|
01 May 02 - 09:09 AM (#701975) Subject: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 01:29 PM (#702174) Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 01:52 PM (#702193) Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: catspaw49 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 02:01 PM (#702200) Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Amergin well doug you are in no danger of getting drafted are you? |
|
01 May 02 - 02:03 PM (#702201) Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Don Firth Any time we've really needed the military, plenty of volunteers have been there. Don Firth |
|
01 May 02 - 02:05 PM (#702202) Subject: RE: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 02:26 PM (#702217) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
01 May 02 - 02:28 PM (#702222) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Jim Krause Well said, Little Hawk! Jim |
|
01 May 02 - 02:50 PM (#702246) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 03:09 PM (#702270) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 04:30 PM (#702337) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Well said, Whistle Stop, both posts. DougR |
|
01 May 02 - 04:43 PM (#702350) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk Ah, yes, I see what you mean, Whistle Stop. Point taken. - LH |
|
01 May 02 - 04:46 PM (#702353) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. 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. |
|
01 May 02 - 05:21 PM (#702384) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore 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... |
|
01 May 02 - 06:17 PM (#702400) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 06:59 PM (#702419) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 08:06 PM (#702458) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: ddw 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
|
|
01 May 02 - 10:56 PM (#702547) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 11:08 PM (#702553) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 11:24 PM (#702560) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr 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 |
|
01 May 02 - 11:24 PM (#702561) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 01:12 AM (#702600) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 01:48 AM (#702615) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 May 02 - 01:52 AM (#702619) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 02:20 AM (#702628) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 03:17 AM (#702655) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,macca 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. |
|
02 May 02 - 04:40 AM (#702698) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Hrothgar 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. |
|
02 May 02 - 07:13 AM (#702763) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU 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. |
|
02 May 02 - 07:21 AM (#702765) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Teribus "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. |
|
02 May 02 - 09:50 AM (#702856) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Midchuck 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. |
|
02 May 02 - 10:15 AM (#702866) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: RichM 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 12:47 PM (#702952) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore 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... |
|
02 May 02 - 01:52 PM (#703008) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll "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 |
|
02 May 02 - 02:19 PM (#703035) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
02 May 02 - 06:55 PM (#703235) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR troll: Hear, hear! Michaelr: I think your original post clarifies where you are coming from, and an assumption is really not necessary. DougR
|
|
02 May 02 - 07:24 PM (#703244) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: michaelr 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
|
|
02 May 02 - 10:55 PM (#703376) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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". |
|
02 May 02 - 11:07 PM (#703384) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Jon Bartlett 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? |
|
02 May 02 - 11:25 PM (#703401) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Stephen L. Rich 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
|
|
03 May 02 - 12:03 AM (#703413) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,macca 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.... |
|
03 May 02 - 07:58 AM (#703525) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop 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 |
|
03 May 02 - 05:22 PM (#703892) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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... |
|
03 May 02 - 06:22 PM (#703918) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Yawn ... DougR |
|
03 May 02 - 07:55 PM (#703986) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Sorry, Doug. Am I keeping you up? But it's always good to hear from ya. Even if it's just a yawn... |
|
03 May 02 - 09:35 PM (#704033) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho 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, |
|
03 May 02 - 11:21 PM (#704066) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Thanks Steve. You put it much more eloquently than I did. troll |
|
04 May 02 - 02:07 AM (#704106) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Stephen L. Rich 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 |
|
04 May 02 - 02:32 AM (#704110) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
04 May 02 - 05:55 PM (#704418) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
04 May 02 - 06:47 PM (#704448) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth (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 |
|
04 May 02 - 08:21 PM (#704481) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. 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. |
|
05 May 02 - 01:42 AM (#704593) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
05 May 02 - 08:25 AM (#704670) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth 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 |
|
05 May 02 - 08:49 AM (#704679) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Peter T. 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. |
|
05 May 02 - 02:26 PM (#704813) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
05 May 02 - 05:06 PM (#704897) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Those 50 year old generals were just following orders, Peter, nothing else. DougR |
|
05 May 02 - 09:17 PM (#705011) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
05 May 02 - 09:32 PM (#705021) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,mg 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 |
|
05 May 02 - 09:43 PM (#705025) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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. |
|
05 May 02 - 11:32 PM (#705049) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Thank you, Clement Atlee. troll |
|
06 May 02 - 11:56 AM (#705258) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho 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 |
|
06 May 02 - 01:36 PM (#705314) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop 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. |
|
06 May 02 - 02:03 PM (#705334) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 07:50 AM (#705838) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar 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. |
|
07 May 02 - 08:02 AM (#705842) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 11:50 AM (#705963) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 12:38 PM (#705989) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 03:08 PM (#706109) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 08:36 PM (#706388) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
07 May 02 - 11:31 PM (#706472) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 01:33 PM (#706788) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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
|
|
08 May 02 - 01:57 PM (#706806) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore 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"? |
|
08 May 02 - 02:14 PM (#706825) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Whistle Stop 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. |
|
08 May 02 - 02:33 PM (#706838) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 02:35 PM (#706839) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 06:02 PM (#706986) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 06:26 PM (#706999) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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. |
|
08 May 02 - 06:48 PM (#707005) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 07:40 PM (#707038) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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... |
|
08 May 02 - 10:23 PM (#707121) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
08 May 02 - 10:54 PM (#707141) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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. |
|
08 May 02 - 11:26 PM (#707156) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll " 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 10:00 AM (#707358) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 12:57 PM (#707474) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore 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... |
|
09 May 02 - 02:27 PM (#707532) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 02:37 PM (#707541) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 03:58 PM (#707613) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,NH Dave <&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 |
|
09 May 02 - 05:37 PM (#707681) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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... |
|
09 May 02 - 09:00 PM (#707790) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 09:29 PM (#707801) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
09 May 02 - 09:41 PM (#707810) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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... |
|
09 May 02 - 09:50 PM (#707819) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll I said you had an idea. I didn't say it was a good idea. troll |
|
09 May 02 - 10:02 PM (#707825) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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. |
|
09 May 02 - 11:55 PM (#707888) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
10 May 02 - 12:54 AM (#707914) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll 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 |
|
10 May 02 - 09:51 AM (#708116) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert 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. |
|
10 May 02 - 10:23 AM (#708146) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Blue Ridge. Where? (approx) I was raised in Avery co. N.C. in a village called Crossnore. troll |
|
10 May 02 - 11:53 AM (#708213) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
10 May 02 - 11:53 AM (#708215) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR 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 |
|
10 May 02 - 12:00 PM (#708221) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll Doug, I'm not concerned. Publishers Clearinghouse hasn't been able to locate me. I should worry about those schmendrecks in the FBI? troll |
|
10 May 02 - 12:12 PM (#708234) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Ebbie We did the 'War on Poverty', the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Cancer'... Most fortunate that we won them all. |
|
10 May 02 - 01:48 PM (#708340) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Troll: I live way up the Blue Ridge in Jefferson County, West Virginia. The closest town is Harpers Ferry which is about 10 miles north. I'm not familiar with Crossmore but I have been to Rutherfordton (pronounced Rofftin i8n those parts). I'm also going to be in Boone, N.C. on July 13th and 14th for a Scottish festival. And my last connection with western Carolina in Collowhee, where my wife, who teaches music, occasionally attends Orff music workshops. |
|
10 May 02 - 02:02 PM (#708348) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Ebbie: I get the sarcasm, but what's your point? Was this in reply to a previous thread? DougR |
|
10 May 02 - 02:12 PM (#708355) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Ebbie Doug, it isn't meant to be sarcasm. My point is that the war on terrorism, using our present approach, is not winnable any more than those 'wars' have proved to be. We are sowing dragon's teeth. First, and more than anything else, we MUST go back to the basics, we MUST address the issues that have brought about the current climate. After that, I agree that alertness, vigilance and prompt attention are essential, but tit for tat is insane. I saw Ariel Sharon say the other day: Our goal is that whenever someone kills us, we will find them and kill them. As a goal, that's a sad commentary on what has come down the pike. If you look back on some other threads, notably soon after Sept. 11, you'll find that a lot of people agree with Bobert. |
|
10 May 02 - 04:07 PM (#708425) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Ebbie: Thanks for the assist. Ol' troll and Dougie had my butt surrounded there for a couple of days and I was thinking, "Hey, where is everyone." And what some fail to recognize is that there are a lot of folks like us. A lot. And when it is time to stand up and be counted, I have total faith that we will all recognize our opportunity and responsibility to do just that and change forever the manner in which we Earthlings will conduct business. Oh yeah, we recognize that this isn't that time but it is a time for a little ground work and that is why we make these efforts to paint alternatives. Thanks again, Ebbie, Bobert |
|
10 May 02 - 04:16 PM (#708432) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU Hi Claymore and everyone... I can understand why ... to a hostage negotiator, everyone who distrusts "the government" is a marginalised outsider... and why the history of the humanity seems to be one long story of pain and agony war and murder... but let me assure you that there is another human possibility. We Quakers don't live in the margins, rather, our peacable kingdom overlaps your battlefields and national fortresses. We once tried our hand at government, ran the Pensulvainia Colony and are still on good terms with most Indian governments as a result. We kept our promices and worked together with Native neighbors. Our lamb's war was overtaken by your wars of swords and guns, and the peaceable Indians of our Colony were murdered by an army from another colony. Wonder why distrust governments which maintain armies? But, written history is not the history of humanity in total. Before settled communities there is no evidence in the foscil record for war or murder. So, I believe we evolved into the killers some now are. I also believe in a world where third world nations and super powers alike, can destroy life on our planit with nuclear weapons, it is time to concider evolving out of war as a solution, in the past ten thousand years, it has proved to be a rather inefficent solution. So, here I am, talking you out of the hostage situation where your philosophy holds us hostage to your missiles. Where do we begin, what can we offer you to put down the gun, let a few hostages go, Friend... Yours in the light Larry |
|
10 May 02 - 07:01 PM (#708515) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Bobert: you talking revolution here? If you are, I need to oil up my musket I suppose. DougR |
|
10 May 02 - 07:36 PM (#708543) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Bobert Yes, Dougie. But you won't need to oil up your musket because there will be no need for them on either side. Plus, I have been given the task to convert you and have arranged for you to hold a very special position in the new Party of Peace. But I don't want to tell you too much now ot else you'll be so excited you won't be able to sleep tonight.... Bobert |
|
10 May 02 - 11:57 PM (#708655) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll I'm from about 20 miles south of Boone. troll |
|
11 May 02 - 12:03 AM (#708656) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Bobert: I am breathless and cannot wait to hear your plans for me. Will I be a General, Admiral, High Potentate or something? Do I need to get in shape? I guess that's the important question. DougR |
|
11 May 02 - 04:13 AM (#708703) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Ebbie DougR, the least shall be first and the first shall be least... |
|
11 May 02 - 02:32 PM (#708973) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Gareth Civil War ? Rebellion ? I live about 5 miles from Machen, where the invading Normans were given a very bloody nose by the Kingdom of Sengehydd. In about 1100 AD - And Yes we Welsh had universal conscription then. As the Bards recorded at the time (Translated)The River (Afon) Rhymni ran red with Norman Blood. Caerphilly Castle was built, eventually, and over many years, to subdue Sengehydd - Demolished several times by us locals in the course of that long bitter fight. But universal Military Service - of course - and the fact remains that no man could call himself a leader untill he had served, with honour. ( Bush/Regan/Clinton, please note.) Gareth/Garydd.
The Minstral Boy to the war has gone, |
|
11 May 02 - 03:43 PM (#709029) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Bobert: I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow and won't be back for four or five days. I hope you and Larry don't get drafted while I'm gone! If you do, maybe Ebbie will bake you some cookies to take along with you to basic training :>) DougR |
|
11 May 02 - 04:16 PM (#709053) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: artbrooks For those who propose that we create peace on earth by establishing yet another government agency, we already have a "Department of Peace". Its called the Agency for International Development. This is an extract from its policy statement: "The agency works to support long-term and equitable economic growth and advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting: economic growth, agricultural and trade; global health; and, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance." You can find out more about it here: USAID. The issue as I see it isn't that we don't have an agency with this mission, but that we don't give it an appropriate priority. |
|
11 May 02 - 05:18 PM (#709078) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Ebbie Funny you should say that, DougR. You probably don't know that I make sourdough cookies for the tourists all summer long. 'Tis true. Serve them with 'Russian' Tea. |
|
12 May 02 - 02:33 AM (#709336) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: DougR Mmmm. Sounds good Ebbie! No, I didn't know that, but they sure sound good! I don't recall ever having eaten sourdough cookies. I don't recall ever hearing that such cookies existed. I'd like a sourdough cookie!!! DougR |
|
12 May 02 - 02:49 AM (#709338) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Ebbie hahhaha They do exist, I assure you. The ones I make are sourdough soft ginger (i.e, not snaps) cookies, and they are really quite good. I make one batch at a time then dollop them onto waxed paper and roll them up for slicing one panful at a time. That way they're always fresh and there's no waste. |
|
13 May 02 - 01:23 AM (#709922) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST When I was overseas after the war, the big one, we were required to use script on the base and we were paid in it too. |
|
13 May 02 - 05:38 AM (#710006) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU Sounds like you were in debt to the company store, Guest! Cripes! Larry |
|
13 May 02 - 08:58 AM (#710142) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll GROAAAN!!! troll |
|
13 May 02 - 09:37 AM (#710167) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: InOBU TROLL!!! I had the spagetti and eggplant too! Try some Tums! Feel better, Larry |
|
13 May 02 - 09:56 AM (#710184) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Troll I DON'T EAT EGGPLANT. EVER! troll |
|
13 May 02 - 05:45 PM (#710504) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Claymore Gads, I'm off-line from this thread for a couple of days and it turns into a food fight... but Norton I do appreciate your coda to my epistle. |
|
13 May 02 - 06:08 PM (#710521) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: Steve in Idaho Claymore - I really didn't do code - I was a 2531 not a 2533. And I thought this was a food fight and not a pi.....
Well shoot it always helps to put ones glasses on before responding to posts :-)
I can't believe this horse is still getting wacked - must be a government horse. Beat it long enough and someone will come and prop it up - such as I am now doing - - Gads - Now I'M a government agent.
Steve
|
|
30 May 02 - 02:54 PM (#720360) Subject: RE: BS: UniversalMilitary Conscription in the US From: GUEST,Peace Matriot In light of recent US Memorial Day and anti-conscription threads, I thought I'd refresh this just to say how one sided the arguments here are...not too many women included in your discussion. We give birth to the entire world, and make up half of it, so I wonder why our opinions aren't solicited when it comes to war, of which we and our children are the most numerous victims? Interesting to see some non-US points of view expressed here too. Unfortunate there aren't more to balance out the imperial US voices. |