Do I have an obligation to serve my country in the Military?

[irfner]

imported post

Yes I believe we all have an obligation to serve in the military.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

irfner wrote:

Yes I believe we all have an obligation to serve in the military.

Thanks for the elaboration... :quirky

I really don't understand for the life of me why any of you guys would require military service in a free society. The federal standing army has absolutely no business being as large as it is now because itwas originallydesigned to repel invaders and protect the homeland, not project power, take lands, and invade nations.

As I have already stated, per federal code, if you are between 17 and 49 and are able bodied, you are in the unorganized militia. All those members may be federalized by the president to serve to defend the nation from attack. That is our military "service".

In my opinion, your first duty should be to your community and your state, then to your nation.Obligation to federal service is against everything we stand for, imo.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Starship Troopers contained a governmental system that we are frankly probably going to see in the future ...

You're saying that you read ST and disagree with military enfranchisement in that context only or that you did not read ST but saw the movie/cartoon and disagree with military enfranchisement in any context?

How would you describe or name the ST-government but constitutional federal republic? Hmmm, that sounds familiar!

Similarly, you have read Beyond This Horizon and agree that "an armed society is a polite society" in this context only or it feels good to say in any context?

You need to lift these sentiments of Heinlein's from their context knowingly or acknowledge that they are used without understanding of their provenance.

Douglas - I find it ironic that you just recently discussed this very issue on another web site.

I understand the provenance of Heinlein's sentiments. It is common knowledge. I have not read either book you mentioned but I am familiar with them both and I have read excerpts. I realize that the movie version of STbutchered the literary work of Heinlein and that the governmental systemhe described in his book was vastlydifferent. I was referring to the movie version. Essentially a one-world-governmental system headed by a"Sky Marshal". Individual nation statuswas non-existent or at the very least, vastly differentand there were alsodistinct differences in statusbetween "civilians" and "citizens". I don't approve ofthe concept of having "special" classes of citizens in society and as I said previously, I don't think it should requiremilitary service to achieve whatever "status" there would be to achieve.

I also believe in and understandthe concept of having an "armed society" and I believe it to be something I would feel comfortable saying in any context.

I think the rest of us knew what you meant. Doug just likes to chime in with something that sounds smart and condescending, making sure to consult his word of the day calendar first. He likes to try to belittle people with his vocabulary and then act as though you have some kind of learning disability for not understanding Latin.

So, since your post was clearly understandable to the rest of us, I have to ask Doug his own question. "With what level of writing reading are you comfortable or not confused?"



EDIT: Oops! Quoted the wrong post.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

I really don't understand for the life of me why any of you guys would require military service in a free society.

I relate to people who have been in the military better than I do to people who haven't.

Think of it this way, it's a way to make sure everyone has something, some experience, in common with each other that you can relate to. Sure we can all say we are citizens, but each of us have different experiences as citizens, and view our citizenship differently I think. Boot camp is a great equalizer in many different ways. Hard ships endured are shared, commaradarie is built, trust is gained (sometimes lost) between people that you share this experience with. Especially with people you normally wouldn't associate with outside of this experience 9 times out of 10. If you encounter someone else who's had a similiar experience, you can relate to them on a level even if they are a complete stranger and you have some idea of who they are and what they are made of.

Said another way, if I encountered an anti-gun person who had served in the military I know I could probably have a conversation, a meaningful one and know I would at least have a better chance of being heard and understood, than someone who never served in the military and spent their summers tied to tree's in California protesting logging and guns. There are two sides to this issue just like anything else. Pro's and con's like I said earlier, and it's probably an issue that like guns will be debatable forever.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Douglas - I find it ironic that you just recently discussed this very issue on another web site.

I understand the provenance of Heinlein's sentiments. It is common knowledge. I have not read either book you mentioned but I am familiar with them both and I have read excerpts.

Hmm, really? Under "Douglas" and another web site? A citation please. <-- Not a request. Ignore the demand and I'll brand you liar. I don't use "Douglas" and don't recall a recent discussion of Heinlein on another web site but may be mistaken.

As to the video expert's question, throwing my words back at me, "With what level of writing reading are you comfortable or not confused?" I read and write at the very highest levels that you may imagine. My correspondents tread the broken line between genius and crack-pottery, just as here on OCDO.

You may recall my recent posting of Al Schwartz' 'Mathematical Impossibility of Compromise,' or Dr. Lott's works, also a correspondent, and Joan Baez' mathematician cousin, or 'beamline scientist.' I apologize for being indirect out of respect for their privacies but with a little digging you might discover who they are.

Or Col. Cooper, for his 80th Birthday celebration I donated a TV that was proxy for the media's sentence of death by mini-gun.

 

[kmcdowel]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

The federal standing army has absolutely no business being as large as it is now because itwas originallydesigned to repel invaders and protect the homeland, not project power, take lands, and invade nations.

...would you agree that protecting our homeland sometimes entails invading other nations?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I could see mandatory service time but only to protect US soil and not some other country.

I am so against sending troops to other countries and fighting for them who can fight for themselves. It sickens me to see our troops coming home Iraq with limbs missing.

I believe military service is a good thing as it teaches you a great many things to include firearms use and responsibility. But I draw the line at fighting someone else's war for them.

 

[Marco]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I could see mandatory service time but only to protect US soil and not some other country.

I am so against sending troops to other countries and fighting for them who can fight for themselves. It sickens me to see our troops coming home Iraq with limbs missing.

I believe military service is a good thing as it teaches you a great many things to include firearms use and responsibility. But I draw the line at fighting someone else's war for them.

+1

 

[expvideo]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Douglas - I find it ironic that you just recently discussed this very issue on another web site.

I understand the provenance of Heinlein's sentiments. It is common knowledge. I have not read either book you mentioned but I am familiar with them both and I have read excerpts.

Hmm, really? Under "Douglas" and another web site? A citation please. <-- Not a request. Ignore the demand and I'll brand you liar. I don't use "Douglas" and don't recall a recent discussion of Heinlein on another web site but may be mistaken.

As to the video expert's question, throwing my words back at me, "With what level of writing reading are you comfortable or not confused?" I read and write at the very highest levels that you may imagine. My correspondents tread the broken line between genius and crack-pottery, just as here on OCDO.

You may recall my recent posting of Al Schwartz' 'Mathematical Impossibility of Compromise,' or Dr. Lott's works, also a correspondent, and Joan Baez' mathematician cousin, or 'beamline scientist.' I apologize for being indirect out of respect for their privacies but with a little digging you might discover who they are.

Or Col. Cooper, for his 80th Birthday celebration I donated a TV that was proxy for the media's sentence of death by mini-gun.

And we're all so proud of you, Doug. None of us so much as yourself, though. Your humility rivals that of a saint.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

BTW, I'd just like to point out that I would love to serve my country if I could do it on my own terms, such as the origional colonial militias, but since I can't serve without signing my life away and being obligated for a minimum of X amount of years, I choose not to serve.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

What a principled stand! I am so glad that I'm not one day younger than I am.

 

[Legba]

imported post

In a fit of madness, I went to sign up when I was younger. I failed the physical and am formally classified 4-F, so they had their chance. I'm glad that I didn't get in, looking back, having seen what the military has become. I cannot take the "hoo-ahh, sir,I love to kill, sir" machismo bit. I would laugh in a DI's face and get beaten and maybe shot as a morale killer if I were expected to take that seriously, even if it refers to deadly serious matters. I appreciate the need for a military and am something of a student of military history, but I am proudly civilian at the same time. I am simply temperamentally unsuited for the uniform, to the point where they wouldn't want me anyway. If we were invaded, who knows - I'd probably organize my own irregular force of misfits, but I'll die happy without ever seeing Paris Island.

No, in other words.

-ljp

 

[FogRider]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

I relate to people who have been in the military better than I do to people who haven't.

Think of it this way, it's a way to make sure everyone has something, some experience, in common with each other that you can relate to. Sure we can all say we are citizens, but each of us have different experiences as citizens, and view our citizenship differently I think. Boot camp is a great equalizer in many different ways. Hard ships endured are shared, commaradarie is built, trust is gained (sometimes lost) between people that you share this experience with. Especially with people you normally wouldn't associate with outside of this experience 9 times out of 10. If you encounter someone else who's had a similiar experience, you can relate to them on a level even if they are a complete stranger and you have some idea of who they are and what they are made of.

Said another way, if I encountered an anti-gun person who had served in the military I know I could probably have a conversation, a meaningful one and know I would at least have a better chance of being heard and understood, than someone who never served in the military and spent their summers tied to tree's in California protesting logging and guns. There are two sides to this issue just like anything else. Pro's and con's like I said earlier, and it's probably an issue that like guns will be debatable forever.

Differing opinions/experiences is one of the things that makes this country as awesome as it is. A different perspective is not a bad thing to have. All of my experiences and opinions are going to be colored differently than yours, in this case because I have never served in the military. Personally, I would rather have a debate with someone who has not had the same experience as me, as it gives me a chance to see a completely different point of view. It's one thing to talk to someone with a different opinion on the same experience, but I have a chance to learn so much more from someone with an opinion they have formed with different experiences.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Legba wrote:

In a fit of madness, I went to sign up when I was younger. I failed the physical and am formally classified 4-F, so they had their chance. I'm glad that I didn't get in, looking back, having seen what the military has become. I cannot take the "hoo-ahh, sir,I love to kill, sir" machismo bit. I would laugh in a DI's face and get beaten and maybe shot as a morale killer if I were expected to take that seriously, even if it refers to deadly serious matters. I appreciate the need for a military and am something of a student of military history, but I am proudly civilian at the same time. I am simply temperamentally unsuited for the uniform, to the point where they wouldn't want me anyway. If we were invaded, who knows - I'd probably organize my own irregular force of misfits, but I'll die happy without ever seeing Paris Island.

No, in other words.

-ljp

+1

I can't count how many times I was almost thrown out of Catholic school for "undermining the Catholic faith". I can't see military service working out much better...

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Douglas - I find it ironic that you just recently discussed this very issue on another web site.

I understand the provenance of Heinlein's sentiments. It is common knowledge. I have not read either book you mentioned but I am familiar with them both and I have read excerpts.

Hmm, really? Under "Douglas" and another web site? A citation please. <-- Not a request. Ignore the demand and I'll brand you liar. I don't use "Douglas" and don't recall a recent discussion of Heinlein on another web site but may be mistaken.

As to the video expert's question, throwing my words back at me, "With what level of writing reading are you comfortable or not confused?" I read and write at the very highest levels that you may imagine. My correspondents tread the broken line between genius and crack-pottery, just as here on OCDO.

You may recall my recent posting of Al Schwartz' 'Mathematical Impossibility of Compromise,' or Dr. Lott's works, also a correspondent, and Joan Baez' mathematician cousin, or 'beamline scientist.' I apologize for being indirect out of respect for their privacies but with a little digging you might discover who they are.

Or Col. Cooper, for his 80th Birthday celebration I donated a TV that was proxy for the media's sentence of death by mini-gun.

Hmmm. Isn't this you from Keepandbeararms.com on Feb. 23rd?





[font=Verdana,Arial,Helv]Comment by: doug.huffman@wildblue.net (2/23/2008)[/font]

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helv]I am pleased that the value of RAH as philosopher is being discovered, but be careful of with what and whom you agree, RAH was not a 'right winger.'

And I am pleased that the value of 'Starship Troopers' is being recognized despite the awful cartoon-movie. RAH well engaged the topic of enfranchisement and military enfranchisement.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$[/font]

You know Douglas, or Doug if you prefer, I have been reading posts of yours from PDO and this one and maybe one or two others for many years now. You were listed asDouglasHuffman on PDO for probably a decade or more and you always received flak from other posters and I wasn't one of them.I have never directly disrespected you and although I find your writing style different than most and abrasive at times, I have always respected you despite any disagreements. I am not a liar. If the above citation isn't you, then it's my error.I make mistakes, but I don't intentionally misconstrue information for the benefit of looking better on an internet forum. I appreciate intelligent conversation as much as the rest..Just thoughtyoushould know that.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

I really don't understand for the life of me why any of you guys would require military service in a free society.

I relate to people who have been in the military better than I do to people who haven't.

Think of it this way, it's a way to make sure everyone has something, some experience, in common with each other that you can relate to. Sure we can all say we are citizens, but each of us have different experiences as citizens, and view our citizenship differently I think. Boot camp is a great equalizer in many different ways. Hard ships endured are shared, commaradarie is built, trust is gained (sometimes lost) between people that you share this experience with. Especially with people you normally wouldn't associate with outside of this experience 9 times out of 10. If you encounter someone else who's had a similiar experience, you can relate to them on a level even if they are a complete stranger and you have some idea of who they are and what they are made of.

Said another way, if I encountered an anti-gun person who had served in the military I know I could probably have a conversation, a meaningful one and know I would at least have a better chance of being heard and understood, than someone who never served in the military and spent their summers tied to tree's in California protesting logging and guns. There are two sides to this issue just like anything else. Pro's and con's like I said earlier, and it's probably an issue that like guns will be debatable forever.

Bohdi - I don't disagree with your analysis at all with respect to relating to someone who has served and so forth. I can understand the relationships, thecomradery, and the esprit de corps that would develop and the teamwork traits that are so important in a unit. You are right about another thing, debates like this could go on forever... It just comes down to what you believe the federal military's purpose is, what everyone's role in society is, etc..

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

kmcdowel wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

The federal standing army has absolutely no business being as large as it is now because itwas originallydesigned to repel invaders and protect the homeland, not project power, take lands, and invade nations.

...would you agree that protecting our homeland sometimes entails invading other nations?

Although, I personally believe that the founding fathers would frown on an action such as that, I do believe that in a world of WMD's and so forth that can wipe out entire nations such as us, that it is important to do whatever it takes to protect the homeland. As a clarification to what I meant earlier, I will say that nation building, interfering in civil wars, throwing out "tyrants" from power and replacing them with someone else is not what we are supposed to be about and we certainly shouldn't be doing military actions such as that without declarations of war through congress. When it comes to our nation, the federal government's main reason for existence (constitutionally) is to protect the homeland from attack. If that means we have to nuke a burried bunker because it containsitems thatare about to be proliferated to an known enemy or are actually going to be used, then I would stand by that decisionwithout hesitation. If it meant we were all "called up" to fight an invader, then so be it.

 

[irfner]

imported post

There is a difference between an obligation and a requirement. An obligation is a debt you owe toyour country. A requirement is forced servitude. I believe in the obligation not the requirement. So that makes it a debt you are not required to pay but I think you should if you can.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

irfner wrote:

There is a difference between an obligation and a requirement. An obligation is a debt you owe toyour country. A requirement is forced servitude. I believe in the obligation not the requirement. So that makes it a debt you are not required to pay but I think you should if you can.

Thanks for the clarification irfner.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I could see mandatory service time but only to protect US soil and not some other country.

I am so against sending troops to other countries and fighting for them who can fight for themselves. It sickens me to see our troops coming home Iraq with limbs missing.

I believe military service is a good thing as it teaches you a great many things to include firearms use and responsibility. But I draw the line at fighting someone else's war for them.

I could buy that.