 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. Date: 04 May 02 - 08:21 PM I fail to see why having been in combat gives you some special moral right to send people into combat. Franklin Roosevelt never heard a shot fired in anger, and no one has ever doubted his moral right to send people to war as a democratically elected leader. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 05 May 02 - 01:42 AM Gareth, well said. Peter, FDR was physically incapable of combat. Whatever moral authority he had, came from somewhere else. For my own part, I would far rather have a Commander in Chief with combat experience. I feel that he/she would be less likely to engage in foreign adventurism for purely political purposes, having experienced, first-hand, the rigors and devastation of warfare. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth Date: 05 May 02 - 08:25 AM I think there is a difference between those who serve, and those who manouver into not serving. There is a difference between for example serving on PT boats (=MTB in RN), and making training films about them. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. Date: 05 May 02 - 08:49 AM It is of course an arguable point: different people learn different things from war. It is not everyone who comes back from war with the sense of its futility and devastation. Some people come back having learned how to solve problems in one military fashion. Some people like the simplification of violence. Ariel Sharon was in tank wars, and seems to enjoy the mailed fist approach, and has no interest in any other approach, as far as I can tell. Winston Churchill obviously had a great time in his various wars, and spent the rest of his life doing whatever he could to get to the front lines again, putting on uniforms, etc. It does not seem to me, reflecting on the history of the Vietnam War, that all those 50 year old generals, who had been young men in World War II and Korea, learned anything of any use about the futility of war, etc. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Date: 05 May 02 - 02:26 PM Patton was a spectacular example of a man who loved war, the more he experienced of it. In fact, he seemed unable to enjoy himself much during peacetime. My father came away from the war (WWII) with a firm resolve never to get into another one on any pretext. It takes all kinds... But no one has a special moral right to send other people into combat. That is something those people should decide for themselves. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 05 May 02 - 05:06 PM Those 50 year old generals were just following orders, Peter, nothing else. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 05 May 02 - 09:17 PM Now, Norton, if you were speaking to me for bad mouthing "W" just keep in mind that if Al Gore had been elected, and 9-11 had happened (which is open for debate) he would have done the same things as Bush and I'd be saying the same thing about him instead of Bush. My point has been that we as a supposed "civilized" nation have turned to "uncivilized" ways to solve differences between people. This war on terrorism is a bad joke. It has not solved any long term problems nor made the planet safer, but quite the opposite. 90% of military science involves LOGISTICS. Conscription is just one logistical problem on a long list of other logistical problems. When we get bogged down thinking of logistical problems, we are not thinking of ways to promote peace but quite the opposite. We could just as easily be discussing which weapons to use and how to get them to battle sites. It's military thinking. Not peace thinking. War always represents HUMAN FAILURE. Not success. THINK PEACE, PROMOTE PEACE. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,mg Date: 05 May 02 - 09:32 PM peace is also a matter of logistics...how to get food, water, shelter to people..or better yet, how to get them established so they can provide it for all their people...how to get refrigeration for the vaccines needed...how to get roads put in so goods get to market...how to train people in construction and drilling for water and digging outhouses and better farming methods and nursing and midwifery...how to get teachers and health care workers spread out to remote areas...good logistics are good logistics and it is a lot easier to do if no one is shooting at you. Sometimes it doesn't take much to totally turn around a place...have you seen those shows where clean water comes to a village? Logistics...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 05 May 02 - 09:43 PM Good for you GUESTmg, that's the kind of logistical thinking that promotes peace. Yes, peace isn't a piece of cake (couldn't help myself...) but a lot of planning. There's nothing inheritently wrong with logistics but the bottom line. If the efforts are made with the intent to promote PEACE then its prohuman. If not, it's anti-human. Good point, and I should have made that clearer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 05 May 02 - 11:32 PM Thank you, Clement Atlee. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho Date: 06 May 02 - 11:56 AM I thought I was clear in my post about it being directed at no one and at everyone. I was also quite clear about making peace. Peace begins at home in my heart. If I'm not at peace with me I cannot translate that outwards very effectively. I work hard at not targeting individuals and make my statements as general as possible.
In the specifics of GWB I believe it harbors no good to "blame" anyone or to infer that they are less than human. It's the same tactic used in boot camp to dehumanize the enemy - makes it easier to kill an idea one doesn't agree with as opposed to real human beings with families and lives. That is my problem with that. Where I come from it was taught, and I taught my kids, that if they didn't have anything good to say about someone - then keep it to themselves.
I hope this clarifies any misperception. If someone does continue to struggle with what I have said I'd appreciate a PM.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop Date: 06 May 02 - 01:36 PM Stephen L. Rich -- Thanks for your explanation. I still don't agree that your scenario is all that plausible, or that it would have achieved the desired effect even if it could have been implemented as you suggest. Covert operations have their place, and as I said before I am confident that the US government's current plan involves both overt and covert operations. But I think a lot of the assumptions in your scenario don't really stand up to close scrutiny. For one, there's the assumption that covert means can be relied upon to undermine and destroy a large network that itself includes both conventional and covert forces. For another, there's the assumption that we would have gotten extensive support from other governments for a wholly covert operation. For a third, there's your assumption that we would have been able to rely upon the good will of other regional ("Arab") governments, and upon their willingness and ability to break up these networks on their own. Put all these assumptions togehter, add in the fact that covert operations are rarely as neat and tidy as the spy books make it appear, recognize that the down side of a covert operation failure could be truly horrendous, and you're left with a pretty questionable enterprise, as far as I can see. Bottom line for me: we were attacked in a large-scale operation (a small number of operatives, but well-planned and with a large impact), and we needed to go after the people who did it to try to make sure it wouldn't happen again. Like anyone else, we tried to arrange the contest to play to our strengths; we do have the world's best military, after all. And we needed to make sure the world knew what we were doing. We're not done -- not by a long shot -- and our prosecution of this war has not been flawless, but so far we have done better than was predicted on the military front. I hope that our diplomatic efforts, and our covert operations, will ultimately meet with equal success. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 06 May 02 - 02:03 PM Whistle Stop: In tyhe month following September 11th, the US enjoyed the sympathies of almost every nation on the planet. Today, even the UK, it's stanchest supporter is starting to balk at the Bush administrations saber rattling about invading Iraq and other foriegn policy matters, such as the Middle East. There has to be a time when the good cop comes in and right now, in my opinion, the US not recognized that the window has been open for the last two or three months and the longer it goes toward not promoting peaceful resolutions to the many world conflicts, the harder it will be. Couple that fact with our allies starting to be less sympathetic with the US, it stands to loose a level of creditibility which does not bode well for the last World's Super Power. We have a responsibility to lead by example and the message that we are sending out is war is the preferred way to solve conflict. Yeah, seems that all we have are the bad cops. Now ol' Bobert certainly wasn't a Clinton lover but at least the man tried to work toward a peaceful resolution in the Middle East. He didn't fare as well in other conflicts but at least there were some good cops. This summer's Peace Conference is so mealy mouthed it's rediculous. I mean, there are little hot wars flaring up throughout the Middle East so why the wait? Yeah, I know this tread is about conscription but if I can get just one person to see that by getting bogged down by military logistics we are doing nothing more than promote military solutions, then all will be worth it. Like I've said before: THINK PEACE, even if you may still think that war is more profitable. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 07 May 02 - 07:50 AM Great thread which I enjoyed reading from the perspective of having put in twenty-five years in a territorial army reserve, which I somehow managed to reconcile with strong pacifist leanings. Also a lot of respect is due to the Vietnam vets in Mudcat, even though I believe that they were used in a tainted cause, shoring up an undemocratic regime which the US should never have supported. Too many issues to take up here, but Bobert, in your last posting you're unfair to Clinton: Northern Ireland is a major achievement on his record, in terms of having brought about what looks like a lasting and peace-promoting resolution to the long history of that conflict - even if the body count (a "mere" 3,500, all of them victims in one way or another) doesn't make NI sound like the biggest show in town. I think some of the abuse directed at Dubya (and i'm guilty too) is due to a worldwide sense of disbelief that someone as ... how shall I put it: intellectually challenged? ... could reach such a position of power and then wield it in such a childish manner. Part of the deal was supposed to be "we all know that the kid is dumb, but he has his dad's advisors around him". But after seeing Rumsfeld on TV mouthing military terms which he evidently didn't even understand himself, I began to get really worried. And the fact that a disproportionate number of these "advisors" seem to have gained whatever expertise they have in the oil industry makes me seriously wonder about how Government and international affairs are perceived in the US I can see the arguments in favour of compulsory national (not military) service, but militarism at home and oil-based unilateralism in international affairs is a recipe for disaster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop Date: 07 May 02 - 08:02 AM Bobert, I didn't mention a profit motive, so your last line mystifies me. As to the rest of your post, I think it's fine to "think peace," but I don't believe that thinking peace is going to get us where we need to be. We're dealing with something pretty ugly here, and starry-eyed suggestions that we can make everything right by thinking good thoughts don't really cut it for me. I may be more of a Clinton lover than you; I voted for the man twice, think that his Presidency is underrated (and that his personal shortcomings are overrated), and frankly would have voted for him a third time if not for the two-term rule. I also voted for Gore in 2000, and still believe that we would be in better shape if he had won the race (let's agree that we won't quibble in this thread over whether or not he "won"). One thing that I think Clinton did right, that I think Gore would have done right, and that I think Bush has done wrong, is to maintain a deep and sustained level of engagement in the politics of the Middle East, rather than just rushing in when there's a crisis and expecting to solve everyone's problems at the 11th hour. I think our disengagement from the region throughout 2001 allowed some of the problems there to go from bad to worse; I don't claim to know exactly how things would have gone if we had been more involved, but I think the world would be in better shape than it is now. Bush is currently learning a very painful lesson that his disparaging comments about "nation building" during the 2000 campaign were foolish. However, I do agree with the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism, including probable future military involvement in Iraq. It's no surprise that the worldwide outpouring of sympathy after September 11th has diminished; we knew it would. We also knew that most of the foreign governments that we consider friends and staunch allies would still prefer for the US to do the heavy lifting, while they made disapproving noises for the benefit of the world press. But I happen to believe that it is essential that we use the power that we do have to diminish some very real threats to the US -- and, not incidentally, to much of the rest of the world -- posed by terrorist networks that are sponsored and supported by foreign governments (such as al Qaeda), or directly posed by the foreign governments themselves (such as Iraq). It's not a pretty business, people will get hurt and killed in the process, and the outcome is uncertain, as it is with all wars. But I believe it is necessary, and I think the US government would be incredibly irresponsible to ignore the very real threats that are out there, or to be squeamish about using our warmaking power to diminish those threats when that is called for. Keep thinking those good thoughts, though; I'm sure it helps. -- WS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 07 May 02 - 11:50 AM Slightly OT, but it's relevant to the issue of the militarisation of society which can be one of the unintended side-effects of universal military service(and remember it was West-Pointer ex-General Dwight D Eisenhower who warned of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex"). I found this in an article by a Tel Aviv University professor on a site entitled "Open Democracy": " Concerned opinion around the world has tended to see Israeli politics as divided between secular, democratic politicians and religious extremists. There is a third force, the political generals. They are secular and believe in the supremacy of force. In a way, a slow, military coup, albeit one that has organised popular support behind it, has taken place in Israel. "From Wellington to Eisenhower and de Gaulle, generals have become legitimate political leaders. But in doing so they have put their army behind them. In Israel's case it seems increasingly that the generals have moved into politics in order to put the society behind the army. This is an issue needing close attention. I have sought to analyse it in a recent book ('Detruire La Palestine, ou comment terminer la guerre de 1948', La Fabrique, France, April 2002) and will be returning to it in next week's issue of openDemocracy." Ironically, Colin Powell is one of the few figures around Dubya whom I would tend to respect and trust, but maybe that's because he has seen the reality of war in Vietnam. That distinguishes him from many of the boardroom armchair generals who seem to make up an influential part of that entourage and who evidently seem to think that cheap oil for young men's lives is a fair trade. Click here for the full article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 07 May 02 - 12:38 PM Sorry I've been away for a while but I do have a few comments to add. 1. Apparently those who feel they did the right thing during the Vietnam war, by "walking away" are still using the moral calculus of Enron. As you walked away did you note the mountain of skulls in Cambodia, Burma, and Laos as the Dominos fell. Those are your legacy not mine. 2. Bush was a fighter pilot in the National Guard. Stupid pilots crash. Stupid fighter pilots do it at 500 knots. He got better grades than Gore. And every indication is that he picked the best Cabinet in fifty years. But please keep thinking he's stupid... it only makes his work easier. 3. Clinton came in on "It's the economy, stupid" and made every mistake in foreign policy you could make. He was late on every intervention he ever should have made and according to press reports, several defense lawyers want him indicted at the International Court in the Netherlands, for his failures to react in Bosnia. He did nothing about the Middle East at all during his first term and became engaged only after getting a blow job from a disfunctional Jewish Princess. His foreign policy, while well meant, was of the Fire Sale variety; sell everything away and hope it burns out of it's own accord. I wish I had more time, but duty calls... yet this thread is interesting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 07 May 02 - 03:08 PM GUEST, An Pluimeir Ceolmhar: Yes, Clinton does get credit for his work in Northern Ireland in addition to working very hard with the Midddle East. Whistle Stop: The reference to paece not being priftable was not directed at anything you said but in connection with a thread I started a few months back entitled "Department of Peace". There were a number of Catfolk who felt that a Peace Industry would not produce the same profits as a War Industry. It is my opinion, however, that the earh cannot be better off in general by blowing up resources and people. This is not "starry eyed" thinking. Just a different way of viewing the same problems and looking for for alternat solutions that don't involved military thinking. A good example is one that you pointed out in the Bush Administration taking an isolationist policy toward the Middle East. It has been a failed policy from Day 1 and now he is trying to wiggle out of the trap he set for himself and finding that it ain't so easy when you gotta cover up for past mistakes. As for the War on Terrorism. What is the objective? And do you really think that by killing folks it's gonna make their families see THE LIGHT? I heard today where the State Department is expanding the Axis of Evcil to include more countries to be invaded. Well, does invading Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Lybia, etc. make the world safer? Hmmmmmm? There is no end in sight to the Bush administraion's appitite for war. And bring it down to a personal level. On June 28th, Bush will spend the last dime of the surplus he was handed. On that day he is going to start dipping into the Social Security Trucst Fund. Hmmmmm? But. hey, there's folks out there that think war is profitable. Hmmmmmm? For whom? Not the average US worker, that's for sure. Yep, it's time to think that blowing people and stuff up is a good econmic move and start thinking of ways of paying a little more attention to folks in the world who feel left out. And it is doable. Just takes different thinking. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 07 May 02 - 08:36 PM So Bobert, enlighten us. If the war on terrorism can't be won, how should terrorism be delt with? Should we just give up? Invite the folks in for a cup of coffee, a beer or something and try to reason with them? Buy them all a Cadillac, a new home and a life-time coupon to a really good cafeteria? What? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 07 May 02 - 11:31 PM As far as the Social-Security "Trust Fund' (a stack of Govt. IOU's) every administration taps it to an ever-increasing extent. The whole thing is a gigantic Ponzi scheme anyway and if you REALLY want to get pissed, check out how many different programs Social Security funds. It's supposed to be a safety net for retirees but most of us will never live long enough to get back what we "contributed". As Doug said, what would you do about terrorism, Bobert? And please don't go into a history lesson about how if we had done this and hadn't done that, we wouldn't be in this mess. Hindsight is an exact science with 20/20 vision so lets talk about the here-and-now, not the "if only". troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 01:33 PM Okay, troll and DougR, if you are willing to think out of the box for just a bit, I'll throw out a few positive ideas that have a better chance of long tern success in creating a peaceful planet than blowing folks and things up. And no, troll, no history lessons, no who-shot-whoms, just a plan which will involve a few more Americans to step back and consider alternatives to war: 1. We each need to individually think of solving personal problems and those between groups of people or nations in a manner that does not involve violence. 2. For those who have made it past the first step (and I know peace is not for everyone but I won't get bogged down in the "whys") I would ask a commitment of time or resources to support candidates who do not represent the business as usual Repubocratic one party system that now exists. If for instance, the Green Party had won a couple more percentage points in the Presidential election then they would have representaton in the next Presidential debates and their ideas would have at least a shred of creditability. This probably would have happened if so many folks weren't so afraid of a Bush win that they opted to vote for a lesser of two evils rather than their hearts. 3. Support H.R. 2459, a bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich, that proposed a fully funded Department of Peace. Such a step, would go a long way toward telling the rest of the world that as the World's Super Power, that the US stands on the side of peaceful resaolution to conflict. Allow this Department the resources to "promote" peace with the use the same admen who have kids the world over in Nike shoes. This department will also promote and work with the various agencies that now distribute foriengn aid, the State Department and the World Bank. Now, I realize that these are three big steps for most folks but they are no unreasonable staeps, or starry eyed steps. At some point in time mankind will have had just enough of business as usual and see that war is not in the best interest of the inhabitants of this planet. This is how you fight terrorism. By inclusionary andpasionate thought processes. What if the US were to hold a Manditory PEACE SUMMIT and tell the world that it is going to lead by example in a quest for PEACE and have a big ad campaine that glorified the peacemakers and SOLD peace. And what if these admen, who can see Air Jordons to anyone in the world were to devise a ad progrma directed at those who some now think are our ememies that it just wouldn't be too cool as a leader of a country to not attend this Summit. What if peace became the international fashion statement? What if the US were to put a real effort into supporting the United Nations and not have to have private citizens come in with their own money to pay it's dues. Wouldn't that give the UN a greater level of creditility? You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... If not now, then when????????????????????? Peace Bobert
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 08 May 02 - 01:57 PM Bobert, your entire moral calculus of peace falls apart under the weight of the entire history of mankind. I don't have to get past your first proposal to see the fallacy of your entire idea(s). If everyone agreed that those nations involved in disputes would renounce violence, while diligently searching for alternative solutions, then Pollyanna and Peace would prevail. HOWEVER IF EVEN ONE PERSON IN ANY NATION DECIDED THAT VIOLENCE WAS A VIABLE POLICY AT ANY TIME, YOUR ENTIRE PROPOSAL BLOWS AWAY... AND THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE IN VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY OF HUMAN HISTORY. Your proposal is indeed "not starry eyed"... the existence of stars implys gravity, which your ideas do not have. I'm sure that you're a nice guy who never beats his dog and his wife only occasionaly, but if these ideas were well thought out, I have to ask you one question: WHO GETS TO HOLD THE GUNS ON THE PARTICPANTS OF YOUR "MANDATORY PEACE CONFERENCE"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop Date: 08 May 02 - 02:14 PM Thanks for sharing your ideas, Bobert. I think Doug's notion of inviting them in for a cup of coffee or a beer is more likely to succeed. I don't want to seem harsh, but the thing that many of us find frustrating when reading ideas of this kind is that they seem completely divorced from the way the world really works. It's not that we don't want peace, or that we wouldn't be happy if everyone simultaneously decided to beat their swords into plowshares and agreed that they ain't gonna study war no more. But as your solution to a massive terrorist attack that killed thousands of people, and the growth of hostile forces that are actively and specifically working to kill large numbers of innocent people, you suggest that we should think good thoughts (suggestion number one), support Green party candidates (suggestion number two), and launch an advertising campaign (solution number three)? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but it's hard to believe you're serious. I'll keep thinking good thoughts and trying to come up with alternative problem-solving approaches. I won't vote for the Green party until they come up with a credible platform and a few credible candidates (it has nothing to do with the "spoiler" effect; I didn't vote for Nader because I didn't think he'd make much of a President). As for the ad campaign, I'm happy to stick with the Voice of America, the Peace Corps, and foreign aid programs designed to help the unfortunate and show the world that we really aren't such horrible people after all; I don't think more Nike sneaker-type ads are going to win the war for us, and I sure as hell don't plan to bet my children's futures on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 02:33 PM Well, we obviously don't have two folks who are able to think out of the box. For others who are tempted to jump on the "lets not think out of the box" band wagon I would ask that you visit the website of Dennis Kucinich at http://www.house.gov/kucinich and give at least a reasonable ammount of thought process before "reacting". Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 02:35 PM Well, we obviously don't have two folks who are able to think out of the box. For others who are tempted to jump on the "lets not think out of the box" band wagon I would ask that you visit the website of Dennis Kucinich at http://www.house.gov/kucinich and give at least a reasonable ammount of thought process before "reacting". And for those who might think that Green Party ideals are too foreign to assimilate, I would only reccomend learning what those ideals are before voicing opposition. Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 08 May 02 - 06:02 PM I'm interested in hearing YOUR solution to the problem,Bobert. Referring folks to links that may support your own POV mean little to me. For reasons pointed out by others in this thread such links, in my opinion, are suspect. They generally all have an axe to grind one way or the other. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 06:26 PM Well, DougR, my frined, you are certainly consistent in not wanting to look at anything except what either has or hasn't worked in the past. Sorry you gaze is so focused in the rear view mirror because life is filled with possibilities. I'm certainly glad that all the great inventors of thier time and the cancer researchers of today have one thing in common. A love for today and a hope for tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth Date: 08 May 02 - 06:48 PM Oih !!! Calm down Bruvvers and Sisters !!
Two points to ponder - #1/. 20/20 Hindsight is the most effective vision there is. Yes the Kyhmer Rouge (sic) was a legacy of the Indo Chinese Wars. The question I will ask is what was cause and what was effect. I beg to remind all Catters that it was the NVLA who disposed of that problem. Unfortunately when the big fish play, the minnows get eaten. What if ?? Is a game better wordsmiths and authors than me can participate in. - But a thought I will give you - What if The Munich Police had shot to kill in 1920 ??? at the time of the 'Beer Hall Pusch' Hitler, Hess and Goering Dead - Mmmm ! Would they be a minor, very minor, footnote in History ?? For that stem dictates much of the history of the world for the last 80 years. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 07:40 PM Gareth, Voltaire, et al: You're right in that those that don't know history tend to repeat it unless in the words of Einstein: "Insanity is repeting a behavior expecting different results." There aren't roadmaps for peaceful coexistence because mankind has never conguered that challenge. We have mastered the winner-looser concept but peace? Himmmm? The last century. I think you would agree was filled with technological progress and achievements that onlt dreamers and visionaries had considered with their "What if's". What if is the first step. If one cant take that step then they will find themselves left behind, or their childrens who they will past thdeir negativetity down to when the visionaries, like the ones who brought us this means of communication, figure out that its time to try something new to create some level of world security that doesn't involve blowing up things and people... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 08 May 02 - 10:23 PM The "thinking outside the box" approach to problem solving is fine as long as you keep in mind that (1)there may not BE a solution, (2) the solution may be so unpalatable as to be useless, and (3)the solution may already exist inside the box. For example, a world dictatorship could guarantee peace. Any opposition would be met with instant death. "But there's no freedom",I hear you say. Yeah, well...the two don't necessarily go hand in hand; in fact if a country has freedom, it generally isn't long before another country trys to erode it or take it away entirely. In conclusion, ad hominem remarks should never be substituted for real answers to questions. In other words, if someone asks, "What is YOUR solution?" ,either tell them what your solution is, or tell them that you don't have a solution. Any other answer is childish. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 08 May 02 - 10:54 PM When one travels in unchartered territory there are no guarentees. Just like all the great inventors and philosophers and scientists, no guarentees. You're asking for proof. You're asking for a chizzeled in stone guarentee. I can't give that to you, troll. What I can give you are ideas that have a CHANCE to break a cycle of bad, bad human bahavior. You think the solution is in the box. I don't think so or it would have surfaced by now after thousands of years of folks killing each other. It's time to move to a new level. Just like it was time for the world to move to a new level 150 years ago with the railroads. It's time. It's doable. And it's becoming increasingly important in this ever shrinking planet that we Earthings call home. What other ideas have been brought forth in this thread? None. At least I'm out here with a vision rather than trying to figure out why things can't work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 08 May 02 - 11:26 PM " You're asking for proof. You're asking for a chizzeled in stone guarentee. I can't give that to you, troll." No. I was asking if you had a solution. You don't. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? You say you have a vision? All I've seen so far is a little brainstorming that was not terribly origional. Solving problems without violence is a laudable goal and MOST international problems do get solved that way. It's called diplomacy. Support Sen Kucinichs' bill to create a Dept. of Peace. Which will do what? I mean besides suck up even more tax money. Call a MANDATORY Peace Conference. Please see my comments re. World Dictatorship. An ad campaign might have a chance in the industrialized nations but, believe it or not, there are countries where not every home has running water, never mind TV. They are too busy staying alive to be concerned with international chic. So far you've said nothing that wasn't proposed in the '60's with the possible exception of the Dept. of Peace and thats got to be a joke. I mean, the Government is the problem, right? They are the ones who start the wars with their policies. So a Government Department is going to FIX everything? I don't recall any time where a new Government Department hasn't ultimately made things worse while spending huge sums of money. Tax Money; your money and mine. You're not out of the box yet; but keep trying. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 09 May 02 - 10:00 AM The government is just an instrument of the ruling class, troll. Democracy, as it is practiced today in the US, not much more than a facade. BUT and this is a very important BUT, there may be a crack in the facade that has the potential of a restoration of ideals of democracy. Right now, those who control the information that is fed you, want lots of folks thinking that folks like me (and there are millions of us) are no more than starry eyes idealist that have nothing constructive to offer the real world. Well, troll, I can see that the ruling class has your soul and has you programed to the reactionary hilt BUT they don't have mine and millions of others who have chosen to not go for the bait. I have offered thoughtful steps, something that in this thread is a rarity, and this thread has been pared down to you and I. Like I said earlier, not everyone is for working toward a more peaceful earth, and you, troll, having offered no idea but just reactions, must fit in that category. You can carry on without this ol' hillbilly. I have said everything I can say in this thread. See ya' around the Catbox, my friend. Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 09 May 02 - 12:57 PM Bobert, I don't think anyone has anything against starry eyed idealists, except we can't allow the furture of our country be subject to ideas which have a whiff of promise and nothing else. "The states first duty is to preserve itself". Unfortunately, that still remains true today, as cold and as calculating as it might seem. There are dragons out there, and you see the fear that a simple change to the Social Security system causes among the elderly. Imagine subjecting the fortunes of our nation to a highly idealistic but poorly thought out idea. God is in the details, and even our last most idealistic President, Jimmy Carter, was an utter disaster for our country. I do feel that those who claim that the Government is run by (fill in the blank) usually are disaffected people who feel as though they have little or no control over their lives. I can't speak for those respondants such as Troll, Doug R, and Whisle Stop, but I sense a vigorous debate ethic which portends a full life, with plenty of interaction untrammeled by any "secret government." Now this may sound a bit idealistic, but we are the government. I first voted for Johnson, thought the two worst Presidents in my history were Carter, and Clinton, think the bravest, most non-idealogical President was Ford, was disappointed in Nixon during his second term, and think that the elder Mrs. Bush has provide the Nation with excellent leaders as mother and wife. I have no problem attributing the fall of communism to Ronnie ( with the able assistance of Lady T and Gorbie) and that MAD was the single most successful foreign policy by any nation at any time with the highest stakes imaginable. Whether my President or government is the one I voted for or not, I support the process, and will keep that ball in play from the bench, the sidelines, or center court, as time or opportunity permits. I read two national newspapers a day and believe that if the newspapers are fully telling both sides of the story, then half the time they are telling lies, and it's my duty to figure out who. During my police career, I was a hostage negotiator for 12 years and believe that some people deserve killing (and on several occasions put that belief into action). I have played folk music for some forty years and was probably the only Marine Officer in Vietnam with an autoharp. I do not need to agree with a tantrum song to appreciate it's beauty or point. I could go on, but my point is that, at whatever station in life you find yourself, you control the vast majority of your future. No great hidden shadow government is controlling your life. I have been the rooms with people from the CIA, FBI, ATF, DIA, SS and countless other agencies, and for the most part I found them to be dedicated to the nations well being, with enough inter-agency rivalry and institutional cross purpose to prevent them from taking over a 7-11 store. I believe the best peace that you can have in your individual life comes from the confidence that you control your own destiny, and knowing that, the world as you know it, will fall into place... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho Date: 09 May 02 - 02:27 PM Ah Claymore - how very eloquent Brother. And the last line is this: It will fall into place at a rate that is exactly equal to the amount of my own destiny I take responsibility for.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 09 May 02 - 02:37 PM Claymore: I can tell that you have given the subject some thought (unlike others who have posted) and I woulod not be so niave as to think that we would put all the egges in one basket. I would not even suggest that the Department of Defense be shut down in favor of the Department of Peace. The two can coexist with a goal of making the world a safer place. I understand that some folks are just so messed up that one has to defend one's self. What I would like to see is more of my tax dollars spent on promotion of peace and less spent blowing up stuff folks and things. There is no magic blueprint but if we were to get some great thinkers, teachers, ministers, Rabbis, workers of peace, advertsing men, people who handle logistics of helping people build their own economies and farms much like some Peace Corp workers but on a much larger scale. Yeah, if we get these folks together, provide them with 4 or 5% of the Defense Department budget, under the aspices of a Department with a cabinet level director, I believe this approach will pay big dividends and send an important message of hope to the areas of the world where because of poverty and other factors people are without hope and strike at the US in anger. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,NH Dave Date: 09 May 02 - 03:58 PM <&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs>Having joined the Army to avoid the draft - for an extra year I got my choice of schools, and a much easier time in Basic Training - I have mixed emotions about a draft. <&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs>I rather favor a system similar to the one postulated by Robert Heinlein in his book, Starship Troopers. In this governmental system, one could live all his or her life without ever seeing the inside of a barracks, but if s/he wished to become enfranchised, vote or hold elective office, s/he must voluntarily successfully complete a term of civil service. This with the understanding that after volunteering, s/he would be placed in a job that fit the needs of the government and the abilities of the volunteer. Thus with the right abilities, one could become a starship pilot or navigator, or a research biologist, or a mud foot infantryman - unlike the movie, Heinlein's infantry was not co-ed. <&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs>This may seem tough, but it was designed to insure that anyone who desired to vote or hold elected office must have become imbued with the ideal of placing the good of others above personal good. <&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs><&nbs>Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 09 May 02 - 05:37 PM Ol' Bobert could live with that, Dave, as long as major efforts were being made toward some of the goals I have already outlined. I am a firm believer in National Service and think it in itself would do a lot of good across the board as long as politics didn't enter into the assignments. I spent the first half of my life working for lousy wages as a jailhouse teacher, a drug rehab. couseler and lastly a social worker dealing with folks with mental illnesses. I wouldn't trade those experiences for a winning lottery ticket... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 09 May 02 - 09:00 PM Dave: are you sending some kind of coded messages to someone? Osama? Well, see how he likes this! <&nbsssss>!!!! :>) Well, Bobert, it took troll and a few others to pull, push, stain and cajole a bit, but by golly you finally came up with a suggestion! I'm all tired out from waiting, but appreciate the effort you put into writing it. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 09 May 02 - 09:29 PM AND he managed to do it without trying to put anyone down. That's as it should be. Put-downs don't accomplish much except to turn others off to your ideas and to satisfy some ego need. They should be used sparingly, if at all. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 09 May 02 - 09:41 PM Thanks DougR and Troll. We are making progress. Be sure to write your congressmen and tell them that you all ahve changed your minds and now want the Department of Peace established and funded.... I'm so proud of both of you... Come on over here and let me give you a big hug... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 09 May 02 - 09:50 PM I said you had an idea. I didn't say it was a good idea. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 09 May 02 - 10:02 PM Hey, troll, your shoe's untied. Ha, made ya look. Now come over here and get a big hug. All good ideas start out as regular un-leaded ideas. When we get this thing off the ground, I'm going to put in a good word for ya'. Not too sure about Dougie, but I'll keep an open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 09 May 02 - 11:55 PM No, Bobert, no good words are required for me, hugs are nice but I'd really prefer one (no offence) from WyoWoman. :>) I, too, am delighted you finally verbalized your idea, but as to it's viability ...well, it's an idea I guess. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 10 May 02 - 12:54 AM Bobert, I never wear shoes indoors. They already know about me so good words won't help. What they don't know is where I actually am. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Date: 10 May 02 - 09:51 AM Yeah, troll, I like to keep my shoes guessin', too. Since I live in a private area on the Blue Ridge, I've been known to keep the rest of my clothes guessin' too if it ain't too buggy, but I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 10 May 02 - 10:23 AM Blue Ridge. Where? (approx) I was raised in Avery co. N.C. in a village called Crossnore. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 10 May 02 - 11:53 AM Watch it troll! Haven't you read the thread on protecting your civil rights? Spaw or somebody is sure to notify the FBI of your birthplace, and before you know it, they will know where you are now! Geeze! You're so reckless! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Date: 10 May 02 - 11:53 AM Watch it troll! Haven't you read the thread on protecting your civil rights? Spaw or somebody is sure to notify the FBI of your birthplace, and before you know it, they will know where you are now! Geeze! You're so reckless! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Date: 10 May 02 - 12:00 PM Doug, I'm not concerned. Publishers Clearinghouse hasn't been able to locate me. I should worry about those schmendrecks in the FBI? troll |