Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
They are a real thing, though. It's just that the most useful term for them is "jerk" (that's anti-masturbation!), I mean asshole ("body shaming!"), I mean uncivil ("discriminating against people who don't live in cities, are we?"), I mean bad person ("by what standard?"), I mean belligerent bully ("... okay...")
Yeah, not to agree with Ted Cruz, but bad celiac disease should probably be a disqualification, because a former supervisor has it and he has to do stuff like order ahead special at restaurants to make sure that not only is his dish gluten free, but that there was no chance of cross-contamination. Seems like it should be an outright disqualification for at least army and marines, less so Navy and Air Force where there's a much lower chance of you being in a non-controlled food situation.
And gluten-free diets aside from celiac are just hippy crap, frankly, so accommodating that is neither here nor there.
Isn't the US having a huge issue with the low quality of potential recruits? Bad shape and that sort of thing? I remember one of the Joint Chiefs (I think), saying it has to lower standards or face a huge shortage of manpower in the next few years. Called it a national security threat.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleIt's a hard task across the developed world, especially for countries which are actually involved in conflicts. Few parents of means have the martial spirit in them where they feel that their child dying in a war would be an acceptable loss. I heard Russia has the issue a lot, but Russia being a poorer country you're more likely to get a better crop of volunteers (it's the conscripts you have to watch, because people of means learn how to avoid conscription so it tends to be the less fit who get swept up).
I think part of the problem could be solved with better pay, but that can only go so far against the possibility of your son/husband coming home in a box. That's just a harder hurdle to overcome these days.
It's kind of refreshing in a way. Remember the old adage about, "What if they threw a war, and nobody came?" If martial spirit in the First World is declining, that's a very good sign for world peace.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Long term, yeah, but in the short term it makes problems with the developing world where plenty of people have nothing better to do than become a rebel soldier. We still need good people willing to make these sacrifices to manage threats like ISIS.
I also think if there was a worthier cause you'd see more enlistment. Right now people are fatigued by the war on terror and not inspired by it, and the first world is war weary even in the face of real threats.
@Fighteer - A hopelessly naive view, the feeding of which creates problems that are now coming to the fore in Europe and soon the US.
You want world peace, you have to have world government first. One world nation. That ain't happening in our lifetimes and the method of doing so will require war in some cases.
All this is trending toward is the fall of the First World as "first". What comes after, who knows.
Especially since nation like Russia and China actually have the majority of the citizenry being willing to take up arms and die for their nation. At least in the US the virtues that can lead to widespread mobilization are present in the culture, if less so amongst our leftist youth, the virtues that lead to mobilization are not only absent in Europe,but widely mocked and looked down upon.
Harvard opts to abolish the title of Master as it supposedly has links to slavery.
I know it is very much frowned upon on this thread to suggest that their is anything wrong with the PC movement, but come on. If this isn't an example of PC gone crazy I don't know what it is.
edited 25th Feb '16 7:28:13 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.I don't think that is how it works...
Funny that this is the exact same notion the world has about the united states
edited 25th Feb '16 7:25:47 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesDunno about China, but the average Russian "patriot" claiming that is only willing to cheer on as someone else dies for him. People only claim they have intentions to go to war until they actually have to. Nobody expects themselves to actually do it.
Yeah no, most Russians don't wanna join the military and it doesn't matter how many join the Chinese because they're physically incapable of using that many bodies anyway.
China is not the Soviet Union, they try to move that many people at once their military is gonna collapse under it's own weight. They don't have the experience or the logistics to back it up.
Hell not even we have the logistics to back up an army that size and we've got the best supply network period.
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
No most people are willing to support those who go to war, but not go to war themselves. If anything this glorification of the military might discourage enlistment, as many potential recruits might believe that they fail to measure up to the extraordinary standards of badassary they believe is expected of soldiers.
edited 25th Feb '16 7:30:35 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
x4
If only it were so. Does US law have some form "defence duty" clause? As in times of war/state of emergency any and all citizens are required to defend or assist in defence (or just crisis management) of the country?
edited 25th Feb '16 7:33:58 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleThe draft is still technically in effect, the government can legally force conscription at any time.
But frankly calling the draft for anything less than WW3 is gonna end in a complete PR disaster. We haven't forgotten Vietnam.
edited 25th Feb '16 7:32:34 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Notice I did not say this was the case. I simply said that this is the perception people outside the United States have of people in the United States.
The implicit mind fuckery I am trying to make here that is apparently going over your heads, is that I am implying or suggesting that this is the same case for China and Russia. That though the world outside thinks they are all secretly bloodthirsty savages/ignorant hick rednecks/dirty nazis/commies willing to take arms at a moments notice, they are actually the same as you are: willing to support those who go to war, without going to war themselves.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesUnlike Jack, I don't think any nation is going to "take our place" or whatever. I just think the days of superpower are done and we are going back to the multipolar world that has existed for most of human history.
As for the world government comment, I was being deliberately pie in the sky. Point being you don't get world peace simply because you don't want to fight anymore while the current global nationstate system is in effect.
Personally, I see the superpower becoming more dependent on everyone else. US will always remain as the uncontested, supreme military and economic power in the world, as an individual country. However, it will have to rely on its allies to keep itself there, and can no longer keep its interests to itself.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleThe increasing wealth disparity between nations and within nations themselves would atually tell me that not only will the days of superpowers are ever more likely, they are kinda inevitable. The thing that changes is how they express themselves.
I am not suggesting there's going to be a secret government of councillors who pull the strings, complete with secret handshakes, darkened hoods and world-changing meetings in incensed rooms gilded and with ominous latin chanting going in the background. Just that it is no longer going to be guns and flag-waving that will be making it obvious, but that money in the background will be, not so obviously even to those using the money, be directing the flow of power and influence that will gradually be directing the political socioeconomical outlook of nations.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI am saying power will not necesarily be moved by military, or the obvious guy in a suit, be him President, CEO, or eunuch behind the throne.
Power will express itself differently, and its reaches will be reaching far and wide, and faster than ever, as it has done in the past.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Given how nasty celliac can be (have some family with it) I'm surprised it's not counted as a medical disqualification.