356
Ukraine to fire all regional military recruitment chiefs
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
356 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
650 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Making education so expensive that the only way for some to pursue education is to die for their country is a crime. If majority of your citizen view being part of army is only for poor people, your country does not deserve to be protected because obviously not enough people willing to fight for it. Turning your citizens into slaves and sending them into the meat grinder makes you a monster.
kind of the same issue really
The problem is that it isn't a separate issue, it's the same body (Congress, with WH support) that imposes these problems and then offers "solutions" to the impacted population in exchange for acting as a jackbooted thug overseas.
I'm not sure there are no situations in which draft's are permissible. If we were in a socialist society and a fascist government invades and I were Commissar of War you bet your ass the ex-bourgeois are getting drafted.
I see your point, but that's a topic that should be up for discussion among your hypothetical Party/legislature. I don't think it has a clear answer.
100% agree. Me presenting it as a choice by a single Commissar for War is more tongue-in-cheek. The answer whether or we should do it is contextual but my point is that there are clear cases which I can imagine in which drafting would be clearly justified, even if of only certain groups.
But responding to a question of whether or not we should do something by saying it would be decided democratically is evading the actual question of what you would put forward or support as appropriate policy in such a scenario. If everyone one responded that way then nothing would be decided.
In this hypothetical wouldn't the boogies and Kulacks would be in Gulags already? A bunch would be willing to sign on if it meant they might get an early release after the war. No draft necessary.
I'm really not convinced that they would normally prefer to fight fascists on the front lines than to stay in a gulag, uncomfortable as the latter might be.
draft is precisly because of that necessary , its put a general price on "Imperial adventure" while proffessional army will recruit itself from the lower classes and can be spend easly (they choose soo ) , its a bad as its forces the underprivledge to die for an empire whos fruits the privledge eat , while avoiding the blood...
Volunteer service means wars are waged outside of public consciousness now. The Afghanistan war went on for 20 years and was essentially invisible to most people in the US. The Fed openly trying to increase unemployment is at least partially motivated by the military recruitment issues going on right now. Volunteer wars are fueled by the lives of desperate poor people.
Lack of a draft is almost directly and solely responsible for the current quagmire of the US military - when we had a draft, normal people were pulled and had to serve with other normal people. They had real lives to go back to. They had family and friends who would listen to them and write their representatives to complain if the use of those human resources was inappropriate. Seeing body bags flying home and a televised razing of a foreign jungle turned a lot of people off from war. And they made their voices heard.
Now, the only people being asked to pay attention are career military professionals. They often do not have a job or life outside of the military to tie them to normal life. They've also gotten smarter about where they fly corpses in, so the news can't provide a solid day-by-day count of the wasted lives. These folks aren't pushing back against the worst excesses of the military, because their college benefit or their pension require them to shut up and just do what they're told.
There's a great documentary called Sir! No, Sir! about the vibrant protest movement from within the military, driven mostly by draftees during Vietnam.
I don't disagree with your initial reasoning, but there's a different take that says that what we have allowed is for the worst of us to control the policy for all of us, with nearly no external oversight.
This is a difficult problem to solve for a society though. The army is needed, because it's what allows your country to exist. In time of peace, draft is really not optimal, because people are taken a year of their life for absolutely nothing. But the army need to keep its structure alive and functioning, or there'll be nothing when it's needed.
The army of professionals is a good solution, and they do a hard job to keep an important piece of the state alive when no one cares about it.
Ultimately I think it's better if poor people make the core of the army because it means ultimately the safety of the nation is in their hands. Still, culture of the military men should be better taken care of, and elitism of the command structure should be fought.
Being in a country with a very high population means you have the privilege of enough volunteers to protect your borders.
Oh hey, an actual Fascist.
The allies didn't have a 'service guarantees citizenship' model, dipshit.
Yes they are
yeah uh, nationalism is usually bad. imagine fucking dying for lines on a map. Imagine killing for them.
lol yeah bud history started the day putin ordered the invasion and nothing happened between then and oh i don't know, 2014
Some of them should have.
A bit fascist to assume that the only way to contribute to society is military service.
You did though
Dude "You should have to provide service to the abstract idea that is 'the nation' in order to get your human rights" is just fascism, no matter how you try to spin it.
This nerd thinks that countries are real, and not just a legal fiction invented basically yesterday in historical terms.
LOOKS LIKE FEUDALISM IS BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS
starship troopers the movie was a literal send-up of fascism and you are sitting here arguing that we should do fascism so absurd it is the realm of actual parody
or you're advocating for the book's straight up fascism. either way, you should eat a bullet, nazi.
Heinlein was a fascist, full stop. Verhoeven didn't even finish the book before he directed the movie because he hated the fascist ideology in it and tried to satirize it in the movie but both the actors involved and a lot of audience members missed the satire.
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/paul-verhoeven-slams-starship-troopers-remake-fascist-update-perfect-trump-presidency-1201747155/
If you hate people leeching off the government, just wait until you hear about every single CEO and "Captain of Industry".
So essentially install a military dictatorship, because only the military gets any votes?
Mate, the Starship Troopers movie was a satire, not a fucking checklist.
So only able bodied men and women. Big yikes. Also people who aren't soldiers are leeches. Even bigger yikes.
Oh well if starship fucking troopers says it. You do realize that's satire right. Jesus fuck you fascists are so fucking oblivious it isn't funny.