navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Draft: Inevitable?
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Draft: Inevitable? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

0 posted 2004-11-10 08:02 PM


I think it is important we touch on a sensitive issue which hasn't been discussed yet; the rumor of a mandatory draft surfacing possibly as early as next year, which has created widespread fear among young Americans.

Is it inevitable in your mind?

House Resolution 163, a bill proposed by two Democratic house members Charles B. Rangel and John Conyers Jr, was crushed 402-2, which would force all men and women ages 18-26 to serve a two-year rotation in a military or civilian capacity beginning March 31, 2005.

However, with recruitment low and forces arguably "overextended", plus the possible prospect of a war beginning in Iran or North Korea in the near future, being part of the Bush Administration's "Axis of Evil", a draft is highly likely.

Will there be a draft for certain, and if there will be, could this be political suicide for Bush and his administration, considering the already split-even opinion of the war in Iraq, 56% believing America is heading in the wrong direction, what this could mean for the economy, etc.

I feel despite what Bush and Rumsfeld has said, with the increasing tension in Iraq, particularly with the assault on Falluja, I'm close to saying it WILL happen and I already know what I'm prepared to do in result!

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

© Copyright 2004 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
1 posted 2004-11-10 08:22 PM


Taking French lessons,  Noah?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
2 posted 2004-11-10 09:02 PM


Why not simply withdraw from NATO
and let the French and Germans
protect Europe from each other?

That would save some troops for other things.

John


Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
3 posted 2004-11-10 09:59 PM


I've long held that we bring our forces back from the old European theater, since the Old Enemy fell in the late 80's.  Almost 20 years when American forces took the place of Western Europe's forces.  France spends a very low percentage of their GNP on military, due to our presence which they hate for political reasons and love for economic ones.  Already, with the proposed change in American armed forces in France and Germany, both those nations, which opposed inforcement of the UN decree that Iraq dismantle their military and cooperate with inspectors, or face the consequences, are a bit distressed and making overtures to keep the despised American military presence intact in those countries so that they won't have to fund their own military.  Small wonder France could afford socialized medicine.  They didn't have to foot the bill for their own national security.

All that draft hoopla was a DNC scare tactic to convince voters and prospective voters, in the target age group, to vote for Kerry, the DNC default candidate.  And yes, default.  Far less voted 'for Kerry' than they did 'against Bush'.  And those two Democratic Representatives were in cahoots with the DNC to ensure this topic got national attention and appropriate spin from the predominately left-leaning media, anti-Bush 527's, and affiliated websites.  I'm awful with names, but one of those two didn't even vote FOR 163.  Scare tactic, pure and simple.

All branches, with the exception of National Guard, have met or exceeded their projected quotas.  National Guard rarely meets their quota during times of recovery and prosperity.

Although I prefer and have faith in our all-volunteer military, I would be in favor of a mandatory 2-year stint, conflict or not.  I have seen first hand how the GI college bill can help someone afford a college education.  My older brother, first from patriotism, second from our family heritage, and thirdly for opportunities, got his Electrical Engineering degree from Texas Tech with the GI bill, after serving 5 years and retiring a Sergeant, and is currently either a GS-13 or GS-14, earning an easy $75k USD in Japan, a place he dearly loves.  At 6'3", he has no problem seeing things.  

Afterthought:

Not sure how old you are, Noah, but I do wonder if you've registered with Selective Service or not, or if you plan to if you aren't already 18 or older.  It is Federal Law, though I reckon you could protest that as well, if'n you wanna.

inot2B
Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205
Arkansas
4 posted 2004-11-11 01:54 AM


Noah, don't you have studying or something to do besides worrying. If the draft comes back (I don't see it happening) you can either be a MAN and stand up for your country or run to Canada! Now that's simple so stop worrying and do your homework!
Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

5 posted 2004-11-11 02:10 AM


There should be a draft.
A mercenary army is a dangerous thing.  A "volunteer" army is not far from it.
Every citizen has a responsibility to serve his/her country.
Just a humble opinion from one has served, voluntarily, and think everyone else should too.
There should be service options, as some do not belong in an armed service.
If you can't handle serving your country, perhaps you don't deserve one.
11/11 is not a good day to suggest to those who served, that some folks don't need to be so obliged.
And if you haven't guessed it already, this is a sore spot with me.
Grrrrrr

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
6 posted 2004-11-11 08:39 AM


Noah
Do not be bullied by the remarks that have been shot at you in replies to this thread....

It seems that you wanted to open a dialog on the subject of the draft, but have only received comments, for the most part, from those who seemingly feel that war resistance is an act of cowardice...

"Taking French lessons,  Noah"

And direct insults to your subjects worth...

"Noah, don't you have studying or something to do besides worrying. If the draft comes back (I don't see it happening) you can either be a MAN and stand up for your country or run to Canada! Now that's simple so stop worrying and do your homework!"

Only one has addressed the issue that you brought up ..

"There should be a draft.
A mercenary army is a dangerous thing.  A "volunteer" army is not far from it."
Even though this reply ends in a  "grrrrr" it is still on subject.

Anyway...my reply to your subject is...
As long as government officials shy away from diplomacy to settle arguments and hire Madison Avenue types to pull in recruits, we will not have a draft...

As long as economic conditions are the way they are, we will always have enough volunteers for military service..they will sign up, as many do now, to escape poverty....

I do believe in a draft of sorts, a draft that allows the draftee to volunteer to serve America in different ways....to be able to choose between military and civil service..  

My humble opinions
_________ice
    ><>


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
7 posted 2004-11-11 08:43 AM


Whatever happens, follow your conscience.

That's being a MAN.

Anything else is, well, less.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

8 posted 2004-11-11 08:54 AM


I once saw two FBI agents come into a small town high school in middle America and arrest a young man right out of Senior English.  Although his religous affiliations would have prevented him from ever serving in the army, as a matter of principle, he refused to register.  

He served four years in Federal prison.

A close friend, a member of the same church volunteered for the army, went to Ft. Leonard Wood and on to Viet Nam.  He was almost shunned by members of the church and in fact his family left the church because of the controversy.

A third went on to a local church college and mistakenly wrote a paper contrary to the pacifist views of the faculty.  He flunked out of college and drafted into the Marines.  I suspect Ron could tell everyone that in that period, the one thing in the world you did not want to be was a draftee in the Marines.

All three survived and all three made their choices.  They even still communicate, but they all had hard lessons to learn from their decisions.  That is life.

Ain't going to be no draft Noah. Live your life, just be willing to accept there are consequences for any action one takes in life.

A draft would help the country as far as making young people grow up and face responsibilities.  I remember a young man from many years ago that learned his in a different fashion.  I am not in a position to say any of the three was wrong.  Bottom line is that there is not going to be a draft.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
9 posted 2004-11-11 09:04 AM


And isn't it just amazing that you don't have stories about people who died?

Or do you?

Janet Marie
Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554

10 posted 2004-11-11 10:19 AM


Noah has every right to ask a question, open a discussion, or for that matter "worry" if he wants to. Where does anyone get the right to tell him otherwise? During the past months of the election, others have come in here and posted their strong political points of view. Did I miss where they got told to go to their room and do their homework?
Noah has proven to be quite well informed and has conducted himself with far more tact, respect and compassion for other's opinions in these politcal discussions than many of the so called adults. Its an insult to talk down to him like hes a child. Freedom of speech applies to all...even if the voice doesnt speak from the side of the fence you sit on.


quote:
Whatever happens, follow your conscience.

That's being a MAN.



AMEN.


Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
11 posted 2004-11-11 12:26 PM


Noah, again I appreciate you for offering up some important food for fodder.  As a Canadian, I saw the repercussions of the last draft up here, and heard what many a young man thought about it when I was young.  My Mom took in draft dodgers as did a lot of people at that time.  Some had been to Viet Nam, some had not, but all had one thing in common and didn’t believe in killing.  That stuck with me unfortunately, and although I am against doing anything to anyone against his or her wishes, in the case of the United States of America I can say the following from "my point of view only."  If the US continues to enter into wars even when not invited to stop terrorism, and represents itself as one of the biggest armed forces, then it has to stand behind what it says, and that takes a lot of prepared man/woman power.    

I read a speech by George Bush talking about the military actually that made me understand why a draft could indeed become necessary again one day, and finally understood his point of view on the subject.  This was the first time I could rationalize a draft at all in my life by the way.  I also still think a modified one would suffice and give those that are opposed for personal reason a way out.  (I know this opens a whole discussion too but you get my idea right?)  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-6.html

To quote President Bush here from that speech,

"We'll protect the homeland. The best way to protect America, however, is to go on the offensive, stay on the offensive, and bring the terrorists to justice"


That takes a lot of man/woman power unfortunately doesn't it?  Men and women who wish to stay free in a country of free-speaking individuals.

I have to agree with Ice here, and think a modified draft would be the ticket exactly as he has stated.  I realize a Canadian's comments don't count for much but being a neighbour I sure would like to see this as the ideal.  

I have to say that the day that someone cannot speak their mind in America such as you did with this post, is the day I say we might as well stop worrying about much.  That would be the day that the very thing “you” fight for is gone, freedom of speech.  Do you know what an American is to me?  Well, I can you this much is true.  When I cross that border the first thing I see are all those flags being flown by people who believe in America, and are not afraid to show it a daily basis.  Any little store has flags for sale, and makes me smile.   Today is Remembrance Day in Canada, and I had a hell of a time trying to buy a flag to hang outside for today but finally got one in Chinatown of all places.  

Even now, some are not too excited Bush got another four years but I see people across the line from Vancouver finally banding together once again as “citizens of ONE  country,” to support whomever runs it finally now that the dust has settled some.   ‘Tis a good thing as Martha would say.      

So Noah … do me a favor, you keep asking questions.  You, and others your age will run this country one day, and that makes me very proud, and just a bit safer to see someone interested in politics like yourself at your age.

Now, that to you is my opinion Noah, and God Bless Your America.  

Carpe' Diem.
HAPPY VETERAN'S/REMEMBRANCE DAY to ALL our veterans and armed forces ~


        

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
12 posted 2004-11-11 01:46 PM


Noah:

I empathize with your concern.  I was in my second year of undergraduate study when the first Gulf War errupted and there were rumblings of reinstituting a draft then.  I agree with Alicat, however, that the rumors of a new draft have been fueled by empty political rhetoric during a contentious presidential campaign.  It pays to be informed, but I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Brad:

I do not know anyone who lost family members in Vietnam.  My biological father was a soldier in Vietnam who went AWOL long enough for me to be born and my sister to be conceived before the authorities caught up with him.  I suspect he was drafted and, knowing something about the traumatic effects of war on soldiers, I understand why he did what he did.

Also, when I was a Boy Scout, one of my camp counselors was a Viet Nam vet whose platoon was abandoned deep in Viet Cong territory.  He was one of only a few who survived a long walk back to South Vietnam.  When helecopters flew over the camp at night, I recall hearing the counselor screaming.

That all said, I'm less concerned with how we fill the ranks than with what we do to ensure war veterens receive adequate psychological services upon returning stateside.  I, for one, would have honored my duty to serve had I been called - granted, that would have been my choice and, like those who would have chosen differently, I would be solely responsible for the consequences.  As I saw it, if I attempted to dodge such a call, such an act would be tantamount to putting someone else's life at risk because of my own selfishness (be it fear, conscience, or defiance).

Long ramble done.

Jim

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
13 posted 2004-11-11 02:29 PM




Frankly, I've found some of what has been said here heartaching.

Be a man? Stand up for your country? Learning French lessons?

I'm SICK to my stomach hearing this. To many others they find what I do for this country, in protesting this war and fighting for civil rights and cultural equality, standing up for this country. I've got feelings for my country too, different than others they may be, but I am proud of what I do in standing up for my country and I intend to continue remaining true to my nature and working for non-violent peace, building communities, stopping prejudice, racism, and the other injustices of the world.

Tere are those who do sign up and register in serving our country, and I believe it's your life, it's your body, so it is your choice, your decision to do what you want.

But I AM NOT interested in playing this game, can't you see that?

Can't you see I DO NOT want to go and spill the blood of others, and go against everything I believe in. I've never been in war of course, but I've heard enough terrifying stories that make me vomit sometimes. Stories of the young losing legs, stories of the young who live with constant migraine, stories of the young who were bleeding heavily from their shoulder and had no tourniquet and they had to suck their lips over the gaping wound to stop the hemorrhaging while standing on one foot. I'm sick and tired of hearing these sorts of stories. And, frankly, if I was forced to go over there and I saw the sight of my fire striking someone, I don't think I can ever live with myself anymore.

Can't you see I DO NOT want to go over there and inhale all that uranium and gunsmoke in the air, and return home one day with headaches all the time and have a child in the future with only three fingers on one hand and the other arm missing a whole hand, like some Iraqi and Gulf War soldiers already reported?

Can't you see I DO NOT want to lose a limb in fighting a war I myelf have continued to call "senseless" and which I always will continue to call it, where now many of us don't even know what we're fighting for?

I hae feelings too, you know. I, myself, have served this country in a  different way, for working to build communities and empower the youth to believe they can make a difference and can fulfill their dreams. And should this draft fall through again, IS THIS THE THANKS WE GET? Is this the price those 91% of young voters pay for never voting or speaking out? Having to do the dirty laundry of others?

All I can say is, I'm appalled by some of the early remarks in this thread. I'm just a young man who only wants to live here and pursue my lifelong dream of educating children and songwriting, who only wants to find true love in this world and feel loves first kiss, who will only go far enough to see violence in action movies. I'm insulted by some of your earlier comments, and, in my opinion, I believe following your heart and reaching out to others is being a man. I have chosen my course in life, and I demand respect. There's more than just myself who are concerned a draft can re-surface, after all. Over half of youth fear this too. Many local scholers in my community fear this.

So now, seeing that many doubt the return of the draft, I ask, "How will Bush get the troops he needs should he decide to invade Iran or North Korea next, with the accelerating violence, without pulling away from Iraq?"

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

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
14 posted 2004-11-11 03:09 PM


Well Noah,
You already know I'm not fond of politics. But I'll speak here. I registered for the draft when I was eighteen and was approved to be a conscientous objector. I would still stand by that decision though I never served because I received a family deferment.

Then the gulf war came along when my son was draftable. That was the first time I considered being a Canadian resident. Couldn't handle the thought of losing my son. Instead I lost my daughter. Guess I might be without any children now had he been drafted.

So do I take this topic seriously? You bet. And just a hint, I'm pretty sure Balladeer does too. Seldom do you and I agree politically. And we don't agree much here. But I believe firmly that you have an obligation to follow your conscience, as do I.

But regardless of your decision, I still like ya'. Not too sure about some others but I like ya'.


If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
15 posted 2004-11-11 03:20 PM


Sorry about that, Noah. You phrased your last sentence in a way to invite comments like that. If you had simply said what the (implied) actions you mentioned were there would not have been misunderstanding....when you just throw a loaded statement like that up in the air, you are inviting anyone reading it to come to their own conclusions.

No one who has read any of the many comments you have made would ever accuse you of being less than a 100% American patriot. That will never be in question  and that was in no way implied in any of the responses. Do whatever your conscious tells you to do.....

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
16 posted 2004-11-11 03:24 PM




Oh Larry, regardless of our many wide differences, this is exactly where you and I agree. As I've said too many times before, I HATE politics more than anything else in the world, and there is little I hate.

I am aware of the conscientous objector status. Unfortunately, I've heard in Vietnam few were accepted that, and I doubt should the draft ever come back, it'll be any different.

Larry, this is just the kind of discussion I was desiring to have in this thread, and I respect you very much for your input here. I only want to look behind the politics of this sensitive issue, possible alternatives to getting new recruits, etc. Maybe by increasing the minimum pay for volunteers?

I truly wish it never had to come down to this, where I would be engaged in politics. But the sad reality is, politics affect whole communities of people, and when we see something tha goes against our morals and we've never taken part before and we know deep in our conscience something has to be done, I feel it is ones obligatory role to participate to make what's wrong right. And then we're caught shaking the wicked Yahtzee cup of politics.

Despite our many differences, please know I appreciate and respect you and what you have to say. (angel friendship hugs) Please know how much I continue to feel for the loss of your daughter Ginger and your father very much, for your love for all your loved ones is so strong and everlasting and I know with all my heart they will always be in your heart and their spirits will be guiding you everyday!

Bless you, dearest friend!

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

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
17 posted 2004-11-11 03:42 PM


Balladeer, I just don't understand what saying, "I already know what I intend to do" could encourage early comments like that.

I feel many here who participate often in Lounge and Alley discussions know me well enough to understand the kind of person I am; a passionate young activist who opposes these wars and injustices in the world. I guess I was just assuming it struck many as obvious what I would do in this type of situation; rather choosing a prison sentence over a rotation, or moving if that wasn't an option.

With all due respect, I just feel your initial comment struck me as quite random.

I'm not taking French lessons, but if I did, I shouldn't be ashamed of it. I believe we have to build communities, work out our differences with other countries and get along, as I find that is the key to building an effective peace process. we just can't keep isolated and live by ourselves, or there will be growing discrepancy and misunderstanding.

Though I still don't understand how my introductory post can encourage such responses like that, for I feel I asked this question maturely and thought it through well before speaking, it's all okay.

I just want to have a fruitful discussion here, and analyze the politics and everything behind this concern that's even found its way into presidential debate discussions, news headlines, etc. I felt seeing that, I was justified to ask this question and it's not a stupid question either.

The truth is, I am worried, and believe it is healthy to analyze between the lines every important issue that plagues your mind or it'll only hurt more if you keep it to yourself. It's like when I was a little boy and was abused my school boys. My mom would see the cuts and scabs on me and tell me what happened. A few times I was guilty of being ashamed to express myself, but in time my silence only made me cry more and more and hurt me deeper and knew I had to tell them what happened. Then...after talking it out...I felt free, I felt much better!

Plus, few young members participate in these discussions so I feel it's important to have a diversity of viewpoints in order to have a fruitful discussion. I believe the young need to be educated from the elderly and the elderly need to be educated from the young and everyone in-between, for we all have a voice, something to contribute!

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

Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612
Hurricane Alley
18 posted 2004-11-11 04:03 PM


Honestly Noah, if you were my son, I'd send you to live with Mysteria!!!

Stick up for what you believe in! No one should ever fault you for that.

I don't think the draft will come back though - I think we'll be out of Iraq before it becomes a reality. I think the volunteer armed services are probably suffering right now because the war has been so prominently aired on TV and young people SEE how hard it is to fight and defend your country.

It certainly is a hard topic to stay dispassionate about! And here at "Passions" I'm afraid we live up to our name!

Skyfyre
Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906
Sitting in Michael's Lap
19 posted 2004-11-11 04:03 PM


I have to agree with Alicat.  Scare tactics and nothing more.  


Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

20 posted 2004-11-11 04:39 PM


Noah,
If you thought my earlier comments were intended to be a personal attack, they were not.  But you did scratch a wound.
I'll be back here again later and perhaps can make my point more precisely.

e

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
21 posted 2004-11-11 04:45 PM


Noah,
Personally I thought Michael's original comment was clever and very humorous. I find even gallows humor to be useful. So don't overanalyze a wise crack too much.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
22 posted 2004-11-11 05:20 PM


appreciate it, Larry....that's all it was meant to be....thenk God at least somebody realized that instead of finding it so offensive it could even make ice hot.

....I will certainly be more careful in the future...

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
23 posted 2004-11-11 06:24 PM


Krawdad, the one part in your comment that was hard for me to digest was, "If you can't handle serving your country, perhaps you don't deserve one."

That's the part I had a problem with in your post. There are millions here who have never served in their life and they have given so much to this great nation. I believe you can serve your country without putting on those thick black boots or yield an AK-47 or bayonet. You can fight for your country without literally fighting.

Teachers, firefighters, union workers, etc; many of them never were selected and volunteered and they give all their heart to America.

That's the particular part I had trouble with, Krawdad, and please add on if you'd like.

****************************

Balladeer, the thing with your initial comment that upset me was two things actually.

First, I brought about a very sensitive topic and question here in which I wanted input and opinions put into, and your first response kind of struck me like you didn't really care about my concern, as this issue affects young people like myself ages 18-26, so I felt you could have made a more thoughtful response.

Secondly, I understand we live in a culture full of stereotypes and labels, but to reference the French in response to a thread about a possible draft renewal felt out of left field to me. What do the French have to do with this draft, or with this anxiety? Of course I'm someone too who believes we need to build bridges and understandings and trust between each and every culture and nation from France to Lesotho so maybe somewhere else I was disheartened in that aspect, but it was primarily that it just sounded so random or out of place to me.

I suppose where we come from, on opposite sides of the political spectrum, it may also offer differing perspectives in which we approach what we say. That's just my point of view is all, but I really take this issue seriously and I expect everyone should be, because honestly, who really wants their child out there in harms way?

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

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
24 posted 2004-11-11 06:31 PM


Noah, if Balladeer will allow me to speak for him, this was the meaning of his 'French lesssons' comment in response to this:
quote:
I feel despite what Bush and Rumsfeld has said, with the increasing tension in Iraq, particularly with the assault on Falluja, I'm close to saying it WILL happen and I already know what I'm prepared to do in result!


French is one of the primary languages of Quebec, Canada, known as a haven for draft dodgers during the Vietnam era.  It was a remark specifically about 'already know what I'm prepared to do', as his assumption was that you would head north to Canada rather than be subjected to a military draft.  Nothing to do with France, more to do with Canada.

By thinking outside the box, you can see how to open the box.

Alicat

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
25 posted 2004-11-11 06:44 PM




(giggles) That's an interesting analysis!

I don't know if I'd want to live in that area, though. So terribly cold in the winter and still pretty cool in the summer.

I never said exactly where I'd move though! If I could, I'd love to live in Costa Rica, where they have no military yet have one of the strongest democracies in the whole wide world! (giggles)

I could have already moved if I want too, but I believe America wants and needs people like myself to continue to fight and restore this nation back to how our forefathers left it. I love this country, and I have to prove it by continuing to work by my conscience.

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

inot2B
Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205
Arkansas
26 posted 2004-11-11 06:46 PM


Noah, stand up and protest the war all you want. Just remember to be thankful to all the men and women who did not run and turn their back on the country. If it was not them standing up for what most Americans believe in "Freedom for All" we would be talking other than American English.
I thank everyone who willingly is overseas at this time trying to give FREEDOM to other people who have ask for our help.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
27 posted 2004-11-11 07:02 PM


inot2B, I have declared my support and prayers for all our young men and women for many years. On this Veteran's Day, I think of them all very highly and honor them and wish them a safe return home as soon as possible.

As I've already said before, there are those who sign up and register for serving this country through the U.S Army, the Marines, the National Guard, etc. Like I've said, it's YOUR body, it's YOUR spirit, it's YOUR decision to choose where you want to go in life. It's YOUR choice. And for those who truly do sign up themselves by their own free-will and are willing to sacrifice their lives for serving this great nation, it's their decision and I respect that and I honor all of them very much.

But like I said also, it is MY body, it is MY choice, and I choose not to serve my country that way, but rather serve it without arms; serving America by continuing to fight without arms for progressive interests, civil liberties, equality, economical wisdom, ecological wisdom, sustainability, diversity, and non-violence. America is all about celebrating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and this is how I want to live, this is how I pursue happiness, and everyone should respect that too.

There are many who only joined up too so they can afford college tuition or add something to their resume that would be of great use for a future career. Many thought they could go on missions to struggling third-world countries and help with rescue missions, but never counted on going to war. So many from low-income families throughout the Mid-west, especially in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and Illinois. We've got to consider this too.

You and I have different views on this war and how we achieve freedom. Though we disagree very much on this particular issue, we both believe in and support our troops. I pray for them every day, that their mothers and fathers will see them as soon as possible standing on their front doorstep ringing the doorbell and seeing their child, completely fine, completely healthy. This is what I wish for every young man and woman down there. God Bless them all!

Love,
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

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
28 posted 2004-11-11 07:03 PM


Now you guys are making Balladeer and I feel really old! We assumed everybody knew what that comment implied. Sheesh... Guess Vietnam was a long time ago.

And it is interesting to see so many speaking for the 'deer. Poor guy, must have larengitis.

Noah,
I'm even worse in a committee meeting...sorry!

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2004-11-11 07:18 PM


Hey, don't knock it, Larry. I seem to make a whole lot more sense when other people speak FOR me!!


Noah, you are exactly right. This country DOES need people like you. As far as military service is concerned if you found yourself in that position, consciencious objectors  are still allowed, as far as I know.

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
30 posted 2004-11-11 07:29 PM


SO 'deer won't confess to being old? Really!? Come on 'deer the truth will set you free.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

inot2B
Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205
Arkansas
31 posted 2004-11-11 07:32 PM


Noah, I graduated high school in 1970. I never knew of anyone personally who dodged
the draft. In those days most felt if your country called you up, you followed orders.
My husband was drafted one month after we got married, there was never a thought of running, he went and did the job he was assigned and put in his time.
I have 3 grown sons who are still of the age for the draft. I would still expect them to go if called up. It is just how I was brought up I guess. Never turn your back on your God, family, friends and Country.
But go ahead and protest, heck someday you may be able to run for President of the U.S. and there will be alot of people who will vote for you. No, I won't be one, but there are others who believe as you.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
32 posted 2004-11-11 07:52 PM


I've heard all kinds of people dodged the draft during the Vietnam era. Many arguably call Bush a draft dodger.

Your husband decided to join in, some of your friends decided to join in, and perhaps your sons will join up. Like I said, that's fine, it's their choice.

I could already be in another country right now after Bush got re-elected. And you know why I'm not? Because I also believe you should never turn your back on your God, family friends and country. I believe for the love of this country I must continue to strive for the progressive interests of America, values which as many as 56 million Americans who voted Kerry believe in, for they have shaped this nation just as much as conservatives have, and I want to see to it both sets of values continue to be represented.

I don't believe I will ever run for president or for any government office in that manner. The world needs more than just leaders, they need followers too after all. I'm more interested in building grassroots movements, being up front with all kinds of communities and encouraging them all each person can make a difference. I want to be more extraverted, more out there in the open, more hands-on with communities. In a high government office, you don't get to do that very much.

Sncerely,
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

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
33 posted 2004-11-11 11:40 PM


Noah:
quote:
I believe America wants and needs people like myself to continue to fight and restore this nation back to how our forefathers left it.



I'm staying neutral on this thread.

But I did want to point out that our "forefathers" were not really anything like pacifists, in their attitude about war.  We sort of started off with a "big bang" with the Revolutionary War and all.  


Stephen.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
34 posted 2004-11-12 12:01 PM


Yeah, Stephanos, I suppose you're right. Perhaps that did come out incorrectly.

What I meant to say is that we have come a long way as a nation, and in this process we have come to understand exactly how wonderful such words in the scripture of the Bill of Rights are. The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All men are created equal. The right to freedom of speech, etc.

I feel, in me at least, recent events have challenged these rights and ethics we hold dearly. So what I meant to say is this nation's fate rests not solely in the hands of conservatives, but in progressives and liberals as well, for we both represent the fabric of America and both have influenced this nation in this entire history, and we must see to it both sets of values endure, those either passed onto us or learned in time.

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

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
35 posted 2004-11-12 01:00 AM


Brad,

“And isn't it just amazing that you don't have stories about people who died?

Or do you?”

“But there is one Marine who stands out in my memory: Corporal Larry Boyer.

The fact is that Corporal Boyer went far beyond the call of duty. At a time when college enrollment was a sure way to avoid military service and a tour in Vietnam, Corporal Boyer, despite excellent grades, quit, enlisted in the Marines, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an infantryman. Because of his high aptitude-test scores, the Marine Corps sent him to communications-electronics school instead. But Corporal Boyer kept "requesting mast," insisting that he had joined the Marines to fight in Vietnam. He got his wish, and on May 29, 1969, while serving as one of my squad leaders, he gave the "last full measure of devotion" to his country and comrades. “

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200411110831.asp


‘Tillman turned down a three-year, $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League to enlist in the Army in May 2002 in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

“My great grandfather was at Pearl Harbor, and a lot of my family has ... gone and fought in wars, and I really haven’t done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that,”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4815441/

John


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
36 posted 2004-11-12 01:29 AM


Noah,

Apart from a direct attack on the United States,
what situation, from history or imagined,  would
motivate you to enlist to fight away from its shores?

John

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
37 posted 2004-11-12 07:11 AM


­All this talk about "draft dodgers" and those who "run"..I am trying to think of how that applies to Noah...he is obviously a conscientious objector, there is a world of difference between the two...
Although he has spoken of dodging or running, I believe he would not do either if he were drafted

A draft dodger in my dictionary, is someone that allows his position in life to influence whether or not he serves in the military..or joins a relatively safe branch, with the object of safety from conflict involvement in mind...out of cowardice, or just plain that he thinks he is better than the masses of others that are involuntarily conscripted...His life is worth more than theirs.

A conscientious objector is just that....His conscience will not allow him to kill another person, in hot or cold blood, in war...He has come to the conclusion that war is futile, that one war leads directly to another, in most cases,  sees by history that war has not progressed mankind towards grace, that most could have been prevented...His personal history, or spiritual guidance demand he protest... Those I have known were well aware  that everyone of us is capable of murder under certain circumstances... how easy it is to kill and how hard it is to forget...None that I know are cowards, all demonstrated with the knowledge that their  bodies were in jeopardy of being thrown in jail because they would not kill for peace..

I also knew some who were just plain afraid, that did not want their lives interfered with, or their time used up by military service....those were the true runners,  those were the ones who would not put their bodies on the line for the spirit of a cause, be it war or objection....those were the ones that were unbrave....those were the cowards...

To those common soldiers who were forced to swear  oaths, that swore allegiance to obey commanders of war,...Although it sounds odd, I salute .....It is not you as a soldier that I protest, It is against the politicians that chose to put you in unjust war situations, that I vent my passive rage.

Power corrupts and blinds, diminishes the lessons of history, this is plainly seen by close scrutiny of the present war in Iraq,. A perfect example of the faults existing in the human minds in charge..
Perhaps another draft will come, perhaps that would stir the general public into awareness and closer study of the war...Perhaps they will not be able to just go ahead and live their lives in normal ways, like the government has so ill advised them to do, if their sons and daughters are forced to fight.

Peace, or all will perish...
---------------ice
   ><>
­­
­

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
38 posted 2004-11-12 07:27 AM


To answer Johns question....

The Sudan comes to mind at this time, Bosnia etc...wherever human rights are greatly challenged by human corruption, were ethnics are being cleansed, or there is presence of genocide...but only to stop what is going on in immediate time....Then groups of peacekeepers must enter the scene, and truly set up standards that bring the people around to human conditions, teacher and agrarians who might give lessons in their crafts and then disappear from the scene...ahhhhh! utopia, what a wonderful place to live in...but you did say real or imagined..
-------------ice
     ><>

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
39 posted 2004-11-12 11:03 AM


John,
I don't know Noah's answer but mine is still CO.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
40 posted 2004-11-12 01:44 PM


Larry C,

CO also in Ice’s examples:

“To answer Johns question....

The Sudan comes to mind at this time, Bosnia etc...wherever human rights are greatly challenged by human corruption, were ethnics are being cleansed, or there is presence of genocide...”

?

John


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
41 posted 2004-11-12 01:49 PM


John, what Ford mentioned below your post is quite accurate to me. I am a conscientious objector, and believe, like he said, one war will inevitably incite more conflict and more wars. So the answer is never.

The fact is, especially in polarized times like these, if someone was drafted who didn't want to fight this war, they're not serving their country, they're serving the interests of a lobbying or bureaucratic minority that happens to support the war.

I simply don't want to kill anyone or even touch an AK-47 or any gun in that manner. If I was selected, I would be more than willing to be thrown in jail, because underneath my layers of pale grey, grime and defeat on my face, I know deep down under my skin I remain true to myself, I remain all that I've stood up for, and my conscience is clear, and I can at least sleep rest assured I wasn't one who made all the terrible stories of war in history repeat themselves.

The truth is, though I am morally anti-war, I also just want to live my life and pursue my dreams. I just want to follow my heart and my dreams, find true love in the world. I would be miserable if I was forced to go, my right leg was blown off and my body filled with uranium contamination and then I wanted to have a family and I found a child was born deformed and with severe birth defects. My heart would be broken and I don't think the aneurysm would ever subside.

Those of you who have known me for a while here, you probably know enough of my rough past, which I finally escaped from when I was out of elementary school. So much of my metamorphosis, becoming the upbeat, free-spirited optimistic person I am now was influenced by the likes of artists, dreamers, metaphysicists, hippies and activists. I can relate to and identify with them with all my heart, and ever since I have governed my life by the principles of non-violence, spirituality and activism.

If I was sent to Iraq tomorrow and open-fired on Falluj or Najaf or wherever, just that thought makes my hands and my jaw numb. It would be more than just tarnishing the lives of many innocent bystanders there, it would be tarnishing myself. I wouldn't know who I am anymore, and don't think I could ever live with myself anymore. It would be like swimming backwards back into my somber past, and my whole youth has passed me by.

It just feels so wrong to me in general how it must be the young who have to fight. They say between the ages of 21-27 is the best time of ones life, where you are independent and you also have so much energy and enthusiasm. It should be the time to take full flight and embrace your dreams, like the golden age of spreading your wings and growing your roots.

If someone who is between 18 to 27 wanted to be enlisted, it is that person's decision and he or she has every right to do so, because he or she is following his or her heart, dream. But to force  a mandatory order on all the youth like that, when too many don't want to go because they're scared, object to war, etc. is just saddening to me. There's got to be a better way, like those who support the war come first or somewhere along those lines.

Maybe there is a bit of cowardice in me too, but I believe I have a good reason. Because I wouldn't be turning my back on this country if I refused to fight, I'd be turning my back on an administration in my personal gut I find corrupt and don't want to do their dirty laundry.

I will tell you this though, John. I'd be more than happy to serve with the Peace Corps. That's one service I'd be happy to contribute too. I wouldn't mind if they had a draft and signed me up!

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

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
42 posted 2004-11-12 02:49 PM


Not sure if you all want to know this, but saying you are a CO doesn't necessarily mean you meet the legal criteria as a bonafide CO.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d13006wch4_082071/d13006p.pdf

Interesting stuff.

Jim


ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
43 posted 2004-11-12 03:23 PM


­Sorry John
I stupidly didn't see that you directed your question directly at Noah....I answered for myself instead of letting him answer....Not seeing the big "Noah" at the beginning of that post...I am a big dummy, sorry about that...


The second part of my answer, the part about the peacemakers entering after the conflict, is what fits him best...his last post mentions the peace core...that's the kind of organization that would fit the job description I mentioned....

The fact is is that I would also like to volunteer for that duty...There are many others that would fill the military part much  better than I would, they are in the service right now doing other work in Iraq.

­­
­

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
44 posted 2004-11-12 04:33 PM


When I was classified a CO there were forms to fill out and references to be used to demonstrate my claim as legitimate. But my stand was very much connected to my spiritual convictions. I doubt they'd let you mkae that claim on general principles. But being a CO often puts you at greater risk than if you were a standard recruit. I know many who experienced front lines as a CO.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

45 posted 2004-11-12 06:53 PM


RE: earlier comments
Noah,
I believe you misunderstood my reference to service, and assumed that I meant military service only.  I did not and I made that point.
"Every citizen has a responsibility to serve his/her country.
Just a humble opinion from one has served, voluntarily, and thinks everyone else should too.
There should be service options, as some do not belong in an armed service.
If you can't handle serving your country, perhaps you don't deserve one."

By "service" I mean to include real time out of one's life, at real cost to you, the "server", and with results observed and measurable by your neighbors, as well as yourself .  That would be serving the debt built into the benefits of a social community.  I believe very strongly that every citizen owes such service to their fellow citizens.  For someone to say that they have no such obligation, would be, in my opinion, an insult to all who have served their community or their nation.
Some of your comments seem to suggest that you think that your life's philosophy and your daily expression of it is "service" enough to your country.  That would be by a different definition than mine, I think.  
There ought to be a draft.  It ought to include all citizens.  It ought to include service to a variety of needs identified by and supported by your fellow citizens, not just a military need.  That would cost you a piece of your life, while you set the rest of your life aside, and it should.  
There are times when you may be asked, or be told, to do something you don't want to do, because you have an obligation and a responsibility to do so.  
When I chose to serve my country, (out of obligation, not money, not macho, not power) there were not many options.  That does not mean that I wanted to go to war, that does not mean that I wanted to be assigned to the Chemical Corps, that does not mean that I wanted to fire a flame thrower, that does not mean that I wasn't scared half to death or resigned to the fact that I was going to get a one-way ticket to SE Asia.
As it turned out, I never got that ticket, but was asked intead to help send hundreds of other men into harm's way.

I hope I've made my point a bit clearer.

I'll leave the narrower discussion of a conscipted army vs. a volunteer army for another time.
ed

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
46 posted 2004-11-12 10:24 PM


Noah,

And how many are you willing to see murdered
for your clear conscience?

I am seeing this issue through my parents' eyes.

One time, they were talking about where the
Nazi’s were committing mass executions.
They were getting animated and finally my father
said: “They were killing them at *****, (some
name I can’t remember and couldn’t pronounce);
I know, I saw the bodies!”  My mother responded:
“No, they were killing them at #####, (another
equally forgettable and unpronounceable name);
I know, I saw the bodies!”  My parents, (who
met in Germany, where they had been freed by allied
forces), came from different and distant from each
other parts of Poland.  They simply could not
comprehend how big Hell was.  

Beasts like Hitler rely on the peaceful wishes
of the majority of human beings to commit
their atrocities.

The sentiments you espouse, (they existed then),
had they been allowed to dominate American
actions when my parents were young, would
have assured that either they would have been
worked to death as the slaves they were made,
or, that failing, would have been exterminated
as vermin, (in my father’s camp, when it got
crowded, it was shower time).

That is the problem I have with any “not
me or mine” stance, unless it is acknowledged
as one of simple selfishness.  To otherwise suggest
or claim it as somehow equal or better in the face of such a
situation as my parents experienced and only
help from outside could have brought an end to
is obscene.  

John

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-13-2004 12:48 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
47 posted 2004-11-13 07:14 AM


quote:
Krawdad There are times when you may be asked, or be told, to do something you don't want to do, because you have an obligation and a responsibility to do so.

quote:
Huan Yi That is the problem I have with any “not me or mine” stance, unless it is acknowledged as one of simple selfishness.


There seems to be an unspoken assumption in these statements that others "owe you" something. For Krawdad, being born into a culture creates the obligation, for John, simply being in trouble beyond one's immediate control creates the obligation. Both assume an obligation can be imposed from without. Can it, though?

You cannot legislate morality, charity, patriotism or basic human compassion. Nor, I believe, should you try, both because any such attempt is doomed AND because your attempt will ultimately devalue the very qualities you want to promote. "You must" removes any distinction between saint and sinner. In punishing the few, you fail to reward the many.

The only thing involuntary conscription satisfies is a sense of justice. "Why should Joe both escape and benefit from the hardships everyone else is facing?" Any cause that needs a draft to survive, however, is already doomed. What's more, it should be doomed.

I once served beside draftees, those whom had an obligation imposed on them from without. I wouldn't wish to do so again.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
48 posted 2004-11-13 08:35 AM


Ron,

In my parent’s example,
I would not have an issue with anyone who did not want to serve
because he did not want to get shot.  I may not like it, still if
he refused because he didn’t think Poles or others like them
were worth the personal risk, I could accept that.  But in the
face of such horrors as my parents were fortunate to survive,
for someone to exclude himself ostensibly on the basis of
some higher or deeper personal humanity is revolting.

John
  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
49 posted 2004-11-13 09:21 AM


I've skimmed the latter part of this thread and I don't get it.

Two weeks ago people were lampooning the whole idea of a draft -- or that it was the democrats who would reinstate it, and now it seems that everybody is arguing either for it or that one must do one's duty for their country. With the exception of Mike, who did argue that the draft wasn't a bad thing, I wonder what's changed everybody's mind?

Oh wait, I know.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

50 posted 2004-11-13 09:39 AM


While I hold a different view on the draft than those proposing one; and while I firmly believe there is little of any chance of a draft; I have a problem with Ron's statement concerning not wanting to serve along side draftees which insinuates a lesser status or commitment.

Millions of Americans have answered the call of their country when requested and have served with the honor as those who enlisted and have served with equal valor, patriotism, and sacrifice.  There was a far higher level of draftees during WWII than Vietnam and the draft has been utilized in virtually every war the U.S. has fought.  

I made brief mention earlier about the unfortunate minority who were drafted into the Marines during the Vietnam War and what they were forced to endure.  If Ron's statement is referencing being drafted into the Marines, then I can live with the statement, but for different reasons than Ron's I suspect.

If it refers to millions of soldiers over the course of our history who have answered the call of their country, then I respectfully disagree.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
51 posted 2004-11-13 09:53 AM



Tim,

"I made brief mention earlier about the unfortunate minority who were drafted into the Marines during the Vietnam War and what they were forced to endure.  If Ron's statement is referencing being drafted into the Marines, then I can live with the statement"


Please explain.

John

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
52 posted 2004-11-13 10:03 AM


Ron,

"Any cause that needs a draft to survive, however, is already doomed.
What's more, it should be doomed."

Including those of the Second World War
and the Civil War?

John


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
53 posted 2004-11-13 12:52 PM


John, to insinuate that I am selfish in my claim that I'm a conscientious objector who happens to think all violence like this is wrong, and I am actually appeasing or allowing barbaric acts like this in the world by not going and killing them troubles me.

Look, I'll say now what I said plenty of times before. What Hitler and the Nazis did was sickening and monstrous and I can't believe the wickedness that comes out of some people like him. I denounce everything he did during World War II.

I actually made a mistake in a thread here in the past and I made something come out in saying that World War II was "never even a war", it was just a massacre led on by Social Darwinism instincts, etc. I look back on what I said before and believe of course it was a war. In that particular thread where I was declaring my anti-war philosophy, I was trying to make an argument that the war on Iraq/Saddam Hussein contrasts much to World War II. I understand the U.S got involved in World War II because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and the U.S had to defend thesmelves and the world. We've gotten involved in Iraq because of the discredited claim there were weapons of mass destruction there that Saddam could use to harm many more people in the region, and the administration insisted he was involved with 9/11. Now, all the evidence contradicts both those claims, and I was trying to point out in that earlier thread this war is completely unnecessary.

Look, I agree what Saddam Hussein did to his people was wrong. Gasing innocent civilians, torturing his own people, about 750,000 or perhaps more of them. That's despicable and he should be ashamed of himself.

But I ALSO don't believe in militaristic revenge as an excuse either. Look, in twenty months, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, many of which from aircraft bombings, etc. Tens of thousands more have life-afflicting injuries that time may never heal. Can't you agree that is wrong too?

I'm against attacking AND counter-attacking.

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

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
54 posted 2004-11-13 01:11 PM




Noah,

Take the situation that my parents experienced.
If you were alive then and called by Roosevelt,
would you have refused to fight in the war,
(assume Pearl Harbor did not happen), that ended
that situation?  If yes, why? If no, why not?

John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
55 posted 2004-11-13 09:42 PM


Saddam Hussein should be ashamed of himself?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
56 posted 2004-11-14 02:19 AM


Balladeer,

It was bad enough that it was said once.
For you to repeat it, even in the form of a question,
is unconscionable.  This is an open forum
and there is a risk of communication
and Saddam’s feelings being hurt.  I thought
you at least would be more sensitive.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-14-2004 08:57 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
57 posted 2004-11-14 03:11 AM


John? Do you even know what the word sensitive means? Talk about the pot calling the kettle names ...

Tim, I met a few draftees in my time who, once they found themselves committed, actually took the commitment seriously. But only a few. Most weren't there to do a job, but rather were only there to do their time.

I suspect our difference of opinion stems from your term "answered the call of their country." Those I met didn't do that. They were forced to choose what they saw as the lesser of two evils. They rarely forgot that and even more rarely let anyone around them forget it.

You're right, however, that my experiences may be colored more by the Marines than by military service. Back in those days, a lot of people got drafted and it usually wasn't anything personal. Push the wrong buttons at Selective Service, though, and they tended to make it personal -- and those dudes always seemed to end up in the Corps. So, yea, maybe my view is too narrow.

The point, however, remains the same. If men and women are to "answer the call of their country," Tim, there is no need of a draft. If you need a draft, that's not answering any call with meaning.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
58 posted 2004-11-14 07:08 PM


Ron, i would like to spend my next vacation in that perfect world you are envisioning. Ideally, if our country were in jeopardy, every able-bodied man would jump up and say "let me fight!". Sadly, we get to the point where many say "someone should do something - but not me." If forcing someone to do something defeats the purpose of that something then I suppose education falls into that category also...forcing kids to go to school must defeat edducation by those standards.

I would also respectfully disagree with your thoughts on draftees. It's not how a person goes into the service - it's how a person feels after being in the service. Those who did not want to be called and want nothing more than to get out will fit into your definition. It may surprise you to know, though, that there are also those who did not ask to go in who have found purpose, value and pride in being part of the military. One can see that in Iraq - young kids who had never expected to actually be in combat being wounded and talking about how they have to get back to their units as soon as possible - that their fellow soldiers counted on them. Talk to old soldiers from any war, enlisted or drafted, who served in times of conflict. Ask them about their lives and more times than not 75% of their talk will center around their military time - and they will say it with pride.

All I can say is, after you describe your unit, I'm glad I wasn't a part of it!

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
59 posted 2004-11-14 11:26 PM


Mike, that perfect world you think I'm envisioning is the very Marine Corps unit of which you wouldn't want be a part. Those there against their will were the rare exception, not the rule.

I would certainly agree with your school analogy, though, as long as you were willing to change the subject from children to adults. No, as much as I believe in life-long education, I do not believe we should force adults to go to school. Harsh as it may be, I think any adult who doesn't want to go to school doesn't deserve to go. Similarly, any nation of people overwhelmingly preferring safety over freedom deserves and will ultimately reap neither.

That's not utopian, Mike. It's just history.

Your wrong, too, in that it wouldn't surprise me to meet draftees who find purpose and pride in being part of the military. Difference is, I wouldn't say they found it so much as they were given it. And I'm very familiar, of course, with the bond that develops between men in the field. I know about men wanting to get back to their unit. I understand that kind of deep loyalty, and I very much appreciate and cherish it for what it is. You shouldn't, however, confuse it for what it is not. Friendship isn't patriotism.

An acquaintance of mine was just released after serving 93 days in County lockup for drinking and driving. An alcoholic for twenty years, it wasn't his first run-in and the consequences this time reflected his earlier bad choices. He's proud that he served his sentence without mishap, and he's both proud and grateful he has remained sober for over four months. The terms of his two-year probation is that he report three times a week for drug tests, with random tests a possibility any day of the week. I think he has a good chance of making it this time, in large part because they've made the alternative abysmally unattractive to him.

Make no mistake -- my friend has every right to be proud of the changes he's making in his life. "I had to learn the hard way," he's remarked to me more than once this month. "That's better than not learning at all," I respond each time. His sobriety has been forced on him by the state of Michigan, but that makes it no less difficult for him. He's fighting for his life, mostly against himself, and should he survive or not, still he deserves credit for the battle. He has a right to be proud.

Mike, everything you've described about military conscription is true. But it's equally true of our prison system. Some will do their time without misfortune and some will leave only carnage in their wake. Some will learn, some won't. Every single one of them will be changed forever, some for the good, some not. The only major difference between military time and prison time, I think, is a reversal of cause and effect. Felons make the wrong choice and pay the consequences. Draftees fail to make a choice in time and then face a conscription that robs them of the chance to make the right one.

I don't think you should have to force a grown adult to act in their own best interests. Doing so, I believe, deprives them of something precious and irreplaceable -- their right to be right. The common good, I think, is always best served at the individual level.

Maybe I've got it all backwards. Heaven knows I haven't fought in every single American war, so maybe I'm just giving our citizens more credit than they deserve. I believe, when push comes to shove, there have always been enough Americans willing to stand and fight to win any just and necessary war. I believe there have always been enough Americans willing to make the sacrifices needed to preserve a way of life they hold dear. I believe there have always been enough willing Americans to win our wars without relying on the unwilling ones. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps this nation rests only on the backs, and blood, of those who didn't care?

I can't help but wonder, though, where we would be today if the Colonies had felt it necessary to draft George Washington?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
60 posted 2004-11-14 11:36 PM


I hope you haven't got it backwards, Ron, because I would like to believe that too....
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

61 posted 2004-11-15 08:36 AM


Ron, your associate was not drafted to go into prison nor was he sent because he is an alcoholic.  He went to jail because he is a repeat offender who committed a crime that leads to far more maiming and deaths to Americans than did the Vietnam War.

Most people are not pleased to receive their jury summons.  They serve because is it their civic duty and an obligation of being a citizen of this country.  A great many lawyers would prefer to have a juror who believes they are doing their duty than a juror who actively wants to sit on a jury.

Law enforcement officers are not drafted.  The seek employment in a dangerous and worthy occupation.  Pyshological tests are performed to weed out those who want to be officers but who are seeking to become so for the wrong reason.

The Marines rightfully have rightfully earned the respect and honor they enjoy.  They have been at the forefront of every conflict the U.S. has been involved in and have valiantly fought to protect their country at great sacrifice.

I do think you have it wrong as far as your attitude towards those who were drafted in relation to those who enlisted.  Millions of men who fought after being drafted served just as patriotically and sacrificed just as much as those who were not drafted.

Your attitude may be influenced by the attitude of the Marines.  Perhaps an individual who is told in rather explicit terms and given "special" treatment to indicate that he is not wanted would not have the same sense of commaderie as the non-draftee.

Bottom line, I suspect there were both small minority of draftees and those who enlisted who perhaps were not suited for military service.  I am certain that the vast majority of men and women who serve and have served this country did so with honor and valor and represented their country with pride as an American.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
62 posted 2004-11-15 08:24 PM


Ron,

“Mike, that perfect world you think I'm envisioning is the very Marine Corps unit of which you wouldn't want be a part. Those there against their will were the rare exception, not the rule”.

The Marine Corps was exceptional in its attitude and attracted a very
different kind of recruit, the whole strength, courage, honor thing, and there
were never enough to fight a large war by themselves.

John


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
63 posted 2004-11-16 12:46 PM


Noam Chomsky had this to say regarding the draft.

Courtesy of Democracy Now!

"I think it's extremely unlikely. I should tell you this as a word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance movement in the 1960's. In fact, I was just barely -- the only reason I missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance, but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody seems to agree. In my view, if there's going to be an army, I think it ought to be a citizen's army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the top brass, they don't want a citizen's army. They want a mercenary army, what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen's army to fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often drawn from the country that they're attacking like England ran India with Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That's the standard way to run imperial wars. They're just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And that’s why I think that they're not going to have a draft. That's why I’m in favor of it. If there's going to be an army that will fight brutal, colonial wars, and that's the only likely kind of war, I’m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen's army so that the attitudes of the society are reflected in the military."


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

Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

64 posted 2004-11-16 01:09 AM


What Noam said . . . exactly!  
That is precisely why they want to keep it a "volunteer" army.  We should be afraid of that.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
65 posted 2004-11-16 07:37 PM


So we’re afraid of the draft,
and we’re afraid of volunteers . . .

catalinamoon
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543
The Shores of Alone
66 posted 2004-11-18 12:22 PM


Hey Noah, Just wanted to send a few thoughts to you, since its been awhile since we have talked. I applaud your thoughts, I had the same ones as a teenager during vietnam. I lost friends in that war, and a man I was engaged to came home a hopeless heroin addict cause he could not bear the emotional pain. I also have a dear friend who lived through vietnam and to this day has nightmares about it.
At this point, and I know I am inviting trouble from the others, I would leave this country in a MINUTE if I had the funds. I intensely dislike this policy of war over diplomacy and I fear it is going to get much worse before it gets better. As for a draft, I think they are already pulling that behind our backs, by making reservists who had completed service go back to active duty. I hope it goes no further than that, because we need all the young idealism to stay here and maybe pull us out of this morass. I am too old now, and feel hopeless about it all, but I can tell you don't. To me, you are a true patriot, if you oppose killing for power or whatever lame reason they come up with, and you work within your abilities to help others. What more could anyone ask of a man.
Hugs,
Sandra

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
67 posted 2004-11-18 01:26 PM


Catalina, how long should diplomacy be used before consequences become enforced?  With Iraq, there was 12 years of diplomacy under 3 Presidents with rising concern over subverted humanitarian efforts when Saddam was suddenly able to start rebuilding his military as well as building many new palaces after 1997 while the UN embargo and UN oil for food were supposed to be still intact.  Prior to 96-97, Saddam's totalitarian hold was about to crumble, he was fast becoming bankrupt and there was rising internal dissent over his mishandling of just about everything pertaining to the citizens of Iraq.  After his sudden increase in palace construction, internal dissent was quickly silenced.  It wasn't until the end of major military operations against Iraq (government and military, not insurgency) were some of the reasons for his marked increase in wealth discovered through governmental files.

So tell me, if you can, how long should diplomacy towards a Machiavellian mindset be used before the 'enough is enough' card is played?

catalinamoon
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543
The Shores of Alone
68 posted 2004-11-18 03:24 PM


To Alicat
You obviously have your facts down, just we disagree on what should happen. I am of the unpopular mind that says we should mind our own business, and not kill thousands of people because we don't like someones behavior in another country(UNLESS they are directly threatening to us)
Still hoping for peace..
Sandra

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
69 posted 2004-11-18 07:51 PM


Sandra,

“because we don't like someones behavior in another country(UNLESS they are directly threatening to us)”

We run into the Hitler problem again.  By your criteria, which was
shared by a large number, Nazism could still be and dominantly in existence,
which on the other hand would have prevented one of the current Middle East
issues as Israel would not exist at all for lack of citizens.

John


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
70 posted 2004-11-19 12:03 PM


How long should we wait? Hmmm, how about long enough to have a complete war strategy? Somehow, "to be supplied later" strikes me as a bit rushed, doesn't it?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
71 posted 2004-11-19 07:32 PM


Noah,

"But I ALSO don't believe in militaristic revenge as an excuse either. Look, in twenty months, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, many of which from aircraft bombings, etc."

Where did you get this estimate.  I just heard on the News Hour
with Jim Lehrer that estimates of Iraqi deaths both military
and civilian since the war began are 20,000.

John

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
72 posted 2004-11-19 08:31 PM


Iraq Body Count Data Base: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
73 posted 2004-11-19 08:50 PM


Noah,

“The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.”


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

“Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.”

Which is substantially lower.

The article goes on about the flaws in the Lancet study's headline figure.

John


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
74 posted 2004-11-19 09:47 PM


How low does a number have to be to justify the ends? "You can kill seven people and that's all right, but please don't kill eight, because that's too many."

I wonder if the difference between 20,000 and 100,000 matters to a grieving mother?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
75 posted 2004-11-20 12:28 PM


Ron,

The exaggerated number suggested, to me at least, something
equivalent to and on par with Saddam’s time.

John


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
76 posted 2004-11-20 12:56 PM


quote:
But the estimate by the Hopkins team is sound in terms of how the data has been gathered and what it says about the casualty rate. A sample of 988 households with more than 7,800 people, in a country of 25 million, is a sizable sample. By comparison, pollsters in this country, using similar techniques of sampling (so the people interviewed in aggregate represent the demographics of the country as a whole), consider a sample of 1,500 people in a country of 280 million to be adequate for extrapolation and reliable results. Wherever possible, too, the researchers verified claims of fatalities with documents. A larger sample would be worthwhile, and as in any important empirical research, it would be useful to repeat the data collection to compare results. But the method is sound.

As a result, the estimates are likely to be quite a bit more accurate than the clumsy attempt to count through press reports, which is partial and not a representative sample. Indeed, the study directors believe the estimate of 100,000 deaths may be conservative. (Fallujah, for example, was not counted due to the extreme level of violence in that city.)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352

The 100,000 mark is probably closer to the actual number. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would exclude deaths from 'aerial weaponry'-- they mean bombs and missles, right?





Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
77 posted 2004-11-20 02:01 AM


Iraqbodycount:

quote:
This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies. This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.


This site, while no doubt useful, uses no statistical methodology.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
78 posted 2004-11-20 01:30 PM


It shouldn't even matter if it was 20,000 or 100,000 that were killed in this war.



How many casualties must it be until everyone screams, "THAT'S ENOUGH?" When the numbers reach Saddam's total casualties, which were estimated between 750,000-875,000? It's sickening!

Anyway, I heard from an Iraqi body count organization that between March and November of 2003, approximately 37,000 Iraqis were killed.

I'd say the 100,000 number could be quite accurate (800 were killed in Falluja in such a short time recently) And even if it is just a number, what must it take to make people react?

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

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
79 posted 2004-11-20 06:57 PM


Noah,

“In the name of "international peace," more than one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the sanctions, 567,000 of them children. Some 4,500 children under age five are dying each month from hunger and disease. Condemned by U.S. and UN planners to a starvation diet, little children have suffered a six-fold mortality rate increase since the onset of sanctions.”

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=86&sortorder=articledate


So other than war, and given the above regarding sanctions, what alternatives
were there?  

John


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
80 posted 2004-11-21 01:04 AM


I've answered this question before, and don't feel I have to be forced to keep answering again, as you're clearly trying to paint me into a corner.

Sanctions always have terrifying effects on large communities, and sadly more than just the governments are affected, but innocent people themselves. I wish they could simply be set up to only affect the government and its military capacities. Of course what could I say alone? I just believe there is such a lack of patience in so many current governments and impatience always seems to lead to rash conclusions.

Now how about you answer my question, which you haven't done yet.

Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of his people was wrong, I absolutely agree. Can't you agree killing 100,000 in trying to achieve "freedom" is wrong too?

It seems virtually EVERY time I ask that question now, people either tiptoe around the question and try and change the subject or simply refuse to answer.

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

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
81 posted 2004-11-21 07:49 AM


Noah,

“Can't you agree killing 100,000 in trying to achieve "freedom" is wrong too?”

First saying again that that number is yet not applicable to Iraq,
no, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.  In World
War II the United States helped directly or indirectly to kill millions,
including civilians, including, though by accident or without the wish
for it, thousands of allied civilians, (bombings in France).  The United
States did not do it for material gain.  It killed, at the expense of
hundreds of thousands of its own, to bring freedom back then to other
than it’s own citizens, and in the long term to protect freedom
for those then and someday back home.  Without that killing, much
of the world was immersed in lives not worth living by virtue of
the brutal aggressive tyrannies that governed them and only
at whose pleasure they drew breath.   No, killing 100,000 in trying
to achieve freedom is not wrong.

No, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.

John

P.S.  Now one could say that even a dog wants to live.
To those who would have others live as animals
or would be content to do so themselves, I concede
your point.  I do not, as my parents did not, share it.

P.S.S. No, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-21-2004 10:19 AM).]

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
82 posted 2004-11-21 08:36 AM


Of course it is wrong, Noah...But who are we peace lovers to stand in the way, even with our information that proves that war is futile, that it has never solved a problem fully, that it just changes the faces of hate  to different people­...So perhaps we should wave the banner of war mongers...

"Kill them all let God sort them out"

Maybe a quick death is best, especially if you are killed by one of Gods followers.

What's the difference in killing 100,000 so, so that many others may live in the much disrespected land of "freedom".. We must revenge the three thousand...about 33 to one is a respectable trade, even if our own deaths have nothing to do with the 100,000  Revenge is sweet, and just look at the spoils....

Those civilians are just in the way,
and not worth the effort of diplomatic protection.

But save a few, maybe we can torture them and they will tell us where the real enemy is hiding...

But we already know....Pogo told us long ago.." We have met the enemy, and they are us"
*
Carl Sandburg

[Edit - potential copyright infringement removed - Ron]

****************
My addition

Pile them high at Mosul and Fellujah
And pile them high  beside the Twin Towers.
Cover them with new buildings and monuments.
And still the passengers ask the conductor,
What place is this?
Where are we now..?

Shovel under the 103,000
I am the grass; let me work; I cover all.
­­
­

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-21-2004 02:11 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
83 posted 2004-11-21 09:27 AM


The number 100,000 is a statistical number.

We need another real study to do it.


Guys, learn basic statistics before you jump.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
84 posted 2004-11-21 10:29 AM


ice,

[Edit - potential copyright infringement removed - Ron]

Seems your basic point is
we’re all going to die anyway
so why try.

Both of my parents saw those piles
in Poland.  That may be why.

John

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-21-2004 02:11 PM).]

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
85 posted 2004-11-21 08:49 PM


­Brad
I would also like to see a more scientific study of body count statistics...The Bush administration has said repeatedly that they do not count Iraqi bodies, only American casualties...so we can't depend on our government to give us the figures...

They would not be honest with the figures anyway, It would make them look bad.

But somehow, even with the indentured servant press in Iraq, some information on civilians killed is leaked out...this is all that we have to go on...these are our only "basic statistics"

The bodycount website draws its information from very varied sources and even if they are off by 50% or so on their estimations it is still an abomination....and is also highly illegal, according to the Geneva convention if that makes any difference at all to the US government and the pentagon.

John

"Seems your basic point is
we’re all going to die anyway
so why try."

I don't know how you derived that from what I said?
But it is far from what I meant...

Ron has edited out the Sandburg poem so I can't make reference to the lines that I need to, too show why the poem aligns itself with my thoughts.

It is the futility of war that he speaks of, in my opinion

I read into it that the foolishness of choices by humans will be covered in grass (History) I think he is warning us that we must change our approach or those choices will lead to more bodies piled high (as demonstrated by the world condition today)

The earth will sustain, human inhabitants or not...
The grass will cover all...What I would like to see is more grass covering bodies of people who die happy and of natural causes...That is why I believe we must "try" other means than war, to settle arguments.
­­
­ford/ice

ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
86 posted 2004-11-21 08:58 PM


Ron
I don't quite understand your need to edit out the Sandburg poem I used to demonstrate a point in this thread?

I feel it is legal for me to post the poem in full because of my understanding of the copyright law of the United States Of America (title 17, United States code)

I am not a copyright lawyer, but the language seems pretty clear in this case..it states in section 107....

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Perhaps you can point to a section of the copyright laws that support your need to edit out the poem in my post...

I know you are trying to protect pip from any law suits or infringement problems, I respect you for doing that, and believe it is your duty to do so.

Thank you for your vigilance.

ford/ice

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
87 posted 2004-11-21 10:53 PM


ice,

If your point is the futility
of war I would still respond:

“Both of my parents saw those piles
in Poland.  That may be why.”

It is easy in a country fat with freedom
to laud the virtue of doing nothing.
And that in the light of the cost of sanctions
for example, (see above), seems all that is left;
that and the hope a monster dictator’s line dies out.

John



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
88 posted 2004-11-21 11:28 PM


"It seems virtually EVERY time I ask that question now, people either tiptoe around the question and try and change the subject or simply refuse to answer."

I think John's reply was fairly presented. These are your words, Noah..

How many casualties must it be until everyone screams, "THAT'S ENOUGH?"

Ok, I give up...how many?  Must be more than 567,000 children - must be more than almost 5000 a month - must be more than over a million, many buried in mass graves...because those figures did not cause you or anyone to cry out enough. Those figures were not enough to get your organization to conduct a march for them. You call the figures now sickening yet I suppose in your eyes there was nothing sickening about the other figures....interesting how you see things the way they fit into your political views only. No, you have never answered that question, regardless of how many times you've been asked. You simply say, "I know Hussein was wrong but...." and then you go off to criticize Bush and the actions in Iraq. You have never answered it because you have no answer - there is no answer.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
89 posted 2004-11-21 11:33 PM


quote:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - ... (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole ...

In other words, we can quote a paragraph or two out of Steven King's latest novel, but we can't just print the whole novel on-line, or even whole chapters, and claim it's for criticism or education. Fair Use doctrine is a guideline, not a law, but courts have historically held that only very small portions of a copyrighted work qualify. The smaller the original work is, the less can be quoted without exceeding "amount and substantiality."

Of course, I don't actually expect the lawyers from Sandburg's estate to come knocking on my door, Ford. We're pretty small fry for that, I think. I don't even know, for sure, if the particular poem you included in your post is still under protection, as some of Sandburg's are and some aren't. Nor do I know if Sandburg, or those to whom he passed his rights, would object to your use. Those aren't my mandate.

The lawyers, to me, matter less than the law. We're all writers here, and if we don't respect someone's copyright, who will?

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

90 posted 2004-11-22 08:51 AM


Balladeer, your response to Noah points out the ironic flaw in the position of the secular left.

If religion is wrong, then morality based upon religion is wrong.

As a result, the left is most tolerant of those the least tolerant.  If the morality of a Christian nation is not better than the morality of an extremist Muslim nation, then side with the Muslims because tolerance dictates the aggressor has to be wrong because both are in a equal moral position and one should tolerate the views of the non-aggressor.

It matters not that the accepted intolerance is diametrically opposed to the views of the left, and that an attempt is being made to free the intolerant from oppressive binds of fanatical extremism.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
91 posted 2004-11-22 04:02 PM


Balladeer, let's face it, you yourself didn't mobilize a huge rally when you may have first learned of Saddam killing thousands of his own people, did you? (you could share a photograph with me attending a rally to prove me wrong) You insinuate I'm a cold hard hypocrite because I assembled a rally speaking out against the war crimes of this administration yet didn't do one for Saddam's brutal regime.

Who could blame me? Who could blame you? Who could blame anyone who was shocked and appalled by all this? We don't govern Iraq, so we the people couldn't decide their fate. Just because I didn't conduct a major rally in 1991 doesn't mean I didn't feel and fathom the atrocities happening under his dictatorship.

Because I am a citizen of the United States of America, and can help determine the fate and direction of this nation, I feel it is my obligation to serve my country in my personal interests. I am against these wars, and find there to be an intense hypocrisy in how we must kill hordes in order to achieve "freedom" in the world. We are all overwhelmed by the atrocities Hussein did yet we only mirror these mass killings in wars like this. Then what could you possibly say when the numbers match up to those of Hussein's, should we stay in Iraq another 5-10 years as some generals are predicting.

I don't really blame religion on this war either, or morality based on it in that manner. I blame the impatience, misintelligence and miscalculations of our government itself.

I believe also it's no question that the left usually is most tolerant of the least tolerant. Liberalism has evolved very much since the days of Hobbes and Locke, but ever since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt in particular, it's been defined primarily as the more broad,-minded, diverse school of thought and intolerant to totalitarian influences. It also gets defined often as the concept of balancing capitalism with morals and ethics.

What Tim said shouldn't really be that suprising. The left are pretty intolerant and lean to the intolerant. I am intolerant myself of any sort of punishing, oppressive regime. I am intolerant of and condemn Hussein's actions, but I am also intolerant of our administration only adding to the noise of war and terror in the region.

I believe I hold a consistency here. I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Hussein regime in Iraq, I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Bush occupation in Iraq.

And when you think of this diametrically, the left can happen to be tolerant and the right can be quite intolerant. Tolerance can go all across the panel.

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

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

92 posted 2004-11-22 06:51 PM


"I believe I hold a consistency here. I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Hussein regime in Iraq, I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Bush occupation in Iraq."

That would be the point, when you take morality out of the equation, you can view the U.S. and the Hussein regime to be equal in their levels of evil.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
93 posted 2004-11-22 07:03 PM


Ok, Noah. There is not much more I can say beyond that. Apparently you believe there is a similarity between Hussein mass-murdering his people and our fighting there for their liberation. You draw parallels between the two, in which case you must find little difference between Hussein, the Taliban and Bush. You speak of one mirroring the other. You speak of fighting against tyranny being no better that tyrannists murdering their own. I have no idea what has caused you to have such a strong dislike for Bush that you consider him to be no better than one of the biggest mass-murderers  in history but, whatever it is, it appears to be too deeply ingrained for me to debate. I hope that someday you DO discover that there actually is a big difference between the two....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
94 posted 2004-11-22 08:00 PM


What a different world it would be
if Roosevelt, listening to those who
would have had the United States do nothing,
had simply played with his dog.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
95 posted 2004-11-22 08:53 PM


It's because I oppose all these major violent campaigns, period. I don't know how much I have to stress that, and have prople understand that.

I personally believe the many voices of journalists and sociologists when they say you have to travel across the world to truly fathom the fullest of each culture and civilization. Who's to say all those innocent Iraqis themselves don't feel terrorized by all the stealth bombers and Humvees storming through the cities and across the boondocks of the fertile crescent?

I'm certain many of these families of those who've lost loved ones in the 20,000-100,000 or more who have perished under this war don't truly feel free now. Sights like the bombings of two hospitals in Falluja, uranium contaminants across the parched outskirts and in the water supply, no matter where they could be in the world, that would certainly startle anyone.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has just come out saying it is apparent there are failures by all sides in the conflict to respect humanitarian laws. Malnutrition among children and the young in Iraq has doubled in the last two years according to a new Washington Post report. Over 70 died this weekend after the Abu Hanifa mosque raid.

It's just...incredible...incredible to me that some don't believe it is wrong to have killed this many civilians so far. SHOULD the U.S stay there another 5-10 years and the numbers approach those of Saddam's doing, which I certainly pray won't happen, are you still going to say this was worth it because it was fighting against tyranny?

At least in my mind, it doesn't matter who you are or what kind of person you are; an act of violence is an act of violence.

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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
96 posted 2004-11-22 09:00 PM


At least in my mind, it doesn't matter who you are or what kind of person you are; an act of violence is an act of violence.

In that case, Noah, I shall ask you the same question Ron asked you several threads ago which was never answered. Do you feel that police using violence  to fight crime or arrest a criminal is wrong?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
97 posted 2004-11-22 09:04 PM


Noah,

In my mind I see my parents' eyes
as they told their stories . . .

Your attitude is the best friend
a thing like Hitler and his kind
could have.

John

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
98 posted 2004-11-22 09:27 PM


quote:
As a result, the left is most tolerant of those the least tolerant.  If the morality of a Christian nation is not better than the morality of an extremist Muslim nation, then side with the Muslims because tolerance dictates the aggressor has to be wrong because both are in a equal moral position and one should tolerate the views of the non-aggressor.


Not everybody on the Left believes this, Tim. The difference is that we don't accept the Christian morality is, by definition, superior to any other type of morality. And even at that, we don't particularly think Christians are all that Christian all the time.

When a bad thing happens, call it a bad thing. When a good thing happens, call it a good thing.

As long as you keep that in mind, you don't need to make comparisons, you just call a spade a spade. I have no problems calling Bush a more moral man than Hussein, I have a problem calling Bush a competent president.

If you're going to start a war (Is there anybody who still thinks we were forced into this current debacle?), get it right! If you don't, pay the price!

Unfortunately, only 49% of the American people seem to think like that.




Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
99 posted 2004-11-22 09:34 PM


quote:
That would be the point, when you take morality out of the equation, you can view the U.S. and the Hussein regime to be equal in their levels of evil.


Do you want us to give percentage points?

Hmm, let's see, okay Bush is only about 25% as bad as Hussein. Hussein is about 90% as bad as Pol Pot, Pot is 90% of Hitler, Hitler is 98% of Stalin.

Oh wait, where do I put Mao?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
100 posted 2004-11-22 09:44 PM


Hold the Mao, Brad
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
101 posted 2004-11-22 09:45 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
102 posted 2004-11-22 10:25 PM


....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 2003-05-30
Posts 3665

103 posted 2004-11-23 06:45 AM


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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
104 posted 2004-11-23 08:40 AM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
105 posted 2004-11-23 02:41 PM


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 2003-05-30
Posts 3665

106 posted 2004-11-24 05:27 AM


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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
107 posted 2004-11-24 07:04 AM


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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
108 posted 2004-11-24 09:10 AM


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 2003-05-30
Posts 3665

109 posted 2004-11-25 04:52 AM


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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
110 posted 2004-11-25 06:33 AM


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 2003-05-30
Posts 3665

111 posted 2004-11-25 06:57 AM


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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
112 posted 2004-11-25 09:22 AM


Goldenrose,

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



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
113 posted 2004-11-25 12:03 PM


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 2003-05-30
Posts 3665

114 posted 2004-11-26 05:00 AM


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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
115 posted 2004-11-26 04:43 PM


Goldenrose,

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

Allegedly


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
116 posted 2004-11-27 09:42 AM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
117 posted 2005-05-04 04:43 PM


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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
118 posted 2005-05-04 06:33 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
119 posted 2005-05-04 06:53 PM


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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
120 posted 2005-05-04 07:05 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
121 posted 2005-05-04 07:22 PM


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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
122 posted 2005-05-04 08:41 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
123 posted 2005-06-02 04:37 PM


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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
124 posted 2005-06-02 05:17 PM


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.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
125 posted 2005-06-03 01:46 AM


I'm glad you brought up schools, Alicat. I wanted to wait to get a response and then move more into that direction.

Here's something that can apply further to this discussion:
NY Times

It certainly may be true that those that are willing to sign up are dedicated to their academies, but there is also a larger circumstance where now many parents are keeping the military service option off of the tablecloth.

It's a no-brainer that the numbers themselves will go up in the summer months, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they'll get their numbers to where they want to be. In fact, they'd be under more pressure in hoping the summer-transition acceleration trend keeps up with prior summer acceleration trends.

Soon enough I feel this administration will have to make a critically defining choice. Either choose to abort the mission in Iraq and rest and re-build our reserve bank, or re-institute the draft, which I feel the latter is not only going to bring out the worst among many American families, but further disspirit the administration's own agenda.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa

[This message has been edited by Ron (06-03-2005 10:47 AM).]

catalinamoon
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543
The Shores of Alone
126 posted 2005-06-07 04:20 PM


Months later, and re-reading this thread, just want to say I am with you Noah. I don't know if there will be a draft or not. I am fed up with the way this war is continuing to take innocent lives on both sides. Enough already. It was enough before it was falsely started.
Sandra

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
127 posted 2005-06-07 08:51 PM




Awwwwwww, thanks Sandra! I sure have missed you on Passions! I hope you've been well lately, as I miss your poetry too! (angel friendship hugs)

I really do hate talking about this and really don't like to keep thinking of this scenario, but I truly believe the fact is we're approaching a point where a huge decision must be made; if the war on terror continues to be pursued at the current rate, or if the draft re-surfaces. I don't see any third direction and no one has successfully been able to say what other options there may be when I asked before.

Hey Sandra, by the way, I think you've just inspired me to open up a new thread, speaking of "it was enough before it falsely started".

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

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

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
128 posted 2005-06-25 02:29 PM


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8342995/

A new AP-Ipsos poll reveals that over two-thirds of Americans oppose a possible return of the draft, in result of dismal monthly recruitment numbers and no end in sight for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The poll also revealed among those polled, about two-thirds say they'd oppose their daughters joining the service, with more than half saying the same for their sons.

Also, though men favored the draft idea more than women, and Republicans more than Democrats, a majority among all groups oppose the idea.

*

*

And in the coming months, with it heavily unlikely the Pentagon and the Army are going to see sudden bursts of new recruits because the war in Iraq is the #1 reason almost everyone doesn't want to join...

*

*

.......they're going to have to make the choice,...........re-instate the draft, or abort the war in Iraq.

And I think we all know how disastrous the former would be on not only Americans and families, but on the morale of our troops too.

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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
129 posted 2005-06-25 02:57 PM


And yet Congressman Rangel (D/NY) keep introducing legislation to reinstate the draft.  Not in any hope of getting his bill accepted, just to continue undermining the military, both in 2003 and 2004.  I wouldn't be surprised if he tried again in 2005, just to continue his misinformation and fear-mongering crusade.  Of course, there's plenty of accomplices to ensure the spread of rumors and lies, selling them as gospel truth, from bloggers, online/offline PACs, unions, media, protestors, and educators.

Dr. King dreamed of a day when all will be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.  Rangel's actions and words speak volumes of his character, and I find him lacking.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
130 posted 2005-06-25 03:07 PM


And you should understand, especially not being a Democrat either (I only lean more in support to the Democrats than the current GOP)  that I obviously absolutely disagree with him.

How I wish the Democrats truly are the party of "No" in an oppositional party sense. They're just not. They haven't united against the war. They haven't united against torture. Even a few Democrats failed to unite on the ANWR vote.

Absolutely agree with you he's lacks real character.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

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

Mother Teresa

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
131 posted 2005-06-25 03:15 PM


Polls, Noah, are pretty much meaningless. It's been decades since I've seen one that disputed what those running the poll were trying to prove, and even longer since I've seen one that wasn't purposely biased. They are as easily manipulated as aspiring actresses.

When push comes to shove, there's only one kind of poll that really matters, only one that can make a difference.

We call it an election.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
132 posted 2005-06-25 05:33 PM


Ron!!! i had no idea you had experience with aspiring actresses!!!
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
133 posted 2005-06-25 06:15 PM


From Democracy Now!

Pentagon Developing Massive Database on Millions of U.S. Students
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/24/1348257

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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
134 posted 2005-06-25 08:44 PM


Nothing new, Noah.  Military screens possible applicants, just like other businesses screen possible applicants.  If you're so against that, then I bet you absolutely loathe sport scouts.  Before, during the 80's (not sure about now or the 90's), the armed forces would administer the ASVAB in high schools, and they were much better gauges of academics and critical thinking skills than the majority of state tests.  Granted, recruiters selected candidates based off their scores, but one could always opt out, and barring that, simply say 'Thanks, but no thanks.'
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Draft: Inevitable?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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