Bringing back the draft?

[Scoobnfl]

I sort of see your logic, but I simply cannot agree with you. One can contribute to the betterment of your nation through means other than military service; one can care for your nation without going to war. Questioning the government does not make you unpatriotic and thus if you don't agree with the decisions made by the powers that be, you have every right to oppose them, most importantly in the voting booth.

I never said just military. Did you read all of the post or did you just stop at military service?

Military service, law enforcement, fire and EMT, teachers, doctors, politicians, nurses, peace corps, volunteer work, work related to disaster reflief i.e. red cross etc...... many more ways to contribute to the betterment of society, but they take some measure of sacrifice and if you're not willing to sacrifice a little to make this country better then you shouldn't have a say so in what direction it takes.

just sitting on the sidelines and enjoying the benefits of citizenship because you got that right at birth has outlived its sensibility

 

[Scoobnfl]

True. If my country TRULY needed me (WWIII), I would answer the call of duty.

the cold war was WWIII, we are now fighting WWIV in the war on terror.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Afghanistan was a complete travesty of an operation.

how so?

 

[Absinthe]

The Cold War was most certainly not World War 3.

Why?

Because it lacked a world war.

 

[Steve]

the cold war was WWIII, we are now fighting WWIV in the war on terror.

Oh, shut up. You know what I mean. There weren't a great deal of major military operations during the Cold War, now were there? Didn't really require great numbers of volunteers, now did it?

 

[el Chi]

This is what sucks about the internet...people can't tell when you're being a smartass. I was being a smartass, dude.

So the answer to "Are you serious?" is a no, then. Apologies

I never said just military. Did you read all of the post or did you just stop at military service?

Yes I read the whole post, although I don't think you were particularly explicit and after all, this is a thread about military service.

just sitting on the sidelines and enjoying the benefits of citizenship because you got that right at birth has outlived its sensibility

You work for a company, therefore you contribute to the bettering of your country's economy. You pay taxes, therefore you contribute to the bettering and/or upkeep of public services. A democracy is about the populous' voice. If you start whittling down the electorate, that's a step backwards not forwards: a few centuries ago, normal people weren't allowed to vote, then the majority of men, then women - you see the line of progress?

Originally Posted by el Chi
Afghanistan was a complete travesty of an operation.

how so?

We went in to capture Osama bin Laden. We failed. We waited too long, sent in too few troops and as such we failed what we set out to accomplish.

And He_Who_Is_Steve and Absinthe are completely correct; the Cold War was not WW3 - that's why it was a cold war.
And the War on Terror is not WW4. That's ridiculous.

 

[Scoobnfl]

The Cold War was most certainly not World War 3.

Why?

Because it lacked a world war.

the cold war was fought on every continent with the exception of antarctica, granted mostly in low intensity conflicts, and virtually all nations were involved either on one side or the other. open fullscale warfare it was not but it was fought none the less.

 

[JamesPicard_007]

The Cold War was mainly a race of technology. I don't recall any battles on the scale of Normandy or Vietnam.

 

[Absinthe]

the cold war was fought on every continent with the exception of antarctica, granted mostly in low intensity conflicts, and virtually all nations were involved either on one side or the other. open fullscale warfare it was not but it was fought none the less.

I ask you to compare and contrast the differences between:

World War One

World War Two

The Cold War

Now, the Cold War could have certainly lead to World War 3... but it didn't. It's one of those things we narrowly avoided.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

WW1 ACTUALLY would be the wars in the old Holy Roman Empire, when France, Spain, England, the Dutch, and the Prussians were fighting, with France and England fighting all over the world, hence World War.

WW2 would be WW1

WW3 - WW2

WW4 - War on Terror comes close but I wouldn't say so because it's (not all, I know, it is a global effort, with battles raging in the Phillippines, etc) MOSTLY concentrated in the mideast.

So unknown.

Hehe.

/edit: this is not a reply to the post above mine. Just posted when people started saying this is WW3 or WW4 or what have you.

 

[Scoobnfl]

I ask you to compare and contrast the differences between:

World War One

World War Two

The Cold War

Now, the Cold War could have certainly lead to World War 3... but it didn't. It's one of those things we narrowly avoided.

The only comparison that need be addressed is that during the cold war there were opposing sides, and that those opposing sides fought one another.

How was it avoided, it was fought. Most of the fighting was done by proxy, with western countries providing training, weaponry, advice and $$$$ to countries in the immediate geographical area of countries that the Soviets were providing training. weaponry, advice, and $$$$ to then these countries duking it out killing each other in the name of whatever doctrine they subscribed to.

Occasionally in situations like Korea and Viet Nam we were directly involved in open warfare fighting against communist aggression, but most of the time for the west, it was low intensity conflict like in central america, south america, the carribean, africa etc......

Although fullscale war never raged between Nato and the USSR, war was fought across the globe as a chess match and the Western powers won.

 

[Steve]

Although fullscale war never raged between Nato and the USSR, war was fought across the globe as a chess match and the Western powers won.

Right, but fullscale war is what defines a World War.

 

[Absinthe]

Right, but fullscale war is what defines a World War.

sixchar

 

[CAUT10N]

FWIW the Cold War saw a very large US volunteer military. Since we figured on the USSR making a "convential war of occupation" at some point in Europe, we had roughly 1 million Active Army (we are now half that size) -- and the other services were also about twice their current size (same with reserve components).

 

[Scoobnfl]

Right, but fullscale war is what defines a World War.

where is that definition?


it's not here >>>>> http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=world+war



fullscale war is the way that the previous 2 world wars were fought and that is the reason you are having difficulty in understanding WWIII already having been fought, in the COLD WAR.

 

[Absinthe]

fullscale war is the way that the previous 2 world wars were fought and that is the reason you are having difficulty in understanding WWIII already having been fought, in the COLD WAR.

The cold war consisted of a multitude of smaller conflicts at different times throughout its existence. There was no centralized war in which the world took place in at once. But it could have easily escalated into one.

So I still stand behind the reasoning for calling it the Cold War. Not the Hot War. Not World War 3. Just a great conflict that all nations had on their mind, but was fortunately avoided.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Yes I read the whole post, although I don't think you were particularly explicit and after all, this is a thread about military service..

That having been said I think the requirements for citizenship should be changed to require service to your country. Not just in the armed forces. Organizations like the peace corps., teachers, firemen, police, judges, politicians, participating in volunteer groups for the homeless, disaster relief, doctors, nurses,......... etc.

Citizenship as a birthrite has outlived its sensibility.

how explicit should I have been. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

the etc...... was meant to imply that citizenship could be attained by providing other sevices to your country and her people by other than those listed.

You work for a company, therefore you contribute to the bettering of your country's economy. You pay taxes, therefore you contribute to the bettering and/or upkeep of public services. A democracy is about the populous' voice. If you start whittling down the electorate, that's a step backwards not forwards: a few centuries ago, normal people weren't allowed to vote, then the majority of men, then women - you see the line of progress?

progressive socialism has now made it possible for someone from birth to live on public assistance for the entirity of their life, free housing, free food, healthcare, etc.... and do nothing to better their situation, themselves or their nation. That is what I'm talking about. I'm not advocating that citizenship be hard to attain, just some measure of devotion to your country and its further development rather than the furthering of the entitlement mentality that is now so pervasive.