• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military recruitment surges as jobs disappear

That is no reason to look up to them a lot of other people.

A limited, peacetime military is needed perhaps but that does not remove the great dangers of militarism and war with its always accompanying centralisation, authoritarianism and bureaucracy which do so much to endanger Conservative values and society.

That argument reminds me of someone railing about the sins of too much money and citing Bernard Madoff while the audience he's ranting to are sleeping in their cars or worrying about being laid off.

Relatively few here fear the military taking over the government.

Maybe it's different where you live.
 
That argument reminds me of someone railing about the sins of too much money and citing Bernard Madoff while the audience he's ranting to are sleeping in their cars or worrying about being laid off.
That argument reminds me of a lack of a decent argument.

Relatively few here fear the military taking over the government.

Maybe it's different where you live.
Who said the military taking over the gov't? I was not being so crude. I was talking of the negative influence that a high degree of military values and wartime feeling can have on a society and the relationship between the state and the traditional, intermediate associations and their values.

To quote Alexis De Tocqueville:

All men of military genius are fond of centralization, which increases their strength; and all men of centralizing genius are fond of war, which compels nations to combine all their powers in the hands of the government. Thus the democratic tendency that leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons is much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations that are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars than among all others.
 
Last edited:
That is no reason to look up to them over a lot of other people.

Yes it is.

They have volunteered to be part of a thin camouflaged line such that if/when something does occur they would be the first to confront it while the rest of the country geared up for war.

And btw, every Marine is a hero because they KNOW they would go into harm's way first.
 
That argument reminds me of a lack of a decent argument.


Who said the military taking over the gov't? I was not being so crude. I was talking of the negative influence that a high degree of military values and wartime feeling can have on a society and the relationship between the state and the traditional, intermediate associations and their values.

To quote Alexis De Tocqueville:

All men of military genius are fond of centralization, which increases their strength; and all men of centralizing genius are fond of war, which compels nations to combine all their powers in the hands of the government. Thus the democratic tendency that leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons is much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations that are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars than among all others.

Nevermind...
 
Last edited:
Yes it is.

They have volunteered to be part of a thin camouflaged line such that if/when something does occur they would be the first to confront it while the rest of the country geared up for war.

And btw, every Marine is a hero because they KNOW they would go into harm's way first.

If/When is the key part. They may have to defend their country so they are heros. Well I'm sure as hell willing to defend it as well. I respect an armed man who knows how to use his weapon just as much.

What you mean is they are perhaps responsible for the everyday continuance of their nation. Well so are many people that should be respected as much.
 
Sounds like cowardly, effete b.s. to me.

Sounds like a non-existent argument to me.

You are in love with military values it seems. These if they become too strong in a society, as you seem to want, are a death-knell to Conservative values and institutions.
 
Last edited:
If/When is the key part. They may have to defend their country so they are heros. Well I'm sure as hell willing to defend it as well. I respect an armed man who knows how to use his weapon just as much.

What you mean is they are perhaps responsible for the everyday continuance of their nation. Well so are many people that should be respected as much.

That they serve when they could be doing otherwise and that they measure up to the standards required says something about them.
 
That they serve when they could be doing otherwise and that they measure up to the standards required says something about them.

It certainly does as it says about nurses, doctors, policemen and many others who keep Britain going in its normal peacetime situation. None of them are heroes though to me unless they are actually fighting to defend Britain in a real defensive war like WWII.
 
:roll:

Personally I don't look up to those who serve in the military unless they're fighting for a proper war of national defence like WWII. They're no better than anyone else and I have an ancient Tory suspicion of standing armies.

The soldiers don't pick their wars. I respect any person willing to risk their life for America. Bad choices by our leaders do not diminish my respect for the troops
 
Sounds like a non-existent argument to me.

You are in love with military values it seems. These if they become too strong in a society, as you seem to want, are a death-knell to Conservative values and institutions.

You may be a reactionary or authoritarian but you are not much of a Conservative like most neocons.

Nevermind...
 
Last edited:
The soldiers don't pick their wars. I respect any person willing to risk their life for America. Bad choices by our leaders do not diminish my respect for the troops

Soldiers certainly pick their wars. Recruitment surged in Britain when we entered WWI and WWII. It is these people I respect greatly, otherwise in peacetime the military is just another entity that aims to keep everyday life going and derserves no more recognition than any other entity.

Many people would risk their lives for Britain as much as those who signed up for the military in peacetime with little chance of actually having to risk their lives.

Bad choices do not lessen my respect either. However I don't believe that all those who sign up in the peacetime military are heroes or that putting up the military as some sort of beacon for our society is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Soldiers certainly pick their wars. Recruitment surged in Britain when we entered WWI and WWII. It is these people I respect greatly, otherwise in peacetime the military is just another entity that aims to keep everyday life going and derserves no more recognition than any other entity.

That's only true when people join up for a specific war. The soldiers I know joined right out of high school because they want to serve, and I'd think that sort of situation reflects the vast majority of any volunteer army. I don't see why committing to serve without knowing exactly what that will entail would be less respectable. I respect people for their willingness to defend the nation even when the circumstance aren't forcing them to do so.

Many people would risk their lives for Britain as much as those who signed up for the military in peacetime with little chance of actually having to risk their lives.

I don't know what Britain is like, but America doesn't have clean divisions between wartime and peacetime. When America isn't at war with anybody we usually have troops deployed in various conflicts and other dangerous situations. I don't think there's been a time since the start of WWI when joining the military carries very little chance of actually risking one's life.

Bad choices do not lessen my respect either. However I don't believe that all those who sign up in the peacetime military are heroes or that putting up the military as some sort of beacon for our society is a good idea.

Hero is a bit strong of a word, but I do believe that committing to defend one's country is something to be respected whether it is peacetime or not. I also believe that that commitment is something that all parts of our society can and should respect.
 
More than the bad economy, having a president who respects military personnel and tries to keep them safe will cause a boost in recruitment. Bush didn't care if the troops died, they were volunteers...after all.
I'd like to describe the intelligence level of this post without breaking the rules, but it can't be done. :doh
 
That argument reminds me of a lack of a decent argument.


Who said the military taking over the gov't? I was not being so crude. I was talking of the negative influence that a high degree of military values and wartime feeling can have on a society and the relationship between the state and the traditional, intermediate associations and their values.

To quote Alexis De Tocqueville:

All men of military genius are fond of centralization, which increases their strength; and all men of centralizing genius are fond of war, which compels nations to combine all their powers in the hands of the government. Thus the democratic tendency that leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons is much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations that are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars than among all others.

Major part of why I joined the National Guard. Citizen soldiers.
 
That's only true when people join up for a specific war. The soldiers I know joined right out of high school because they want to serve, and I'd think that sort of situation reflects the vast majority of any volunteer army. I don't see why committing to serve without knowing exactly what that will entail would be less respectable. I respect people for their willingness to defend the nation even when the circumstance aren't forcing them to do so.
Many people are willing to defend the nation. During peacetime the idea in the British army that they are likely to have to do such is low. Hence they don't deserve a special amount of respect.

I don't know what Britain is like, but America doesn't have clean divisions between wartime and peacetime. When America isn't at war with anybody we usually have troops deployed in various conflicts and other dangerous situations. I don't think there's been a time since the start of WWI when joining the military carries very little chance of actually risking one's life.
Firstly risking one's life comes in many forms, only certain kinds deserve special kinds of respect in my book. Serving in Iraq with the British army makes someone no more respectful than a lot of other people in my book. But aside from that most soldiers in the British army since WWII have had a low chance of serving in a danger zone. The worst risk was Northern Ireland.

Hero is a bit strong of a word, but I do believe that committing to defend one's country is something to be respected whether it is peacetime or not.
The point is that joining the military is far from a decent indicator of that during peacetime. In Britain it neither amounts to most of those who are willing to defend the nation nor necessarily are those in the military expecting to be put in harm's way due to the low risk in peacetime.

I also believe that that commitment is something that all parts of our society can and should respect.
So do I but that does not mean holding up the military and its values as something special during peacetime, that is very dangerous. Military values of centralisation, authoritarian command, rationalisation and bureaucratisation are not good if allowed to pervade a society. As Robert Nisbet has pointed war and the military has always been the greatest force for encouraging such values. War is the health of the state as a wiseman once said.

There are few more momentous events in Western history as the decree of the national convention of 23rd August 1794 declaring The levee en masse. This is what the pervadence of military values and wartime consciousness can do.
 
Last edited:
Many people are willing to defend the nation. During peacetime the idea in the British army that they are likely to have to do such is low. Hence they don't deserve a special amount of respect.

That is not so in America. If wartime isn't more common than peacetime in the US there isn't much of a difference. Maybe I'd feel as you do if I grew up in a different culture, although I sort of doubt it.

Firstly risking one's life comes in many forms, only certain kinds deserve special kinds of respect in my book. Serving in Iraq with the British army makes someone no more respectful than a lot of other people in my book.

In my experience soldiers don't sign up to fight a specific battle. People who enlist right now, for example, may end up in Iraq, may end up in Afghanistan, or may end up in Japan or Germany. People who enlist enlist to serve their country no matter what form that takes, and when they enlist they don't know what form it will take. I think that deserves respect

But aside from that most soldiers in the British army since WWII have had a low chance of serving in a danger zone. The worst risk was Northern Ireland.

Well maybe that's the source of our differences. Every person I know who has joined the military did so knowing they would likely risk their lives, whether or not they joined in peacetime.

The point is that joining the military is far from a decent indicator of that during peacetime. In Britain it neither amounts to most of those who are willing to defend the nation nor necessarily are those in the military expecting to be put in harm's way due to the low risk in peacetime.

Peacetime isn't as clean cut or as permanent in America. Since WWI America and our military has seen a lot of conflict. Any living military member or veteran joined that army with that knowledge

So do I but that does not mean holding up the military and its values as something special during peacetime, that is very dangerous. Military values of centralisation, authoritarian command, rationalisation and bureaucratisation are not good if allowed to pervade a society. As Robert Nisbet has pointed war and the military has always been the greatest force for encouraging such values. War is the health of the state as a wiseman once said.

Those are certainly some military values, but they aren't what American society and media glorify. The military values that we see held in esteem are strength, sacrifice, loyalty, patriotism, etc etc etc. Our military is seen as a part of the culture of freedom and liberty that define America, not as opposed to it.
 
That is not so in America. If wartime isn't more common than peacetime in the US there isn't much of a difference. Maybe I'd feel as you do if I grew up in a different culture, although I sort of doubt it.
From what I can see of the US it is much the same. There has been a lot of peacetime since WWII and no wars like WWII.

I'm not saying these kind sof soldiers are dirt, in fact I'm saying they are quite to be respected as things go but not beyond a lot of other people and nothing like those who sign up to serve in an actual war like WWII.

In my experience soldiers don't sign up to fight a specific battle. People who enlist right now, for example, may end up in Iraq, may end up in Afghanistan, or may end up in Japan or Germany. People who enlist enlist to serve their country no matter what form that takes, and when they enlist they don't know what form it will take. I think that deserves respect
I think it deserves no more respect than many other activities. They aren't expecting to actually defend their nation in a war like WWII.



Well maybe that's the source of our differences. Every person I know who has joined the military did so knowing they would likely risk their lives, whether or not they joined in peacetime.
I just can't see how this can be true. Perhaps during Vietnam they may have been such, but since then it hasn't been that way, at least until 2003 and even then not completely.



Peacetime isn't as clean cut or as permanent in America. Since WWI America and our military has seen a lot of conflict. Any living military member or veteran joined that army with that knowledge
They also joined with the knowledge that the risk they'd be the one in that situation, if you ignore the Vietnam years and WWII, is quite low.

Those are certainly some military values, but they aren't what American society and media glorify. The military values that we see held in esteem are strength, sacrifice, loyalty, patriotism, etc etc etc. Our military is seen as a part of the culture of freedom and liberty that define America, not as opposed to it.
Those values and ways of doing things have influenced American society as much as they have influenced British society. America has continued to become more centralisation and bureaucratic since WWI with the increasing influence of the miltary and military-industrial complex. This is an old pattern, Robert Nisbet even went so far as saying that few things in human history are as certain as the fact that heightened influence of the military and its values will help to spread these ways of doing things. The use of military reasoning and values to increase state power in the US was noted as far back as 1919 by Randolph Bourne in his excellent essay on the subject.

Part 1 of the unfinished essay: "The State" - Antiwar.com

The moment war is declared, however, the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves. They then, with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction toward whatever other people may have, in the appointed scheme of things, come within the range of the Government's disapprobation. The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the State once more walks, an august presence, through the imaginations of men. Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear toward the society of which he is a part.


There are few forces like war and the strong influence of the military that are so good for increasing state power and scope, for bureaucraticing and rationalising the state. There are few forces quite so revolutionary as Marx, Engels, Lenin and the Jacobins knew.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to describe the intelligence level of this post without breaking the rules, but it can't be done. :doh

I think, you've made it.
 
I wonder if the army could do anything with a BS in Advertising and Marketing...

Other then, you know, regular army stuff.

Well they made free video games, which involved lots of violence.
However, the videos games sucked hardcore.

I'm enticed by the Army for it's plan to give me money.
 
If the military could give me a job which actually used my skills and training (rather then my ability to carry things, dig holes and shoot people) I'd join. Particularly since Obama is ending DADT.
 
If the military could give me a job which actually used my skills and training (rather then my ability to carry things, dig holes and shoot people) I'd join. Particularly since Obama is ending DADT.

Done with college already? Could probably get a commission and work as a 46A

Public Affairs, General (46A).

Description of duties. Commands or advises the commander on all public affairs matters, including command information, public information—to include media relations—and community relations. Develops, coordinates, and supervises these activities within the command.

Special qualifications. Must satisfy one of the following criteria: Successful completion of the Public Affairs Officer Course taught by the Defense Information School (DINFOS). ARNG and USAR officers who are branch qualified and are unable to attend the PAOC may be AOC 46 qualified be successful completion of Phase I training (46A Correspondence Course) and the Phase II (2 week resident training at DINFOS). Request for waiver of qualification must be made to Chief, Public Affairs for U.S. Army, Chief National Guard Bureau (ARNG) or Chief for Army Reserve (OCAR).

Special grading of positions. Mobile Public Affairs and Broadcast Public Affairs Detachment Commander will be graded MAJ.

Unique duty positions.

(a) Command information officer.

(b) Media Relations Officer

(c) Editor, magazine or newspaper.

(d) Marketing/advertising officer.

(e) Speechwriter.
Army Commissioned Officer Jobs - Public Affairs (46)
 
How much control of material does a 46 A have?

What if they're flaming liberals, and are outspoken critics of the army?
with that in mind

What if they're fire-breathing conservatives, and are outspoken critics of the flaming liberals?


I'm not trying to mock, or make fun of these are serious questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom