Forced Volenteering!

paul_valaru said:
would it have been managed the same way, sending hummers without armour, troops without proper armour?
Click to expand...

That is not the President call. It also is not the least bit uncommon to send soldiers into battle at well under 100% readiness.
 
Gonz said:
That is not the President call. It also is not the least bit uncommon to send soldiers into battle at well under 100% readiness.
Click to expand...

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.
 
the_sign.jpg
 
paul_valaru said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

pv said:
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.
Click to expand...

So now we have a so-called "War for Oil". Nice. Goes against everything you've said so far on the "war" in Iraq.
 
paul_valaru said:
Heinlein's version of citizenship from starship troopers?

works for me. less politicians would be for war if they knew the hell it was.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Gato_Solo said:
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.
Click to expand...



isn't that what I just said?

me said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gato_Solo said:
So now we have a so-called "War for Oil". Nice. Goes against everything you've said so far on the "war" in Iraq.
Click to expand...

me said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
paul_valaru said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gato_Solo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You're willing to hand over your sovereignty to somebody that has no interest in your well being?
 
Gonz said:
You're willing to hand over your sovereignty to somebody that has no interest in your well being?
Click to expand...

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.
 
My condolences then.

On secondf thought...great. The US will now be your government.
 
Gonz said:
My condolences then.

On secondf thought...great. The US will now be your government.
Click to expand...

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 ...
 
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.
 
Gato_Solo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top