10 policies you would make if you were the president

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SuperSonic, Aug 17, 2019.

  1. That's why Australia is doing so well. I agree with what you said about making them contribute. Conscription or some sort of national service should help them learn the language faster and integrate better from the start. It's also an extra thing to put on your resume.
     
    SEABEE and Baklava like this.
  2. Australia USED to make them contribute. Both sets of my grandparents came here on working schemes, major infrastructure projects..
    In the last 15-20 years, we just get Sudanese, and muslims from all over the place who refuse to work and have multiple wives, and sit on welfare.

    I'm all for immigration if they are made to work and build up the country. Especially here. Our population is so small, and the country is so large.... infrastructure is super expensive.

    All of Austalias immigration in the past has been from people who have proven to be hard workers and business builders; Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese (eventually), Croatians, Irish, even the first lot of Lebanese.
     
    ETB4U likes this.
  3. Uhg, typical white nationalist expecting people to pull their share.
     
    Aych Es Vee likes this.
  4. Labor-intensive contribution is a bit outdated, unfortunately, but there are many ways in which an immigrant can contribute. Conscription is a good option because it's something non-immigrants have to do as well, and the discipline/culture/routine acts as the melting pot. But things like teaching (other immigrants, for example), taking care of the elderly, volunteering to help the poor, the hungry or the homeless, and so on - are all viable options. The hard part is building and maintaining the infrastructure to provide them with accommodation, food and other services while they fulfill their duties. Israel, for example, already has that infrastructure in the army, but has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to non-Jewish immigrants. The army maintains a certain level of respect to the Jewish holidays, rules and traditions, such as kosher food and keeping Shabbat (where needed and possible), and even has a conversion program (i.e turning into an "official" Jew) for those who want to, usually residents who are half Jewish or something. But letting in immigrants from various countries, cultures and ultimately religions can be a problem in that aspect.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  5. mandatory conscription in the style of Israel is a great idea imo. If you are not willing to defend the nation you wish to be a part of, then why are you there?
     
    DIGGS likes this.
  6. 1. ban all circular pizza -- pizza will now be triangular, square or any other polygonal form -- but will not have more sides than an octagon because then it starts to look too much like a circle. You see, I cover all loopholes;

    2. subsidize hormones and genetic research so men can grow breasts, so this can reduce their rapey instincts and help reduce the burden of breast feeding;

    3. more democracy everywhere and at every inch, at every level, at every second, so we have to choose everything and micromanage every aspect; more democracy good, this can go no wrong. Exemple, Airbus A380 heavy asks for a detour because the plane is on fire, well though luck because we have to hold a referendum on that first. No flaming jumbo jet be landin on my county;

    4. guns are part of the american culture and ownership is enshrined in the constitution, so gun laws stay the same. However, we enact strict ammunition laws, and heavily tax bullets so they cost the same as a car. Good luck being though guy now mr. machine gun;

    5. put into action a plan to submit every natural born americans to the citizenship test; it's estimated that majority will fail and be deported to Mexico; the influx of mexicans will then keep population at same level as before, immigration problems solved;

    6. pass legislation defining Netflix as a form of education; for example, 18,000 hours of Netflix is equivalent to a bachelor of arts. Some degrees however, still need to be granted by universities. A medical certificate can be given by a university after the medical school curates 20,000 hours of medical dramas from Netflix for the student to watch. End result: a high proportion of the population will be highly educated;

    7. Make health care free. I mean, this one is not even a joke, just copy every freaking country out there that does the same you **** simians.
     
    Veyronman likes this.
  7. Just because I'm working in Germany, doesn't mean that I'm suddenly filled with an overwhelming desire to defend the Reich from Bolshevist-Jewish influence...

    Defense as a word is also overused when referring to military action or servicemen, even by parties clearly fighting an offensive war, or when intervening in a more ambiguous conflict.

    How conscription would fit in a non-conscript military organisation (most of not all NATO-members) is also a question. Most western countries also enable military service exclusively for citizens, the FFL being an exception. As far as I know, the United States doesn't recruit non-citizens like it did before. Non-citizens are likewise not eligible for service in the Bundeswehr and FDF (a conscript force mainly).
     
  8. In most NATO states, the military is quite opposed to conscription. The doctrine of a wealthy military is often based around significant technical skill with their tools and weapons, and of strict cohesive behavior in combat. Essentially, doctrine is developed under the assumption that a technologically superior military is pointless without a professional enlisted class. Wealthy militaries, in turn, have limited utility for conscripts, and so this cultural / "service" idea is the only thing really supporting it.

    This aside from 'defense' as a euphemism for war.

    The idea of conscription as a tool for indoctrination and assimilation is at once both completely obvious and valueless. The military is an organization strongly centred on indoctrination and assimilation, and requires both to fulfill its mandate, so it certainly has the capability to do so. But its program is to fulfill its mandate, not its host nation. What logic is it that the military culture ought to be the dominant culture of the state? The military serves the state, never the other way around, and I don't think there's any reason to think that using its tools in this way are in the interest of the state at large.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  9. Except for Israel.
     
  10. I think national service is a great idea, military or not. I see why israel focuses on defense. I think the US should have compulsory national service at 18, especially considering how big and diverse the country is. Send people all over mixed with people from all over. Do infrastructure projects, border patrol, community projects.
     
  11. Chris Rock had this idea 20 years ago!
     
  12. The sheer cost of military training is an issue even in relatively small professional forces. It's always a compromise between how well-trained one's troops are, how many troops one can field, how advanced the fielded equipment is, how much of the equipment is serviceable, and how much one is willing to spend on a military.

    The United States military expenditure is ridiculously huge. Nonetheless, flight hours, missiles fired, rounds spent are all limited. These problems are exacerbated when the amount of personnel is increased in relation to the budget. How useful is a pilot who barely gets to fly in a plane that was obsolete in the 80's? How useful are infantrymen who have "simulated" combat with "bang" sounds in order to save small-arms ammunition, let alone operated more complicated equipment in realistic scenarios? How good is the leadership and morale of such a force?

    Even infantry weapons cost a ton of money; one javelin fired is a 6 years' salary for a terrible job (uber driver, anal sex slave, condom packer) or 3 years' for a decent one (standard office person, executioner, beekeeper). I assume that employing someone at a terrible job (coloured people usually do those) for a few years is bound to yield better results than letting that same person fire a single ATGM.

    Conscription remains an attractive alternative for countries that want to field a certain amount of brigades/divisions on paper as a deterrence. How quickly those forces could be mobilised and how well would they perform in reality remains an open question. I'm not convinved that a Finnish dentist on holiday in Thailand would be:

    a) Mobilised quickly enough to even take part in the conflict, unless the Russians would be courteous enough to let FDF know in advance

    b) Really that much of an asset because he was trained in the late 90's for a weapons system that has been decommissioned in 2008

    Sometimes it's easier to to pretend than thoroughly revise defense and foreign policy.
     

  13. [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  14. wow see how happy and strong they are

    that could be us but we playin
     
    ETB4U and Veyronman like this.
  15. He would be a good meat shield.
     
  16. Maxim, Dreyse and Chassepot, your meat shield is bien tot.

    I thought this was already established during the century before last century.
     
  17. My thighs are nearly as thick as a Chinese forearm.
     
    ETB4U likes this.
  18. i wish I was that pipe wrench :p
     
  19. It only existed if it had a Twitter account.
     
  20. It already is. Western states' culture, like the United States, is largely dominated and influenced by the military anyway.

    My point is that if you're going to have a cohesive nation state, you might as well enact conscription just like Israel. Otherwise there is no point.
     
  21. #46 Tree Fitty, Sep 14, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2019
    Conscription referring to eligible citizens obviously.

    But yes the militarization of the populace carries with it some drawbacks, however if a state wishes to remain cohesive it is a good option. This would obviously not work well in the United States as its probability of efficacy is probably higher in more homogenous nations. Still, the United States has attributes that would favor such a policy.
     
  22. That is the opposite of the case. There are some states - particularly single party states - where the military dominates social and political culture. Some in Africa. Some in Central and Eastern Asia. Some all over. None of these are Western states. The culture of Western states differ to such an immense degree from their military culture that their militaries offer courses on how to adjust to civilian culture when they leave service. This has to do with the immense level of security Western states posses, the all-volunteer nature of their militaries, and huge wealth, such that they can afford to fight to wars at the same time for over a decade and have that not affect the everyday lives of regular citizens. I have no clue what confusion of ideas or what mistake of observation could have possibly lead you to compare the radical commercial individualism and radical individual expression of popular Western culture, and the 'stay in your lane' mentality of military culture, and call one dominated by the other. To be generous to you, its a disingenuous, malicious distortion of reality. But I think more likely it's just ignorant and asinine.

    Your second paragraph has absolutely no logical connections given between your clauses. Given the post you just replied to, the idea that "conscription" follows from "nation state" inherently and obviously with no need for elaboration, description, or argument is arrogant. Hell, even China - an authoritarian state that values uniformity, conformity, and stability over all else, and has no qualms about using the military as a social instrument - has found no need for conscription in the way you describe. You have given no argument, and addressed no argument. Have some self-respect and take your own ideas seriously, or, failing that, have the self-awareness to ponder why you can't be bothered.
     
  23. Keep telling yourself these things. You eat up the official narrative (propaganda) as if it is gospel. All of those things you mentioned are no longer true.

    The facts speak for themselves. We live in a highly militarized society where its influence permeates every facet of our culture.
     

  24. Finland and Israel are both quasi-Western non-NATO states where conscription is the norm. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries in every direction except the mediterranean, some of which are failed or near-failed states. In addition to that, you have an unknown amount of hostile palestinians living within the borders of Israel and on the West Bank & Gaza Strip.

    It's noteworthy that none of the potential adversaries Israel shares a border with, is a very competent military actor. However, the multiple frozen conflicts and the overall terrible stability of the region require continual military presence in the forms of policing, border patrols, checkpoints, crowd control, etc.. These tasks are well-suited for conscripts with the help of enlisted instructors, and paying a decent salary for all those man-hours would not be cheap.

    Finland is surrounded by friendly forest-people, an elk and some squirrels. But it shares ~1200 km of border with an embittered ex-superpower that is sometimes unpredictable. Any military conflict would almost certainly be linked to third-party developments, like it was in 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the ensuing invasion of Poland, the Baltic states and an attempt to invade Finland had, in addition to the expansionist nature of Stalin's USSR and the comintern, a realpolitik aspect: Stalin wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a repeat of the 1918 events when the German army advanced rapidly through the Baltics and closing in on Petrograd, forced the SFSR to sign an unfavourable peace treaty and relocate the capital to Moscow, where it remains to this day.

    Any invasion of Finland by Russia, following or preceding a conflict with NATO, would either be stealthy and subversive or swift and overwhelming. A slow-reacting force mainly composed of reservists that needs at least days to mobilise to barely-adequate levels of operational readiness, is ill-suited to defend against such attacks. It's a bit difficult to start organising a defense when your air force ceased to exist in 30 minutes, there are no communications and all the key strategic points (airfields, harbours, certain stretches of highways, etc.) have been turned into VDV theme parks.
     
  25. Could it be, by any chance, that you live in Best Korea?
     

Share This Page