posted
Couldn't it be Essen as an infinitive? I learned German, but long ago. Can't you use an infinitive in an imperative sentence to make it rude?
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. I do know my other German friends fed me reis mit scheiss. That wasn't very nice of them.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis!
i knew i should have added a disclaimer. okay, since when do stereotypical germans speak anything other than
1. really poorly translated german that sounds phonetically sinister (ja! mein KILLEN das AMERIKKANERS!), or 2. english in a bad german accent
bonus points if after the war / flood relief effort, they become sinister dentists or TF2 medics
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, academics and fiction writers, the lot of them. But they do all have accents all of which are slightly different from each other, but I can't place how. The friend who passed out the rice does say ws as vs though, which is awesome.
Though, on a related note, the Austrian guy who ran the gym in my building about three years back had Ahnold's accent. He was, as it turned out, a big fan of the man and highly recommended his books on body building.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis!
i knew i should have added a disclaimer. okay, since when do stereotypical germans speak anything other than
1. really poorly translated german that sounds phonetically sinister (ja! mein KILLEN das AMERIKKANERS!), or 2. english in a bad german accent
bonus points if after the war / flood relief effort, they become sinister dentists or TF2 medics
Whereas when I see Russians I expect them to say, "Engineer is credit to team!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Couldn't it be Essen as an infinitive? I learned German, but long ago. Can't you use an infinitive in an imperative sentence to make it rude?
You can use the infinitive as an imperative in things like recipes and signs, but I've never heard anything about using it to be rude.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus, I think my intelligence is decreasing rapidly. Now that I re-read this sexist thing I see how dumb I sound.
Please forgive me. I was tired yesterday. I actually didn't understand a word of what you wrote (rivka, mostly). Please let it be forgiven.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
I think many would argue that that sort of freedom exists only in a state of nature, but in a civilization, a society created with a social contract, you can be compelled to give up some free time in service to the society as a whole.
Do you object to mandatory schooling?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
It's hard to imagine such a world, and in any case it's pretty far from the one we live in. Picking up and moving one's household is such a huge hardship, especially for the sort of person who gets deeply attached to a particular place as "home." I know there's a lot I would put up with from the govt, probably to the point of borderline tyranny, before I would want to move away from the part of the country where I grew up.
quote:I think many would argue that that sort of freedom exists only in a state of nature, but in a civilization, a society created with a social contract, you can be compelled to give up some free time in service to the society as a whole.
On the contrary, it seems to me like a form of freedom that can be positively improved by civilization. We waste a lot less of our time on tasks like hunting and gathering than we would in the state of nature, for example.
Regardless, I see the purpose of civilization as benefiting the people (rather than the other way round) and there is enormous benefit to people in being able to choose and pursue their own projects at will without interference. About the only case where I'd say it would be worth it to deprive them of that would be a war against a genocidal enemy or something of the sort.
quote:Do you object to mandatory schooling?
I would for adults. Children are a whole different matter. I think there are many interesting puzzles about why we're justified in "paternalism"--taking over choices that our children would make for themselves if they were adults. But it's obvious that it is justified in the case of children, and not adults. We can tell our kids what to eat for dinner. If we treat other adults the same way, that violates their autonomy.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a fan of many of the ways Europeans handle things, but our lack of peacetime compulsory service is one of the things about American society that I just see as flat-out superior to theirs. (Our free speech rights are also much better.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
It's hard to imagine such a world, and in any case it's pretty far from the one we live in. Picking up and moving one's household is such a huge hardship, especially for the sort of person who gets deeply attached to a particular place as "home." I know there's a lot I would put up with from the govt, probably to the point of borderline tyranny, before I would want to move away from the part of the country where I grew up.
You could also imagine a microfederalized world (think: the libertarian dream inexplicably becomes reality and government is expected to regulate only force and fraud but cant tax woohoo) where cities and little independent networks spring up under landowner collaborative or under single owners. Wanna live here? Here are the obligations. Or you can make do in no-man's land.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to say I (surprise, surprise!) agree with you on this completely, Destineer. Well, "completely" minus the stuff about kids, but I'm not about to get into that one.
I especially agree with your observation that civilization can (particularly when its an industrialized, capitalist civilization) dramatically improve one's ability to pursue their own interests as they see fit. An advantage of not having to spend all of your time hunting/farming/with dysentery.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: [QUOTE] We can tell our kids what to eat for dinner. If we treat other adults the same way, that violates their autonomy.
I see nothing wrong with *telling* adults what they should be doing. Now making them do it is where it gets awkward.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I feel for the US mandatory military service would be helpful in hopefully reducing homophobia, mysogeny, racism and so on through simple demographical inertia (and a greater higher up officer ratio of female/minority to other).
Seeing it as odd to see 'girls' touting that Israeli knockoff of the AK (I don't believe they use the M16 or its variants) strikes me as similar to when the Gaijin-smash dude found it 'odd' to see one of his female students wearing pants during winter.
What that means, is that your are culturally inclined to see it as odd/unnatural for women/girls to partake in military service because society has conditioned you to see it that way as a social construction but doesn't have a legitimate basis; obviously I don't think your making the argument they shouldn't be drafted but I feel its objectively the case that women/girls can be just as effective soldiers as men.
Seeing as how endurance not strength is the defining attribute for foot soldiering I actually think women have the distinct advantage once their finish their training to carry the heavier equipment.
I also admit to seeing it as "odd" in a manner of speaking but for me the juxtaposition serves to make it interesting and awesome as opposed to :qq:.
Obviously I have a very large reference folder of 'girls with guns' for my art.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
That's the problem, though. It isn't ASKING....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
That's the problem, though. It isn't ASKING....
If we did, there would be a revolt. The sense of entitlement that is prevalent today is astounding. We live in a free society that was bought and paid for on the backs of people who were willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I hate to paint the younger generation with such a broad stroke because we are producing quite a bit of kids who enter the service even though they know they will probably end up in a war zone. But could you imagine the stink it would cause if mandatory service was instated.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure which people we're talking about. It can't be soldiers, because we haven't fought a war to ensure or protect American freedom since the Revolutionary one. Which other people sacrificed in order to pay for our free society?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the war of 1812? It wasn't territorial freedom but I think a decent case could be made for it being about American freedom. This has nothing to do with your main point of course.
posted
TD, That's exactly the one I was thinking of. A case could be made for WWII, but more of a stretch. It doesn't really matter to me how long ago it was, I think my point is still valid.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of Canadians who would argue that one, Hobbes. But insofar as "freedom" can be interpreted as "continental hegemony," I'll concede 1812 to you as well.
---------
brojack: Really? You're saying that people today are lazy ingrates because they don't appreciate the sacrifices made by the veterans of 1812?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure which people we're talking about. It can't be soldiers, because we haven't fought a war to ensure or protect American freedom since the Revolutionary one. Which other people sacrificed in order to pay for our free society?
Usually see you more on the ball, Tom. Though I could certainly make a case for the "war" on terrorism, WWI, or WWII, I'd think that you'd AT LEAST acknowledge that the Civil War "ensure(d) or protect(ed) American freedom".
posted
I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying anyone is lazy. Ingrates, maybe. I'm saying that if the US government asked for 3 years of service from every person turning 18, we would have a revolt on our hands. To reiterate my original point, it wouldn't have to be military service. I think they could pick from the military, Peace Corps, or a WPA type program. They would get free room and board, learn a skill, and give back to others. I don't think it would go over well at all though.
My original point was that I wasn't opposed to mandatory service but it wouldn't fly here in the US.
The service I gave to my country/community, I was National Guard, is one of the best decisions I made. My only regrets are that I really wanted to see the world so I should have went regular Army.
On a side note, my National Guard Armory was built by the WPA. My grandpa dropped out of school to take his father's place on the WPA to take care of the family. He built the Armory I served in. That was really cool.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Really? Really? <<deleted rant>> . . . . nevermind. I forgot I was at Hatrack.
Regardless of the impetus of the conflict, I would purport that a lot of people fighting in the war thought it was about freedom. Freedom for a whole lot of Americans. And the original goal WAS to stop the spread of slavery -- if not to outright ban it. Maybe you'd have a case if Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I'm not saying anyone is lazy. Ingrates, maybe. I'm saying that if the US government asked for 3 years of service from every person turning 18, we would have a revolt on our hands. To reiterate my original point, it wouldn't have to be military service. I think they could pick from the military, Peace Corps, or a WPA type program. They would get free room and board, learn a skill, and give back to others. I don't think it would go over well at all though.
My original point was that I wasn't opposed to mandatory service but it wouldn't fly here in the US.
I'd like to point out that we have a program, called Americorps, where people volunteer to this sort of service. Multiple reviews of the program has shown it to be a good investment both for the country and for the participants. Republicans keep trying to kill it though, the latest attempt being I think July of this year.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Really? Really? <<deleted rant>> . . . . nevermind. I forgot I was at Hatrack.
Regardless of the impetus of the conflict, I would purport that a lot of people fighting in the war thought it was about freedom. Freedom for a whole lot of Americans. And the original goal WAS to stop the spread of slavery -- if not to outright ban it. Maybe you'd have a case if Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
Social change takes time.
How is fighting to deprive someone of a freedom NOT 'about freedom'?
Regardless, the civil war was about money.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Civil War was about a few very large issues, it seems to me, each very important and each at different times of the most importance, over the others.
The Union, for example, certainly didn't enter the war over or even to end slavery-but rather on the question of whether the South could secede to defend the practice against a perceived threat. But then one of the key elements which drove that argument over slavery was the work of abolitionists who wouldn't let it drop literally for decades.
It was also certainly over money, because of the building pressures of the economic ascendence of the North over the South, and also because slavery had been so enormously profitable in the South (and the North, really) for so long.
It was also over the rights of states within a nation in that there were plenty of people who really did believe that as the states had banded together in revolt against England, so too could they decide their fate later on if they decided to do so-but the right they wished to decide their fate on was the right to practice slavery-and back to money, feeding also into religion and racial politics (racialism), and on and on and on. Someone such as Lyrhawn could comment much more intelligently on this than I have just now, I think, but nothing I've heard or studied has ever made me conclude that the Civil War was over one thing, one dispute, one question-and often though certainly not always anyone who suggests otherwise is selling an agenda.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brojack, what do you know about enlistment/conscription rates in the United States historically? I ask because your rhetoric makes it seem to me as though your answer to that question might be quite a lot higher than the reality.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The Civil War was about a few very large issues, it seems to me, each very important and each at different times of the most importance, over the others.
The Union, for example, certainly didn't enter the war over or even to end slavery-but rather on the question of whether the South could secede to defend the practice against a perceived threat. But then one of the key elements which drove that argument over slavery was the work of abolitionists who wouldn't let it drop literally for decades.
It was also certainly over money, because of the building pressures of the economic ascendence of the North over the South, and also because slavery had been so enormously profitable in the South (and the North, really) for so long.
It was also over the rights of states within a nation in that there were plenty of people who really did believe that as the states had banded together in revolt against England, so too could they decide their fate later on if they decided to do so-but the right they wished to decide their fate on was the right to practice slavery-and back to money, feeding also into religion and racial politics (racialism), and on and on and on. Someone such as Lyrhawn could comment much more intelligently on this than I have just now, I think, but nothing I've heard or studied has ever made me conclude that the Civil War was over one thing, one dispute, one question-and often though certainly not always anyone who suggests otherwise is selling an agenda.
I think your list of reasons is fine, but even so I think that when people like Tom try to assert that the Civil War had nothing to do with freedom they're just making fools of themselves.
It doesn't have to have been a War To Free The Slaves for it to nevertheless have had a hell of a lot to do with American freedoms.
Similarly, WW2 need not have been a War To Free The Jews for it to also have a lot to do with securing and protecting American freedoms.
Seriously, Tom, I'm kind of surprised. That was such an over-the-top, ridiculously hard-left moonbat sort of thing to say. You can be anti-war, and even anti-America, without making those kinds of assertions.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think so, Dan? We like to mythologize our wars -- even 1812 got a couple songs -- but I think it's a tad insulting to say that only "hard-left moonbats" don't subscribe to the myths.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes Dan, insofar as Tom was claiming that the Civil War was only about one thing-or not at all about another thing-yeah, it's a very strange argument divorced from the facts of history. Even setting everything else aside, the South was very much afraid that Lincoln and the North, in a long term slow and steady effort to strangle slavery out of the country altogether, would work to prohibit slavery in any new states and territories. They were worried about that for pretty good reasons.
Now unless the argument was that the North was doing this sort of thing for no other reason than a contest for power with the South, with no basis in moral disapproval of slavery, to claim the war was not at all about freedom will be wrong, and smack more of an agenda than any interest in facts.
But it can't be said it was about freedom, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS, that's the types of programs I'm talking about. I understand that not everyone would want to join the military. So, give them other options.
Rakeesh, I don't know anything about enlistment rates, but again, to go back to my OP. I said I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory service like other countries have.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I don't know anything about enlistment rates, but again, to go back to my OP. I said I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory service like other countries have.
So then you don't know the extent patriotism (in the case if enlistment, though of course it's not that simple) or investment in the country (in the case of conscription) has changed as can be measured by military or civil service.
Not having any information about the actual historical trends of the thing you're complaining about hasn't seemed to dull the sharpness of your criticism, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is, it's less than 100%. I applaud all those who do serve. I think my point is still valid. Tell every graduating senior that they must give three years of service to the country and people will throw a fit. Do you disagree?
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrS, that's the types of programs I'm talking about. I understand that not everyone would want to join the military. So, give them other options.
Honestly, the idea that the military should be the first choice is bizarre to me. We've got a huge military and dumping an enormous number of more or less unwilling conscripts into it would serve to make it much less effective at it's actual mission.
Plus, how are we going to pay for this? The people who seem to have a real attachment to the fantasy version of "We should force all teenagers to do join the military...or community service." routinely try to kill the best program we have for this already.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never meant for it to be military as a first option. Just have all the options there.
You bring up a good point about cost. Our inflated government would make this thing cost prohibitive.
It was a pie in the sky idea, I just wanted to make the point that it wouldn't happen here in the US.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: The point is, it's less than 100%. I applaud all those who do serve. I think my point is still valid. Tell every graduating senior that they must give three years of service to the country and people will throw a fit. Do you disagree?
You made more than one point-particularly your complaints, implied and stated, that this ingratitude was something new and particular to current generations-when the truth is that throughout our history, there have actually *been* riots and enormous public outrage over conscription that you describe. Furthermore, if this unwillingness to tolerate conscription is a problem, you haven't actually made an argument as to why.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, brojack. Most of the times I've heard this idea it is clear that people are talking about forcing teenagers to join the military, with the other stuff thrown in as an afterthought.
I'd agree with you that the quality of patriotism is not highly valued in our society, but I think it is important to look at the whole picture. I'd look more towards the leaders for that problem. As I've been pointing out, we've got a proven successful program where patriotic youth put their lives on hold to work to make the country a better place. The GOP wants to kill this program.
Our top military commanders overwhelming leave their posts to go work for military contractors, many of whom received preferential treatment from the top brass when they were active. Same thing for our legislators. For example (my own personal hobby horse), whenever Max Baucus quits congress, he's going to have a really sweet deal waiting for him in the medical industry. Our high level business executives (e.g. Hostess) are damaging the companies they control and asking massive sacrifices from their workers while giving themselves massive raises. The Waltons built a business model around paying their employees below a living wage and entrusting government programs to subsidize these treatment. Heck, Wall Street did orders of magnitude more damage to our country than the entirety of all anti-American terrorists, got off scott free, and continue to undermine the financial health of our country, but even the idea of asking them to sacrifice (or heck own up to the damage they have done) is met with a massive outcry.
We celebrate and reward those who obviously have no patriotism. In many circles, even the word patriotism has become divorced from the idea of sacrifice for one's country. In that context, I don't think people would accept forced labor (especially when you consider that it is near definite that there would be loopholes for the children of privilege to either get out of it entirely or get extremely cushy assignments a la George W. Bush during the Vietnam War).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You bring up a good point about cost. Our inflated government would make this thing cost prohibitive.
It wouldn't be the fault of government, it would be the fault of cramming in unneeded manpower into a system that neither needs nor wants it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS: I agree with you completely. You make very good points.
Rakeesh: It would be the fault of the government. There could be some good done there, but the government does not run efficiently.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:(especially when you consider that it is near definite that there would be loopholes for the children of privilege to either get out of it entirely or get extremely cushy assignments a la George W. Bush during the Vietnam War).
I want to expand on this. Basically, however well intentioned the idea of mandatory service is, in practice it would turn into a system by which the children of the rich and privileged would be given another set of advantages over everyone else (cf. the Vietnam war draft). That's the country we live in. That being the case, is it any wonder that people would go crazy if the government tried to institute it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...if an effort to add hundreds of thousands of people into the military turned out to do more harm than good because this new surplus would be unnecessary to the military's mission and dubiously enthusiastic about the service at best, that would be the fault of government?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't think brojack is talking about the military there, but instead, largely about community service organizations, etc.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
