Military Draft Coming Back?

[SPG]

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html
Nov. 3, 2003 _|_ The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished sinced the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life. Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Even floating the idea of a draft in the months before an election would be politically explosive, and the Pentagon last week was adamant that the push to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.


http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020604cdam3.htm
Echoing concerns raised by lawmakers at this week's defense budget hearings, Garner said in an interview with National Journal Group reporters and editors that the size of the Army and Marine Corps should be increased by enlarging the infantry or ground forces. And he warned that the current strain on National Guard and Reserve forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan could cripple efforts to retain experienced soldiers.

Something to consider if you're 18-25 and planning on voting for Bush and the next war he will almost certainly wage.

[zimv20]

i think a draft is inevitable even if no more wars are started. the current administration plan is, once iraq is stable, to re-do the afghan war.

i wonder if, absent iraq stability, the afghan re-do will proceed regardless. the re-do is supposed to be on the scale of the iraq war and there's clearly a shortage of soldiers to pull that off.

[Krizoitz]

Talk about political suicide...the country is different from the way it used to be, and after the way Vietnam was handled I doubt you'd get much support for a draft under anything but the most dire circumstances.

[pooky]

Over my cold...dead...corpse

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I doubt you'd get much support for a draft under anything but the most dire circumstances.

how is a draft declared? is that something on which congress votes, or can bush just declare one?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
how is a draft declared? is that something on which congress votes, or can bush just declare one?

The military draft (not the alcoholic beverage served in the officers club :D), is part and parcel of the power of Congress to "To raise and support Armies". So, it would have to be an act of Congress to reinstitute the draft, and the President would have to sign the bill as well.

But since the Congress was cowardly as to never have declared war on Iraq but only a joint resolution on the use of force, I could see Congress as letting a draft go through without really reinstituting it.

damn cowards! :mad:

[numediaman]

Come on, who is kidding who? Republicans prefer the mercenaries we now employ as troops -- hell, you don't even have to be a citizen to be in the U.S. army.

A draft means rich white boys would have to serve. Ain't gonna happen.

A draft means organized resistence to Bush's policies by segments of society now supportive. It means drafting gays and Muslims, and whoever. It means fairness. Ain't gonna happen.

Who wants their kids in the armed forces knowing they will be used to enforce Bush's vision of the world?

You might not like the draft because you are draft age -- but the Bush administration is counting on this. Resistence over the Vietnam war was centered on the draft. Without the draft, the anti-war movement has died away.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by numediaman
Come on, who is kidding who? Republicans prefer the mercenaries we now employ as troops -- hell, you don't even have to be a citizen to be in the U.S. army.

A draft means rich white boys would have to serve. Ain't gonna happen.


I wouldn't call the current servicemen and women, mercenaries. Definition of mercenary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercenary) is 1) motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain or 2) hired for service in a foreign army.

In definition number 1, any employee is a mercenary, since they are motived soleby by a desire for monetary or material gain. In definition number 2, which is the one that is relevant here, is clearly not accurate.

Sure, the current servicemen and woment are hired for service, but they are not hired in a foreign army. Last I checked, (and I was one myself not too long ago), only legal residents of the United States are accepted for military service, barring forged documents. So, mercenary is a wrong word. They are volunteers.

As to rich white boys, when I was in the military, there were plenty of white boys, a few blacks, filipinos, hispanics, pretty much the broad spectrum of society. They were mainly young. My battle buddy was a skinny young 18-yr old male. He did not come across as coming from a poor family. He was immature coming in, but he matured as we went through basic training.

Also, the nice thing about a legal resident serving in the military is that you get the fast track to citizenship. Normally, it takes 5 years of being a legal resident before you can apply for citizenship. In the service, you cut that time down to 2 years.

Please, be more thoughtful in your posts. If you are against the draft, say so, specifically why the draft is bad. A few points you can make is that the draft is involuntary servitude, which is akin to slavery. Another is that a country that institutes a draft needs to coerce its people to support its policies, how could that be if the country IS the people?

Also, according to the Selective Service System (http://www.sss.gov/induct.htm), the last draft was started in peacetime:eek: by FDR (Democrat), and it took a Nixon (Republican) to end it.

I think that a draft, if it were necessary and used to fight a justified war, is because the threat to the country was not adequately communicated to the people. If the threat to the country was adequately communicated, you'd have enough people volunteering, some not able-bodied, to fill all the slots required, and then some. You would also have able-bodied people being turned away when they find out that they are working on critical private sector jobs, like churning out the next avionics improvements to the F-15 Strike Eagle. :D

Windows NT programmers that disable a Navy ship for two days would be immediately sent to the front. :p

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Please, be more thoughtful in your posts.

You too! You're the one who suggested art and music teachers evolved from failed math and english teachers with absolutely no proof and no recantation when called on it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[SPG]

I doubt that this draft would even be mentioned prior to the election. Rove wouldn't let bush do that because he knows how unpopular it would be. Instead we have the "Anti Gay Marriage Amendment" to distract us from real issues.

A draft means rich white boys would have to serve. Ain't gonna happen

Correct, just like the rich white boys who didn't serve in Vietnam, like bush jr (Daddy got him into the TX ANG with no chance of deployment), rush limbaugh (claimed anal cysts), and most of the Neo-Cons and war hawks who all got out of being drafted.

[numediaman]

I should be more thoughtful? . . . that makes me laugh. Did you read my post? I'm the only who did not come out against the draft!

A mercenary is indeed someone who fights for money, and is not from the same group for whom they fight. How does this not define our armed forces? (and, by the way, I did not attack or denigrate those in the armed forces, nor would I -- they have been put into a horrible position in Iraq -- I want them home now.)

To say that there are "a few blacks" in the armed forces is incredible. Blacks make up 12.73 percent of those of draft age -- yet make up 28.9% of the army and 21% of the navy.

I don't have figures concerning economic status. But do you believe that the wealthy are represented in the armed forces as evenly as the poor, or the middle class?

As for the term "white boy", as a white boy myself, I don't see how using the term white boy is insulting. If it insulted you then I'm sorry and from now on I will use term that Lester Young liked to use -- I'll call you a gray.

[Desertrat]

I don't see where the draft is needed. There are plenty of inducements available which can maintain the required numbers.

And, after all, the shortage is less with the grunts on the bottom of the pecking order than it is the trained people in the middle. The drawdown of active-duty people, to be replaced by the Reserves and the Guard has had pilots and mid-range officers on active duty much longer than anticipated. These folks don't get there jobs from 16 weeks of Basic Training...

I don't really think a return of the Draft would solve our real problems.

I was drafted fifty years ago, last month. I've thought about the whole deal from time to time, and have heard most all of the arguments, pro and con.

The only argument in favor of the Draft to which I subscribe is that it gives us more of a Citizen Army, with the loyalty of the troops to the nation as a whole and not to the leadership cadre.

In something like a WW II situation, the Draft allows a more orderly process. If you get a notice to report, you do paperwork and then are told to come back in one or three or six months as your specialty is needed. Pardon the exaggeration, but you don't wind up with a boot Camp full of fry cooks at a time you need clerks or truck drivers. :)

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
You too! You're the one who suggested art and music teachers evolved from failed math and english teachers with absolutely no proof and no recantation when called on it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

I'm not one to call servicemembers, mercenaries. Art and music teachers, another thread. If all the art and music teachers were drafted into the military tomorrow, a year from now, or even 9 years from now, reading/writing/math proficiency test scores will remain flat. ;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm not one to call servicemembers, mercenaries.
Nor am I. What is your point by stating that?
Art and music teachers, another thread.
Fine, please go to the other thread and answer for your remarks that are as offensive to music and art teachers as calling our soldiers mercenaries is.
If all the art and music teachers were drafted into the military tomorrow, a year from now, or even 9 years from now, reading/writing/math proficiency test scores will remain flat. ;)
Wait, I thought music and art teachers were for another thread? Can you even take your own advice?;)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by numediaman
A mercenary is indeed someone who fights for money, and is not from the same group for whom they fight. How does this not define our armed forces? (and, by the way, I did not attack or denigrate those in the armed forces, nor would I -- they have been put into a horrible position in Iraq -- I want them home now.)

To say that there are "a few blacks" in the armed forces is incredible. Blacks make up 12.73 percent of those of draft age -- yet make up 28.9% of the army and 21% of the navy.

I don't have figures concerning economic status. But do you believe that the wealthy are represented in the armed forces as evenly as the poor, or the middle class?


From the same nation. FFL could be considered a mercenary organization. US Army, I don't think so.

My DI was black. One of guys in the same Basic Training unit as I was black. When you have a volunteer military, as we currently do, the racial mix does not matter. NASCAR driver is a volunteer occupation, I don't remember why it matters that its less than 12% black drivers. NBA player is a volunteer occupation, I don't remember why it matters that its more than 12% black players.

The last draft ended in 1973. If an 18 year old was drafted in 1973, they would be 49. So, the current composition of the military are predominantly volunteers. So what if blacks volunteers are 28.9% of the US Army?

[numediaman]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So what if blacks volunteers are 28.9% of the US Army?

I don't have a problem that 28.9% of the Army is black. And I don't mean to get into a flame war with you -- and I doubt you want to get into one with me. Frankly, I think we probably agree on much here.

The whole point of my original post here was to say that people really shouldn't worry about a possible draft. The real issue is war.

Am I against a draft? -- as during WW2 -- absolutely not.

But if the policy of the U.S. is to have wars against countries that have phantom WMDs -- then am I against a draft? Surprise, the answer is NO.

If the citizens of the U.S. authorize war, then they should authorize the draft. (And Congress should fulfill their Constitutional duty by formally declaring war.)

I feel this is a sure way to stop unjust wars. Afterall, why should the brave men and women who volunteered to serve their county during peacetime be the only ones thrown into a war? It is easy for a Senator to authorize war when they know that only a small percentage of their constituency will be effected. But if a draft is involved? This might make them think twice before committing troops.

[neoelectronaut]

Screw this, I'm moving to Canada!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by numediaman
The whole point of my original post here was to say that people really shouldn't worry about a possible draft. The real issue is war.

If the citizens of the U.S. authorize war, then they should authorize the draft. (And Congress should fulfill their Constitutional duty by formally declaring war.)

The last time Congress declared war was on Dec 11, 1941. Before that, it was Dec 8, 1941. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html)

Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Greneda, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II... every one of these has been because we joined the UN! :mad:

Maybe if we left the UN, we would not be going to fight as often. From 1776 to before the UN started, we were involved in 6 wars with foreign nations. Since the UN, 10!

[numediaman]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The last time Congress declared war was on Dec 11, 1941. Before that, it was Dec 8, 1941. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html)

Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Greneda, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II... every one of these has been because we joined the UN! :mad:

OMG, I didn't know I was trading posts with a mad man.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pooky
Over my cold...dead...corpse

Dear pooky,

we accept your offer. report for duty next wednesday.

sincerely,

gw bush

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Greneda, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II... every one of these has been because we joined the UN!

How is it that the UN is responsible for these wars? If anything the UN serves to prevent wars.
We are involved in these wars because the US wishes to project influence overseas.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by numediaman
OMG, I didn't know I was trading posts with a mad man.

6 vs 10

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
How is it that the UN is responsible for these wars? If anything the UN serves to prevent wars.
We are involved in these wars because the US wishes to project influence overseas.

Maybe a declaration of war is in order for every single of these since WW2. Wars where Congress did a declaration of war ended. We are still in Korea.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Greneda, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II... every one of these has been because we joined the UN! :mad:

Maybe if we left the UN, we would not be going to fight as often. From 1776 to before the UN started, we were involved in 6 wars with foreign nations. Since the UN, 10!

Oh, yeah, the UN was responsible for all those wars, especially Iraq II where they forced us to go in despite our pleas to allow the inspections to continue. Seriously, man, do you live in the same reality the rest of us wake up to?

Oh, and the UN was also responsible for preventing several nuclear exchanges between the US and the CCCP. But maybe Congress would have declared that one...

[SPG]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I don't see where the draft is needed. There are plenty of inducements available which can maintain the required numbers.


Like the current Stop Loss Orders? That seems to be the one inducement to keep the fighting force in place in Iraq. In the article above there are references to the number of soldiers who don't plan on re-enlisting after their tours are up and they are released from the Stop Loss Order.
If there is any other need for a US engagement, like oh say, Afghanistan (again), Syria, North Korea, Iran, Haiti, Liberia, Israel, Former Yugoslavia, Africa, Taiwan, France, or just about anywhere the tensions are rising, the US would be very hard pressed to muster enough troops.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Maybe a declaration of war is in order for every single of these since WW2. Wars where Congress did a declaration of war ended. We are still in Korea.
I agree. I was very annoyed by the way the congress shirked it's responsibility by authorizing bush to use force against Iraq, and even more by the fact that everyone knew that he was going to use it.
Do you think we would have been involved in half the engagements since WWII if we needed a congressional declaration of war?
Do you think the world would be a better place?
Perhaps we need at a minimum that the president can't keep troops involved for more than 30 days without congressional apporoval.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by SPG
I agree. I was very annoyed by the way the congress shirked it's responsibility by authorizing bush to use force against Iraq, and even more by the fact that everyone knew that he was going to use it.
Do you think we would have been involved in half the engagements since WWII if we needed a congressional declaration of war?
Do you think the world would be a better place?
Perhaps we need at a minimum that the president can't keep troops involved for more than 30 days without congressional apporoval.

Hear hear! Vote those shirkers out.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh, yeah, the UN was responsible for all those wars, especially Iraq II where they forced us to go in despite our pleas to allow the inspections to continue. Seriously, man, do you live in the same reality the rest of us wake up to?

Oh, and the UN was also responsible for preventing several nuclear exchanges between the US and the CCCP. But maybe Congress would have declared that one...

Iraq II was preceded by multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

STATEMENT BY BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE MINISTER BEN BRADSHAW (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-bradshaw-03-26-02.htm)
Out of 27 separate obligations imposed on Iraq by the UN, Iraq is in breach of at least 23. Above all, the regime continues to deny proper access to UN weapons inspectors. Resolution 1284 offers Iraq a clear path to the suspension of UN controls if it cooperates with UN weapons inspectors. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to persuade Iraq to cooperate. But Iraq must show that it is serious. The regime's so-called offer to permit pre-arranged inspections falls a long way short of UN demands. If Iraq has nothing to hide, why not give UN weapons inspectors full and unfettered access?
I think that if we were not part of the UN, we would not be in Iraq in 1990. I don't think that Kuwait was part of NATO in 1990.

[mactastic]

That still doesn't explain how the UN dragged us, kicking and protesting, into a war with Iraq in 2004. That is what you mean by Iraq II right?

[pseudobrit]

none of those resolutions called for invasion.

try again

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
That still doesn't explain how the UN dragged us, kicking and protesting, into a war with Iraq in 2004. That is what you mean by Iraq II right?

The explanation is that the UN makes resolutions. If nothing is done to make sure the resolutions are enforce, then it is a meaningless resolution. An organization that makes meaningless resolutions is a meaningless organization. The US does not want to be part of a meaningless organization.

If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. :p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The explanation is that the UN makes resolutions. If nothing is done to make sure the resolutions are enforce, then it is a meaningless resolution. An organization that makes meaningless resolutions is a meaningless organization. The US does not want to be part of a meaningless organization.

If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. :p

None of the resolutions authorised military action.

Try again

[Thanatoast]

If our excuse for invading Iraq was UN resolutions, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the UN should have been involved? In '91, we had most of the member countries, and the SC on our side. This time around, we couldn't get support from anyone but the Brits. France, Germany and Russia actively opposed us. A state in the US can't go off on its own whenever it feels like it, why would a member of the UN think it could? Bush's actions circumventing the process are what made the UN "meaningless". It was a self-fullfilling statement. And now the next time we cry wolf, the less likely it will be that we will be believed, helped, or even felt sympathy for when we lose lives and money to a "meaningless" war.

[zimv20]

i've decided that i would support a 1 or 2 year conscription service for all US citizens, to be served sometime between ages 18 and 24.

i think that if everyone understood what it meant to serve and be in a combat situation, we'd be less prone to use military force so readily.

in other news, i'd also support forcing everyone to wait tables for 6 months. it'd teach humility and how to tip properly.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
i've decided that i would support a 1 or 2 year conscription service for all US citizens, to be served sometime between ages 18 and 24.

i think that if everyone understood what it meant to serve and be in a combat situation, we'd be less prone to use military force so readily.

in other news, i'd also support forcing everyone to wait tables for 6 months. it'd teach humility and how to tip properly.

I heartily agree with your national service idea. It should apply to every single citizen of the US rich kids included with absolutely no exemptions. A certain percentage would serve in the military and the rest would work for the forest service, or in hospices or retirement homes, etc.

I second the waitperson idea but would also recommend a three month stint in a fast food joint. Humility, the effects of low pay and no tips, and learning to regulate the gag reflex are priceless.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Ugg
I heartily agree with your national service idea. It should apply to every single citizen of the US rich kids included with absolutely no exemptions. A certain percentage would serve in the military and the rest would work for the forest service, or in hospices or retirement homes, etc.

I second the waitperson idea but would also recommend a three month stint in a fast food joint. Humility, the effects of low pay and no tips, and learning to regulate the gag reflex are priceless.

Because obviously the BEST way to improve our country is to start forcing people to do things...that stupid freedom thing is such a pain anyway.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The explanation is that the UN makes resolutions. If nothing is done to make sure the resolutions are enforce, then it is a meaningless resolution. An organization that makes meaningless resolutions is a meaningless organization. The US does not want to be part of a meaningless organization.

If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk.

Under that logic we would have invaded Israel first, as they've broken way more resolutions and they do in fact have nuclear weapons.
You can't **** on the UN one day and use it as your sole excuse to act the next.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i've decided that i would support a 1 or 2 year conscription service for all US citizens, to be served sometime between ages 18 and 24.

i think that if everyone understood what it meant to serve and be in a combat situation, we'd be less prone to use military force so readily.

in other news, i'd also support forcing everyone to wait tables for 6 months. it'd teach humility and how to tip properly.

I would support a 2 year conscription service, starting at age 18, and follow this up with reserve part-time duty until the age 45. Monthly weekend duty to be performed within 50 miles of residence, and always within the borders/territory of the United States. Yearly 2 week duty to be held with the borders/territory of the United States, or within the borders/territory of US ally NOT CURRENTLY AT WAR with another foreign power.

Duty issue gear to be kept in good condition by the citizen soldier, and to be kept within their domicile, and brought to duty station when the time arises.

Conscientious objectors can opt out of service, for a yearly fee based on the ability of pay (fixed percentage, instead of fixed amount).

Picnic BBQ optional at the end of every monthly duty for the friends/family of the servicemember. Conscientious objectors invited if they bring the potato salad. :D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
Under that logic we would have invaded Israel first, as they've broken way more resolutions and they do in fact have nuclear weapons.
You can't **** on the UN one day and use it as your sole excuse to act the next.

Yeah, but somehow Congress can seem to get the intestinal fortitude to authorize the use of force against Israel. Everytime it comes up, we end up giving them more foreign aid.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yeah, but somehow Congress can seem to get the intestinal fortitude to authorize the use of force against Israel. Everytime it comes up, we end up giving them more foreign aid.

Whoa! Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an invasion of Israel, I'm just pointing out that they violate numerous UN resolutions, have WMD's, and are an ally of the US. The last thing the NeoCons would ever want is to judge anyone they don't hate by their own criteria.
I'm tired of the hawks bashing the UN and then using it as the justification of the war.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
Whoa! Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an invasion of Israel, I'm just pointing out that they violate numerous UN resolutions, have WMD's, and are an ally of the US. The last thing the NeoCons would ever want is to judge anyone they don't hate by their own criteria.
I'm tired of the hawks bashing the UN and then using it as the justification of the war.

Actually, the bashing of the UN is because there have been a push to transfer United States sovereignty by certain members of the government to the United Nations. I have never seen a UN elected position in any of the ballots either. There lies the source of the bashing.

[SPG]

Fro' do you bash the IMF, WTO and the Federal Reserve too? How about any international scientific comunities, or the ability to travel between countries?

[Opteron]

The Draft. Ha:D

Vote bush out.
he sholdn't be there anyway

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
Fro' do you bash the IMF, WTO and the Federal Reserve too? How about any international scientific comunities, or the ability to travel between countries?

IMF is via a treaty, same with WTO.
Federal Reserve is a governmental entity, subject to Congress. Congress is subject to the voters.

International scientific organization (they are not a community) are done as a knowledge resource, still subject to Congress to enact (I'm assuming that you are talking about the science that went into the Kyoto protocol). Travel between countries is set via treaty, so that is subject to Congress.

And Congress is subject to the voters.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Opteron
The Draft. Ha:D

Vote bush out.
he sholdn't be there anyway

Actually, he should. Per the Florida recounts, he gained all electoral college votes from Florida, according the election laws of the United States.

Pretty weird really. Back in the 60s, Nixon could have contested the votes against JFK, but he didn't. Gore should have just magnanimously accepted the election results. He could be running again in 2004 or 2008. But we all know who is not letting anyone run against her. ;)

[mactastic]

Ah yes, if only more polititians were more like Nixon....
:p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah yes, if only more polititians were more like Nixon....
:p

If Gore followed Nixon, he'd be up for contention again in a few years. Then, we can see if he's as dishonest as Nixon.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Frohickey


Vote bush out.
he sholdn't be there anyway


Actually, he should. Per the Florida recounts, he gained all electoral college votes from Florida, according the election laws of the United States.


Whether or not he won the election doesnt change the fact that I don't think he should be President. I agree that he is President, and that he was elected by the electoral college to be President, but I don't think he SHOULD be President. I could be wrong but that may have been Opteron's point. It's certainly what I feel.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Whether or not he won the election doesnt change the fact that I don't think he should be President. I agree that he is President, and that he was elected by the electoral college to be President, but I don't think he SHOULD be President. I could be wrong but that may have been Opteron's point. It's certainly what I feel.

Electoral college votes is what determines the election of the President of the United States. What are you trying to say? On one hand, you say that he is the President, and he was elected by the electoral college, but he SHOULD NOT be President? Are you basing this assertion on law, or are you basing it on your personal feelings for the electoral college system and GWBush?

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, but he still got enough electoral college votes. He was President. I think he was entitled to be President with the election laws the way it was written.

I think we are falling for the inexactness of the english language again.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, but he still got enough electoral college votes. [...]

I think we are falling for the inexactness of the english language again.

then let's make a distinction among majority, plurality, and "less than"

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Electoral college votes is what determines the election of the President of the United States. What are you trying to say? On one hand, you say that he is the President, and he was elected by the electoral college, but he SHOULD NOT be President? Are you basing this assertion on law, or are you basing it on your personal feelings for the electoral college system and GWBush?

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote, but he still got enough electoral college votes. He was President. I think he was entitled to be President with the election laws the way it was written.

I think we are falling for the inexactness of the english language again.

I mean that he is the president but I don't think he should be the president. What is ambigous about that? I don't like the job he is doing, I think he isn't doing his job in many cases, I think he is lying and doing many other things that aren't allowed by law. I think he should never have been elected (he was but I wish he hadn't) and I think he should be impeached now.

[jefhatfield]

i have never seen this issue black and white...there are a lot of complexities to this issue

with our volunteer military, only those who want to go do so...right?...well look who is in the military...many too poor to go to college or with little or no skills

and among college grads, the best usually don't consider the military as an option due to lower pay and dangerous work

so does that mean people with fewer options and worse grades go to war or those with a lower socio economic standing?

is it the rich man's war, but the poor man's fight?

[SPG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1184247

[Frohickey]

i have never seen this issue black and white...there are a lot of complexities to this issue

with our volunteer military, only those who want to go do so...right?...well look who is in the military...many too poor to go to college or with little or no skills

and among college grads, the best usually don't consider the military as an option due to lower pay and dangerous work

so does that mean people with fewer options and worse grades go to war or those with a lower socio economic standing?

is it the rich man's war, but the poor man's fight?

I think that fighter pilots have to have a college degree in order to be qualified. So, its not really just poorly educated people. When I took the ASVAB, the good MOS (http://goarmy.com/jobs/index.htm) required pretty decent ASVAB scores. Sure, they will take most anyone for 11Bravo and 92Golf, but you need to score pretty high for 96Bravo and 15Romeo.

Plus, during the non-war time, recruiters could be more picky as to who gets in, and who doesn't cut it. In my Basic training company, the DIs were not loathe to wash people out. I remember having to go down to the DIs office to get my issue toilet paper roll, and in front of their office, I saw new recruits that were about to be sent back home and discharged at the first day of Basic training. These were the ones that looked like they would be lost in the military (can't follow orders).

The ones that are now in Afghanistan and Iraq are some of the most educated and smart that we have. A draft would certainly water down the quality of incoming soldiers.

[Frohickey]

I mean that he is the president but I don't think he should be the president. What is ambigous about that? I don't like the job he is doing, I think he isn't doing his job in many cases, I think he is lying and doing many other things that aren't allowed by law. I think he should never have been elected (he was but I wish he hadn't) and I think he should be impeached now.

Ah. You don't think he is the best person for the job. Thats what I thought you meant. Thats why the last sentence in my previous post.

[Perci Mac]

I mean that he is the president but I don't think he should be the president. What is ambigous about that? I don't like the job he is doing, I think he isn't doing his job in many cases, I think he is lying and doing many other things that aren't allowed by law. I think he should never have been elected (he was but I wish he hadn't) and I think he should be impeached now.

My god, listen to your self. Your certainly helping the democratic case against Bush with your educated argument. :rolleyes:

[jefhatfield]

I think that fighter pilots have to have a college degree in order to be qualified. So, its not really just poorly educated people. When I took the ASVAB, the good MOS (http://goarmy.com/jobs/index.htm) required pretty decent ASVAB scores. Sure, they will take most anyone for 11Bravo and 92Golf, but you need to score pretty high for 96Bravo and 15Romeo.

Plus, during the non-war time, recruiters could be more picky as to who gets in, and who doesn't cut it. In my Basic training company, the DIs were not loathe to wash people out. I remember having to go down to the DIs office to get my issue toilet paper roll, and in front of their office, I saw new recruits that were about to be sent back home and discharged at the first day of Basic training. These were the ones that looked like they would be lost in the military (can't follow orders).

The ones that are now in Afghanistan and Iraq are some of the most educated and smart that we have. A draft would certainly water down the quality of incoming soldiers.

from your posts, i realize that you are an educated individual but you are not the common soldier...and do you think a draft would lower the quality of people?

watch band of brothers, for example...those were the most extraordinary soliders in american history and the main reason was the large and varied pool of people that uncle sam was able to draw from...that type of depth in a company cannot be drawn from volunteers

the average american has more options than the armed forces and usually takes a more lucrative and safer road

i know a lot of pilots, since the grad school i went to graduated more air force officers than any institution including chief of staff of the air force general john jumper

air force pilots have to be college graduates but among college graduates, from what i have seen in college on and off for two decades, the best and the brightest from college are not exactly drawn to the military...private enterprise offers two or three times the pay right off the bat and ten years later, some of the best and brightest college grads are multi millionaires and they usually didn't have to risk their lives for it

and you want to talk pilots...compare what an air force pilot makes compared to a commercial pilot...and how often do commercial pilots have to worry about getting killed by comparison?

think of the pay of military lawyers and doctors vs. civilian lawyers and doctors

how about military dentists vs civilian dentists?

i don't think the best and brightest in american society opts for insanely low pay for their respective jobs;)

[Frohickey]

from your posts, i realize that you are an educated individual but you are not the common soldier...and do you think a draft would lower the quality of people

the average american has more options than the armed forces and usually takes a more lucrative and safer road


Actually, at one point in my life, I was actually thinking of going 11Bravo. :)

Average american actually would be doing well to have joined the armed forces. Where else can a person with not too much money be able to learn a valuable skill. Have you priced the cost of pilot school? Most helicopter pilots started out in the military. Most commercial pilots started out in the military. There are valuable skills to be learned in today's military. Hummvees and HEMTTs are motor vehicles, and the military needs to get these fixed as well. Laying cable, getting communications up, feeding a nuclear reactor, all of these things are good jobs.

At another point in my life, I was thinking of going the US Navy Nuclear school. That requires a good grasp of engineering. And after I get out, unless I end up going into Davy Jones' locker, I could have worked at almost any place on earth where they need someone to keep the power plant going. Alas, some MOSes require citizenship, and at that time, I wasn't one.

Actually, if you think of it, military jobs are pretty much NO minimum wage jobs. And the military is also where someone without initial capital can go and learn valuable skill. Sure, some of your 'wage' goes into your education without stopping in your wallet. Pretty good idea, if you ask me.

[mactastic]

Sure, some of your 'wage' goes into your education without stopping in your wallet. Pretty good idea, if you ask me.

Wait a minute... You're saying it's ok for the military to steal money from your paycheck to train a pilot with? What happened to 'you appreciate it more when you pay for it'?

[jefhatfield]

Actually, at one point in my life, I was actually thinking of going 11Bravo. :)

Average american actually would be doing well to have joined the armed forces. Where else can a person with not too much money be able to learn a valuable skill. Have you priced the cost of pilot school? Most helicopter pilots started out in the military. Most commercial pilots started out in the military. There are valuable skills to be learned in today's military. Hummvees and HEMTTs are motor vehicles, and the military needs to get these fixed as well. Laying cable, getting communications up, feeding a nuclear reactor, all of these things are good jobs.

At another point in my life, I was thinking of going the US Navy Nuclear school. That requires a good grasp of engineering. And after I get out, unless I end up going into Davy Jones' locker, I could have worked at almost any place on earth where they need someone to keep the power plant going. Alas, some MOSes require citizenship, and at that time, I wasn't one.

Actually, if you think of it, military jobs are pretty much NO minimum wage jobs. And the military is also where someone without initial capital can go and learn valuable skill. Sure, some of your 'wage' goes into your education without stopping in your wallet. Pretty good idea, if you ask me.

i totally agree with you that the military is a viable form of on the job experience...there are also many other paths to getting great training in many fields

it's just that today's best and brightest high school graduates with high grades and high sat/act scores are more likely to enter college than enlist in the military

and today's best and brightest college graduates are more likely to take a higher paying civilian job after college than become an officer...a newly minted 22 year old kid who graduates with a degree in chemical engineering makes more than a submarine commander in the navy with ten years of experience or a senior air force combat pilot...a 24 year old mba accounting/finance grad with no experience still makes 50 percent more money than a four star general who is twice that age...and private practice physicians....he he...let's not even go there ;)

a draft would ultimately get a large number of these top high school and college graduates where a peacetime volunteer army is much less likely to get those top people

i am not condoning a draft or taking the position of some conservative republicans who have always liked the idea of a draft...i am a liberal to moderate democrat but i do not agree with most of my peers' beliefs and the overwhelming consensus of the democratic party who thinks that a volunteer army has the same level of people as a draft army like world war II or vietnam

and it is my sincere hope that we never get to a point where we will institute a draft because our volunteer army can get the job done with who they have, but on average, they are still not getting our top people since basic survival and common sense makes highly educated and/or intelligent people seek higher pay and safer jobs

sure, there are those honor student lettermen in high school who pass up a full ride to harvard to go join the infantry as a private to become a man, but that is not the norm...but we all know somebody who passed on a great job or college to go serve their country

one family friend had a son who dropped out months before graduating from usc with honors in engineering to fight as a private in the marine corps in vietnam...when his tour was over, he re-upped and went again...sadly, he never was the same again and never fully recovered psychologically and some think he took up a nasty drug habit in southeast asia

with war, these things can happen and i think most soon to be honors graduates from west coast ivies are not likely to join the marines and take up jungle fighting

[Frohickey]

Wait a minute... You're saying it's ok for the military to steal money from your paycheck to train a pilot with? What happened to 'you appreciate it more when you pay for it'?

Nope. You missed the point. That is why I put the word 'wage' in quotes.

The military never stole the money from your paycheck to train you with. It never gave it to you in the first place, and the price you agreed to work for was already worked out before you joined up.

So, here, the market is still at work. The job market that was offering a salary and an expectation for a job along with the training required to get that job is viable, since recruit chose to sign up, and the military got its warm body to fill the job with, hopefully, a warm body that has the brains to learn the job proficiently.

In these examples, there is always the CHOICE. The potential recruit could choose not to be a recruit. In your scenario of taxpayer having their taxes given to welfare recepients, the taxpayer doesn't have a CHOICE. Okay, maybe they have a choice, but jail or death isn't really a fitting choice for a peaceable nonviolent taxpayer.

[mactastic]

Nope. You missed the point. That is why I put the word 'wage' in quotes.

The military never stole the money from your paycheck to train you with. It never gave it to you in the first place, and the price you agreed to work for was already worked out before you joined up.

So, here, the market is still at work. The job market that was offering a salary and an expectation for a job along with the training required to get that job is viable, since recruit chose to sign up, and the military got its warm body to fill the job with, hopefully, a warm body that has the brains to learn the job proficiently.

In these examples, there is always the CHOICE. The potential recruit could choose not to be a recruit. In your scenario of taxpayer having their taxes given to welfare recepients, the taxpayer doesn't have a CHOICE. Okay, maybe they have a choice, but jail or death isn't really a fitting choice for a peaceable nonviolent taxpayer.

Didn't you have a CHOICE to become a citizen or not? You opted in to a system that, like the military, was worked out before you joined up.

[Frohickey]

Didn't you have a CHOICE to become a citizen or not? You opted in to a system that, like the military, was worked out before you joined up.

Naturalization is a long process, and at the time I enlisted, the required time period had not elapsed. Enlisting and joining did cut down on the time period though. :)

[mactastic]

Naturalization is a long process, and at the time I enlisted, the required time period had not elapsed. Enlisting and joining did cut down on the time period though. :)

That's not what I was talking about. You had a choice to become a citizen in a country that has certain tax laws. You stated earlier that it was ok for the military to steal from your paycheck because you know what you are getting into when you join up. Well, didn't you know what you were getting into when you became a citizen? How is that not ok yet the military doing the same thing is?

[Frohickey]

That's not what I was talking about. You had a choice to become a citizen in a country that has certain tax laws. You stated earlier that it was ok for the military to steal from your paycheck because you know what you are getting into when you join up. Well, didn't you know what you were getting into when you became a citizen? How is that not ok yet the military doing the same thing is?

Unfortunate sentence construction... let me try a different way.

Military payscales are what they are, their payscales and MOS structure operate such that valuable training could be had if you choose to enlist. There is no stealing from the paycheck. It was never there to begin with. The payscale is the way it is. The job training when you enlist is the way it is. The choice is mine whether to take the low pay/valuable training or try someplace else.

[mactastic]

Unfortunate sentence construction... let me try a different way.

Military payscales are what they are, their payscales and MOS structure operate such that valuable training could be had if you choose to enlist. There is no stealing from the paycheck. It was never there to begin with. The payscale is the way it is. The job training when you enlist is the way it is. The choice is mine whether to take the low pay/valuable training or try someplace else.

But the choice was also yours to take the US tax structure/really great country to live in or try elsewhere, right?

[pseudobrit]

Unfortunate sentence construction... let me try a different way.

Military payscales are what they are, their payscales and MOS structure operate such that valuable training could be had if you choose to enlist. There is no stealing from the paycheck. It was never there to begin with. The payscale is the way it is. The job training when you enlist is the way it is. The choice is mine whether to take the low pay/valuable training or try someplace else.

So you take a hit in pay to get training to benefit yourself.

Is that anything like taking a hit in your income to benefit society?

[mactastic]

So you take a hit in pay to get training to benefit yourself.

Is that anything like taking a hit in your income to benefit society?

It's more than taking a hit in pay to get training to benefit himself, he took a hit in pay to benefit the military at large since his cut in pay was helping to pay for the training of pilots and other people with skill sets that cost in the millions of dollars.

And yet somehow he can't see his way clear to taking a hit in pay to benefit society at large. The only way I can figure it is that he has a personal connection to the military that makes it ok, but he has a disdain for ordinary citizens that prevents him from making the same kind of connection.

[Frohickey]

So you take a hit in pay to get training to benefit yourself.

Is that anything like taking a hit in your income to benefit society?

Different, the way I see it.

I had the choice to 'take a hit in pay' to get the training to benefit myself. But really, it was not a hit in pay, since the hit was never there to begin with.

Society benefits when I/others benefit.

[Frohickey]

And yet somehow he can't see his way clear to taking a hit in pay to benefit society at large. The only way I can figure it is that he has a personal connection to the military that makes it ok, but he has a disdain for ordinary citizens that prevents him from making the same kind of connection.

As I have tried to say, its not a hit in the pay at all, since it was not there to begin with. Its not like the payscale said $2000 per month minus training expenses. It said $1300 per month.

Actually, its not disdain for ordinary citizens. Its disdain for citizens that think they know better than myself on what my property should be used for, to be used for causes that I myself do not understand but they do. Its disdain for citizens that think they are more enlightened than me, and seek to use my government against me in their wish to remake me in their image. In essence, its disdain for the elitist citizens that would use government, my government against me.

Go and use the private media to run ads. Convince me to willingly follow your example. Convince me to willingly do a certain task. But do not use my government against me. Government is force. No one likes being forced to do anything. Also, if you manage to force something on me, there is also the chance of me forcing something on you, and that cycle of force does not bode well for the continued existence of a happy peaceful society.

Remember the last time this happened in this country. 2% dead and more wounded (http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/facts.html)



Hmm... interesting statistic....
• African Americans constituted less than one percent of the northern population, yet by the war’s end made up ten percent of the Union Army. A total of 180,000 black men, more than 85% of those eligible, enlisted.

I wonder where are the charges for black men fighting a white man's war? ;)



And a fitting bystory...
• Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first black man ever elected to the U.S. Senate. He filled the seat last held by Jefferson Davis.

[mactastic]

As I have tried to say, its not a hit in the pay at all, since it was not there to begin with. Its not like the payscale said $2000 per month minus training expenses. It said $1300 per month.

But the US tax code was in place when you took your oath. If you hated it so much, why did you agree to the terms of living here? It's not like they sprung that one on you.

Actually, its not disdain for ordinary citizens. Its disdain for citizens that think they know better than myself on what my property should be used for, to be used for causes that I myself do not understand but they do. Its disdain for citizens that think they are more enlightened than me, and seek to use my government against me in their wish to remake me in their image. In essence, its disdain for the elitist citizens that would use government, my government against me.

Yeah and for me it's the selfish eliteist citizens who think that they live in a vacuum and aren't affected by the world around them and have no obligation to make the world a better place when they leave than when they got there. The one's who say they deserve all their money and the rest deserve to die if they can't afford life. The ones who say if only the government would leave everyone alone nothing bad would happen.

Go and use the private media to run ads. Convince me to willingly follow your example. Convince me to willingly do a certain task. But do not use my government against me. Government is force. No one likes being forced to do anything. Also, if you manage to force something on me, there is also the chance of me forcing something on you, and that cycle of force does not bode well for the continued existence of a happy peaceful society.


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was YOUR government I was voting for the other day. And BTW, the problem is that I will never be able to convince you to follow my example since you have such loathing for most of the citizens of this country. If you can force something on me, which BTW you do with your gun stance, (and yes I realize that the RKBA does appear in the constitution, but so does the interstate commerce clause and both are widely debated as to intent these days) as well as your stance on capital punishment. Yes that is being forced on me, just as taxes are being forced on you. You can whine all you want about the tax man coming to kill you, but you have yet to produce any proof that anyone is sitting on death row for tax evasion.

[windowsblowsass]

NOT GONNA HAPPEn thats just political suicide unless theres an all out war we dont need a draft after alll we are the largest army in the world

[pseudobrit]

NOT GONNA HAPPEn thats just political suicide

Which is why you do it after reelection.

unless theres an all out war we dont need a draft after alll we are the largest army in the world

have you even read the thread? There is no way the US can maintain current deployment levels.

[pseudobrit]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was YOUR government I was voting for the other day.

I'm glad you picked up on the use of the words "MY government." Silly me, here I was thinking it was "our" government.

Time to put this newfound selfishness to use. I wonder why MY post office isn't open on Sundays; I'd like that. I wonder why MY taxes go to pay for schools when I don't have any kids or why MY government takes money from me at all (it is MINE afterall, it should probably be paying ME, right?). Why does MY government repave the highways in Erie? I don't drive in Erie.

And come to think of it, why do MY police officers check to make sure I don't speed?

[takao]

sorry about breaking the discussion but whats the difference between draft and normal conscript service like in other countries (like mine for example) ?

i had my 8 months service..it wasn't fun (well sometimes :) ) but it was an experience i would miss. i made some new friends etc. there really everbody possible in our troop: farmers,students,factory workers,rich,poor, nearly everybody possible from 18 to 34 (people who just got the austrian passport)

*a river flooded a realtiv big region during our service we had to dig out those ,cars,build barriers against water help those people

*we had 2 months of border-patrol service on the border to hungary where we had catch illegal immigrants,which was completly opionion changing:seeing poor people passing the border in a cold night with everthing they had in 2 nylon-bags showed myself how good i have it

*the military drill destroyed some impressions from movies: to see how 'heros' are walking/running around with a machine gun and only one belt of ammo now is just fun ;-) ... give the man the 'battle package' and let him do the movement called 'gliding' and of course obvious abc-alert....

for myself i was writer/assistent in the logistic department of our troop after the basic first 2,5 months: managing that everybody got his food/money etc. that was business.. boring sometimes ..but i had the task of being ABC-scout if there were a war and our troop needed some ..those rubber -suits heated up like crazy and running around with a gas mask at 35 C for 3 hours made me look angry at stupid f------ who are making fun with white powder in envelopes...i would love to see them walking around in those suits
http://www.bundesheer.at/organisation/beitraege/abcabws/images/abc-abwehr1a.jpg
after an hour in direct sunlight at 35 C you can only think this way: "just ...keep... breathing ...ice... cold.. shower...... so...lets.. put.. this.. probe in..this damn..heavy...bag..water...ice.. cold.. water... f--- ...what.. did.. he say ... whatever....cold water... breath ...slowly ...keep.. it.. going..."

in the first hour you are doing your job after that you start swearing like ozzy osbourne and even the commanding officer starts to get seriously 'pissed off'
: "f--- .... put that shi- into you're fu-king bag and lets leave this damn place, i need a fu--king ice cold shower" ;)

after 2 hours nobody speaks a word too much "go...on" ,"take..probe..", "done.." "there...." and every command is answerd by a combination of breathing and moaning

after 3,5 hours everything is done by gestics from head or small ones by hand signals... you suit is filled with liters of sweat...when you are wearing the suit and lift you arms you feel how the cold sweat which filled the rubbergloves runs down your body into your rubber trousers (which are completly closed) so you are standing in your own sweat up to your knees very fast and after that stop bothering if it goes higher...
taking of that suit+mask after 4 hours in the sunlight (ok we drove around with our jeeps during that time with full suit of course) was , with no doubt, the best thing i ever expierenced... taking of that mask and breathing relativly cold air (compared to hot-sweaty-suit-air) boost the hapiness-hormones in you brain like nothing else ...i put my head in the shoe washing-thing ... i felt like birthday,christmas,eastern,marriage,first kiss,etc. all together ..it was heaven on earth

of course cleaning the sweat out of the rubber suit pulled me back on ground

compared to that the guard service which we had during a bomb threat towards our camp was not so 'funny' at all ..standing around at the gates with loaded assault rifle... waiting for some mad,insane freak who only wants to blow some soldiers into pieces which hopefully doesn't come during your 'time'...thanks god it was false alert.. worst feeling ever... 'todesangst' describes it exactly ('fear of death')

if more young people across athe US would have made the same expiriences like me ...there wouldn't be as much violence and war in the world ... running through a forest in a rainy,dark night and shooting around might be fun on a screen but in real life after 36+ hours without sleep it looks different...even if it is still an exercise and not real combat ... experience mud,rain,heavy combat gear,hours of stress,very bad food,combat sounds: imagine walking through a muddy,wet forest at night and suddenly silence is broken by a MG-74 (looks,sounds and shoots like the german MG-42 from WW2 ... 'seen in hollywood movies of your choice'),6 assault rifles and exercising grenades 10 meter in front of you.... and you know:"if this was real... our group would need a priest and a medic"...

[zimv20]

have you even read the thread? There is no way the US can maintain current deployment levels.

seems our new friend is a little fact-challenged. it's okay, facts are hard.

[takao]

NOT GONNA HAPPEn thats just political suicide unless theres an all out war we dont need a draft after alll we are the largest army in the world

largest army: china
perhaps the most technological army but not the largest

but
largest navy: US

not sure about air force

[Frohickey]

But the US tax code was in place when you took your oath. If you hated it so much, why did you agree to the terms of living here? It's not like they sprung that one on you.

I did not hate the payscale or the taxcode. Why do you think I willingly joined and signed my name on the dotted line saying Uncle Sam owns me for a few years? Can't you get this point through? It was V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. Sheesh.

Yeah and for me it's the selfish eliteist citizens who think that they live in a vacuum and aren't affected by the world around them and have no obligation to make the world a better place when they leave than when they got there. The one's who say they deserve all their money and the rest deserve to die if they can't afford life. The ones who say if only the government would leave everyone alone nothing bad would happen.

The world is a better place if people are left alone. You know, all of the mass murders in the world were committed by governments. Besides, its not just me that think government should leave people along.

"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was YOUR government I was voting for the other day. And BTW, the problem is that I will never be able to convince you to follow my example since you have such loathing for most of the citizens of this country. If you can force something on me, which BTW you do with your gun stance, (and yes I realize that the RKBA does appear in the constitution, but so does the interstate commerce clause and both are widely debated as to intent these days) as well as your stance on capital punishment. Yes that is being forced on me, just as taxes are being forced on you. You can whine all you want about the tax man coming to kill you, but you have yet to produce any proof that anyone is sitting on death row for tax evasion.

My stance is forced on you? Where had I said that you have to own a gun? Where had I said that you have to carry a gun? The only thing said was that you had to respect my right to have a gun(arms), same as I respect your right to speech, religion, assembly, against self-incrimination, due process, trial by jury, etc.

BTW, the issue of capital punishment is within the due process portion of people's rights. If you don't agree with capital punishment, and I agree with capital punishment, we still agree that there should be due process. The only disagreement is with what due process should be. In your disagreement with the right to keep and bear arms, your disagreement is smack dab center of the INDIVIDUAL right. Liberals are supposed to be for the expansion of rights, at least the classic definition of liberals.

Here are the Bill of No Rights (http://www.sanfords.net/Bill_of_No_Rights.htm). Enjoy.

[takao]

My stance is forced on you? Where had I said that you have to own a gun? Where had I said that you have to carry a gun? The only thing said was that you had to respect my right to have a gun(arms), same as I respect your right to speech, religion, assembly, against self-incrimination, due process, trial by jury, etc.

as somebody from outside of the US i wonder why americans like their guns so much ...
comparing guns to free speech/religion ... :rolleyes:

i am 20 i can drink when i want ,i can drive a car when i want (when i am not drinking of course),i can vote if i want, i can study if i i can pay 700 € per year...i can even buy a weapon if i pass the psychological tests every few years...but why shall i need a weapon ?

thats the problem with america: people think they _need_ a weapon to be secure (i am not talking about hunters...they needs guns of course...if the have a hunting license no problem). guns don't make a society safer. more than 10.000-11.000 americans get killed _every_ year by guns _in_ america
in the UK: perhaps 70
in germany: 300 (and thats a lot)
japan: perhaps 50

here in austria if anything/anybody gets shot it is a dog or cow ( ;) ) etc because the animals gone mad and attacked people. ;)
but because of tradition are still some "shooting associations" which fire with old weapons from the 16-18th century but they don't shoot with real ammunition only smoke ... comparable to US civil war thing but older uniforms and of course no re-enacting battles

weapons are made for killing people. and it is more 'easy' to kill somebody with your gun than with your bare hands ....

how many people do you know personnally which own a gun,rifle etc. ? i know 0.asked my mother: 0, asked my father: 2 and both are licensed hunters, asked my friend frome university: 0, i could name more than 10 people who don't know anybody with a gun...

hm perhaps of this americans are always called "cowboys" with texan accent in other countries

[Frohickey]

thats the problem with america: people think they _need_ a weapon to be secure (i am not talking about hunters...they needs guns of course...if the have a hunting license no problem). guns don't make a society safer. more than 10.000-11.000 americans get killed _every_ year by guns _in_ america
in the UK: perhaps 70
in germany: 300 (and thats a lot)
japan: perhaps 50


American vs European crime rates (http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html)
Violence in other Countries (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/countries.htm)

Americans like their freedom of speech and religion as well.
We also like our freedom from self-incrimination as well.
Some of us believe that the rights in the Bill of Rights should be taken as a whole, and not individually split apart.

[LethalWolfe]

as somebody from outside of the US i wonder why americans like their guns so much ...
comparing guns to free speech/religion ... :rolleyes:

i am 20 i can drink when i want ,i can drive a car when i want (when i am not drinking of course),i can vote if i want, i can study if i i can pay 700 € per year...i can even buy a weapon if i pass the psychological tests every few years...but why shall i need a weapon ?

thats the problem with america: people think they _need_ a weapon to be secure (i am not talking about hunters...they needs guns of course...if the have a hunting license no problem). guns don't make a society safer. more than 10.000-11.000 americans get killed _every_ year by guns _in_ america
in the UK: perhaps 70
in germany: 300 (and thats a lot)
japan: perhaps 50



Speaking as an American I don't think it's as much about loving guns as it is about loving our personal freedoms (one of which is the right to keep and bear arms). If you don't want a firearm no one is forcing you to own one. I'm from a military family and I grew up around firearms. It was a common family event for everyone to go shooting on a weekend or something. I not only keep a firearm for recreational purposes but also for personal protection. Do I think I'll ever have to use it in self defense? No, probably not. But I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Just like I have a smoke detector and fire extingisher<sp?> in my apartment, a emergency roadside kit in my car, and health insurance (even if I'm unemployed). All things I hope I never need, but still have just incase I do.

Violence and crime (including gun violence) is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. If you want to lower crime rates and violence *overall* (not just gun violence) you need to look beyond inanimate objects and focus on things like soci-economic problems.

I could point out that nearly every home in Switzerland has a firearm in it, but that country is not overrun by murders and crime. Yet England, Whales, and Australia have some of the highest rates of burglary and "contact crimes" (ex. robbery, assualt, rape) among industrialized nations (all much higher than the US) even those these countries have very strict firearms laws and, relatively speaking, far fewer gun owners.
And, to top it all off, even though gun restrictions have never been tighter in England the number of gun related crimes is actually increasing!

Anyway, like I said, I could point those things out, but then I'd feel like I was going on a rant. ;)


Lethal

[zimv20]

I could point out that nearly every home in Switzerland has a firearm in it

that's because it's the law! they're also required to keep their bomb shelters stocked and its doorway free of clutter.

[takao]

that's because it's the law! they're also required to keep their bomb shelters stocked and its doorway free of clutter.

and _all_ of them were in conscript service,and weapon+ammunition is sealed
and of course no war in the last 200 years (or even more) something every country can dream of

and for the one who pointed at links where you can see that the mixed culture cause so much gun shootings:
switzerland:
50% german speaking
30% french speaking
20% italian speaking
i would call _that_ mixed

if you know a place in your country where you wouldn't go out in the night at 3am without a gun, then IMO is something wrong.period.

[mactastic]

I did not hate the payscale or the taxcode. Why do you think I willingly joined and signed my name on the dotted line saying Uncle Sam owns me for a few years? Can't you get this point through? It was V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. Sheesh.

I'm not asking you about joining the military. If you want to be obtuse fine, don't answer. Don't care, don't care.

The world is a better place if people are left alone. You know, all of the mass murders in the world were committed by governments. Besides, its not just me that think government should leave people along.

Tell that the the Jonestown survivors. And tell the Rwandan victims that the world is a better place when people are left to their own devices. 'Cause people don't always make the choices that leave other people alone. Oh yeah, that's why we need guns huh? Since not everyone actually CAN be trusted to not harm people?

Hehe, you trot out these quotes as if they make your position unimpeachable. If I go find a quote or two that supports me, will you accept my position as fact?

[Frohickey]

I'm not asking you about joining the military. If you want to be obtuse fine, don't answer. Don't care, don't care.

Tell that the the Jonestown survivors. And tell the Rwandan victims that the world is a better place when people are left to their own devices. 'Cause people don't always make the choices that leave other people alone. Oh yeah, that's why we need guns huh? Since not everyone actually CAN be trusted to not harm people?

Hehe, you trot out these quotes as if they make your position unimpeachable. If I go find a quote or two that supports me, will you accept my position as fact?

I don't understand your point. You keep going on about 'pay being stolen'...
don't care, don't care.

What Jonestown survivors? You mean the Jim Jones' cult? What Rwandan victims? Seems that you make my point for me. Lets see, both are located in a continent where the concept of an armed citizenry are pretty much nonexistent. A continent where the concept of constitutionally limited government is unheard of.

Try again.

[mactastic]

I don't understand your point. You keep going on about 'pay being stolen'...
don't care, don't care.

You joined America just like you joined the army. I can't make it any clearer. Yet you complain about one and praise the other for the same behavior.

What Jonestown survivors? You mean the Jim Jones' cult? What Rwandan victims? Seems that you make my point for me. Lets see, both are located in a continent where the concept of an armed citizenry are pretty much nonexistent. A continent where the concept of constitutionally limited government is unheard of.

Try again.

Ok let's try this. No concept of an armed citizenry? Have you been watching the news? Parts of Africa are swimming in weapons. And the Rwandan victims (I still can't believe you said 'What Rwandan victims?" ... Oh only 800,000 or so. :mad: ) were attacked with whatever weapons were handy. I thought your point was that only governments have ever committed mass murder? How did I make that point for you?

[LethalWolfe]

that's because it's the law! they're also required to keep their bomb shelters stocked and its doorway free of clutter.

What does it matter if it's the law or not? The post I responded to implied that you are less safe in a country w/lots of firearms and more safe in a country w/few firearms. I was merely pointing out examples to the contrary.

takao,
I'm not sure what you mean by your "weapon+ammunition is sealed" comment. Are you trying to say that the Swiss keep their firearms locked up and never/very rarely use them? Or are you trying to say they keep their firearms under lock and key while not in use?


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

What does it matter if it's the law or not? The post I responded to implied that you are less safe in a country w/lots of firearms and more safe in a country w/few firearms. I was merely pointing out examples to the contrary.

takao,
I'm not sure what you mean by your "weapon+ammunition is sealed" comment. Are you trying to say that the Swiss keep their firearms locked up and never/very rarely use them? Or are you trying to say they keep their firearms under lock and key while not in use?


Lethal

They are automatic combat rifles and they are not allowed to use them unless they are at war.

[LethalWolfe]

They are automatic combat rifles and they are not allowed to use them unless they are at war.


Government mandated weapons aside the Swiss are still a very "gun friendly" nation. Recreational shooting is one of the most popular pastimes in Switzerland. And there are shooting clubs made up of all ages. A 13 year old kid in Switzerland is as likely to be a member of a shooting club as a 13 year old kid in America is to be a member of a youth sports league.


Lethal

[wwworry]

American vs European crime rates (http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html)
Violence in other Countries (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/countries.htm)

Americans like their freedom of speech and religion as well.
We also like our freedom from self-incrimination as well.
Some of us believe that the rights in the Bill of Rights should be taken as a whole, and not individually split apart.


Those are some interesting statistics but it's a little bit funny about how it protrays race. It's almost like "If you don't count black people then...." As if you can not count black Americans.

and "it's welfare that does it" as if black people are all on welfare

and if multiculturalism is to blame then how they say that all the problems are black on black violence?

I'd be curious to see numbers based on economic class and population density. I think poor inner city whites kill as many people as poor inner city blacks. But I could be wrong.

I've given up on the whole gun issue.

[takao]

Government mandated weapons aside the Swiss are still a very "gun friendly" nation. Recreational shooting is one of the most popular pastimes in Switzerland. And there are shooting clubs made up of all ages. A 13 year old kid in Switzerland is as likely to be a member of a shooting club as a 13 year old kid in America is to be a member of a youth sports league.
Lethal

"shooting club" in america is different from "shooting club" in switzerland/austria
those "Schützenvereine" have a often a history back to '30 year war' (17th century) or napolean wars, that means you are running around in historic uniforms with old rifles,funny hats and
it can be compared to re-enacting the war for independence in america against the british, and most 13-14 start there in in sub-groups like "musicians" with instruments or holding some banner etc. you have to be 17 or 18 if you want to 'shoot' at those celebrations at days like 'Staatsfeiertag' (like 'Independence Day') etc.

the biggest clubs/associations here are the 'ÖSV' (Austrian skiing association) in germany the DFB ( 1 Million of 80 Million Germans are there, those are active players or have been active players)
something like the NRA doesnt exist,even in switzerland

weapons sealed issue: those weapons are not only locked, there is a "Seal" around the ammunition and gun, and there are random controls from police etc. i think where they look if the weapon is secured _and_ still sealed
once a year you take your gun at the military shooting range and shoot there a few clips and thne the gun is sealed again
they not only have their gun at home, they also have all the military clothes,boots etc. at home
they made this for faster reaction time if a war starts suddenly they have a small army and need those 'militia' troops fast

in austria the system is different: most men were in the army in the past and so if a war starts suddenly they draft first the small austrian 'militia' during the 'regular conscripts' fight at the border etc. and during militia and regular fight there is enough time (1-2weeks) were the training of the normal people which got draftet at the sme time gets freshed up
but if there would be an attack by a country like germany,france,USA etc. we wouldn't draft anybody ,because that only would be stupid , our politicians would be sitting around at the UN and complain/whine about the situation ;)
(we have 4 (!) working jet fighters, 120 tanks, 200 APCs,300 Artillery Guns, and perhaps 80.000 men all together...we wouldn't stand long enough for drafting anybody)

[LethalWolfe]

"shooting club" in america is different from "shooting club" in switzerland/austria
those "Schützenvereine" have a often a history back to '30 year war' (17th century) or napolean wars, that means you are running around in historic uniforms with old rifles,funny hats and
it can be compared to re-enacting the war for independence in america against the british, and most 13-14 start there in in sub-groups like "musicians" with instruments or holding some banner etc. you have to be 17 or 18 if you want to 'shoot' at those celebrations at days like 'Staatsfeiertag' (like 'Independence Day') etc.

the biggest clubs/associations here are the 'ÖSV' (Austrian skiing association) in germany the DFB ( 1 Million of 80 Million Germans are there, those are active players or have been active players)
something like the NRA doesnt exist,even in switzerland

weapons sealed issue: those weapons are not only locked, there is a "Seal" around the ammunition and gun, and there are random controls from police etc. i think where they look if the weapon is secured _and_ still sealed
once a year you take your gun at the military shooting range and shoot there a few clips and thne the gun is sealed again
they not only have their gun at home, they also have all the military clothes,boots etc. at home
they made this for faster reaction time if a war starts suddenly they have a small army and need those 'militia' troops fast

in austria the system is different: most men were in the army in the past and so if a war starts suddenly they draft first the small austrian 'militia' during the 'regular conscripts' fight at the border etc. and during militia and regular fight there is enough time (1-2weeks) were the training of the normal people which got draftet at the sme time gets freshed up
but if there would be an attack by a country like germany,france,USA etc. we wouldn't draft anybody ,because that only would be stupid , our politicians would be sitting around at the UN and complain/whine about the situation ;)
(we have 4 (!) working jet fighters, 120 tanks, 200 APCs,300 Artillery Guns, and perhaps 80.000 men all together...we wouldn't stand long enough for drafting anybody)


Thanx for post takao. It was very informitive. I was aware of the Swiss shooting "re-enactment" although I didn't know what it was called. But that's not what I was refering to. What I was refering to were the local and national shooting festivals (which are open to adults as well as youths).
I meant to get across was the point that sport shooting in Switzerland is probably comparible to the sport of baseball in America (in terms of popularity and tradition).


Lethal

[Frohickey]

Hmm... I wasn't aware that the Swiss did historical reenactments with shooting in them. I guess with the American civil war reenactments, we are not too different from the Swiss.

The Swiss do have schutzenfests, akin to the shooting competitions in the US. In the gun club that I'm at, there are 12-16 year olds, well-behaved kids competing in shooting events. Some even manage to bring back trophies. Some are even girls. Gonna make some boy a lucky husband some day. ;)