All-volunteer military may desensitize U.S. to war, some fear - Polidicks

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39067705']*have to sign up for selective service. If you're 18 and male, congrats, you need to sign up for SS. I mean, they aren't going to hunt you down if you don't (at least not until a draft), but it's you either sign up or never receive a federal loan, federal aid, state or federal welfare, etc. This is for the draft, if we should ever have one again- you're in it whether you like it or not. The only way out is through conscientious objector status, which means that you can prove that your personal beliefs are opposed to warfare and violence. And that's hard as fuck to do- you have to prove you're opposed to [I]any warfare and violence[/I], so even if you're like, say, me, who's been opposed to nearly every war ever committed after 1921, I still wouldn't be able to get objector status because I agree that there could be situations where war is justified. So whether you like it or not, if you have a penis and are 18 years old, and you aren't a hippie or a Buddhist, you're gonna get shipped off the wherever to fight for Uncle Sam if they tell you to.[/QUOTE] You don't even agree with WW2? Bit odd, because I always saw WW2 as more justifiable than WW1

The article is basically saying that the real problem is when the veterans return to society. He forsees certain problems with readjustment and notes that the 'warrior class' is becoming a family business. I don't see a problem with it, as long as it doesn't get to the point of family enlisting family because of personal preference. As of now though, we do got a mixed bag of volunteers.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;39067740][QUOTE]...in which the women abjure all their sexual pleasures, including The Lioness on The Cheese Grater (a sexual position).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Brb, Google :haw:

[QUOTE=download;39067149]The idea is that only people who have relatives that have served are signing up, thus creating a "warrior class" of people. This overall lack of military exposure leads to people thinking war is ok and thus happy to wage it[/QUOTE] I agree with that in concept, but having a military draft with having much of the populous understanding the full consequences of war hasn't stopped many conflicts in practice. Look at Israel, for example. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;39067832]Brb, Google :haw:[/QUOTE] I went to google images. Found this in the top bar. [img]http://stephanieklein.com/images/2009/07/202px-Dionysos-mask-Louvre-Myr347.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39067939]I agree with that in concept, but having a military draft with having much of the populous understanding the full consequences of war hasn't stopped many conflicts in practice. Look at Israel, for example. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] I went to google images. Found this in the top bar. [img]http://stephanieklein.com/images/2009/07/202px-Dionysos-mask-Louvre-Myr347.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I know, I'm just paraphrasing what the guy in the article said because some people are too fucking lazy to read. Also, Israel is a poor example because they are always under attack, the US is not

[QUOTE=download;39067769]You don't even agree with WW2? Bit odd, because I always saw WW2 as more justifiable than WW1[/QUOTE] I tend to take celebrated historian and WWII vet Howard Zinn's view on WWII. I don't support WWII not because it's not justifiable- I think there's a great case to be made that crushing Fascism and preserving liberalism was worth the war effort, but that doesn't mean that the motives behind the war were justifiable. It's easy to point at WWII and say "Hey, look at this. We got rid of Hitler and saved Democracy in Europe." But we also entrenched Stalin and Marxist-Leninism, supporting a regime that was arguably far worse than Hitler's in terms of mass death and repression. We wiped two cities off the map, napalmed thousands- if not hundreds of thousands- of civilians throughout Europe, destroyed production and labor in a good portion of the world, culturally and psychologically scarred and fucked an entire culture, and propped up the regimes that lead to the worst mass rapes in the world, with no consequences. The fact of the matter is that WWII was no different than WWI in that it was an imperialist war fought between capitalists, fascists, imperialists, and stalinists with the sole intent of one of these factions gaining as much ground as possible to further exploit for their own markets and their own regime's benefits. This was not a people's war, or a war for the sake of democracy. The US allied with a near-fascists regime to crush a true fascist regime, and then fought an entire political war for 40 years after over the control of markets and governments with that allied regime. Before this, the Stalinists were happily allied with the fascists, and that only changed when the fascists invaded. And I don't think it's a jump to say that had Japan not sided with Germany or provoked an attack, America would have been happy to remain allied with imperialist Japan as it invaded China and destroyed what would be our nationalist authoritarian allies there. Ultimately, WWII and WWI were no different in intent. It was all about controlling markets, resources, and government, and determining what system would control labor for its benefit. Were the results good? For the Western world, sure. But Japan is still reeling from mass culture shock, and Russia is still suffering the effects of Marxist-Leninist rule. [url]http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn[/url]

[QUOTE=download;39068030]I know, I'm just paraphrasing what the guy in the article said because some people are too fucking lazy to read. Also, Israel is a poor example because they are always under attack, the US is not[/QUOTE] And Israeli troops tend to have really poor training unless they're commandos. If anything, their conscription basically encourages their xenophobic mindset.

This article is very valid. Military families tend to only interact with military families, so the grief of war is much further from mainstream America than it used to be. Whether that's actually bad is debatable.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39068046']I tend to take celebrated historian and WWII vet Howard Zinn's view on WWII. I don't support WWII not because it's not justifiable- I think there's a great case to be made that crushing Fascism and preserving liberalism was worth the war effort, but that doesn't mean that the motives behind the war were justifiable. It's easy to point at WWII and say "Hey, look at this. We got rid of Hitler and saved Democracy in Europe." But we also entrenched Stalin and Marxist-Leninism, supporting a regime that was arguably far worse than Hitler's in terms of mass death and repression. We wiped two cities off the map, napalmed thousands- if not hundreds of thousands- of civilians throughout Europe, destroyed production and labor in a good portion of the world, culturally and psychologically scarred and fucked an entire culture, and propped up the regimes that lead to the worst mass rapes in the world, with no consequences. The fact of the matter is that WWII was no different than WWI in that it was an imperialist war fought between capitalists, fascists, imperialists, and stalinists with the sole intent of one of these factions gaining as much ground as possible to further exploit for their own markets and their own regime's benefits. This was not a people's war, or a war for the sake of democracy. The US allied with a near-fascists regime to crush a true fascist regime, and then fought an entire political war for 40 years after over the control of markets and governments with that allied regime. Before this, the Stalinists were happily allied with the fascists, and that only changed when the fascists invaded. And I don't think it's a jump to say that had Japan not sided with Germany or provoked an attack, America would have been happy to remain allied with imperialist Japan as it invaded China and destroyed what would be our nationalist authoritarian allies there. Ultimately, WWII and WWI were no different in intent. It was all about controlling markets, resources, and government, and determining what system would control labor for its benefit. Were the results good? For the Western world, sure. But Japan is still reeling from mass culture shock, and Russia is still suffering the effects of Marxist-Leninist rule. [url]http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn[/url][/QUOTE] Pretty much this.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39068046']I tend to take celebrated historian and WWII vet Howard Zinn's view on WWII. I don't support WWII not because it's not justifiable- I think there's a great case to be made that crushing Fascism and preserving liberalism was worth the war effort, but that doesn't mean that the motives behind the war were justifiable. It's easy to point at WWII and say "Hey, look at this. We got rid of Hitler and saved Democracy in Europe." But we also entrenched Stalin and Marxist-Leninism, supporting a regime that was arguably far worse than Hitler's in terms of mass death and repression. We wiped two cities off the map, napalmed thousands- if not hundreds of thousands- of civilians throughout Europe, destroyed production and labor in a good portion of the world, culturally and psychologically scarred and fucked an entire culture, and propped up the regimes that lead to the worst mass rapes in the world, with no consequences. The fact of the matter is that WWII was no different than WWI in that it was an imperialist war fought between capitalists, fascists, imperialists, and stalinists with the sole intent of one of these factions gaining as much ground as possible to further exploit for their own markets and their own regime's benefits. This was not a people's war, or a war for the sake of democracy. The US allied with a near-fascists regime to crush a true fascist regime, and then fought an entire political war for 40 years after over the control of markets and governments with that allied regime. Before this, the Stalinists were happily allied with the fascists, and that only changed when the fascists invaded. And I don't think it's a jump to say that had Japan not sided with Germany or provoked an attack, America would have been happy to remain allied with imperialist Japan as it invaded China and destroyed what would be our nationalist authoritarian allies there. Ultimately, WWII and WWI were no different in intent. It was all about controlling markets, resources, and government, and determining what system would control labor for its benefit. Were the results good? For the Western world, sure. But Japan is still reeling from mass culture shock, and Russia is still suffering the effects of Marxist-Leninist rule. [url]http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn[/url][/QUOTE] Interesting look on it... Personally I agreed with Patton. He said at the end of WW2 that would should keep going onto Moscow because it's going to turn into a Cold War, and it did. On the other hand many people would have died doing it, and it would not have gotten a backing back home as everyone had been told how the Commies were actually our friends

[QUOTE=download;39068233]Interesting look on it... Personally I agreed with Patton. He said at the end of WW2 that would should keep going onto Moscow because it's going to turn into a Cold War, and it did. On the other hand many people would have died doing it, and it would not have gotten a backing back home as everyone had been told how the Commies were actually our friends[/QUOTE] If he actually said that, then he's a loon for it.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39068243]If he actually said that, then he's a loon for it.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#After_the_German_surrender[/url] As much as it is rather insane, in hindsight it would have meant were were not a few seconds away from vaporising ourselves for 30 years

[QUOTE=download;39068272][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#After_the_German_surrender[/url][/QUOTE] Yes he said something that only idiots wouldn't have realised. Then went on to say a load of kooky shit. Great. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=download;39068272][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#After_the_German_surrender[/url] As much as it is rather insane, in hindsight it would have meant were were not a few seconds away from vaporising ourselves for 30 years[/QUOTE] Of we could have easily lost and all of mainland Europe with it. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] On black soldiers: "Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor." Patton for President.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39068300]Yes he said something that only idiots wouldn't have realised. Then went on to say a load of kooky shit. Great. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] Of we could have easily lost and all of mainland Europe with it. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] On black soldiers: "Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor." [/QUOTE] As I said, in hindsight. One of Pattons ideas was to rearm the German army knowing that the Germans hated the Soviets a lot more than they hated the West. Also, that belief wasn't exactly limited to Patton, a lot of people back then thought that way

How can blame the guy. When we go to war for no good reason who do you really expect you serve. Look at WW2 we were attacked and you see a large increase in volunteer's. You can assume some of that is because we were going to war for a good reason.

[QUOTE=download;39068343]As I said, in hindsight. One of Pattons ideas was to rearm the German army knowing that the Germans hated the Soviets a lot more than they hated the West[/QUOTE] So Patton symbolised everything wrong with Western geopolitics and reads like General Jack Ripper. Great.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39068393]So Patton symbolised everything wrong with Western geopolitics and reads like General Jack Ripper. Great.[/QUOTE] Personally I'd have preferred another bloody war over the risk of wiping ourselves out of existence with nuclear weapons, a threat that still exists today

[QUOTE=download;39068409]Personally I'd have preferred another bloody war over the risk of wiping ourselves out of existence with nuclear weapons, a threat that still exists today[/QUOTE] And the world would still have nuclear weapons. What if the Russians were more aggressive in acquiring US nuclear technology being in a state of war and accelerated their own program by a couple of years and dropped a bomb on Berlin or London, or New York.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39068442]What if the Russians were more aggressive in acquiring US nuclear technology being in a state of war and accelerated their own program by a couple of years and dropped a bomb on Berlin or London, or New York.[/QUOTE] Watch threads, that's what happens

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39068442]And the world would still have nuclear weapons. What if the Russians were more aggressive in acquiring US nuclear technology being in a state of war and accelerated their own program by a couple of years and dropped a bomb on Berlin or London, or New York.[/QUOTE] They were probably already as aggressive as they could be, seeing as the first test if I remember correctly was in '49. Anyway, nuclear weapons might have existed, but the current stalemate would not have. This of course is all speculation

I doubt there would be enough Morale left to try and carry on fighting, especially against the USSR. Not to mention the west probably wouldn't have won and it would just come to some dodgy treaty.

We should probably move this to Mass Debate if we feel like continuing

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39068469]Watch threads, that's what happens[/QUOTE] I took a whole university module on Nuclear Anxiety. I'm pretty much as far anti-nuclear weapons as you can get. It doesn't mean I don't think marching on moscow in 1945 would have been ridiculous.

If America, England and France had kept marching eastward after Hitler fell, I'm sure Warsaw, Minsk, Kiev and Moscow would have ended up as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;39066424]When recruits enlist and are sent to a processing station, they're required to complete what look like the most hilarious exercises possible(but actually expose physical problems). Things like walking on your knees to dragging them with the top of your foot flat on the floor. One I remember was nicknamed the 'Duck Waddle'.[/QUOTE] The duck waddle is a completely normal P.E. Excercise to be honest. Admittedly I've only been to one US school (so can't be sure how common it is), but a german, an austrian and two czech ones and I've done it on all of them. [QUOTE=NoDachi;39068442]And the world would still have nuclear weapons. What if the Russians were more aggressive in acquiring US nuclear technology being in a state of war and accelerated their own program by a couple of years and dropped a bomb on Berlin or London, or New York.[/QUOTE] To be honest, the biggest problem wasn't a military standstill from the US, but essentially a political capitulation even against the urging from most of their western allies. The british and french kept constantly warning US diplomats about a cold war emerging if they continue the politics they had. US diplomats though didn't push at all and had a very hands off aproach to the whole thing. It wasn't until the communist coup in czechoslovakia that they somewhat rallied since communist in both France and Italy got discredited, and pushed for an economic restart of west germany as a stopgag against the USSR and it's satellites. Had US diplomacy been more active from the start, the USSR would never had have the time to essentially reinforce itself so well politically.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39066319]I only skimmed the article, but from what I gathered, this guy is concerned that people don't really want to serve in the army, correct? And where exactly is the problem in that?[/QUOTE] Well it does mean that America will have less tools to use in pointless wars.

[QUOTE=dunkace;39066383]Its mainly because the wars fought by America and more so Britain have been less and less in the public's interest. WW1 and WW2, had huge amounts of people joining up because it was the done thing to do to fight the wars to end wars. The likes of Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan haven't had the same appeal.[/QUOTE] the appeal was partly generated by the sophisticated british propaganda machine also views on war were also still pretty romantic seeing how media was much more restricted and values were generally more hardcore. Vietnam was a smaller scale conflict from the get go, it also was so widely covered that everyone kind of lost their interest in war after seeing all the shock footage. After vietnam much has been learned about propaganda, journalists were widely restricted and disliked by the fighters during the Iraq war for example and I doubt we will be able to see the same level of gory coverage as in Vietnam for a long time.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39068576]If America, England and France had kept marching eastward after Hitler fell, I'm sure Warsaw, Minsk, Kiev and Moscow would have ended up as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/QUOTE] And good luck justifying it all. One thing when former allies engage in a political "Cold" War, and it's something diffirent - basically not to stop the war, but continue against former allies straight away. The WWII ended with everyone loosing it (economy, culture, national identity, all fucked up) except for US. What would've happened if it would go on for another 1-2 years? Everyone in stone-age.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;39066424]When recruits enlist and are sent to a processing station, they're required to complete what look like the most hilarious exercises possible(but actually expose physical problems). Things like walking on your knees to dragging them with the top of your foot flat on the floor. One I remember was nicknamed the 'Duck Waddle'.[/QUOTE] I believe it's to show that you don't have flat feet. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] Also, having ~.003-.004% of your population in the military is around standard in modern times. It used to be much higher, and has been steadily decreasing throughout history.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39066630]First exposed? No not really. There are many anti-war texts that pre-date the first world war. Even this from 411 BC: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata[/url] But you are correct in that it really helped popularise it, both with writing of experiences and the consumption of such materials. I just wouldn't discount all the work previously from Tolstoy and such like.[/QUOTE] I was just thinking that when you see paintings of war, in World War I you could see it generally change from this heroic looking scene to more modern dreary and depressing.