quote: That is hardly voluntary though. For one thing, you do it at such an early age that you don't even know what you are doing. For another thing, how can you possibly reject it? Give up your life, your family, your land, your possessions, your community, and move across the world? You might as well put a gun to people's heads and call it "voluntary" when they consent to whatever you ask.
You're missing the whole purpose of government. And the thing is government can't provide services without restricting rights as well. You have a right to work and make money for yourself. However, the Social Contract says the government can take some of that money in order to provide for services that require money. In the same way the government can take some of your time in order to provide for services that require that. People who don't agree to the Social Contract live in anarchy.
Whether or not you think the death penalty is justified is irrelevant. The point is the government has the right to curtail your right to life in order to provide for law and order. If not your life then your liberty or property. Justice must remove at least one of Jefferson's unalienable rights to function.
If the right to life was truly "unalienable" in your apparent sense of the word then we wouldn't be able to maintain a standing army of volunteers or non-volunteers because either way the government would be restricting an "unalienable" right.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The housing is falling apart, the healthcare benefits are being reduced, and deployments and workloads are increasing.
I just reread the thread and came accross this.
A few years ago the top brass of the military did tours of their respective branches. The goal was to see the worst of the worst in military buildings/ housing. The result of this is a HUGE modernization program costing in the billions of dollars to upgrade the quality of life for our Airman, Seaman, and Soldiers. My wife and I moved into a beautiful two-story house built by the Army Corps of Engineers. We have a knew BX/PX on base and a really nice new HQ building.
As far as healthcare goes, it's never changed for Active Duty Personnel. The hospitals are still staffed by people with the same training, they still recieve the same pay, they still provide the same treatments (unless updated of course), and they still use the same materials. As far as I can see, healthcare has remained the same or gotten better.
If your talking about retiree healthcare, you're mistaken again. They still recieve the same healthcare they recieved on Active status, their ID cards might be a different color, but the service is the same. They might complain that they have to travel farther than before to get the free care, but that's only due to the military closing installations. Also, keep in mind that every retiree is eligable to be seen at a VA Hospital.
As far as the last two points, deployments and workload. I will agree and disagree. I agree that the deployments have increased, but that happens during every war. The workload issue is where I need to disagree. The military has been going through a huge modernization program for the last ten or so, years. This upgrade in technology has significantly eased the workload on the majority of the force.
posted
It seems to me that Americans as a whole value themselves far too highly as it is. I suppose thats to come from a society that isn't very belief oriented now a days. No why would you want to give up a wonderful life, the simple plod of happiness and entertainment upon yourselves. No.. don't worry at all. I'll go catch some rounds.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox, I'm sorry you feel that way. You know how I feel about you (warmly, of course, and worried, lots), but I think that Americans in general value you, the soldier. Well, I do anyway. *shrug*
Scott, I didn't see your reply because I was out and about. I don't always reply to threads. It's not an indictment against you or your ideas, it's just that I have things to do. Let me address your points briefly, as I have more things to do.
*I'm glad that you and the wife got new housing and a nice BX/PX. That is not the norm, in my experience. All of my evidence is anecdotal, but I will tell you that I have had bronchitis three times a year since I moved into this housing due to mold spores in the drywall. The mold is getting into the drywall because the bathroom is poorly grouted. The newly renovated bathroom (well, five years ago). The grout has fallen out from between the tiles, and the caulking from around the tub. The water gets into the drywall and creates an environment for the mold to thrive in. The mold thrives, and grows underneath the tile. The Housing dept. tells me (in response to my repeated calls) to caulk the tub and clean the bathroom more often. I call the health hazard officer (I forget the actual name of the job) and leave many many messages on his voice mail. Eventually he returns my calls and he and his assistant come out to my place to investigate for mold. Guess what? There is mold. And a squishy spot on the wall by the toilet where the water has gotten into the drywall. Apparently not enough mold to warrant a new tub enclosure, but hey! I get the hole in the wall repaired--and once again, they caulk the tub.
I won't even get into the sewage backing up into the tub. Twice.
This is an ongoing problem in this area, it's not just me, and it's not just this section of post. It's not even just enlisted housing, there are about a hundred captains on this post (West Point instructors), and they have falling down crappy, lead-painted interiors, mold in the wall housing as well.
One housing unit down the street from mine had the mold and water-saturated walls and floors situation so bad that the toilet fell through to the second floor. That unit was condemned.
So, while I'm all happy for you and whatnot, I'm still a little peeved about my situation, you can understand.
*Healthcare has changed for the *dependents* of Active Duty personnel, because on-post dental clinics are no longer available for dependent use. There used to be a program where one could get on a waiting list (you had to be physically present, so it wasn't ideal) and get treatment at the dental clinic. I'm also under the impression that Tri-Care used to have a dental plan as part of its coverage (under its old name which escapes me at the moment), but I'm probably wrong.
*I tell you the truth, I don't know too much about the health plans of retirees, I just remember my friend Myrna having a very difficult time having her cataracts treated while we were stationed in Ft. Huachuca. Also, my friend Mr. Roy (a retired Air Force Colonel who works as a DOD civilian now) is having a hard time getting his physical therapy approved. Again, anecdotal, but I only know what I see and hear. The statistics don't say much to me, because statistics lie.
*The modernization of the Army: don't make me laugh. My husband buys tools for use at his motorpool all of the time because he can't get the funding approved for an air compressor (for example).
And my husband's most frequent deployments came in AZ and AK, prior to 9/11/01.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether or not you think the death penalty is justified is irrelevant. The point is the government has the right to curtail your right to life in order to provide for law and order.
No, the government doesn't. The death penalty is relevant because you tried to use as an example of when the government can curtail that right, when all it really is is an example of when the government wrongly curtails that right.
Let me simply state now that I do not voluntarily agree to any social contract in which I am forced to sacrifice my life against my will in any way. The social contract I have agreed to holds the right to life as sacred, and I expect the government to hold up their end of that contract. If they don't, the contract is pretty much null and void.
quote:If the right to life was truly "unalienable" in your apparent sense of the word then we wouldn't be able to maintain a standing army of volunteers or non-volunteers because either way the government would be restricting an "unalienable" right.
Maybe by Locke's sense of the word, but I think there's a difference between a person willingly sacrificing his life for a cause, and a person being forced to do so. I think the former is okay, and the latter is simply wrong.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying that the idea of the draft is evil or tyrranical smacks me as overly idealistic. Imagine what the world would be like now if the US had not drafted anybody during WWII. Would the world be a better or worse place to live in?
I'm probably just reiterating John's point, but WWII was different in a way. It was indeed popular with the public.
The world is definately a better place because we fought in that war.
However, Vietnam, was not. The older generation sent the younger generation to fight a fear of communism in some country they couldn't relate to. A fear, I think, was unfounded. The war dragged on, and many men died for no reason.
I would be willing to fight in a war that had a good point. This current war, does not. It's all bull, for all I care.
I'm not saying I don't respect then men and women over there now--they believe in this war. I don't. I think it's a sham. I'm not willing to be forced into service and die for something I don't believe in.
quote:The social contract I have agreed to holds the right to life as sacred, and I expect the government to hold up their end of that contract. If they don't, the contract is pretty much null and void.
Of course, those crimes which subject people to the death penalty can be taken as voluntary abrogations of that social contract. In the U.S., there's no capital punishment for non-homicide crimes. So the person subjected to it has already opted out of the "Life is sacred" term of the contract.
posted
Xaposert, why don't you try responding to my entire argument where I explain how the other "unalienable" rights are also curtailed?
Starla, it bothers me that you seem to think a war being "popular" determines justification. I say that for two reasons. The first is that I'm pretty sure you were against the Iraq war and that was "popular" when it was initiated and the draft happens when the war starts not when its over and we have the benefit of hindsight, and the same could be said for Vietnam. The second problem I have is that a war can be unpopular and justified. In World War I and World War II the US would have been easily justified to have jumped into fray years earlier. Why do we seemingly always have to wait for a provoking incident like the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jexx the army has always been bad about things like that. Its taken forever for my dad to get the benefits he deserves. Plus hey my tooths been jacked up for over a year now due to shrapnel and I still don't even have an appointment because they've jacked up my paper work so many times. I've gotten double shots on multiple occasions because my shot records keep on getting lost by the medics etc. And I've been in more than one bad piece of army housing. Its not all that great and remember I live in the barracks!!! Not exactly what you would call an excellent place to say the least. You know most of the nifty gear and things I had in Iraq I bought with my own cash. Heck I even bought myself brand 100 round pouches for my M249 Saw at the time, a different belt from army issue, different medical supplies than they give us, etc. The army ends up supplying you most of the things you need through your salary, namely you buying it yourself. I hate the idea to be honest, but its how things work. I for one do not work in the army for the pay, or even the benefits to be honest. The fact is the army's dollars are more likely to be spent on some new piece of equipment, which then gets scrapped by congress 6 years later because its too expensive, then it is to go to my welfare. Then of course I don't care for my own welfare as much as I do those soldiers who are married or have children. But hey as they always tell us if you die your family will be well off with the 200K life insurance you get, oh yeah did I mention that a lot of that simply goes to the government in the form of taxes. Gotta love the system. But then I'll be honest, I don't want to be an American anymore.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do we seemingly always have to wait for a provoking incident like the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?
Because they, er, showed clear and present danger to the United States? I don't know...seems like a good reason to defend the country when it is, in fact, being attacked or directly threatened.
That is "seemingly" the best reason to fight a war...when attacked. When else should we fight a war? Or more to the point, when should the US start a war?
posted
I can't imagine that a draft that included women would ever pass. First, in regard to the ERA (Equal Rights Ammendment):
quote:Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill. The main objections to the ERA were based on fears that women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children.
A draft which included women would most definitely have to exclude mothers, and that would raise a storm of protest from women who weren't mothers, claiming that they were being prejudiced against and made to risk their lives due to a personal choice not to have children. Furthermore, there would have to be a clause exempting women whose religious beliefs prevent them from serving in the army. Even disregarding specific details, I am sure that America in general is still traditional enough that a draft which included women would not pass.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because they, er, showed clear and present danger to the United States? I don't know...seems like a good reason to defend the country when it is, in fact, being attacked or directly threatened.
That is "seemingly" the best reason to fight a war...when attacked. When else should we fight a war? Or more to the point, when should the US start a war?
Or maybe instead of waiting until thousands of lives are lost we should consider action. In WWI you had agression by Germany and u-boats sinking American passenger and freight ships without warning. In WWII you had Germany invading country after country, Attacking American passenger and freight ships without warning, committing genocide... Why wait in either situation?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, one could argue that if America had joined the war earlier, Hitler would have had less of a hold, would have been less powerful, and the war would have been won more quickly. However, do you believe that defense is the only justifiable reason for America to go to war? Terrible atrocities were being committed against the Jews and others, and there is definite proof the the government knew about much of it; if America had gone to war earlier, assuming they had won earlier as well, a huge number of atrocities would have been prevented and a huge number of lives would have been saved. Not American, no, so if your belief is that nations should not interfere with other nations no matter what, then according to you, America did the right thing. However, most people do consider an attempt at genocide by another nation a good reason to try to stop them, by war if necessary.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, I do know the way out, but I have another 3 years in the military and I honor my commitments. I will have no problems or troubles changing once my service is done. I for one follow my word.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wow, it's just like OSC said in that infamous column. No one is interested in defending the country
Though I may be in it for differing reasons, I will continue the fight if need be.
Black Fox, there is a reason I didn't join the Army. However, Navy medical is not any better. And the dentists suck. New technology!?!? Where? I am working with 20 or more year old equipment. The navy believes that if it works, why upgrade? Yes, some stuff has changed to newer. Just not anything I work on. The Navy's ships are built by the lowest bidder. Hmmmmm, I hope you guys have better luck, but I don't think it is so much.
quote: I can't imagine that a draft that included women would ever pass. First, in regard to the ERA (Equal Rights Ammendment):
If women were not included, then how could it be equal? What about fathers? Should they be excluded from the draft? They aren't. Get over yourself before talking about equal opportunity. What is given/granted/pursued by/for/from one has to be the same for the other. Before you go off on a tirade on me, I can understand your arguement about mothers, but your argument overall is flawed. But believe what you will.
[ March 28, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, its because they don't really have all that much money as far as things of that nature go. and as I said it all goes into some project that ends up being to expensive to build completely so they drop it. All that money wasted ::Shrugs shoulders:: thats the government. Military RnD projects aren't really run by the military so much as the government. They can cut the projects whenever they want to.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xaposert, why don't you try responding to my entire argument where I explain how the other "unalienable" rights are also curtailed?
Well, I think these (liberty and property) are lesser rights, and that we give them up in exchange for certain benefits.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jexx, I know what you're going through. Our old house was pretty bad. It had asbestos in the walls and in the glue used to put the wood flooring down. We actually had to sign a waiver to get into the house, saying that we wouldn't sue if we got sick. But, needless to say, the situation is getting better for the majority of the military. If they aren't already building new housing on your post, they probably are working the issue now.
Your comment about Tri-Care not covering dental is true. They don't. But, that is because there is another company that covers dependents called United Concordia. Although it's not free, its extremely good insurance and will cover a wider variety of dental issues (including braces, which Tri-Care was always reluctant to do) at a very low price.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm probably just reiterating John's point, but WWII was different in a way. It was indeed popular with the public.
Yes, after Pearl Harbor, much of the population supported the war. But we still had a draft. We still forced young men to go and die for their country. And it's a good thing that they did. The world would be a much worse place right now if they had not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with the draft, as long as it is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner and as long as it's truly necessary.
Andrew and I discussed what we would do if we had a son who was drafted. We both agreed that we would want him to answer the call. Of course, we would be sick with worry, but that's the price we pay for our lifestyle and freedom.
We also dicussed what we would do if our son wanted to evade the draft and move to Canada (when you live with an Ethics professor, you have these kinds of conversations ) Andrew said that he would be disappointed and that he would want our son to live in Canada for the rest of his life. We wouldn't disown him or anything like that - he would still be our son - but to our way of thinking, he shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of an American way of life if he's not willing to serve when his country needs him.
Andrew himself wanted to join the Air Force when he was growing up. He finally had to accept that they wouldn't take someone who is 6'5'' and colorblind. After 9/11, he would have enlisted if it hadn't been for his disabilities (and the fact that he was a newlywed).
As to women being drafted, I'm all for it and I'd go. I'm a crack shot and I have a cool head in emergencies.
BTW, there is an alternative to the draft - being a conscientious objector.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I am dealing with hypotheticals, I agree with you. I hope that I would answer the draft if I were drafted.
But the idea of me going to war scares me to death. My three biggest irrational fears are going to war, going to prison, and needles. I comfort myself my saying that if there were a war, they would hopefully get more use out of me as an engineer than a soldier.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's about damn time women were required to sign up for selective service.
It is so true. This really parallels the fact that no one complains that there are not enough female garbage collectors.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In WWII you had Germany invading country after country, Attacking American passenger and freight ships without warning, committing genocide... Why wait in either situation?
Right-o. I agree. We should defend allies if they are invaded and I could follow an argument to respond to genocide earlier than we did during WW2 (and since then, actually). But you are still only advocating my point in that it is still responding to an attack, not pre-empting it. I agree, WW2 started too late in terms of Jews (and people with disabilities, and homosexuals, and intellectuals, and...) lost and countries invaded but the fact remains, we would have responded to a threat, not pre-empted it. How do you pre-empt this? When would you have known that Hitler was GOING TO BE a threat? At what point would you have invaded?
And with current policies, how would you know to invade? Who would you not invade and who would you invade? What would a criteria be? Numbers of murders by the regime? Go from the top down? Would it be how many weapons they have that could hurt us? As a addition to the last criteria, would it also be said country's ability to attack us back? I mean, I don't see Bush invading China to bring democracy there in any near future. What would be the criteria? Lacking that, why is it so bad to work towards peace and finding better ways to NOT get into wars knowing that at any one time, gobs of regimes, petty up to significant, are going to be doing nasty things to themselves and others. We don't have nearly enough resources to work from your "get rid of them all" tactics. It is an unsustainable method and truly DOES leave our country more at risk as we spread our troops like too little butter over to much bread (thank you, Bilbo).
Really, beyond drafting every adult from 20-44 into armed service (and even with that) how is the campaign to remove ALL possible armed threats to this country to work out?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
