Conscription = Slavery ?

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 02:56 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: The rape reference suggested that the rapist could throw money at the victim and make the crime go away.

In the OP, I was equating being a slave to government to being a slave to a plantation owner.
Funny thing..... some plantation owners compensated slaves with food, shelter, and sometimes land.
Did that make it ok ?

As far as the two front attack, I still stand by the fact that a draft would not be necessary.
Volunteers would pour into boot-camp.
I don't think an attack would have gotten through Canada and Mexico though.
I never suggested isolationism, so our standing military would have paired with our neighbors to defend the continent.
Logistically speaking, the foreign invaders would have no chance without an alliance made north or south of our borders.
If they took Cuba and other islands, things could be interesting, but would still be a stretch.
We still would have had the naval vessels and aircraft in Hawaii, assuming our lack of involvement kept that event from happening.
I'm also sure we would have really ramped up production of war items, considering countries were being overtaken.

Worst case scenario...... atomic bombs dropped on advancing forces in bordering countries.
God Bless Oppenheimer !

Or...... we could always offer tea, cakes, and join in a chorus of Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles !!

Roto, the question was not about the actual feasibility of an attack on the US. The scenario was intended to pose a question of principle.  Just saying enough people would volunteer rejects the given premise that volunteers would not be enough. (We wouldn't have the atomic bomb; that was developed under wartime research duress, but in this scenario we skipped that war.)

So if the US were under threat such that conscription were the only chance of defending it, would you still say no conscription?

Slaves were not "compensated" for their work any more than you are "compensating" your automobile when you give it gas. Slaves were housed and fed and kept alive to work. Their bodies no longer belonged to them. Women could not decide who would impregnate them or whether to choose abortion. Male or female they could be beaten, raped and humiliated at whim, and sold to others.

US conscripts in WWII and Korea and Vietnam could vote, had rights. One could take a poll of the still living conscripts to find how many think their service was slavery. Poll them while they are being honored at a Veteran's Day ceremony.  One could ask who owns them now?

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Harley. I love you, my brother. But that is not true.

But I digress.


The Soviet Army is small, but capable. Their technology is probably still slightly less than the U.S., but not much (i.e. they don't try to steal our tech as often as China does). That said, they are not a significant threat to the world outside their bordering neighbors. They are rebuilding a Navy, but they are no where near challenging even one of our fleets. They cannot project forces across the globe the way we can or even the limited way the Soviet Union used to be able to.

Russia and China are defensive countries. We are not.

Yow! that was some digression B-Zona. Excellent and comprehensive.

[HarleyDog]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Harley. I love you, my brother. But that is not true.

We are by far the strongest military power on the planet. It is not even close.

There is no other country in the world than can transport hundreds of thousands of troops to the opposite side of the world and keep them supplied and supported for years, while simultaneously sending tens of thousands to another location on the other side of the world and doing the same thing. Nobody. Britain almost went bankrupt sending their fleet and troops to the Falklands in the early eighties for several months. We have maintained a full fleet in the Middle East for over 35 years just because we like having it there.

It is true that China has more people in their armed forces (2.3 million compared to #2 U.S. which has 1.5 million). But have you looked at a map of China? China shares borders with North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam. In contrast, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Four of those countries have nuclear weapons (North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and India). The Chinese have had border conflicts with Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (4 wars) and Vietnam during your lifetime. The combined size of those nations' armed forces is 3.3 million and dwarves the Chinese. This is to say nothing of their internal conflicts where hundreds of thousands of troops are required to hold down several provinces which would like to break away. Because of their internal and border concerns, they are just not able to exert military power outside of their own borders. Their entire navy is cowed by a single U.S. fleet. And we have six active fleets. Taiwan, an island they would like to re-incorporate, sits just 60 miles from mainland China and thumbs their noses at them.

As far as technology, the Chinese are substantially behind us. Do you know how I know that?..... Because they try to steal our stuff.

Russia has some similarities to China. Russia shares borders with North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Finland. If you include their enclave at Kaliningrad (which you should because they ain't giving it up in the near future), they also share borders with Lithuania and Poland. Once again, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Two of Russia's land neighbors (China and North Korea) have nuclear weapons. But Russia hasn't had as many recent conflicts with neighbors as China has, which is primarily attributable to their massive nuclear arsenal (incidently, China has a somewhat small nuclear arsenal) and by Russia's prior reputation as the Soviet Union of rolling large tank or motorized armies over neighboring nations which annoy them (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1980, etc.).

But the Russian military today is far different than it was during the Soviet Union days. Their armed forces members number 845,000 now, fifth in the world behind China (1), U.S. (2), India (3) and North Korea (4). During the Cold War, the Soviet armed forces were second in size to only China. But Putin and crew have been pretty shrewd. They decided to concentrate on quality over quantity. They went leaner and meaner. It was a smart move because if you look at their borders, only China is a real threat to them. And China is worried about their own borders as mentioned above. So Russia is less concerned today about defending its borders than it ever has been (except for one thing, which I'll mention later). Therefore, they can maintain a smaller and better quality armed forces and use to do what they have been best at for centuries: bullying their neighbors.

Yes, nothing is more Russian than picking on their neighbors. Be it Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithunania... heck, even Poland. Most of Russia's neighbors have the good sense to maintain good relations with Moscow and just do what the Russians want them to do. But some have had the audacity to think that they are completely "free". They don't seem to understand that that just doesn't work for modern Russia. That gives the Russians a border headache, and Russia doesn't like border headaches.

But the one thing that really light's Putin's anger is NATO. In the Russian mind, the only purpose of NATO is to hate on Russia. Russian media refers to it as an "aggressive, permanent organization". After all, once the Warsaw Pact shut down, shouldn't NATO have shut down also? Instead NATO has added new nations. Some of them former Warsaw Pact countries. The reason why the Russians have been a pain in the West's ass the past few years is because NATO permitted the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithunania) to join and has been considering Ukraine and Georgia. That is just not acceptable to the Russians. Putin calls the Baltic States "traitor states" to begin with (this is because many from these countries and from Ukraine fought alongside the Germans during WWII against the Russians... half of the troops fighting for Germany in WWII weren't from Germany).

This leads us to why Putin favored Trump during the election. Trump has made remarks about re-evaluating and lessening U.S. commitment to NATO. Without the U.S., NATO is a shell of itself. If NATO is a shell of itself, then Russia can do what it likes to keep neighbors in line. With its neighbors towing the line, the Russians can keep their military small and feel free to do other things (like rebuilding their navy or bombing civilians in Syria).

But I digress.

The Soviet Army is small, but capable. Their technology is probably still slightly less than the U.S., but not much (i.e. they don't try to steal our tech as often as China does). That said, they are not a significant threat to the world outside their bordering neighbors. They are rebuilding a Navy, but they are no where near challenging even one of our fleets. They cannot project forces across the globe the way we can or even the limited way the Soviet Union used to be able to.

Russia and China are defensive countries. We are not.

I love you too Zona. your much more interesting to talk to than that mean old Fred guy!

[Bengalzona]

There have been different forms or levels of slavery throughout human history. Different types include: forced labor, debt labor, sex slavery, child slavery and domestic servitude ( http://freedomcenter.org/enabling-freedom/five-forms-of-slavery ). All involve forms of control and exploitation of humans, the common themes.

I think many Americans tend to see antebellum cotton fields and black people when the term is mentioned. That is known as chattel slavery (I believe Matt mentioned this earlier). Chattel slavery is the most obvious and extreme instance of slavery in that it combines three forms of slavery (forced labor, sex slavery, and child slavery). But it is not the sole definition of slavery.

Joining the military, whether by volunteering or conscription, entails giving up certain rights. You can't go wandering off in the field picking daisies when you are supposed to be at roll call in the morning. That is the nature of the beast. A government temporarily revokes certain rights and establishes a level of control over a person to achieve a national goal or set of goals. So, control is part of conscription. But the other half of determining if a thing is slavery is exploitation.

Is exploitation involved in conscription? It generally is not, but it can be. This is determined by the goal or goals set by the country instituting conscription. If the goal is national defense, then it is generally not exploitation. The country is using all resources, including manpower, to defend itself. If a nation's goal is to extend power beyond their borders, then it might well be exploitation and there may be a basis for the comparison with slavery. This is how many Americans felt about Vietnam. It is also how many Russian peasants felt about World War I, which would ultimately lead to revolution.

So, is conscription the same as slavery? Generally no, but it can be depending upon the goals of the country. Even then, some people will still maintain a blind faith in their government and its motives. In every single country on the planet, there are always people who will thump their chests and exclaim "Don't you love this country? Don't you want to defend it?" There is nothing uniquely 'Merican about that.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1)Got my numbers from National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425340/welfare-vs-defense-numbers-kevin-d-williamson

Now I understand.  You used fudged numbers that includes all sorts of things like education spending in the category "welfare entitlements"

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2)So are you saying you must be a US Citizen to receive aid from out Government or is that just your preference?

I am saying that it is better to spend the money in our own country than spend it on a foreign country.  Even if they are not all US citizens I would rather spend money on people living and working in our own country than trow it down a nole in a foreign country.

(12-06-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3)Let's talk about violent crime and murder committed by Immigrants (legal and otherwise).

Okay, start talking.

(12-06-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It pretty much comes down to which mentality you support: Stop it there or stop it here. 

I don't even understand what this means.  Are you suggesting that the US military should invade Mexico and start killing all the criminals there before they immigrate into the US?  Because if you are talking about terror threats from the middle east our military involvement there makes it MORE likely that we will suffer terror attacks, not LESS.

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: But the one thing that really light's Putin's anger is NATO. In the Russian mind, the only purpose of NATO is to hate on Russia. Russian media refers to it as an "aggressive, permanent organization". After all, once the Warsaw Pact shut down, shouldn't NATO have shut down also? Instead NATO has added new nations. Some of them former Warsaw Pact countries. The reason why the Russians have been a pain in the West's ass the past few years is because NATO permitted the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithunania) to join and has been considering Ukraine and Georgia. That is just not acceptable to the Russians. Putin calls the Baltic States "traitor states" to begin with (this is because many from these countries and from Ukraine fought alongside the Germans during WWII against the Russians... half of the troops fighting for Germany in WWII weren't from Germany).

This leads us to why Putin favored Trump during the election. Trump has made remarks about re-evaluating and lessening U.S. commitment to NATO. Without the U.S., NATO is a shell of itself. If NATO is a shell of itself, then Russia can do what it likes to keep neighbors in line. With its neighbors towing the line, the Russians can keep their military small and feel free to do other things (like rebuilding their navy or bombing civilians in Syria).

So sensible. I enjoyed reading this.   It also explains why talk of including the Ukraine in NATO sets the Russians hair on fire.  Quite understandable. 

Russia has not been an expansionist power since 1917. The Soviets always thought defensively. They occupied Eastern Europe for decades, but that was also defensive. No country suffered in WWII they way they did--a massive national trauma--the politburo was going to make sure they were never invaded again. They were dragged kicking and screaming into Afghanistan.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-05-2016, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why are those opposed to being the "World's Police" more than happy to be the 'World's Flop House"?

Can you name one person who is opposed to being the "World's Police," but also in favor of relaxing immigration regulations or not enforcing current regulations?

Didn't think so. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-06-2016, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet, when you compare our Military Budget to other countries based on percentage of GDP we don't even crack the top 20 in the world. Matter of fact the 3.3% we spend on Military Budget falls well short of the 15.2% we spend on Welfare entitlements.

What are we going in debt to pay for again? 

"Welfare entitlements" like VA benefits?

[SunsetBengal]

(12-06-2016, 12:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Can you name one person who is opposed to being the "World's Police," but also in favor of relaxing immigration regulations or not enforcing current regulations?

Lena Dunham?

[Dill]

(12-06-2016, 09:58 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Is exploitation involved in conscription? It generally is not, but it can be. This is determined by the goal or goals set by the country instituting conscription. If the goal is national defense, then it is generally not exploitation. The country is using all resources, including manpower, to defend itself. If a nation's goal is to extend power beyond their borders, then it might well be exploitation and there may be a basis for the comparison with slavery. This is how many Americans felt about Vietnam. It is also how many Russian peasants felt about World War I, which would ultimately lead to revolution.

So, is conscription the same as slavery? Generally no, but it can be depending upon the goals of the country. Even then, some people will still maintain a blind faith in their government and its motives. In every single country on the planet, there are always people who will thump their chests and exclaim "Don't you love this country? Don't you want to defend it?" There is nothing uniquely 'Merican about that.

Yeah! What he said! 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-06-2016, 12:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lena Dunham?

Who?

[Bengalzona]

(12-06-2016, 12:13 PM)Dill Wrote: So sensible. I enjoyed reading this.   It also explains why talk of including the Ukraine in NATO sets the Russians hair on fire.  Quite understandable. 

Russia has not been an expansionist power since 1917. The Soviets always thought defensively. They occupied Eastern Europe for decades, but that was also defensive. No country suffered in WWII they way they did--a massive national trauma--the politburo was going to make sure they were never invaded again. They were dragged kicking and screaming into Afghanistan.

You know what gets under China's skin?

When we buddy up to India. 

[hollodero]

--- Guys, the draft question really is easy to solve.
Whoever is a vigorous defender of his right to own assault rifles and all kinds of weaponry shoud be first in line for a possible draft in times of crisis like a global war.

War is the reason you're allowed to have those weapons in the first place. So that's just consistent.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-06-2016, 03:14 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Harley. I love you, my brother. But that is not true.

We are by far the strongest military power on the planet. It is not even close.

There is no other country in the world than can transport hundreds of thousands of troops to the opposite side of the world and keep them supplied and supported for years, while simultaneously sending tens of thousands to another location on the other side of the world and doing the same thing. Nobody. Britain almost went bankrupt sending their fleet and troops to the Falklands in the early eighties for several months. We have maintained a full fleet in the Middle East for over 35 years just because we like having it there.

It is true that China has more people in their armed forces (2.3 million compared to #2 U.S. which has 1.5 million). But have you looked at a map of China? China shares borders with North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam. In contrast, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Four of those countries have nuclear weapons (North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and India). The Chinese have had border conflicts with Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (4 wars) and Vietnam during your lifetime. The combined size of those nations' armed forces is 3.3 million and dwarves the Chinese. This is to say nothing of their internal conflicts where hundreds of thousands of troops are required to hold down several provinces which would like to break away. Because of their internal and border concerns, they are just not able to exert military power outside of their own borders. Their entire navy is cowed by a single U.S. fleet. And we have six active fleets. Taiwan, an island they would like to re-incorporate, sits just 60 miles from mainland China and thumbs their noses at them.

As far as technology, the Chinese are substantially behind us. Do you know how I know that?..... Because they try to steal our stuff.

Russia has some similarities to China. Russia shares borders with North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Finland. If you include their enclave at Kaliningrad (which you should because they ain't giving it up in the near future), they also share borders with Lithuania and Poland. Once again, we share borders with Canada and Mexico. Two of Russia's land neighbors (China and North Korea) have nuclear weapons. But Russia hasn't had as many recent conflicts with neighbors as China has, which is primarily attributable to their massive nuclear arsenal (incidently, China has a somewhat small nuclear arsenal) and by Russia's prior reputation as the Soviet Union of rolling large tank or motorized armies over neighboring nations which annoy them (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1980, etc.).

But the Russian military today is far different than it was during the Soviet Union days. Their armed forces members number 845,000 now, fifth in the world behind China (1), U.S. (2), India (3) and North Korea (4). During the Cold War, the Soviet armed forces were second in size to only China. But Putin and crew have been pretty shrewd. They decided to concentrate on quality over quantity. They went leaner and meaner. It was a smart move because if you look at their borders, only China is a real threat to them. And China is worried about their own borders as mentioned above. So Russia is less concerned today about defending its borders than it ever has been (except for one thing, which I'll mention later). Therefore, they can maintain a smaller and better quality armed forces and use to do what they have been best at for centuries: bullying their neighbors.

Yes, nothing is more Russian than picking on their neighbors. Be it Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithunania... heck, even Poland. Most of Russia's neighbors have the good sense to maintain good relations with Moscow and just do what the Russians want them to do. But some have had the audacity to think that they are completely "free". They don't seem to understand that that just doesn't work for modern Russia. That gives the Russians a border headache, and Russia doesn't like border headaches.

But the one thing that really light's Putin's anger is NATO. In the Russian mind, the only purpose of NATO is to hate on Russia. Russian media refers to it as an "aggressive, permanent organization". After all, once the Warsaw Pact shut down, shouldn't NATO have shut down also? Instead NATO has added new nations. Some of them former Warsaw Pact countries. The reason why the Russians have been a pain in the West's ass the past few years is because NATO permitted the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithunania) to join and has been considering Ukraine and Georgia. That is just not acceptable to the Russians. Putin calls the Baltic States "traitor states" to begin with (this is because many from these countries and from Ukraine fought alongside the Germans during WWII against the Russians... half of the troops fighting for Germany in WWII weren't from Germany).

This leads us to why Putin favored Trump during the election. Trump has made remarks about re-evaluating and lessening U.S. commitment to NATO. Without the U.S., NATO is a shell of itself. If NATO is a shell of itself, then Russia can do what it likes to keep neighbors in line. With its neighbors towing the line, the Russians can keep their military small and feel free to do other things (like rebuilding their navy or bombing civilians in Syria).

But I digress.

The Soviet Army is small, but capable. Their technology is probably still slightly less than the U.S., but not much (i.e. they don't try to steal our tech as often as China does). That said, they are not a significant threat to the world outside their bordering neighbors. They are rebuilding a Navy, but they are no where near challenging even one of our fleets. They cannot project forces across the globe the way we can or even the limited way the Soviet Union used to be able to.

Russia and China are defensive countries. We are not.

I'm sure you'll recall my saying on the old board that Clinton made a huge mistake when he turned his back on Russia after the collapse of the USSR.  The smart, long term, strategy would have been to help Russia off the mat, dust her off and offer her our hand in friendship.  Offering Russia a spot in NATO, or working towards that goal, would have gone a long way towards proving our friendly intentions and we'd be looking at a wildly different world right now.

[Belsnickel]

(12-06-2016, 12:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You know what gets under China's skin?

When we buddy up to India. 

Of course, the Indians aren't too happy with Trump at the moment from what I have heard on NPR.

Our foreign relations are even more of a convoluted mess than usual.

[Rotobeast]

(12-06-2016, 05:17 AM)Dill Wrote: So if the US were under threat such that conscription were the only chance of defending it, would you still say no conscription?

Ok....I'll give you what you want.

No, I would not be 100% against it.
But having my druthers, the drafted would have their choice of fighting or merely providing support roles.

I completely understand your side of the discussion, just as I believe you understand mine.
Your position is of breaking a few eggs to maintain the ability to have freedom.
My position is that a person/entity cannot selfishly take someone else's freedom, to preserve their own.
If that is allowed, then it is only "freedom" at the top of the societal chain.

I guess we're all some kind of slave in that respect though, are we not ?

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2016, 11:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't even understand what this means.  Are you suggesting that the US military should invade Mexico and start killing all the criminals there before they immigrate into the US?  Because if you are talking about terror threats from the middle east our military involvement there makes it MORE likely that we will suffer terror attacks, not LESS.

Sorry for the ambiguity. It means when we "Police the World" we are often doing so to make conditions better in that country (our should I say more inline with ours). My view is let's give them a better place to live in their country not an alternate place in ours.

As I said it comes down to which seems more humane. Allow them safe haven here or facilitate safe haven there.

As to the rest we can debate and allocate funds under whichever umbrella we want. Point is: our Military spending is not out of line with the rest of the world when it comes to percentage of GDP.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2016, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Now I understand.  You used fudged numbers that includes all sorts of things like education spending in the category "welfare entitlements"

Let me guess: You used "unfudged' numbers.

[Bengalzona]

(12-06-2016, 12:13 PM)Dill Wrote: So sensible. I enjoyed reading this.   It also explains why talk of including the Ukraine in NATO sets the Russians hair on fire.  Quite understandable. 

Russia has not been an expansionist power since 1917. The Soviets always thought defensively. They occupied Eastern Europe for decades, but that was also defensive. No country suffered in WWII they way they did--a massive national trauma--the politburo was going to make sure they were never invaded again. They were dragged kicking and screaming into Afghanistan.

It was Trotsky who preached about world rebellion and exporting Communism (Trotskyism). Stalin wanted nothing to do with that. He wanted complete control of the Soviet Union with himself at the top ("Socialism in One Country"). Communism was only a tool for his totalitarian ambitions. The two fought about it after the Revolution. Stalin won and Trotsky was exiled. Eventually, Stalin had Trotsky assassinated in Mexico (with an ice pick).  

Almost all Communist countries started around the world would follow the Stalinism model. It is one of the reasons why these countries require strongmen and cult of personality to make it work (Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Ming, Fidel Castro, etc.).