Printable View
The problem is the first post didn't do much to specify what kind of war, and the poll has no option for "it would depend on the war". Without knowing what scenario the voters were imagining when they voted the poll results don't mean anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
They are going to lynch you at U of M.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
:laugh4:
thanks for proving my point. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I'd sign up. I'm no coward! :boxing:
i'd sign craterus up. he's no coward. dulce et decurum est, craterus! :knight:
Very similar to that famous EB post, Big_John
:laugh4:
I don't think Gelatinous read my post...
He didn't say a foreign army was invading us...
Last time there was a draft it was Americans invading homes, unleashing hell on innocent people and killing and torturing their friends, family, neighbours and countrymen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You're still acting like you'll be involved in a 'noble' war, while if the draft would ever be used again, it's doubtful it will be for defensive purposes...
Another funny thing about this threat is that if you replace 'draft' with 'jihad', all those pro arguments still apply. I guess all those terrorists are noble warriors defending their families, countries and culture...:wall:
i try. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
yeah, the poll had no 'depends on the war' option, and no 'conscientious objector one, though the 'serve jail time' comes close.
Also, there are plenty of essential services that would require people to remain at home, like teaching, manufacturing, electricity, gas, doctors, etc.
It's a horrible slander to say that the draft is your measure of heroism. and lest we forget. The actual sharp end ratio of troops in an army is pretty low to the administrators and other support staff.
in this case who is more patriotic? the one who educates the nations youth, or the one who heals their sick? or the one who organises the shipping of berets to units...
The military is a necessary evil...
personally i would be medically unable to serve in a front line unit, so it's a choice of buerocracies for me... *shrug*
Correct, but this sub-discussion started when Soly said that in the hypothetical case that the USA got invaded, he would still dodge the draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexanderofmacedon
The only case I can imagine my government would order a draft would be an invasion or an imminent threat thereof, so I'd yell and cuss about it and then serve. If my government turned imperial and started invading nations at will, I'd refuse.
The posts you are replying to are about a hypothetical scenario when your own country gets invaded. What are you going to do? Sit at home and pray that your country gets saved by those who are willing stand up and fight? Send an army of strawmen, like you're doing now?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
GC, honestly..
you can lead a horse to water, but i refuse to beat that horse to death. something like that..
then you are asking the wrong person, as i have never spoken about your scenario specifically. the whole point of my posts has been that the pro-draftees have been unfairly trying to twist the discussion into that of defending against invasion and then leveling indictments. to try to lump all negative respondents in this thread under that rubric is pure BS, and you know it. dead horses and whatnot.
Uh no, they were about draft-dodging. people opposed to the draft were said to be immoral cowards. The type of war wasn't specified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
So answer this question: If you were an American back in the day and gor drafted for 'nam, how would you react ?
actually, i avoided the smaller question (the invasion one you were asking). but it's just a philosophical aversion to strawmen, nothing personal. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I know...:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
I should say that waving an OSU flag :2thumbsup:...
While burning the MI flag and saving "God Bless George Bush and America!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
So basicly you are saying that you have run for politics but you dont trust politics.Do you trust yourself?
Are you having difficulty with reading today Kagemusha ?
By being a citizen of the United State's I beleive the defense of her homeland and interests is more important that my life, or anyone's indivual life. I'd die for her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It's a sad thing that anyone would even think about deserting their nation in it's time of need. Such men are not even real men, they are cowards. And cowards die many times before their death, real men die just once.
My bad tribesman.:embarassed: I miss understood you when you sayed: "been there done that".I understood you were talking about Politics, instead moving to another Nation.So it seems im ideal kind of Bloghead to be a puppet of Politics becouse i cant understand basic sentences in English.Well you play what you got:stupido:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It's a sad thing that anyone would even think about deserting their nation in it's time of need.
What need Capo ? A nation is just somewhere you live , if the people that run the place where you live want you to do something then they had better make a damn convincing case for it .
For anyone to accept things unquestioningly (as in without hesitation in the poll) then that is just blind stupidity .
Politicians make mistakes , politicians lie , if a politician wants to put me in a position where I might kill or be killed then there hell of a lot of questions I want answered before I will make that commitment .
And they had better have some damn convincing answers to those questions .
Such men are not even real men, they are cowards. cowards die many times before their death, real men die just once.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: yeah , and real men smoke Marlboro :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is this , the silly catchphrase competition ?:dizzy2:
But what makes you think an average, run of the mill civilian knows what the hell is going on in government? What makes you think they could even begin to comprehend it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
By being a citizen of the United States you have certain duties, and one is to answer the draft if your nation deems it nessissary to call you up. If you are too much of a coward to do your duties, than renouce your citizenship. Being a citizen is a privaladge, not a right, and with it comes responsibilities.
All I know is that if we were ever in battle, I'd rather go solo than have a man like you watching my back. I'd more likely be shot by you than an enemy.
I would join the draft after unsuccessfully treing to get out of it. their is a quote by otto von bismark which i like: "Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war."
-Otto Von Bismarck
war is hell and anyone who doesn't think that is sadly mistaken.
Is it really? Well you learn something new everyday. It is interesting that a "libertarian" with such a low opinion of central government is so eager to sign up for enslavement by the state and so scathing of those who would not. Especially using the argument that going to war would protect your family and friends. Where do you live? Eugene is it not? Would your fellow citizens be better of with a Paris or a Stalingrad scenario? In the first the state lost and the nation fell but the people lived on. In the second, well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yet another badly worded Org poll quickly turned into a cat-fight by certain individuals.
Hand on heart, flag waving, logical... umm but what does the history books have to say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Vietnam hippies, WWII objectors, Civil War (which nation were they supposed to be fighting for and protecting?)... lets go right back to the founding of the nation...
Weren't the Americans fighting their nation ... the British Empire over paying taxes. And the Americans of the day had a fairly prosperous standard of living.
The founding fathers had lots of benefits and decided to rebel and set up a nation to avoid taxes...So by your statement the founding fathers of the USA were selfish pigs who claimed no reponsibility to the nation that set up their benefits. What a loathesome bunch of men, those people who rejected taxes that were raised to defend the state. :laugh4:
It seems the ancient agreement is the same as all others... broken when it suits those in power, while those who are not are bound to it so much that they blind themselves to why they are.
Is conscription not enslavement by the State then? On your smaller scale would Eugene burn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Edit: Biting the hand that feeds is all about perspective. From over here the USA has already done that once, and it was called rebellion.
Not every country has been founded on rebellion or warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That's the advantage of democracy, you get to rebel at the ballot box... in fact in Australia you get fined if you don't turn up at the ballot box on the day of voting... you don't have to vote, but the vast majority once there decide that they should, and a fair proportion of those decide that since they will vote once they turn up that they should have a grasp of who and why they will vote for someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
This just came to me, but isn't the nation, in the respects that you are speaking about, just a coincidence of the powerful and powerless? The societal agreement argument seems sound only when applied to more ancient nations; nations that were different from ours in many respects. For one, the culture, the will, the society of the aristocratic class WAS the nation. The aristocrats were the only TRUE people. Under these premises I can see the societal agreement being in effect, just as it would be in the VERY beginnings of a "state" as a small group of relatively equal people.
As for the draft question, I would of course comply, but I would have nothing to identify with (some of you were invoking "justice" here) regardless of whether the war was offensive or defensive, or whatever it may be... and this is I think, largely because of my main statement above. I have no doubt, also, that this "absence of things to identify with" in modernized nations negatively impacts the quality of our daily lives.
Being a citizen is a privaladge, not a right
Really , then what did you do to earn your privilige Capo ???? You got it by being born .
So with all the rubbish about cowards and selfish pigs . What a bunch of unthinking sheep who bleat without hesitation because some idiot in government tells them it is their duty to bleat .
The mentality of the herd .:no:
Herd? I bet you'd say that even if we could prove to you that we come to our "Mindless Patriotism" through a completely independant thought process, wouldn't you?
The option was "without hesitation" GC . That removes the thought process from the situation and is just a knee-jerk reaction based on pre-conception of what you are being asked to do .
They say jump , and you do without thinking if not jumping makes more sense .
You have an agreement with your politicians , and that agreement requires you to question them , not only at election time , but all the time and over everything .
It is selfish pigs (to use your phrase) who accept what their leaders tell them without questioning it and it is cowards who will follow them blindly .
I have already considered the situation at length and find absolutely no reason to hesitate.
So if your government sent you off to Gambia because Gambia had raised the price of peanut oil , there would be no reason to hesitate . Or the people of Paraguay had elected a leader that your government didn't like, there was no reason to hesitate as you have decided to follow your government , because .......well because they are your government and you have already chosen to follow blindly .
My statement applied specifically to a being drafted for defense of the homeland.
Two questions , why is your country being invaded , and why is the government implementing a draft ?
A very very good point, that. so doesn't this make it doubly important for the average citizen not to blindly follow the executive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Like I said, it is all about perspective. Anyway you failed to answer my questions. Oh, and I would prefer not to be bound by a "contract" based on "common sense" thanks. You wonder why people are arguing against you? Could it be that you are basing your decicision on a contract that only exists in your head and are somehow trying to tell others that it binds them too? I don't criticise you for having this belief, but it blinds you totally. Besides which dying in the dirt is the same whatever your ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I can't vote. There is no option to describe what I would do. It all depends on the war. If it was a war that I believed to be just, then I would do my duty to serve without hesitation. If it was a war that I believed to be unjust, then I would likewise do my duty and deny the immoral government that declared it the use of my services.
"Liberal mindset at work?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Really?
I am arguably one of the most "liberal" members of the Org (at least by American standards), and I volunteered to put life and limb at risk and serve in my country's army. So I guess you're wrong on that one, aren't you?
I also notice you went on to throw around words like "coward" in some subsequent posts.
What have you ever done that gives you the right to call anybody a coward? Sure, you talk a pretty good game about "serving without hesitation," but until your money has been where your mouth says you'd be, maybe you should back off on the rhetoric a bit, eh?
In that case, I guess we should trash the whole idea of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
I would agree with you, but the simple fact often isn't so clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
You could have an immoral government, perhaps even one that started the dman war, but you could at the same time have the enemy willing to waste the civilian lives of all those who agreed as well as those who opposed the immoral government.
So would you then serve to protect against that?
See, morality comes in different sizes and compositions.
I didn't say my choice would depend on the government. I said my choice would depend on the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
For example, I believe the Bush administration to have acted immorally on a number of issues. But were I an American and a foreign enemy invaded and that same Bush administration drafted me, then I would willingly serve because the war itself was just, even if the government was a bunch of crooks and lowlifes.
Make sense?
It's not, it was a hypothetical.
Yeah and hypothetically why is your country being invaded ?
And more importantly why is there a draft , surely the only reason there would have to be a draft is if the government was so crap that no one wanted to support it voluntarily .
Come on , you said you had considered the situation.... I have already considered the situation at length and find absolutely no reason to hesitate.
.....So what length of consideration did you actually give it ?
It appears the amount of consideration amounts to ..."err ....yeah ok I'll go with that " :no:
You could have an immoral government, perhaps even one that started the dman war, but you could at the same time have the enemy willing to waste the civilian lives of all those who agreed as well as those who opposed the immoral government.
There you go . Kraxis has added another consideration to be taken into account before people make their descision "without hesitation" .:2thumbsup:
Nope, something as major as a draft comming in to law should be decided by referendum. And failing that it should be a major platform of the party before it gets voted in... no "Oh we just got voted in and didn't decide to inform you, but here is the draft".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Democracy doesn't work that well. Your view of it is idealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Once again, when your homeland is being invaded you don't defend it for the sake of the government, but for your fellow citizens.
Why is your homeland getting invaded GC and what are your fellow citizens doing ? Surely they would be flooding to volunteer .
And rather clearly there would have to be a draft
Really , why ? Going by the results in this poll :laugh4: there would be enough volunteers without hesitation that you would not only beat the invasion you could take over the whole world .
Or is it that despite all the bravado and bullshit about cowards and selfish pigs these fine upstanding patriotic citizens might actually have some hesitations when it really comes down to it ?:inquisitive:
Perhaps a point that has not been raised, yet. But what exactly is the use of a draft?
Sure you get to field a lot of manpower, but the military infrastructure would likely be straining to keep up, if able to keep up at all. Keep in mind, your armed force would probably increase to ten times it's current number. Can logistics support ten times as much required food, clothing, and other necessities?
Second, let's look at the quality of the draft. We've got a lot of people, variously motivated (depending on situation), who all need to be equipped and armed. As an additional problem, most of these people don't know the safe end from the boom end of a gun, so they have to be trained. Now, in war time, you would perhaps, get a week's training, and then get shipped off to wherever the war is.
So, all in all, a draft produces lightly armed, unarmored, if sligthly motivated infantry force, in very large numbers. In modern warfare, infantry is mostly useless without support. Additionally what is to prevent the enemy from simply opening a couple of canisters of mustard gas (of course, there's more efficent stuff these days) and slaughtering all these little lambs ... after all, he has smaller numbers of highly motivated, well-trained, professional, well-equipped and armored soldiers, gas-masks come standard. And if our enemy has feelings of morality and refuses to use chemical weaponry (as per Geneva convention) ... then he still has a pretty big advantage, in experienced leadership, veteran soldiers and superior equipment.
A draft is pointless.
You make some good points, with which I agree. Particularly in the suggested situation of an invasion, where there would probably be no time for training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
I am playing devil's advocate here, GC, because I tend to agree with your basic viewpoint, though I believe the without hesitation element is becoming a red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What if your government is a repressive, unrepresentative one? If the invasion is one of liberation, do you still fight it? Do you defend your homeland whatever the leadership, as a matter of patriotism, on behalf of your fellow citizens?
If so, does this help explain some of the Iraqi insurgency?
Keba: good points, but isn't the all-volunteer American Army, to use an over-used media phrase, "over-extended" in manpower as it is? Use of great masses of infantry against a single enemy is, true, not likely (due to the increased lethality of weapons perhaps?), but you must know that America even now has so many areas of "interest" across the world. IF America had been at war with another sizeable nation simultaneously with the war against Iraq, wouldn't there have necessarily been a draft? I'm not commenting upon the likelihood of that happening, just showing that the threshold for a draft is not inconceivably distant. And, no offense to anyone here... all who serve in the military have my respect, but all the reservists and national guard units couldn't have been THAT highly trained. So I think your generalizations are rather weak.
"Additionally what is to prevent the enemy from simply opening a couple of canisters of mustard gas (of course, there's more efficent stuff these days) and slaughtering all these little lambs ... after all, he has smaller numbers of highly motivated, well-trained, professional, well-equipped and armored soldiers, gas-masks come standard. And if our enemy has feelings of morality and refuses to use chemical weaponry (as per Geneva convention) ... then he still has a pretty big advantage, in experienced leadership, veteran soldiers and superior equipment."
This is not fair. Who exactly is this enemy you are talking about? The composition and disposition :laugh4: of the American Army, in a certain respect, shifts to reflect its environment. Why should you in your argument invent weapons, advantages, and superior weapons systems matchups for an enemy but not for the "protagonist"? There is no doubt in my mind that IF ever a draft, arising from militarily appropriate needs, would be instituted by the US, the (lightly trained) troops would be used appropriately.
"Sure you get to field a lot of manpower, but the military infrastructure would likely be straining to keep up, if able to keep up at all. Keep in mind, your armed force would probably increase to ten times it's current number. Can logistics support ten times as much required food, clothing, and other necessities?"
Hell yes. IF a draft of the giant proportion that you suppose here occurred, then we must be in a situation of total war. In that case, yes they would be supported at great expense to the best of the state's abilities within proportionate economic bounds. They would eat like college students and use credit.
I would like to point out that the US Army National Guard and Reservist Forces are well trained and capable of going into Combat. I know that when many National Guard Forces went to Iraq the Full Time Soldiers were critical of them because well, they weren't full time Army soldiers and didn't train as much as them. But after a year, the National Guard Units actually had gained the respect of the full-time troops, and in some combat scenarios exceeded them.
Take Iraq for example, Fort McHenry is a little base located outside of Baghdad, originally used by Iraqi Military Forces and converted into an American Base. The US Army didn't want the base, it was small, far away from key strategic points, had terrible facilities, and was bombarded more than any other base in the region, so when the USANG came into Iraq to alleviate the full time soldiers, they designated them that base. Within the year the Army National Guard Soldiers were there, they managed to almost completely eliminate all Mortar Bombardments around the base within 6 months, had almost complete respect from the citizens around the base, had fewer road-side bomb attacks than any other base in the region, and the number of random shootings had went way down since their arrival. Wether it was because the Iraqis realized there were better targets elsewhere, or that their tactics were truelly working remains unknown.
However, the soldiers at Fort McHenry only showered once per 4 months, had recieved rotten food from supply trucks, had almost no modern equipment (such as lap-top computers, satellite phones, and cell phones), had a hole in the ground they called a bathroom, and yet exceeded every US Army Regular Battalion in the area in Combat Situations...
Kind of makes you wonder.
Honestly, this does not cover situations where the draftee is neither a native of the country or a citizen of it. In those cases, of course the individual would have a choice.
I am not using the US as an example, merely two theoretical states of similar technological levels, manpower, and economical might (if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?). This meaning, the country that pulled up the draft is likely losing ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Faust|
Also, I suspect that the goverment sometimes has no choice as to where to send the drafted soldiers ... Stalingrad come to mind in this respect. Drafted soldiers being thrown at an experienced and prepared enemy. The Guards division sent in first had 95% or more casualties (and those guys were motivated).
It is likely that professional soldiers and fully equipped divisions are present, but if they alone were able to handle the enemy ... then there wouldn't be a draft.
Excellent and consistent answer, and one that I am in complete agreement with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
:2thumbsup:
"I am not using the US as an example, merely two theoretical states of similar technological levels, manpower, and economical might (if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?). This meaning, the country that pulled up the draft is likely losing ..."
Ok, so you play out one of the least likely scenarios of all scenarios that would require a draft, and use this to assert that a draft is pointless? :inquisitive:
"Also, I suspect that the goverment sometimes has no choice as to where to send the drafted soldiers ... Stalingrad come to mind in this respect. Drafted soldiers being thrown at an experienced and prepared enemy. The Guards division sent in first had 95% or more casualties (and those guys were motivated)."
Yes, but I was sure it was safe to assume that we are talking in the realm of fully modernized nations. For nations that are 50 to 100 years behind, at a Stalingrad-ish level of sophistication, then by all means you are right... but: "if you want real-world examples, let's say, US and EU?)." :inquisitive:
"It is likely that professional soldiers and fully equipped divisions are present, but if they alone were able to handle the enemy ... then there wouldn't be a draft."
The army doesn't need manpower to "handle the enemy". They need manpower to "complete the objectives". Just because they don't have enough volunteers to complete the OBJECTIVES in general doesn't mean they are in a losing situation, which renders null your point that a draft is pointless. For example, logistics and garrisoning are two areas that must be filled to complete the likely objectives. Drafted soldiers could easily take on this responsibility, and a government COULD have forsight of this. Another example is patrolling and sweeping for terrorists. Finding or at least disabling the terrorists is the objective, and you could need more manpower for the entire operation without being in danger of being overwhelmed by a superior combat force that will wipe away your draftees.
Actually they're probably winning due to massive superior numbers and an abillity to replace losses that overceeds the opponent considerbly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Simply put, if you lose 3:1 and has gotten 10:1 in numbers you're still winning. And the when the well-trained falls, he cannot be replaced until atleast a year, while the draftie is replaced with the next troop-transport. And who will run the new tanks coming from the fabric, when the production tripled?
Sure inflating the troops numbers will likely reduce the production capacity, but with war-time economy and relativly undamaged industry, it's not lack of equipment but lack of troops that is the limiting factor for the military strength.
As for countries that already have draft as plan in case of war, logistics is planned for, equipment is planned for, everyone have already gotten training (the reserves needs probably to repeat the training but that is quicker than training from the beginning).
Also do not forgetthat the draftees that survive the first battles are now hardened, and much less likely to die next time. They will quickly rise to be equals of the professionals. Sure it will be costly to get them there, but it will happen.
Also, we are in fact dealing with two different types of drafts.
There is the draft that everybody here talks about. The draft where men a pulled for wartime service right away.
But there is also the draft where people are taught to be soldiers, then sent home to be ready in times of war. I'm one of those. I'm trained, not like a professional, nor have I picked up a weapon since my tour of duty (though I can get called up for training at any time, and I have 2 weeks notice unless of a war), but it would come back to me rather fast. I and my companions would not be some sort of grey mass of untrained infantry. We wouldn't be the equals of professionals either of course. But the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of these quite fair troops who are both motivated and trained.
Actually Pape, with all due respect, I think you might as well concede your lack of knowledge on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The American Revolutionary War was a war of ideals; One ideal wherein all men are equal and that birthrights yields no favors, the other ideal comprised of noblemen and the masses. Parliamentary representation, percieved abuses of the British Soveriegn against the colonies, taxation, and other administrative affairs all played a part, this is true. However, these administrative squabbles were not the prnciple originator of the conflict. The priniciple ideal that spurred the American leaders to pursue a course of self government was the lack of social equality with the Mother Island.
American colonists were quite proud of their British heritage and felt a deep loyalty their. Acts of British Parliament and of the mercantile class in trading slowly revealed the sense of superiority that the British Islanders felt over the American Colonials. This divide grew into a chasm, where, even up onto the moment, peace was sought. It was upon hearing of Monarch's wishes to destory the uprising long before a declaration of independance was considered that actually prompted this very declaration.
As an example of this growing divide in cultural perceptions, consider the trading practices pre-war. The Americans were feverish for the latest trends and fashions of Europe, but especially of London. Unfortunately due to the time in travel, Americans were always just a tad behind the times. Furthermore, many Americans began to feel greater pressure from British Trading Companies, of which the American's had little ability to choose from. Many of the American leaders fell deeply into debt because of these one-sided trade monopolies, and naturally grew resentful of the British Trade companies. Now in reflection, you and I may argue that the Americans should have simply ceased buying from these trade companies. Well, unfortunately, these same trade companies were also responsible for selling American goods abroad. The exchange should have been mutually effectual, but it only served the growing power of the trade companies. Furthermore, should the American colonials decide to "cut back" on household expenses for British incidentals, the result would have been a furthering in the cultural divide between the Island and her colonies.
The Americans also lacked nobility status. Of course Nobility existed in the colonies, such as General Lord Sterling, the only American Officer to Claim Title, but these men were not seen as the equal of British Nobility of the Island. Try as they might with the gains of wealth, the Americans could not seem to curry favor of equality. And this, more than any tax or administrative detail, drove them to anger. George Washington was named "His Excellency" as unofficial title by the men and officers of the time, a title meant specifically to mock "His Majesty" across the Atlantic. Washington himself the beneficiary of customary English deference, soon decried it after coming to the realization that he would never be the equal in the eyes of the proper English.
And so with this, a cultural divide based on inequality in social status, not of wealth or taxes, but of perceived potential for equality with others, the American colonies revolted against the safety and security of the most powerful empire on the face of the Earth.
The legacy of that cultural divide rests in Americans today. It is a part of the national consciousness and explains our fervent, if not impulsive, pleas for liberty and equality across the world. True to this end, our politics today are dominated on how best to ensure that equality.
I hope this clears up any confusion that you may have about the American Revolution.
I was using GC's definitions and applying them to the case of American Independence.
I fully expect the founding fathers wanting to have social equality for themselves considering their individual wealth levels.
Unfortunately the idea that American seeks equality for all doesn't go far on historical data.
If it was true then surely it should have outpaced the British Empire in outlawing slavery.
That Wilson at the end of WWI would have treated the colonials of the British Empire with equal rights to US rather then as non-entities.
That the US would have intervened against Facism a little bit quicker in WWII.
That the US would not have helped a coup against a democratically elected leader.
That the treatment of African-Americans would have reached parity [in law at least] far sooner.
Also America's own colonial phase seems to debase the idea that they were seeking equality for all.
That American has been a force for equality may have more to do with its economic prosperity then any moral choice of the people. As displayed in the Civil War when given the choice of equality and lack of prosperity the South rebeled. This is a very human choice, and a lot of hatred is fermented when economies go down (Post WWI Germany, South Americans under despots with spiraling inflation, hate crimes in France in poor neighbourhoods).
As the US economy slows down I fully expect to see more hatred of (illegal) immigrants and 'other' ethnic groups. Same thing happens in virtually every country...
It is a component of American History that regional alliances were sometimes preceived as grater than national alliances. This concept, too, is predicated on the notion of equality, as ironic (heh) as that is. The Southern States felt a similar sense of being "overlorded" by the North long long before the civil war. Virginians despised Enw Englanders. New Englanders disliked Pensyllvanians, etc. Slavery was such a critical issue that George Washington recongized as the one divisive issue that could kill the American Democrac in the cradle. The choice of Washington and leaders of a similar mindset, was to allow slavery to exist with the object being to abolish it at a later time. There were more pressing concerns until the Civil War. The existance of the state was no one where near the secure. The preservation of the union was of the highest import, and so the festering evil lingered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Would we have acted then against slavery, our fragile confederation would have become fragmented and fought itself perhaps shortly after the revolution. This divisiveness would have been far too tempting for the British to avoid, and the eventual second war with Britain would have occurred far faster. Further, the desire for security may have led some states (New York, being a notable example) to re-ally with the british, perhaps reversing the entire outsome of the revolution.
No. As unfortunate as the burden will always be, 'twas better to have held the evil within than to have secured a national suicide so early in infancy.
I think it is important to note that strategic perspectives of the time dictated a specific course of action. Wilson was a major driving force behind the league of nations, even though he was eventually cut from under.Quote:
That Wilson at the end of WWI would have treated the colonials of the British Empire with equal rights to US rather then as non-entities.
A product of WWI was U.S. reluctance to intervene abroad. Similar global anger at U.S. actions in Iraq have forced us to hand the lead on Iran to Europe. Sadly, Europe has no stomach for confrontation. What shall we do Pape? Clearly, you damn us for interveving when we see it best and you damn us for failing to act soon enough. Same for the world over. Europe waits until it is too late and then begs for help from the United States, all the while cursing us for both reasons. Ridiculous.Quote:
That the US would have intervened against Facism a little bit quicker in WWII.
And tell me- what shall we do with the democratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the democratically elected Hamas? Shall we support Israel? No? We should not intervene? But then it will be too late and we will fall into your ethical trap all over again. Our leaders have decided to take strategic action as they deem best and world opinion be damned. You will hate our power either way and criticize our actions in any case. So I say we will do what we want towards the ends we desire through the means we see fit.Quote:
That the US would not have helped a coup against a democratically elected leader.
This is the product of the long standing racism that came with the length of slavery in the U.S. A shame, I agree, but an unfortunate fact. That racism still persists in the south should then be of no surprise.Quote:
That the treatment of African-Americans would have reached parity [in law at least] far sooner.
Colonial phase? What colonial phase? Are you talking about hawaii, the phillipines, guam, and other minor startegic decisions? The colonial phase of the pre-industrial power was based on resource exploitation as well as strategic import. The U.S. has never been a colonial power, conquering regions for the sole purpose of resource exploitation.Quote:
Also America's own colonial phase seems to debase the idea that they were seeking equality for all.
I will not disagree that the Slavery was an injustice, but again you lack the facts on this situation. Most Southerns rebeled for similar reasons that America rebeled against Great Britain. The South felt that the North was imposing its moral will against them. Many Southern also agreed with abolishments, but said little because they would be taken by their neighbors as traitorous to the cause. Lee himself had striong feelings against slavery, but felt it was his duty to protect his family and community against an invasion. The South were comprised of true American patriots, not the villains that our history books have made them out to be. These were Americans fighting for their rights, their liberty, and their community. They felt that they were the real America, and that they had been abandoned by the North. The emancipation proclamation was not even issued until after the war had begun and been in force. Your choice is flawed. The South chose social equality with the North over economic prosperity. During the rebellion, the South hardly "prospered" as you put it. Lee and Jefferson Davis knew that the confederacy would face tremendous economic hardship right from the outset. And indeed they suffered. But not for economic power over slaves. They fought for their dignity, communities, and sense of equal social perception against the industrialized and arrogant North. True, slavery was abhorent, and Washington's prediction came true.Quote:
That American has been a force for equality may have more to do with its economic prosperity then any moral choice of the people. As displayed in the Civil War when given the choice of equality and lack of prosperity the South rebeled.
The rise of the Nazis also had to do with National identity and equality. The depression and the impositions following WWI were too much to bare.Quote:
This is a very human choice, and a lot of hatred is fermented when economies go down (Post WWI Germany, South Americans under despots with spiraling inflation, hate crimes in France in poor neighbourhoods).
I do agree, economic hardship is very deeply tied to community self perception. The poor man often does not ask "why am I poor?" Instead he will ask "Why is he rich"? And then he will greedily hunger after the wealth of another man rather than taking action to stimulate his own wealth through his own means. So it is with the power of socialism.
You know nothing about the illegal immigrantion problems in the United States. You are completely clueless and have not lived it and breathed it here. You do not see what it does to our communities. The socialists outside of America scream about the unjust favor towards the wealthy. Illegal Immigration depresses wages for regular citizens further by forcing them to compete with illegals who pay no taxes and will work for have as much. You do not see the gangs that originate from these poverty stricken communities that refuse to assimilate into our culture and adopt our language.Quote:
As the US economy slows down I fully expect to see more hatred of (illegal) immigrants and 'other' ethnic groups. Same thing happens in virtually every country...
If you want to open a thread about Illegal immigration, fine. Let me just say this here and now. Don't you dare acuse me or any other anti-illegal immigrant activist of being a racist. We are white, black, mexican, and asian. The color of one's skin determines nothing in this. They could be white europeans for all I care. The problem is strictly socio-economic. Give me 500,000 uneducated englishmen every year and I would be just as pissed. Australians, French, Japanese... National origin is nothing.
:breathe: :avoid illegal immigrant tirade:
Man I was close to really getting riled up there. In sum, you don't have squat to say about it because you don't live it.
I wouldn't go. I don't have a problem with fighting or dying, I just don't want to wear a white hat.
or a red shirt
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TObsession.jpg
In sum, you don't have squat to say about it because you don't live it.
oh dear , Divinus has lost it entirely .
In your wish to rant about illegals and how anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do doesn't know anything and could never have experienced anything , you seem to forget to take Pape's location into account .
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .~;)
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
har har my republican american hating friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Comparing Australia with no shared land border, to the U.S. with an open border shared with mexico is no comparison at all.
As I have said before, if I lived in el mexico, I would flee to el norte as well. I do not fault the immigrants, though I despise their effects.
Your comments are cul de sacs, inspiring no real debate and meant only to flame. If you would like to share in an understanding of the problem, and join in coming to an understanding, you would appear to be more than the anger and miserable person you are. I am sorry that you must wake up and feel such hate every day.
Why don't we discuss the matter as adults, and perhaps you may see the problem through my eyes. And likewise, perhaps I shall see our problem through your eyes. Then maybe we can learn a bit about each other's unique opinions on the matter and join in coming to a solution that is fair to both Americans and immigrants. :2thumbsup:
Shhh don't mention that a quarter of the Australian population was born overseas. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Or the ethnic tensions between groups... which btw are probably worse at the soccer matches then at the beach.... :no:
Or that:no:Quote:
Among a total of 51,000 people who had overstayed their visas at June 2004, 5,500 were from the UK
Plus straight out illegal immigration that didn't even go through a visa process. :no:
Or that we send SAS to board ships that make illegal entry into our seas. Sometimes it is for North Korean Drugs sometimes it is for Norwegian ferried immigrants. :sweatdrop:
Or the massive detention centers in the desert or shipped off to other countries. :shame:
Or the immigration department sending Australian citizens to foreign countries because they believed they were illegal immigrants. :shame:
Nope we have no immigration issues. Period.
Nor do I ever wind up fellow patrons. Ever.
Yeah, I'm tempted to side with Pape on this one. Australia does have a lot of problems with immigration.
Mystic Brew, that's also a good point.
Nope we have no immigration issues. Period.
Yeah I know , that is why two of my cousins work at Woomera:laugh4:
And some of my friends have been detained there before deportation :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Nor do I ever wind up fellow patrons. Ever.
Me neither .That would be too easy ~;)
Lets not mention the race riots you were having for weeks a couple months ago, bravo. Australlia really takes the moral high ground there. So please feel free to preach down to us from your pedistal.Quote:
Originally posted by Tribesman
So Pape , any race riots lately ? I see your government finally gor rid of most of the illegals and overstays from the Olympics , but they are replaced by more illegals and overstays as usual , the detention and deportation camps are packed to capacity , big expansions going on in that sector , the offshore is a novel idea isn't it .
Oh I forgot , you don't have squat to say about it because ...because ...well because you are not Divinus
So might I ask what is wrong with holding someone who has broken a law in your country? Is there suddenly some international law forbiding you to invoke your countries sovriegn right to enforce its laws? I'd like to ask why your friend was detained in the first place? He obviously broke some law, but I see your not mentioning that. Australia also doesnt have a land border with a country that see's illegal immigration as a viable economy for their country either. Illegal immigrants are of corse kicked out, they must come here legally, now thats just a no brainer, happens in every country you go to.
Also since many of you seem to see it neccesary to state when your country got rid of slaves. I see fight to pose a question to those from the UK. When did you get rid of the poor houses? Those in my book qualify as slavery. You worked for money, but you also had to pay food, board and many other things. Often there'd be a negative net gain in money, which qualifies to me as slavery. I'll define my use of the word, slavery to me is forced labor working for no pay. Yall that state the U.S.A. took the longest to get rid of slavery should note that our founding fathers prefered to leave that decision to the states to decide. Many of the northern states banned slavery soon after the constition was ratified.
Lets not mention the race riots ~:doh:
Oh no I would never mention them . Neither would Pape :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I'd like to ask why your friend was detained in the first place? He obviously broke some law, but I see your not mentioning that.
Hey Tex , that detention facility only deals with one thing , so by mentioning it makes it is patently obvious ~:doh:
So might I ask what is wrong with holding someone who has broken a law in your country? Is there suddenly some international law forbiding you to invoke your countries sovriegn right to enforce its laws?
Errrrrr....what are you on about ?~:confused:
Are you having a little difficulty understanding the post you quoted ?
Hey, I'm not saying that Australia has NO immigration issues.
I'm saying that Australia has no immigration issues when compared against the U.S.
[sarcastic]oh dear, 51,000 over stayed their visas. Golly gee shucky darn. [/sarcastic]
Wanna trade 'em for the 500,000 illegals that entered our country last year? And the 500,000+ that will enter this year?
Please. Don't make me laugh. Or cry.
australia has, what, 20 million people, and estimates of 55000 illegals...
and the US has population of 280 million, and according to censes of 2000, "Census 2000 results indicate that there between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States in 2000." call it 10 for convenience?
so...
the ratio of illegal aliens in the USA is 28-1
and...
the ratio of illegal aliens in Australia is 2000-5.5
:dizzy2:
wow.
that's a serious difference there. I think Divinus might have a point about the size of the problem!
Not to mention the children of illegal immigrants.
remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
The benefit received by each dirt-birth baby is something like $600 cash plus another $200 in food stamps, IIRC.
And catholic culture forbids birth control, so guess what?
MUY MUY MUY MUCHO NINOS E NINAS.
:no:
The 55,000 is for one year and they are purely the visa violations... so that would be what 14* 55,000 = 770,000 (adjusted to USA size) just for those who used a visa.
Not to mention those who get in via other means... illegal immigration via boats where neighbouring countries smugglers get $10,000's per illegal immigrant they smuggler... so that adds to the 55k via visas.
We're just a lot quicker on deporting them out... mind you even if you violate your visa in Aus and are barred from entering again for x number of years... you can come back in before then if you successfully apply for residency :dizzy2:
Sure we have a smaller level of problem, but you are the mightest country in the world with a huge statement saying give us your poor... we on the other hand say ****-*** we only want your rich and skilled. :laugh4:
Your wealth is a lamp to the moths. I suggest you use your talents to figure out how to extract the silk...
I would fight, but only if it were a war on high prices.
And catholic culture forbids birth control, so guess what?
So it wouldn't be such a problem if they followed a different faith ????
Oh dear divinus , are you sure you want to go down that road ?:inquisitive:
remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
Wow can people become citizens because of where they are living , I thought that would make you really happy , think of all these litte ones being the future draftees for your government when it declares war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Bro, you gotta be kidding. I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem. Go down what road? :inquisitive: What hell are you rambling on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
[/quote] remember, children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are given citizenship and are thus entitled to welfare and foodstamps.
Wow can people become citizens because of where they are living , I thought that would make you really happy , think of all these litte ones being the future draftees for your government when it declares war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:[/QUOTE]
I'm gald we have a hateflamer like you here to make the rest of us look good in comparison. Why do you hate America? What did America ever do to the Irish? Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
These illegal immigrants refuse.
As I said in another thread, the answer is to EXPAND opportunities for legal immigration while simultaneously cracking down on employers and border security. In this way we can assimilate them into our culture and allow them to financially contribute to the infrastructure that supports them. This is fair to both the existing citizenry and those wishing to be naturalized.
The same reason he hates freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
:balloon2:
Why do you hate America?
Aw that is just so lame Divinus , is that the best you can come up with ? Are you really that lacking in comprehension ?
I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem.
So which religeon would you prefer them to follow ? Immigrants religeon is irrelevant but you wish to observe that it is a problem .:inquisitive:
Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. Just as many emigrate as illegals .Your government is in talks with my government about what to do with all those illegals at the moment .
On another note , look at the temporary work permits , a frigging disaster , take up on those visas has plummeted in the past couple of years .
One of your politicians last year (can't remeber which one at the moment) said that it was a sign of "anti-American" feeling , what paranoid claptrap , the new paperwork is just too much grief for both the applicants and the employers , the same amount of people are going over , but now they don't bother with the paperwork .
The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
What culture ? It is a culture mainly of immigrants .
It contains aspects of all the different cultures that make up America .
Did you notice any festivities yesterday ? Does that mean the immigrants have failed to intergrate into the culture , or that the culture has integrated the immigrants culture .
These illegal immigrants refuse
Really ? how ?
Do they live in neighbourhoods of people with similar backrounds , do they go to schools in the district which as they are in the neighbourhood contain children of similar heritage , do they frequent bars where the clientelle are just like themselves , do they visit restaurants that serve food just like back home , do they celebrate their festivals just like they were back in their old country ?
How exactly are these illegals refusing to intergrate , they are doing exactly the same as the legal immigrants . In fact they are doing exactly the same as those citizens whose families emmigratred generations ago .
Yes illegals are a big problem , but you are throwing out more red herrings then I care to count . If you wish to discuss the problem then stick with the issue of illegals , drop all the mindless rubbish about integration and culture .
First of all, thank you for a response with real dialogue. I find comments like these below to be productive to both sides. Perhaps we can both learn something, and even if you do not, perhaps I can.
I just wanted a real discussion, rather than flaming. And now, with your comments below, we can do just that.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Tribesman, would you say that Islam, as a religion, is not a component of Islamic terrorism? Certainly Islam is misinterpreted by extremists, and that is the problem. I mention this because it is just an easy way to point out that religion can contribute to a problem.Quote:
I was making an observation that their religion indirectly contributes to the problem.
So which religeon would you prefer them to follow ? Immigrants religeon is irrelevant but you wish to observe that it is a problem .:inquisitive:
I have no issue with catholicism. There is no religion that I would "prefer them to follow". I just recognize that a lack of birth control contributes towards economic disparity in relation to the rest of the natural population. Lots of kids + no education = poverty. So, it is the amount of children that I see as a hardship for society, not the religion. Is that fair?
You are saying that many Americans illegally immigrate into Ireland? They should be punished and deported back to America.Quote:
Aside from allow millions to emigrate here under LEGAL immigration. Just as many emigrate as illegals .Your government is in talks with my government about what to do with all those illegals at the moment .
I agree this is a real problem. But I think I have offered a viable solution. Namely: criminalize employment of illegal immigrants while expanding opportunities for naturalization. This will dry up the demand for illegal workers and provide an incentive for immigrants to go through the proper channels. If immigrants view the legal process as their best opportunity for employment and benefits, than they will go through the legal process.Quote:
On another note , look at the temporary work permits , a frigging disaster , take up on those visas has plummeted in the past couple of years .
One of your politicians last year (can't remeber which one at the moment) said that it was a sign of "anti-American" feeling , what paranoid claptrap , the new paperwork is just too much grief for both the applicants and the employers , the same amount of people are going over , but now they don't bother with the paperwork .
Agreed. America is "a melting pot". And I am aware of the past injustices to the Irish. Irish heritage is very close to my family. My father-in-law is full Irish. My great grandfather was Irish. My point is this: assimilation is a societal and individual phenomenon. Society adapts to the immigrants and the immigrants adapt to their new society.Quote:
The Irish were assimilated into our culture.
What culture ? It is a culture mainly of immigrants .
It contains aspects of all the different cultures that make up America .
Did you notice any festivities yesterday ? Does that mean the immigrants have failed to intergrate into the culture , or that the culture has integrated the immigrants culture .
Were you aware that a Mexican language TV station had changed a billboard from "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles,CaliforniaMexico!"
Or that there is a large movement to reclaim the South West U.S. for Mexico?
One of the biggest problems is language. They refuse to learn the english language. Go into any store in So.Cal and you see everything in two languages. Our teachers are required to teach ESL in high school because the children still do not speak english. There IS a problem. Is it the main problem? No. It is a symptom. But it still annoys the piss out of me.Quote:
These illegal immigrants refuse
Really ? how ?
Do they live in neighbourhoods of people with similar backrounds , do they go to schools in the district which as they are in the neighbourhood contain children of similar heritage , do they frequent bars where the clientelle are just like themselves , do they visit restaurants that serve food just like back home , do they celebrate their festivals just like they were back in their old country ?
How exactly are these illegals refusing to intergrate , they are doing exactly the same as the legal immigrants . In fact they are doing exactly the same as those citizens whose families emmigratred generations ago .
That is my whole point. Why couldn't you just start off with this instead of assuming that I am an ethnocentric nationalistic a-hole. (Even though I kind of am, but that's not really my point. ~D )Quote:
Yes illegals are a big problem.
When This guy becomes my govener our illegals shall quake [IMG][img=https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8417/kinkyfriedman49ul.th.jpg][/IMG] quake I say. I feel with DA. In my town half of the bliiborads are in Spainish and many dont even bother to learn English becuase in nearly every store or building someone will speaka el esponal. It makes me sick.
Geez Div..."dirt babies"
That's incredibly rude...
Oh, and by the way, the Irish were treated like **** when they were coming in droves...
In my town half of the bliiborads are in Spainish and many dont even bother to learn English becuase in nearly every store or building someone will speaka el esponal. It makes me sick.
SFTS , you live in an area were they have been speaking Spanish for longer than they have been speaking English , so perhaps instead of complaining that it makes you sick you should learn the local lingo ~;)
Or that there is a large movement to reclaim the South West U.S. for Mexico?
Really , you mean that some people want to reclaim the land that they lost ?
What a strange idea , I have never heard of anything like that before .:shrug:
But hey , it could be a solution to the problem , if the land went back to Mexico then all the illegal mexican immigrant wouldn't be illegal immigrants anymore would they .
Were you aware that a Mexican language TV station had changed a billboard from "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles, California Mexico!"
Well perhaps you could start a campaign to change the name of L.A. ,
it does seem to have a slightly Spanish sound to it .
tribesman you silly goose Texas utterly destryoed Mexico in the war for Texan indpendence. We set up the goverment as an english speaking republic on Washington on the brazos. Now that dosent me you cant speak spanish or that we hate mexicans just learn some english and dont hop my damn border:smile: