Military Service should be mandatory for Politicians

[Dantetier]

Heinlein said it best in "Starship Troopers." Everyone should read it, but it's a good policy. I'll expand on this if anyone cares.

 

[Guest]

So-so movie with some tits.

 

[modest mouse]

I disagree.

A politician should merely be who the populace deems is worthy of leading them and making policy. Military service should never be mandatory. Its a stupid idea.

 

[PaganZepher]

I agree 100%. If it were so perhaps some political decisions involving military options may be more carefully considered.

 

[Silverlily]

I disagree, politicians are not the people I would have wanted at my back when I was in the military.

The military is not for everyone and forcing those who are not so suited to join only weakens the organization as a whole. I oppose the draft for the same reason.

 

[Star of Penumbra]

So-so movie with some tits.

Read the book. The movie left out 2/3 of the story.

 

[Guest]

I drezm of the day where we live in one world. There will be no need for millitary.

Thinking about it makes me depressed.

 

[Silverlily]

I agree 100%. If it were so perhaps some political decisions involving military options may be more carefully considered.

Unfortunately, based on that logic, it should also be mandatory for them to all be single parents, elderly, minorities, immigrants, or any other special interest group the government oversees.

 

[Dantetier]

The movie and the book are NOT to be taken together. they are entirely seperate. The movie was about a war, the book was a critical deconstruction of society.
//
"A politician should merely be who the populace deems is worthy of leading them and making policy. Military service should never be mandatory. Its a stupid idea."

Who says the populace is worthy of coosing leaders? Society on a whole is even more greedy and self serving then our current and past politicians.
//

"I agree 100%. If it were so perhaps some political decisions involving military options may be more carefully considered."

Prime example in Vietnam.. Politicians chose where to bomb, and when to bomb, and how to bomb. If the war was left to Military people, it would have been over far quicker, and perhaps with a different result.
//


"I disagree, politicians are not the people I would have wanted at my back when I was in the military.

The military is not for everyone and forcing those who are not so suited to join only weakens the organization as a whole. I oppose the draft for the same reason."

You misunderstand my point.. most politicians we have right now are not Veterens. I wouldn't want them at my back either. My point is that unless you have experience in taking orders, and giving them, and putting your very life on the line for something greater then yourself, you have no right pretending to lead a country. I also am not advocating EVERYONE join the military, only those who desire a political career. As for those who could not join the military due to physical restrictions.. we would be able to find something else that would serve the same purpose
//

"I drezm of the day where we live in one world. There will be no need for millitary. "

As do I... hopefully, in the future, that may become a reality, but until humans realize that we are all the same, and ignore stupid things like race and color and heritige, and realize that there is no God, and all we have is the here and now, and the future for our chiildren, then it's not going to happen

 

[Dantetier]

Unfortunately, based on that logic, it should also be mandatory for them to all be single parents, elderly, minorities, immigrants, or any other special interest group the government oversees.

If you read Starship Troopers, Heinleins main arguement for this position is that people in the military have put the ultimate sacrifice on the line for the greater good, and having done such, are better prepared and willing to SERVE the public good through policy making

 

[modest mouse]

Who says the populace is worthy of coosing leaders? Society on a whole is even more greedy and self serving then our current and past politicians.

Perhaps you should have begun your thread touting the virtues of a military dictatorship. Sorry, but I like a representative government, flawed or not. You act as if those in the military achieve some higher level of virture and are never corrupted. This is comical.

The Govt and military are NOT the same thing. If you think they are or should be then you are employing some seriously flawed Governmental ideas.

 

[Problem Child]

The movie and the book are NOT to be taken together. they are entirely seperate. The movie was about a war, the book was a critical deconstruction of society.
//
"A politician should merely who the populace deems is worthy of leading them and making policy. Military service should never be mandatory. Its a stupid idea."

Who says the populace is worthy of coosing leaders? Society on a whole is even more greedy and self serving then our current and past politicians.

If the populace doesn't choose the leader, how do you propose it's done? Would you like to go back to the good 'ol days when we just had a king? Simpler, I suppose, but it would ruin over two hundred years of trying build this thing we call representative democracy.
//

"I agree 100%. If it were so perhaps some political decisions involving military options may be more carefully considered."

Prime example in Vietnam.. Politicians chose where to bomb, and when to bomb, and how to bomb. If the war was left to Military people, it would have been over far quicker, and perhaps with a different result.

If leaving the war to military people is the answer (and I agree that it is) then what difference does it make if the leader ever served? His job is to determine policy and let the military carry it out. He doesn't really have to know the difference between an M-1 tank and an M-1 garand.
//


"I disagree, politicians are not the people I would have wanted at my back when I was in the military.

The military is not for everyone and forcing those who are not so suited to join only weakens the organization as a whole. I oppose the draft for the same reason."

You misunderstand my point.. most politicians we have right now are not Veterens. I wouldn't want them at my back either. My point is that unless you have experience in taking orders, and giving them, and putting your very life on the line for something greater then yourself, you have no right pretending to lead a country. I also am not advocating EVERYONE join the military, only those who desire a political career. As for those who could not join the military due to physical restrictions.. we would be able to find something else that would serve the same purpose

I don't think it's a bad idea pers se, but if I had my druthers, I'd want any future presidents to study economoic, geopolitics, business, history...things like that.

like you said..the military can handle the warfighting duties.

 

[Problem Child]

If you read Starship Troopers, Heinleins main arguement for this position is that people in the military have put the ultimate sacrifice on the line for the greater good, and having done such, are better prepared and willing to SERVE the public good through policy making

Maybe we should just replace the constitution with Starship Troopers.

 

[Dantetier]

Perhaps you should have begun your thread touting the virtues of a military dictatorship. Sorry, but I like a representative government, flawed or not. You act as if those in the military achieve some higher level of virture and are never corrupted. This is comical.

The Govt and military are NOT the same thing. If you think they are or should be then you are employing some seriously flawed Governmental ideas.

Flawed only in your way of thinking. a representative governemtn is not perfect, as you seem to think. Who's to say that military representation is not better?

In Starship Troopers, not only are military people the only ones allowed to be leaders, they are also the only ones allowed to vote on leaders. Think of all the good things that can be done without all the bullshit politics. Within peacetime, the much larger military could be used for civic services, such as structural improvements, maintainence of public places, etc. and during wartime, the country that was completely banded together would triumph over all but the greatest odds.

 

[Silverlily]

If you read Starship Troopers, Heinleins main arguement for this position is that people in the military have put the ultimate sacrifice on the line for the greater good, and having done such, are better prepared and willing to SERVE the public good through policy making

I did read Starship Troopers and I recognized it for what it was, a fictional work. It may have a good premise, but it still work of fiction.


I disagree the military makes one better able to set policies or serve their country. Many of the people I served with, I wouldn't let give me directions, much less set national policy. The military did nothing to "better" them.

I also feel that to say military service is what would make politicians better public servants belittles the other careers that contribute to our society. Why not say make them all be firefighters, or police officers? Why not say make them all be teachers or social workers? Willingness to pay the ultimate price is not the only indicator of worth.

 

[Dantetier]

<b>If the populace doesn't choose the leader, how do you propose it's done? Would you like to go back to the good 'ol days when we just had a king? Simpler, I suppose, but it would ruin over two hundred years of trying build this thing we call representative democracy. </b>

As stated in my previous post... those who have served would be the voting public. Not every Vet could be a politician. I urge everyone to read Starship Troopers. Heinlein explained it so much more eloquently then I can. There's a reason he was a famous author

<b>If leaving the war to military people is the answer (and I agree that it is) then what difference does it make if the leader ever served? His job is to determine policy and let the military carry it out. He doesn't really have to know the difference between an M-1 tank and an M-1 garand. </b>

Any president with military service would look harder at all factors of wartime campaigns. Civvie casualties, Soldier comfort and effectiveness... S/He would look at a much larger picture then non-military politicians would look at.

<b>I don't think it's a bad idea pers se, but if I had my druthers, I'd want any future presidents to study economoic, geopolitics, business, history...things like that.

like you said..the military can handle the warfighting duties.
</b>
I'm not saying Military service is the ONLY criteria for leadership, just one of many. I've always been a firm believer in the "best person for the Job"

 

[modest mouse]

Flawed only in your way of thinking. a representative governemtn is not perfect, as you seem to think. Who's to say that military representation is not better?

I never implied, hinted, or even thought that representative Govt was perfect. I will say that military only representation is NOT better.

In Starship Troopers, not only are military people the only ones allowed to be leaders, they are also the only ones allowed to vote on leaders. Think of all the good things that can be done without all the bullshit politics. Within peacetime, the much larger military could be used for civic services, such as structural improvements, maintainence of public places, etc. and during wartime, the country that was completely banded together would triumph over all but the greatest odds.

First of all, lets establish that the real struggle for U.S. people to govern themselves is a bit different than a sci-fi novel. I think we can agree on this point.

Secondly, have you read much Socialist literature? It mgiht prove to satisfy your political idealogy.

 

[Dantetier]

Maybe we should just replace the constitution with Starship Troopers.

Stop being an ass. I'm having a legitimete discussion using a book as a point of reference

 

[Problem Child]

Flawed only in your way of thinking. a representative governemtn is not perfect, as you seem to think. Who's to say that military representation is not better?

You're not really serious, are you?


WWII nazi germany.

Pinochet's Chile.

Amin's Uganda.

Present day Pakistan.


Should I keep going?

 

[Dantetier]

I did read Starship Troopers and I recognized it for what it was, a fictional work. It may have a good premise, but it still work of fiction.


I disagree the military makes one better able to set policies or serve their country. Many of the people I served with, I wouldn't let give me directions, much less set national policy. The military did nothing to "better" them.

I also feel that to say military service is what would make politicians better public servants belittles the other careers that contribute to our society. Why not say make them all be firefighters, or police officers? Why not say make them all be teachers or social workers? Willingness to pay the ultimate price is not the only indicator of worth.

If you will kindly read all of my posts...

<b>I also am not advocating EVERYONE join the military, only those who desire a political career. As for those who could not join the military due to physical restrictions.. we would be able to find something else that would serve the same purpose </B>


<b>I'm not saying Military service is the ONLY criteria for leadership, just one of many. I've always been a firm believer in the "best person for the Job"</b>

 

[Problem Child]

Stop being an ass. I'm having a legitimete discussion using a book as a point of reference

Right away.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who thinks military juntas are superior to representative democracies as a form of government.

 

[Dantetier]

Why are my HTML tags not working?

 

[Problem Child]

Why are my HTML tags not working?

I dunno. Maybe the U.S. Army is hacking your computer in an misdirected attempt to overthrow the U.s. government.

 

[Dantetier]

I never implied, hinted, or even thought that representative Govt was perfect. I will say that military only representation is NOT better.



First of all, lets establish that the real struggle for U.S. people to govern themselves is a bit different than a sci-fi novel. I think we can agree on this point.

Secondly, have you read much Socialist literature? It mgiht prove to satisfy your political idealogy.

I believe you're ignoring my posts based on the fact that I'm using a Sci-Fi book as my point of preference. I'd like to point out that the Holy Bible is also a fictional work that has changed countless lives, mostly for the better, and brought about great social change.

As for Socialism, I believe that if it were at all possible to put it into effect, it would be a great system of government. Unfortunately, Human nature makes a true socialist governemtn an impossiblitiy

 

[Dantetier]

You're not really serious, are you?


WWII nazi germany.

Pinochet's Chile.

Amin's Uganda.

Present day Pakistan.


Should I keep going?

I am not advocating Dictatorships.. If ou would kindly reread this thread to understand what I am saying