Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#55808 - 06/13/11 08:51 PM Re: Conscription: Lesson for Freedom? [Re: Ghostly1]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
How does a President in office less than 6 months win the Nobel peace prize?


That's a good question; one that I too have asked. But I don't really see how that has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

 Quote:
It was a common held belief in my unit that we did not trust anyone to lead us who had never personally served in ANY capacity in the armed forces of our nation. Considering its the most powerful military force in the world. They did not know what it meant to suffer, and train for combat, let alone any other MOS. How would we know they would take our lives seriously?


Well then it is a good thing that it isn't the President who plans military operations.

 Quote:
I served under Clinton. Another draft dodger who we didnt particularly like. And his distaste for Marines was known to us. One of my Corporals was a presidential guard who informed me of this fact.


Your personal feelings towards a certain President also aren't relevant to any points I have raised.

 Quote:
Confirmed kills and number of firefights is IRRELEVANT as service itself would be sufficient enough for many.


Those were merely examples. I was asking you to cite specifics since you are the one who is making the claim that military service some how qualifies someone to be a more effective (better) leader of a country than someone who hasn't.

 Quote:
And service records are usually made public during elections.....you might not, but much of the country looks to those as character references.


A character reference is not proof positive of someone's ability to perform their duties. I've worked with plenty of people who were really cool and nice, I can't think of any reason they would be given a bad character reference. However, they were also terrible at their job. I liked them as people but not as co-workers. And they would have made shitty bosses as well.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#55812 - 06/13/11 09:50 PM Re: Conscription: Lesson for Freedom? [Re: Ghostly1]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
 Quote:

What makes me think that? For starters I served in the military, and by your statement you have not. And if not the military, who protects your freedom? Boy scouts? Pit bull terriers? Harsh language? I suggest reading deeper into world history, and who was responsible for protecting the people when war broke out.


Who defends my rights? Me. How? By knowing what rights the law of the land grants me(constitution) and knowing what kinds rules I am willing to live by. The very thought that some force outside of yourself is truly defending your liberty, your freedom is an admission that you have already surrendered those right to whatever you depend on the look after you.

How is the military in Syria defending its citizens? What ways did the SS help the german jews in the second world war? Who was it that opened fire at Kent State? Was it the really the protesters who shot first at Tiananmen Square?

Military force is created and designed to fight, and so this is what it does best. Hell lets go back to the statement about the revolutionary war, where the british officers there to help protect the liberty of the colonists?

Top
#55829 - 06/14/11 10:59 AM Re: Conscription: Lesson for Freedom? [Re: Ghostly1]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Ghostly1

This was of course an opinion, even one as flawed as this deserved some attention, and reflection. Which it succeeded in doing.


Agreed, and it's been a little testy, but not overly so. It could turn into an interesting discussion if it remains objective.

 Originally Posted By: Ghostly1

I dont agree with the "military-white men" assumption at all.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a comparison. Let's try it this way - compare these two:

"One must be a military veteran to become a full citizen. Non-military cannot vote."

"One must be a white man to become a full citizen. Non-whites and females cannot vote."
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#55848 - 06/14/11 05:42 PM Re: Conscription: Lesson for Freedom? [Re: Autodidact]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
"One must be a military veteran to become a full citizen. Non-military cannot vote."

"One must be a white man to become a full citizen. Non-whites and females cannot vote."


You are going beyond mere comparison to taking it out of context. Not in any of my posts in this thread did I once mention it being race specific. And as for the book, both men and women, were on the front lines in co-ed units. If you would have read the book, or watched the movie you would know that already.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#55869 - 06/15/11 11:21 AM Re: Conscription: Lesson for Freedom? [Re: Ghostly1]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Ghostly1
You are going beyond mere comparison to taking it out of context.


Not at all - I think this is exactly the same context.

The OP suggested discussing that "to gain full citizenship status one must serve in the armed forces" - this would change the default to everyone not being a "full" citizen, and establish an arbitrary criteria controlled by the whims of a small segment of the population.

The movie (and I assume the book, though I have not read it) portrays military service in a very positive light, as do some of the posts here, and I would agree with that. But suggesting that military service is thus ideal as a prerequisite to citizenship (ie, voting, ie ruling class) is no different than any other group claiming the same thing.

Consider these as comparison:
- Only military veterans should rule, because "your rights were bought and paid for by the blood of patriots"
- Only farmers should rule, because only by their efforts can you eat and live at all
- Only white men should rule, because on average they are richer and better educated
- Only bankers should rule, because only by their efforts can you work to afford food and shelter
- Only PoliSci majors should rule, because they best understand the art of ruling

(Based on our current society,) these all fail for the same reason - politics is not a game of who "deserves it more". As 6 alluded, these are all subjective, emotionally-evocative judgments that are irrelevant to being able to become a successful politician.

Restricting power to a small group would take us backwards. Human history shows how well that usually works out. The reality of human nature is that this would lead to a less stratified society - for instance, on day 2 of this society I imagine there'd be a new law that only the children of current officers are eligible to become officers. On day 3 there'd be a new law that only officers can be executives or managers in companies. And so on.


Edited by Autodidact (06/15/11 11:22 AM)
Edit Reason: typo
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.023 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 18 queries. Zlib compression disabled.