FODA, I'm pretty sure you're just joking but I'll say it anyway: If we all thought like that there would be no contracts banning nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and you could purchase a gun in every street corner. Is that what you want?
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I meant it on a countries vs countries level. The US totally ignores UN decisions when it's convenient to them. They agree when they want to. You can't just abandon defense, that'd be the same as saying "ok, let USA own the world and be the world police".
Finland could easily get along with a considerably smaller army than it has now. If a war were to break out now, not even 1/4 of the men would be called to fight. That everyone has to serve is total bullsh*t and exists only because there are old fashioned politicians sitting in the parliament (and the fact that there are still WW2 veterans around is a contributing factor as well). I'm not saying we abandon defense, just make serving voluntary. It is a solution that could actually work in practice, it's not just utopistic pacifist-babble.
EDIT: And of course making civilian service the same length as armed service would be the next best thing.
No, I haven't, but that section you linked to seems about as utopian as you can get. Of the working population of the earth, how many people do you think (a) actually like what they're doing and (b) wouldn't voluntarily accept more money for what they're doing? Using the definition given on that page, and the statistics that I've seen about the questions just listed, it would appear that most working people are in a situation of slavery.
If you want to serve your country you should do civilian service which is basically a year of free labour for the country.
I thought that too, but someone told me that actually civil service kills most of the market in the same business, so it's as bad as military service. I'm no economist though, so I can't back that one up.
Also, what I meant to say earlier fits really well with what jimsfriend posted. You're given a choice, then you ignore that choice and choose neither, go to jail for it, and then want international human rights organisation to free you.
Btw. in israel they did have equal military service, both men and women had to serve, so the expample is there.
Schneelocke:
The thing that irritates me is that just because it's military it's ok to be all against it. If everyone except a few have to spend a few months of their lives to do military service it's ok to be all against it, to nitpick on the alternative and to sign petitions for those who don't even want that.
What about tax return? Over the time of your life you spend the same time doing your tax return, most but not all people have to do it, and the alternative (not doing it) is less pleasant than doing it, and whatever you choose, it's fine with the officials. I've never seen someone making such a ruckus there (and that analogy went surprisingly well...).
PS: Don't get me wrong, I could've spent those 10 months better, but I don't feel like I was violated my human rights or anything...
No, I haven't, but that section you linked to seems about as utopian as you can get. Of the working population of the earth, how many people do you think (a) actually like what they're doing and (b) wouldn't voluntarily accept more money for what they're doing? Using the definition given on that page, and the statistics that I've seen about the questions just listed, it would appear that most working people are in a situation of slavery.
You completely misunderstood it. (a) Everyone who works voluntarily prefers working to not working, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. (b) They are working for what they would voluntarilly accept, not less (technically they would accept more, but that's obviously not what it meant.)
(a) Everyone who works voluntarily prefers working to not working, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
I wasn't arguing about their preference for work but about their preference for the kind of work that they are doing. The way I interpret that point on that page is that the people are being forced to do tasks that they would prefer not to do, not that they are being forced to work when they do not want to work. For example, being forced to work in construction when one would rather be a teacher.
Bob A wrote:
(technically they would accept more, but that's obviously not what it meant.)
I didn't find it so obvious from what I read there.
Ok, Kyrsimys. I've spoken with President Bush and he agrees that the conditions in Finland are deplorable. He believes the only logical course of action is to invade Finland and liberate the Finnish people from their oppressive regime. What with all the people calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, Bush sees it as a win-win situation if the US redeploys all of its troops into Finland for a few years. Operaatio Suomivapauttaminen is a go!
Launching from three main bases of operations in Stockholm, Tallinn, and Murmansk, 12 batallions will be airdropped into strategic positions throughout Finland.
Three batallions will secure the northern borders with Sweden and Norway, after which they will drive down the length of the country to quell insurgent uprisings in the sparsely populated northern and central regions.
Five batallions will drive straight towards the primary strategic target – Kerava – where they will secure NESVideos headquarters and hope to apprehend international criminal and TAS mastermind Bisqwit, dead or alive.
Four batallions which specialize in fjord-fighting will brave the harsh coastal terrain to focus on the secondary strategic target – Turku – where they hope to capture international ladykiller Brushy.
After decapitating the dictatorial TAS regime, remaining forces will be launched against Helsinki, where Finland's puppet government resides.
Four batallions which specialize in fjord-fighting will brave the harsh coastal terrain to focus on the secondary strategic target – Turku – where they hope to capture international ladykiller Brushy.
Launching from three main bases of operations in Stockholm, Tallinn, and Murmansk, 12 batallions will be airdropped into strategic positions throughout Finland.
Well, since they're coming from Tallinn, do you reckon I could order a few cases of beer to drop around here?
(I did my 13 months for the country.)
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Ok, Kyrsimys. I've spoken with President Bush and he agrees that the conditions in Finland are deplorable.
Wow, I didn't know there was oil in Finland. Or maybe he decided to invade our country because of our enormous storages filled with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Yeah, that must be it.
Oh, and nice plan, looks like you've got all corners covered.
EDIT: >_<;
