The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I would go one step further and have universal military service. Not everyone fights, in fact something like 60% - 65% of people in service are in administration / support / logistics IIRC. Military service is probably the only government jobs-training program that actually results in employable skills among the participants.

Mandatory universal service (for both sexes), including the military, would be a good idea. There are lots of labor intensive things young people could do. But a stand alone draft would be an enormously expensive, unnecessary make work program which wouldn't add squat to our national defense. It might make military haters like Kepler hard, but would otherwise serve no useful purpose.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Mandatory universal service (for both sexes), including the military, would be a good idea. There are lots of labor intensive things young people could do. But a stand alone draft would be an enormously expensive, unnecessary make work program which wouldn't add squat to our national defense. It might make military haters like Kepler hard, but would otherwise serve no useful purpose.

How about compulsory national service in some way, shape, or form. Doesn't have to be military. You could be a doc serving a medically underserved area, a bureaucrat, forest ranger, research scientist, etc. But you have to give Uncle Sam 5 years of your life.

Does there have to be a quid pro quo?

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Interesting. You overlook the fact that he ended a war you fooking "peace loving" Democrats started and expanded, and expanded and expanded. Oh well, just an untidy detail.

That is true and something my father was patient and understanding enough not to lose his temper about when I would ***** and rail about Nixon and Vietnam in my teens. There was plenty wrong with him, but Vietnam was on Kennedy and Johnson, not Nixon (in our country--the Geneva Conference dividing the country in two led to problems in Vietnam, IMO, similar to the Balkan Peninsula (Yugoslavia), Iraq, and other places that were partitioned according to geographic and not historic or cultural lines).

I thought Robert McNamara's two books looking back on Vietnam were interesting reads. I've forgotten nearly all of it, of course, because I read them more than two months ago, but he raised some interesting observations after meetings he had with former dignitaries and military personnel from N Vietnam, including Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden" inaugural speech and the effect it had on North Vietnam's perception of our intentions in S.E. Asia.

[unofan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

How about compulsory national service in some way, shape, or form. Doesn't have to be military. You could be a doc serving a medically underserved area, a bureaucrat, forest ranger, research scientist, etc. But you have to give Uncle Sam 5 years of your life.

Does there have to be a quid pro quo?

As someone who relatively recently (ie, less than a decade ago) surpassed the age where I'm no longer draft-eligible, I always found it less than amusing that it's always the old fogies who want to institute national service of some sort, whether militarily or otherwise. The same people who generally think the younger generations suck, that government workers generally suck, and are really just wanting a cheap workforce to do stuff they don't want to pay full price for, want to create an entire workforce of younger government workers who will just resent the people forcing them to do such work.

Good plan. Really. Especially since you'd obviously be exempt from such service, anyway.

You sure it's not just bitterness of you having gone through the draft and thinking modern kids should have to do so, too? i.e. intergenerational hazing? (edit: though, as I think about it, the draft ended in '73, and no one born in the mid 50's or later was ever drafted - so there's now a large segment of baby boomers that were never drafted that would be pushing for things like this...shocking that the selfish generation would want to do to their kids and grandkids what they themselves never had to do)

How would you pay for such compulsory national service anyway? Adding 15 million government workers wouldn't be cheap.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

As someone who relatively recently (ie, less than a decade ago) surpassed the age where I'm no longer draft-eligible, I always found it less than amusing that it's always the old fogies who want to institute national service of some sort, whether militarily or otherwise. The same people who generally think the younger generations suck, that government workers generally suck, and are really just wanting a cheap workforce to do stuff they don't want to pay full price for, want to create an entire workforce of younger government workers who will just resent the people forcing them to do such work.

Good plan. Really. Especially since you'd obviously be exempt from such service, anyway.

You sure it's not just bitterness of you having gone through the draft and thinking modern kids should have to do so, too? i.e. intergenerational hazing?

No thit. My draft # was 92 back when they were still drafting. They never got that far and my cohort was not drafted. But I worked for our country for 30 years before retiring a few years back.

[bronconick]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia (R)

A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us...ants.html?_r=0

[joecct]

Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia (R)

A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us...ants.html?_r=0

At least he's honest.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia (R)

A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us...ants.html?_r=0

No mention that the previous clown in the White House is the one who created the mess in the first place?

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Oh Estonia! Would I die for thee oh Estonia!!
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/pat...altic-n1888923

I came out on a poll on another thread of having the highest rating for peace of anyone taking the quiz. I am also probably one of the few here that spent as much action trying to convince others that Iraq was a bad idea...before the war.

At some point though society needs stability and as a world, cannot allow countries to simply invade other countries (another reason why Iraq was a bad idea). Now my solution all along has been to jointly beef up the UN and saddle it with the responsibility ensuring that crossborder insurgencies do not occur. But barring that, we need to pick our areas that are full stop off limits to outside invading forces...and the US/Europe is that area.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No mention that the previous clown in the White House is the one who created the mess in the first place?

No question Bush II got us entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I have no time for politicians, in office and in charge, or their supporters, who sit and point the finger and complain the mess was created by their predecessor.

We know it was created by their predecessor. That's probably why you got elected. You wanted the job. You claimed you could do it better. You knew about the mess when you applied for the job. Fix the problem.

By the way, this habit is not unique to Democrats or Republicans, or limited to government at the Federal level. I just have no time for it.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

We know it was created by their predecessor. That's probably why you got elected. You wanted the job. You claimed you could do it better. You knew about the mess when you applied for the job. Fix the problem.

This should be written on the lintels of the door-post at the White House and the Capitol Building. Important, and too often forgotten.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I came out on a poll on another thread of having the highest rating for peace of anyone taking the quiz. I am also probably one of the few here that spent as much action trying to convince others that Iraq was a bad idea...before the war.

At some point though society needs stability and as a world, cannot allow countries to simply invade other countries (another reason why Iraq was a bad idea). Now my solution all along has been to jointly beef up the UN and saddle it with the responsibility ensuring that crossborder insurgencies do not occur. But barring that, we need to pick our areas that are full stop off limits to outside invading forces...and the US/Europe is that area.

The problem with the UN (besides FIFA-level corruption) is it weighs all nations' interests equally. The political reality of the world is it's a community with a half dozen extremely powerful individuals and then 200 or so peons. The way stability has been achieved traditionally in that configuration is the powerful form a cartel (an aristocracy, a priesthood, an "industry lobby," a royal house) that suppresses competition between powerful actors and divies up wealth extraction from a subject population into spheres of influence.

The most effective entity to police the world at this time would be a "Concert of Europe"-like cartel composed of the US/UK, China, Russia, Germany/France, and maybe India -- you need enough members or span the globe but not so many that its too unwieldy. Of course to have that each member has to be happy with the slice of the pie they already have, and right now Russia is dissatisfied. The other problem is these arrangements are by definition deeply conservative and undemocratic, like any oligarchy. But it does work, especially when backed by enormous advantage of firepower.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Colonies??

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Colonies??

Let's call them "trade partners."

[joecct]

Let's call them "trade partners."

We're on opposite side of the political spectrum, but, by God, we're both cynical as hell.