Conscription

Post Reply New Topic

If I believe every soldier that was there in Iraq WANTED to be there, you wouldnt hear a word about it because they would have made a choice and chances are, it would have been on the best intentions. Truth is, they aren't there to be peacekeepers, they are there for different reasons (protect freedoms? I scoff at that - America has lost more as a result). You want a peacekeeping mission, continent of Africa is where you go; the argument won't work for Iraq.

The military does not work in this fashion, they send EVERYONE there regardless of your stance on it or not. This is my argument.

As well, when I compare WW2, I'm not comparing tactics, again, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing 'value' and 'understanding' of why they are there. Nazi's should have questioned what they were doing but they didn't; fear. Fear of their own government. Ironic

It is obvious the military sends everybody regardless of personal opinion. That is what the military is designed to do. Polls show the military are much more supportive of the Iraqi mission then the general public, but even in the past such as the Kosovo, and Bosnian operations the military did it's job. They signed up for it.

Of course the people should question their government. That is why we have multiparty elections. Nazi Germany didn't have that.

Clarification, Corvus: Why do you think the soldiers are going to Iraq? Primarily out of fear, or out of duty? It's not like their isn't data available on troop morale.

They are told to go so they do - They signed up for the military and now they do whatever they are told to do like good soldiers do (aka "pawns"). You can call this "duty" but I like to think "duty" has some choice to it. Joining the military does NOT provide choice on where you go, just what you do when you get there. Your choice was joining the military, which you then forfeit (choice).

As for multiparty governments. Don't you love the idea of 'voting for the lesser of 2 evils?' Yet, we laugh (at the truth of it) but then live with it (the pain (humour is 'truth and pain')). Last year, in Canada, the 'Liberals' lost to the 'Conservatives' because of a scandal. Scandal, and they are running the country? As well, people didnt want to vote liars backs in (Liberals) but they feared Conservative... the other parties just sucked more. People need to learn you can't make everyone happy so teach them to help themselves. (libertarian entry).

People say I cannot comment on the way the government runs since I do not vote. I tell them there is no option for 'Remove government/No Governement' so I can argue all I want. My "party" isn't recognized. It would be called 'logic/reponsibility' party. People would HATE it. They'd have to actually do something. OK, so my party IS recognized, I was only going for 'drama' here

One thing about peacekeeping nations, and a joke up in Canada, is that 'America fights all the wars and crap' but the peacekeeping nations (Canada) are the one's that have to stay and clean up all the mess. Canadians joke about when they will be in Iraq.

Those who sign up to the military are aware that they could be sent overseas or into combat when they sign up.



There is no perfect system of government. The courts today in both the United States, and Canada then legally technically they should, however in the end you work within the system you have. If the people are unwilling to back your party's policies, or your party at all, that is simply life. I personally would like to see reductions in federal involvement of the social security, however that is not popular with the American people. If those who wish those changes to be made to be made they will have to appeal to them in other area. Such in life in the modern democracy.

You stated the the people didn't want to vote for Liberals because they were corrupt, so instead they voted for those they were afraid of (the Conservatives). Well, apparently the people (and the people are never one united block) were not so afraid of them not vote them into office over corrupt Liberals, and apparently they didn't trust small parties with almost no support like the Libertarians.



It is easy to peace keep a country that has already been stabilized by a country that actually has a military appropriate to it's size and economic prowess. Canada's military was once, while not anywhere near the US, a strong force within the Commonwealth. It has shrunk to pathetic levels, and funding cuts have prevented it from operating effectively even at it's current level.

Exactly, they forfeit their rights and the country uses them for ITS best interest, not the individuals. Libertarians do not agree with that as its a violation of individual rights.



No, they don't understand the value of independence. Believe me, I was there once. I used to argue until my face was blue that socialism was right. Well, studying psychology and PRACTICING meditation exercises has allowed me new insight. When Buddhism preaches about 'living in a world of illusion' I never understood it. Now, I do. I dont like what I see and am thinking of seeing a meditator instructor to help me deal with the anger this has 'insight' has given me. Not many people live in the 'now,' they live in tomorrow or yesterday.

Do you think people REALLY research who they are voting in? In Canada, the campaigns consist of childlike insults towards other parties. Its demeaning. Its typical behaviour. Its power and greed corrupted. Its funny they dont "trust" small parties because they don't "trust" themselves. They RELY on government because government makes people rely on them. They remove your 'choice' and GIVE you what they think is best. They 'FORCE' you into areas you may not support. I DO believe there is a correct government and the U.S. STARTED as it, then the government stepped in and here they are, less rights, less freedoms, and more fear. THATS what government does. People want everything handed to them and they fail to realize that cant be done. Lets look deeper at that - 51% of people want this, so they get it (democracy says 51% wins). Now you have 49% of the country pissed off (a prejudice has been set). Now THEY want something. So the vote for the next item is 67% in favour for what they want (part of original 51% also wanted part of it). Now, again, for the 33% that didnt want it, more prejudice has been set. You see what happens when you start giving people what they want? More people want stuff, then you have 300 million people all screaming for different things when ALL they have to do is get it themselves but no, they want it HANDED to them because they are lazy and greedy.

How many people do you think, who vote, know anything about anything? They know 5 main issues, that they joke will never be dealt with (why joke? it should be truth, not joke), and they couldn't tell you what the other parties stances are on anything. Picking conservative, the reason they did that was because the other parties would end up causing a huge increase in taxes. There is more then what you may think you know about Canadian politics, but its all BS. The only party out there REALLY going for anything is the 'Green Party' which saw an increase in votes. They stuck to issues and never once insulted another party. Media coverage only gives it to the main parties - again, CBC is 'government' controlled so this is obvious. Most people dont even KNOW what libertarian is. I've had to explain what it is to almost 99% of people I tell it to. Seems like they have all the information available, dont they? Well, they do, lets be honest, but who has time to research it all? Well, again, everyone does, but lets be honest, people don't care (and they should).

As well, don't dare say America is a democracy - thats a joke in itself. True democracy looks nothing like that. When your leader can step over everything, thats not democracy, thats dictatorship. Face reality for what it REALLY is, not what it 'should' be or 'is supposed' to be.



No argument about Canadas military, however, I dont think you give any credit for the amount of effort it takes to actually help rebuild a country. America helps resolve the crisis but they dont do much in the actual rebuilding and peacekeeping afterwards. Stability is tough.

No Corvus. I've read the article and I understand what's being said: training has turned US soldiers into more efficient killers. It's saying despite the extreme prejudice encouraged during WW2 that only a minority aimed to kill. After this problem was identified the military embarked on implementing measures to correct it; now, the majority aim to kill. That appears to be somewhat contrary to what you were saying. However, as the piece has a rather emotive anti-American tone, I suppose it may be easy to miss the point.

So, generally speaking, most humans have an aversion to killing other humans, but they can be trained to overcome this. As the main job of soldiers is to kill, the fact that they are being trained to do so more efectively seems quite reasonable. Moreover, as you seem to have a problem with conscription, is it not better to have, say, 100,000 men working at 80% killing capacity, than 800,000 men at 10% ?

Without borders, it would be hard to an iraqi to attack america if america doesnt exist and for anyone to find 'an iraqi' since they do not exist. Then what are you training to be an efficient killer for?

I'm not arguing efficiency, I'm arguing psychology here.

You're going off on another subject, now. As a borderless world is unlikely in the near future, the US would be best training its military so as to capitalise on the limited number of volunteers it gets, so that it doesn't have to use conscripts.

No, its not a different subject, its placed on exactly what I am still talking about. People dont have a reason to fight wars, they are given one. The efficiency killing in WW2, I used, was to display that people do not want to fight, they've no reason to. If they had a reason, I'm sure that number would be higher without ANY intervention from the military. People fight will more passion when they believe in it. As stated by many who serve, better to serve with volunteers then draftees. Volunteers have a 'belief' in it, right or wrong, but draftees, they are there because they were told to (told to as in 'forced.')

Well soon they wont have any choice but to reintroduce the draft. Allready it has started in ways by ex and reserve soldiers being recalled to duty and of course massive increases in amount of time having to be served.

The Iraq war not to mention all the other "war on terror" areas (war of terror) has maimed and killed 50 000 soldiers so far and increasing. Soldiers are now having to go on their 3rd tours in that hell hole and very soon the usa army will be broken. Meanwhile most sensible people do not want to join up till the dangerous bit is over (Iraq) so the replacement troops dwindle.

Get ready to be conscripted kiddies for you have a whole lotta killing, maiming, stealing and genocide to do! Luckily you have been "prepared" by means of Hollywood and video games not to mention popular music to relish the idea of killing...hey it can be fun! Soon you will be having cheapie contests to see who can butcher and maim most spectacularly or amusingly. MUTHAFUKKKAAA WHHOOOAAA!

Lets do the math!

150 000 USA invaders in Iraq

Iraqi resistance kills approximately 1500 per Annum (averaging out due to exponential growth)
Injuries equivalent to 8 times the dead = 12000 p a

Serious (limb amputations etc) injuries equivalent to 4 times the dead = 6000 hudeously maimed p a

Thus in a one year "tour of duty" in Iraq the invader stands a one in 100 chance of death..

Or one in 12.5 chance of being injured

Or one in 25 chance of being hideously maimed

NOW, let us calculate the statistics for..the third "tour of duty", multiply by 3 and we get this:

DEATH = ONE IN 33

INJURED = ONE IN 4 CHANCE OF INJURY

HIDEOUSLY MAIMED = ONE IN 8



In truth i think most soldiers are yet to do the full three year monty in Iraq most have done pushing on or surpasing 2 years so thus the chances of the above can be reduced by say a third.



No wonder the usa army is panicking and cannot make its recruitment agenda.

You see it is not massive kills that will result (though the usa is undoubtedly lying over fatalities by a MAGNITUDE of SEVERAL TIMES) in American capitulation or insanity nor will it be public opinion (that will be the excuse). No, it will be the soldiers themselves going mad (actually, coming to their senses in fact) through the stress of being attacked 24 hours per day by the inhabitants of the land whom they invaded and destroyed.

The soldiers will rebel. Simple as that. Already many are wrecks, roaming the land and raping and butchering innocent family's. When they realize that soon it will be their turn to be butchered then they will crack.

The Congress just easily defeated a draft resolution opposed by the President and supported by only Charlie Rangel and NY and maybe one other guy. President Bush has called for an increase in the size of the armed forces by 93,000 members.



I toyed with joining the military while the Iraq war was still going on. Eventually I found out I was disqualified. It took me a while for me to accept this. Then again you said "most people."



You are are engaging in libel, sir. It is al-Qaida (which is Sunni) and the other Sunni, and Shi'a insurgent groups who are responsible for the violence, and murders that are going on in Iraq. They attack innocent civilians as a way to inflame sectarian warfare. Iran is funding both sides to drive the United States out of the region for their own purposes. Genocide is not happening now but it very well could happen it we leave.

The US military is not on the verge of rebellion. During the Vietnam War lost 58,219 men and women yet the military was still perfectly able to fight at the end of it. In WWII we lost 408,300. Every soldier's death is a tragedy, but the military is perfectly capable of maintaining itself. In fact it is probably the single most efficient part of the federal government.

This is not to say that I agree particularly with every part of Bush's military tactics in regards to Iraq. I don't. The military stockpiles are under-supplied. The army should have been expanded despite the "Rumsfeld doctrine" but to say that we will see widespread mutinies over brutal Islamist guerrilla campaigns in an overstatement. The US has faced similar enemies before, in The Philippines in the early 20th century. Some of the same strategies (while removing some of the admittedly savage behavior of the soldiers of that time) must be applied here.

Ummm...this person clearly doesn't realize that the army isn't the only branch of the miltiary. Perhaps you should tell the next person that.

((Or was I just having an extreme aspie moment there?))

wow,i didnt know AS can get u out of a posibility to go in the army,i just diagnosed it myself because i know i have it...i might need an AS certificate maybe,but i will fight if they try to by force get me into the military,im not hungry for third world country blood and anyone who opposes the new world order is in my side.

about u know,all the immigrants in the usa,they will be the next soldiers,want a green card? join the army!
its in their agenda,immigrants are not a problem to the usa,its their slave labor and future soldiers.

peace