I hold the same view for Homosexuals in the military as woman in the military. They wanna join, let them.
Also, just because they are **** does not neccesarily mean they are going to try to hump everyone in the shower. I don't know how misconceptions like this get started but its rediculous. People assume that if someone is **** they have no control whatsoever over themselves and can't resist their sexual desires which is just plain untrue.
"But if gays are in the military the guys will always hit on other strait males in the military." - Yes, it might happen but not to the degreee this moron was thinking. - Also, are we that insecure about our own sexual preferences? Why does this bother people so much? Chances are the answer is not "because I'm not ****."
Okay, here we go, guess I'll join the conversation. (Why do I always join these kinda topics late and have to read up three to six pages?) First off, as I stated before in the War in Iraq Thread I'm against war in general for whatever reason it may be. I'm as well against a draft, if there is a war, first because I don't believe in war and second because I don't think that it is right to force someone to fight for your cause if he doesn't believe in it. Now, if there ever was a draft, I'd actually say draft men and women alike. Equality doesn't stop anywhere. Uh... that was kinda short. Oh well, guess I can still explain things, if they are not clear enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--Call:1800-MESSIAH+Feb 4 2003, 10:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Call:1800-MESSIAH @ Feb 4 2003, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't believe in war and second because I don't think that it is right to force someone to fight for your cause if he doesn't believe in it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Many people use this as an excuse purely to avoid military service.
This is why my proposal of mandatory military service is so sensible. If you don't serve your country, you don't have the rights and privileges that people who DO serve their country do. Switzerland has this, I believe - I have a friend from Switzerland who just did his 6 months or so in the Swiss Army. It has worked very well in the past, and can work very well in today's society.
And what if I did use it as an excuse to avoid military service? I didn't see a sign somewhere planted that said, you have to have been in the military to be a more moral or ethic person. I don't believe in war because I don't think that fighting will solve a problem. Now, you said that it lies in human nature to fight one another or in nature itself, if didn't completely misunderstand that. To tell you the truth, I couldn't agree more. But I think you are underestimating your own abilities if do not believe that you can be more than your instincts and overcome some of the traits that lie in the very human nature, however deeply rooted. Fighting is a natural instinct becuase it is the easiest solution to many given problems and in the days when instincts were carved into our oh so human nature speed was essential to solve problems. But today, we have all the time we want... we can even post in forums somewhere around the globe...
Maybe it should be noted that 1800 and me are both living in a country where drafts for men are compulsory and can only be avoided by a (longer) period in social service, which is the way I'll go in the near future. Should you believe drafts train young people to be ethically or morallically better, I can tell you from direct observation that you're <i>wrong</i>. If you believe that democratic rights are linked to any kind of 'service' to your country, I'd like to quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We hold these truths to be self-evident, that <i>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights</i>[...] (The Declaration of Independence)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I consider my 'draft' time to be a year a state that never gave me anything I or my parents didn't have to work for will steal from me, to keep a ruined and corrupt social system working.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited February 2003
The U.S. is not going to reactivate the draft. There simply isn't a need for it. Congressman Charles Rangel has been wandering around the talk shows spouting off about reinstating the draft to bring racial "equality" to the troops. He also says the draft would cause people to reconsider sending their sons and daughters into battle.
What he's really trying to do (and it seems to be working) is scare those that are "of age" into believing that if there is military conflict in Iraq that each of them will be dragged in kicking and screaming. It's nothing more than a political tactic.
Onuma: I understand your point of view, but the direction you're proposing would probably do more harm than good. I too have considered these ideas and sometimes wish I had joined up. First, our Consititution gives each of us the rights that you would like to limit. If we turned to the proposal you've made, it would be the equivilant of using the Constitution as toilet paper. Placing our freedoms so completely into the hands of the Federal Government is the exact contrast to the spirit in which it was created. Second, the end you're trying to reach (returning to Individual Responsibility) should start in the schools by bringing back Civics studies. This form of education has been replaced (over the last 30 years or so) by Multi-Culturalism. While it may be important to understand different cultures, one must first understand his or her own responsibilities in society.
What we're finding now is that the Armed Forces are teaching Civics to our young adults and I'm certain that more times than not, they'll agree that their lives are better because of it.
I tottally disagree that you should stand up for any fight your contry partakes in.
This does not mean it is right. I am am not a coward I just do not belive in being forced to fight for somthing nobody fully understands. Only the polititians will hold the real reasons behind war.
On the other hand if my homeland was invaded (Scotland) I would not hesitate to lay down my life in defense of my country. That is the only thing that would justify to me kiling another person in a war situation.
Protecting my home and my family is the only cause I will fight for.
Uhm, well, Nem kinda gave it away, we have a mandatory draft in our country. You're not denied the right to vote, if you choose civil service over it, but I totally agree on the point of beeing stripped of one year of my life. The thing you say about people becoming morally more aware or even or more ethic when they serve in the military I can understand. In the US. That is because the people go to the army out of free will, not because they are drafted, which is only another way of saying forced. All the people I know that went to the army rather then civil service are completely unmotivated to do anything for their country, let alone be killed for it. I guess most of them would have to face court martial when a war broke out because they would simply refuse to fight. They didn't want to go there and they will sure as hell not do anything for the country that forced them to be there, not even taking into acount that they don't actually DO anything all day long besides sitting in their office watching the wall across the room slowly fall victim to gravity and age. To sum it up, I think, that a voluntary army is a lot more motivated and interested in what what they are doing (down to the point of being willing to give their lives) than drafted one.
I discovered yesterday that I am automatically precluded from joining the British armed services due to problems with my ACLs and a malformed collar bone that occured after a bad break. In the unlikely event of a draft in Britain however I can imagine the standards being slightly lowered, armed service is something I want to do but purely because I seem to be living in a past generation and believe that fighting for your country is something worthwhile and honourable, and indeed my father and his father etc etc have all spent time in the various branches of the armed forces. I however don't think that people who appose war should be in any way forced to join up, nor do I think that women should be allowed in frontline positions due to reasons generally already outlined.
Didn't read the whole thing, but forcing people to join the military, when not in a national crisis, is un-constitutional. It violates the 13th amendment.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 4 2003, 03:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 4 2003, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>The Draft in general? </b>Well, I'm not a fan of the Draft in itself. My plan would be required service to be a *<i>citizen</i>* of the United States. Each and every capable individual should serve at least 6 months to 2 years of service. This mandatory contract would allow said individuals the right to speak out in their country, the right to vote, teach a greater level of moral and ethical values to a society which is losing them by the day, and always keep an ample supply of young soldiers to defend our ideals. If one does not serve in the military, they get NO right to vote, no welfare or government aid, no health benefits...they would just be another person working their job in society. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Useing the so-called "Starship Troopers" method of determining who is to vote (even if it is not just military service that is required) merely breeds a population of voters that believe in the Gov. because the Gov. told them to. When only those that have gone through the though-squelching and uniformity of idea stressed in the military will never disagree with a a gov. that they have been conditioned to agree with, and therefore, whatever administration happens to be in power when such a system goes into full affect would never leave.
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 4 2003, 02:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 4 2003, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not in the mood for an argument right now...I just typed 2 pages of stuff and deleted it all. What a waste of time and thought that was. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am kind of glad you didn't, considering you want to turn this country into something that a lot of people, including myself, have served in the military trying to protect. I find it ironic that you are joining the military, and yet you want to take away a persons freedom for not thinking like you.
Perhaps I <b>am</b> being a bit too fascist in my views. Perhaps it's just this growing anger at these people who have absolutely no respect for living in this grand country. I have been proven wrong more than once before, and this may be no exception.
I grew up in a Roman Catholic based household, and though I did not attend mass on any sort of a regular basis, nor did I even follow the teachings of Sunday School with any sort of enthusiasm, most of the moral and ethical ideals are still with me. My parents taught me proper respect and discipline and were strict but very good parents, yet I still grew up with the freedom to make my own choices. Obviously my choice is to give the next 5 years of my life to the hands of the United States Army, something I feel that I <i>owe</i> to a nation that has protected me thus far, and I am also doing it for myself because it is a good choice for me. Whether or not I choose to spend a longer period of my life in service cannot be foreseen by even myself, but so far the choices I have made have brought me to what I see as a morally and ethically correct path. I know that this is not the right choice for everyone.
Reading over my words now -- something I rarely do before I publish them, which is probable cause to the hastiness of what I say -- I see that I have used the word <u>choice</u> frequently. Reading over my previous posts on this topic, it is quite the opposite. I feel like a vegetarian eating a steak <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->. I guess I have a lil' bit of thinking to do on this one. As it is said: "Hind sight is always 20/20".
Bear in mind that I have purely good intent in all of my ideas and messages, but that I know not how to go about them at times.
First off, people who read <i>Starship Troopers</i> would know that military service was voluntary but you didn't always go into frontline duty...look at Carl, he got R&D on Pluto...till it was squashed
*blesses his only-male child status again*
War is a neccesary evil in this world for now. Not neccasarily an evil I like but it exists and until we can find something better it'll have to do.
If (big if) the United States re-instituted the draft, I'd join the National Guard. Remember that not all military service means *hehe, I get to shoot guns and people and I make things go boom!*. National Guard, Coast Guard and the *not quite sure if it applies* Red Cross are all service/employers that would stop you from being drafted (who'd wanna draft a Red Cross employee?). The coast guard is full-time but it's still domestic and you get a broad choice in bases. National Guard is 1 weekend a month, two weeks a year. Plus they pay for college. Red Cross is full-time, but what state doesn't have multiple RC sites?
I do believe we are losing ethics in the country. Ripping directly from SST, History and Moral Philosophy is a class we should have. It should be a required class that gets no grade. If you fear a grade then you don't open your mind all the way. You do what you think will get you a good grade.
Btw Onuma, congrats, you finished Boot or do you start this summer?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps I am being a bit too fascist in my views. Perhaps it's just this growing anger at these people who have absolutely no respect for living in this grand country. I have been proven wrong more than once before, and this may be no exception.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well excuse me for not being a blind nationlist. One does not have to respect one's homeland to care about one's homeland.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, people who read Starship Troopers would know that military service was voluntary but you didn't always go into frontline duty...look at Carl, he got R&D on Pluto...till it was squashed<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What does that have to do with anything?
My point to homosexuals in the military was to possibly being an issue with other soldiers. I don't care if their in the military. It would be extremely odd to have someone living right next to you who was attracted to you. I used the example of a man living with a group of women and the women and they were extremely uncomfortable in that situation, why would it be any different with homosexuals in the military? Theoretically its not, I suppose some of you might disagree.
Frankly, I don't really care if they're homosexual. I don't understand it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I wouldn't treat them any differently or harass them.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Feb 5 2003, 02:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 5 2003, 02:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It would be extremely odd to have someone living right next to you who was attracted to you. I used the example of a man living with a group of women and the women and they were extremely uncomfortable in that situation, why would it be any different with homosexuals in the military? Theoretically its not, I suppose some of you might disagree. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> again you assume that just because he is homosexual he is attracted to ALL males and its just not true. I think the problem would be that you, as a straight male, would ASSUME that he was attracted to you and that would make you uncomfortable. What if he was a chick? Would you still be uncomfortable? Why not? If you could answer that and understand it, chances are that you wouldn't feel uncomfortable anymore.
First off, AllUrHives, I included that because they kept on posting about Starship Troopers and how Federal service should be mandatory and they all were making assumptions that meant active front-line combat duty
[edit] and people seemed to be thinking of the movie more then the book that started it all. The book came first and that's my source of reference [/edit]
and 2nd, I know what Dezmodium is talking about. One of my friends is an openly **** person. For a while I was uncomfortable around him, but then I came to terms with it. Everyone is ****, it's just a matter how much.
And openly/Closet gays are not neccesarily attracted to you. Perhaps your so uncomfortable with your own sexuality that you don't want to admit that at times men may catch your own attention, even if for a second.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Feb 4 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Feb 4 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First off, AllUrHives, I included that because they kept on posting about Starship Troopers and how Federal service should be mandatory and they all were making assumptions that meant active front-line combat duty <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well I was talking about the political ramifications, not the military aspect. But I get what ur sayin.
Women should be drafted also and should server with men. There are some problems with it i can see though. Such as men are stronger so if youre exspecting soldiers to carry x pounds of equipment x amount of distance you could be wrong. They arent as fast either, they have more stamina then men.
There are places where woman excel more then men though. Women make better fighter pilots then men. A womans circulatory system allows them to take more g-forces then a man can. They have more stamina also as I stated before.
This whole "a woman dosent have the pychological will to kill" is ****. Woman have fought in wars before. In sasala land woman did the clean up after a battle finish off anybody that was wonded or bringing them back to thier home where they would torture then kill them.
About gays, it shouldnt be an issue, when your on duty your not flirting, dating, or anything like that. He shouldnt tell people hes **** either that would make him diffrent and stand out. The whole shaving a person head when they join the military is to make them feel that they are not any diffrent then thier commrads.
About the draft, eventually there will be another one, maybe not in my life time. If america is bombed will you really dishoner yourself and **** out?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Feb 6 2003, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Feb 6 2003, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> About the draft, eventually there will be another one, maybe not in my life time. If america is bombed will you really dishoner yourself and **** out? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hell yes.
About this whole "draft" thing that keeps being mentioned in this thread, it just struck me, this is exactly like the abortion debate. How many of the people posting here are women? How many of the people deciding whether to draft women are women? Not to many I'd wager. Once again, the basic inequality of such a biased "democratic" system is brought into question. Why is the minority sex making the decisions for the majority? It strikes me as unfair, and smacks of apartheid. Secondly, we are argueing the morality and fairness of war. WAR gentlemen. War has no morality, and it is not fair. The fact that we must argue wether or not to send certain people off to kill their fellows, and certain people not says a lot about the mentality of our nation on teh whole. We automatically assume that war is the answer, and immdeiately begin nitpicking about the details of teh conflict. Think about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Feb 7 2003, 02:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Feb 7 2003, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If america is bombed will you really dishoner yourself and **** out? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats different than saying "we are going to war because some guy probably has weapons of mass destruction and might us them someday against someone."
If we were directly attacked then I would support war/draft in the best interest of the country. Anything less than a direct act of war would need another solution.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 6 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 6 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Think about it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 7 2003, 03:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 7 2003, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats different than saying "we are going to war because some guy probably has weapons of mass destruction and might us them someday against someone."
If we were directly attacked then I would support war/draft in the best interest of the country. Anything less than a direct act of war would need another solution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There wont be a draft though for iraq we have plenty of people.
As a Vet I can say that I couldn't care less if people servered in the military or not. It is a personal choice. I don't hold anything against anyone that doesn't serve.
As for "Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots. " When was the last time that the U.S. Military had to defend America?
Comments
Also, just because they are **** does not neccesarily mean they are going to try to hump everyone in the shower. I don't know how misconceptions like this get started but its rediculous. People assume that if someone is **** they have no control whatsoever over themselves and can't resist their sexual desires which is just plain untrue.
"But if gays are in the military the guys will always hit on other strait males in the military."
- Yes, it might happen but not to the degreee this moron was thinking.
- Also, are we that insecure about our own sexual preferences? Why does this bother people so much? Chances are the answer is not "because I'm not ****."
First off, as I stated before in the War in Iraq Thread I'm against war in general for whatever reason it may be. I'm as well against a draft, if there is a war, first because I don't believe in war and second because I don't think that it is right to force someone to fight for your cause if he doesn't believe in it.
Now, if there ever was a draft, I'd actually say draft men and women alike. Equality doesn't stop anywhere.
Uh... that was kinda short. Oh well, guess I can still explain things, if they are not clear enough.
Many people use this as an excuse purely to avoid military service.
This is why my proposal of mandatory military service is so sensible. If you don't serve your country, you don't have the rights and privileges that people who DO serve their country do. Switzerland has this, I believe - I have a friend from Switzerland who just did his 6 months or so in the Swiss Army.
It has worked very well in the past, and can work very well in today's society.
I don't believe in war because I don't think that fighting will solve a problem. Now, you said that it lies in human nature to fight one another or in nature itself, if didn't completely misunderstand that. To tell you the truth, I couldn't agree more.
But I think you are underestimating your own abilities if do not believe that you can be more than your instincts and overcome some of the traits that lie in the very human nature, however deeply rooted.
Fighting is a natural instinct becuase it is the easiest solution to many given problems and in the days when instincts were carved into our oh so human nature speed was essential to solve problems. But today, we have all the time we want... we can even post in forums somewhere around the globe...
Should you believe drafts train young people to be ethically or morallically better, I can tell you from direct observation that you're <i>wrong</i>.
If you believe that democratic rights are linked to any kind of 'service' to your country, I'd like to quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We hold these truths to be self-evident, that <i>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights</i>[...]
(The Declaration of Independence)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I consider my 'draft' time to be a year a state that never gave me anything I or my parents didn't have to work for will steal from me, to keep a ruined and corrupt social system working.
What he's really trying to do (and it seems to be working) is scare those that are "of age" into believing that if there is military conflict in Iraq that each of them will be dragged in kicking and screaming. It's nothing more than a political tactic.
Onuma: I understand your point of view, but the direction you're proposing would probably do more harm than good. I too have considered these ideas and sometimes wish I had joined up. First, our Consititution gives each of us the rights that you would like to limit. If we turned to the proposal you've made, it would be the equivilant of using the Constitution as toilet paper. Placing our freedoms so completely into the hands of the Federal Government is the exact contrast to the spirit in which it was created. Second, the end you're trying to reach (returning to Individual Responsibility) should start in the schools by bringing back Civics studies. This form of education has been replaced (over the last 30 years or so) by Multi-Culturalism. While it may be important to understand different cultures, one must first understand his or her own responsibilities in society.
What we're finding now is that the Armed Forces are teaching Civics to our young adults and I'm certain that more times than not, they'll agree that their lives are better because of it.
This does not mean it is right. I am am not a coward I just do not belive in being forced to fight for somthing nobody fully understands. Only the polititians will hold the real reasons behind war.
On the other hand if my homeland was invaded (Scotland) I would not hesitate to lay down my life in defense of my country. That is the only thing that would justify to me kiling another person in a war situation.
Protecting my home and my family is the only cause I will fight for.
The thing you say about people becoming morally more aware or even or more ethic when they serve in the military I can understand. In the US. That is because the people go to the army out of free will, not because they are drafted, which is only another way of saying forced. All the people I know that went to the army rather then civil service are completely unmotivated to do anything for their country, let alone be killed for it. I guess most of them would have to face court martial when a war broke out because they would simply refuse to fight.
They didn't want to go there and they will sure as hell not do anything for the country that forced them to be there, not even taking into acount that they don't actually DO anything all day long besides sitting in their office watching the wall across the room slowly fall victim to gravity and age.
To sum it up, I think, that a voluntary army is a lot more motivated and interested in what what they are doing (down to the point of being willing to give their lives) than drafted one.
I however don't think that people who appose war should be in any way forced to join up, nor do I think that women should be allowed in frontline positions due to reasons generally already outlined.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Useing the so-called "Starship Troopers" method of determining who is to vote (even if it is not just military service that is required) merely breeds a population of voters that believe in the Gov. because the Gov. told them to. When only those that have gone through the though-squelching and uniformity of idea stressed in the military will never disagree with a a gov. that they have been conditioned to agree with, and therefore, whatever administration happens to be in power when such a system goes into full affect would never leave.
I am kind of glad you didn't, considering you want to turn this country into something that a lot of people, including myself, have served in the military trying to protect. I find it ironic that you are joining the military, and yet you want to take away a persons freedom for not thinking like you.
I grew up in a Roman Catholic based household, and though I did not attend mass on any sort of a regular basis, nor did I even follow the teachings of Sunday School with any sort of enthusiasm, most of the moral and ethical ideals are still with me. My parents taught me proper respect and discipline and were strict but very good parents, yet I still grew up with the freedom to make my own choices. Obviously my choice is to give the next 5 years of my life to the hands of the United States Army, something I feel that I <i>owe</i> to a nation that has protected me thus far, and I am also doing it for myself because it is a good choice for me. Whether or not I choose to spend a longer period of my life in service cannot be foreseen by even myself, but so far the choices I have made have brought me to what I see as a morally and ethically correct path.
I know that this is not the right choice for everyone.
Reading over my words now -- something I rarely do before I publish them, which is probable cause to the hastiness of what I say -- I see that I have used the word <u>choice</u> frequently. Reading over my previous posts on this topic, it is quite the opposite. I feel like a vegetarian eating a steak <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->. I guess I have a lil' bit of thinking to do on this one.
As it is said: "Hind sight is always 20/20".
Bear in mind that I have purely good intent in all of my ideas and messages, but that I know not how to go about them at times.
*blesses his only-male child status again*
War is a neccesary evil in this world for now. Not neccasarily an evil I like but it exists and until we can find something better it'll have to do.
If (big if) the United States re-instituted the draft, I'd join the National Guard. Remember that not all military service means *hehe, I get to shoot guns and people and I make things go boom!*. National Guard, Coast Guard and the *not quite sure if it applies* Red Cross are all service/employers that would stop you from being drafted (who'd wanna draft a Red Cross employee?). The coast guard is full-time but it's still domestic and you get a broad choice in bases. National Guard is 1 weekend a month, two weeks a year. Plus they pay for college. Red Cross is full-time, but what state doesn't have multiple RC sites?
I do believe we are losing ethics in the country. Ripping directly from SST, History and Moral Philosophy is a class we should have. It should be a required class that gets no grade. If you fear a grade then you don't open your mind all the way. You do what you think will get you a good grade.
Btw Onuma, congrats, you finished Boot or do you start this summer?
[edit]Post #200 ... wow[/edit]
Well excuse me for not being a blind nationlist. One does not have to respect one's homeland to care about one's homeland.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, people who read Starship Troopers would know that military service was voluntary but you didn't always go into frontline duty...look at Carl, he got R&D on Pluto...till it was squashed<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does that have to do with anything?
Frankly, I don't really care if they're homosexual. I don't understand it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I wouldn't treat them any differently or harass them.
again you assume that just because he is homosexual he is attracted to ALL males and its just not true. I think the problem would be that you, as a straight male, would ASSUME that he was attracted to you and that would make you uncomfortable. What if he was a chick? Would you still be uncomfortable? Why not? If you could answer that and understand it, chances are that you wouldn't feel uncomfortable anymore.
[edit] and people seemed to be thinking of the movie more then the book that started it all. The book came first and that's my source of reference [/edit]
and 2nd, I know what Dezmodium is talking about. One of my friends is an openly **** person. For a while I was uncomfortable around him, but then I came to terms with it. Everyone is ****, it's just a matter how much.
And openly/Closet gays are not neccesarily attracted to you. Perhaps your so uncomfortable with your own sexuality that you don't want to admit that at times men may catch your own attention, even if for a second.
and third, see my post above
Well I was talking about the political ramifications, not the military aspect. But I get what ur sayin.
There are places where woman excel more then men though. Women make better fighter pilots then men. A womans circulatory system allows them to take more g-forces then a man can. They have more stamina also as I stated before.
This whole "a woman dosent have the pychological will to kill" is ****. Woman have fought in wars before. In sasala land woman did the clean up after a battle finish off anybody that was wonded or bringing them back to thier home where they would torture then kill them.
About gays, it shouldnt be an issue, when your on duty your not flirting, dating, or anything like that. He shouldnt tell people hes **** either that would make him diffrent and stand out. The whole shaving a person head when they join the military is to make them feel that they are not any diffrent then thier commrads.
About the draft, eventually there will be another one, maybe not in my life time. If america is bombed will you really dishoner yourself and **** out?
hell yes.
About this whole "draft" thing that keeps being mentioned in this thread, it just struck me, this is exactly like the abortion debate. How many of the people posting here are women? How many of the people deciding whether to draft women are women? Not to many I'd wager. Once again, the basic inequality of such a biased "democratic" system is brought into question. Why is the minority sex making the decisions for the majority? It strikes me as unfair, and smacks of apartheid.
Secondly, we are argueing the morality and fairness of war. WAR gentlemen. War has no morality, and it is not fair. The fact that we must argue wether or not to send certain people off to kill their fellows, and certain people not says a lot about the mentality of our nation on teh whole. We automatically assume that war is the answer, and immdeiately begin nitpicking about the details of teh conflict. Think about it.
Thats different than saying "we are going to war because some guy probably has weapons of mass destruction and might us them someday against someone."
If we were directly attacked then I would support war/draft in the best interest of the country. Anything less than a direct act of war would need another solution.
Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots.
If we were directly attacked then I would support war/draft in the best interest of the country. Anything less than a direct act of war would need another solution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There wont be a draft though for iraq we have plenty of people.
As for "Next Memorial Day go ahead and curl up in a blanket and consider how many men and women have given their lives to you can sit around and call them idiots. " When was the last time that the U.S. Military had to defend America?