Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.
Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.
Uh, people choose when they are 18 whether they want to go to civil service or army. If they choose army, they will obviously be drafted if the Russia ever attacks, unless they have later had themselves removed from the drafting lists. To make a decision on how many soldiers we’ll need for the defence is actually an extremely good example of what kind of decisions absolutely cannot be made by a broad public vote. You need a military person relaying secret strategical information to the Ministers of Parliament. It cannot be relayed to all 5.6 million people without compromising the information. If such an amount of people knows about our military strategy, so does the Russia.
So, at least for that kind of decisions something else must be at place. Maybe there could be a restricted set of representatives that are allowed to vote in case we are attacked and you could then choose which one of those will handle your vote in this precise case – before they have talked with the military specialists.
Paid young adult mandatory military training/service is an entirely reasonable policy where if pay is high enough, enough old people will force the young to do it. Even mandatory “go die in vietnam because domino theory will destroy capitalism” can have more old people force the young into draft. Though obviously, exposing those reasons to kill our youth makes the vote less favourable.
Our military slave numbers are public.
The extreme cost of maintaining offensive and diminishment operations is the first thing likely to be eliminated in favour of cash dividends to voters. There can be constititutional limits on what can never be voted against. Legitimate defensive needs/preparation of the nation would be covered. Funding a proxy war on Russia or Palestine or Israel would come from personal individual donations rather than forced social budget support. Constitutional limits against offensive war propaganda are just as important as defense preparation.
There needs to be an administrator (President) to respond quickly to emergencies. Review of adminstrator behaviour after emergencies is a liquid democracy process. You’re right that genuinely required secrets (as opposed to frequent national security classified corruption and evil) would require private judicial review, but liquid democracy would select the judges.
I don’t think we could implement your suggestion. Our wartime maximum strength is about 700 000 soldiers and our population is around 5 600 000. That means, in wartime, one out of 8 inhabitants will be in different forms of military service. There’s no way we could pay an adequate salary for that many soldiers. And, that number is still a third less than how many soldiers Ukraine has, and Ukraine is just barely able to keep the Russia from advancing.
I’m not sure why you’re taking Vietnam war as an example, as it’s an offensive war and for example Finland has no plans to do anything like that.
Yes, but the speed at which one can recruit soldiers in an emergency is not public.
This is irrelevant, because most countries do not have any offensive operations to maintain in the first place.
You may not know what the phrase “proxy war” means, because in this context it’s rather insulting. And I do not think you meant to insult me or others. But do tell, why and how would Finland wage an offensive war?
Yeah, this is getting a bit off topic, but you’re making wild claims that would really need some clarification.
The US instituted a mandatory draft to fight that war.
Finland joining NATO is joining offensive military operations to diminish Russia. Finland was much much safer before. That media propaganda is permitted to claim Russia is not defending itself, or has no right to object to demonic supremacist attitude that it needs to be destroyed/divided, and privatized for pittances to US dominated financial interests, is an extreme affront to reality and humanity. Any Finnish media that says anything to the contrary could be nationalized for more pro human pro Finland prosperity mandates, and it is only liquid democracy that has a chance to not allow CIA bribed/threatened politicians to not pillage or suicide Finland for CIA diminishment value. The only threat to Finland exists from joining axis of evil against Russia. Liquid democracy offers chance to appeal to non suicidal/stupid to preserve Finland and citizen prosperity.
Yes, Finland security does require citizen training in guerilla sniper tactics for self defense. No, that security is destroyed by joining axis of demonism. CIA can compromise every politician and media in your country ultra cheaply. Not possible under liquid democracy.
But that was an offensive war, and most countries don’t do those.
Depends on how you define “to be safe”. The Russia had declared that its goal is to return the borders of the Russian empire. That sounded a bit scary, but we shrugged it off, because it would require a war and that would hurt the Russia so much that such a war would be idiocy and therefore will not happen.
In case you don’t know where the borders of the Russian Empire were, they included for example these:
The Russia has declared that it wants to make all of those countries part of the Russian Federation.
So, we were not in danger, because the Russia would not be stupid enough to begin a war in Ukraine or in Finland, as it was clear that it would hurt the Russia’s economy more than it could ever be of use to it. The Finnish defence doctrine was based on the concept of credible defence. We were told in school that “they can attack us and they could most likely even take over all of Finland, but our army is able to incur such big losses to them that they will not want to do that.”
But then, it turned out that the Russia does not care about losses.
So, we found out two things:
You can say that we were not in danger because we didn’t know that we are in danger. And in some way that’s true. But, once we found out that we are in danger, then, well, we were.
Since the doctrine of credible defence went down the drain, meaning that Finland effectively did not have a defence that is able to protect it, what else than joining NATO do you suggest we should have done to gain a level of defence capability able to keep the Russia out of Finland? Name one other option that we had.
Your idea that the Russia has a right to defend itself by preemptively taking over Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, half of Poland, Ukraine, and Moldova is, well… It would be impolite saying what it makes you look like.
EDIT: And of course this is relevant: In January 2022 the support for joining NATO was around 35 %. No “let’s join NATO” propaganda had been made at all, but in May 2022 the support for joining NATO was around 80 %. The only thing that caused this was that people around Finland saw that what we had been taught about the Russia in our schools was crap. It was part of the school curriculum to make sure every Finn knows that the Russia is not going to attack us, with an explanation of why not. And it seemed to make sense. And everyone had that in their heads. And then… We saw what the Russia is doing in Ukraine, and it was clear from that alone that shit, we are fucked! That meant, 80 % of the people decided they wanted a new kind of safety against the Russia.
Maybe you can say that they told that in our schools for about 40 years just so that in 2025 Finland could join NATO. But… Well, you know.
In May 2022 you could go to any bar to talk with random people and it would be clear that the assumption was “we are joining NATO. There is no other option.” There was no real dialogue about it, because basically everybody was of the same opinion. For the abovementioned reasons.
That is an outright falsehood that would be exposed in democracy. Even idealist “Reconstitution of USSR” implies zero military threat to non-deranged non-propagandists.
They of course care about losses. Hopefully, you are not taking Ukrainian claims about their losses with any credibility. Not submitting to demonic evil is a very high priority for Russia. Dead, nuclear incinerated, Finns being more useful to world than the territory of Finland should be your primary concern with your rulers and the lies you repeated from them.
All of it based on programming that the US is not 100% responsible for nazification of Ukraine and starting the war they wanted 100% started. The corrupt tyranny of Finland that dooms its people to destruction based on this genuinely absurd lie, has corruption so strong in their CIA devotion, that Trump’s extortion and 5% of GDP as military spending US tribute gives them 0 pause in their fascism over you. Similar brainwashing levels apply to Canada, but we’re lucky to not pose enough of a threat in our evil that requires nuclear annihilation of our population.