Forced Volenteering!

Discussion in 'The Real World' started by paul_valaru, Feb 21, 2008.

  1. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    That is not the President call. It also is not the least bit uncommon to send soldiers into battle at well under 100% readiness.
     
  2. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef

    In starship troopers you had to serve just to be able to vote, that is more what I was thinking, and while maybe they don't go in at 100% someone should sure as hell make sure they get to 100% as quick as possible.

    If I was running a government and I had to send troops ANYWHERE my number 1 priority would be to make sure my troops where equipped the best they possibly could be.

    Hell if I was liberating a country (at their request), I would take the money that I needed from their coffers. If I was invading a country because they had something they weren't supposed to, I would also make them pay for my troops support and upkeep, one way for another, even if it a lien against their future earnings.
     
  3. jimpeel

    jimpeel Well-Known Member

  4. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef

    when did war end communism?
     
  5. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Ask Gorby
     
  6. Gato_Solo

    Gato_Solo Out-freaking-standing OTC member

    Interesting. You would not respond to a national emergency if your troops didn't have the newest widget/whatsis? Trust me on this one. I would send my troops out if I thought it necessary regardless of whether what they have is the 'best'. You can always upgrade as the newest stuff becomes available.

    So now we have a so-called "War for Oil". Nice. Goes against everything you've said so far on the "war" in Iraq.
     
  7. 2minkey

    2minkey bootlicker

    there was never any real communism for war to end.
     
  8. Gato_Solo

    Gato_Solo Out-freaking-standing OTC member


    Not only that, but you'd have people who have job skills at the end of their term. Couple that with the GI bill, etc, and you'd have a more motivated workforce. You'd also have people who have proven that they would fight for what they have, instead of letting others do the job for them. NOTE...this does not equal conscription. If you don't want to join, no problem. Just don't expect to vote in federal elections.
     
  9. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef



    isn't that what I just said?

    note the bolded items

    makes the difference.

    Germany Japan France those places should have gotten a bill. Iraq if it was a UN resolution, and the UN could handle the billing. But that is an old argument.
     
  10. Gato_Solo

    Gato_Solo Out-freaking-standing OTC member

    After WWI, Germany was handed a bill. The result of that was an economic depression that travelled the globe, culminating in WWII...and we're still feeling the effects.
     
  11. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef

    we bill with clauses aimed at stopping that happening again.

    personally I would like all armies to be disbanded, and UN forces be the soul armed forces, enforcing borders, etc.

    but that ain't going to happen soon.
     
  12. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    You're willing to hand over your sovereignty to somebody that has no interest in your well being?
     
  13. jimpeel

    jimpeel Well-Known Member

    That seems to be exactly what he said.

    The problem with UN armies is they hold no fealty to anything but the UN. American soldiers on American soil act very differently from American soldiers on foreign soil. Italian soldiers on American soil will act very differently from Italian soldiers on Italian soil.

    Look at what happened in Somalia with the Canadians. Okinawa with Americans. etc.

    OI'm sure that those who would enjoy a conglomerate army in their country are the same ones decrying conglomerate businesses as the evil "big <enter business here>".

    I sure as hell don't want some conglomerate army in my country. Those blue helmets, however, do make a lovely target.
     
  14. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef

    I am willing to hand over the worlds sovereignty to a central government. One controlled by the world.
     
  15. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    My condolences then.

    On secondf thought...great. The US will now be your government.
     
  16. jimpeel

    jimpeel Well-Known Member

    Hmmmmm ...

    The Soviet Union had a central government.

    Red China has a central government.

    Cuba has a central government.

    Chekoslovakia had a central government.

    They all have something in common ...

    The United States does not have a central government.

    Canada does not have a central government.

    Britain does not have a central government.

    They all have something in common ...
     
  17. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Hush you...all their base are belong to us
     
  18. Gato_Solo

    Gato_Solo Out-freaking-standing OTC member

    The most obvious problem with the UN is that nations with little or nothing in their production and GDP have equal weight with countries that have something to offer. In other words...Canada is going to pay for the living expenses of Ethiopia. There will be no choice, either. The US will pay for Somalia. Again...no choice. Some of you may think thats a good thing. I, personally, do not. If I wish to make a charitable contribution, thats my business. I have enough heartburn paying for some welfare-cheats food and housing here at home.
     
  19. SouthernN'Proud

    SouthernN'Proud Southern Discomfort

    :horse:

    Maybe not on paper (yet), but in practice? You bet yer ass it does.
     
  20. paul_valaru

    paul_valaru 100% Pure Canadian Beef

    well a world government would almost have to be a form of communism....

    no no, please, let me apply the tar and feathers myself, don't want to make anyone get up.
     

Share This Page