in Cambodia? Do you genuinely believe the Iraq was about freedom and not about oil?Originally Posted by T'Girl
Far from enslaving one nation after another American soldiers free people.
We didn' t do this because oil wasn't one of the many dozens of reasons we went to war with Iraq. And WMD were not the sole reason. As anticipated the flow of oil decreased during the war, not very machiavellian of American.
People like myself who love America are fond of saying "we freed one hundred millions people". We went to war with the Japanese people for national survival, not to free the Japanese people from their militaristic government. The effect of our victory was the Japanese people enjoy more freedom now than they did, or most likely would have by today. Same for Germany. America's interference in central america resulted in there being more democracy there now than there was.
--- Not just a duty, but a desire to protect their familys, their community and people they've never even met.
--- Are you aware that America currently enjoys the single highest cancer survival rate of ANY country on earth, and without universal health care? European countries, all of whom possess national health or socialized medical care, have a lower cancer survival rate than America? And hasn't the British government begun debating the idea of stepping back from it current level of governmentt provided medical services, in favor of a more, American style, private health care system?Pingfah: Oh please, and your assumption that the only people who want UHC are Ivy League professors is less ridiculous?That is absurd hypocrisy.
Some sensible changes are needed in America's system, tort reform, alter some regulations, laws requiring illegals in America to have their care paid for by the home nations and remember all emergency rooms in America are already required to provide all levels of care for free if the paternt can prove (yes prove) that they can't pay.
--- Reasonable informed opinions will carry the day.
--- Providing for someone who is, for example, totally disabled is different than being required to provide for an individual who is physically capable of working and purchasing their own private health care.
--- I actual would have no problem with "draft dodgers" renouncing their citizenship and placing a permanent arrest warrant on them, against their return.
--- If one man can make a differnce, then perhap your individual absense from the battlefield will cost the lives of millions.
No, it has nothing to do with my position by any stretch of the imagination.
That's ridiculous. Society is made up of people; the survival of the society means the survival of the people. Self defense does not justify any random injustice that you throw at it.
In an unrealistic Utopian world, perhaps.
Sure it's different; it's far more important. The Democratically elected government has a right to do this based on the power granted to it by the people; if the people don't like what the government does, they vote in new reps. People have the Right to vote, protest, disobey, flee, whatever; but a society also has the right to call upon its own people to defend it.
Yeah, that'll work.
Civil disobedience is always an option, provided you're willing to suffer the consequences.
In a Democracy, one accomplishes these things by voting.
Why are you willing to make exceptions? If you believe in anarchy, you must believe that the powerful can take what they want and nobody should help the victims.
No, it's never black and white. But, in principle, I believe that we should be willing to defend our allies as we defend ourselves. That's what friends are for. I think it was hideous the way the country stood by and just watched our allies being immolated in WWII.
I really think, in that case, you'd be losing the best part of yourselves. Losing those who know true strength and courage and turning your back on those very people who keep the spirit of what the USA was all about alive. Take care before you alienate or remove from your society those who could lead you down alternate paths. You'll tighten in on yourselves so much, there won't be any room to bail out if and when you realize you've made a mistake.
john titor
Captain
I'm not sure but I think you can refuse to serve under the conscientious objector provision which is protected as a right by the UN. If you were brought in for an interview they would ask you if you would protect your family. If you answer yes your conscientious objector status if predicated on pacifism is rendered void.
The UN cares little for the rights, freedoms and protections of young men and adolescent boys. It has proven this through its past actions and policies. It is plagued by the same ideological shortcomings as the member nations, indeed the majority of the human species. I lost any respect I had for the UN years ago.
What do those million lives mean, though, T'Girl? Why should I fight to protect them? They should be fighting for freedom, surely? If those million fought, imagine what we could achieve then! Anyone can pick up a weapon and delay the advance of The Enemy for a few seconds before being cut down. Why not have them do so? Or is it only I who doesn't matter? Only me who is to be sacrificed? Why isn't my protection being considered? Why should I fight to protect a million who won't fight to protect me? If my individual absense is such a huge deal, why is it okay for those million to be sitting twiddling their thumbs at home? Your logic fails.
Let's be straight here- the reason my safety and protection do not matter whereas other people's do is because I am a young male. End of story. Simple as that. And this attitude has its basis in primitive instinctual understandings modern civilized humans simply cannot afford. And it drives young men like me away from society, because we just can't stand your ignorance, your cruelty, and your lack of appreciation for who we are, what we can offer, and our basic worth.
The difference between your worldview and mine, T'Girl, is that I live in a world populated by people, by individual, unique souls. You live in a world populated by hunks of meat who do as you instruct.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Juan, I remember being that idealistic. Then reality hit and I woke up. Remember you said that in 20 years. It's not a power grab?
Take away point: It's ALWAYS a power grab no matter who's in office.
It bugs me when people weaken the credibility of their side by using bullshit arguments. There's no need to pick on someone's spelling in an argument, especially when they're not technically wrong. This isn't even an American vs. the world thing. Questions of the draft are universal and apply to every nation.
Firsty that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment on his opinion of those who want UHC, Secondly the debate over UHC spreads far far beyond what you are saying and trying to boil it down to a single issue like that is ludicrous. Curing cancer is hardly the only function of the NHS.The NHS provides a superb level of support to us and I believe functions for the greater proportion of the population in a far more effective manner than your broken system of profiteering companies. It's cheaper per head, more efficient and still manages to provide a very high level of care. Pen pushers don't decide who gets what treatment here, doctors do. And you can't have your insurance revoked or be refused to be covered or end up in a lifetimes worth of debt because of a simple health issue. Nobody claims it is perfect, it has numeorus problems as all healthcare systems do, but you can't bat the whole system aside with talk of cancer survival rates. Go to TNZ, get involved in a proper UHC debate and learn something about the NHS.
Also contrary to what you seem to understand the UK has a thriving private healthcare business that runs in conjunction with the NHS.
And no, the NHS is untouchable in the eyes of the British public, if you believe that UHC doesn't have almost the complete support of the British public then you really don't know much about us at all. Even the Conservatives would never dream of trying to get rid of it, that is a massive vote loser. It has almost universal support amongst the British, is the biggest single employer in Europe and is an entrenched and immovable part of British culture.
Last edited:
Cripes. Some people around here insist I'm a cynical bastard. Others that I'm overly idealistic. Which is it?
When people say this sort of thing to me, I invariably read it as "Then it got to be inconvenient, so I sold out my ideals and principles and went with the flow." I don't find it very impressive, if that's what you were going for.
The health care thing isn't a power grab. The power grab was the 2008 election. It worked. Nationalized health care is about people being able to be treated for disease and injury without some corporation's bottom line being the most important factor.It's not a power grab?
--- America is of course a member in the UN, however the UN is not a government, and can not bestow rights nor take them away. It's a matter of sovereignty, even should the american ambassador approve a treaty, congress votes yes, and the president sign it, that treaty can not supersede the US Constitution. The US Constitution supersedes the US government.
--- **sigh** Oh baby.
--- The advantage of the exsisting system is that regardless of a medical organizations making a profit, people are being treated for injury and illness. The quality of the health care itself is the best in the world, it lacks the problems of european universal health care.
Many of the uninsured are people who earn over fifty thousand dollars (23,000 pounds) per year who could purchase their own private health care. It isn't necessary to destroy the current system and replace it with one that is untried and may be unworkable.
T'Girl
Last edited:
You've seen my Custom Rank, right?
And many are dirt poor and would never be able to afford expensive treatments, operations, or medications and are forced to either go into massive debt they'll never pay off in their lifetimes, or simply suffer and die.
I have now.You've seen my Custom Rank, right?
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Cripes. Some people around here insist I'm a cynical bastard. Others that I'm overly idealistic. Which is it?
When people say this sort of thing to me, I invariably read it as "Then it got to be inconvenient, so I sold out my ideals and principles and went with the flow." I don't find it very impressive, if that's what you were going for.
The health care thing isn't a power grab. The power grab was the 2008 election. It worked. Nationalized health care is about people being able to be treated for disease and injury without some corporation's bottom line being the most important factor.It's not a power grab?
It's not a matter of convenience. It's maturity and understanding how the world actually works. Comes with experience.
The fact that you don't realize giving less ambitious people free health care while others pay for it is a power grab proves my point perfectly. Q: Who do you think the freeloaders are going to vote for? A: The party that gives them a free ride from cradle to grave.
Cripes. Some people around here insist I'm a cynical bastard. Others that I'm overly idealistic. Which is it?
When people say this sort of thing to me, I invariably read it as "Then it got to be inconvenient, so I sold out my ideals and principles and went with the flow." I don't find it very impressive, if that's what you were going for.
The health care thing isn't a power grab. The power grab was the 2008 election. It worked. Nationalized health care is about people being able to be treated for disease and injury without some corporation's bottom line being the most important factor.It's not a power grab?
It's not a matter of convenience. It's maturity and understanding how the world actually works. Comes with experience.
First of all, the world does not work that way, because plenty of nations have NHC. We are quite mature and experienced nations, thank you. More so than the USA, which is a young nation by the standards of many. If the USA works in a certain way, that's simply the USA. And here's the thing- the way "the world" works can be changed, by those who have the courage to change it, rather than saying "well, that's the way it is" as an excuse for apathy. If we accepted the "way the world works" nothing would ever change and we'd never build a better world.
Similar threads
