"The people who volunteer their lives to service to any nation are performing a service for that nation that none can match."
It's superlatives like that, that makes talking about reducing America's military presence very difficult. I think it becomes more than just empty rhetoric and leads to a pretty militaristic zeitgeist.

So for those who disagree with that sentiment...
Who else can provide that service to their nation?

If you don't have a different answer, maybe the superlative is correct.

Carbage collectors.. without them, the country (especially the US) would be full a litter and completely unlivable before any war would destroy the country. And that's just off the top of my head!

*Garbage

@Jeff Kuta

Many, many times in world history, militaries have been deployed by powerful individuals within a nation in a way that is surely against the best long-term interests of that nation.

I'm not suggesting someone else can be more selfless.

I'm suggesting that the service is not always "for that nation," and whether it is or not in some specific case is worth considering.

I believe that doctors, teachers, writers, engineers, nurses, and on, and on, and on are performing great services for my nation. If they do it smartly and compassionately, it certainly matches any service a soldier does.

Then don't call it a superlative. It's a tautology. Soldiers do the soldiering. That's just what they do. And every stable society needs them as long as there are violent rivals. You can't equate the roles at all. Barbarians at the gates...

"I believe that doctors, teachers, writers, engineers, nurses, and on, and on, and on are performing great services for my nation. If they do it smartly and compassionately, it certainly matches any service a soldier does."
Really, you think you can draw a comparison.....one has nothing to do with the other, moron

And it's hilarious to me that people out there complain about the military when they love the game of Diplomacy. Some people choose to set the game aside and make it their reality. Get out from behind your keyboards and live.

@Jeff Kuta whether the statement is a superlative or not, it is a very strong assertion and it makes it difficult to consider this case:

"The people who volunteer their lives to service to any nation are performing a service for [X] that none can match."

Where X is not always "the nation" and not always a just cause.

Jeff, I interpreted what he said as that their can't be matched in greatness or importance. Yes, it's literally not matched by other services. But neither is coopering.

I play diplomacy because it's a great board with very original mechanics. Not because I fantasize about being involved in the military.

"Just cause" is not relevant. Your logic is unsound trying to substitute "X" where none existed before.

Since you are considering the reserves instead of active service compare the contracts for army, marines, and air force. The information I got is out of date, but the air force reserves guaranteed that you could sleep at night during training and the others were allowed to wake you up at night for field exercises in addition to day time activities.

Air Force takes an extremely excessive amount of training. From what I've heard from a friend of mine that's becoming an Air Force officer (or training to become one), it's much more time-intensive than other departments. That's for someone that doesn't have a private pilot's license yet, of course, and didn't go to school in training for the academy.

For those that keep on asking "well have you considered this" - yes. Sandgoose undoubtedly has, and if he's since told his partner about this potential decision of his, he's undoubtedly been asked these questions a hundred times.

the conscription for vietnam was not a simple everyone had to serve in the same way so doesn't follow.

also, bo, 'excessive', why is it excessive? i fear that you're basic vocabulary may be letting you down. and, no, sandgoose hasn't considered all these things, unless he is an idiot or immoral.

or, to be fair to him, brainwashed and lacking the ability to fight the pervading values in society.

@Jeff Kuta

Nah, everything I said makes sense.

"The people who volunteer their lives to service to any nation are performing a service for the nation that none can match."

This *assertion* is being used to support the idea that joining the military is virtuous. I'm pointing out that this assertion might not *always* true. That's the logic. (If you want to insist that this assertion is always true, please demonstrate! It would be interesting to see.)

On top of that, I'm pointing out that this *assertion* is often put forth so strongly that it makes it difficult to introduce new possibilities, such as "The people who volunteer their lives to service to any nation [of which Nazi Germany was one] are performing a service for Hitler's psychotic ambition that none can match."

YOU MADE ME GODWIN THE THREAD, JEFF KUTA.

But, I guess you also proved my point by clinging to one baseless assertion so tightly that you're trying to stop people from introducing other equally plausible possibilities.

@Sandgoose @Commander Byron I am *not* drawing an equivalence between the U.S. at the present and anyone else; nor am I suggesting your decisions are not correct. I just don't like the statement "The people who volunteer their lives to service to any nation are performing a service for the nation that none can match" - I don't think that's always true, even if it sometimes is.

@SD,

" the conscription for vietnam was not a simple everyone had to serve in the same way so doesn't follow."

And universal mandatory conscription would be? If there were a war and the military were far larger than was necessary for a war (which it would be, for most wars, if there were universal conscription), then there would still only be moderate odds of ending up in the war.

I am not saying a universal conscription would end wars, (I think it would have a very small affect on the number of wars, if any) but vietnam isn't really fair evidence. I do favour universal conscription, but for other reasons

@Soc Dis ... excessive in that you have to learn to fly the most powerful and most agile planes in the world. A private pilot license to fly a Cessna already takes a long, long time, and a ton of training. That's not to take away from other military departments because they are all composed of incredibly disciplined and rigorous units, but the Air Force has that extra layer.

As for this line - "and, no, sandgoose hasn't considered all these things, unless he is an idiot or immoral" - I don't think I follow you.

"This *assertion* is being used to support the idea that joining the military is virtuous."

Nobody did that here.

@Jeff Kuta

Commander Byron offered that assertion as part of the line of reasoning that led him to join the military. I did do a little reading between the lines to infer that he thought his decision was virtuous. (And I'm not saying his decision is not virtuous; I'm just disagreeing that this assertion is true. His decision, separately from this assertion, could be virtuous for many other reasons.)

It would be weird to think that he was using the assertion to support a decision he considered to be un-virtuous, but undertook anyway.

but why is that excessive? excessive being too much.

okay, so, the only reasons (not mutually exclusive) for someone wanting to join the marines right now are: they haven't considered everything, they are immoral, they are stupid, they have fallen to accept the pervading views of society, or it's the only job they can get/way to fund college. if sandgoose isn't immoral etc. then he hasn't considered everything.

For what other reason would a nation ask you to lay down your life except for its preservation and that of its citizens? They are very clearly "performing a service for the nation that none can match."

To me, that's an apt description of military service. There's no casus belli being put forth by the President to lure young men with shouts of Death or Glory. Enlisting (or going through officer candidate school) in an all volunteer armed service is a pretty gutsy thing to do no matter how you look at it. It is a decision that is unparalleled in many ways. He didn't try to cajole anyone else to make that decision. That in itself is honorable. He knows the magnitude of his decision, and those who never seriously consider it can't know what it may mean.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of "right" vs "good" vs "virtuous." But people piling on with anti-military rhetoric, when there isn't any war-mongering going on is kind of beside the point.

And, I get that many, *many* people here can still have their selective service number called. It lurks in the back of your mind. I'm well past that myself, but it's worth considering that people who join the military have many reasons to do so that have nothing to do with wanting to kill, but rather the opposite.

@Jeff Kuta

"people who join the military have many reasons to do so that have nothing to do with wanting to kill"

I agree.

"For what other reason would a nation ask you to lay down your life except for its preservation and that of its citizens?"

Are you kidding? How about to distract from economic difficulty (Argentina in the Falklands)? To indulge a dictator's quest for glory? There are loads of other reasons.

CommanderByron: I gave a source. I wasn't going to provide a source, but I happened upon one. Today, >50% of National Guard members have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's an extremely high figure which probably rivals that of the official branches. Once you're in the system, they can send you whereever they want for however long they want.

"okay, so, the only reasons (not mutually exclusive) for someone wanting to join the marines right now are: they haven't considered everything, they are immoral, they are stupid, they have fallen to accept the pervading views of society, or it's the only job they can get/way to fund college. if sandgoose isn't immoral etc. then he hasn't considered everything."

Are you really so closed-minded? I expected more than that. I do not approve of everything the military does, but that doesn't mean I can't be prideful in my nation and don't want to offer up my body and potentially my life to serve it. If you don't share that pride, great. You don't have to. You don't have to risk your life for something you don't want to do. But Sandgoose's life is not yours, it's his, and if he wants to put it on the line to serve something he believes in, so be it.

Good

Oops I had like a whole thing I typed and when I hit send it deleted all but the first word fml

Perhaps I am, but I do still respect the vets in general/feel sorry for them. I also believe everyone should have to serve. I also would not stop anyone joining if they want to. That doesn't change my opinion on joining though. You can be prideful serving your nation, and you can be willing to offer up your body aand potentially your life to serve it, but why now, what wars? Maybe you should watch born on the fourth of july or something ;).

Would you be happy to join and serve for all your arguments, if, hypothetically, you knew for a fact, the only war you would serve in would be literally an imperialistic war, to take resources from a poorer country, and would involve the deaths of 100,000s of civilians? How would such a war be 'serving your country'? I think the country would be better served by people trying to stop the country committing the atrocity.