One of the main reasons for having a draft is not because of the lack of available soldiers but because politicians (mostly democrats) believe that the military contains a disproportionate number of people with lower incomes.
I think everyone would agree that if the full potential of our voluntary armed forces was unleashed (that is by easing restrictions on the rules of engagement) there is no need for a draft.
I think everyone would agree that if the full potential of our voluntary armed forces was unleashed (that is by easing restrictions on the rules of engagement) there is no need for a draft.
Yes. Military officials should be able to use nuclear bombs to kill all the enemies of the state.
Yes. Military officials should be able to use nuclear bombs to kill all the enemies of the state.
It was tried in August of 1945. Damn if it didn’t work!
Think of what would have happened if the U.S. -invaded- Japan using conventional means. A million casualties at least. At least half of them dead. Think of millions of maimed and crippled Americans, with their limbs shot off or their lungs burned out from poison gas (which the Japanese actually did use on prisoners). The invasion of Japan would have been roughly equivalent to a dozen Normandy landings.
Anyone who sends in a man to do what a weapon or machine can do much better is criminally negligent.
Bob Kolker
It was tried in August of 1945. Damn if it didn’t work!
I agree. By killing every man, woman and child who is an enemy of a state or is under a state that is an enemy of our state, we would really be protecting reason and self-esteem. Nuclear weapons are good tools in the hands of politicians and the military-industrial complex.
I agree. By killing every man, woman and child who is an enemy of a state or is under a state that is an enemy of our state, we would really be protecting reason and self-esteem. Nuclear weapons are good tools in the hands of politicians and the military-industrial complex.
When the war is on, the goal is to win it. Perhaps reason and self-esteem figure in, when deciding whether to go to war or not in the first place. The Japanese gave use a reason. The bombed Pearl Harbor. Our self-esteem individually and collectively required that we grind their faces into the mud. Which we did.
Bob Kolker
Our self-esteem individually and collectively required that we grind their faces into the mud. Which we did.
Of course. Pearl Harbor was a good enough excuse. I am wondering why the US government does not similarly nuke the entire Arab and Islamic world, including Saudi (where the hijackers came from), killing everyone, because of the 9/11 attacks? The terrorists who committed the attacks were sponsored by private individuals and governments in the Islamic world. So, we (the state and the military) should nuke each town, village and city of these countries and all other countries and kill everyone. This is most essential to preserve the citizens’ collective self-esteem and pride, as well as protecting our national security.
Of course. Pearl Harbor was a good enough excuse. I am wondering why the US government does not similarly nuke the entire Arab and Islamic world, including Saudi (where the hijackers came from), killing everyone, because of the 9/11 attacks?
The fact that the 9/11 highjackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia does not necessarily mean that the Saudi governnment is somehow behind the attacks. (but see below.)
The terrorists who committed the attacks were sponsored by private individuals and governments in the Islamic world. So, we (the state and the military) should nuke each town, village and city of these countries and all other countries and kill everyone. This is most essential to preserve the citizens’ collective self-esteem and pride, as well as protecting our national security.
I suspect you are not serious here.
I *do* think that the ability of the governments to wage war on us should have been eliminated by the best means possible. That does not require exterminating the entire populations of the countries. But a nuke on about three carefully chosen cities would probably do the job.
As for Iran, if they persist in enriching uranium I think we should help them out by delivering a fair number of large samples of enriched uranium, simultaneously, to each of the sites doing the work.
Saudi–although the Saudi government is not directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and for that matter any other terrorism, there is no doubt they have been doing everything they can to fund the spread of radical islam, and we should ask them to stop. Ask them very, very, vigorously.
I suspect you are not serious here.
I *do* think that the ability of the governments to wage war on us should have been eliminated by the best means possible. That does not require exterminating the entire populations of the countries. But a nuke on about three carefully chosen cities would probably do the job
I am being serious here. The only way to control rogue countries is to kill ALL the people in it. If left to themselves, they will kill each other without a dictator. With a dictator, they will kill us. The best solution is to kill every man, woman and child in all countries. Leave none alive. Also execute those at home who oppose this.
The only way to control rogue countries is to kill ALL the people in it. If left to themselves, they will kill each other without a dictator. With a dictator, they will kill us. The best solution is to kill every man, woman and child in all countries. Leave none alive. Also execute those at home who oppose this.
So since I oppose your idea you advocate my execution? Disgusting.
Moderators: have we heard enough from this troll yet? I should think that what he has said in this thread alone is grounds for banning.
In slightly related news, the United States State Department will be drafting diplomats to serve in the U.S. embassy in Iraq, as there is an unsurprisingly drastic shortage of volunteers. This sounds pretty bad. My dreadful prediction is that the next major Islamic terrorist attack on the United States will be on that massive embassy complex that is being constructed in Iraq.
On 11/19/2006 at 9:25 PM, Olex said:
Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/…litics_draft_dc
And what is more, check these lines out from the same source:
And finally, dropping a hammer:
Wow. Apparently, defending individual rights is OK, but only if you agree with breaking those same rights that you are defending by forcing people to give their life away.
Democrats are back and they are not kidding around.
And now a blink of an eye later in 2024 the other half of the statist/collectivist/altruist false dichotomy is pushing for the same mass rights violations and enslavement of American citizens and possible sacrifice of lives against individual’s choice. Even though in a proper moral war against evil aggression moral men and women would line up left and right to protect freedom from threatening tyranny like what happened during the Second World War.
On 9/9/2007 at 12:43 PM, TheEgoist said:
Staying united as one people? Okay, Mr. Toohey.
You cannot protect reason when you become an irrational beast. No man should ever be forced to defend anything he does not choose to defend. That is completely contrary to what this nation was founded upon. It’s slavery in the worst way.
Protecting at any cost? You sound like you want to sacrifice every value you have, to sacrifice the individual, to the state. Is this true? In that case, you are no better than the enemy you claim to be fighting against
It’s nice to go back and read the posts of all the moral principled men and women that were here during this Forum’s first decade of existence from when I first joined and have disappeared to the wind. It’s what I tried to bring back by enforcing the Forum’s proper objectively defined rules as they were enforced then (and on myself) during my short stint as a mod which requires no tolerationism or promotion of anti-Objectivist ideas on a privately owned forum with a specific purpose. And no, that is *not* censorship as that requires government force either explicit or implicit as is being done on social media platforms