posted
Incidentally, here's the second page of a thread we had after the 2004 elections. About half-way down the page there are links to the "scorecard" to find out if you're eligible to immigrate to Canada and the various ways you can move, such as work, student, etc.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The only way not to harbor objectors would be to prohibit the granting of visas of all young U.S. citizens, including workers and students.
Actually, the easiest way not to legally harbour objectors would simply be to reduce the efficiency of the immigration process. As wait times went up, more and more would-be immigrants would be shipped off to war while waiting for permission to legally enter Canada.
If it became clear that many Americans were entering the country illegally and draining our social services, I imagine it would rapidly become harder to cross the border.
Also, I would just like to point out my post on the bottom of page one, clarifying what Trudeau actually said about the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, you do know that the diplomat heading up the North Korean talks is a Canadian DIPLOMAT, right? That is the official term. He may be negotiating, but he is a diplomat.
How do you consider it a year wasted to do a year of military service? Even the U.S. draft has an option for contientious objectors. No one has to specifically join the armed forces. There are civil jobs to be held that can benefit the nation and effort. That is, if they go with what has been done in the past with the draft. They have to write a new one up. So there really is no telling. However, it is highly unlikely that a draft will occur, because the Democrats are not in union on this. Several key Democrats are in opposition of it. At least one that I care about (cuz I voted for him. OMG, a republican voted for a democrat, the shame!), Carl Levin has voiced his opinion against the draft. (This is according to a Reuters article I read)
And Republicans have also been voicing concern over this. There is far from a lot of support for this.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Carl Levin has voiced his opinion against the draft. (This is according to a Reuters article I read)
He's against it. I'm glad he's from Michigan
Pel -
quote:"Alright, so after Canada cuts diplomatic ties with the US, and their economy suffers"
That is a non-sequiturr. Cutting off diplomatic ties has nothing to do with trade.
It's not a non-sequitor at all. You claiming that the diplomatic relations of two nations has nothing to do with their trade relations however is curiously strange. I think that's a naive point of view.
quote:"Hell, we have diplomats that deal with North Korea!"
We do not. We have negotiators, but the United States does not currently maintain normal diplomatic relationships with North Korea, Cuba, Iran or Bhutan.
Canada is the most poorly treated of all G8 countries, even though it is one of the better run in most issues (it is better in almost any respect that Russia or Italy).
Well geez, when you compare almost any first or second world nation with Russia, I'm sure they're going to come out smelling like roses in terms of how they are run. So I don't really think that's a real good reason for Canada to be celebrating. Call them what you will, there are diplomats discussing issues with North Korea, that's diplomatic relations.
quote:"but your military is pathetic compared to more first world powers"
Um, Canada has a very strong military indeed by most standards. Strong enough for it to meet Nato requirements for defense and strong enough for it to take a lead in Peacekeeping operations around the world and in Afganistan. Keep in mind that Canada is not a very large country by Nato standards (in terms of population, obviously) and about 1/10 the side of the U.S.
You're kidding right? Canada spends about $12 billion dollars a year on their armed forces. That's probably about what NATO spends every year on stationary. Combined regular troops and reserves are less than 100,000 people. Less than a hundred tanks (20 year old tanks at that), less than a hundred aircraft, and a handful of combat ships for their navy, which while powerful, can neither project force, nor defend against any manner of serious threat. (Canadian ships also use primarily American weapons, you're welcome, and we make your helicopters, and fighter jets, and a smattering of other stuff).
Canadian forces in Afghanistan, despite them being in charge of the operation there, are about a tenth of what Americans have there. Granted, in the last year they've started expand their military a bit, they are still underpowered compared to any first world nation.
For a basis of comparison, Japan, who is thought of to have no military, spends $42 billion dollars a year on their military. That's almost four times as much as superpowered Canada. Their total military, including reserve was just over 297,000 men and women in 2005.
The Canadian military isn't necessarily a joke, but I doubt they could fend off a serious threat by themselves, and they have zero ability to project force, or undertake operations without serious help from another world power.
Who exactly are you comparing their military to to come up with your "strong military indeed by most standards" figure?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Canadian military isn't necessarily a joke, but I doubt they could fend off a serious threat by themselves...
The only credible threat to Canadian sovereignty is the United States. Given that there is no way we could ever spend enough on our military to fend off an actual American invasion, we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ...we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
Exactly. Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ...we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
Exactly. Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature.
You can thank your beloved for persuading me of this necessity. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Canadian military isn't necessarily a joke, but I doubt they could fend off a serious threat by themselves...
The only credible threat to Canadian sovereignty is the United States. Given that there is no way we could ever spend enough on our military to fend off an actual American invasion, we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
That's a remarkably short sighted view on national defense. Can't say I blame you, it's cheaper in the short run, but assuming the world continues the way it is now, you're resources are going to start looking mighty tempting to the rest of the world.
Besides, A. The US isn't a credible threat, unless you're just talking about nearby military powers that could feasibly invade you, regardless of politics or history, in which case, Russia, China, India (in the near future) and Europe also pose a threat to you. It's a testament to how comparatively weak your military is that I can say how easy it would be for China or Russia to roll through Western Canada without much to stop them.
B. I never said Canada had a ton of credible threats, I was merely responding to Pelegius' silly assertion that Canada has a strong military.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: It wasn't meant to be a "badass" response. It was meant as a realistic question. Some people respond to screaming and yelling. Some don't. If I know that you're not going to physically harm me, why should I respond to the yelling and threats?
'cause if you don't respond, then whoever's drilling starts taking it out on everybody around you...and they all know the cause of their punishment (you. Not obeying the first time).
It's a pretty efficient system, really!
Unless you convince everybody around you to also not respond.
Pardon me while I plot my revolution. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: It wasn't meant to be a "badass" response. It was meant as a realistic question. Some people respond to screaming and yelling. Some don't. If I know that you're not going to physically harm me, why should I respond to the yelling and threats?
'cause if you don't respond, then whoever's drilling starts taking it out on everybody around you...and they all know the cause of their punishment (you. Not obeying the first time).
It's a pretty efficient system, really!
Unless you convince everybody around you to also not respond.
Pardon me while I plot my revolution.
Then it just gets worse.
I do have one question: Why, WHY would we ever invade Canada? It's way too cold up there, and they think Curling is a sport. Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ...we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
Exactly. Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature.
Ah, Bloom County fans.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Canadian military isn't necessarily a joke, but I doubt they could fend off a serious threat by themselves...
The only credible threat to Canadian sovereignty is the United States. Given that there is no way we could ever spend enough on our military to fend off an actual American invasion, we must content ourselves with spending enough to ensure that America will never feel the need to deploy significant numbers of troops to Canada in order to "protect" us -- or, more accurately, our natural resources.
That's a remarkably short sighted view on national defense.
No, a short-sighted view of national defence would be saying that we don't need to spend money on our military, because nobody would ever attack us. This is a pragmatic view of national defence, and actually entails a significant increase in Canadian military spending (some of which has already begun). We could never hope to build and sustain a military that could defeat any of the powers you listed, and I think it would be pointless to try.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Can't say I blame you, it's cheaper in the short run, but assuming the world continues the way it is now, you're resources are going to start looking mighty tempting to the rest of the world. Besides, A. The US isn't a credible threat, unless you're just talking about nearby military powers that could feasibly invade you, regardless of politics or history, in which case, Russia, China, India (in the near future) and Europe also pose a threat to you.
As you noted, in the event of invasion by a power outside North America, the United States would defend Canada. The result of this is that the United States itself is, as I said, the only credible threat to us. Not that I think the U.S. would invade us, but I do think a deployment along the lines of what I talked about in my first post isn't outside the realm of possibility.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's a testament to how comparatively weak your military is that I can say how easy it would be for China or Russia to roll through Western Canada without much to stop them.
Well, sure. How the heck is a country of some 35 million supposed to build an army that can stop China?
Occupying Canada might be a challenge, but invading it definitely wouldn't be.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: B. I never said Canada had a ton of credible threats, I was merely responding to Pelegius' silly assertion that Canada has a strong military.
I didn't say you said that. I was simply explaining why it would be pointless for Canada to try to match the U.S. -- or any other major world power -- in ability to project military force.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
They invented hockey, and it isn't much colder than most of Michigan in the more inhabited parts of Canada. That's worth invading right there. Michigan will take care of it Don't worry yourself about it.
twinky -
Valid points all around. Good point about pragmatic vs. short sighted in the first paragraph, you're right. Thing about invading Canada is, you could make anyone pay dearly for it. It'd have to involve an amphibious assualt of massive proportions, and you'll be able to spot them well before they get there. China may have a bajillion man army, but transporting that army will be incredibly difficult, and that's where you'd hit them. It's not impossible, but it would strain your resources considerably. Still, why bother? It's out of the question right now, and you've plenty of time to prepare for the eventuality.
Only problem with invasion vs. occupation is, likely whoever invaded you wouldn't really be occupying all that much. The majority of your timber and oil is where the majority of your populatin ISN'T. Therefore, they take and hold the wilderness and keep you bottled up in your cities and towns and they get all the goodies without much of the cost. I think however, occupying Canada would be a hell of a lot easier than say, Iraq. The wilderness works against the invader, but engineers can cut roads through easy enough, the problem is a population unsuited for urban combat. You don't have many veterans in your population, and certainly less than a million actual combat veterans, and there's a serious lack of guns amongst the civilian population.
In Iraq everyone and their brother has an AK, or can get one from a million places. In the US, there's several guns per person, and millions more available. Good luck to the Chinese holding LA. Canada's military would get wiped off the earth, and leave an unarmed citizenry ripe for the picking. Granted it would never come to that, the US would be over the border before the Chinese got off the boats to protect you, but still, hypotheticals can be fun.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Canada. Lyr proved me wrong. Standby for the invasion . But really, Lyr, Curling for crying out loud! It's not a sport! Let them keep it. Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How do you consider it a year wasted to do a year of military service?"
Um, economic? cultural?
A year spent in the military is a year spent doing nothing else, as in not contributing to the economy or going to school.
Think about it this way, what if everyone in this country, or any country, were a solider? It would be a disaster. Now take that effect and downplay it.
"Call them what you will, there are diplomats discussing issues with North Korea, that's diplomatic relations."
But not normal diplomats. There is no U.S. embassy in North Korea. None. I don't know how I could make this more clear. Not only have we withdrawn our ambassador, we have closed our embassy. That is what is called the cessation of normal diplomacy in diplomatic circles. Well, in any circles actually.
"Who exactly are you comparing their military to to come up with your "strong military indeed by most standards" figure?"
Any country not pumped up on the steroids of outrageous military over expenditure. The strongest land army in Europe, excluding the U.K., is that of Turkey, number 19 spender on arms. Number 20? Canada. Only seven of the 26 Nato member states (these are the 26 most powerful military forces of the west) spend more per annum than Canada.
Defense wise, of course, Canada doesn't need a very strong military, or any military at all really. Their military exists solely to lone out.
Wheras the U.S. military exists to protect our vital interest in Stanleyville from those dastardly Commies! Yeah!
quote: They have to be protected (all their rights respected) till someone that we like can get elected
posted
"you're resources are going to start looking mighty tempting to the rest of the world. "
And mighty inaccessible. Just out of curiosity, but how is this hypothetical Indian military threat going to gain access to Canada's precious bodily fluids... I mean natural resources? In a few years, they might be able to bomb Canada, but you cannot extract oil with airplanes.
As for launching an invasion fleet, please, no group has successful invaded Britain since 1066, and the Channel is a hell of allot narrower than the Pacific.
"As wait times went up, more and more would-be immigrants would be shipped off to war while waiting for permission to legally enter Canada.
If it became clear that many Americans were entering the country illegally and draining our social services, I imagine it would rapidly become harder to cross the border. "
We all love the E.U. And 8,891 kilometre borders don't just guard themselves you know.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Sorry Canada. Lyr proved me wrong. Standby for the invasion . But really, Lyr, Curling for crying out loud! It's not a sport! Let them keep it.
Precisely. That's what we'll use to placate them once we take over. Instead of fighting us in the streets with their Battle Mooses, they'll be at the local rink, curling to their heart's delight.
It'll be our big PR campaign to pass out curling brooms to local youth, and we'll free Quebec to be their own nation, which will eliminate 7.5 million people worth of resistance, and gain us a nice neighbor ally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A year spent in the military is a year spent doing nothing else, as in not contributing to the economy or going to school.
Oooh, a statement by someone who's never been in. I won't bother explaining in too much detail about the kind of training and schooling you can get in the military. The training I went thru was 1 1/2 years about. It equals a 4 year college, but no degree. But it definately gets you most of the way there. Anything else you want to throw your uneducated opinion on?
quote: Think about it this way, what if everyone in this country, or any country, were a solider?
Notice you are the ONLY one saying all citizens being in the military. That would never happen. Impossible to happen. This isn't even worth my time.
quote: Definition: Diplomat Diplomat Noun 1. An official engaged in international negotiations.
2. A person who deals tactfully with others.
Hmmm, negotions...diplomat...wow, looks to me like a diplomat handles negotiations. Man, I was almost fooled on that one. Try again.
So, I ask you one question. Dare you tell me just HOW I AM WASTING MY TIME? Other than replying to you that is.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
A year spent in the military is a year spent doing nothing else, as in not contributing to the economy or going to school.
Think about it this way, what if everyone in this country, or any country, were a solider? It would be a disaster. Now take that effect and downplay it.
You ignore the individual benefits that come from being in the service. One year isn't that big a deal really, minor hiccup of some cogs realigning in the national machinery. Every year a few million kids would come out of the service into the workforce...just pretend that high school is being made a year longer.
quote:Any country not pumped up on the steroids of outrageous military over expenditure. The strongest land army in Europe, excluding the U.K., is that of Turkey, number 19 spender on arms. Number 20? Canada. Only seven of the 26 Nato member states (these are the 26 most powerful military forces of the west) spend more per annum than Canada.
Defense wise, of course, Canada doesn't need a very strong military, or any military at all really. Their military exists solely to lone out.
Wheras the U.S. military exists to protect our vital interest in Stanleyville from those dastardly Commies! Yeah!
Second of all, Egypt spends a fraction of what Canada does, and they have a thousand warplanes, and 500,000 men in their active duty army. Israel spends a few billion less than Canada, and they are arguably the most threatened nation on earth. Money isn't everything Pel, it's just the easiest way to put every nation in an Excel spreadsheet and say who has the most and who the least. Compared to most other first world nations, and MANY second world nations, Canada's army does NOT measure up, in terms of materiel, force projection, manpower, and overall combat effectiveness. I don't know what you are using to deny that with, but it isn't facts.
And to finish it off...
quote:And mighty inaccessible. Just out of curiosity, but how is this hypothetical Indian military threat going to gain access to Canada's precious bodily fluids... I mean natural resources? In a few years, they might be able to bomb Canada, but you cannot extract oil with airplanes.
As for launching an invasion fleet, please, no group has successful invaded Britain since 1066, and the Channel is a hell of allot narrower than the Pacific.
What in god's name are you talking about invading across the channel? We're talking about Canada, not Britain. Did you get your Anglicized nations mixed up? I don't know what your "bodily fluids" reference is supposed to be, a joke? India was a stretch, granted. But China and others could launch a decent ground offensive on Canada, they're already gearing up for the invasion of the more heavily fortified Taiwan.
And please, you think India can't figure out how to build a pipeline? They are all over Asia, and North America.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you get paid. Full medical and dental. Excellent retirement if you decide to stay in. There is a price on my head, if my sister so wants to kill me for the money she could get. My life insurance is enough to pay her way through most major colleges.
edited to add: I get 30 days paid vacation time a year. I can save it up too and have as much as 60 days in a year to take off.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, I ask you one question. Dare you tell me just HOW I AM WASTING MY TIME? Other than replying to you that is.
Come now. There is a difference between going in by choice, whether for patriotism or the college loan, and being conscripted. Indeed, if you were a conscript, why would they bother with the college bit, or other incentive? "Here's your rifle, shut up and soldier."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Normal dimplomats, dear (no calm down dear, stop thawing your tantrum) are ambassadors and consuls, as well as their staff. Note that none of these from the U.S. are to be found in North Korea. None, none, nada, nein, nulla.
"Dare you tell me just HOW I AM WASTING MY TIME?"
Maybe you aren't but putting everyone in the military would be a waste of natural resources. And, yes, I said everybody. National Service means everybody. Selective service doesn't make sense in peacetime.
"That would never happen. Impossible to happen."
I agree.
"Oooh, a statement by someone who's never been in. "
Never been unemployed either, how could I possibly know that this is bad for the economy.
Why are you in the military, you clearly hate civilians, so "protecting our liberties" cannot possibly be your motivation. Do you just like the haircut?
I can't even continue to respond to your appalling blend of patronizing ridicule and over-the-top histrionics.
P.S. 1.5?4. It never has, sorry.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are joking right, that is well over one per cent of most peoples lives. I am not a Hindu, so I will say over one per cent of the only life they get.
"just pretend that high school is being made a year longer."
That would also be a disaster.
"And you get paid. Full medical and dental. Excellent retirement if you decide to stay in"
All of which costs money, money that we cannot possibly afford to pay every citizen without raising the taxes. Especially as we have one year's less taxable income under this unworkable plan.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe you aren't but putting everyone in the military would be a waste of natural resources. And, yes, I said everybody. National Service means everybody. Selective service doesn't make sense in peacetime.
Keeping in mind that I'm against the draft as proposed....Selective Service excludes women and focuses on young men, so it wouldn't be anywhere near everybody.
quote:Come now. There is a difference between going in by choice, whether for patriotism or the college loan, and being conscripted. Indeed, if you were a conscript, why would they bother with the college bit, or other incentive? "Here's your rifle, shut up and soldier."
Because this is a powerful democracy. We don't NEED conscripts at the moment, so if we were to do some sort of forced conscription, it wouldn't be to send them right out to war, it'd be a new way of life where young men do service then go about their lives. The only way to make this a sell to young men of the nation, who as a voting bloc could kill the measure, is to include some sort of bonus in it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off it's called take 4 years worth of curriculum and shove it into the students head at a pace of 1.5 years. When I went through there weren't too many colleges harder to go through. We ranked the 2nd hardest in fact.
Second of all, I am not "dear."
3rd. What does unemployment play in this? But you boast of knowing what the military is about. I have no disdain for civilians. Just the ones who say that I am wasting my time.
There is an age limit for Selective Service, and they do not call everyone in at once. It goes by number. Like during 'Nam. My Uncle's number came up for the draft, but it came at the same time the conflict ended, therefore voiding his draft papers.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are joking right, that is well over one per cent of most peoples lives. I am not a Hindu, so I will say over one per cent of the only life they get.
Again, you're ignoring the benefits. It isn't a year gone down a blackhole.
quote:That would also be a disaster.
Define disaster. End of society as we know it? Katrina disaster? Broke a nail?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
And was the site of a disasterous and needless battle wherin Belgium tried to maintain control the Congo and the U.S. tried to contain Communism.
"What in god's name are you talking about invading across the channel? We're talking about Canada, not Britain"
My point was that the Pacific, which is the obstacle India would have to face, is much wider than the channel.
"I don't know what your "bodily fluids" reference is supposed to be, a joke?"
Yes, watch "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" and all will become clear. The film is about how the U.S. destroys the world Gen. Jack D. Ripper, USAF, is convinced that there is"a Communist conspiracy which he believes threatens to "sap and impurify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people with fluoridated water."
The film is Kubrick's masterpiece and one the greatest of all films.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Serious economic damage, widespread belief that the U.S. government has the collective brain power of a troop of Baboons. So, pretty much your typical Washington disaster.
"There is an age limit for Selective Service, and they do not call everyone in at once. It goes by number."
But we arn't talking about Selective Service, which is a wartime emergency, are we? We are talking about peace time National Service which is a different beast entirely.
" I have no disdain for civilians"
And I have none for soldiers. I do however have disdain for politicians who tell me I must become a soldier to fight for things I don't believe in and a country which I have decidedly mixed feelings about. Keep in mind that I would probably never be drafted, I am very much 4f and have an Aunt who is a Canadian citizen, but I am still not in favor of the draft.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Selective Service is something that all US males must fill out for upon turning 18. Does not matter if it is peace time or war. It is required by law. In fact, I can still look up my Selective Service number even though I am active duty.
I'm already taking into account that you are Canadian. But for US citizens it also must be realized that if it were to ever meet the floor passing (which it won't), there are options in which you are not out carrying a gun. We looked it up today at work. You think you are the first person I have discussed this with? Don't answer it was a stupid question. I know you don't think so.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Serious economic damage, widespread belief that the U.S. government has the collective brain power of a troop of Baboons. So, pretty much your typical Washington disaster.
Pfft. Based on what? A YEAR of compulsory service for males out of high school is going to do that? Ridiculous, and not even backed up with a decent string of unsupported hypothetical. What do you base your ludicrous guess on?
quote:My point was that the Pacific, which is the obstacle India would have to face, is much wider than the channel.
Yeah, and you're aware that across the ocean's of the world, Britain has controlled an empire, America invaded Normandy and the Pacific islands, Japan invaded Alaska, etc etc. You build boats for the love of God. Why are you being deliberately obstuse?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Lyr. I never did make mention of your Levin reply. Yeah, the reason I keep voting for him is because of the way he handles his business. It's not necessarily what he votes for or not. I've watched him in meetings/discussions, and I hold him in very high regard for these.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Once, no longer. It is a miracle it ever did, actualy. Of all the empires in the history of the world, Britain's was the most unusual.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Hey, Lyr. I never did make mention of your Levin reply. Yeah, the reason I keep voting for him is because of the way he handles his business. It's not necessarily what he votes for or not. I've watched him in meetings/discussions, and I hold him in very high regard for these.
Ever get the feeling that the Levins are like Michigan's Kennedys? Sander Levin, Carl Levin, Andy Levin ran for the state senate and lose to Pappageorge, Charles Levin was a MI Supreme Court Justice.
Carl is quiet, doesn't make waves, never really seems to be out to score points. He just does his job, pretty damned well from what I can see, and that's it. Furthermore, I just trust the man. Aren't too many people in politics I feel that way about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ever get the feeling that the Levins are like Michigan's Kennedys? Sander Levin, Carl Levin, Andy Levin ran for the state senate and lose to Pappageorge, Charles Levin was a MI Supreme Court Justice.
Carl is quiet, doesn't make waves, never really seems to be out to score points. He just does his job, pretty damned well from what I can see, and that's it. Furthermore, I just trust the man. Aren't too many people in politics I feel that way about.
Haha, never thought about them and the Kennedy's like that. I'm afraid too though, as well. I'm not much on some of the Kennedy's.
*cough* Ted Kennedy *cough*
But yeah, no waves. He's just doing what he gets paid to do.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Registering for the draft is a meaningless exercise when you have no draft.
I see you are a fan of waiting till the last minute. Didn't ya know? The military is a huge fan of "hurry up and wait." Besides, it's better to be ready than not.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, except that rivka can if she wants. However, I wouldn't want the gf to start getting jealous. Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, thing is, that I am really not all that upset, despite my posts. Only one person has seen me upset in the past 8 years. Upset, as in angry. An' it was one of the guys who worked for me. We both apologized to each other at the same time. Long story, it is though.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
because I need to. My depression is kicking in a little bit. I have to fight it off. It's due to the lack of sustained actual human interaction. This board doesn't cut it. I'd go out, but I am saving my money up for a vacation. This one is to include air, hotel, and a rental car. My most expensive yet since I normally drive myself, not fly.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey everybody! Go out and read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. In the dystopic America it presents, if you don't have a PHD you either are in the equivalent of the CCC or in the military. It's a fascinating book really. And I have nothing else to add.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: It's due to the lack of sustained actual human interaction. This board doesn't cut it.
With the way some of the threads have gone lately, I'm not at all surprised that Hatrack doesn't meet your quota for "human interaction."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"just pretend that high school is being made a year longer."
I'd have killed myself. I actually had to quit college becuase I had a nervous breakdown. High school is too long for some of us as is.
Right now, the miliary isn't a waste of time becuase people want to be there. They're taking advantage of the opportunities given to them to do something good for themselves.
If it was full of draftees who hated and resented every second they were there, the benefit would shrivel into non-existance. You'll only get out of military service what you put into it.
As for the pressure to do what you're told, again, that's becuase people want to be there. If the recruits are three guys who want to serve and twenty who'd rather be at home with their PS2s, where will the pressure come from? The drill sergeants would need something new to threaten people with.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
