It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by C0le
Raising the next generation of cowards... and people wonder why this country isnt what it once was, its full of a bunch of chicken # liberal pansies.
This is just stupid, raising your kids to hate war because you hate this war.... Noone will disagree that war is a last resort and is a bloody game, but what the hell is this country going to do 10-20-30 years down the road, when our country truely needs a draft, ww3 or a ww4 when all hell is breaking loose, and this country calls on these young men and women to defend our homeland.. but they wont go/fight because they have been so brainwashed by the liberals who think this country got to be the #1 country in the world without paying alot in blood...
You dont like the draft in situations such as to day, and this war/s thats fine, but dont raise your kids to be so anti-war that they will not defend our home in the future..
[edit on 1-5-2005 by C0le]
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
1.Its stupid to raise your kids to hate war? Boy are you out of it.
2.No sane, moral person likes war. Only a sadistic, violent prick likes war. War is BAAAAAAAD. Sometimes, we must fight wars, because it is unavoidable. We do not fight wars because we like them. But your comments show a very sad lack of perspective.
3.And for your information, the draft has never been needed. When this country was TRULY in danger and threatened, there was no need for a draft, because recruiters were overwhelmed with volunteers. It is only when our govornment started unecessary and questionable wars that the people objected to, did they have to force people to fight. And in those wars, we failed miserably. Vietnam comes to mind.
4.Just because a person does not like war does not mean they will not defend the country if its threatened. They simply have no desire to fight in wars that are not necessary to our survival, or necessary in general to our safety.
Originally posted by SportyMB
but who does not serve in military/national guard/other federal service will not have right to vote. Simple and effective
That's a bad idea. Here's what would happen.
Someone gets in office and builds up a rapore or a liking with the Fed/Military community. Pay increase, better benefits, better housing.
and so on. So naturally the Fed/Mil community are mostly gonna vote for him cause he is making life better for them. Meanwhile he could be doing a crappy job with the civilian side of things. Social security, Healthcare, Education and so on. But the people (the same people our military protects) are defenseless and cannot vote. Even though 2 terms is the max he could change that and stay cool with military and stay in office.
Anyways, let's just say we have 2 million people that are military and or working for the federal gov't. Come on, give me a break, 2 million people voting for the entire US.
What about the people who can't join the Mil or FED" like people in wheelchairs or with disabilities that impair them from doing so?
That's like saying only people with 3.5 or above grade point averages in high school can go to college, cause they've earned the right. as you put it: Simple and effective
The DOD is Americas largest employer, it would be too bias of a vote.
Originally posted by drogo
agree with heinlein? interesting that you think so.it was my understanding after reading the book and seeing the movie that he was makeing a statement on how wrong that would be. you can not alow only SOME PEOPLE TO VOTE. especialy when you would limmit those eligible to vote on whether or not you enlist in military service. all that would be achived by only alowing ex-military (remember that in this work, active personell were also not alowed to vote). is to make sure that war becomes a way of life. that would be very bad indeed. also the last line in i believe it was the movie, "mabe we shouldn't have attacked the bugs" or words to that effect. that seems to point out that that entire mess was CAUSED by warmongering due to only those being ex-military being alowed to vote.
Originally posted by xmotex
I doubt there would be much support for this if the US limited it's warmaking to defensive wars. Unfortunately, most of the US's wars are against countries that represent little or no threat to the US. Afghanistan is the only war in recent memory where we were going after an enemy that had actually attacked the US - the rest were wars of choice.
The Iraq was threatening US although not directly.
Originally posted by xmotex
The Iraq was threatening US although not directly.
How the hell was Iraq "threatening" the US?
Iraq was a beaten country, with a broken military that was totally unable to defend Iraq, let alone threaten anyone else. The "WMDs" we supposedly went in to take out didn't exist. Saddam was a bastard, but he was contained. But he had all that oil...
why fight the invaders when you can just let them screw you, oh and your kids!
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is a great thread. Teach your children to be lying scoundrels. Embue them with yellow streak. Make them worthless parasites. Great find, curme.
Originally posted by xmotex
How the hell was Iraq "threatening" the US?
Iraq was a beaten country, with a broken military that was totally unable to defend Iraq, let alone threaten anyone else. The "WMDs" we supposedly went in to take out didn't exist. Saddam was a bastard, but he was contained. But he had all that oil...