Your view on Politics

[Rosbjerg]

What disturbs me is the non-US recruits in the US army.  They get sent into combat, and rewarded with posthumous US citizenship if they get killed.  That just feels wrong to me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes like that .. seems alot like the old Roman system doesn't it?

[B5C]

yes like that .. seems alot like the old Roman system doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Half of the US Government system was based on the Roman system and plus Every Army in the world was based off the Roman military.

[Meshugger]

I can see the logic in some cases .. But from what I hear (from family living in America) .. if you have been in the army you have a better chance to get any kind of job, since it's generally regarded as a good character trait to have served your nation .. and that seems militaristic to me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really militaristic. Its just a reward for helping your nation. A very small number of people join the military just for the money. 80% of those quit during basic tranning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the US needs to do, is recall the draft and make sure that everyone does his/hers job serving their country. It also abolishes the situation where ordinary civilians might be treated as a second-hand citizens.

 

And this shouldn't be just for the Iraqi war, it should be mandatory in peace-time aswell.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You should be garateed citizenship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, citizenship before you die, not conditional upon you dying.

[213374U]

Armies are necessary, perhaps, although I believe Costa Rica doesn't have one and is surviving.  The problem is that the US has such a huge army, it tempts presidents into using it all the time.  It's amazing how Bush is forever telling us that America is a peace-loving country, yet it manages to find a reason to use its army every couple of years.  Like fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Except that al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq.

No. Costa Rica doesn't have an army and is surviving because nobody would really want to attack them, and in the event of natural catastrophes they rely on international aid.

 

And powers using military action to protect their interests is nothing new. In fact, that's how powers maintain their status. They didn't need an excuse in the old times, though.

 

Sorry folks, that's how the world works.

[WITHTEETH]

Huh? I didn't deny that in the case of your family things had gone well. That doesn't prove that hard work is a guarantee of success. In fact, wealth distribution in the US disproves that. Or are you saying that everyone except the wealthy are lazy bastards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not allways, but there is risk. It a capitalist society you MUST take risks. For people who are communist or Socialists are not risk takers. They want everything handed to them. Im sorry, but the government is not your nanny.

 

BTW: WITHTEETH how old are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

22

[213374U]

What the US needs to do, is recall the draft and make sure that everyone does his/hers job serving their country. It also abolishes the situation where ordinary civilians might be treated as a second-hand citizens.

Um, no. Drafting is a source of social discomfort. And making it mandatory would cheapen that duty as well. If you don't believe in what your country stands for, you shouldn't be forced to serve it, if we are to believe in individual freedom. But on the other hand, being a patriot is for many a badge of honor. Serving in the army is the ultimate proof of patriotism, I think, since it means you are willing to give your life for your country. Not as much for the State or the government, but for the people. In my opinion it's fair to reward such a selfless attitude.

[B5C]

Yes, citizenship before  you die, not conditional upon you dying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Acullay a Mexcian citizen who joined the US Army and died in Iraq gave his life for freedom. Gained US citizenship.

[213374U]

Acullay a Mexcian citizen who joined the US Army and died in Iraq gave his life for freedom. Gained US citizenship.

Beautiful... but false. He didn't give his life for freedom. He gave his life for the US. It's not the same thing.

[Lucius]

I'd rather say tragic, and yet ironic.

 

I'm a former soldier myself, by the way.

[Rosbjerg]

Serving in the army is the ultimate proof of patriotism, I think, since it means you are willing to give your life for your country. Not as much for the State or the government, but for the people. In my opinion it's fair to reward such a selfless attitude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well if it's then use like a carrot where you 'lure' people by promising them benefits and/or citizenship .. the whole idea kinda looses it's value imo!

you present people with a kind of shortcut which they could have achieved by studying longer.. and then you boost the nations army in the meantime..

I just don't like the idea of drawing people in under such promises and then sending them off into deadly situations! I know it's ultimately their choice, but still!

 

and in the situation with the mexican it may be his only choice to gain citizenship! and their using his desires against him ..

[thepixiesrock]

I don't like when people confuse things America fights for with freedom...

[SteveThaiBinh]

What the US needs to do, is recall the draft and make sure that everyone does his/hers job serving their country. It also abolishes the situation where ordinary civilians might be treated as a second-hand citizens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It it also means that the government will think more carefully before sending troops abroad to fight in unnecessary wars. When the rich and powerful have kids in the military, I think the national interest will be more narrowly defined.

[Rosbjerg]

yes like that .. seems alot like the old Roman system doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Half of the US Government system was based on the Roman system and plus Every Army in the world was based off the Roman military.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know .. I should have been more clear! I meant the part where you promise citizenship and benefits afterwards ..

[213374U]

well if it's then use like a carrot where you 'lure' people by promising them benefits and/or citizenship .. the whole idea kinda looses it's value imo!

you present people with a kind of shortcut which they could have achieved by studying longer.. and then you boost the nations army in the meantime..

I just don't like the idea of drawing people in under such promises and then sending them off into deadly situations! I know it's ultimately their choice, but still!

It works both ways. If instead of out of patriotism you do it for the benefits, you have to pay the price. You might be sent to Iraq or some other unpleasant place, and ultimately you might get killed. It's a fair tradeoff if you ask me. The last sentence of that paragraph is the key. It's their choice, as adults. Nothing is free.

 

 

and in the situation with the mexican it may be his only choice to gain citizenship! and their using his desires against him ..

Um, so? Why should he be granted US citizenship in the first place?

[Rosbjerg]

and in the situation with the mexican it may be his only choice to gain citizenship! and their using his desires against him ..

Um, so? Why should he be granted US citizenship in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so you have no problem with them using his desperation and sending him to war to fight their fight? ..

[213374U]

It it also means that the government will think more carefully before sending troops abroad to fight in unnecessary wars.  When the rich and powerful have kids in the military, I think the national interest will be more narrowly defined.

That's the kind of demagogy that I love to hear. Again, nobody forces you to join the military. If you do it, you must keep in mind the possible consequences of that decision. Let's not mistake things. Being a soldier is potentially the most dangerous job there is. It's not something to be taken lightly or merely as a shortcut to other things. It means you become cannon fodder at the government's disposal. What you can't do is have the interests of the country be subject to some cowardly hedonist notion of what being a soldier is.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It works both ways. If instead of out of patriotism you do it for the benefits, you have to pay the price. You might be sent to Iraq or some other unpleasant place, and ultimately you might get killed. It's a fair tradeoff if you ask me. The last sentence of that paragraph is the key. It's their choice, as adults. Nothing is free.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, many of the non-US recruits to the US army are from Latin American countries where they have few opportunities because of widespread poverty. And unfortunately, that poverty is often in part the fault of United States policy, foreign and economic. There's a serious ethical problem there.

 

Um, so? Why should he be granted US citizenship in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you want him to fight and possibly die to serve your country, citizenship would be the first thing you would give him, not quite literally, the last .

[213374U]

so you have no problem with them using his desperation and sending him to war to fight their fight? ..

US citizenship has a price that is only set by the democratically elected government of the US. It's your choice to buy it or not.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It it also means that the government will think more carefully before sending troops abroad to fight in unnecessary wars.  When the rich and powerful have kids in the military, I think the national interest will be more narrowly defined.

That's the kind of demagogy that I love to hear. Again, nobody forces you to join the military. If you do it, you must keep in mind the possible consequences of that decision. Let's not mistake things. Being a soldier is potentially the most dangerous job there is. It's not something to be taken lightly or merely as a shortcut to other things. It means you become cannon fodder at the government's disposal. What you can't do is have the interests of the country be subject to some cowardly hedonist notion of what being a soldier is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring to the draft. The draft means that the consequences of military action are borne equally by all sectors of society, not disproportionately by the poor and new immigrants, as seems to be the case now. This will have the effect, not of abolishing war perhaps, but encouraging the government to be more cautious before choosing the military option.

[213374U]

Unfortunately, many of the non-US recruits to the US army are from Latin American countries where they have few opportunities because of widespread poverty.  And unfortunately, that poverty is often in part the fault of United States policy, foreign and economic.  There's a serious ethical problem there.

The US policy for them wouldn't be worth jack if their own leaders didn't allow it. But unfortunately for those countries their leaders are the first who are willing to sell the country. We had our share of corrupt tyrants over here, too. We overthrew them over time. I don't see why they should have for free and instantly what we had to pay in blood and took centuries. Now that would be unfair.

 

 

I think if you want him to fight and possibly die to serve your country, citizenship would be the first  thing you would give him, not quite literally, the last .

Yep. That's an excellent formula to promote mass defection from the army, as well as inefficiency and complacency within the ranks. I don't know about you, but I'm not paid in advance.

[Meshugger]

What the US needs to do, is recall the draft and make sure that everyone does his/hers job serving their country. It also abolishes the situation where ordinary civilians might be treated as a second-hand citizens.

Um, no. Drafting is a source of social discomfort. And making it mandatory would cheapen that duty as well. If you don't believe in what your country stands for, you shouldn't be forced to serve it, if we are to believe in individual freedom. But on the other hand, being a patriot is for many a badge of honor. Serving in the army is the ultimate proof of patriotism, I think, since it means you are willing to give your life for your country. Not as much for the State or the government, but for the people. In my opinion it's fair to reward such a selfless attitude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see it that way at all. A draft for everyone will strengthen society as a whole, since everyone has served their country. It gives the people the mentality that no one is the better patriot than the other, thus eliminating the possibility to grade civilians as second-grade citizens.

 

Also, the military will no longer play its role a tool of the goverment's aggressive politics, since everyone (and their children) is involved when conducting warfare.

[213374U]

I don't see it that way at all. A draft for everyone will strengthen society as a whole, since everyone has served their country. It gives the people the mentality that no one is the better patriot than the other, thus eliminating the possibility to grade civilians as second-grade citizens.

For starters, there are no "second-grade" citizens. And you know well that a measure that causes social discomfort doesn't strengthen society, more like the opposite. Patriotism isn't something you can or should force on people, it's a character trait. You are ultimately proposing that everyone is forced to risk their life for something they might not believe in. It would be no different if the Church was allowed to draft people to conduct holy wars.

 

 

Also, the military will no longer play its role a tool of the goverment's aggressive politics, since everyone (and their children) is involved when conducting warfare.

Sorry, that's just too utopic. Military actions are an essential part of any power's policy. Without them, said country would eventually crumble, as a power at least. And if you don't know what the consequences of that are, there are plenty of History books which illustrate it quite nicely.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The US policy for them wouldn't be worth jack if their own leaders didn't allow it. But unfortunately for those countries their leaders are the first who are willing to sell the country. We had our share of corrupt tyrants over here, too. We overthrew them over time. I don't see why they should have for free and instantly what he had to pay in blood and took centuries. Now that would be unfair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You underestimate the extent of US influence and power. I accept that much, perhaps most, of the poverty we see today is not the fault of the US directly. But I can give you lots of cases where US policy has made matters worse, if you like.

 

Yep. That's an excellent formula to promote mass defection from the army, as well as inefficiency and complacency within the ranks. I don't know about you, but I'm not paid in advance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate the validity of your argument, but as you're making it on grounds of efficiency and effectiveness, and I'm making mine from an ethical point of view, we're unlikely to agree.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I don't think I like that idea. Not everyone is adaptable to the military way of doing things. Frankly, it might do more harm than good. I myself was in the US Navy and I nearly got a Section 8 because the place was making me bonkers.