Mandated National Service

[Hababi]

Time Magazine has a cover story advocating it this week...So, are you for it or against it?

[GreyHam]

original article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1657570-2,00.html

that actually scared me a little. the idea of 'everyone has a bond of $20'000...but you have to join the army for a year to get it' is awful. Although at one point in the article it states 'this is voluntary, not mandatory, americans dont like being told what to do' it pretty much is

anyone who DIDNT take part in service would be at a disadvantage to who do...

sickening stuff

[Danish]

Clearly within keeping with a history of getting the poor to die for the wealthy.

[Der Übermensch]

Well, you will recall my earlier thread on the need for Civic duty, right?

I think that it is, in a sense, an excellent idea, as it invariably strenthans a nation. However in America is encounters two problems (well, many, but two big ones). The first is size. The sheer volume of people who would be participating at anyone time, alone, makes this all but unfeasable.
The second is that America has been built on the idea's of traditional Liberalism, and the government telling people what to do to that degree is NOT going to go over well. America is, despite the swings of the political pendulum, at heart an Individualist nation.

And anyways, although in some cases, such as the armed neutrals, this is a good idea; with a nation such as America, which has a high percentage of its soldiers involved in Overseas operations, conscription based military is a bad idea. A volunteer force is always preferable for offensive operations.

[PerpetualBurn]

original article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1657570-2,00.html

that actually scared me a little. the idea of 'everyone has a bond of $20'000...but you have to join the army for a year to get it' is awful. Although at one point in the article it states 'this is voluntary, not mandatory, americans dont like being told what to do' it pretty much is

anyone who DIDNT take part in service would be at a disadvantage to who do...

sickening stuff

Why shouldn't the government offer cash incentive to join the army?

[Already_Taken]

Greyham, would it be less sickening if the government just gave away $20,000 dollars to every person who turned 18? "Congratulations, you survived childhood, here's 20 grand." Doubt it.

[Reaganista]

of course that would be less sickening..

[GreyHam]

dont be so pedantic...where else could this 5k per child go? the cash incentive to join the army is the wage, which i would guess in dollars as being about 20k a year? congratulations, the government set aside wages for a soldier for each and every child...

as has already said, mandatory service is not a brillo pads plan for the states (and in any country id oppose it, but especially the US)

[Already_Taken]

dont be so pedantic...where else could this 5k per child go?
I don't get your point, but it could go anywhere really. It's the government's job to decide where it goes, after all.

the cash incentive to join the army is the wage, which i would guess in dollars as being about 20k a year? congratulations, the government set aside wages for a soldier for each and every child...
Maybe you should rephrase that into something more discernible if you want a response.

as has already said, mandatory service is not a brillo pads plan for the states
And that too.

(and in any country id oppose it, but especially the US)

Don't you live in England?

[Smokey D]

I don't get your point, but it could go anywhere really. It's the government's job to decide where it goes, after all.

His argument is that a government, accountable to its people, should invest their money better.


Milton Friedman wrote a good defense of voluntary militaries. Conscript forces tend to be ineffective in overseas wars, and no one is ever going to launch a land war against the US.

[GreyHam]

indeed, the money could be invested much better...

Maybe you should rephrase that into something more discernible if you want a response.

to rephrase, mr pedantic...

for every child that is born, the government sets aside the equivalent of 1 years wage of national service. and then tells them that they must do this national service to earn it.

my point is:

this is bringing children up to ASSUME that national service is 'just a part of life'.

bollocks it is

And that too.

please tell me you can work out what brillo pads means...

Don't you live in England?

the UK actually, but ok, what relevance does this have?

[Mr. Ron]

I'm against.


I sort of like choosing what I do with my future, thank you.

[jaredong]

hmmm, it sounds okish to me

i've personally serviced 2 years army national service in singapore (finish this week). And compared to what the Time article is saying the US version would be a pretty sweet deal.

At the moment im being paid around 400 bucks singapore, thats like around 260 US per month. 20k US for a year would be swell.

Not to mention all the national service here is military related (be in army/navy/air force/civil defense, even if you're a technician or a admin post, its still dealing with the military). The options the article gives are like government training, education, environment, health, emergency response.

I'd pretty happy with what i did but if i had the choice i think i'd rather go volunteer in teaching kids or improve the environment of the country.

Its like the mandatory volunteer hours you need to do in school, cept you get paid lots and you learn new skills. We all want to make the our country a better place, it'd be nice to must as well get paid a sum to do it.

Anyway, i understand that people do not like being told what to do. And its pretty unfair for those people who dont do the national service but its also unfair that you're basically forced to do it.

[gregulus]

what does studying the federalist papers have to do with bettering education? i mean, unless you want to leave education entirely to the states again, which would make it even worse.

[ringworm]

sounds like an army of people who simply needed quick cash wouldnt be much of an army at all

[lunchforthesky]

Absolutely not.

1. It's a huge incursion on liberty

2. I'm not shooting at anyone, or get shot at.

[nitzguy]

don't they already give you a free education?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'd be in favour if it for Australia. Christ knows I need it...

[WhoDidTheElf]

don't they already give you a free education?

Depends on the branch and service.

Main topic: You aren't forced to join the army in this case, it's just an incentive to join it. Though I still think a solid volinteer army would be the best. What they really need to do is up the pay of the current army...

Absolutely not.

1. It's a huge incursion on liberty

How exactly...?

2. I'm not shooting at anyone, or get shot at.

Don't go to the east side of oakland.

[Iskandar]

Totally against.

[Dr Hooch]

I owe it to my country to defend it from invasion but i seriously don't owe it to my country to put my arse on the line for the sake of a botched invasion of iraq, and so i'm really against it.

[Smokey D]

Pfft, if your country is useless enough to get itself invaded, I don't see why you owe it anything.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

A system like the old Australian one (pre-Vietnam) where conscripts were not allowed to be sent further North than the Tropic Of Capricorn was a damned good idea. All the benefits of a trained populace without the problem of sending conscripts off to fight real wars (note: failure of Vietnam)

[Smokey D]

That's easier to do in the Southern Hemisphere where nothing much important happens.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

True. But having a conscript army that cannot be sent overseas (i.e. is for home defence/recruiting pool for real army) isn't such a bad idea. And when you Americans leave Iraq and maybe finally get the idea that no-one wants you to solve their problems until they ask you, you won't need an offensive army anymore.

[BridgeToSolace]

True. But having a conscript army that cannot be sent overseas (i.e. is for home defence/recruiting pool for real army) isn't such a bad idea.

Adding community service to that wouldn't be terrible.

[Dr Hooch]

Pfft, if your country is useless enough to get itself invaded, I don't see why you owe it anything.

I guess i sort of see it as the price of free speech and the suchlike

[Reaganista]

being invaded is the price of free speech and suchlike?

[Dr Hooch]

being invaded is the price of free speech and suchlike?

having to defend your country from FREE SPEECH HATING INVADERS is the price of having free speech

[Danish]

Well, you will recall my earlier thread on the need for Civic duty, right?

I think that it is, in a sense, an excellent idea, as it invariably strenthans a nation. However in America is encounters two problems (well, many, but two big ones). The first is size. The sheer volume of people who would be participating at anyone time, alone, makes this all but unfeasable.
The second is that America has been built on the idea's of traditional Liberalism, and the government telling people what to do to that degree is NOT going to go over well. America is, despite the swings of the political pendulum, at heart an Individualist nation.

And anyways, although in some cases, such as the armed neutrals, this is a good idea; with a nation such as America, which has a high percentage of its soldiers involved in Overseas operations, conscription based military is a bad idea. A volunteer force is always preferable for offensive operations.

Where do you get the idea that conscription makes a nation stronger? If anything, it has the tendency to be divisive (Vietnam, anyone?). Duriing wartime it is propaganda that 'pulls everyone together'.

The US is an imperialist power and their massive military might is devoted to extending and embedding that power. I wouldn't be able to take part in that.

Likewise, it will never be the rich kids that get drafted. That demonstrates the obvious class dimension of this.

[Mr. Ron]

Ain't the world grand?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Surely it would be better if the government took the $20,000 per person and invested in poor communities, e.g. health centres, job opportunities, small business startups and microfinance for entrepreneurs, better education....etc...

This is basically the government attracting poor people to the army in return for money, rather than trying to reduce inequality and poverty in the USA so that it would not be such a draw. There are plenty of people who join the army anyway. Personally I don't want to die and kill for Mr Bush's personal agenda :|

[Danish]

Surely it would be better if the government took the $20,000 per person and invested in poor communities, e.g. health centres, job opportunities, small business startups and microfinance for entrepreneurs, better education....etc...

This is basically the government attracting poor people to the army in return for money, rather than trying to reduce inequality and poverty in the USA so that it would not be such a draw. There are plenty of people who join the army anyway. Personally I don't want to die and kill for Mr Bush's personal agenda :|

Totally. The only thing worse that bribing the poor to fight for a country that hates them is forcing them to.

[Mr. Ron]

Surely it would be better if the government took the $20,000 per person and invested in poor communities, e.g. health centres, job opportunities, small business startups and microfinance for entrepreneurs, better education....etc...

This is basically the government attracting poor people to the army in return for money, rather than trying to reduce inequality and poverty in the USA so that it would not be such a draw. There are plenty of people who join the army anyway. Personally I don't want to die and kill for Mr Bush's personal agenda :|

Why do that when they can bribe the poor into the military where they serve the government instead of the government serving the poor?

[Danish]

Why do that when they can bribe the poor into the military where they serve the government instead of the government serving the poor?

Serious or facetious?

[Mr. Ron]

Serious or facetious?

facetious.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Surely it would be better if the government took the $20,000 per person and invested in poor communities, e.g. health centres, job opportunities, small business startups and microfinance for entrepreneurs, better education....etc...

This is basically the government attracting poor people to the army in return for money, rather than trying to reduce inequality and poverty in the USA so that it would not be such a draw. There are plenty of people who join the army anyway. Personally I don't want to die and kill for Mr Bush's personal agenda :|

Right now the money is doing that. And things aren't getting any better. A lot of people don't try to improve them selves or even want to...

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Right now the money is doing that. And things aren't getting any better. A lot of people don't try to improve them selves or even want to...

Sorry, my bad, I forgot that the US government is amazing for the poorer citizens, who are really only poor becuase they're lazy as ****, and can't know any better. Obviously the only reason people don't have well-paid jobs is because they'd rather live with very little money or fewer prospects to look forward to...?

You say "the money is doing that"... surely not? Surely the government is not reducing funding of public services to pay soldiers, e.g. replacing welfare with an increased military budget? I mean, the current administration is majorly retarded, but not by that great a degree??

In any case, if people don't want to try to improve themselves, why would they join the army for a large sum of money? Your argument doesn't really hold together that well.

In any case, the point is that regardless of what you spend it on specifically, it would be better to not attach the condition of having to join the army to gain this benefit.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I never made an arguement for that, I just stated, the money isn't going towards the "20,000$ to join the army!" now and things are still ****.

And Katrina was a, horrible, demonstration of people who were stuck on welfare. A lot of people didn't want to leave when the hurricane was coming simply because they'd miss their welfare check. Honestly what the ****?

And for Christ's sakes, were in a war, were the hell do you think we'd get the money from?

Social programs are worthless if people don't want to work for them selves. I mean hell, it's easy to sit and collect a welfare check and not work right?

[Der Übermensch]

Where do you get the idea that conscription makes a nation stronger?
The instilling of civic duty and responsibility is beneficial (essential!) to the survival and health of a nation.
I hope I don't need to bother with a history lesson here, as I know you are smart enough to know what I am talking about.

If anything, it has the tendency to be divisive (Vietnam, anyone?). During wartime it is propaganda that 'pulls everyone together'.
Wartime conscription isn't the issue here. I am talking about the concept of an armed citizenry. Switzerland being my prime example.
Vietnam failed due to lack of committal, and could easily have been won before the public turned against it. The fact that is lasted past 1968 is a testement to the inneptitude behind the planning of the (?)police action(?), rather then to the unsuitablity of Conscription. The war would have been just as unpopular with a volunteer army post-Tet.
Stop babbaling about Propoghanda and that ****. You know I'm not advocating steamrolling ones neighbors but defending onesself. If a nation requires extensive propghanda to mobilize its citizenry to defend itself against forign aggression that the nation really doesn't deserve to exist anyways (which comes back to the need to instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility! See, everything connects!)

The US is an imperialist power and their massive military might is devoted to extending and embedding that power.
Which connects to the issue how? I already pointed out that it is a bad idea for the US for multiple reasons. Conscriptive armies make for bad offensive weapons and America has a tendancy towards individualism.
I support the concept though, but in the context of armed neutrality. As an Anarchist you should be ADVOCATING such practices, as precedent has shown that a groups ability to adequately defend is essential to its survival.

I wouldn't be able to take part in that.
You're Canadian...

Likewise, it will never be the rich kids that get drafted. That demonstrates the obvious class dimension of this.
Well since the premise is that EVERYONE must complete national service, I don't see how you can make such a stupid claim.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Well since the premise is that EVERYONE must complete national service, I don't see how you can make such a stupid claim.

It's not mandatory really, just you get paid extra to do it, hence the discussion.

There are other ways of promoting civic duty and responsibility than national service too than being in the army, which lie within society, and it is not like all soldiers are amazingly responsible and well-rounded individuals no matter what you may like to think, although obviously some are.

Also, this proposition is not like that of Switzerland's, as the USA is not an officially neutral country by any stretch of the imagination.

[Der Übermensch]

Strange... I thought the title of the thread was "Mandated National Service", not "Army consider's adding an additonial signing bonus for volunteers"...

[Danish]

And Katrina was a, horrible, demonstration of people who were stuck on welfare. A lot of people didn't want to leave when the hurricane was coming simply because they'd miss their welfare check. Honestly what the ****?

And for Christ's sakes, were in a war, were the hell do you think we'd get the money from?

Social programs are worthless if people don't want to work for them selves. I mean hell, it's easy to sit and collect a welfare check and not work right?

It also easy to throw stones...

The whole "poor people are lazy" has absolutely no absolution in reality. Poor people didn't stay in New Orleans so they could get their welfare cheque (I suppose you think people just sat their and let themselves die, which is absurd). They were stuck there. Abandoned by country that treats the poor as a nuisance at best and invisible at worst. Why do you demonize the poor like this? No one wants to be poor. You need to look at the bigger picture (ie the sociology of poverty). It's not easy to sit around doing nothing. In fact, it sucks really bad.

As for conscription and self-improvement, I need to remind you that fighting in a war destroys people, physically and psychologically.

[Danish]

The instilling of civic duty and responsibility is beneficial (essential!) to the survival and health of a nation.
I hope I don't need to bother with a history lesson here, as I know you are smart enough to know what I am talking about.


Wartime conscription isn't the issue here. I am talking about the concept of an armed citizenry. Switzerland being my prime example.
Vietnam failed due to lack of committal, and could easily have been won before the public turned against it. The fact that is lasted past 1968 is a testement to the inneptitude behind the planning of the (?)police action(?), rather then to the unsuitablity of Conscription. The war would have been just as unpopular with a volunteer army post-Tet.
Stop babbaling about Propoghanda and that ****. You know I'm not advocating steamrolling ones neighbors but defending onesself. If a nation requires extensive propghanda to mobilize its citizenry to defend itself against forign aggression that the nation really doesn't deserve to exist anyways (which comes back to the need to instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility! See, everything connects!)


Which connects to the issue how? I already pointed out that it is a bad idea for the US for multiple reasons. Conscriptive armies make for bad offensive weapons and America has a tendancy towards individualism.
I support the concept though, but in the context of armed neutrality. As an Anarchist you should be ADVOCATING such practices, as precedent has shown that a groups ability to adequately defend is essential to its survival.


You're Canadian...


Well since the premise is that EVERYONE must complete national service, I don't see how you can make such a stupid claim.

Ok, but this is all assuming that the modern nation-state is legitimate. Indeed, we do not live in an anarchist society in which association and solidarity are meaningful and socio-economic class has withered away.

The concept of "civic duty" has to be discussed in the context of state legitimacy. As an anarchist, I would think you would agree that the State, based on any sort of nationalism, is illegitimate. Likewise, in a society where class conflict predominates, the entire concept of "civic duty" is laughable. As Billy Bragg sings, "war has always been the bosses' way, sir." War is always in the interests of the ruling class and never in the interests of the working class. In fact, workers have more in common with their fellow workers on the other side in a war than they do with their commanders!

Mandated national service drills "the nation" into the heads of people (aka "nation building"). It is, in-and-of itself, all about manufacturing nationalism within the population. If the population wasn't subjected to propaganda, they wouldn't identify with "the nation" so strongly.

[Iscariot]

mandated service is a terrible idea

there's nothing less organized than an oversized military comprised mainly of people who don't want to be there in the first place

[lunchforthesky]

mandated service is a terrible idea

there's nothing less organized than an oversized military comprised mainly of people who don't want to be there in the first place

Wow, I saw your name on the front page and was expecting some dumb winging about the far left (i.e moderare liberals) but you actually said something good.

Hopefully this is a dawning of a new era.

[Iscariot]

Wow, I saw your name on the front page and was expecting some dumb winging about the far left (i.e moderare liberals) but you actually said something good.

Hopefully this is a dawning of a new era.

everyone thinks i'm some kind of thick headed conservative just because i'm catholic when in actuality i'm a registered dem with lustful thoughts of a leninist communist regime :p

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, but this is all assuming that the modern nation-state is legitimate. Indeed, we do not live in an anarchist society in which association and solidarity are meaningful and socio-economic class has withered away.
It's a perfectly sound concept even if most nations are rather poor in execution.

The concept of "civic duty" has to be discussed in the context of state legitimacy. As an anarchist, I would think you would agree that the State, based on any sort of nationalism, is illegitimate.
You use nationalism like it's the worst thing ever. A sense of national unity is ESSENTIAL for the existence of a group, whether it be a ntion state or a utopian workers commune.

Likewise, in a society where class conflict predominates, the entire concept of "civic duty" is laughable.
What about the concept of civic duty in of itself? The lack of it would be WORSE in the world you envision than in the one we unfortunatly have now.

As Billy Bragg sings, "war has always been the bosses' way, sir." War is always in the interests of the ruling class and never in the interests of the working class.
Aggressive War perhaps, but everyone has just as much to lose in a defensive war, which is the only war I have ever or will ever advocate. Didn't I already state I support this in the concept of armed neutrality?

In fact, workers have more in common with their fellow workers on the other side in a war than they do with their commanders!
This isn't the 1800's anymore Danish. I'm not saying there isn't some level of class division, but the Wobblies have had their time, and its long gone.

Mandated national service drills "the nation" into the heads of people (aka "nation building").
What was the last nation Switzerland invaded? What has Sweden done in terms of Imperialist gains in the past 100+ years? Wartime conscription DOES NOT EQUAL National Service requirments.

It is, in-and-of itself, all about manufacturing nationalism within the population. If the population wasn't subjected to propaganda, they wouldn't identify with "the nation" so strongly.
Which is, to a degree, a healthy and essential method of strengthening a group. If they weren't subjected to any form, the state (in the loosest sense of the word - I include communally based groupings here) would fail.

[CarnageFairy]

$20,000?

That's like one year of college, or a 20K down payment on a 350K house?

I'll stick to being an ungrateful civilian, thanks.

[Hababi]

$20,000?

That's like one year of college, or a 20K down payment on a 350K house?

I'll stick to being an ungrateful civilian, thanks.

wtf are you going to be getting that expensive of a house for? :p

$20K is more than what my parents' mortgage is, in full. At least here in Pittsburgh, you can get a good house in a good area, within city limits, for $150-200K.

[Dr Hooch]

house prices are so high here

I think the average house price is getting towards 6-7x average wage or something

[CarnageFairy]

Yeah I was talking about 'round heah. Annapolis area MD. 350K is pretty average for a standard 3 bedroom 2 or 3 bathroom affair.

I know it's not that expensive everywhere, hell once you head over the bay bridge that'll probably drop 150K if not more.


And I agree with the whole bribing the poor thing. Rich people don't need the money, so why don't we just get the working class to fight our wars. Bigger army, less poor people, more american-hating foreigners; everyone wins!

[ringworm]

its crazy the difference in income and prices from area to area

$350k would buy you a mansion, even some ocean front property with a nice *** home down here

or you could buy a huge tract of land, and i mean huge - 100+ acres

but even inside the state, land & homes range drastically in price in areas fairly close to each other

[Mr. Ron]

You're better off just getting a cheap apartment if you're just starting out, then buy a house later when you are established.

[CarnageFairy]

its crazy the difference in income and prices from area to area

$350k would buy you a mansion, even some ocean front property with a nice *** home down here

or you could buy a huge tract of land, and i mean huge - 100+ acres

True waterfront around here usually betters half a mil by a good margin, true waterfront with a nice piece of land/bigass house is like 1M and up.

It's all about availability. On the eastern shore where there are faaaaarrrrr less people and faaaaarrrrr more space you're going to see things much closer to what you describe, even though it's about a 15 minute trip.

Crazy shi.

[Mr. Ron]

It will be interesting to see where all of this goes with houses....people can't pay for them anymore nationwide.

[ringworm]

yep

unfortunately, my state has become the New Florida :/

what little land we did have on the coast is almost gone, places that used to be hotel alleys for tourists are being bulldozed so homes & condos can be built & SOLD

damn yankees :p

It will be interesting to see where all of this goes with houses....people can't pay for them anymore nationwide.
foreclosures have skyrocketed with all the buffoons misled by crafty mortgages, but, if they fail to read the docs they sign, oh well

[Hababi]

You're better off just getting a cheap apartment if you're just starting out, then buy a house later when you are established.

Depends. Around here, you'd be much wiser to get a starter home, keep it for 6 or 7 years, then sell it and move up.

[Akira]

It's not am "oh well" deal, because all these foreclosures kill the housing market for everyone.

[Dr Hooch]

You're better off just getting a cheap apartment if you're just starting out, then buy a house later when you are established.

It's a right of passage to have your neighbours complain about the noise, after all.


I have this weird romantic notion of buying a house when i finish my learnings, like a buy to refurbish one, and then just not. peely walls and 50s bathtubs...Unkempt garden and me going to the post office and officially registering the name of the property as "The Asylum" or something... Mattresses on the floor instead of beds, bins that never get emptied... Fish bones nailed to the door and jolly roers flying from the windows...

I imagine the reality would be bordering on unpleasant but the romantic illusion is that if you own a house is freedom and has all kinds of potential for pretentious art-rock adventures...

[Mr. Ron]

yep

unfortunately, my state has become the New Florida :/

what little land we did have on the coast is almost gone, places that used to be hotel alleys for tourists are being bulldozed so homes & condos can be built & SOLD

damn yankees :p


foreclosures have skyrocketed with all the buffoons misled by crafty mortgages, but, if they fail to read the docs they sign, oh well

It good for my father though. My uncle is a real estate agent and he gives my father information on good houses he can buy and rent out.

[ringworm]

It's not am "oh well" deal, because all these foreclosures kill the housing market for everyone.


but dont direct the blame towards anyone but the people who signed them though?

and everyone saw this coming years ago

It good for my father though. My uncle is a real estate agent and he gives my father information on good houses he can buy and rent out.
i work with agents and RE companies with ad design

its kinda weird, some arent affected and others are

it seems like new const is OK, but older existing homes cant sell because the market is flooded

but everyone should have seen this during the boom, many shows i saw predicted it

[Mr. Ron]

It's a right of passage to have your neighbours complain about the noise, after all.


I have this weird romantic notion of buying a house when i finish my learnings, like a buy to refurbish one, and then just not. peely walls and 50s bathtubs...Unkempt garden and me going to the post office and officially registering the name of the property as "The Asylum" or something... Mattresses on the floor instead of beds, bins that never get emptied... Fish bones nailed to the door and jolly roers flying from the windows...

I imagine the reality would be bordering on unpleasant but the romantic illusion is that if you own a house is freedom and has all kinds of potential for pretentious art-rock adventures...
I want a Victorian with vaulted ceilings and whorish French maid.

[Hababi]

It's not am "oh well" deal, because all these foreclosures kill the housing market for everyone.

The foreclosure rate is high, in part, because people buy at the high end of what they can afford, and with adjustable rate mortgages. In other words, because people are stupid.

[CarnageFairy]

I imagine the reality would be bordering on unpleasant but the romantic illusion is that if you own a house is freedom and has all kinds of potential for pretentious art-rock adventures...

Need a roommate?

I'm all about the pretentious art-rock adventures.

[Dr Hooch]

Need a roommate?

I'm all about the pretentious art-rock adventures.

f'uck yeah... =)

[Reaganista]

You use nationalism like it's the worst thing ever. A sense of national unity is ESSENTIAL for the existence of a group, whether it be a ntion state or a utopian workers commune.
um no it's not

[Iscariot]

a strong sense of community is more important than a strong national identity

the stronger the community the stronger the people the stronger the nation

[Smokey D]

Jawohl Mein Fuhrer!

[Dr Hooch]

a strong sense of community is more important than a strong national identity

the stronger the community the stronger the people the stronger the nation

STRENGTH THROUGH UNITY

smokey: :lol:

[Iscariot]

i must have missed something

[WhoDidTheElf]

The whole "poor people are lazy" has absolutely no absolution in reality. Poor people didn't stay in New Orleans so they could get their welfare cheque (I suppose you think people just sat their and let themselves die, which is absurd). They were stuck there. Abandoned by country that treats the poor as a nuisance at best and invisible at worst.

I don't know where you got this idea that they were abandoned. The national gov. told them to get out three weeks before katrina hit. What did they do? The people just sat there. The gov. sent busses to pick them up, but the dumbass governor turned them away for what ever reason.

And there were a bunch of cases of people staying because they didn't want to miss their welfare cheque.

Why do you demonize the poor like this? No one wants to be poor. You need to look at the bigger picture (ie the sociology of poverty). It's not easy to sit around doing nothing. In fact, it sucks really bad.

Have you ever been to SF? Or watched the local news about SF? They did a report on the homeless/poor situation in SF. What it said, in short, was these people don't want to help them selves or better themselves. They liked being poor.

[Iskandar]

i must have missed somethingYou were expressing nationalist sentiment on this forum. That's considered lolful here.

[Iscariot]

You were expressing nationalist sentiment on this forum. That's considered lolful here.

except for the fact that i advocated that a stronger community holds a higher level of importance than a strong sense of national identity and simply expressed that only when the community is repaired and strengthened can the nation ever become stronger as a whole

i was supporting improvement of lifestyle not increase of patriotism

[Akira]

The foreclosure rate is high, in part, because people buy at the high end of what they can afford, and with adjustable rate mortgages. In other words, because people are stupid.

Oh, I am in no way saying anything to the contrary. I am simply saying that as a result of this irresponsible buying, everyone suffers.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

except for the fact that i advocated that a stronger community holds a higher level of importance than a strong sense of national identity and simply expressed that only when the community is repaired and strengthened can the nation ever become stronger as a whole

i was supporting improvement of lifestyle not increase of patriotism

I'm with you on this one. Nationalism is not a bad thing per se, but can be, and can also be a good thing. Nationalism is being proud of you country, feeling a sense of belonging and community, social cohesion, etc., all of which are good things. It is only when people start thinking that by mere virtue of being from a different country they are better than foreigners that it becomes a problem, which is not really nationalism but rather their extending being proud of their country to hating other people rather than what they do or stand for. This is not something exclusive to nationalism. Hate comes from many different sources.

For me, it would also include making this country something to be proud of, which in so many aspects it is not at the moment; if people feel attatched to their country for things they see as good about it then that can only be a good thing, right? Well, unless it's a load of chavs or the slightly richer equivalent of chavs or those blokey blokes who hate the french, can't read, and are generally idiots (40% population)

I am clearly going to be destroyed by someone on here, but it's OK I support the libdems so you can leave the fascist/tory/xenophobe comments at the door lol :p

[Dr Hooch]

I'm still young and idealistic so i don't think being proud of your country is a good thing

I'd much rather people did things to make themselves proud of themselves then relied on their country to do it for them

but for 18 years i've been a social burden so i'm sure i'll get more cynical with age

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I'm still young and idealistic so i don't think being proud of your country is a good thing

I'd much rather people did things to make themselves proud of themselves then relied on their country to do it for them

but for 18 years i've been a social burden so i'm sure i'll get more cynical with age

Meh I am also 18, and also a bit idealistic but ultimately pragmatism is better, it is just that people don't realise that pragmatism requires idealism for its basis, i.e. we can use our reason to achieve our goals but not to decide them, i.e. fact-value distinction, is-ought gap, and all that David Hume based goodness :).

I don't think being proud of your country for its own sake it good, in fact I think that would be monumentally stupid, but rather it is good if you can be proud of your country, if you see what I mean.

Btw nationalism isn't relying on your country to do things for you, not at all...

ps It's not being a burden, the state spending money on you is an "investment for the future" :p.

[Dr Hooch]

you tell them that when i move to ontario

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

It's OK, if you go to Canada, we get a Canadian back in a return. Not much of a swap, I'll be honest, but at least it's a start :p

[Dr Hooch]

It's OK, if you go to Canada, we get a Canadian back in a return. Not much of a swap, I'll be honest, but at least it's a start :p

we already have Wicked Train of Thought

[Smokey D]

Aggressive War perhaps, but everyone has just as much to lose in a defensive war, which is the only war I have ever or will ever advocate. Didn't I already state I support this in the concept of armed neutrality?

Question: Do you advocate war in the defense of an ally or to prevent a gross breach of human rights of people who are not your citizens?

Also, Danish, class consciousness is only a part of what makes people people. A worker in the US does not have the same interests, desires or objectives as a worker in Afghanistan and it is disingenuous to say they do.

[BridgeToSolace]

Question: Do you advocate war in the defense of an ally or to prevent a gross breach of human rights of people who are not your citizens?


That's still a defensive war, methinks.

Defensive doesn't always mean defending YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

Like if Russia invaded Canada (pretend they didn't go through Alaska first), we'd send troops to Canada to help them defend themselves.

As opposed to say, invading another country.

Or maybe not, I don't know his position on anything.

[Smokey D]

What if one country started to systematically eliminate a minority within its own borders?

[Mr. Ron]

What if one country started to systematically eliminate a minority within its own borders?

I'd say action would be permitted in that situation.

[Smokey D]

Also, if Russia invaded Canada, would the US be justified in invading Russia or one of Russia's allies?

[Mr. Ron]

I would say that the US would be justified in driving the Russians out, and then keeping them out, taking no unnecessary action like invasion.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but what if the US could not dislodge them by attacking their position in Canada, but could force a political withdrawal by attacking the Russian homeland.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, but what if the US could not dislodge them by attacking their position in Canada, but could force a political withdrawal by attacking the Russian homeland.

If there was no other possible choice, then I guess you would have to.

[Smokey D]

What about when the total elimination of a particular political structure was desirable?

[pedro durruti]

Also, if Russia invaded Canada, would the US be justified in invading Russia or one of Russia's allies?
Actually Der thinks it would be... unless he's changed his mind since some time ago. I don't know to what extent, though.

[Mr. Ron]

What about when the total elimination of a particular political structure was desirable?

Key word: Desirable. Not everything we desire is best in the long run.

[Iskandar]

you tell them that when i move to ontarioWhen you do, avoid Peterborough by any means necessary. Go straight to Toronto and stay there.

[Reaganista]

Key word: Desirable. Not everything we desire is best in the long run.
what
i dont think you know what desirable means

[Smokey D]

Key word: Desirable. Not everything we desire is best in the long run.

Whatever. Destruction of said regime would be best.

[Mr. Ron]

Whatever. Destruction of said regime would be best.

I'm just saying that if it can be accomplished with less amount of life lost that would be great.

[Smokey D]

Sometimes that involves invasion though, which was my point.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah I agree.

[Danish]

Question: Do you advocate war in the defense of an ally or to prevent a gross breach of human rights of people who are not your citizens?

Also, Danish, class consciousness is only a part of what makes people people. A worker in the US does not have the same interests, desires or objectives as a worker in Afghanistan and it is disingenuous to say they do.

Self-defense of a third party can be justified, as can violating sovereignty to defend human rights.

A US worker has more interests in common with the Afghan worker than the US CEO. It's the same social forces that oppress us all.

[Dr Hooch]

Except that a worker in afghanistan cannot seek to enforce his rights and address his greivances through legitimate democratic and union means.

[Reaganista]

and...

[Dr Hooch]

and...

and so they're not the same!

[Reaganista]

A US worker has more interests in common with the Afghan worker than the US CEO. It's the same social forces that oppress us all.

[Dr Hooch]

I'm saying different social forces oppress the afgans in a different way

[Reaganista]

i'm saying our interests are similar

[Smokey D]

A US worker has more interests in common with the Afghan worker than the US CEO. It's the same social forces that oppress us all.

Aside from what they believe, how they think and how they live, I agree.

Saying an Afghani worker has things in common with workers in the world's most advanced capitalism is really inaccurate, even if you are a Marxist.

[Reaganista]

of course they have 'things in common' but you made the statement even more vague and therefore easily fullfilled then it had been before

[Smokey D]

Okay, if you're going to be asinine about it.

But you know that by things in common I actually mean more things in common than not, which isn't true when talking about workers in semi-feudal Afghanistan compared to workers in a free market, finance capitalism bastion like the US.

[pleetf]

i dont see what is all this talk about if your country doesnt make it compulsory for all male citizens (and soon females as well) serve in the army for 2 years full time offering a pay that is about 250 USD a month.. note: this is 2 years of your PRIME.. maybe your 20s? i take it as most of you havent experienced this?

[CarnageFairy]

We're talking about if being in the service was mandatory mandatory in the states, which was what the original article was about IIRC.

serve in the army for 2 years full time offering a pay that is about 250 USD a month..

WHAT?! Out of curiousity, whereabouts on this blue rock are you from?

note: this is 2 years of your PRIME.. maybe your 20s? i take it as most of you havent experienced this?

Yeah, armed service is voluntary here. There hasn't been a draft since the 60's.

[pleetf]

WHAT?! Out of curiousity, whereabouts on this blue rock are you from?

i dont know if its appropriate to say the country i come from.. but lets see.. my pay when i just got conscripted was 350 bucks my currency which interprets to.. 219USD a month..

now that i'm a corporal towards the end of my service my pay is 470.. which is 294USD.. now you've got the conversion.. maybe you can find out the country ;)

so you guys have got it lucky over in the US.. i came to this thread thinking i would find ppl in the same bitching mood like i am but i guess i was pretty disappointed :(

[Der Übermensch]

I'm gonna guess Singapore or Thailand

[DBoons Ghost]

I know this discussion is already old, but I fully support mandatory military service at a term of 6 months at a minimum with a maximum of 2 years, starting at age 18 ending at age 35.

Most of the countries who still employ mandatory civil service force you to stay in for 2 years. I think a large majority of Americans would benefit from boot camp at the very least.

[Reaganista]

that's pretty idiotic tbh

[ringworm]

i'd love to see some of the posters in here crying in their sleep the first night in boot camp

[Iskandar]

i'd love to see some of the posters in here crying in their sleep the first night in boot campI would too, but even more than that I'd love to see them not be forced into boot camp at all.

[CarnageFairy]

I feel like people that want to join the army will. Forcing people to join is just going to foster resentment, and its not like they'll give it their all for a government that forced them to piss away 2 years of their lives.

If everyone is in the army the quality will have to be compromised.

[Reaganista]

if i couldn't somehow buy my pay out of mandatory service then i would just leave the country

[DBoons Ghost]

that's pretty idiotic tbh

Maybe you could elaborate.

[Reaganista]

you said you support mandatory military service

[Iskandar]

if i couldn't somehow buy my pay out of mandatory service then i would just leave the countryTo Canada.

[beso negro]

I don't think its a bad idea. I always wanted to join the armed forces but I was too lazy to act on it.

Maybe then I could finally build up some muscle and get a nice tan.

[DBoons Ghost]

you said you support mandatory military service

Oh I see. My opinion is idiotic and yours isn't.

This was enlightening.

[Reaganista]

yeah i guess
Maybe then I could finally build up some muscle and get a nice tan.
wtf does that have to do with mandatory service

[Dr Hooch]

wtf does that have to do with mandatory service

#in the navy#

[pleetf]

I feel like people that want to join the army will. Forcing people to join is just going to foster resentment, and its not like they'll give it their all for a government that forced them to piss away 2 years of their lives.

If everyone is in the army the quality will have to be compromised.

the quality IS compromised. other than the inevitable lack of interest in most male citizens, our armed forces is often criticized in reviews for weak and compromising quality too much just to make up numbers.. of course, i am just saying this..

slogging off 2 years of your prime is not a joke.. it means the whole torture of going to university with people younger than you (and hence sticking out like a sore thumb) and being 2 years behind in the workforce..

a good buncha us are really pissed off.. those who can afford it are all planning migration.. even me.. sighs..

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'm way older than everyone in my classes at uni (except one bloke, a mate of mine), it's awesome. You can sit there and scowl and waver between hating and patronising all the young people. Fun times.