RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist"

RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kittinSol -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:38:11 PM)
Embarking on emotionally dangerous territory here, but I've been dying to ask this for quite some time... How come people engaging in the military are seen as 'serving' anything? ' What are they serving, exactly? What is their sacrifice worth, except for their lives? Who is at war with whom? How come children are allowed to engage in armed combat when there is really no necessity for it? I question: a) the logic of "permanent conflict"; b) the reasons for massacring young people in senseless fights; c) the FUNDING of the United States' military; and d) the PHILOSOPHY behind the whole "serving my country is like faith: believe me, or you're a heretic". I think people are being sent to their deaths for the sake of a military orthodoxy that smacks of brainwashing to me.

switch2please -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I said absolutely nothing denying that U.S. soldiers have defended this country. Then you are talking about something completely different than the topic you're replying to. Context. Wonderful thing. Absolutely true. Apologies. I was trying to correct the analogy, it didn't quite seem to fit [:)]

kdsub -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:45:32 PM)
Without serving...you would most likely now be speaking a different language...raised in a much less liberal environment…and not free to express your opinions. Butch

HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Revenue agent? care to explain? At the time that Popeye was in the Coast Guard they were part of the treasury department...now they are part of Homeland Security. H.

kittinSol -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Without serving...you would most likely now be speaking a different language...raised in a much less liberal environment…and not free to express your opinions. I don't believe that for one instant.

HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 3:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Please correct me if I am mistaken but I thought the constitution reserved the war making power for the House of Representatives. You are quite wrong. I would call your attention to Art:1 sect. 8. H.

HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystry If you want to argue with Hunter that no U.S. soldier has ever defended the country, join him. I have not argued that point. I have simply asked the question to anyone who would care to answer it. H.

slvemike4u -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:13:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Embarking on emotionally dangerous territory here, but I've been dying to ask this for quite some time... Extremely emotional territory dear Kittin How come people engaging in the military are seen as 'serving' anything? ' Because theie sacrifice,no matter what we think of it in hindsight,is made for the greater good of the nation state they serve....hence "serving" What are they serving, exactly? One would like to beleive a higher purpose...such as the liberation of occupied Europe for just one example What is their sacrifice worth, except for their lives? Wouldn't you be in a better position to answer that than me? Who is at war with whom? Well,the whole question here has degenerated,thanks to Hunter S's post to a historical question.....todays conflicts are much murkier and perhaps less black and white than others were in the past....but 3,000 some odd dead on 9/11 inspired more than a little bloodlust in many a young mans breast....unfortunately we were led by that paragon of focus and visionary of clearheaded thinking Bush/Cheney. How come children are allowed to engage in armed combat when there is really no necessity for it? There has allways been a need for it.....sadly it is part of the human condition and has been since man first learned to swing a club. I question: a) the logic of "permanent conflict"; Most sane people do. b) the reasons for massacring young people in senseless fights; Not all fights are senseless c) the FUNDING of the United States' military; Their is a point of veiw,not without merit that preparedness is the surest path to peace and d) the PHILOSOPHY behind the whole "serving my country is like faith: believe me, or you're a heretic". Tribal mentality? I think people are being sent to their deaths for the sake of a military orthodoxy that smacks of brainwashing to me.Some brainwashing is of course necessary to convince young men to do what does not allways come naturally.....to wit : rushing into harms way

HunterS -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:34:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol How come people engaging in the military are seen as 'serving' anything? ' Because theie sacrifice,no matter what we think of it in hindsight,is made for the greater good of the nation state they serve....hence "serving"[quote/] They are not serving the greater national good they are serving the interests of a monied ologarchy. H.

kittinSol -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:35:42 PM)
Thank you, Mike. I already knew the answers you gave me. I've heard them all before. I'm sorry, but I was expecting REAL answers: the ones you have given me may have made sense in the past, but they no longer do. How is a young man's death, getting killed in Iraq, "serving" anybody?

Aylee -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:46:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Thank you, Mike. I already knew the answers you gave me. I've heard them all before. I'm sorry, but I was expecting REAL answers: the ones you have given me may have made sense in the past, but they no longer do. How is a young man's death, getting killed in Iraq, "serving" anybody? I think that you are not understanding what the term "military service" means. It is service by an individual in an army or militia. Another term for service would be employment.

kittinSol -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I think that you are not understanding what the term "military service" means. It is service by an individual in an army or militia. Another term for service would be employment. I think that you are not perceiving the emotional blackmail that is attached de facto to the "mere employment" you are describing. If it were nothing but employment, people wouldn't be jumping down the throats of those that describe said "employment" as expensive and meaningless. Say, like those that decry post office workers. You're choosing to ignore the emotional thing. You may deny that it exists, but it is there nonetheless.

switch2please -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 4:57:01 PM)
This brings us to an interesting philosophical point: According to the U.S. Army site (army.com) the lowest possible monthly pay rate for an enlisted individual is $1400. This is $16800 annually. (The chart did show a fairly regular rate of pay increase, but for the sake of simplicity I kept the monthly income constant for one year.) How much is a life worth?

slvemike4u -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 5:32:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Thank you, Mike. I already knew the answers you gave me. I've heard them all before. I'm sorry, but I was expecting REAL answers: the ones you have given me may have made sense in the past, but they no longer do. How is a young man's death, getting killed in Iraq, "serving" anybody? My aswers Kittin were given in light of the larger question posed by Hunter earlier in the thread in which he stated that young men have not died in defence of this country in the past...perhaps in veiw of Iraq your questions take on a different meaning.....but heres the thing once a young man joins his "choice" as to just what causes he can and will fight for are gone...and that is of necessity.No country can have its military serve on an if they feel its justified basis...Sorry it just won't work. It is up to the electorate to make sure that those they elect do not spend a Nations treasure(its youth) on questionable and foolhardy endeavors.Sadly we as a people failed in that regard with Bush/Cheney...hence Iraq. I in no way mean to make light of your veiws on war and its waste....I am by no means a hawk....but the world is a dangerous and complex place. This is the best I can do while on the pain pills...if I'm not making sense or perhaps rambling(which I get the feeling I am...please blame it on my balky back and the resultant use of vicodin)I should probably just stop posting but wtf....nothing else to do tonight....lol

MarsBonfire -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 6:02:20 PM)
As an aside... the nature of war itself is changing. It could be, in this growing age of robotics and remote drones on the battlefeild... It could be that many of these kids with bodies, minds, and reflexes honed by 18 hours a day of Playstation might be more fit for service than we realize. Maybe it's the old model of who's "fit" that needs to be changed.

tazzygirl -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 6:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Please correct me if I am mistaken but I thought the constitution reserved the war making power for the House of Representatives. You are quite wrong. I would call your attention to Art:1 sect. 8. H. Exactly. You were wrong. The House is only half of Congress. It requires ALL of Congress (gotta add that pesky Senate part) to declare war. war MAKING is another matter, and subject. Thats the Presidents power. What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp Declaring War The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements. Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat. http://www.slate.com/id/1008290

switch2please -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 7:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire As an aside... the nature of war itself is changing. It could be, in this growing age of robotics and remote drones on the battlefeild... It could be that many of these kids with bodies, minds, and reflexes honed by 18 hours a day of Playstation might be more fit for service than we realize. Maybe it's the old model of who's "fit" that needs to be changed. Though I still don't understand or condone the "need" for violence, no matter how high-tech, I can appreciate this logic. Remote aircraft are becoming more common and the physical exertion required to operate these systems is negligible... Unless, of course, you're an old school gamer with an Atari like me. The necessary reflexes for Pong? Not so quick.

Aneirin -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 7:47:24 PM)
Maybe that was even an experiment, the video game generation, creating the speed of thought and reflexes, many a fast jet pilot would admire, and what about all those aviation based games, shooting and bombing things. And here is an even wierder thought, the instance of internet gaming, could it happen that a game player might unwittingly play a game that is in effect real life, the image that is seen on the tv screen, is a war device in reality, and his fast thumbs are guiding it to it's target. The computer game briefing, one has to attack and destroy a fictional enemy base, the gamer, into their game wants to progress further in the game, and so does as bid. Does anyone think weapons manufacturers have taken the video game culture to be a real possibility for the successful controlling of drone air machines.

tazzygirl -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 7:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Revenue agent? care to explain? At the time that Popeye was in the Coast Guard they were part of the treasury department...now they are part of Homeland Security. H. I find it slightly unsettling that you would use a disparaging term to identify a branch of service that goes out of its way to assist every other branch when needed.

AnimusRex -> RE: "70% Of Young People Unfit to Enlist" (11/21/2009 8:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. Declaring Less Than War In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat. Once again, tazzy rides to the rescue of reason and clarity. Thank you, girl. let me restate the words of that fucking leftist coward, James Madison: A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” Its almost as if the old sod thought that in order to wage a war, you needed to get the public full behind it. Who knew? Franklin Roosevelt, thats who. He wanted to go to war against the Axis powers long before Pearl Harbor, but knew the American public didn't want to get involved. Even then, he enlisted Frank Capra to make a movie called "Why We Fight" to help argue the case to a skeptical public that woul dhave preferred to let Europe fight their own war. FDR knew it was stupd to wage war without the public fully informed and resolved. Madison's quotation should be branded with a red hot iron on the blubbery ass of every neocon who spouts off about the urgent need for war here, there, and the other place. If you really think war is needed, convince Congress to declare war. If you can't, then STFU.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875