Make it a requirement to have offspring/s to enter the armed forces

reply to post by Jepic

It is free will. The Govt has no business being involved in that decision.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Jepic

 

It is free will. The Govt has no business being involved in that decision.

I think the government has a business in that decision because the military is part of the government.

In Ancient times a soldier with no children in his home country could have them in the country he invaded. But things changed a lot since then

reply to post by Jepic


You really have no clue to our freedoms here in the States.

Originally posted by mrkeen
In Ancient times a soldier with no children in his home country could have them in the country he invaded. But things changed a lot since then

edit on 7-5-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)

I

That's true. Also in my homeland during the times of ancient greece it was seen as the duty of every person to marry have children and raise a family. The importance of that seems to be lost in modern times. It's a pity. Maybe if things in that aspect returned to the way it was in the past there wouldn't be so many people that feel depressed, lonely and lost nowadays.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Jepic

 

You really have no clue to our freedoms here in the States.

Don't get me wrong. I'm aware of certain documents such as the US constitution and bill of rights.

Are you kidding me? If you have kids, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to join the military. NONE. Do you understand that those children need you? You are going to deprive a child of a father or mother so you can subject yourself to abuse and exploitation by a government who doesn't give a rats ass about you?

It is grossly immoral for a parent to join the armed forces of his own accord, unless he or she is acting in defense of his or her homeland; only then is such a sacrifice justified. Once you have kids, you don't have the right to subject yourself to death.

reply to post by Jepic


Then you know that we are an all volunteer military.
The restricting of someone based on child status won't cut it.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Are you kidding me? If you have kids, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to join the military. NONE. Do you understand that those children need you? You are going to deprive a child of a father or mother so you can subject yourself to abuse and exploitation by a government who doesn't give a rats ass about you?

It is grossly immoral for a parent to join the armed forces of his own accord, unless he or she is acting in defense of his or her homeland; only then is such a sacrifice justified. Once you have kids, you don't have the right to subject yourself to death.

Your comment goes in line with how the military is perceived nowadays. In the past it was an honor to serve for your country. In the past joining the armed forces was seen as the ultimate sign of honor towards your people.

And my proposal can't hurt because I'm not making the parents join. They can choose when to join. The minimun age is 27 The father or mother can choose when to join. The parents can be with the child a long as they wish.

But you helped bring to light a very good point. The point that a job in the armed forces nowadays is not seen as honorable or respectful enough. We should change that.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Jepic

 

Then you know that we are an all volunteer military.
The restricting of someone based on child status won't cut it.

It's got nothing to with it being a volunteer military. Hell a volunteer military is what I'm getting at too. I'm not saying anything about forcing people to join. My opinion is just on who should be able to join and who shouldn't be allowed to join.

reply to post by Jepic


Although I agree with you about changing current public view in regard to the military, the honor and respect that comes with serving a just cause is irrelevant; it is highly immoral and selfish to put your life at unnecessary risk when you have dependents.

Hence why I said it's only justified if you are fighting in defense of your homeland.

Let's take the ethical debate a bit further and tackle this dilemma: assume for a minute that we live in Nazi era Germany. You are the gentile head of a household, you have a wife and kids, and you sympathize with the Jewish cause. Is it justified, then, for you to shelter Jewish refugees in your home, thus putting the lives of your kids in danger?

You could argue that hiding the Jews is, on one hand, the moral thing to do, but on the other hand, it is absolutely immoral of you to risk the lives of your children, regardless of who you sympathize with. Which moral polarity wins out, and is it cowardice to choose your own family over the Jews, knowing that they will likely die if you do not help them? Does cowardice, then, hinder or help your survival?

The same logic could be applied to joining the military when you have a family dependent on you, though the consequences are less severe.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Jepic

 

Although I agree with you about changing current public view in regard to the military, the honor and respect that comes with serving a just cause is irrelevant; it is highly immoral and selfish to put your life at unnecessary risk when you have dependents.

Hence why I said it's only justified if you are fighting in defense of your homeland.

Let's take the ethical debate a bit further and tackle this dilemma: assume for a minute that we live in Nazi era Germany. You are the gentile head of a household, you have a wife and kids, and you sympathize with the Jewish cause. Is it justified, then, for you to shelter Jewish refugees in your home, thus putting the lives of your kids in danger?

You could argue that hiding the Jews is, on one hand, the moral thing to do, but on the other hand, it is absolutely immoral of you to risk the lives of your children, regardless of who you sympathize with. Which moral polarity wins out, and is it cowardice to choose your own family over the Jews, knowing that they will likely die if you do not help them? Does cowardice, then, hinder or help your survival?

The same logic could be applied to joining the military when you have a family dependent on you, though the consequences are less severe.

I agree that there should only be a war when your enemy wants to take over your territory and there is a danger to the country. Nothing else justifies war. We are on par in that respect.

It would be a selfish cause. We have to call it as it is. But the blame also lies on the jewish group for wanting to put in danger a whole family for their self-preservation. But those jews shouldn't be looking for a house to hide in but running towards the border and out of the country. The same as a gazelle that runs from a lion, it doesn't hide, it runs as far away as it can to live another day.

To live another day. These are the four words.

And as I said before , the parent isn't forced to enter the service. He/she can choose at what point to enter. The 27th birthday is just the minimum age, nothing more.

Starred.

reply to post by Jepic


Escaping Germany and her occupied lands was no easy task, and I would think that desperate times call for desperate measures; an ostracized and persecuted people will shamelessly act to further their own survival. The Jews cannot be blamed for clinging to life.

Nazi Germany aside, I think that the opposite of what you suggest should be true; if you have children, you should not be allowed to serve in the military voluntarily, at least not until your children are past a certain age in their development that they are able to exert a decent amount of independence without your presence in their lives. I think the age for this in most boys is around 14, I would guess it is the similar with girls.

To paraphrase, if you have kids you have an obligation to be there for those kids, at least until they have somewhat matured and could be less affected developmentally by your death.

reply to post by Jepic


Actually I served 21 years and my thoughts are 180 degrees from yours.

I've seen 19 year old kids join with 2 kids and a wife. They walk in the door making what others earned after 4-6 years (if they are single). Add in the costs of feeding, housing, and general care for dependents and a "family" soldier costs the same as three single soldiers.

Go back to the days when you had to be an NCO to live off base and do not allow people with dependents to join the military. That one idea alone would save the military 1/3 of it's budget (above board at least).

*** Bloodlines are a romanticized notion - but honestly, not everyone needs to be breeding ***

ETA - I do not want to over generalize this, but I saw a lot of soldiers that were squeamish about risks in combat because of their family back home. Not all by any stretch, but enough to piss me off almost daily. Are single soldiers worth less?

Originally posted by Jepic

That's true. Also in my homeland during the times of ancient greece it was seen as the duty of every person to marry have children and raise a family. The importance of that seems to be lost in modern times. It's a pity. Maybe if things in that aspect returned to the way it was in the past there wouldn't be so many people that feel depressed, lonely and lost nowadays.

Maybe the population explosion we've had in the past couple of centuries has something to do with that.

Not everyone wants to start a family, and some people should not breed.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Jepic

 

I never thought about it that way before, it is interesting.
And you're right, if I get smoked, that's it for my family. The buck stops here.

But then what would people like me do outside of the military?
I would most likely be dead or in prison by now, or dead in prison.

I think it should stay as it is. It's an understood voluntary risk, and shouldn't be arbitrarily taken away from us. Whatever will be, will be.

Glad to see that you agree with me if even somewhat.

For stuff that you could do prior to entering the force on your 27th birthday is basically what I said to a previous poster, make a family. Unless you have a type of reproductive impairment then you should be allowed to enter the military as soon as you wish.

Star for you btw.

Sometimes I forget...

edit on 7/5/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

Make a family while in the military, it's a lot cheaper that's for sure. My three kids cost me a total of $70 and change and that was to pay for the hospital "food". One was a breech/C section so mom had to stay a couple extra days.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Jepic

 

Escaping Germany and her occupied lands was no easy task, and I would think that desperate times call for desperate measures; an ostracized and persecuted people will shamelessly act to further their own survival. The Jews cannot be blamed for clinging to life.

Nazi Germany aside, I think that the opposite of what you suggest should be true; if you have children, you should not be allowed to serve in the military voluntarily, at least not until your children are past a certain age in their development that they are able to exert a decent amount of independence without your presence in their lives. I think the age for this in most boys is around 14, I would guess it is the similar with girls.

To paraphrase, if you have kids you have an obligation to be there for those kids, at least until they have somewhat matured and could be less affected developmentally by your death.

You know what, you have a better point. It makes sense that you should only be allowed to join once your kids are past the age that you mentioned. It is sensible.

Starred.

P.S.: You also right in regards to the scenario in nazi germany. It is a dilemma.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Jepic

 

Actually I served 21 years and my thoughts are 180 degrees from yours.

I've seen 19 year old kids join with 2 kids and a wife. They walk in the door making what others earned after 4-6 years (if they are single). Add in the costs of feeding, housing, and general care for dependents and a "family" soldier costs the same as three single soldiers.

Go back to the days when you had to be an NCO to live off base and do not allow people with dependents to join the military. That one idea alone would save the military 1/3 of it's budget (above board at least).

*** Bloodlines are a romanticized notion - but honestly, not everyone needs to be breeding ***

ETA - I do not want to over generalize this, but I saw a lot of soldiers that were squeamish about risks in combat because of their family back home. Not all by any stretch, but enough to piss me off almost daily. Are single soldiers worth less?

edit on 7-5-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

I don't agree with the fact that those servicemen are earning more than other servicemen. They should all have the same salary.

In regards to the dependents issue. The servicemen should be earning enough money to account for the offspring and for themselves.

Bloodlines are real. We all have one that goes back a long time ago. As for breeding, I believe everyone should have a wife and kids to love and be loved. We are humans. Love is the name of the game.

Single soldiers are absolutely not worth less. In fact I believe they are worth more because they don't have a child or children which means that if they die, it's adios forever. That's why I would rather not have them in the armed services where they are valid military targets.

By the way I admire the fact that you served in the armed services for 21 years nonetheless. Star for having a good point too.

reply to post by Jepic


It is ridiculous to exclude someone based on their family status.
Some military members rely heavily on having a family with children as a way to get through what they do.

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by Jepic

That's true. Also in my homeland during the times of ancient greece it was seen as the duty of every person to marry have children and raise a family. The importance of that seems to be lost in modern times. It's a pity. Maybe if things in that aspect returned to the way it was in the past there wouldn't be so many people that feel depressed, lonely and lost nowadays.

Maybe the population explosion we've had in the past couple of centuries has something to do with that.

Not everyone wants to start a family, and some people should not breed.

The population explosion is a good thing in my opinion. Population is not a problem, it's its values and health that are the problem.

For example let's look at Japan. 130 million people on that Island but their social norms and respect for each other is top notch as seen during the Tsunami in 2011. The people were helping each other out and the kids were the first priority. Few if any were being selfish and looting or vandalising. It's a good thing!

"...and some people should not breed." With all due respect I find that comment distasteful and hateful. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a family. It's how we came this far. Sure we made mistakes but that is a given. Everything in nature makes mistakes.