War Czar Considers Draft.

[Broomstick]

And why young men? Why not the old fucks who make the decision to go to war? Sometimes I wish real life was like science fiction, where leaders stepped into a Starfire Wheel and decided the fate of their nations rather than relying on the most vulnerable with little say in the running of the nation to fight their wars for them. Thirty year olds make for far better soldiers than 18 year olds.

No, actually they don't. 18 year olds do make better soldiers.

In fact, children make pretty damn good soldiers, too, being so easy to brain wash and having a very shakey concept of death. That's not morally correct, but that doesn't stop various entities from training and equipping kids to kill.

A 30 year old might make a good commander, but they aren't ideally suited to being a front-line troop.

[Lonestar]

Stark, I think we're(well, me. I can't speak for the others) less angry "unjust war" and more about his series of post which have basically indicating his a big fucking coward regardless. Hell, I don't even have to respond to his rebuttal to my original post. His follow-ons just confirmed my intial suspicions. I have an image of him looking like Gil from the Simpsons wringing his hands about it. I mean, Jesus, "weeks of hell"? What the fuck perception is this? Does he draw all his military viewpoints from Full Metal Jacket or something? My years in the Corps of Cadets @ Texas A&M were much more difficult than Boot.

And you, and others have opted to defend his cowardice as "but it's an evil war! He can't be a coward because there's a war going on that I disagree with." Sometimes he really is a coward.

Wait. You want to "see action" without the potential of getting hurt or killed.

Huh.

In Realityland, we call that "HALO."

Well, he would play paintball except those meanies shoot back and those rounds hurt.

[Stark]

And you, and others have opted to defend his cowardice as "but it's an evil war! He can't be a coward because there's a war going on that I disagree with." Sometimes he really is a coward.

Whoa whoa crazy man. I'm not trying to defend his stance, just describing my views on a draft. The very idea of 'defending' ole Chitterbug is slap bang in the outer limits of the twilight zone.

[Turin]

I think Stark has handily taken on the "coward" argument, and I don't have anything to add to his comment.

I don't think I'm opposed to a draft in some kind of general principled sense, particularly if it were a draft for a "defense of the mainland" sort of military branch (like the National Guard is supposed to be in the US). I suppose if I woke up one day and by "act of Q" I ruled the country, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of mandatory service, with many non-military options also being widely available -- public works projects or whatever. There are obvious practical concerns there, but no, I'm not in general principle.

Let me guess: You've also read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A. Heinlein.

Cute.

But one problem pointed out by a political commentator is, "Who decides which draftees do public works and which draftees end up in the military?" The amount of corruption that would plague the system, with rich people bribing government officials to keep their kids out of the military, would be horrendous.

I don't disagree with this assessment one bit, which is one more reason why I think a draft is a bad idea in general. My example was deliberately silly (it included me ruling the country via "act of Q" in there for chrissakes) to point out how unfeasible it was.

I have a problem with the idea of a draft in the US because a) of the absurd logistics involved in a general peacetime draft as has often been proposed, and b) because we have a history of getting into shit we shouldn't. I frankly don't trust my government and my fellow countrymen to steer us in the right direction.

Considering the corruption that's rampant in the US government now, that's understandable.[/quote]
Frankly, it's not just right now. Widespread jingoism among the general populace + ridiculous idea that we have the be the world wide hegemony (see the "Cut 2 AF Wings..." thread going on right now) = a country that's going to get into a lot of wrongheaded wars. These two elements have been in place for a long time.

[Flagg]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

[Lonestar]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

Nice to know that you're a gutless, shadow of a human being who wouldn't fight for your community. Not unexpected, but a good thing to confirm.

(as if there isn't a difference between being a trained soldier and "getting your dick shot off" )

[Knife]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

This is the sentiment that is usually associated with cowardice. There are some things worth fighting for.

[Alex Moon]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

So those of us who joined up are idiots, now?

Maybe we're not idiots, but your intellect is so vastly greater than our that it only appears that we are idiots...

[brianeyci]

And why young men? Why not the old fucks who make the decision to go to war? Sometimes I wish real life was like science fiction, where leaders stepped into a Starfire Wheel and decided the fate of their nations rather than relying on the most vulnerable with little say in the running of the nation to fight their wars for them. Thirty year olds make for far better soldiers than 18 year olds.

No, actually they don't. 18 year olds do make better soldiers.

In fact, children make pretty damn good soldiers, too, being so easy to brain wash and having a very shakey concept of death. That's not morally correct, but that doesn't stop various entities from training and equipping kids to kill.

A 30 year old might make a good commander, but they aren't ideally suited to being a front-line troop.

That assumes that killing is the most important part of being a soldier. Training a child "soldier" isn't really making a soldier, but a murderer. Being able to kill when you're called to is important, yes, but I think that's overrated. If you drill into a 30 year old the motions of pulling a trigger, pavlovian conditioning will work just as well as on a child. It might take longer, but big deal.

Let's put it another way. You're in some American embassy under seige in some country you're vacationing in. Outside, there's huge mobs who want to cut your breasts and dick and pin you up to show the evils of American imperialism. The US military sends in special forces. Who would you rather have? Guys who are young coming in that Chinook, or older guys? I know what I'd rather have.

Children make terrible soldiers, and it's not just because of the technology. I consider discipline as the single most important trait to be a soldier. Older guys will have it, children will not.

[General Zod]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

Do you think that people who join the military willingly want to get shot up? Or could it be that some people just might have better reasons for opposing the draft that doesn't make us look like infantile children? Like, I dunno, forced service in high risk environments being unethical. For starters.

[Knife]

And why young men? Why not the old fucks who make the decision to go to war? Sometimes I wish real life was like science fiction, where leaders stepped into a Starfire Wheel and decided the fate of their nations rather than relying on the most vulnerable with little say in the running of the nation to fight their wars for them. Thirty year olds make for far better soldiers than 18 year olds.

No, actually they don't. 18 year olds do make better soldiers.

In fact, children make pretty damn good soldiers, too, being so easy to brain wash and having a very shakey concept of death. That's not morally correct, but that doesn't stop various entities from training and equipping kids to kill.

A 30 year old might make a good commander, but they aren't ideally suited to being a front-line troop.

That assumes that killing is the most important part of being a soldier. Training a child "soldier" isn't really making a soldier, but a murderer. Being able to kill when you're called to is important, yes, but I think that's overrated. If you drill into a 30 year old the motions of pulling a trigger, pavlovian conditioning will work just as well as on a child. It might take longer, but big deal.

Let's put it another way. You're in some American embassy under seige in some country you're vacationing in. Outside, there's huge mobs who want to cut your breasts and dick and pin you up to show the evils of American imperialism. The US military sends in special forces. Who would you rather have? Guys who are young coming in that Chinook, or older guys? I know what I'd rather have.

Children make terrible soldiers, and it's not just because of the technology. I consider discipline as the single most important trait to be a soldier. Older guys will have it, children will not.

Meh, for the most part, infantry is for young ones. How young is an interesting question though. But seriously, the wear and tear on the body adds up quick like it does for professional athletes. After continous exersion and small boo-boo's over a period of time, your body is trashed.

Granted, age and wisdom makes you a better leader and tactician for troops but your body will start falling apart after ten or so years of infantry shit.

[Beowulf]

That assumes that killing is the most important part of being a soldier. Training a child "soldier" isn't really making a soldier, but a murderer. Being able to kill when you're called to is important, yes, but I think that's overrated. If you drill into a 30 year old the motions of pulling a trigger, pavlovian conditioning will work just as well as on a child. It might take longer, but big deal.

Let's put it another way. You're in some American embassy under seige in some country you're vacationing in. Outside, there's huge mobs who want to cut your breasts and dick and pin you up to show the evils of American imperialism. The US military sends in special forces. Who would you rather have? Guys who are young coming in that Chinook, or older guys? I know what I'd rather have.

Children make terrible soldiers, and it's not just because of the technology. I consider discipline as the single most important trait to be a soldier. Older guys will have it, children will not.

Discipline isn't the end all be all of soldiering. A significant part of basic training is to instill that trait into recruits. And some 30 year olds won't have it either.

You also have to take into account physical attributes. Young guys heal faster and are easier to make physically fit than older guys. There's a reason why armed forces PT tests get easier a person is, and it's not because the older guys are a bunch of lard asses.

[brianeyci]

Meh, for the most part, infantry is for young ones. How young is an interesting question though. But seriously, the wear and tear on the body adds up quick like it does for professional athletes. After continous exersion and small boo-boo's over a period of time, your body is trashed.

Granted, age and wisdom makes you a better leader and tactician for troops but your body will start falling apart after ten or so years of infantry shit.

I totally agree with the physical conditioning part. But all other things being equal, I'd rather have older soldiers than younger. Like you said, how old or how young is debatable. But I seem to remember one of the reasons why Hezbollah won was their soldiers were mostly older people, in their late 20's or early 30's. Grizzled veterans. At least, that was what one article posted here talked about.

All other things being equal I'd rather have discipline. If they invented exoskeleton suits for soldiers, I'd rather have a late twenties in it than a kid from high school. The only problem that would override this I can think of is something like the Caine Mutiny. Older soldiers, who join the military in peacetime, who get promoted because there's nobody the fuck else who wants in. Then when the shit hits the fan, these old fucks have rank and prestige and status, when they're stupid as shit and a liability in war. But that's not a problem as long as the military's treated as service to your country, and not just another job where you put in the hours and get paid.

But then again it may be impossible in most societies for all other things to be equal. If you need meat shields, sending your most experienced people to die in the front lines might be stupid. But if we're arguing just age, I'd rather have older soldiers. Especially since modern soldiers have all this stuff to care about like humanitarian aid, responsibility, "ratting" or whistleblowing, a thinking soldier. I think brainless morons are a thing of the past, though soldiers will never need to be particularly brainy but practical.

[General Zod]

I totally agree with the physical conditioning part. But all other things being equal, I'd rather have older soldiers than younger. Like you said, how old or how young is debatable. But I seem to remember one of the reasons why Hezbollah won was their soldiers were mostly older people, in their late 20's or early 30's. Grizzled veterans. At least, that was what one article posted here talked about.

All other things being equal I'd rather have discipline. If they invented exoskeleton suits for soldiers, I'd rather have a late twenties in it than a kid from high school. The only problem that would override this I can think of is something like the Caine Mutiny. Older soldiers, who join the military in peacetime, who get promoted because there's nobody the fuck else who wants in. Then when the shit hits the fan, these old fucks have rank and prestige and status, when they're stupid as shit and a liability in war. But that's not a problem as long as the military's treated as service to your country, and not just another job where you put in the hours and get paid.

But then again it may be impossible in most societies for all other things to be equal. If you need meat shields, sending your most experienced people to die in the front lines might be stupid. But if we're arguing just age, I'd rather have older soldiers. Especially since modern soldiers have all this stuff to care about like humanitarian aid, responsibility, "ratting" or whistleblowing, a thinking soldier. I think brainless morons are a thing of the past, though soldiers will never need to be particularly brainy but practical.

You're missing one key piece here. The soldiers at Hezbollah had years of experience. Age alone is not going to give you the honed instincts necessary to react instantaneously in tense combat situations. If anything someone in their 30s will be more ill suited as a fresh recruit because they'll have a harder time adapting to the new conditions a military lifestyle requires.

[Flagg]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

Nice to know that you're a gutless, shadow of a human being who wouldn't fight for your community. Not unexpected, but a good thing to confirm.

(as if there isn't a difference between being a trained soldier and "getting your dick shot off" )

Sorry, volunteering to get shot at is not exactly a smart thing to do. Not to say I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to insult people who refuse to put themselves in that situation. And I have no respect for anyone who would demand it of me. The only time I deem it acceptable for anyone to force someone else to fight is when the very existance of the country is threatened.

[Flagg]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

Do you think that people who join the military willingly want to get shot up? Or could it be that some people just might have better reasons for opposing the draft that doesn't make us look like infantile children? Like, I dunno, forced service in high risk environments being unethical. For starters.

Of course I don't think that all people who join the military want to get shot at. I simply think that people accusing people of unwillingness to be put in that situation of cowardice are assholes. I'm no coward, but I'm not going to volunteer to be shot at in anything but the most dire of situations.

[Flagg]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

This is the sentiment that is usually associated with cowardice. There are some things worth fighting for.

Yeah, it's usually associated with cowardice by stupid people who think that an unwillingness to die for something is somehow a moral failing. Dying for something is easy, living in disgrace for something is much, much harder. I'd rather be a live fugitive than a dead hero.

[Coyote]

There are so many reasoned, intelligent reasons to oppose a draft. Whining about personal safety or inconvenience is not, IMO, among them.

Our society goves a lot to its citizens, believe it or not. There is room for improvement but we tend to grow up fairly safe, well-fed, not paying as much as we like to think we are paying (try European gas prices for a month). We have a good, cushy, plenty-to-be-thankful-for life in the USA. In return, our society asks really very little. You can kick back and be a low-wage worker and contribute little beyond seeing to your needs, if that is what you wish, or you can do useful work, or volunteer, or perform other civic-responsibility things to give back.

So, to me, whimpering about how you'll have to work harder than you'd wanted to for a couple years, or assume some personal risk, on behalf of that society, is essentially admitting "I want to suck off your teat, but God forbid you expect me to do anything for you in return. Especially if I might chip a nail, or get sand in my mangina doing it."

In fact, I'd say if everyone in the country participated in two things: education, and voting, we'd not be in a position where we'd elect a foolish wanna-be warrior to get us into "evil wars" in the first place. But that's definitely asking too much.

Protesting against a war that can seriously be questioned as unjust is understandable; so too is protesting against the concept of involuntary servitude. There are ways to avoid participation in wars, though-- being conscientious objectors is one way, long before you get to the fugitive stage. But it all boils down to one question: are your motives for avoiding any service really based on selfish reasons, or reasons that others would legitimately see as motivated by principles?

But be careful-- you end up in the same ethical quandry that a lot of middle-class Vietnam-era protesters found themselves in: they had the wherewithal to avoid the draft through things like college deferrments or overseas travel, leaving the poor and resource-less to get drafted instead in higher numbers. If your desire for comfort and safety means a less fortunate person gets smoked in your stead, where's your ethics now?

[Flagg]

Not wanting to get your dick shot off for any reason is apparently cowardice, now. I'd call it "intelligence".

So those of us who joined up are idiots, now?

Nope. If you feel so strongly that you're willing to put your life at risk for those beliefs, then knock yourself out. I have the utmost respect for you. But I'm not going to get down on someone for refusing to be put in that situation.

Maybe we're not idiots, but your intellect is so vastly greater than our that it only appears that we are idiots...

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Lonestar]

Sorry, volunteering to get shot at is not exactly a smart thing to do. Not to say I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to insult people who refuse to put themselves in that situation. And I have no respect for anyone who would demand it of me. The only time I deem it acceptable for anyone to force someone else to fight is when the very existance of the country is threatened.

Horseshit, you said for any reason. You're regurgitating Libertarian bullshit about how much more important it is for you, the individual, to be a coward and hide while others do fighting and dying for you and your country. Even the phrase "when the very existance of the country is threatened" is impossible to benchmark, because when was the last time this country was in such a situation? Certainly not during the World Wars, or even the Civil War. You've settled on a standard where you know you'll keep on justifying running and hiding.

[General Zod]

Of course I don't think that all people who join the military want to get shot at. I simply think that people accusing people of unwillingness to be put in that situation of cowardice are assholes. I'm no coward, but I'm not going to volunteer to be shot at in anything but the most dire of situations.

I don't want anything to do with the military either, but I'm at least capable of forming a coherent reason to oppose the draft that doesn't involve screeching like an imbecile. If you're going to try arguing against a government regulation, flailing your arms like a retard is not the way to convince people it's a bad idea. Otherwise the exact same argument of "I don't wanna" can be used against things like taxes and innoculations.

[Flagg]

Sorry, volunteering to get shot at is not exactly a smart thing to do. Not to say I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to insult people who refuse to put themselves in that situation. And I have no respect for anyone who would demand it of me. The only time I deem it acceptable for anyone to force someone else to fight is when the very existance of the country is threatened.

Horseshit, you said for any reason. You're regurgitating Libertarian bullshit about how much more important it is for you, the individual, to be a coward and hide while others do fighting and dying for you and your country. Even the phrase "when the very existance of the country is threatened" is impossible to benchmark, because when was the last time this country was in such a situation? Certainly not during the World Wars, or even the Civil War. You've settled on a standard where you know you'll keep on justifying running and hiding.

Oh, go fuck yourself you sanctimonious douchebag. I wouldn't force anyone else to fight a war for any reason. I never said that I wouldn't do so for any reason. And even though an imminent threat to the existance of this country wasn't at issue in WW2, anyone with any fucking foresight could see where things were headed if the Axis had been victorious, so I would have joined the fight if able.

No, cowardice is sitting by while you see someone in imminent danger and you could help them. It's not volunteering to get mangled or killed for some ideology.

[Coyote]

Yeah, it's usually associated with cowardice by stupid people who think that an unwillingness to die for something is somehow a moral failing. Dying for something is easy, living in disgrace for something is much, much harder. I'd rather be a live fugitive than a dead hero.

Who said you'd be able to escape to be a fugitive? Maybe you'd end up imprisoned, instead. Fun!

You don't believe there's anything worth fighting, and risking death, for? How empty your life must be. If you wouldn't fight for your own craven existance, is there anyone on the face of the planet that you value enough to take a little risk for? Family member? Loved one? Some helpless kid being taken to a shallow grave site because he's a filthy Croat instead of a good strong Serb?

Tell me, what is the point in preserving a life like yours? You'd run from danger and survive to provide.... what, exactly, for the greater benefit?

[Coyote]

No, cowardice is sitting by while you see someone in imminent danger and you could help them. It's not volunteering to get mangled or killed for some ideology.

Actually, only after Lonestar cornered you did you provide this "out", so there you are.

[Flagg]

Of course I don't think that all people who join the military want to get shot at. I simply think that people accusing people of unwillingness to be put in that situation of cowardice are assholes. I'm no coward, but I'm not going to volunteer to be shot at in anything but the most dire of situations.

I don't want anything to do with the military either, but I'm at least capable of forming a coherent reason to oppose the draft that doesn't involve screeching like an imbecile. If you're going to try arguing against a government regulation, flailing your arms like a retard is not the way to convince people it's a bad idea. Otherwise the exact same argument of "I don't wanna" can be used against things like taxes and innoculations.

My stance on a draft is that forcing people into stateside service to free up volunteer soldiers and to allow draftees to serve oversees on a voluntary basis is the only acceptable way to run such a system. And no, paying taxes is not in any way comparable to a draft because paying taxes doesn't have a high rate of injury and death. Innoculations carry more risk, but the benefit is so much higher than the risk it's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned. And last time I checked people could opt out of those.