 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US
|
|
|
Subject: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU Date: 01 May 02 - 09:09 AM And its one two three, what are we fighting for? Whooppee! Don't ask me I don't give a damn Next stop is the Universal Training and Service act! Hiya Kids, Hiya Hiya (in the words of Froggie from the Andy Devine show) Well, twanging our magic twangers (as fronggie used to do, get out the old banjos and marching shoes... This was sent to me this morning and may be of interest to those who followed the eariler thread on Religious Objection and compulsory military training... The Universal Training and Service Act, introduced in December, 2001, is so extreme that it is not expected to go anywhere. But it has changed the debate in Congress, and opens the door for someone to put forth a "more reasonable" draft proposal. On March 20, Hon. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a resolution which states, "that it is the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft, or any other form of compulsory military service in the US would be detrimental to the long term military interests of the US, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence." In a deliberate effort to make opposition to the draft a "mainstream" issue, Ron Paul cited Pentagon studies showing a draft is not necessary, and in his speech introducing the legislation pointed out how it could actually be detrimental to the military. He refered to opponents of the draft from a wide variety of political perspectives: Barry Goldwater, Bill Bradley, the ACLU, the National Taxpayers Union, Milton Friedman, as well as Ronald Reagan. Currently there are three co-sponsors: Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Patsy Mink (D-HI). While this resolution, if passed, would not prevent Congress from later initiating a draft, it is still strategically important because of how the debate in Congress could be framed. Having many cosponsors on this bill creates an atmosphere that makes reinstitution of the draft less likely. On one level, it appears that a resumption of the draft really isn't likely: the Pentagon claims that the "volunteer" military has been successful; it remembers the difficulty of dealing with conscripts and already has enough trouble dealing with "volunteers" who don't want to be there. The DOD's own studies from the '90's could not envision ANY scenario that would require a draft for military necessity. However, as the administration commits more US troops to more areas of conflict around the globe, they are beginning to be stretched thin. While mobilization plans call for utilizing the reserves before moving towards a draft, that has already been done. Congress is unpredictable these days, and the fervor to get everyone involved in supporting the "war on terrorism" opens up the possibility of a call for reinstituting the draft. Our strategy is to get as many co-sponsors as possible onto this proposed resolution. Anyone who signs on will be on record that they don't believe a draft is necessary or desirable. This could function as a hedge against future attempts to bring back the draft. It would also provide a core of congressional members who would presumably rise to speak against a return to the draft. Contact your member of Congress now, and urge him or her to sign on to H. Con. Res. 368! We want to get as many cosponsors as possible, as quickly as possible. Center on Conscience & War |
|
Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 01 May 02 - 01:29 PM Uh, and if we run out of volunteers, Larry? We just disband the armed services, and say to those who would attack us, please don't? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 02 - 01:52 PM Already did that Larry. I rarely agree with my rep or the senators here but they get their fare share of mail from me anyway. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Amergin Date: 01 May 02 - 02:01 PM well doug you are in no danger of getting drafted are you? |
|
Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Don Firth Date: 01 May 02 - 02:03 PM Any time we've really needed the military, plenty of volunteers have been there. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 02 - 02:05 PM You won't run out of volunteers in the case of a real threat, Doug, only in the case of a spurious one. Native Americans normally fought on a volunteer basis only. Leaders had to convince the warriors, through skillful oratory, that fighting was a good idea, and this had to be done before each battle was fought...they could not order their men to go and fight. That's freedom. That is grass roots democracy. If the rank and file of Indian warriors lost confidence in a war, they simply turned around and went home (as much of the Imperial Russian Army did in 1917), and their leader was finished, his prestige destroyed. *(But if they were attacked at home...everyone fought back! Better believe it. Women and children included.) Despite these freedoms (or more likely because of them) the Indians fought extremely well, although they usually lacked sufficient modern firearms and ammunition, not to mention heavier weapons like artillery. It was their lack of industrial technology and their vulnerability to new diseases which defeated them, not their lack of fighting ability. A civilization based on money, rigidly established hierarchical power, and procedural coercion at every level of life has difficulty understanding such a concept of freedom, and its people are more akin to sheep than to free human beings. Thus, they are drafted in time of war and sent off under someone else's control to the slaughter. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 May 02 - 02:26 PM I'm with Doug on this one. The truth is that, rose-colored memories notwithstanding, in times of grave crisis we (the USA) did NOT always get enough volunteers. The draft was absolutely essential in World War II, and I for one think we were right to fight that one (I am not alone in my opinion, by a long shot). I am a veteran of the all-volunteer military (USCG), and under most circumstances I think it is better than a military built partially of conscripts; it certainly does more to promote professionalism within the ranks. But there may well be times when we need to consider reviving the draft, and I don't see a lot of wisdom in trying to erect roadblocks today that will make it more difficult to do what is right when the time comes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Jim Krause Date: 01 May 02 - 02:28 PM Well said, Little Hawk! Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 02 - 02:50 PM Whistle Stop - In the case of World War II, or any great war of national survival...you are correct...a draft eventually becomes necessary under those circumstances in any modern society that is fully engaged in a war upon which its very survival depends...but those are extreme circumstances. We are not in such a circumstance at present. Not by a long shot. Let's hope it stays that way. When the need is truly desperate, no power on earth will stop any modern nation from instituting a draft, and I know that. But at present, when the USA has the firepower to easily devastate anyone it wants to at little cost (except Russia or China), and hardly lose a single soldier doing it...I see no need to move toward drafting Americans. This is just a case of people who like having a whole lot of power seeing a chance to have even more, when the public's guard is down due to fears about terrorism, and their normal vigilance regarding their own civil liberties can be eroded accordingly. When you give up a civil liberty, it is damned hard to ever get it back again. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 May 02 - 03:09 PM Little Hawk, I agree that we should not give up our civil liberties lightly, if at all. But as I understood the original posting, Congressman Paul was not asking that we institute a draft; he was asking that we take an affirmative step to make it more difficult to institute a draft if and when there is a need for it. Perhaps the former would not have been an appropriate response to current events, but the latter certainly is not. I don't think we need a draft right now, but given how quickly events can occur in the modern world, I think we should have the mechanisms in place to institute one with all due speed should the need arise. Of course, I would expect that to be done based on Constitutional processes undertaken by our elected officials, with all appropriate opportunities for public debate on the wisdom of the decision. Regards -- WS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 01 May 02 - 04:30 PM Well said, Whistle Stop, both posts. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 02 - 04:43 PM Ah, yes, I see what you mean, Whistle Stop. Point taken. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. Date: 01 May 02 - 04:46 PM I am personally in favour of the demilitarization of the United States as soon as possible, before it becomes even more like the Roman Empire. Also, the use in the U.S. of the military as a social service as a substitute for real social services in America is very weird. But National Service by all members of the society seems to me overall to be a better notion than a specialized military. One important function that it has served in many places is to get the classes to at least see each other up close. Another is to spread a generalized mild humour about the military -- the refusal to take the military seriously in Britain, for instance, is directly attributable to the experience of a draft army. This is a good thing: laughing at the military is very healthy for a democracy. Another reason for the draft is that the children of the rich should be shot at so that the country will take the decision to go to war more seriously. I think that if you have to have an army, then it should be a draft army. Of course you can have objectors, or doing national service in other ways (like the Dutch).... yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 01 May 02 - 05:21 PM As todays Washington Times reports, some of that special oratory to inspire warriors, was caught on tape, in Saudi Arabia. Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, who was heading up a recent two day telethon to raise 109 million for the Palestinian "martyrs" was caught in a solicitation which is quoted as "Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?" I'm sure that was pretty close to some of the less recorded speechs given by American Indian chiefs to their warriors, after all, most of their war "parties" were to subjegate other tribes, torture the male survivors, rape and enslave the women of the losing tribe, and steal the livestock. Frankly, I recall that much of the recorded speechs given by American Indian chiefs were to stop the young warriors from a typical night of rape and revenge on the local "vil". My feeling is that the Europeans who came later were simply better at "being Indian" than the Indians. All this to say that the draft procedure as now instituted, is really pretty cumbersome at this point, with Congress having full powers to debate endlessly, and if necessary, implement. We don't, IMO, need another procedural process, waiting in the cracks, for some twit in the minority, to attempt to enjoin through the courts, simply to offset what at that time, will be the clear consent of the governed, through their representatives. Finally, I have to say that Rep. McKinney (D Ga) is one of the most venal racist humans to ever draw a breath in the well of the Congress, and considering some of the scum that have inhabited that august body, it still is not saying too much. By their friends you will know them... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho Date: 01 May 02 - 06:17 PM And the draft precludes the pure professionals from taking the military and mis-using it. I like the idea of dissenting voices in the ranks. It ought to be EVERYONE that gets a chance at it though. And if one wants they can perform service in other arenas. VA Hospitals, local community service, trail building, lots of things. But no slack for the rich either.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth Date: 01 May 02 - 06:59 PM The Cynic in me asks if this concept of conscription should apply retrospectively to USA Presidents, past and present !!!. Funnily enough this was the subject of a debate last Monday at a meeting of the Hengoed Branch Labour Party (UK). Predictably those who had done 'National Service', or who were to old, or mdically disqualified (like Me) were for it. Those who feared the tour of duty in Afghanistan, or Ireland, and were young enough to face conscription, were against it. And equally Cynical, if you were rich enough, or well enough conected, you could find a safe posting or avoid it all together. - Ask G W Bush Jnr ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: ddw Date: 01 May 02 - 08:06 PM First, let me be clear on one thing; I hate nationalism -- anybody's nationalism. It ranks a close second to religion as the main "reason" men have devised to line up and kill each other. But since I'm not god I can't control that kind of thing, so I have to make do with the world as I find it. Since we've got nation states, I think the most reasonable thing to do is to implement an absolute national service. Everybody -- male, female, disabled, whatever -- enters at age 18 and finishes at 21 or 22. No exceptions for wealth, health or parental pull. The only consideration should be on mental and physical capabilities to determine what type of service a person renders -- military, social work, public works projects, whatever. I've always thought such a system would be good for the U.S., but I particularly recommend it for Canada. After the governments in Ottawa gutted CBC Radio, Air Canada, the RCMP musical ride and CN/CP rail, has no national institutions left except Hockey Night In Canada —— which ain't exactly a nation-builder. (OK, Little Hawk, they've got William Shatner, too, but that's cause they can't figure out how to get rid of him legally.) cheers, david
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 01 May 02 - 10:56 PM I see no reason to institute a draft so long as volunteers can fill the ranks of all the services. I would not support the proposed legislation, though, because IF there is a need to re-institue the draft, Congress should not be hampered in any way from doing it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 01 May 02 - 11:08 PM I would support Universal Service if it were truly universal i.e. EVERYBODY. Read Robert Heinlens book "Starship Troopers" Not the movie. The movie missed the whole point. The draft should be used only when necessary in time of national emergency but there should be no hinderences to its being instituted once it has been detremined that it is needed. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr Date: 01 May 02 - 11:24 PM War is good business. Invest your sons! IMO, forcing young people into military service is akin to slavery, and maybe worse, as it is more likely to get them killed. Let those who want the triggers pulled, pull them! I left my native country to escape the evil of conscription, and have been in exile ever since. Nationalistic sloganeering will not change my mind about the Sharons, Arafats, Bushes, and other warmongers. You want to kill someone, go volunteer, but don't force my kid to do it for you. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 02 - 11:24 PM Claymore - Your comments about Indian brutality are all too true! I've read those accounts too. There were hideous things done by Indians to Whites, Whites to Indians, Whites to Whites, and Indians to Indians. Reading the historical record of Pontiac's war against the English is very illuminating. The brutality, treachery, and torture practiced on many occasions by Pontiac's warriors and their allies was almost beyond imagination...and it led, of course, to bitter retaliation when the tables were turned. I may like a lot of things about traditional Indian culture, but I am not blind to its dark side, be assured. Every nation of people has a dark side. Plenty of sensible comments from people on this thread, I must say...and even a gratuitious mention of William Shatner. Jolly good! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 02 May 02 - 01:12 AM And what would you have done in 1941, Michael? Where would you have gone to wait out a war that was happening whether you wished it or not? It's easy to be self-righteous when there IS no conflict that engulfs the world but what would you do if there were,lay low and then lick the boots of the victor? Or would you join the Army of whatever country you happened to be in and fight to preserve an ideal? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Teribus Date: 02 May 02 - 01:48 AM Extremely surprised that the US forces themselves haven't objected to a move back to conscription. Outside all out global conflicts where, as rightly stated above, conscription eventually becomes necessary, conscript armies just do not work. The overall efficiency goes down and the conscripts are just not there long enough to achieve anything like the proficiency required. When 'National Service'ended in the UK in 1957, the vast majority of those called up went to the army, the RAF and RN said thet they just could not use people who were only there for a period of time in which they could not even complete what was considered to be basic training. The Navy rckoned that it took four years for a recruit to complete basic military training and acquire sufficient skill in whatever specialist training they were assigned to, before they could be considered as an asset to the fleet. The military has just become too technical to function with any degree of efficiency with the bulk of their personnel made up of reluctant part-timers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 02 May 02 - 01:52 AM troll: throughout history there have been those perfectly willing to allow others to fight wars for them. I assume Michael is one of them by the sound of his post. Universal military training in the U. S. is not new. It was talked about in the late 1040's and the result was The Selective Service Act of 1948. All 18 year old boys were subject to the draft and had to serve two years in one of the armed services. If one volunteered for active duty prior to his eighteenth birthday, he could fulfill his obligation by serving one year of active duty, and either four years in the active reserve, or six years in the inactive reserve. One could sidestep active service altogether by volunteering to serve either four or six years in the active reserve. I don't remember which. I chose the one year route with four years in the active reserve. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr Date: 02 May 02 - 02:20 AM Doug - if it were up to me to allow or disallow anyone to fight for any reason at all, we could discuss your point. As it is, you "assume" what you have no knowledge of. Troll - I cannot think of any "ideal" worth fighting and dying for. Such constructs should take a back seat to life itself. And I fail to see what is "self-righteous" about not wanting young people to die. It occurs to me that many of the posters here are way past the age of military service, which makes it much easier to be cavalier about the reality of mutilation and death. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,macca Date: 02 May 02 - 03:17 AM re Absolute Conscription - Everybody in, no exceptions, and only capacity to serve to decide exemptions. Righton ddr and Troll. Been a reservist myself and found the experience great and character forming - just lucky I suppose that nobody actually shot at me - but to be effective, universal conscription should not only be applied to the US - or UK, or NATO , or Indonesia, or even NZ or China, or Monaco.... but everbody. AND the UN or another really independent international control body with humanitarian moral values as the only criteria should have over-riding authority to confirm pragmatic alliances to restrain belligerents. Benefits ? Employment up all round the world, industry producing, profits for shareholders, and a good chance that if anybody actually tried to use it's military outside it's own borders, all it's neighbours would be down on it like a ton of those rectangular objects. Oh, and attempts to use military force internally to suppress political opposition likely to incur serious sanctions of the armour-plated type from the controlling body. With a potential fighting man-sorry-personpower capacity available to every state, and countered by a massively greater potential all around it, most states would think twice before launching any kind of strike on any other.... Which leaves us with the non-states.... Which leaves us where we are now.... Forget I spoke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Hrothgar Date: 02 May 02 - 04:40 AM Still the same old problem - the ones voting for the draft law are never going to be drafted - and I'm cynical enough to suggest that they'll put in enough exemptions to keep their nearest and dearest out, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU Date: 02 May 02 - 07:13 AM Hi Folks! Here is an idea, an alternative to conscription.... Someone have an idea of what one single day of American bombing costs? Well, start witht the salery of the entire research team for each of the gadgets on the ships, the research into the armaments, the saleries of the folks who maintain the ships, the fuel costs for boats and planes, the cost of the individual bombs, the pay for the crew, maintence on parts for planes and fleet... and one can go on for a while until you see what a staggering cost it is. Then look at the poverty in the lands we fight in, (often the desparity between the lives of the majority and the leadership) Now think of our constant pouring of money into defense... A modest proposal... Link SERRIOUS money to ecconomic aid linked to human rights and cut our military down to vertualy nill. We will likely be safer. The concept that the rest of the world wants to "steal" what we have out of "jealousy" over looks the fact we take 70% of the worlds resourses. Well, if we gave back at least most of what we put into military defense, we would have little need for an army, and more, we would likely have enough left over for a health care system. Need, want and pain gives rise to religious fundimentalism. Folks who are happy and well fed are not likely to be much of a threat. Wars that need to be fought will attract enough volunteers, and frankly, none will attact volunteers, so wars don't really need to be fought. Fact is we put a big scare on folks to make them fight wars that are not in their own interests. Cheers Larry PS and thouse of you who point to WWII, I will remind you that Germany and Japan would have been stopped cold if not supported by the likes of Henry Ford. Link ecconomic aid to human rights then give lots of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Teribus Date: 02 May 02 - 07:21 AM "Hearts and Minds" InOBU It worked in Malaya - could work in Afghanistan as long as aid is given without the usual strings attached and there is positive control on what it is spent on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Midchuck Date: 02 May 02 - 09:50 AM It's funny that no one ever takes a serious look at Bob Heinlein's solution: The military is strictly volunteer. And service in it is arduous and unpleasant. But you can walk into the CO's office and quit anytime you want. There are alternative forms of national service for those who are unable to serve in the military for valid reasons. Some means of service is available for anyone, regardless of physical or mental limitations, provided only that the person has the mental ability to grasp the concept and the emotional control to accept orders. But all the alternatives are also arduous and unpleasant. And you can quit any of them at any time. You have all the rights of citizenship whether you serve or not - except one. When you have finished a minimum term of national service - then you get to vote. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: RichM Date: 02 May 02 - 10:15 AM The older I get, the more I have come to believe that duties to community are as important as individual freedom. I also think that defending one's country is not evil; that in fact it is the opposite.
However,I still remain firmly on the left wing side, politically.
Compulsory service doesn't have to be military. It could be any service to the community. This would satisfy pacifists. Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 02 May 02 - 12:47 PM michaelr, you assume too much yourself. While it is true that I am way past the draft age, I was drafted in 67 into the Marine Corps. While the son of a Navy Captain, I was in college majoring in Philosophy, and was taken in my sophmore year. I was commissioned from the ranks, and served as a platoon commander in the same company as Oliver North. in 69. While retaining my reserve Captaincy, I was sent to Israel during the Gulf War, as part of an anti-terrorism task force, due to my day job as the ranking investigator in a Virginia police dept. I currently work as the Vocational Manager at a federal Job Corps Center in WV, with a staff of 20 to train urban disadvantaged youth in one of nine trades and send them back to their cities with job skills and a GED. I do this even though I'm currently on a 60% disability pension from the VA from Vietnam. I suspect that I'm working with the youth whose fathers I locked up. I'm one of the few white persons on this Center as staff or student, and there is little these students wouldn't gain from Universal Conscription; Hell, they go back to war zones as it is. My point is that I advocate nothing I have not done myself, and in spades. IMO, if you'll run from something, you cannot stand for anything, even in the anonymity that the www provides. While it's true that I have to use the GUEST vehicle to respond to threads, I doubt anyone mistakes my style and language for trolling. And when some of us old dogs come off the porch, you'll need to listen to your mother calling you to the shallow end of the pool... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 02 May 02 - 01:52 PM "Troll - I cannot think of any "ideal" worth fighting and dying for. Such constructs should take a back seat to life itself. And I fail to see what is "self-righteous" about not wanting young people to die." So,Michael, the "ideal" of freedom for yourself and your loved ones is not worth fighting dying for? How about the "ideal" of protecting your wife and children? As for "self-righteous", what else would you call someone who has stated publicly that he (or she) ran rather than serve and now calls those who are willing to fight to preserve whatever they hold to be of value "warmongers". In fact, I think that maybe "self-righteous" is being a little kind. You probably owe your life to those "warmongers" Churchill, DeGaulle, Eisenhower, Roosevelt and thousands of men like my father, who fought the Nazi and Japanese empire-building agression. And if you are an ex-Israeli, you certainly owe your life to them. Well don't worry. You can keep your attitude and revel in your purity. If it ever comes down to it again, there are plenty of us who are willing to fight for our freedoms and you will get a free ride. Oh. And we won't even ask you to appreciate it. troll
BTW I served 4 years during Viet Nam as did my younger brother. I'm over 60 and he's getting close but if our country ever needs us we will answewr the call and serve in whatever capacity we can. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 02 May 02 - 02:19 PM Thank you, Larry, for pointing out the fact that war is a choice of action since we aren't making even a credible effort toward finding ways to peacefully coexist. I started a thread entitled "Department of Peace" several months ago and tried get folks to break the cycle of thinking there is just one way to solve difference. Some folks just couldn't get there and others pointed out that war is more "profitable" than the alternatives but it is imparative that humans do a better job on creating a "civilization" to replace the "uncivilization" that we have always had and from which we now suffer. One thing we can all do while we have time is to support and vote for folks who prohuman and those who, given at least a smidgen of credibility, can plant the seeds that change the way we do business on the planet. Think peace, Vote Green Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 02 May 02 - 06:55 PM troll: Hear, hear! Michaelr: I think your original post clarifies where you are coming from, and an assumption is really not necessary. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr Date: 02 May 02 - 07:24 PM I'm breaking my own rule here of not getting into political or religious discussions/srguments/take your pick, but, as many of you obviously do, I feel strongly about this, so I'll try to clarify.
If attacked, I will defend myself. I will lick no one's boot. But I refuse to fight for any so-called ideal proscribed for me by the rulers of the day. One such "ideal" was keeping the world safe from communism (making it safe for capitalism), which was the raison d'etre for the Vietnam war. Troll, do you really mean to say that one was "worth fighting for"? Not even the U.S. government makes that claim anymore.
BTW, I did not run. After much soul-searching and discussion with friends and relatives, I decided to walk away. And that is all I will say on the subject. Michael
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 02 May 02 - 10:55 PM Viet Nam was a mistake. No argument there. It was based on a premise that proved untrue. It is not the first time that such an error has been made by a nation and will probably not be the last. But if you partake of the benefits of a society, you should also be willing to defend that society. Since we elect our representatives and, in theory at least, they reflect the will of those whom they represent, it is hardly justified to call them the "rulers of the day". The "so-called ideal"(s) which you seem to view with such contempt are those laid down by the Constitution and involve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other things. Since it would appear that you look upon this countries policies with some disfavor, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us all a little more about yourself, paying close attention to those areas in which you have avoided the benefits of our much maligned system. You know the ones, a high standard of living, decent -if expensive- health care, upward mobility, the freedom to move around from place to place, to own property, to choose your job, that sort of thing. And explain why some people risk everything in an attempt to come here. Or are you one of those hardy souls who only obeys the laws that HE feels are worthy of his obedience and hang the rest. If so, it's no wonder you "decided to walk away". A cornered rat will fight to preserve its' life and certainly it's better to be a live Jackal than a dead Lion. But it's even better to be a live Lion. And it's usually easier. troll BTW, I think the word you wanted to use was "prescribed". "Proscribed" means "forbidden". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Jon Bartlett Date: 02 May 02 - 11:07 PM I get the sense that many of us are in favour of "national service" - if only we knew what it truly was and that it wasn't used to e.g. beat the shit out of a bunch of foreigners for the sake of Big Oil. IMHO as we get older we get a better sense of community. I've known WWII vets (on both sides) who had "the time of their lives" (in a very literal sense) during the war because they experienced for the first time that sense of community. It doesn't take a war to do it, tho. I'd like it to me two years long, unavoidable for anyone, to be served in a different part of the country or outside the country, to be paid only nominally (and absolutely equally) and to recompensed with community respect as evidenced by such benefits as discounts in restaurants, free seats on buses and trains, free medical care (though we Canucks have that already) and free higher education. How's that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 02 May 02 - 11:25 PM Let's keep something in mind here as we dicuss this. It was not in any way necessary to have mobilized military force in the first place. Had the goal actually been to bring in Bin Laden and his lackies for trial the goal could have been quite nicely and efficiently achieved by a joint CIA/INTERPOL opperation. Had we done so, the diplomats would,just about now, be finishing up all of thier wrangling and hoo-hah about where the trial should take place. There were two things wrong with this idea (in the eyes of the Bush Lite administration. 1) Covert operations tend not to look good for television cameras. 2) Covert operations can't make a mediocre schlubb like Bush look "presidential". Calling out the military was cynical and political response to the events of Sept.11,2001 designed purely to achieve those two goals. Conscription, therefor, can only aid Bush Lite and his cronies. Stephen L. Rich
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,macca Date: 03 May 02 - 12:03 AM Jon G Bartlett - You may have to start fighting to keep those benefits. Here in Australia the government (for want of a better term) which is of the same capitalist colour that got us into Vietnam is now intent on selling off the remaining parts of the public health insurance system, having already sold off much of our other public services in the name of economic rationalism, and doing its' best (or worst) to dismantle much of the legislation which offered protection to the lower paid and the rest of us ordinary folk. It is also worth pointing out that many of the private organisations which have picked up these services in the interests of making a quick buck are foreign - and down here that usually means American. It is not going to be a viable proposition for any succeeding government to ever buy back these systems - without implementing the kind of nationalisation that Nasser employed in Egypt. That would make any country popular with its' foreign investors. The Heinlein concept was and remains great - where it falls down, unfortunately, is that nothing can insure against idiot or venal governments changing their mind in what they see as the public interest, and the results can be irreversible. Pity though. I've always liked the idea of compulsory universal service - either military or emergency or whatever. It can be argued that the only elements of national welfare which no-body has the right to alter for the worst are; Public Health Public Security Social Care I reckon that about covers everybody one way or another.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop Date: 03 May 02 - 07:58 AM Stephen, that's certainly a legitimate point of view, but I doubt that too many Americans would agree with you. I don't, and here's why: 1. The goal was never just to bring in bin Laden and a few lackeys. The terrorist threat is much more widespread that just a few individuals, as recent events around the world continue to show. While bin Laden is certainly one target, and there are advantages to identifying an individual leader as a focal point of our efforts (which is why we fought WWII against "Hitler" and "Tojo", and the Gulf War against "Saddam"), in reality this is about breaking up some pretty extensive networks that would/will continue to function even in bin Laden's absence. It's a very ambitious goal, we have a long way to go, and I hope we're up to the task. 2. It is nice to imagine that we're capable of these terribly sophisticated, James Bond type operations that we can easily and cleanly accomplish because we're so smart and capable. In fact, our country (the USA) has in the past had a real problem with our over-confidence about our abilities in this regard, partly because of a few easy successes in the early days of our post-WWII intelligence agencies. In reality, it's pretty damn difficult to do what you're suggesting. I have no doubt that we have a number of covert operations underway now (we should), but I think your notion that if we had gone this route exclusively "the diplomats would, just about now, be finishing up all of their wrangling and hoo-hah about where the trial should take place" is pretty naive. And, as stated above, this would not have accomplished the real objective in any case. However, I do appreciate the fact that you were polite in your posting; not all of the contributors to this/these threads have been. -- WS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 03 May 02 - 05:22 PM Stephen: I agree with you wholoe heartedly. The most forunate man on the planet on 9-11 was non other than the Commander in Thief. Yep, lots of photo ops and "huffing and puffing' which is about the only thing the man does half way well. And since then the media follows him around adoringly hang on his every word as if he were really saying something. And his handlers have used this situation to paint anyone that doesn't agree with every dumb idea he and they collectively have as traitors and terrorists. Well, the way this ol' hillbilly sees it, Junior's approval rating would be in single digits if it weren't for 9-11, especially when his administartion will habe spent the last dime of the surplus that the previous administartion left him on June 28th when he satrts eyeing the Social Security Trust Fund. And most of us deep in our heart know this but are unwilling to point out that the Emperor indeed is with out pants... End of Rant... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 03 May 02 - 06:22 PM Yawn ... DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 03 May 02 - 07:55 PM Sorry, Doug. Am I keeping you up? But it's always good to hear from ya. Even if it's just a yawn... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho Date: 03 May 02 - 09:35 PM I don't know if Viet Nam was right or wrong. The older I get the less clear I become on what is right and what is wrong. Maybe the experience has altered me more than I realize. What I do know about the fight I was involved in is this -
I went with a profound sense of duty to my country. I had a deep conviction that as an American I was obliged (call that obligated) to assist when the people we elected said we needed to go do something. I firmly believed that I could also help those in need. As Marines we were also tasked with assisting the folks caught in the cross fire of this engagement. We dug wells, helped bring in crops, built roads, set up medical stations throughout the little villages we encountered, treated eye infections in little folks, introduced anti-biotics, brought badly needed food to the starving, and by and large stopped shooting when villagers were in the line of fire. One of my buddies has a Bronze Star for doing this and still performing the mission he was assigned. The ideology I went to Viet Nam with is still valid in my life today.
It's pretty easy to lable those of us who choose to fight as killers (yes I've killed other people), no brainer trash that know no better (I volunteered and I am not the sharpest tack in the box), and beneath those who chose to not fight. The moral high ground is owned by neither side.
I fought for Capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. We are really a blended country - a rich mixture of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. I fought for all of that also. I fought for those that chose not to go as well. I fought for the freedom to be who I am to the best of my ability. So in my opinion Viet Nam was not a mistake. It was, to me, a reinforcement of my country's willingness to step in and do what we believed needed doing. It isn't about right or wrong.
Like Claymore I receive a disabilty check each month from the Department of Veteran's Affairs for my injuries in the line of duty. That pension is Socialism. I live in a small community that is more than willing to share its wealth with others. That is Communism. And I buy and sell to increase my monthly bartering substance, known as money. That is Capitalism. So what part of all of this don't you get?
I guess I don't agree with most of the posters here in the regard that if I won't stand for one thing I will not stand for anything. Sometimes I need to shut up and color and let the big dogs feed. One thing I do think - if one person makes a morally correct decision for themselves then that is the correct decision for them. But to denigrate another's choice is not acceptable social behavior in my world. I am proud of my choices in life. If for no other reason than I have learned something from them. To refight the war is to not learn and therefore to lose.
None of this is directed at anyone here. I've close friends on every side of this fence and in this forum. On the other hand it is directed at everyone including me. Make peace with your choices.
One other comment - and anyone here can answer this - Why is it that America's President is all of these derogatory things I keep reading? He is a human being, capable of all of the emotions that the rest of you are. Why is it so necessary to be so mean? What do you gain from it? You don't know the man nor do you know his life. Perhaps he didn't serve because his father did and opted to keep him out of the insanity. If this is the criteria then add me to that list. I did the same thing with my Son.
SemperFidelis, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 03 May 02 - 11:21 PM Thanks Steve. You put it much more eloquently than I did. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 04 May 02 - 02:07 AM Whistle Stop -- I read your comments with interest. It is nice to know that there are still people who are capable of disagreeing without becoming disagreeable. Well done. With all due respect, however, I must continue to disagree. Consider, if you will, the covert operation scenario which I described earlier in somehat more detail. It is unlikely, for example, that such an undertaking would merely have been done by the CIA and Interpol alone. It is probable that we would have had, at the very least, offers of help from every intelligence service cuurently in operation. Further, consider that the Arab nations would have greatly prefered such an undertaking over the bombing and would have been more than willing to help such an operation along. There is a proverb in that part of the world: "I against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My brother, my cousin and I against the world." In other words, it is one thing for them to be fighting amongst themselves but they consider it quite another for "outsiders" to come in aggressively. It puts them in the same awkward political position in which they found themselves during the Gulf War -- having to support military aggression from outside the region. As far as the vast network of terrorist are concerned, doing things in a non-military fashion would have given us a better chance of covincing various Arab government to break up said networks on thier own. As it is we are only getting a promise and the "bum's rush". Stephen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 04 May 02 - 02:32 AM Stephen, I think that you are overly optomistic about the level of cooperation that we would have received from the Arab world, especially in Afghanistan. Remember that only two countries had recognized the Taliban Government and that they were not Arab countries. I don't think the Arab States gave two whoops in Hell what happened to the Taliban or the Afghans. You are quite right that they resented our use of Arab air space and land bases purely because it pointed out their own ineffectuality. I don't know much about Interpol, but the CIA strikes me as a group that is so concerned with being "spooks" and protecting their turf, that they couldn't find their collective asses with both hands, a road map, and someone to hold the flashlight. Maybe that's a little harsh, but the CIA does not impress me at all. I have direct knowledge of their heavy-handed approach to intelligence gathering during Viet Nam, and from what I've read they haven't improved. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 04 May 02 - 05:55 PM Steve, I think that is an excellent post. I did not know that our armed forces in Viet Nam were also engaged in hmanitarian activities. I'm glad that they help the villagers. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth Date: 04 May 02 - 06:47 PM (Steve) Norton - I have a respect for GWB senior's courage, any man who voulunteers to fly aircraft off carriers, in the 1940's, is betting the farm on his survival. This gave Bush Senior the moral right to order troops into combat. Senator McCain a presidential aspirant had this moral right as well. Perhaps this comes in line with the political philosiphy of Robert Heinlien - and perhaps it does not. For my own case, I can not say for I have not been faced with that choice, or that decision. But I hope I would never ask another person to do something I was not prepared to do myself. Gareth |