How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Draft: Inevitable?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Draft: Inevitable?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


100 posted 11-22-2004 09:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hold the Mao, Brad
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


101 posted 11-22-2004 09:45 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Huan Yi, I'm not even going to respond to your last reply here. I wish no ill will to you or to anyone who disagrees with me here. All I can say is I find it saddening you'd even think of posting a response like that, as you clearly know I oppose all major violent campaigns, thus I fervently oppose what Hitler did, what Stalin did, what the U.S did in East Timor, etc. Good day to you.

In response to that question raised up again, as long as it doesn't involve guns or Tasers, etc. I support the police in what they do in fighting crime and apprehending criminals. I mean, during the Republican National Convention, the police were very successful in cordoning and controlling large numbers of protests with orange netting and motorcycle and police car blockades without the use of guns or Tasers or tear gas. I believe the cops have the right to open-handed self-defense, that is, self-defense that doesn't kill or severely injure someone. This is a wide subject so I go on and on listing various situations like car chases, arsonry, etc. but I think you know my general position here. Light physical contact is acceptable if necessary. I also happen to believe if there was more funding in rehabilitation and prison education programs, that could benefit the public as well.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


102 posted 11-22-2004 10:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

....as long as it doesn't involve guns or tasers...

Noah, would Al Capone love you!!

I sincerely wish there could be that perfect world you envision, Noah, but earth history dictates that it has never been and will never be. There has always been good and evil and good has always had to fight evil. If you truly do not believe in fighting for liberty, for justice, for freedom, or to defeat oppression then I can assure you that you would not like the world that would be the result of such inaction. It does not matter that those like you will always oppose fighting - there will always be people to fight for you. Be glad there are.....
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


103 posted 11-23-2004 06:45 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

As somebody from the UK looking at the draft situation in the US, could somebody please explain to me, how one of the fundamental arguing points of the presidential campain was abortion, and the religious citizens of america were told in no uncertain terms to vote for Bush because he would not allow phoetesus to be killed because he was a very religuous man( who used his influence to get a cushy place come the vietnam war) and yet he sends soldiers to their death fighting a war for what exactly?
Does this mean he does not want to kill them as phoetesus before he has a chance to kill them as 18year adults? Because to my way of thinking this is not the actions of a religiuos man, it is the actions of a hypocrite, and it is this hypochrisy that should make a BIG difference to people when it comes to making a decision to go and fight for your country, at the end of the day and at the end of all the wars that the american soldier is sacrficed, the families of the top brass will have more money and the familys of the dead will have given them that money through the blood of their preciuos loved ones.

If Noah does not want to fight a war because he feels he cannot kill through his sensitive conscience then i applaud his stance and anybody who denies him that right denies him his life, and others of his age old enough to fight.

Just my take on things from the UK who also have men dying in a war where they dont know why they are there.

May all have a great and peaceful day.

Goldenrose
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


104 posted 11-23-2004 08:40 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Goldenrose:

quote:
Does this mean he does not want to kill them as phoetesus before he has a chance to kill them as 18year adults? Because to my way of thinking this is not the actions of a religiuos man, it is the actions of a hypocrite, and it is this hypochrisy that should make a BIG difference to people when it comes to making a decision to go and fight for your country, at the end of the day and at the end of all the wars that the american soldier is sacrficed, the families of the top brass will have more money and the familys of the dead will have given them that money through the blood of their preciuos loved ones.


Turning your analogy on its ear, is it then hypocracy for someone to be against wartime killing yet approve of the killing of the unborn?

The problem is that your analogy is flawed.  There are too many variables you are glossing over in order to reach your conclusion that Bush is being inconstant.  Acts of war ... "legal" homicide ... involve free moral agents.  Soldiers know when they enlist that they may be called upon to fight.  The unborn are completely at the mercy of their mothers.  Apples and oranges.

Jim
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


105 posted 11-23-2004 02:41 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

What is it with all this "your attitude is the best friend a thing like Hitler and his kind could have" and "would Al Capone love you" rhetoric? Honestly. That's absurd.

History has certainly proven there will always be the greedy, the avarice, the hateful, the gluttonous, the vengeful. I also understand in my opinion that war has never solved anything in history as well. Weapons may be taken and armies may be silenced, but the tension and repose is always there, which I fear this tension in Iraq will only guarantee and incite further conflict.

As for Goldenrose's comparison, I do agree that particular analogy is flawed, as I myself believe it's a decision women should decide, but I believe you shouldn't need an analogy to show that if you are a conscientious objector or oppose this war, you shouldn't be forced into fighting it. This violates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one of the strongest American ethics, and I believe you can serve your nation by being a teacher, by being a firefighter, by being a doctor.

THIS would be where the hypocrisy lies. Denying those like myself who oppose this war the right to this American moral in being forced part of a selective slavery program. Where's the liberty in that? Where's the happiness in someone who doesn't believe in war that has to do contrary? And, you might just lose your life as well.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


106 posted 11-24-2004 05:27 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Yes i would agree that it is the mothers right to choose weather the child lives or not, but the current government seek to DENY the parent that right, intervening like a God, i agree it is a sin to kill a child,but the government say it is wrong, while hiding behind religion to make their point. The real hypochrisy comes from the religeous people who openly back a president that breaks one of the key commandments, ''thou shalt not kill'', they back a man that not only kills people with no connection to america but kills his own people for the sake of what? OIL... is the answer, i know it and if the ones who will not acknowlegde it, knows it deep down too. So, weather it is being killed as infant or killed as an adult it is still KILLING in the eyes of the lord and that is a SIN..unless you want to change the law by saying ''thou shalt not kill...unless the president thinks it is neccessary.''.He is NOT omnipotent he is mortal, only one power may take a life and that is GOD, anybody that sanctions that killing (and this includes priests and those who would follow their example)will be punnished come the day of weighing of the good deeds done in life.

So lets us say for example that people of Noah's age may be called up to serve their country, dont you think it at least courteous to tell them why they are going to die? Shouldnt the soldiers only be sent to war when it is absolutely neccessary? And not, like in this case for OIL?

Killing is killing no matter how you dress it up, and NO law made by God can be altered by man to fit their own situations, it is still a mortal sin.

May all have a peacful and happy day...

Goldenrose.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


107 posted 11-24-2004 07:04 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

So, Phillip, you don't believe a man has a right to defend himself and his family? If a lunatic was slicing and dicing someone you loved and you held a pistol in your hand, you wouldn't use it? Because killing, no matter how you dress it, is still a mortal sin?

Is your world really so black and white?
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


108 posted 11-24-2004 09:10 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Goldenrose:

So you are admitting to being inconstant yet you criticize those who you perceive as being inconstant?

quote:
Yes i would agree that it is the mothers right to choose weather the child lives or not, but the current government seek to DENY the parent that right, intervening like a God, i agree it is a sin to kill a child,but the government say it is wrong, while hiding behind religion to make their point.


Then:

quote:
He is NOT omnipotent he is mortal, only one power may take a life and that is GOD, anybody that sanctions that killing (and this includes priests and those who would follow their example)will be punnished come the day of weighing of the good deeds done in life.


If the unborn child is a person, by virtue of its personal attributes, early cognition, etc., and that is the basis on which those opposed to abortion stake their position, then your charge of their "hiding behind their religion" is unfounded.  If the unborn child is a person, by virtue of its personal attributes, early cognition, etc., and you sanction their killing, you are guilty of the same thing you charge the priests and, if your own eschatological views are on spot (which I would suppose they are not) - in your own words - you "will be punnished come the day of weighing of the good deeds done in life."

Additionally, the same God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments also commanded Israel to invade Palestine and kill all its inhabitants.  He also (if you ascribe to Paul's view set forth in Romans) endowed governments with the authority to do what is necessary to keep the peace (i.e., enacting laws and enforcing them - capital crimes included).

I think we agree that the intentional killing of another human being, committed with premeditation and deliberation, without excuse, justification, or mitigating circumstances, deserves severe punishment.  You might say, "But the Commandment just says 'Thou shalt not kill.'"  To that, I say read the rest of Exodus.  Does Moses offer examples of circumstances that warrant excusing, justifying, or mitigating the otherwise capital offense of murder?

Jim
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


109 posted 11-25-2004 04:52 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Ron...  i believe there is a world of difference betweeen ''preventing''..or attempting to prevent someone killing the ones close to you, and actually killing them...there is non violent action that can be done without killing a person...even the Dalai Lama the most non violent person on the planet has addmitted in his book that if push comes to shove,(and presumably put in the very situation you are refering to..IE people close to him being attacked)..he would use a gun to WOUND...but not kill...there is a difference....

Jim.... i do not believe i am being inconstant.I have already agreed that ALL killing is wrong be it abortion or any other type of killing, but what i object to is the government of any country trying to interfere with people's personal lives and telling them what they should or should not do...it is up to the individual woman to decide on abortion, SHE will be judeged by God come the day.If she decides that she wants to terminate a pregnancy brought about by forced rape then that is her call, she will face God and attempt to atone for what she did.She should NOT be brow beaten and somehow ostracised as a result of her difficult decision, it is her individual right to choose and her soul come the day , not a a government's or even the collective thoughts of clergy and church...but let me quote another part of the bible for you...''whoso sheddeth mans blood,
by man shall his blood be shed.
for in the image of God made he man.''.Only one person should take a life, life is sacred...and no PRESIDENT...PRIME MINISTER...OR DICTATOR should do Gods work...anyone who does shall pay the ultimate penalty come judgement day....i would say most deceased leaders of the world are NOT sat with Our Lord...but somewhere south of heaven where they deserve to be, along with the people who carry out their wicked orders....and where our current leaders who send men to their death for nothing more than avarice will be sent.....so called church leaders will stand up for anything so long as their bellys and mouths are full, even if the money comes from those who would seek to kill men for nothing.They know it is wrong for men to kill men and yet they stand by and take the money to keep silent...shame on them is what i say, eternal damnation will surely be their rewards for such acts...and the goverments they shield with their holier than thou attitude...God is GOD...anybody else doing his work is PLAYING at being God and that will not be tolerated.....
May the day be beautiful and peacful to all...

Goldenrose



[This message has been edited by Goldenrose (11-25-2004 06:48 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


110 posted 11-25-2004 06:33 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... he would use a gun to WOUND...but not kill...there is a difference....

LOL. What, you think he's not already mad enough? I would submit that you and the Dalai Lama have been watching a little too much television. I'll bet you think you can hit someone over the head to knock them out, too?

When you pull a trigger, you damn well better be prepared for death. Guns aren't designed to wound people.

quote:
... anyone who does shall pay the ultimate penalty come judgement day

Anyone, Phillip?

If you hit someone with your car and they die, do you go to hell? If you fail to give blood and someone bleeds to death on the operating table, do you go to hell? If you eat a porterhouse steak that could have saved a starving child in Africa, do you go to hell? If you pay your taxes so the government can manufacture bombs and bullets, do you go to hell?

You're trying to defend an Absolute, Phillip, and that means there can be NO exceptions.

quote:
..it is up to the individual woman to decide on abortion, SHE will be judeged by God come the day.

So killing is fine with you as long as you can fall back on God to do the judging? Instead of stopping people with guns from killing others, you are content to let God handle the consequences?

Again, Phillip -- there can be NO exceptions to an Absolute.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


111 posted 11-25-2004 06:57 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Ron non violent action is the only way forward, those who even own guns are by the very act wicked and evil.
And yes i do fall back on Gods judgement, most of the things you mentioned were made by men, Gods judgement is the only judgement that counts, and most people would do well to remember that.
If you do all things good, anything perpertrated against you while doing good shall be counted as evil and that evilness will be atoned for, what will i as a person who does only good have to atone for?
You may mock and seek to make fun of me, but which one of us is doing evil and wrong acts with weapons of evil, and which is not? Maybe therein lies the hypochrisy of american society, on the one hand they want to be seen as God loving people, then on the other they are armed and ready to break his laws as quick as saying his name, it is evident that non -violent conduct is wasted on the american people, killing is already deeply rooted in their psyche...
May peace...love and goodness be your watchwords...

Goldenrose.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


112 posted 11-25-2004 09:22 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Goldenrose,

Assuming you grant God omnipotence,
God has no problem killing so why should
his creations?


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


113 posted 11-25-2004 12:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You may mock and seek to make fun of me ...

I'm not mocking you, Phillip. I'm just trying to get you to think and, perhaps, recognize the inconsistencies inherent in your absolutes. Seeing everything in black and white can be a comfort, I know, but refusing to see the shades of gray doesn't make them just go away. There are, for example, many legitimate reasons to own a gun, especially in a rural area like mine. Yet, you would unilaterally declare such ownership wicked and evil, this in spite of earlier admitting that both you and Dalai Lama would willingly use one to "wound" a man trying to harm someone you love. You honestly don't see the inconsistencies in much of what you're saying?

Getting frustrated, angry, and throwing out unjustified insults doesn't really strengthen your arguments, either.


Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


114 posted 11-26-2004 05:00 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Yuan Yi....God is the Lord of all creation, we are his subjects, we must abide by his laws and not play at being him by taking(or killing)a life/lives. We exist only because of his grace, he is above the law of mortals.
When entering a courtroom do you not swear on the bible? You swear on the bible before God himself, because his is the higher power.
He laid down the rules and his rules clearly state that ''though shalt not kill''.
This is his decree to his human subjects and you must not do against his will, if you do you will have to atone for those days come the day.
He does not make the instruments of death, his subjects make them, we as humans make the weapons that break his rules, only he may call you from this mortal world, and when he calls you go, and procede to the counting.

Ron.... i do not think that i was being angry/frustrating or insulting, i merely acted like a doctor with a patient, i told you symptoms of america's life as we know, with regards to guns and the need to use them, it is up to you how you reconcile yourself with God about there use/misuse. I do not offer the prescription, that is for the american people.
We in England do not feel the need for weapons, i do not carry a weapon and i would say 99% of Brtish people do not either. We take a very dim view of guns here, only gansters and so called ''sportsmen'' own guns here, we have no need for them.I did not say that I would use a gun to wound i did not mention myself in connection to using guns, i did however mention that the Dalai Lama had said he would wound, if push come to shove.
If you thought that i was angry/frustrated Ron please understand that i was not, and i was not seeking to be insulting either.
This is where i seem to be misconstrued here, my style of discussion is often thought to be inflaming, but this is how we debate things here in england, i think that my grandparents would call us ''thick skinned'' that means that we dont get so upset and run away from things we would rather not talk about, we talk about them and move on, but americans tend to be overly sensitive, please forgive me if i treated you like an englishman, in future i will moderate my style of approach to suit the american readers.....

May all have a fine day...and peaceful night...

Goldenrose.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


115 posted 11-26-2004 04:43 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Goldenrose,

“He laid down the rules and his rules clearly state that ''though shalt not kill''.”

Allegedly

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


116 posted 11-27-2004 09:42 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Goldenrose-

'non violent action is the only way forward'

It's the best, most ideal way forward. Sometimes it's not possible.

'those who even own guns are by the very act wicked and evil.'

Wicked and evil? Now you sound like G-dubs... lol. Maybe the NRA should rename themselves the Axis of evil.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


117 posted 05-04-2005 04:43 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Since the last update, many noticeable results have come out.

For three consecutive months the Army has fallen short of their recruitment goals and are approximately 10% behind for this year. The Army has also said they haven't reached a recruitment goal since October.

The U.S. Army revealed Tuesday that during the month of April the Army missed its recruiting goal by 42 percent. The Army Reserve fell short by 37 percent

The Marines, meanwhile, have also been in a slump, missing goals for four consecutive months now.

The war in Iraq is the main reason many are refusing to enlist.

In addition, a newly released assessment from the Pentagon of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has declared that in result of these wars, it has affected U.S readiness in furthering future campaigns on the war on terror, especially in the controversial regions of Iran and North Korea in which Bush has threatened to take possible force should they not abandon their weapons programs.

It's also important to note out that over 5,500 U.S troops have went AWOL since the Iraq invasion.

I guess the question here is this.

If a draft really isn't on the table, then what are the military options of the U.S, assuming the Bush Administration wants to advance their war on terror?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


118 posted 05-04-2005 06:33 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Yanno, I tried a google search with keywords 'awol iraq 5500' and almost all the hits were from liberal, 'progressive', socialistic, anarchistic, peace-at-all-costs, and similar websites, all quoting verbatim the same info given by CBS back in December.  The recent article by CBS is a followup of that December story, which appears to be the same one run in Harper's Monthly.  In fact, that was the only link I could find with the least amount of bias.  Although I could be wrong there....I'm sure socialist.cc has no political leanings one way or the other.   I do find it interesting that CBS was the only network news agency to cover this story, not NBC, ABC, CNN, CSPAN, or even FOX.  Again, I could be wrong, but wading through 744 links of roughly identical material is a bit too masochistic even for me.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


119 posted 05-04-2005 06:53 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Alicat, it was the Pentagon that made that estimation of 5,500 U.S military personnel deserting. CBS News lead that report December 8th (Though community media outlets got that story well before CBS aired it)

What isn't as lucid are the individual stories of these estimated thousands who walked out from opposition to the war in Iraq, fled to Canada, etc.

Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia is probably the most popular story out right now, who was subsequently court-martialed, jailed for a year, then ever since has campaigned against the occupation.

In addition, according to the National Gulf War Resource Center, between 40,000 and 50,000 military personnel are in Iraq despite serious medical conditions, while the GI Rights Hotline, has said 32,000 calls were made in 2004 from soldiers either wanting to find an exit from the military, or confessing stress on the battlefield, most of it post-traumatic.

I'm under the impression that the war in Iraq is far more unpopular than the mainstream media leads us to believe, and all across the board, it is the war in Iraq running against many's beliefs in why so many are refusing to enlist in the military. They otherwise would love to serve their country through the military, but they also don't want to serve in a campaign they find run against their beliefs or immoral.

Anyway, back to the question, which I consider immensely serious.

If Bush truly insists that there will be not be a draft...period...what options do the Administration and the U.S military have in furthering the war on terror they're committed to, especially considering there's no intention yet to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and with a number of countries dropping out or planning to drop out of the coalition of the willing including Ukraine, Poland, and Italy?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


120 posted 05-04-2005 07:05 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I have no ill towards those other countries, as they are fulfilling commitments they made in trust at the onset.  What so many of those websites fail to mention, I'm sure by accident, are the numbers of countries either starting committments or continuing committments.

As for the Pentagon papers, I'm sure they're valid, but it leaves open the main question I have.  With such large numbers, why is it no other 'reputable' news agencies ran with the story?

And as for military numbers short of a draft, there's still tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Europe, still defending Western Europe against Communist aggression.  On that front, I'm all for base closures and letting those countries fund their own military and internal security instead relying on our military while badmouthing our military.  Let em badmouth their own troops.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


121 posted 05-04-2005 07:22 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

How should I know exactly? Understanding that you seem to believe the Pentagon papers are "valid" yourself I find incredibly significant.

I'm not sure, but my hunch personally is that this is news the "officialdom media" doesn't want the general public to know because it certainly is an icebreaker story in my mind. It reveals exactly how unpopular this particular war is. All the same, you can never underestimate how far one such story could go, and I believe our "officialdom media" is slanted to supporting the war, not exactly as enthusiastic as two years ago or so, but still not providing any anti-war forum. CBS has been leaning further to the right since Bob Schieffer replaced Dan Rather, and NPR is going to move more to the right soon with plans to "balance" the networking there.

I also believe the story didn't blow up as much as it should because, after all, the general public love details, right to the point. I'm sure they want to know more about the names of those 5,500 than just the number alone. And these accounts just aren't being revealed so thus remains some skepticism to the results.

*

*

I currently believe that this Administration is not going to forget about or put Iran on the backburner and they are anxious to do something about the controversy there, especially considering Iran saying yesterday they are going to continue on with their nuclear plant program during the second day of a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Unless a miracle happens within the Army that suddenly engineers recruitment goals, or the troops are pulled out of Iraq, what other possible option is there for the government to further their military agenda other than a draft?

There hasn't been an answer yet, which I'm lead to believe there simply isn't an alternative.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


122 posted 05-04-2005 08:41 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

By saying I think the Pentagon papers are valid, there's a reason.  Passing along forged papers purported as being from the Pentagon is a huge no-no, and not one any media person would perpetrate, since the backlash would be massive, and not just from conservatives.  That being said, not everything that comes out of the Pentagon, or any governmental office, is necessarily true, factual, or correct.  And I'm not 'show-me-the-money' when it happens to suit my political stance.  I'm that way almost all the time.

Not all major media outlets are 'pro-war' or 'anti-war', nor should they be.  Their primary role is to present news, facts, stories, and opinions.  And opinions of persons featured should never set the perception of that particular news agency.  It does though, since viewers are human, the weakest link in humanity.  I watch Fox News, to the chagrin of my SO.  Not because I agree with everything they say, I don't.  Not because they are conservative or liberal, they ain't.  But because I trust them to tell it like it is, and know they will piss off the maximum amount of people on both sides with the least amount of effort.  By today's standards, that's about as balanced as you can get with news.  In fact, there are some guests, anchors, and hosts that I really can't tolerate and either mute at the first opportunity, change the channel until their slot is over, or simply turn the idiot box off for a while.

I do agree with you regarding Iran in my more cynical moments.  Which countries surround Iran?  Of those, how many are 'friendly' to the US?  By the by, some of the nations who have volunteered troops to the war on terror might surprise you, or not, depending on how jaundiced your view is: Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Personally and honestly, I feel what we did was right.  Like it or not, the US was the muscle to the UN's resolutions, since the other primary countries of the UN who passed those resolutions, when it came down to brass tacks, were a bit hesitant to physically confront Iraq due to military dealings with...Iraq.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that reasoning.  Come to think of it, the US has always been the muscle for the UN, yet the UN has always deflected blame for screwups.  In those instances, it's all the US's fault, never the UN, though the UN was the world body who sent troops, predominantly US, into the fiasco in the first place, from Korea through Somolia.  Would you call the first democratically elected Iraqi government in 50 years a bad thing?  If so, there's really only one alternative.  Like it or not, some things really are black and white.  Not gray, which is white what got grubby.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


123 posted 06-02-2005 04:37 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Is there a breaking point on the horizon?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=810405

We'll just have to wait and see what the summer season brings in, but in any case, no one can argue how bad the trend has been recently in terms of recruitment goals.

It certainly looks like two issues in general are bound to gain much more momentum in our media within the next year; the possibility of another draft, and that we may be forced to pull out of Iraq.

I think it's really getting to the point where this administration will be forced to make that decision if no sudden miracle happens in the recruiting; draft or withdrawal.

It's already been made clear that the war in Iraq is the main reason many won't sign up. Those in support of the war don't want to fight the war just as much as those opposed to the war on moral or conscientious objecting grounds.

It's these facts that reveal how unpopular this invasion is and when so many who trumpet this war won't even help serve in this war they believe in or are at least reluctant too, they must not really believe that strongly in it.

I believe a pull-out is the only real solution here to this problem. If they do decide to reluctantly call for a draft, it's only going to make matters far, far more worse, because widespread protests and dissent among pockets will bring the morale of the forces down, etc.

What might we expect within the next six months or so, or how might we expect this debate or issue to evolve?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


124 posted 06-02-2005 05:17 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Always a possibility, but not a likely one regarding a draft.  One thing to ponder though: first years in military acadamies and schools in 2001 are now graduating.  Over the past 4 years, those schools have had their lowest dropout rate ever, with some reporting a 98% completion.  There's always washouts.  The class of 2005 in military circles have had the least amount of washouts in their history, percentage-wise.

There's almost always another side to the story, like the story about recruitments.  Army and Marines, and their reserve components, have taken hits.  Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and their reserve units have either stayed constant or increased.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Draft: Inevitable?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors