Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 83

Thread: Military Service

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    That's an odd choice. Why not defense spending? Do you include reservists or just active personnel?
    Because I don't think defense spending captures the concept of militarization. I defer to Mullins (1987):
    expenditure data has the following disadvantages: replacement cycles cloud trends, defense budgets are calculated differently across time and space, inflation rates aren’t fully accounted for, and these don’t take into account arms transfers; military personnel is a better measure because: soldiers aren’t subject to radical technological change, and cross-country comparisons are much easier.

    It's active personnel. I do actually have military expenditures in the current model as a kind of control (might not keep it), and its effects are very ambiguous. Plus there's a vast arms races literature, and I don't really want to get into that area.

    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #32
    Lots of interesting stuff in here. Fascinating the high proportion of people who are conscientious objectors.

    EUROPE NEWS JULY 19, 2010
    German Hospitals Can Ill Afford End to Draft

    Public-Service Providers That Rely on Conscientious Objectors' Work Say Scrapping Conscription Would Hurt Programs

    By PATRICK MCGROARTY

    BERLIN—A proposal in Germany to abolish compulsory military service is drawing major opposition from unlikely quarters—the thousands of hospitals and other public-service providers where most young German men end up fulfilling their draft duties.

    Germany is one of the last European countries with a draft, which many of its neighbors have abandoned since the end of the Cold War. But amid pressure to cut defense spending and modernize Germany's armed forces, Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has amplified a longstanding debate about military conscription by calling for it to be scrapped.

    Mr. Guttenberg argues that conscripted troops are costly and of little use to the modern German military, or Bundeswehr, now focused on far-flung foreign missions to hot spots such as Afghanistan. The six-month stint that young German men are required to serve is too short for highly skilled military training, security analysts say. Conscripts also can't serve abroad, so many end up working in kitchens or at desk jobs.

    Increasingly, though, conscription's main impact has little to do with military training at all. As attitudes toward mandatory service have changed over the decades, the draft's biggest beneficiaries have become Germany's hospitals, nursing homes and other social programs, where for the past 20 years more than half of draftees have opted to carry out alternative, nonmilitary service.

    Abolishing the draft, they argue, would leave a large hole in Germany's public services. More than 150,000 men out of 226,000 deemed fit to serve in 2009 filed as conscientious objectors, slating them for civilian-servant jobs. Unlike in the U.S., those who seek conscientious-objector status in Germany are always approved.

    "It would definitely be a loss," said Peer Köpf, an expert on personnel and operations at the German Hospital Association.

    Losing the steady flow of civilian servants would be the latest blow to Germany's health-care system, beleaguered by the spiraling cost of caring for an aging population. Earlier this month, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government announced further increases in premiums and cuts in medical spending to help plug an €11 billion ($14 billion) deficit in the country's public health-insurance system next year.

    Hospitals, clinics and nursing homes have come to depend on the labor of such civilian servants, though the law dictates that they only do "supplementary" work that doesn't endanger traditional jobs. There is no move to maintain mandatory service if the draft is abolished.

    Ria Schulze Bockhurst, head of human resources for two hospitals and several nursing homes around Münster in western Germany, said the organization's nearly 50 civilian servants perform basic nursing tasks and run errands, work that would otherwise need to be taken over by better-compensated employees.

    "It would certainly drive costs up even higher," said Ms. Schulze Bockhurst.

    Robert Dilssner, 22 years old, who is fulfilling his conscription duties at a work program for the disabled in Berlin, says eliminating the draft would hurt social programs in more ways than one. A number of his friends have pursued careers in health care or social services "that they never would have been exposed to if it hadn't been for their civil service," he said.

    He said he had never considered doing military service, instead. "I saw (civilian service) as a chance to learn something valuable in helping other people, to experience a new perspective," said Mr. Dilssner, who will resume his engineering studies once he finishes his service at the end of August.

    Already, health-care providers and civilian-servant employers are scrambling to adapt to a law that took effect on July 1 shortening the length of conscripted service time to six months from nine. After training and vacation time, Mr. Köpf said, civilian servants will end up on the job at Germany's hospitals for just four months.

    "Civilian servants frequently work with patients, and that definitely takes some getting used to," Mr. Köpf said. "With just six months, that won't really work anymore."

    The truncated term of service isn't much more appealing to the military. Lars Klingbeil, a defense expert in Parliament for the opposition Social Democrats, dismissed it as a "six-month internship."

    Aiming to cut roughly €1 billion a year from Germany's €31.1 billion military budget, Mr. Guttenberg wants to trim troop levels to 150,000 from the current 250,000, which would mean 40,000 fewer career and volunteer soldiers, who typically serve for at least two years, and seemingly no role for conscripts. Eliminating conscription, whose costs include housing, feeding and training soldiers, could save at least €400 million a year, defense ministry officials estimate.

    Throughout the Cold War, compulsory military service was near universal in Europe. But Germany's draft, one of just five remaining among 28 countries in NATO, had its own particularpurpose. The Allies initially banned Germany from cultivating a military force after World War II, but as tensions between the Soviet Union and the West grew, that policy shifted. The Bundeswehr was established in 1955, along with 18 months of mandatory military service for men between 18 and 23 years of age.

    The draft was seen as a practical way to draw soldiers from a population tired of war and to instill a sense of civic duty in young men from across society. It also sought to refurbish the image of a military tarnished by the Nazis. Dubbed by political leaders as "citizens in uniform," draftees who objected could perform civilian service instead.

    For the next few decades, men like Wolfgang Koch, drafted in 1971, went into the Bundeswehr with a sense of pride or at least a shrug of their shoulders, a Cold War inclination that time defending their homeland was time well spent. That year, 27,657 young Germans filed as conscientious objectors. Just two of Mr. Koch's 60 classmates were among them.

    "I wasn't such an enthusiastic soldier, but I did my service for my country," said Mr. Koch, now 58 years old and a retired teacher, who spent 15 months between high school and university drilling with a Leopard tank unit.

    Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and the main adversary of Western European armies vanished. Since the mid-1990s, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and—as of this month—Sweden have scrapped conscription.

    "The enemy is gone, Germany is unified, the Russians have left," said Hilmar Linnenkamp, an adviser at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin who has also held posts in the defense ministry since 1969. "The psychological legitimacy of doing military service is much weaker than the obvious legitimacy and the need for social services."

    Write to Patrick McGroarty at patrick.mcgroarty@dowjones.com

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...783076314.html
    How do the Swedes here feel about losing conscription?

  3. #33
    So the hospital are upset over this proposal as it would deprive them of slave labor?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #34
    Doesn't sound like 'slave labor' to me -- their training, housing and food are paid, plus (I'd assume) a stipend. It's just the costs are paid by the government, not the hospital. They'd have to figure out how to pay unskilled temp labor with a smaller budget.

    It's odd they don't question the conscientious objections, though.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Doesn't sound like 'slave labor' to me -- their training, housing and food are paid, plus (I'd assume) a stipend. It's just the costs are paid by the government, not the hospital. They'd have to figure out how to pay unskilled temp labor with a smaller budget.
    It is forced labour. I am not familiar with modern German law, but in Finland one faces a jail term of over six months for refusing this work. That's gubment-enforced slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's odd they don't question the conscientious objections, though.
    Odd how?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    It is forced labour. I am not familiar with modern German law, but in Finland one faces a jail term of over six months for refusing this work. That's gubment-enforced slavery.
    Ah, now I see what Loki meant. They can refuse the military end but not the civil service end; some service is mandated (not that they're "mistreated" like slaves). We have the same objections in the US related to new-ish mandatory community service (they call it voluntary but it's not) in order to graduate from high school. <Not practiced in all states or all schools.>

    So what's your opinion on this in Finland, Nessie? Were you forced to work somewhere or go to jail for six months if you didn't?



    Odd how?
    Odd to an American, where conscientious objectors can be challenged. First, there's no way to NOT register for our Selective Service. Once you turn 18 (if you're a male) you are required to register. Failure to register can land you in prison with a hefty fine.

    Second, once you sign up for voluntary service, it's pretty hard to get out by claiming a NEW religious exemption that seems orchestrated.

    Finally, once a draft is in place (as it was for Vietnam), plenty of people who may not really object to War in principle, or on religious grounds, may try to get out of combat by being a C.O. They assume they'll get a post state-side as a clerk or something. But even Amish and other religious pacifists have been deployed in combat zones as medics or reporters. Being a C.O. just means you don't have to carry a gun and kill people, not that you can't be "forced to serve".

    *The US doesn't have the same German standard that conscripts can't serve out-of-country. Not as far as I know.*

    That's where the Draft Dodgers who fled to Canada come in....

    <Currently, some voluntary military women have filed objections as Born Again Christians, stating their religion calls them to stay home with their children, and they've been discharged or placed in non-combat at-resident posts.

    Some voluntary military men have claimed that repealing DADT will force them to serve with "sinning homosexuals", shower and bunk with them, etc. That it's against their religious beliefs to be forced to serve under those conditions. It's a relatively new and small number of cases, but it's in the news.>
    Last edited by GGT; 07-19-2010 at 08:26 AM. Reason: *

  7. #37

  8. #38
    Intresting, similar arguments is used by the SVP and FDP in favour of the current system we have. They want to have an army which is build on man that are integrated into society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    In the American context, the people who are most affected by conscription (18-21-year-olds) have a very low voter turnout, and that group is not uniformly against being sent to war anyway.
    And that's probably why the SVP is against the Durchdiener concept (serving the whole service at once) in opposite to the usual service (24 weeks at once and then 3 weeks every year).

    IMO we should get rid of the draft, it is a huge impact of the freedom of the citizens during the service period that cannot be justified by the current political situation (neither in Europe nor in the US).
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  9. #39
    On the other hand.....

    If conscription was the norm, for men and women, without the option of domestic civil service, national guard or C.O. status.....

    Perhaps we'd have a lot less military engagements and more youth voter turn-outs? Would we see more adult parents voting for diplomacy instead of violent conflict, to keep their kids out of combat? If everyone had a stake in War (including the Senators and Congress who vote for War and whose kids would have to fight, or college students who couldn't get a deferment) would we see less of War?

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Ah, now I see what Loki meant. They can refuse the military end but not the civil service end; some service is mandated (not that they're "mistreated" like slaves). We have the same objections in the US related to new-ish mandatory community service (they call it voluntary but it's not) in order to graduate from high school. <Not practiced in all states or all schools.>
    Slavery isn't about mistreatment - a lot of slaves weren't really mistreated (compared to how workers were treated at the time). Slavery is about being forced to work against one's will, which is to say one faces a severe legal punishment for refusing to do so. The German hospitals are complaining that they can't get German teenagers to work for them for free, having no right to refuse. Seems like slavery to me (or indentured servitude if you must).

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    On the other hand.....

    If conscription was the norm, for men and women, without the option of domestic civil service, national guard or C.O. status.....

    Perhaps we'd have a lot less military engagements and more youth voter turn-outs? Would we see more adult parents voting for diplomacy instead of violent conflict, to keep their kids out of combat? If everyone had a stake in War (including the Senators and Congress who vote for War and whose kids would have to fight, or college students who couldn't get a deferment) would we see less of War?
    I could have swore I already answered these questions...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Slavery isn't about mistreatment - a lot of slaves weren't really mistreated (compared to how workers were treated at the time). Slavery is about being forced to work against one's will, which is to say one faces a severe legal punishment for refusing to do so. The German hospitals are complaining that they can't get German teenagers to work for them for free, having no right to refuse. Seems like slavery to me (or indentured servitude if you must).
    Hmm. Then is it "slavery" for an American retired person who is forced to return to working JUST to get health care benefits, especially if they're required by law to buy health insurance, and Medicare isn't enough?

    I could have swore I already answered these questions...
    You probably did, but your reply alone should be enough?

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Hmm. Then is it "slavery" for an American retired person who is forced to return to working JUST to get health care benefits, especially if they're required by law to buy health insurance, and Medicare isn't enough?
    A) They're not "forced" to return. Doing so is an economic decision.
    B) Poor people have their health insurance paid for by the government.
    C) The punishment for those who can pay but don't isn't jail time or anything near it.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Due to data availability, it's from 1816 to 2001. I'm also splitting it up into the pre-WWI period, 1914-1945, and post-1945. The model works best in the 20th century, but still does a decent job earlier. It includes any country that passes a minimal population threshold and is recognized as being independent by I believe Britain or France (or the UN after 1945) in a given year. For instance, Sweden appears every year from 1816, while Peru only appears in 1839 and Algeria in 1962.

    There's debate over whether having a democracy in even one country matters. According to my work, it matters, but not excessively so (~30% fall in the chance of war in a given year). If both countries are democratic, it falls by over 90%, and there are those who would claim it's 100% (they'd disagree with the definition of democracy used). Regarding the economy, other studies have shown that countries with a larger GDP are both more likely to have more troops (as percentage of the population) and more likely to go to war. They don't control for the level of development though (e.g. Nigeria has a larger GDP than Luxembourg). I managed to find a decent proxy for development, and it shows that as the level of development goes up, the chance of war goes down. Haven't really looked at the relationship between development and militarization.
    Thanks, that answers my questions I was wondering about the economy because I was thinking that maybe a country with lots of inflation and lots of unemployment may be more inclined to look for a war, and in such a country the military may also be a more attractive option for young men. But then again it's not like they'll recruit much more than they need. I also thought that maybe lots of trading with other countries would decrease the likelihood of war greatly.

    Some more questions, and only to satisfy my own curiosity so you should feel free to ignore them as soon as you get bored

    1. Does the level of militarisation at a given time (for example the percentage of the population that is in the army) matter more than the trend (increasing or decreasing the level of militarisation)?

    2. How long does the effect last?

    3. Why did you choose to lag your variables by 2 years rather than say 3 years? is it some sort of recommended number in these studies? Is the effect dramatically reduced?

    4. How important is a history of armed conflict for predicting future armed conflicts?

    5. Do military alliances matter? Eg. if you have two allied countries is it almost like having one country with a really big army? Or do such alliances decrease the likelihood of war because the countries are buddies and have other channels open?

    6. Finally, do the countries you're looking at have similar demographics? I was wondering if it matters whether or not you look at what percentage of a country's entire population is in the military compared to what percentage of eg. males aged 18-30 are in the military. Or, for that matter, what percentage of the entire population is made up of young men





    This really sounds like an interesting study, I hope it ends up being very convincing
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #44
    Loki, there are plenty of people who work just to get the employer health benefit contributions. Doing so means they'd rather not be forced into "welfare", or spending their retirement funds simply to purchase individual health insurance.

    I just wanted you to think hard about what you call "indentured servitude".

  15. #45
    Hmm they aren't really indentured servents of the state though. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it's not the same thing as being systematically forced into service as far as I can tell. It's unfair, but it's not slavery.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Thanks, that answers my questions I was wondering about the economy because I was thinking that maybe a country with lots of inflation and lots of unemployment may be more inclined to look for a war, and in such a country the military may also be a more attractive option for young men. But then again it's not like they'll recruit much more than they need. I also thought that maybe lots of trading with other countries would decrease the likelihood of war greatly.
    There's a large literature on the diversionary use of force (basically what you said: leader is in a bad political position and therefore starts a military dispute to divert attention from his own poor performance). There are no convincing findings for this theory. At best, leaders in such a position might initiate a very small-scale dispute and back down if pressed. The reason is two-fold: leaders who want to divert attention want to do it at a reasonable low cost, and a war isn't low-cost (waging a war also increases the chance one gets kicked out of office); countries that might be victims of diversionary behavior seek to diffuse conflicts with the former pretty quickly knowing that the other side will use any chance possible to start a military dispute.

    1. Does the level of militarisation at a given time (for example the percentage of the population that is in the army) matter more than the trend (increasing or decreasing the level of militarisation)?
    The change one seems to be a bit stronger, but I can't really make that claim without further analysis.

    2. How long does the effect last?

    3. Why did you choose to lag your variables by 2 years rather than say 3 years? is it some sort of recommended number in these studies? Is the effect dramatically reduced?

    4. How important is a history of armed conflict for predicting future armed conflicts?

    5. Do military alliances matter? Eg. if you have two allied countries is it almost like having one country with a really big army? Or do such alliances decrease the likelihood of war because the countries are buddies and have other channels open?

    6. Finally, do the countries you're looking at have similar demographics? I was wondering if it matters whether or not you look at what percentage of a country's entire population is in the military compared to what percentage of eg. males aged 18-30 are in the military. Or, for that matter, what percentage of the entire population is made up of young men
    2. I'm looking at the effects of variables in a specific year, which means I can't answer this question with this statistical method. There's another method that might answer that question, but it's more complicated and not really worth investing my time on unless the current piece gets some traction (it would basically measure how many years until a war given different levels of militarization).

    3. Inductivism. I looked at the average levels of militarization the year of the war, the year before the war, 2 years before the war, etc. (up to 5 years). The numbers remain pretty stable until the year before the war, when they show a clear spike (they go up further the year the war starts and the years the war is ongoing). So while there might be wars that were preceded by militarization more than 2 years before the fact, they're a minority.

    4. Very. It's the strongest predictor. If two countries had even a single military conflict in their history (doesn't even have to be a war; could just be an explicit threat to use force), the chance of war goes up about 4 times.

    5. Past studies have shown that if either country has an outside offensive alliance (i.e. if I attack, you must help me), the chance of war goes up. If either country has a defensive alliance (i.e. if I get attacked, you must help me) or neutrality pact (i.e. if I get attacked, you promise not to attack me), the chance of war either falls or remains the same, though some claim that any kind of alliance increases the chance of war.

    6. Unfortunately, such data doesn't exist. Not sure how reliable it would be even if it did exist (countries have historically not been very good with birth records).

    I hope so too. The main problem is convincing people that the militarization has an independent effect (i.e. that countries aren't increasing their troop numbers because they know a war is coming).

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Hmm they aren't really indentured servents of the state though. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it's not the same thing as being systematically forced into service as far as I can tell. It's unfair, but it's not slavery.
    Is it really different from a lord telling their serfs that a portion of their labor belongs to them?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #47
    I've always been for a year of mandatory service. Or, a year of service for the right to vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Every Murikan to serve at least 18 months in retail


    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The point is that 18-year-olds had the right to vote in the '72 election and yet didn't really do so. The ones that did vote didn't vote against Nixon.
    But why would they vote against Nixon? Vietnam wasn't his war. He inherited it, like Obama. Though Kennedy got the ball rolling, it is really Johnson who was to blame, both for escalating it into a real war and for botching its execution.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As far as quantitative analysis is concerned, there's really not a difference. It tells you what happens in a particular set of circumstances *which is actually usually already known, but the refrain is "yes, but now we can prove it."* but it rarely tells you why. You effectively get to say its due to whatever seems reasonable to you. Or whoever is publishing your study. Which is why I don't hold that approach to Poli-Sci in much regard.
    Yes, well, heh.

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    But why would they vote against Nixon? Vietnam wasn't his war. He inherited it, like Obama. Though Kennedy got the ball rolling, it is really Johnson who was to blame, both for escalating it into a real war and for botching its execution.
    It was his war by '72 and there were massive protests against him (and the war).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #49
    (not that they're "mistreated" like slaves)
    Slavery isn't synonymous with cruelty, in ancient Rome slaves were often well treated and permitted to own limited property. Indeed, a slave of a well off Roman could have better quality of life than a poor citizen. They were, however, still slaves.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It was perceived as his war by '72 and there were massive protests against him (and the war).
    Fixed for accuracy. Yes, in part it was his war. Certainly it was perceived as such, but perception is not reality. Should he have been held responsible for it electorally? Not sure.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Poll. Add your opinions, discuss your thoughts.




    The result might be more people demanding we avoid War, conflicts, occupations, nation building, etc.

    Especially if the Draft included women. Then DADT might be a moot point?

    I'm not sure if Americans would agree to a mandatory service like other countries do....we already have arguments about the government interfering with our freedoms.



    Hell, I clicked on the title to edit, and lost the poll.

    1) Reinstate the Draft
    2) Mandatory two year service for all citizens
    3) Both 1 and 2
    4) None of the above--keep it voluntary
    Keep it voluntary unless we really need some cannon fodder for a good reason, ala ww2...
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Fixed for accuracy. Yes, in part it was his war. Certainly it was perceived as such, but perception is not reality. Should he have been held responsible for it electorally? Not sure.
    But my whole point is about how Nixon was perceived...the reality is irrelevant. People blamed Nixon for the war, and yet the newly enfranchised 18-21-year-olds didn't vote against him.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #53
    Then I agree. 18-21 year olds are too stupid. What does Nessie call it? Young, dumb and full of cum?

  24. #54
    Come to think of it, there's also a selection effect. College students are more likely to vote than people their age who aren't in college (and more likely to vote Democrat), but they were also less affected by the draft.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #55
    Good point. Conversely, college students were much more likely to be educated on the issues, and thus be able to critically evaluate the policy.

  26. #56
    I'll be back with a proper reply tomorrow, but I simply have to know one thing right now:

    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    I've always been for a year of mandatory service. Or, a year of service for the right to vote.
    Whatever the hell for??!?!
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Whatever the hell for??!?!
    He read Heinlein in college
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  28. #58
    Hell with that. Read him in 4th-8th grade. Probably why Stranger in a Strange Land didn't resonate.

    Back OT: I tend to think that if everybody (and everybody's loved ones) has a decent chance to die for our country, there won't be quite so much dying and we'll only go to war when we need to go to war. Plus, it seems more egalitarian. As it is, the military is vastly skewed towards the poor, because many of them use it as a way out of poverty.

    Though there is that to be said for it: it is probably the most certain way out of poverty. Probably a higher payoff bet than shooting for college for a dirt poor youngster. My father and all three of his brothers went through the military, and all made it into the middle class.

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Hell with that. Read him in 4th-8th grade. Probably why Stranger in a Strange Land didn't resonate.

    Back OT: I tend to think that if everybody (and everybody's loved ones) has a decent chance to die for our country, there won't be quite so much dying and we'll only go to war when we need to go to war. Plus, it seems more egalitarian. As it is, the military is vastly skewed towards the poor, because many of them use it as a way out of poverty.

    Though there is that to be said for it: it is probably the most certain way out of poverty. Probably a higher payoff bet than shooting for college for a dirt poor youngster. My father and all three of his brothers went through the military, and all made it into the middle class.
    What are you calling middle class?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  30. #60
    Slightly off topic, who of you have served in the military?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •