 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I think that Star Ship Troopers has it right. Only those who serve should have the vote or any other control over policy. After all, isn't one of the primary criticisms of the 'chicken hawks' that they didn't grab their M16s and go shoot Ho?
Now, it's your turn. Do you think you should be qualified to determine policy in 20 years if you do not serve now if your country asks you to? Screw that, do you think you should have a voice if you don't volunteer without being asked, and just ride on everyone else's backs? |
The only people who should be wielding M-16s (or any military weapon) are volunteers that have been throughly screened. A trigger-happy freak with a hardon for killing a faceless enemy is a dangerous thing. Just as dangerous is someone who, in the heat of battle, freezes up in terror or self-doubt.
Nay, volunteers not draftees should be utilized in this fashion. For non-combat related services, I would agree that all should serve in order to gain access to higher-level civic rights (and the further duties that would go with them), but those positions should be garanteed, none of this "well, we need more ground troops, so we're reassigning you to the "Cannon-fodder" brigades" crap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:34
|
|
rosie palm and her five sisters?
don't mind me Fez. I'm just a skeptic. And I'm not trolliing. Well... maybe I am partially.
I just have trouble believing your story after the outrageous way you entered Apolyton. It's just too easy. I could be wrong of course. It has been known to occur once every decade or so.
Last edited by Dis on 27-02-2004 at 14:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
|
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
Perhaps adapting the tests for security clearance would be a good starting not-from-scratch point. As far as interviews, suppose for instance you had been known by your family to use (more than) a few derogatory terms for other races, not necessarily blacks as you have black friends, but "other people." Asians, Arabs, African blacks (why you differenciate we may never understand...I've heard people try to distinquish between the "two" groups...it's just wierd), and "mexicans." You don't have a criminal record beyond a few traffic citations (take your foot off the gas  ), so no known violence against other races. This would, in my mind, be a perfect red flag to interviewers. You may be accepted into training for military positions, but combat might be off-limits or at least until after you've had some training regarding bigotry. Eliminating (or at least mitigating) the bias might help ensure you don't allow your own biases to get in the way of doing your job only to the letter.
Remeber in Vietnam, groups of our soldiers delighted in killing as many *insert derogatory term* as they could, regardless if they were soldiers or simply in the way. I don't want to make this a Vietnam thread 'cause I understand what it was like (my stepdad was a ground soldier, though he doesn't talk much about it). My point is these select soldiers went against every sense of Human decency and mercy, legal issues aside. Why, because they were eager to do it (kill with total indiscretion and disregard) and the combat situation on the ground allowed that eagerness to grow. Minimizing that is what I want to see, alongside keeping people who would likely crack under such conditions out of combat situations.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2004 13:28
|
|