I admit I'm a lurker , but I found this article very relevant to my life that has not yet found its way to Hatrack (at least, not recently, that I am aware of.)
Some of the interesting quotes made by CNN readers:
"t's about time that this country woke up and put our kids to work. Get them off the street corners. Maybe they will learn a little caring for this country that gives them so much. It worked before...let's get it working again."
"I think that bringing back the draft is a terrible idea. As a current member of the armed forces, I am proud to be part of a highly cohesive, highly functional team. To bring in people who do not want to be there would destroy morale and reduce effectiveness and reduce commanders to babysitters."
"When congressmen's and presidents' sons and daughters are equally drafted, no deferments, no political strings to pull, I will support a national draft. Not before."
"I think it is past time to sit down and present a practical plan of action to either win, train the Iraq Forces to take over or just get out at all cost. To win, we MUST double our numbers in Iraq."
"No one should be forced to join. We live in a country based on freedom; do not take away our right to decide if we want to fight or not!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, seeing as how this measure is going to die in infancy in Congress, it's an academic argument at best.
I think Selective Service is a fine idea. It's there so that if something akin to the danger of WWII and the possibility of Europe being overrun, or the US mainland being invaded, there a database of manpower ready to go.
Other than that, bad idea. Vietnam proved that draftees made poor soldiers. Besides, Rumsfeld spent the last couple years espousing the need for a smaller, lighter, faster military, basically an army of specops strike teams, and a few armored combat regiments.
Throwing a hundred thousand poorly trained, poorly motivated soldiers into Iraq is asking for a bloodbath. That's the bottom line as far as I can see related to a draft and our current predicament. Rangel had no traction before, he has none now.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think you're right about conscripts Lyrhawn, though Vietnam didn't necessarily prove that conscripts generally make poor soldiers. It did prove that conscripts on a 1-year tour of duty tended to be poor soldiers. Of course, any kind of conscript will not be as motivated as a volunteer.
The measure won't pass, and won't help in Iraq or anywhere else until a major direct threat is perceived. Like you said.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think it's a scare tactic to convince the last Iraq war supporters to see reason and want out.
"Rumsfeld spent the last couple years espousing the need for a smaller, lighter, faster military, basically an army of specops strike teams, and a few armored combat regiments."
Wow! I agree with Rummy! I also waqnt an expansion of the Army Corps of Engineers to go with that and more linguists and cultural types.
How much easier would the war have gone if when the ground forces moved in we immediately began rebuilding homes our airstrikes had damaged? If people who knew the customs immediately began to build goodwill in the neighborhoods?
I think the part of the war that the infantry used to win is now done by the Air Force. It's time for the infantry to evolve, and unruly draftees are not the place to start.
I'm curious what Rangel thinks drill sergeants should be authorized to do to force compliance. Can you imagine the response if you told a random 18 year old to drop and give you twenty? I'm sure the response wouldn't be printable on Hatrack.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I agree with your first sentence, and almost your second, but everything afterward sort of spirals out of sense.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. It should be an option for when the US and our most important allies are truly and badly threatened. Or for when there is an enormous, undeniable, and easily identifiable evil taking place in the world that needs a huge force to put it down. That is, not for when we invade another country in the name of stopping an organization that originally had little or nothing to do with that country, and not for when our enemy doesn't sit still and shifts and changes almost monthly, as with terrorism.
It's a valuable resource, not to be abused. Right now, a draft would be an abuse. It would waste that resource for another generation or two, and who knows when we may be in dire need of it?
But as already pointed out, the bill will just die in infancy anyhow, so why worry? It's been brought up every year with the express purpose of dying in infancy. Without even reading the article, I'm going to assume that it was put forth again by the same politician who brings it out every year to make a perennial point: That the higher-ups won't pass such a bill because they don't want their kids being drafted. It's okay for all the American peons' children to serve in the military during dangerous times, but not the politicians'.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Can you imagine the response if you told a random 18 year old to drop and give you twenty? I'm sure the response wouldn't be printable on Hatrack.
When he's got a big, confident guy with a sidearm screaming in his face and a hundred peers expecting him to obey instantly, my guess is that his response would be to drop and give him twenty.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Minus the sidearm and change "expecting" to "really really wanting".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Can you imagine the response if you told a random 18 year old to drop and give you twenty? I'm sure the response wouldn't be printable on Hatrack.
When he's got a big, confident guy with a sidearm screaming in his face and a hundred peers expecting him to obey instantly, my guess is that his response would be to drop and give him twenty.
I'm a 22 year old, not an 18 year old, but I imagine my response would be something like "Are you going to shoot me if I don't?"
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Can you imagine the response if you told a random 18 year old to drop and give you twenty? I'm sure the response wouldn't be printable on Hatrack.
When he's got a big, confident guy with a sidearm screaming in his face and a hundred peers expecting him to obey instantly, my guess is that his response would be to drop and give him twenty.
I'm a 22 year old, not an 18 year old, but I imagine my response would be something like "Are you going to shoot me if I don't?"
I'm still laughing. I'll never forget this wannabe badass 220lb 6ft 2in 20 yr old from nowhere crying as a 5ft 6in 160lb TI whispered in his ear. And that was AF Basic, when the TI wasn't even angry.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It should be an option for when the US and our most important allies are truly and badly threatened. Or for when there is an enormous, undeniable, and easily identifiable evil taking place in the world that needs a huge force to put it down.
I can see how it might be useful to have a database ready to go, but I don’t think that is a good enough reason to do this. If that enormous, undeniable, and easily identifiable evil is taking place, like if we were being attacked by buggers, I would like to think that people would feel compelled to fight for the survival of either the nation or for humanity without needing to be forced to join the fight. In contrast, if the need for soldiers outweighs the supply of those willing to fight, then I think it might be good to question the cause for the war, because obviously a lot of people don’t think it is something worth fighting for
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It's about time that this country woke up and put our kids to work. Get them off the street corners. "
I agree, after all, our country's economy could not possibly suffer from loosing the youngest members of its workforce. Two years is nothing, no economic or cultural damage could possibly ensue. Well, two years of economic growth isn't important anyway.
Pelegius, writing from a street corner.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Seriously, this was an essay topic for Sophemores at my school, a school where around a quarter of students are the children of military officers and about one tenth of graduates join the military. The response was overwhelmingly negative, from all sides. Economic growth was the most frequently cited reason, along with the enormous expense it would take to train that many soldiers for two-year tours (almost all countries with a draft have it for two years.)
Future soldiers and civilians alike were equaly adament.
As for myself, they would have a hard time drafting me, if I didn't want to go. Schools in Canada and the U.K. are happy to take American students. During the Viet Nam conflict, American youths were even given ayslum in Canada.
I might actualy consider joining the Coast Guard of Merchant Marine in the event of National Service, but they would never get me in the Army.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Canada's already said that they won't harbor draft dodgers this time around, if a draft was instated. Not that I think it will be, just sayin' don't go counting on being able to run to Canada if it is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering where Rangel lives that he thinks the majority of the nation's youth are hanging out on street corners. And in their defense Pel, if the nation got used to the two years of service, probably to be followed be a couple weekends a year of refresher training, there'd be no problem with the economy, it's a one time shock, and really, probably not that big of one. It's not like they'll take all 23 million or whatever kids out of the population all at once.
Compulsory service makes a lot of sense when you DON'T have such a large population of untrained people to draw from. If we made all 23 million (I know I'm close with that number, for kids 18-24) of them at the same time, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year to feed, house and train them. Instead you'd get a lottery where maybe two million of those kids get chosen, and plucked out of their lives, feeling even MORE resentful because they got the short end of the stick, you train them, send them home, and probably just wasted two years of their lives for nothing. Two million kids could be yanked out of the workforce no problem, there's enough jobless people out there to pick up the slack.
I'm wondering where Rangel thinks the money is going to come from for compulsory military servivce for everyone from age 18-40 something, as his new plan proposes. The old one was just for 18-24 year olds, but he dramatically raised the upper range of that age. Assuming he isn't going to snatch 40 year olds out of their lives for service, how will he pay for it? How would the training work? Everyone goes into the service for two years then starts their life at age 20?
I think they'd get more traction with a summer camp type deal. The summer after kids graduate high school they go to a boot camp type thing, and a couple weekends a year they have to go back for refresher courses. It also gives the army a chance to train them and try to integrate their college education with their military training, perhaps resulting in better quality volunteer recruits (plus they're already at least half trained). More like compulsory National Guard duty than active duty. That's something I could personally consider supporting.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Canadian government might have little choice. 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. That would not be a popular move at all. Canadian politics are not stable, neither Mr. Harper does not have a majority government, nor did Mr. Martin before him. Neither is likely to be willing to alienate so large a section of the population. Canadians are the most idealistic of peoples in many ways, and, in many ways, the best of peoples.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Or even easier, by the time this would take effect, all US citizens will have to have a passport to get back into the US from Canada (something all of us in Detroit aren't exactly thrilled about). We'll have to have it with us, so Canadians simply change their policy to ACTUALLY check everyone's photo ID when they come in and match it against the person in the car. Then they check against a database that the American government will give them to see who is being called up. If the names match, they get rejected. Not really so hard at all.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It's a lot harder for US citizen to get a work visa in Canada than you seem to think, Pel.
Lyr, I've crossed the border by car about a dozen times in the last year, and my passport has been checked every time but one. So I don't think there would be much of a policy change necessary.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The idea is that if we put some of the children of the rich and wealthy in the midst of Iraq, they may not be so hawkish.
As if the wealthy and rich have never found a way to avoid the draft in the past.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It would still require that the Canadian government interfere extensively with private organizations, both businesses and universities. That has never gone over well in North America. Not gone over well at all. There are three main political trends in Canada, Leftist (usually also Quebecois Nationalist), Liberal and Libertarian. Libertarians, centered in the prairie states, would protest government interference with business. Leftists would accuse the government of imperialism and militarism. Liberals would object to the interference with personal rights.
"It's not like they'll take all 23 million or whatever kids out of the population all at once. "
That is usually how it is done, with the exceptions of deferments for University students. I am thinking of what I have seen in Greece and read about in Germany, Israel, Norway etc.
The problem is that you have two years, or one year or six months, where people are not doing anything to advance the economy, nor are they going to school. That is essentially however much time wasted.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Eliminating the draft was a short-sighted response to a perception by some military leaders that draftees were harder to supervise. I am probably one of the few on this forum who was ever drafted. (Actually I joined to avoid the draft.) Military service was not pleasant nor convienent and it was disturbing to know that the children of privlidge were not as likely to serve. But, the four strongest arguements for the draft from my perspective were, and are:
1. Competent and intellegent citizen solders are more likely to question stupid or illegal orders. (Why? was "The four-letter word" during the Viet-nam era.) 2. To the extent that the armed forces reflect the whole population, the actions of the armed forces more closely match the values of the Nation. (Our modern good relations with Japan and Europe result in large measure from the chance that their populations had to "get to know real americans." during the postwar "occupation". 3. Every Citizen really does owe service to the Nation. 4. The "bond" of a common experience provided by military training/ service and the GI Bill post service education unified persons from across the continent into a real Nation and defined a generation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eljay -
Really? At the Detroit-Windsor crossing? I've made about that many crossings in the last year myself. We went with IDs and birth certificates (or in my case, no birth certificate) and while they took the stuff from us, they didn't match up certificates with names and faces, they just glanced at them, handed them back, and waved us on. It was a lot more strict when we came back through to get into the US every time, but the Canadian side has never really been strict when I've gone through.
Pel -
I was talking specifically about the US, not Europe. Those countries already have the compulsory service adapted into their culture and economy. Sure there'd be a hiccup in the US when it first happened, but then we'd get used to it, it wouldn't be a drag.
Like I said before, I'm still more in favor of like a compulsory National Guard duty, but meh, I don't think this would really kill our economy or anything, not in the long term.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It's a lot harder for US citizen to get a work visa in Canada than you seem to think, Pel. "
It is very easy indeed. I know very many people who have had Canadian visas, either work or student. There are very few countries where it is genuinely difficult to get a visa, Bhutan stands out as one.
"Or even easier, by the time this would take effect, all US citizens will have to have a passport to get back into the US from Canada"
I have never expected anything but arrogance from the current administration, but their treatment of Canada has been abysmal, unilateraly voiding agreements. Frankly, were I Mr. Harper, I would have withdrawn my ambassadors and consuls. The U.S. has long played NAFTA by its own rules, but Mexico and Canada must surely have had enough of being treated as inferiors in an agreement of equals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, so after Canada cuts diplomatic ties with the US, and their economy suffers, how does Harper explain to his people that he's cut off ties to the nation where more than 50% of their goods are exported to?
And what does this have to do at all with my quote about needed a passport?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Stay on target. Stay on target. Apple, Apple, Apple...Orange! Missed target, dang it!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The Canadian government might have little choice. 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. That would not be a popular move at all. Canadian politics are not stable, neither Mr. Harper does not have a majority government, nor did Mr. Martin before him. Neither is likely to be willing to alienate so large a section of the population. Canadians are the most idealistic of peoples in many ways, and, in many ways, the best of peoples.
If i was religious Ild say Amen.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Frankly, were I Mr. Harper, I would have withdrawn my ambassadors and consuls."
Umm, such actions have historically represented a prelude to war. At best they represent a cutting off of ties that can last decades.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, so after Canada cuts diplomatic ties with the US, and their economy suffers, how does Harper explain to his people that he's cut off ties to the nation where more than 50% of their goods are exported to?
And what does this have to do at all with my quote about needed a passport?
This doesnt automatically mean trade would cease and even if it somehow did so would the US's economy when it is already on a slippery slope into depression. There are also ways to blackmail the states to prevent them from cutting off economic ties in retailiation. We could just as easily void our current agreements in NORAD.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Lyr, who said anything about the Detroit-Windsor crossing? I've used that one twice, and once was actually the one time they didn't take ID, although they did ask many questions about the people in the car, how we were related, why we were crossing, etc.. Most of the other times have been at the Port Huron/Sarnia crossing. One of those times, the Canadian citizen I was with didn't have his passport, just his (Canadian) driver's license, and got hassled about it, and told he needed to bring his passport every time.
Pel, and I know people who have had the visa process take over two years, and that's with them being married to a Canadian citizen. I would hardly call that very easy, and certainly not easy enough to be able to avoid a draft. So it certainly isn't easy for every person, and if there was a draft it would be very easy for Canada to make it much harder. Or simply hold the annual number of visas given steady, and demand would far outstrip supply.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Occasional, Eliot Trudeaux once said Canadian-American relations was like making love to an elephant. And I think he is correct, there needs to be a dramatic revisision of the US views of Canada as trading power and ally if we keep getting mistreated, you and Lyth appear to be more concerned with us recalling our ambassadors then the mistreatment of Canada by the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's all silly anyway, why would Canada do a bunch of stuff that would monumentally hurt you more than us? Sure, we wouldn't want to do it either, but your military is pathetic compared to more first world powers, NORAD protects you (and so would the US, btw, if it came down to it). You get more out of trade with the US than the other way around (not that it matters, ceasing trade would monumentally kill both sides), so why would it ever become that drastic? I know trade wouldn't CEASE, but pulling your ambassadors is NOT a good sign. Hell, we have diplomats that deal with North Korea! And CANADA is going to pull theirs? You both really think that you want Canada associated with Iran in the minds of Americans as people who we don't have diplomatic ties to? How does immigration work? I have to imagine if you pull your ambassadors, border security has to change, and you'll see a lot less border traffic. Windsor isn't going to like that very much.
The US has trade issues with tons of countries. And I really do wonder Blayne, I have to say I DO wonder, if your fervent "amen" support for Canada cutting off diplomatic ties to the US because of trade issues extends to the US cutting off diplomatic ties to your godmother nation of China.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lyr, who said anything about the Detroit-Windsor crossing? I've used that one twice, and once was actually the one time they didn't take ID, although they did ask many questions about the people in the car, how we were related, why we were crossing, etc.. Most of the other times have been at the Port Huron/Sarnia crossing. One of those times, the Canadian citizen I was with didn't have his passport, just his (Canadian) driver's license, and got hassled about it, and told he needed to bring his passport every time.
I did, when I said "at the Detroit-Windsor crossing?"
US citizens don't currently need their US Passport to get into Canada, or back into the US, but that law is changing soon, in 2007 (actually it may have been pushed back to 09, I'm not sure), I believe. The majority of Canadian-American crossings happens at Detroit-Windsor, thus I figured it was the best example to use, plus it's the one I have the most experience with.
They aren't really strict about making sure the docs you hand them actually match with the people in the car. Coming back to America isn't exactly a snap anymore either, but getting into Canada isn't too difficult.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: It is very easy indeed.
Ah, so that's what I was doing wrong! I have been trying to get permission to work as myself, not as Pelegius. *wry grin, wink
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
January 2007 was the last date I heard for the passport law.
I've had more hassle getting into Canada than back into the US, both by car and when flying. *shrug* I would imagine the Detroit-Windsor crossing gets a lot more traffic due to the casino, and they may be a bit more lax than the others due to that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lythurn there's alot more to it then that, and it has nothing to do with China.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Coutts and Desjarlais are typical Canadian "day-trippers," the type that make spontaneous trips to Metro Detroit and spend an estimated $322 million each year on food, retail, concerts, sporting events and lodging, according to the Detroit Regional Chamber. That haul could drop by an estimated 30 to 40 percent if a new law requiring a passport to cross any U.S. land border takes effect Jan. 1, 2008.
Members of Congress are responding by crafting amendments that would delay implementation of the law until at least June 2009, allow travelers to use a cheaper, high-tech version of a passport under development called a PASS card, and waive requirements for minors
FYI. I didn't know that for sure, but it looks like it's subject to change in the next year, so who knows what will end up happening.
Blayne -
Lythurn? Really? Not that hard to spell my name correctly, you got the number of letters right, but appear to have randomly changed three of them for no apparent reason.
I never said that Canada's problems with the US were linked to China, I'm asking you a separate question, which I guess you've unsurprisingly chosen not to answer. Interesting how your answer seems to be more halting when it comes to China being the bad guy.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I'm still laughing. I'll never forget this wannabe badass 220lb 6ft 2in 20 yr old from nowhere crying as a 5ft 6in 160lb TI whispered in his ear. And that was AF Basic, when the TI wasn't even angry.
Uh, yeah. My husband went from a thieving, knife-fighting scum of a 19-year-old kid to an authority-obeying, command-following airman in about two days, to hear him tell it. And he is 6'4", and at the time was 220 Not anymore, though.
You can imagine that your response would be "Are you going to shoot me if I don't?," but when you're actually in a situation where you have an entire barracks of peers expecting you to do exactly what you're told, you change pretty quickly.
From what Will's told me of his days in the Air Force, it's not so much the screaming guys with guns (although he says he did find them mildly intimidating, but humorous more often than not) as it is the silent pressure to not make any waves that comes from your friends and roommates. As tough as any new recruit thinks he is (and he may be), it's often the company we keep that dictates our behavior. If you know you'll get the crap pounded out of you later by your friends and worse, be ostracized by them when you're in a totally new, unfamiliar place, you don't do anything that might piss the majority off, and that includes smarting off to authority figures.
Or so I hear....
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
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! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Very Foucault.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That is usually how it is done, with the exceptions of deferments for University students. I am thinking of what I have seen in Greece and read about in Germany, Israel, Norway etc.
I know nothing about Germany, Israel, or Greece, and unlike you I'm willing to admit it; but I can tell you that for Norway you're talking total crap.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Pel, and I know people who have had the visa process take over two years, and that's with them being married to a Canadian citizen"
I know people who have had student visas aproved esentialy instantiously. If I am correct, there are many ways to get a visa without too much trouble, but being a student is probably by far the easiest. Almost all draft-age people are students.
"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.
"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).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
KoM, does Norway not have mandetory military service for a period of 9-12 months for all men with the option of 12 months civilian service? Am I just making that up, becouse if so I am the victim of a mass delusion.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am sorry, it looks as if Norwegians do their service at a time between 17 and 44, not all at the same time. It's still a year wasted.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You have made the mistake of reading the theory instead of looking at the facts on the ground. About one-fourth of the people theoretically liable actually serve.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I rephrase : That should have been "Actually serve their initial year". For the "mandatory yearly exercises" after that, the percentage drops vastly.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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.
", how does Harper explain to his people that he's cut off ties to the nation where more than 50% of their goods are exported to?"
Well, first of all, Mr. Harper would never do it, so we are assuming this is a new P.M.
Secondly, the Canadians are understandably tired of being treated like dirt by other G8 countries.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pel, student visas are indeed the easiest to get. Unless you're a member of a profession that's in high demand, though, AND have a company lined up that wants to hire you, "without too much trouble" is just plain inaccurate for a work visa. And if they're saying that they're not going to harbor draft dodgers, don't you figure those student visas would become a lot harder to come by if we instituted a draft?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Occasional, Eliot Trudeaux once said Canadian-American relations was like making love to an elephant.
As long as we're discussing one of the icons of Canadian politics, let's at least be accurate about it. Here is what Pierre Elliot Trudeau actually said, courtesy of our government:
quote:"Living next to you," Trudeau told an American audience in a speech to the National Press Club in 1969, "is like sleeping with an elephant; no matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
Edit: Oops, misattributed quote. How did that happen? Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I know I am multi-posting, but I feel obliged to point out that recalling ambassadors and/or consuls is not the same as cutting diplomatic ties. The former is a formal statement that one country believes another is acting in an unacceptable manner, the later is a formal statement that one country believes that another is acting in a totally unacceptable manner and there is nothing that can be accomplished under normal diplomatic conditions. When an ambassador is recalled, his role is still performed, but by the chargé d'affairs. When an embassy is closed, the chargé d'affairs and staff are also recalled, although a de facto embassy under a different name may remain (there is a U.S. representative in Havana).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
dum dum DUMMMMMMM....
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
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. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
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.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
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. Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
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. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stan -
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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
Tom Leher.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pel what are you jabbering about?
quote: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.
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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."
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"One year isn't that big a deal really"
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"First of all, Stanleyville is in Africa"
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Define disaster"
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Selective Service is something that all US males must fill out for upon turning 18. "
It is also a convenient fiction.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Britain has controlled an empire"
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Ok, almost all. true, I give you that
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Registering for the draft is a meaningless exercise when you have no draft.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Britain has controlled an empire"
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.
Sort of an odd thing to take issue with.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: I am not "dear."
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Well, except that rivka can if she wants. However, I wouldn't want the gf to start getting jealous. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
<-- is discreet
Why are you laughing?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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."
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Registering for the draft is a meaningless exercise when you have no draft.
Not if you ever want financial aid or a host of other government benefits.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
So it's a meaningless exercise tied to government benefits.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, but I found this article very relevant to my life that has not yet found its way to Hatrack (at least, not recently, that I am aware of.)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Not anymore, though. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)