by The Humper 51 Replies latest jw friends
Hubert,
That's probably why we don't have a mandatory military, plus we have a large population, and because of that, usually can rely on enough volunteers to fullfill the needs of a strong military, for defense reasons.
I don't think we have used the military for "defense reason" in modern times especially in Iraq more like "aggressive reasons" or "imperialistic reasons".
As far as National Service in the UK is concerned, I think the British Army has enough on its plate at the moment without babysitting a load of kids as well. If it were ever to be re-introduced, I think it should be universally mandatory, but not necessarily military. Providing any alternatives creates a two-tier system.
Hump,
hey im not saying that we should do it. it was just a thought. there are pros and cons to everything in life.
I think there are way many more cons on this issue, especially now since america is waking up to how deceptive the currant administration has been and still is, with reguards to getting our young men into battle, and huge wastes of our tax payers money to fund a war on false pretenses.
in one way im for it, but in many ways im not and theyve all been stated. i was just wondering what all of your thoughts were on the issue.
I'm glad you can see some of the down sides of such a thing. It is bad enough that those who volunteered may loose thier life or become crippled for life fighting this war, but it is even worse when a person doesn't even have a choice.
did anyone else watch the democratic debate? how many are Democrats? who just doesnt even give a rats ass?
Didn't watch, not affiliated with any political party, democrats are almost the same thing as republicans, if you ask me, money talks, and buys politicians, very few are interested in the poor, they all need money to get elected, and so have to gain the suport of the rich. I'm all for less government, and keeping Big Brothers nose out of my business.
I spent 21 years in the United States Air Force. All of our personnel were volunteers. No one wanted conscripts. We need someone we can count on when the chips are down. It does need to be made financially attractive in order to get a good quality of persons volunteering.
Hubert
You are correct! We are at war and have been since the early 90s. It is the worst kind of war, a war with religious motivation. The incident on 9/11 was just the latest in a long string of incidents in which our country was attacked. Has everyone forgotten the Iranian Embassy Siege, the bombing of the Cole (Destroyer), the Embassy in Tanzania, the Marine Barracks in Lebannon, the Kobar Towers, the first attempt on the twin towers,?
Frankiespeakin
You are extremely uninformed if you think the radical muslims only want to live in peace. Their goal is to establish Sharia law in the United States. Terror is simply the most economical way to accomplish this. You would do well to study the teachings of the Wahabi Muslim faith.
Navigator
LT. Col USAF (Ret)
Nav,
You are extremely uninformed if you think the radical muslims only want to live in peace. Their goal is to establish Sharia law in the United States. Terror is simply the most economical way to accomplish this. You would do well to study the teachings of the Wahabi Muslim faith.
What about US sponsored terrorism, or do you call it by another name because you feel your government is always in the right, and that when they bomb and kill women and children in another country it is okay because they dropped bombs from a plane and didn't use suicide bombers, and so thier method and delivery is morally on higher ground than the "terrorist".
Don't you see it is all just what kind of spin you give it that determines who are terrorist and who are not? I think it takes unbiased sympathy to see it from the point of view of a mother or father in Iraq who has just lost a son or all thier family, as to who are the terrorist. The percentage of innocent people or civilians who are getting killed in this war is way higher than in world war 1 or 2, no matter how "smart" we make our bombs.
What about US sponsored terrorism, or do you call it by another name because you feel your government is always in the right, and that when they bomb and kill women and children in another country it is okay because the dropped bombs from a plane and didn't use suicide bombers, and so thier method and delivery is morally on higher ground than the "terrorist". Don't you see it is all just what kind of spin you give it that determines who are terrorist and who are not?
frankiespeakin, once again I find myself agreeing with you...
Two wrongs don't make a right, never have, never will. No amount of war is going to wipe out terrorism, it only creates more. BTW, don't nuclear weapons owned by the US count as WMDs? Why should they have them, but no one else? How come Clinton was able to stop terrorist attacks on US soil but Bush failed on the first attempt? Is it just a coincidence that Bush made his millions in the oil business?
Brinjen,
once again I find myself agreeing with you...
As I do with your post as well. Seems you can cut thru the bull shit, like many of our posters here. Many still trust the politicians same old lies, perhaps because they are the trusting type or they haven't figured out that mind control is not just for cults to control its member but governments use it too.
How come Clinton was able to stop terrorist attacks on US soil but Bush failed on the first attempt?
Levels of compatance I guess Bush is too stubborn, opinionated, and nationalistic to see the facts in a clear light.
The incident on 9/11 was just the latest in a long string of incidents in which our country was attacked. Has everyone forgotten the Iranian Embassy Siege, the bombing of the Cole (Destroyer), the Embassy in Tanzania, the Marine Barracks in Lebannon, the Kobar Towers, the first attempt on the twin towers,?
Brinjen, When the attacks on 9/11 occured, Bush was president for only six months, and didn't even have all his cabinet in place yet.
All the other attacks were during the Carter/Clinton presidency. Hardly anything was done in retaliation to those attacks. That's why there were more attacks.
In fact, the 9/11 attacks were planned during the Clinton administration, so don't blame Bush for not "reacting" before 9/11. I have to be fair to the Democrats....Before 9/11, you couldn't get the backing of the country to increase national security and terrorist defense measures. People didn't want to pay more taxes for that.....until it happened.
Hubert
Nav,
It is the worst kind of war, a war with religious motivation. The incident on 9/11 was just the latest in a long string of incidents in which our country was attacked. Has everyone forgotten the Iranian Embassy Siege, the bombing of the Cole (Destroyer), the Embassy in Tanzania, the Marine Barracks in Lebannon, the Kobar Towers, the first attempt on the twin towers,?
And why do you think we have had these attacks, is it simply because they don't like america or do you even know? Could it be because they are retailiating for some thing bad the US has done is doing to thier country? Or is the US always above reproach and that what motivated these attacks was just insane religious hatred?
If it were ever to be re-introduced, I think it should be universally mandatory, but not necessarily military. Providing any alternatives creates a two-tier system.
I have always though that way as wel but it would end being a shelter for the elite's kids so no, everyone goes or your don't get privilages like the ability to vote, hold office or go to colledge. If you don't want to kill become a medic.
