Moderator: Dictators in Training
Araby wrote:I think everyone understands this. When people join our military I also think they assume that they will always be in good hands and that everything they do will be in honor and respect for our country. Much of our military consists of young adults with no college education and the intent of getting one...and don't expect to end up in situations they don't feel good about, that are clearly not what they thought they would ever become involved in. And so many die.
Araby wrote:There is a huge unhappiness right now about what is happening in Iraq and I am as equally as unhappy with the fact that countless lives have been lost due to poor decisions and a lack of preparation for this war (ambush) and this picture reminds me of how pissed I really do get.
Araby wrote:I fucking support the troops I want the government to support them too and do what they have to do to get this over with and get our men the hell out of there.
lyion wrote:There are questions, but certainly not huge unhappiness. This war was extraordinarily well run, and the problems stem from the area of the world and the fight we are currently engaged with against an organization that unfortunately is getting a lot of funding from places like Syria, Saudi, and Sudan.
Vivalicious wrote:Lots of females don't want you to put your penis in their mouths. Some prefer it in their ass.
Arlos wrote:Every single person I know in RL who's served is even more against the war than I am, and that includes those who served on active duty in Iraq in the first Gulf War.
-Arlos
Harrison wrote:Ok, we know you and your hippy friends don't like war. We get it.
Harrison wrote:And to answer your question...
No...
But it certainly does add to the pile of things that DO make you one. War is necessary. War is inevitable with humans. War is the only fucking thing that gets through to these types of people.
They've been in-fighting for thousands of years. Do you honestly think talk is going to get through to them? They will perceive that as weakness, and cause more harm. Actions speak louder than words. This is no exception.
I don't like war either. Who does?! It is inevitable and a necessity in certain situations. The middle east is one of those situations.
Arlos wrote:Every single person I know in RL who's served is even more against the war than I am, and that includes those who served on active duty in Iraq in the first Gulf War.
-Arlos
Harrison wrote:And to answer your question...
No...
But it certainly does add to the pile of things that DO make you one. War is necessary. War is inevitable with humans. War is the only fucking thing that gets through to these types of people.
They've been in-fighting for thousands of years. Do you honestly think talk is going to get through to them? They will perceive that as weakness, and cause more harm. Actions speak louder than words. This is no exception.
I don't like war either. Who does?! It is inevitable and a necessity in certain situations. The middle east is one of those situations.
lyion wrote:Those referencing many vets who do not support Iraq generally never served themselves. Amazing how that works out.
Mindia wrote:If they re-instituted the draft, and Arlos got drafted, I would laugh my ass off for days.
Mindia wrote:"Every able-bodied male 18-40..." I read that somewhere about the draft.
Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.
If and when the Congress and the President reinstate a military draft, the Selective Service System would conduct a National Draft Lottery to determine the order in which young men would be drafted.
The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called.
Because of the enormous impact of this lottery, it would be conducted publicly, with full coverage by the media. Accredited observers from public interest groups will have full access to observe the proceedings.
Phlegm wrote:Mindia wrote:"Every able-bodied male 18-40..." I read that somewhere about the draft.
From the Selective Service System:Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.[/b]
Dont forget about the deferments. Student deferment, medical deferment, my daddy is a big shot with pull deferment, and the alway popular Canadian deferment.
The one I was referring to was much older than 1980. I got the ages wrong. It's actually 18-45, not 40. It goes back to Federal law of 1792. Somebody posted about it in another message board.Every able-bodied male aged from 18 to 45 is, by federal law, a member of the militia. That has been the case since 1792.
"Militia," from Merriam-Webster: "4 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"
Furthermore, you can't use "a well-regulated militia" to limit "the right of the people." It's incorrect English.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Similarily, you cannot use the above sentence to restrict the reading of books to registered voters only.
The well-regulated part means the government has a responsibility to ensure uniform order, methods, and armament (as opposed to an unorganized (read unregulated) ragtag and less effective militia).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests