»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Do We Pull Out?
| The Alley |
|
Do We Pull Out? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
MSNBC announced this morning that more people were killed in New Orleans last week than soldiers in Iraq. So do we pull out of New Orleans?  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess sometimes the MSM does put things into proper perspective. I'd like to see more of that. I heard a report a couple years back (but on FOX, I think) that it was safer to be in Baghdad than NYC. I don't know the current stats between the two. But I suspect that if the media harped daily on casualty figures during WWII we'd all be speaking German today. And I suspect that Viet Nam would not have fallen to the communists except for the influence of the media on public opinion. The media does do some good though, I suppose. I decided to go on the computer rather than continue listening to a program referring to Iraq as a quagmire and Tony Blair as walking lockstep with Bush as if it were gospel truth and not just their opinion. Being on the computer is a much better use of my time! |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Well, Cindy Sheehan says that New Orleans is being occupied by our troops and military and governmental fascism has gone out of control there so, yes, we should pull out of there immediately before the freedom fighters start flooding the area!  * But moving to a most serious tone beyond the Sheehan doctrine, there is another unacceptable milestone in which what truly is a "quagmire" has crossed, and that is November 27th of last year marked the day when the Iraq war became longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II (beginning with Germany's declaration of war on the United States on December 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor, and ending when the United States declared victory in Europe on May 8, 1945, a total of 1,244 days). I bring up this milestone because often throughout these past forty-six months, those most staunchly in favor of the war have brought up various historical comparisons to try and justify what this mission is about, which many proponents have compared to our involvement in World War II. Indeed the world was truly at risk of global tyranny, pitted against a massive and powerful enemy, during World War II, and while I certainly am no fan of war in general, I can also understand why there was no use arguing then when millions of lives were being incessantly not just at risk, but threatened. Crossing this sort of milestone just proves once and for all that this war is virtually nothing like World War II; that it is a war driven by interest and ideology despite what the soundbytes coming from its architects may lead to suggesting otherwise. To some it may sound like conspiracy talking, but I find it quite obvious when the excuses and rationale for invading have ceaselessly evolved since the beginning, from being about 1) finding weapons of mass destruction, to 2) liberating the Iraqi people, to 3) establishing democracy and elections in Iraq (which this administration originally opposed establishing elections until al-Sistani pressured our government), to 4) nation-building (also initially opposed by this administration) to 5) combatting "fascism" across the Middle East with Iraq being the center of the war on it, to what is apparently now 6) "sacrifice". (I possibly may have over-looked several other excuses) BBC: January 2, 2007 That last one especially, suggested in a new BBC report of President Bush’s “new Iraq strategy”, was quoting a senior American official, who said this strategy will be about troop increases in Iraq and "sacrifice". It gets even worse still, with NBC Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski admitting himself that this move of "surge and accelerate" in Iraq is being done so more politically than militarily. * Think Progress: January 3, 2007 WILLIAMS: First, NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has learned that President Bush is prepared to announce a strategy of surge and accelerate in Iraq, which would involve some 20,000 additional American troops being sent to Iraq. Jim is with us from the Pentagon with more on this tonight. Jim. Good evening. MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they’re not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today. WILLIAMS: Jim Miklaszewski on duty for us today. Thanks for that. * Vanity Fair: November 3, 2006 Even the very neoconservative architects of this war have come out admitting everything is going wrong there and even placing all the blame on Bush's doorstep. Former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Richard Perle (who was among those so adamant about invading Iraq that he was even a signatory of the January 26, 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Clinton calling for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and who also thought that this mission would be such a piece of cake he advocated only sending 40,000 troops to Iraq and argued vociferously against the 250,000 General Eric Shinseki proposed) said this in an interview with Vanity Fair's David Rose last November: * "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have." * The article goes on interviewing other prominent neoconservative figures, including David Frum, Bush's former speechwriter who co-wrote his 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil", who suggests defeat may now be inescapable, and Pentagon insider Kenneth Adelman who says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." * Regardless of how genuinely these figures feel about the state of the war in Iraq now, the only real reason they're speaking out strongly all of a sudden is to attempt to re-write the history of their involvement and planning behind this invasion, in hopes of opportunistically treating President Bush and his administration as scapegoats, as the sole people responsible for this foreign policy mess they started, in hopes perhaps they can re-define themselves and once again influence our foreign policy to what I like to think of as "long war terms", which the departure of Donald Rumsfeld symbolizes the significant collapse of neoconservative influence in this administration. This call for "surge and accelerate", becoming famously known as the "McCain Doctrine", something which the Baker-Hamilton led Iraq Study Group themselves claimed would be a mistake if it isn't done for the purpose of training Iraqi soldiers and ensuring it's done temporarily rather than "sustained" as McCain believes, is being driven by ego above all else. It's about continuing this senseless war, about refusing to admit their faults and mistakes and stubbornly hoping to avoid speaking them in that such a "sign of weakness" in their minds would forever damage public view of the "long war" kind of foreign policy and halt those profiteering from this war. Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll: December 13, 2006 It's a cynical ploy which I find absolutely despicable, a cynical ploy which majorities in both the civilian and military populations outright oppose (a mere 12% of Americans in a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll conducted in mid-December support a troop increase, while 52% support a fixed timetable for withdrawal). The American people are speaking that they want LESS troops in Iraq, NOT more. And several Republican senators have already come out joining the Democrats in opposition, including Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel, who called it "Alice in Wonderland". And, consequentially from this cynical ploy, it's our young men and women in uniform who suffer the most, who on local levels, both individually and as teams, have done may wonderful things for Iraqi communities everywhere despite our government screwing up in the general sense, opening schools and hospitals in Iraq, caring for the elderly and children, even the heartwarming story of an Army specialist who took a young deaf Iraqi girl to a Miami hospital to have a cochlear implant so she could hear again. I couldn't be more proud of what our troops are doing; in contrast I couldn't be more outraged with the negligence of this administration, who are literally rolling over and behaving like a recalcitrant eleven-year old boy who refuses to do his chores, saying, "Let someone else do them!". That's how they're acting on Iraq, suggesting "Let the next president take care of it!", and in the process literally endangering the lives of our young men and women, leaving them fending for themselves. It has been made widely clear that most Americans want this administration to begin a strategy in pulling out incrementally. The American public made their voices heard loud and clear last November when they went to the polls and expressed their dissatisfaction with the Iraq war's handling as one of two top issues. And, apparently, the administration still isn't listening to that message. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not a fan of war either, Noah. Most of us would like to live in a peaceful world. Many people believe that we are just as much at risk today from Islamo fascists just as surely as we were from the tyrants during the WWII era. I happen to agree with them. What do you imagine the media that we have today would have done with statistics like this: http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm Would the Allied Forces have gone onto victory or would the media induced public outcry have demanded a surrender in light of such high casualties? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I'll listen to anything you have to say EXCEPT quotes from Cindy Sheehan!!!  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
New Orleans, like it or not, is our nation's wake up call to the vulnerability of our homeland. It is a revelry to what happens when multi-generational poverty goes unaddressed. I had a lot more to say, but like most of the citizens of New Orleans, I'm weary of the "pity" card. This saddens me, though. I don't understand the comparison. Did the United States declare war on New Orleans? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, serenity gal, the US hasn't declared war on New Orleans. I could have used New Orleans, Washington DC, traffic accidents or a variety of other comparisons. I used New Orleans only because MSNBC did. It's no pity party for the town. We hear so much about the loss of American lives in Iraq in the war on terror and the attempt to aid the Iraqis when,in actuality, we have more wasted lives dying on our own streets from senseless crimes. Does that make either ok? No, of course not but it is certainly something to think about, no? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The comparison is a foolish one, Mike. It assumes that the solution to needless death is always the same, which obviously isn’t true. When children start dying from measles, we don’t pull out, we vaccinate them. When fatalities start piling up at the same street corner, we don’t pull out, we lower the speed limit and put in a traffic light. When people start murdering people, we don't pull out, we try to arrest the criminals, prosecute them fairly, and put them away where they can't do any more harm. The problems may all seem similar, Mike, but the solutions are all very different. No, we shouldn't pull out of New Orleans, because pulling out isn't the right solution to that particular problem. But, in the face of such tragedy, neither should we keep doing the same things over and over and over again in hopes the problem will just go away. It won't go away. It never does. Not in New Orleans, and not in Iraq. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The comparison is foolish, Ron? NO KIDDING!!! It was intended to be little else. I certainly never intended for it to be taken literally or even seriously. I'll be more careful....promise!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But you didn't make the comparison, Mike? According to you, MSNBC did. The question, of course, is why? If it was meant to be ha-ha funny, an unexpected reversal of expectations, I guess I failed to make that connection. I guess Denise did, too, and apparently everyone else in this thread as well. Food for thought? Someone is suffering from gross malnutrition, I fear.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why did they make the comparison? Oh, I think they did that for a valid reason....the same one I gave a few replies ago.....and, yes, it IS food for thought. I mis-spoke when I said the comparison was foolish. What I meant was the part about pulling out of New Orleans was foolish and to be taken as only a feeble attempt at levity...still can't believe anyone would take that line seriously. It's David Letterman material. You DID make a good case, though, for not pulling out of Iraq. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
May be that MSNBC gets their humorous material from John Kerry  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sorry, Mike, it's hard for me to see the levity when the joke is about real people who are needlessly dying. Shame on David Letterman. quote: No, I made a case for doing something different in Iraq, as in New Orleans, instead of continuing to do what hasn't worked. That is the ONLY similarity between the two I can recognize. Personally, arguing whether we should withdraw from Iraq is a bit like arguing for or against abortion. It's difficult because there can't be any good answer when you're trying to correct a problem that should never have been allowed to exist. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Wasn't the perspective supposed to be that something has gone horribly wrong in New Orleans? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I suppose it was L.R. Due to my misreading it I gave them credit where none was due. My mistake. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“New Orleans, like it or not, is our nation's wake up call to the vulnerability of our homeland. It is a revelry to what happens when multi-generational poverty goes unaddressed.” It has been addressed massively for forty years! As to Iraq, who thought that changing a mindset that has existed for over a millennium would be easy? And who would care if that mindset funded and armed didn’t seek to radically change our own. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Dick Cheney |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Well, he was wrong . . . That still won't make the problem go away. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
January 8, 1815 "The Battle of New Orleans, also known as the Battle of Chalmette Plantation, took place on January 8, 1815, at the end of the War of 1812, when the United States forces defeated the British. The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war, had been signed—though not ratified—over two weeks earlier, but the news had not yet reached the Southern front." Seems there's a history of things being slow to reach the southern front. But um, it's a little ironic, the date, eh? We didn't pull out, and I have to smile a little now--we sure are a hard-headed bunch. I love ya Mike. We're loyal too.  ooops forgot to quote my source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans And John? Have a valium. I just got mine refilled. So yer safe. grin |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Many did, especially the neoconservative architects that I mentioned in my previous response like Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman. I for one knew from the beginning that my anti-war politics aside, it wasn't going to be as easy as this administration was making it out to be simply because historically in most interventions, fighting fire with fire just scatters the flames. Though the global community widely condemns terrorism, it also is sensitive about any foreign army intervening in other countries, where it's widely recognized it should only be done so if this is an enemy proven and well-documented to be a serious threat. But our officials treated this as some sort of cakewalk, and ran out of plan after barely two months there. Adding on to your point, these neoconservatives are talking about a "long war" in hopes of modernizing the entire Middle East so democratic societies can blossom and flourish everywhere just like that, yet while many already believing they're overreaching and being too idealistic as it is, the even worse flaw is that own intelligence services know virtually NOTHING about the culture and religious diversity in the country, and when you go to war with a country in which you know very little about their people, their traditions, etc., what do you expect to happen? CQ: December 8, 2006 An embarrassing number of CIA officials, elected officials in Congress and members of the Bush Administration can't even correctly answer the simple question of what the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite is. For instance, five-term Texas Democrat Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who is the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee, when asked whether Al-Qaeda was Sunni or Shi'ite, answered: "They are probably both." and then abruptly added, "You're talking about predominantly? Predominantly -- probably Shi'ite." Reyes couldn't have been more wrong. In fact, al-Qa'ida's ideals are guided by the purification of Sunni Islam, which Osama bin Laden considers tainted by the Saudi royal family's personal corruption and alliance with the United State, while Shi'ite Muslims in their view are heretics deserving of death for their perversion of the "one true religion." Then, when asked who Hizballah are, he says: "Hizballah. Uh, Hizballah.......Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?" Yet, Hizballah has been a well-documented and also well-known terrorist arm of Iran for more than two decades, from the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 of our servicemen, to the political assassinations, to now trying to help train Iraqi Shi'ites to kill Iraqi Sunnis in Iraq, who has become an influential force in regional politics now. Then you have Republicans Terry Everett; a seven-term Congressman from Alabama and former vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence and Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, the former head of the House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the CIA's recruitment of Muslims to infiltrate Islamist organizations and analyze the information they provide, who didn't fare any better being asked the same questions. Here's the exchanges with both of them by CQ Magazine's nation security editor Jeff Stein in the summer of last year: * JS: "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite?" Everett: "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something." JS explains differences to Everett Everett: "Now that you've explained it to me, what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area." * * JS: "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite?" Davis: "Do I? You know, I should. It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shi'a. Or vice versa. But I think it's the Sunnis who're more radical than the Shi'a." JS: "And what is al-Qa'ida?" Davis: "Al-Qa'ida is the one that's most radical, so I think they're Sunni. I may be wrong, but I think that's right......al-Qa'ida's whole reason for being is based on their beliefs, and you've got to understand, and to know your enemy." * * And yet, though Davis couldn't be more right on that final point, not only our elected officials (who could be argued that they're not responsible for counterterrorism efforts) but many of our own high-ranking counterterrorism officials have no idea what the schism that has defined the battle line in Islam for almost fourteen centuries across the Middle East is all about. The World Tribune: December 7, 2006 Moreover, five years after 9/11, only 33 of the Bureau's 12,000 agents have even minimal knowledge of Arabic, and until recently new agents received only two hours in Arab-culture training. Meanwhile, only six people at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad are fluent in Arabic. Knowledge of Islam and the Middle East is seemingly non-existent throughout our national intelligence. * * Perhaps we have responded too strongly to this MSNBC comparison or David Letterman sort of quip, but those kind of jokes about real conflicts where peoples lives are on the line are NO laughing matter to me, and though I generally enjoy those sorts of jokes you hear on late-night television, this was completely insensitive, and believe sometimes you just have to reiterate in a strong tone exactly who is on the line in such a conflict.  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps we have responded too strongly to this MSNBC comparison or David Letterman sort of quip.. ya think???? those kind of jokes about real conflicts where peoples lives are on the line are NO laughing matter to me The joke, Noah, was not about people's lives on the line and the reference to the amount of deaths in Iraq vs. New Orleans was factual, not a joke. The JOKE was in reference to pulling out of New Orleans since we are NOT at war in New Orleans and DON'T have thousands of American soldiers there....man, I can't even believe it's necessary to point this out! If people want to feel offended about something, they will. If people want to find something offensive, they will. If people want to claim that Mr. McGoo was offensive to nearsighted people, or Speedy Gonzales was an affront to Mexicans, they will. If people want to claim that the song lyrics from the Jet song in West Side Story..." 'cause every Puerto Rican's a lousy chicken" should be censored as an affront to Puerto Ricans or calling a black ex-quarterback "Spearchucker" in the movie M*A*S*H was demeaning to Afro-Americans, they will....and if you or others here want to take this silly attempt at humor as an affront to our troops and feel offended by it, you will.....and it's your right to do so. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Yep. But I remember a certain audience booing and yelling "Too Soon" regarding 9-11 jokes too. I think when my daughter has to phone me to tell me that she will be late, because the streets between our home and her friends home--the next street over--are cardoned off with yellow crime scene tape because of another double murder, I can reserve the right to say "too close." I doubt seriously if David Letterman would find kidnapping jokes funny either. "Too sensitive?" Maybe. "Too tired." You betcha. But my kids are home and I can lock up now. It's all good. Lawd knows I've made some bad analogies and bad jokes in my time too. *chuckle*? So now maybe I can get some shut eye--without the valium tonight.  G'nite good people. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Take it from John Kerry, he knows all about jokes gone wrong! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Actually, I think Philadelphia has declared war on New Orleans. E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles!!! (Not) Jim |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Since this is ultimately about Iraq, let’s say we do pull out. What, if anything, do we do with those millions of Iraqis who bought into the whole freedom democracy thing? It’s estimated some over 700,000 Vietnamese died trying to get away after the end of last war we lost. Do we give asylum, citizenship, ( there were three actual or children of refugees in my small R&D department alone), to those lucky few who survive? What about all those who voted, (there’s bound to be records), that don’t get out? Who is willing to accept that for relying on us with our proclaimed opportunities of freedom, men, women, and even their children will be left behind to suffer if not die? . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
We could always send them to Houston.  I know, I know, I'm bad. *laughing* (I should write for Letterman, eh?) And Jim? I'm just proud to have gotten this far. And yep, I'm stashing some valium for Saturday. Now, Karenity is earning her wings this week, so g'nite again good people. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Didn't read everyone's comment here, so forgive me if you will if I duplicate something already been said. There are pro's and con's of course... But I believe first, instead of listening to media, and fat old men who send young men to war...we should ask our military and troops already over there, what they think? I mean who sees things more first hand then them. If we pull out, what does that say to those men who have already lost their lives? And the cause, regardless of Bush's intentions, we owe something to those kids over their bravely defending a people. And again, I'd like to hear their side of the story. (our soldiers and those in charge of our soldiers over there in the front lines) Also, if we don't pull out, then we've got to send many more troops over there to defend those already there...they do need back up...and as much strong hold as they can get, including man power, equipment, as sophisticated as we can get...I think up until now, we've not been using all our military's best and finest equipment. If we pull out, then we should pull out now, before any one else looses their lives and stop making a political thing out of this...and if we pull out, we've got to understand the consequences of what we've already suceeded over there might be lost... To me, the only way to win, is to help others, and I'd like to hear what Iraq has to say, what the women over there have to say, and how their soldiers feel. Everyone should be putting their heads together on this, and to me, this hasn't been done. If I were being tortured, beat, raped, watch my family shot, my children claimed and taken to become suicide bombs...then, I'd like to think, that another country would come to our rescue? Would they? We always get involved in other peoples wars for political reasons, and try to tell cultures they are wrong, and change cultures that have been existing in their belief for thousands of years. Then, if we have weak men leading those wars, we pull out. From the beginning of this war, we've had weak leaders who didn't know what they were doing. But, unfortunately we're in there, and before we pull out, I think the questions I've possed should be weighed by all involved. I want to know the perspective of all concerned, not just what our country thinks we should do, to politically win votes. I would also like to add, no matter what we do in Iraq, we need to reinstate the draft...and every man and woman in the U.S. should have to undergo some military training, unless they are going to college. If they are not, then, each and every 17 -18 year old person should have to undergo military training for 1 or 2 years. And Marriage should not exempt them from the draft, unless they are pregnant woman. But they're husbands should have to attend regardless....for 1 or 2 years training. Then if they want to reinlist, it's their choice, but the draft should be manditory for every young man and woman graduating from high school with no direction on what to do or where to go. It might also help reinstate some very necessary values and respect lost. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good thoughts, LeeJ.. And again, I'd like to hear their side of the story. (our soldiers) .... but you won't and that's an issue. The several I have talked to and exchanged correspondence with over there believe in what they are doing and are very positive. They also despise the press and the way the press is portraying events over there in the most derrogatory way with little focus on all the good that is being done. By the way, I can assure you that if an evil leader gets power in the US and you are raped, beaten and killed by the secret police he set up along with thousands of other normal citizens, no other country will come to your defense. We are the only ones dumb enough to do that |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Perhaps the starter of this thread should learn to recognise mistakes, just as the president should regognise the mistakes he has made and not make anymore he should just bring the troops home. But stubborness and a failure to understand or care about the message the people sent to him at the mid term elections, will sadly send more soldiers to their deaths, unless the people say no and take a stand, even to the impeachment of the presdient if need be. Sheesh it is odd that people can have threads like this though, i can remember times when others had their writing privalages withdrawn for less???...Mmmm good job moderators have nine lives though eh?.. peace to the world ...no more wars... Goldenrose. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: You touch on a crucially important point here, Michael, which I see mirrored in a recent Military Times poll conducted late last month. Military Times: December 29, 2006 Of course, mind you that we should treat no poll as a hasty generalization regarding general attitude and sentiments of our young men and women on the ground, as their feelings run deeper than words ever could and I feel there's been an unprecedented amount of diverse views being projected during this war than during any other such time in recent history. Yet, I do believe these results reveal clues about what's on the minds of many there, and also reveals where they're alligned with what we think generally and where we differ. Here are some conclusions I came to regarding these results: * 1) Both the notion of "stay the course" which President Bush continues to project, as well as an abrupt withdrawal, are not acceptable options in the minds of our young men and women in uniform. Our military rejects both extremes, and want closure to this war to come from the medium, likely in the form of a phased withdrawal as a military ground poll conducted by Zogby International in February of 2006 suggests. 2) Our military doesn't like to be treated as a mandate or backdrop to any leader or governing force, according to the poll, despite many of our elected officials using them for political gain in one form or another. 48% said Bush holds their interests at heart, 32% of civilian military leadership said likewise, and a mere 23% said the same for Congress. These results hint a feeling of disconnect between our young men and women in uniform and government at all levels, and that they should be more sensitive and listen to them better. 3) Although the poll results mirror public opinion immensely in some key areas, there are a couple areas where the military and the civilian public are at odds. The first area is regarding the question of more troops in Iraq, where almost half of our military personnel polled believe we need more troops, while a mere 12% of civilians in a Los Angeles Time poll thinking likewise (although 3/4 of the military said in the same poll our military is stretched too thin for that to be a sure success). Secondly, the military's perception of how the media thinks of them is notably different than in the civilian population, where though a majority of civilians believe that not enough good news is reported from the field, they believe all in all they're fair in how they depict the troops, while it's obviously not in the minds of our military personnel. Again, increasing sensitivity and the will to report the human side of serving overseas should be heavily encouraged. 4) The Republican Party in terms of military volunteer option has taken a huge hit this year, with the number of troops identifying themselves as Republicans declining by 14% from the previous poll, and a notable percentage revealing they now identify themselves as centrists and moderates rather than conservatives (liberals remain a thin minority in the active military). These results suggest that while politically, military volunteers still tend to lean conservative as a whole, they also have been mirroring the civilian public this year in moving more toward the center. 5) Despite the obvious increasing disenchantment with the handling of this war by both the President, Congress and civilian military officials, a strong majority of troops remain reluctant to be vocal about their opinions and rather keep them guarded and secret within themselves, suggesting that despite their differences, they value loyalty and honoring the mission above all else, which is something that should be commended, even while I believe dissent is necessary to encourage healthy debate about the course. * So as this poll hints out, you are undoubtedly correct that our young men and women do not like the way both how our media are depicting them, as well as how all political parties go treating them like a mandate and pretend that they "speak for them". And I absolutely agree that our young men and women in uniform are not getting all the respect they deserve in our press, as though I am fervently against this war and the whole neoconservative ideology of the "long war", my respect for our troops is absolute and indispensable. I too keep in close contact with some serving in my friend Randy Meador's battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado in Colorado Springs, as well as talk to veterans at the Vancouver, Washington VA on occasion, who many hold deep reservations about the justifications and leadership of this war, but value that everything our young men and women need should be provided and we must not distance ourselves from them when their very lives are at stake. Unfortunately, where I work at KBOO Community Radio, I believe there are some there (most there are sympathetic, just some) who are very disrespectful toward our young men and women in uniform, and this nation in particular, who go about every day writing US as U$ and spelling America "Amerika" and writing news stories that only speak negatively about our country and say nothing about all the wonderful things this country offers the worlds every day, and that breaks my heart. I of course am NOT happy with the conduct and leadership of this war and cannot trust those representing this administration in general, and will indeed point out what's wrong with the picture in Iraq. But I also believe we're committing a colossal disservice and lack of sensitivity to our young men and women in uniform when we don't recognize and bring to light all the brave, honorable and compassionate tasks they perform throughout communities in Iraq nationally, which these altruistic actions and fellow-feeling should be immensely appreciated. Every Wednesday when I produce the Evening News at KBOO, I work every facial muscle out just to find positive, uplifting stories about the heroic and compassionate things each individual, each battalion, each commander performs across Iraq, from Army Captain John Agnello helping to get his hometown community of Fairport, New York to promote soccer to Iraqi children nationally to help them find something to believe in, to Colonel Larry McCallister working hard heading the Army Corps of Engineers to rehabilitate over 350 schools, 60 medical clinics and three hospitals across Iraq, to working really hard to provide fresh water to Basra, to working on the ambitious Najaf Teaching Hospital......the list of great things goes on and on on the humanitarian and local level. No one here knows exactly how MUCH heat is unfairly and unfortunately put on me by those "some" I was just talking about at KBOO, simply by running stories that display things happening in Iraq in a positive light. I even got accused last September of acting like a Fox News pundit simply because I ran a story about a three-year old deaf Iraqi girl named Amina receiving a chance to hear again by getting a cochlear implant, thanks to an outreach effort by an Army special forces doctor named Colonel Warner Anderson and his wife in helping arrange that opportunity for her. I was so upset that day, and frankly believe that running constant stories and/or propaganda that depicts nothing but the negative things our country and our troops do would be the far left equivalent of Fox News, like what Indymedia always does. I continue to volunteer at KBOO of course because most volunteers there, despite being overwhelmingly opposed to this war, are also sympathetic of our troops in combat, and most importanty because I am a volunteer who has a voice to share and I am NOT going to give up that fight for moderation there to a minority of ungrateful, cynical minds there. * The bottom line here, Michael, is despite some differences on our thoughts towards this war (I do understand recently that you too have grown increasingly worried and pessimistic about the situation there) we agree most strongly that the coverage of what's happening there is absolutely unacceptable. I believe I was rightfully upset in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion that there was virtually NO discussion and debate regarding the resolution and intelligence, with virtually the whole media instead parading behind the idea, and am 100% unapologetic in that I have opposed this war from the start. However, despite my fierce opposition to this war, I believe it's NO excuse EVER to hide the heartwarming stories of good that our young men and women in uniform perform each and every day there, and am also most frustrated that politics just can't be set aside to recognize the human side of war on the ground. On both those final notes, I have to say I found Bush's speech last night terrifying, which struck me as though he was issuing direct military threats against Syria and Iran, contrasting from the recommendations addressed by the Baker-Hamilton-led Iraq Study Group which called for a more diplomatic approach to dealing with both nations, in that despite Rumsfeld's recent departure and the decreasing numbers of self-professed neoconservatives in the Pentagon, that neoconservative ideology is still heavily influencing this foreign policy, and I am simply urging here that should the consideration for military force against these or other countries grow, we don't make the same mistake we did in 2003 and that Americans collectively should be encouraged to form a national discussion and dialogue regarding such policies before they become rushed or pre-empted. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
What if the money the man makes or woman makes is the only that supports their family or they are the sole caretaker of their family ? Exempt to the draft then or no? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Although I commend you for being open and honest about all your thoughts like you have here, Lee, I have to strongly disagree with you on this one (and not just because I don't want to go over there and fight these neoconservative wars) Firstly, I believe mandatory service violates both our notion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for all those wanting to serve the country they love through a role different than that of the military, from being a firefighter, teacher, police officer, ballet dancer, etc. does them a great disservice through being forced into such a process, and, frankly, is a blow to our democratic ideals more than anything. Secondly, there's a good reason why the Pentagon and most of our generals don't want a draft either; no army can work without discipline. They don't want an army loaded with a bunch of unwilling, conscientious objectors who will make things tumultuous for the whole rest of the force, as such a hypothetical problem would lower the morale of the army at large, and create all kinds of adverse problems including murders, fragging, alcoholism and sexual abuse, especially when it's all younger, less-educated prople who will feel resentful that they're cannon fodder for leaders dumber than they are. It also leads into the argument that it severely weakens the quality of our military, which truly is the best in the world, but only remains the best when you have motivated, trained young men and women, rather than a bunch of rusty loose cannons. Thirdly, frankly, I believe such a thing would only further endanger our national security, because generally when conscription happens, it is perceived by many as "total war", where suddenly the line is blurred in the eyes of the enemy between the civilian population and the military population, and thus enemy nations feel that it's not merely the government of that nation attacking them, but that everyone believes in attacking them, thus won't hesitate to attack nursing homes, hospitals, elementary schools, you name it on our own soil, and foment new terrorism worldwide putting us at greater risk than ever. And finally, where are you going to find all the money to pay for all these new troops? Our number of troops in Iraq has peaked thus far at 167,000, and even then we're spending $9 billion per month on this war. The service, the training, the equipment, the paying of each individual.....where do you get all this money to pay for it all, especially when our nation continues to cope with a fiscal deficit, a trade deficit, a national debt, etc? With all due respect, I believe conscription would only further polarize an already widely polarized nation currently, and could overall be a recipe for disaster. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hiya Noah thanks for your feedback... I disagree only because there used to be a manditory draft and it worked, not to mention, instilled in the youth of our nation, confidence in themselves, respect and stability in opening doors to more future options. And I believe the reason it was stopped, correct me if I'm wrong, but there was concern for the monies that was being spent, and politicians decided it was more important to save money then house our boys giving them guidence, options, while strengthening our nations military... our current military numbers of men and women being sent over seas are basically from lower and working class family incomes and more oft then not, from rural areas where the recruiters get hold of them, at which point in time, those kids believe they have so few options left in life. A draft would increase not only our soldiers, but the knowledge of being a solider; also enforcing an interest by all American's whether or not to go to war.... I am wondering how quickly we'd jump into war, if each and every American child's life were at stake? Perhaps then we'd finally get a clue and the peace bells would chime? I'm not talking about if we're at war, or not, or it should happen immediately because of the exisitng war, what I mean is, in peaceful times as well...so that our young men and women, would be trained for combat...perhaps learn basic life skills, give them initiative, more value for life, respect for others, compassion...not to mention, benefit our country's strength in military.... Also, it could open doors to other possiblities for the youth of our country, which wouldn't be limited to military service, but hospitals, parks, public works, at all levels, i.e. peace corps, etc...providing an opportunity for all. I believe it would also help to stifle the big brother ripple, where the military would set precidence for seemingly endless bonuses and branch out into a country wide educational system, and education is freedom, power, getting people back on the right track. Off their butts and once again, becoming self sufficent. One of my son's friends, is a single mom and has been in the Air Force for seventeen years now, she is an exceptional mom, has raised her son in his best interest...and I'm so proud of her. She is such a confident and positive young lady. I believe the military gave her so much. It would also help to eliviate laziness...and give those participating a broader stretch of dedication to not only country, but family as well. Loyalty to all those around them, which would certainly set up a strong foundation. Not to mention, with more people highly trained, there would be many more people to help out during natural disasters...more effectively and effciently. We would also have many more men to confine our boarders, which I think then would lead to a much richer respect for our country, and the laws of this country. Which once again, maybe, this country would realize the necessary impact of being a team working together, abolishing the individual concept of me, myself and I and get rich quick schemes...ripping us apart, pitting extreme lefts against extreme rights until it's exactly where they want us to be... I mean when a nation is weak, morally, and self absorbed it surely is not a good environment, nor healthy. Instead, we might then, become a strong nation, manufacturing our own items here again...I dunno, just thoughts is all...I mean, the ripple effect of responsible people working together might accomplish hords? a recipe for disaster Noah, to me, would be the loss of military strength...a loss of knowledge, a loss of democracy.... but give people jobs, and discretionary incomes and the world would be better for it...we might even once again, be self sustaining, much stronger technilogically speaking, not to mention, research, and realize our inibitions and fears were due to the idleness and willingness to allow others to take care of us, think for us...tell us who we should be, what material things we need to have, or we must be this way or that to be successful? And yes, absolutely, if the woman is pregnant, the husband still has to do his tour...woman are able to work while pregnant and provide for themselves and their children...where I work, (2,000 people in just one building) woman work right up until they are ready to deliver...it's nothing horrible or new...and if I can raise my son alone, for nearly his entire childhood, woman who are pregnant, can also learn how to make sacrifices and work for their needs. There is a certain amount of self satisfaction and respect when you become self supporting. Not depending on others to take care of us or pay our bills. Which would also help our nation... I believe it would boost self respect, reason being, there is nothing to gain but self respect, when one works to sacrifice for his/her country, which only ripples out to effect others in a positive way. Perhaps helping to unpolarize our nation...team work, is the only way to win...it would break the chains of a concept of individuality and bring this country together as a team once again... the effects of a military draft, would be so much more positive, and give back so much more, all the way around. Just watch the confidence in the soldiers when they express themselves on the news...I saw such a difference in my son, when he came home from the Air Force...what stability, confidence, knowing where he wanted to go and what he had to do to get there. He worked three jobs and put himself through law enforcement classes gaining the additional credits he needed. Just my thoughts Noah... Michael, thanks for such a great thread.... [This message has been edited by LeeJ (01-12-2007 11:12 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Boy, it sure is easy to tell that neither one of you has ever been in the military. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I disagree only because there used to be a manditory draft and it worked, not to mention, instilled in the youth of our nation, confidence in themselves, respect and stability in opening doors to more future options. I've been in the military,Ron, and during the time the draft was in force. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Goldenrose, I'm sure you have some point somewhere in that cynicism but it's too well hidden for me. Perhaps you're taking the title as a sexual innuendo? That would be, at least, clever. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So, Mike, what you're saying then is that if someone wasn't drafted they subsequently didn't have any confidence in themselves, respect, or stability in opening doors to more future options? That's not a very compelling argument, I fear. p.s. Please don't be too unkind with your conclusions they way Noah was in his post. I wasn't drafted, after all, though I served with many who were. Romanticizing the draft isn't any more realistic than demonizing it is. I don't think it leads to "murders, fragging, alcoholism and sexual abuse," but I'm also quite sure you can't "bring this country together as a team once again" by forcing people into subservience. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I don't support drafts. I think it's criminal. Isn't the deal that if you're in college you can't get drafted? If that's true, then that bothers me quite a bit. It sounds like the draft only targets people out of school or who cannot afford school; I don't think it's right. This probably won't mean much but I just thought I should say it. Ed And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
So the women should fight if they are pregnant? Also how do they get compassion from being trained to kill? The draft does it force everyone to go or just some or not some in certain jobs or w hat? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"So the women should fight if they are pregnant?" What are you talking about? lol And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So, Mike, what you're saying then is that if someone wasn't drafted they subsequently didn't have any confidence in themselves, respect, or stability in opening doors to more future options? Ah, Ron, where you come up with statements like this I have no idea. You are not any better at putting words into my mouth than I am! LeeJ said, and I agreed that the service helped to instilled confidence, respect and ability and you somehow make that to mean I am implying that anyone not drafted did not have these qualities???? That is so far out there the Enterprise hasn't reached it yet.No, I was not drafted, either. Truthfully, I joined for the travel opportunities. I thought that, through the service, I would be able to see places I may never have the chance to see. I spent 5 years overseas and that became a reality, even saw a few places I would have preferred never to see. I also joined to be the part of a larger whole, having come from a family that was a family in name only. If you think I had no confidence or self-respect at the time, that's your choice. I was, however, surrounded by many who WERE drafted and I saw how the service changed many lives for the better. Please don't try to tell me you didn't because I won't believe you. It DID instill pride and confidence in those who had never had them. It DID give a sense a belonging to those who had been loners. I'm not saying the draft should be re-instituted. It did a lot of good but we lived in a different mind-set then. Today we live in the "not me" mentality. We want the benefits but expect others to take the risks and make the sacrifices to provide them. We applaud them but we don't want to be them and our country is much weaker because of it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Mike.. wasn't there a huge downside to the draft too? Ed -- if you exempt college students from the draft or promise potential students that you'll pay for their college if they join -- you're still targeting people who can't afford to go to college. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
"Today we live in the "not me" mentality. We want the benefits but expect others to take the risks and make the sacrifices to provide them. We applaud them but we don't want to be them and our country is much weaker because of it." Mike, I believe its called Instant Gratification. And no Ron, wasn't implying in the least that those who are not service enlisted lack confidence and respect, but the military does help to boost it. I'm sorry you disagree, as I've spoken with many who have enlisted and are in for life...everyone I've spoken with about the military were grateful for the experience and say, it was the best time in their lives...they made close friends they'd never known like them...and will always share a connection. I'm not talking about war...just regular military enlistment. I believe if we are a community, we need to work together and do things sometimes that are not always to our liking...sacrifice is ok, as long as someone else is doing so I suppose...there are men and woman in the military who firmly believe in what they're doing...believe their purpose is to protect human life, even if that means, loosing theirs. When my son was deployed to Saudi, it was the most difficult, but he believed in what he was doing...he wanted to make a differance, just as he wants to believe he is doing so today by being a police officer. He loves his work, and sees a lot of really bad stuff, but that one time, when he helps someone, and they thank him from their heart, it makes it all worthwhile. Nancy to, she loves the air force and says she can't see herself doing anything else. My uncle as well...loved the military and retired from it after working for the secret service. My neighbor Charlie, who is now retired from the air force and flys commercial airlines internationally, said he would do it all over again. He was given a full scholarship by the Air Force. Another friend I know, who was in the Coast Guard, loved it...and has many fine stories to tell....intersting stories. Another friend, Rich, enjoyed the marines and Bill, the navy...and they all say, it was a great experience, helped them to grow, and become who they are now... there is nothing in life, that doesn't come with a trade off, and not all times in the military are indeed good ones...yes, there are definately some very hard and bad times...but, it is also a mind frame I believe and the good can out weigh the bad. Again...I don't believe a manditory draft would be wrong...not for this war...I'm saying a manditory draft when our country pulls out of Iraq...and they will...no doubt in my mind... What I'm saying is, that every young man or woman should have to serve and be trained for 12 to 18 months...or even 2 years...be taught a trade, be it computers, special forces...security, whatever...it might give those kids direction, purpose and possibilities they'd otherwise never believe they had. Is it all glamour, no, like anything else...it is a part of life...and I'm proud of anyone who joins the military, for their commitment to us...and to their country. My cousin is a marine...he loved it...and is still in... My brother served in Vietnam...he hated the war, but loved the country and his comrades, and the poeple there, and trying to help a people reach freedom for him was a reward. He rarely speaks of the ugly stuff, just the good times... rhia_5779 no rhia, please read it again, I believe you misunderstood the point. Surely I don't think pregnant woman should be drafted. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “We are looking for recruits, but so far in vain. If men are not patriotic enough to volunteer to save the country, I hope a draft will be ordered.” Elisha Hunt Rhodes August 3, 1862 Of course then the issues were only union and slavery. I today listened to a man accuse Franklin Roosevelt of getting us into war by deliberately ignoring indications of an imminent attack that led to Pearl Harbor, (in historical fact while there was suspicion of an attack most in counsel thought it would be much further West and not against Americans). I personally doubt even irrefutable evidence of the camps in Poland and what was happening there or plans of Axis world domination would have motivated the vast majority of Americans who were opposed to getting involved to change their minds, (I once read a comment by a Jewish survivor who took insult at the notion the “Final Solution” in process wasn’t already public knowledge in the United States), before December 7, 1941, (the “Rape of Nanking” was no secret). Let’s face it, we have been and remain a nation in the majority that doesn’t care what happens so long as it happens to our neighbor or a generation other than our own. Our morality is based on our present comfort and Heaven help the man who would have it otherwise. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you told me that having sex results in babies, Mike, I would interpret that to mean that not having sex would result in no babies. That's generally the way cause and effect is interpreted. quote: I saw people changed for the better, Mike, but also saw a lot of people changed for the worse. I didn't ascribe that to the service just because there was a temporal connection, though, perhaps in part because I had a lot of civilian friends stateside who went through their own changes at about the same time. I think it was called growing up. quote: Perhaps you're right, Mike. Last I heard, though, there were about 140,000 Americans in Iraq (soon to be 160,500) who apparently forgot to say, "Not me." quote: I'm glad to hear it, Lee. So, why do you want to take that away from them? Why do you want to make it an obligation instead of a willing commitment? Doing something because you believe it's the right thing to do is vastly different from doing something because someone forced you to do it. Writing a check to your local food bank increases your sense of self-worth in a way that a government imposed tax -- even if it's for the same darn food bank -- never will. I honestly believe that most people want to do good. I don't think anyone wants to be forced to do good. Force robs us of the opportunity to not be forced. There's a flip side to that, too, one that I think you raised when you mentioned your son wanting to be a police officer, which isn't, after all, greatly different from the role of the soldier. So, maybe we should also draft our cops? Certainly, most communities these days could use a few more hands on the streets, don't you think? And it would sure be nice to get them for subsistence wages, too. I'm sure putting eighteen- and nineteen-year-old kids on the streets with a gun would go a long ways towards instilling in them "confidence in themselves, respect, and stability in opening doors for future options." Ah, but there's that flip side I mentioned, isn't there? If, heaven forbid, you ever have to make that dreaded 911 call, do you really want someone responding who never wanted to be there? Sorry, but I just don't believe you can effectively force people to be police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, or doctors. And I suspect most would agree with me. So, why in the world do we think so much less of our soldiers? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Ed -- if you exempt college students from the draft or promise potential students that you'll pay for their college if they join -- you're still targeting people who can't afford to go to college." Ok Reb, I see what you're saying. But let's say there is a draft and I'm not in school at the time, would it be possible to get out of the draft. Or does that mean jail time? And if you are imprisoned for refusing to be drafted, then how can that possibly be right? Wouldn't that be a "do as we say or else" type of situation? And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Reread that you are right. Sorry bout my misinterpatation. If a draft was brought back could they make people go who work as teachers or paramedics or in public services or govt? Would you suggest that? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
"Let’s face it, we have been and remain a nation in the majority that doesn’t care what happens so long as it happens to our neighbor or a generation other than our own. Our morality is based on our present comfort and Heaven help the man who would have it otherwise." John You said a mouthful, couldn't agree with you more...and exactly why I believe in the draft more so... Rhea...yes, I do, I believe this country needs training, and respect for education, respect for oneself...for instance, if you respect yourself, your going to respect me and everyone around you. It’s a ripple effect. I can understand there will be those who surely do not want to go...but after their training, counseling about further careers, I see a lot more of our youth, heading in a more positive direction. No one wants to attend high school either...but it is a mandatory The draft would give our children a new network toward life, allow them to see more clearly their options and believe in them, teach them not to depend on mom or dad to pick up their cloths... make their bed, clean their room, cook their meals, or do their laundry, and it surely would get them away from video games and TV for a while, showing them, there is much more that life has to offer. A mandatory draft for a year or two would be so much more beneficial to not only those that go, but also to our country...perhaps a very positive cleansing...and perhaps much more respect for our elderly. A weak nation, in education, self worth, military, morals, leaves a door wide open for ruin. We are a nation of self imposed conditioning...sometimes people have to make unpopular decisions to strengthen majority and minority, in the long run. I believe the multitude would flourish by this...The military teaches to do what is best for the entire body of community, not just self. My son, had no idea where he was going when he came out of high school, he could have gone to college right away...but decided to join the Air Force...he learned how to fly, utilize his time wisely, take classes, and when he came home, I saw the boy that left, turn into a man...one that held himself in much better posture & place, all the way around. He is a dedicated and loyal husband, a good father who isn't afraid to be unpopular with his child because he disciplined her, and certainly not wishy washy in making decision...the confidence he cultured helped him make decision with buoyancy, realizing, that he might be wrong, but was not afraid to take that step into the unknown and try. I'm very proud of him...his character, his fidelity not only to family, but as a citizen, neighbor and police officer. He is by far, not a violent person...never was...he is a peace maker and a care giver, who abandoned a small town mentality. He doesn't fear moving, or taking a chance to better life for his wife and child. He doesn't fear change...and no matter who talks to him, he looks at the entire picture rather then taking someone's perspective matter of factly... Is he perfect? Heck no, but he is, a better, stronger, responsible man, due to the military. He learned how to travel alone, and enjoy it...to take care of himself...he is not afraid to meet others and socialize, or to allow others their opinion, without demoralizing them with words, because he disagrees and wants to win an argument. I commend the military...and am behind them, no matter what I believe...if we should pull out of Iraq or not, I commend the men who are over there fighting for what they believe in, regardless of our government’s political intentions & agendas. I'm going to relay what my son told me upon his discussion to become a police officer. I asked "Aren't you afraid of being killed", he said, “if I am mom, I want to go down knowing and believing I might have made a difference even if for one person’s life”. It wouldn't kill our kids to have to serve a tour in the military, but more so, help give them direction and careers they might not realize otherwise there. Yes, there are pro's and cons to everything...but in this situation, I strongly believe it would be a positive result, for our children and for our nation. It might also ripple effect in a positive way to bring us together and closer with patience and understanding for opinion. I've heard so many extreme left and rights say, oh, they are so stupid for their beliefs...well, then, what is wrong with a little education...to teach people to really research an issue before making a decision, and to teach them that it is very important to look at the long term effects instead of instant gratification, that we can’t always be winners, and to step back and allow others to have their day in the sun, as well. Discipline is a learning process we've also lost in this country...which the military teaches. Parents today are afraid or just plain to lazy to discipline their children...why, because someone came along and said, if you spank your children it will scar them for live...sheesh...we were conditioned to believe spanking children is abuse...it is not... Again, teaching our young folks discipline will ripple down to & through their children and create a new generations of respectful young adults, who realize the necessity of obeying the law. Some people think the military promotes violence...so do video games & movies, which seams to be a child’s influence today. The military teaches safety and how to protect oneself...defense, and how to be a leader, how to look at things objectively, how to utilize time wisely, how to invest, spiritually, morally, and physically in future...to be supportive regardless of opinion, to promote learning out side the culture of our parents not fearing to learn something new....to branch out and believe in opportunities, freedom, and there isn't anything one can’t do if they work for it. Learning other cultures is understanding them….not fearing them…the military also provides that opportunity. We're becoming a nation of tradition, untouched by progress…military personal, moves with purpose, it gives the chance to grow up, how to tackle and deal with problems, it teaches to not fear change, to drive yourself to excel...instead of sitting back and allowing everyone else to be responsible...it also shows that one doesn't have to be married to be successful... The military teaches one can live alone and enjoy the company he/she keeps...ex military often make better teachers, parents...citizens... movies...to learn to lead and follow depending on the situation at hand. A Military Mandatory Draft would be healthy... it would promote learning...teaching even though laws may not always seem fair, they are there for a reason...and we should respect them. There is nothing wrong with education beyond parental culture, to explore other avenues, religions, friends, to learn stamina, strength of mind and character...to know what we want to do with out lives without the worry of it being an unpopular decision because it's something our parents never did. We need to be reminded to be working citizens...and remember it's not just about us and our protective little bubbles of a world we have built around ourselves. It's about you and me...working together...which is also what the military teaches....the importance of team work...looking out for those around you...and how one mistake or concern for self, can upset the entire apple cart. And yes, not all people will be happy with the draft…but in the end, they will have learned something…which later on in life could be beneficial. Not all experiences are fun or filled with self gratification…life is hard, it is a constant learning experience, or should be. When and if we become people stagnated in our beliefs, never open to other options and fear change, trial and yes, even error…then we stagnate our own learning capabilities. These are just a few of my thoughts of why I do believe a mandatory draft would be beneficial to our children and to our nation…reinstating a lot more positive results then negative. [This message has been edited by LeeJ (01-13-2007 09:29 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote...and you somehow make that to mean I am implying that anyone not drafted did not have these qualities? If you told me that having sex results in babies, Mike, I would interpret that to mean that not having sex would result in no babies. That's generally the way cause and effect is interpreted. An absolutely amazing comparison, Ron. If I say the draft instills character you respond with those not being drafted must not have character. You must be able to see how flawed that argument is but let me just say that, in the instances of invitro fertilization not having sex would not necessarily mean not having babies. What you are basically saying, according to your "compelling argument" theory is: 1. Draft can instill character 2. Many people are drafted therefore 3. All drafted will have character instilled 4. Those not drafted will have no character. There are many ways to acquire character, Ron....not that many ways to produce babies. The comparison is flawed, to say the least. Your cause and effect theory is equally off the mark. If you want to derive a negative effect from a statement, you must deal with absolutes. "Having sex produces babies" is not an absolute, since sex can be performed without producing babies (in everyone's case but mine!). It would have to be said that "Having sex MAY produce babies", in which case your "effect" would be that it may not. If I say "Having a beautiful face can get you a good husband, you cannot then deduce that not having a beautiful face means you cannot get a good husband. So, if I say that the draft can instill character, you can only respond that it may not, which would be accurate. Perhaps you're right, Mike. Last I heard, though, there were about 140,000 Americans in Iraq (soon to be 160,500) who apparently forgot to say, "Not me." I was not referring to the soldiers, Ron. quote:I've spoken with many who have enlisted and are in for life...everyone I've spoken with about the military were grateful for the experience and say, it was the best time in their lives ... I'm glad to hear it, Lee. So, why do you want to take that away from them? Why do you want to make it an obligation instead of a willing commitment? No one who makes a career in the military is under an obligation. Even for draftees there is no obligation to re-enlist. Sorry, but I just don't believe you can effectively force people to be police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, or doctors So how did you feel about those same people being forced to attend school as children? Or wear clothes in public?There will always be obligaitons in life, Ron, in society. I don't consider it so out of line to take part in the strength and defense of the country that gives us so much to be one of them. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: BINGO! I knew you'd get there eventually, Mike. So, then, why would you assume one way over another? In my opinion, the service does absolutely nothing to instill character. There are some few events, almost none of which are desirable, that might instill character, but beyond that, being in the service is no different from any other "first" job. Carrying a rifle or carrying a shovel, the job only brings out what is already there. Take Lee's son, for example. She makes him sound like a very admirable man, and I've no doubt that's true. I suspect I would like him. Unfortunately, she also makes it sound like everything that is good about him comes from without instead of from within. She seemingly doesn't feel like she raised him well, but instead had to depend on her government to do it for her. I'm afraid I just don't buy into that. I think she gives both herself and her son too little credit. quote: How would you feel about those same children being forced to attend school as adults? Children are given limited choices for a reason, Mike. When they stop being children we have to stop treating them like children. quote: And there, really, is the crux of the matter, Mike. The country and the people are not separate things, but are one and the same thing. In my opinion, if you have to force people to take part in the strength and defense of their country then the country has already gone to hell in a hand basket. It's all but over, and imposing slavery on the population is only going to delay the inevitable. Personally, I don't think we're there yet. When threatened, I believe most Americans will willingly fight to protect what is theirs. If there's any confusion about that in today's world, I suspect it's because not all of the threats we face seem to necessarily be valid ones. (At the dire risk of going off-topic [yea, like that could ever happen], I'd like to also add that taking part in the strength and defense of our country needn't mean carrying a rifle into combat. The kid who gets out of high school and takes a job in a local factory may not be carrying a rifle directly, but at today's inflated tax rates he's certainly going to be paying for those rifles. In this era's war theatre, there is no such thing as a civilian.) |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Take Lee's son, for example. She makes him sound like a very admirable man, and I've no doubt that's true. I suspect I would like him. Unfortunately, she also makes it sound like everything that is good about him comes from without instead of from within. "She seemingly doesn't feel like she raised him well, but instead had to depend on her government to do it for her." I'm afraid I just don't buy into that. I think she gives both herself and her son too little credit. Checkmate Lee J. you loose Was it worth it Ron? you have insulted me and my son to the highest level, and I shall have nothing more to say on this issue, nor shall I defend neither of our characters...say what you will, believe what you want...it isn't worth it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So, then, why would you assume one way over another? I never have and, if you would care to point out where, I'd like to see it. I said the draft instilled character in some. I certainly did not say it was the only way...only one way. The same as any other "first job"? I guess that's why we seldom agree, Ron - we live in different universes. Perhaps you may be right in today's army. In my time, however, and in yours it was not a "first job"....for many it was a first commitment. You don't go to jail if you walk out on your first job. You can tell your boss to go to hell in your first job if he screams in your face - try it in the Army. Show up late at your job and get a wagging finger. Show up late in the army and you get more than the finger. A job gives you a choice - the service does not....or did not. It was hardly what I would call a first job. For many, however, and myself included it WAS a first commitment. It was the first place they simply couldn't walk away from. It was the first place where they were disciplined and had to take it. It was also the first place where many felt they actually belonged to a team. It was the first place where they were expected to do their part and counted on others to do theirs. These requirements had a positive effect on many that I knew. When threatened, I believe most Americans will willingly fight to protect what is theirs I agree, Ron, and that's why there are so many in the service right now (as you pointed out) and why the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are very positive about their roles. As I said before, my complaint is not with the soldiers. If there's any confusion about that in today's world, I suspect it's because not all of the threats we face seem to necessarily be valid ones. The confusion does not lie with the soldiers. You know where it does. I'm not sure what you consider to be invalid threats. After a dozen terrorist attacks in the 90's and two on the WTC, is the possibility - no, certainty - of more attacks on, and in, the United States invalid? Which threats that we face do you consider invalid then? The soldiers think they're valid and that's why they believe in what they're doing. It's the people at home sitting in their comfy chairs or with a political axe to grind that don't. imposing slavery on the population is only going to delay the inevitable. The draft is slavery.........I have no response to that statement. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I certainly didn't mean to, Lee. On the contrary, I restated pretty much what you said, but tried to give you and your son the credit instead. I still think that's where it belongs. quote: And that's a good thing, Mike? Do you realize that almost everything you just said about the service is equally true of prison? Don't misunderstand me. I really do think military service can be a great experience, although not for ANY of the reasons you've cited. I also think college, church, and marriage can be rewarding experiences. I just don't believe we need to force people into our own mold of what's good for them. quote: WMD? quote: Would you prefer forced servitude? No, slavery works best, I think. I know I certainly had more than one D.I. tell me, in no uncertain terms, that he owned my ass. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What threats that we face do you consider invalid and you answer WMDs? Ok, that's enough for me. I have never seen a bigger cop-out. Service is prison and the draft is slavery and the invalid threat we are facing is WMD's. Time to move on. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Lee -- where we agree is that national service for young adults (and I'll go you one further -- retired adults) is desirable -- I just don't think the only way is the military and I don't think it should be mandatory -- but rather -- a requirement IF one expects to receive certain government benefits. The details are a matter of discussion for another thread. And I didn't read Ron's statement as insulting toward you or your son -- but rather complimentary. Maybe if you read it again you'll see it in a different light. quote: If someone doesn't want to be in the service -- what is it? You joined. Your experience is based on pursuing a path that you chose. There must be a reason why all the top commanders in the military don't want a draft -- maybe they remember something you've forgotten. and -- have you FOUND some WMD's? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Reb...I have re read the comment and do take it in a differnt light thank you. Ron, I owe you an apology...I shouldn't have come in and read this thread right after we lost the playoffs...I stand corrected |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, reb, why start down that same old WMD path again? In the first place, if we have to go back years to the start of Iraq, it was overwhelmingly conceded that the world thought there were indeed wmd's in Iraq. If necessary, I could go back years in the Alley to those threads and find where Ron stated that the world believed, and himself included, that they did exist. That's not the point, however, in my reply. If there's any confusion about that in today's world, I suspect it's because not all of the threats we face seem to necessarily be valid ones. That is the statement in question. Notice that it says today's world and threats we face. It is in the present tense, not going back four years. WMD's is not the issue today. So which threats we face are invalid today? Shall we say that there are no terrorist groups or, even if there are, if we leave them alone, they won't bother us? Shall we say that searching them out or trying to disrupt them is invalid? Is taking away their safe havens invalid? Many soldiers believe what they are doing, and what they have done, is in the interest of preventing future terrorist attacks against the US. Are those thoughts invalid? All of that was ignored in response to my question, as if WMD was supposed to be a clear answer. Am I pleased with the situation in Iraq? Hell no. I think it was badly handled and mis-managed. It could have been done much better. I blame Bush for his short-sightedness on strategy after the take-over and I blame many leaders of Congress for their continual attacks on the administration from the beginning, making matters worse. Do I think we should have gone in? Yes, absolutely, and dollars to doughnuts say that, if we had done nothing or not gone after the terrorists and their safe havens in such an aggressive manner, and another 9-11 were to occur, those same politicians and the same civilian arm-chair quarterbacks doing the bashing now, would be screaming about why DIDN'T we do anything,why didn't we go after terrorists groups and prevent other attacks? How could we let the sit over there in their safe havens like Afghanistan and Iraq and plan our destruction? The terrorist threats are real, reb, and giving a WMD response does not change that. Ok, then, the draft is slavery and the service is prison. I'm sure that in our prisons, the prisoners are fed good meals, after working hours they can take off their uniforms and wear whatever they want, they can go downtown have have a few drinks or go out on dates, maybe catch a movie. In prison, they can call home whenever they want and have visitors come over. They can also specify what type of assignment they want and where they want their "cell" to be located. They can even choose another country. In prison they can go to college and have decent rooms with some good furniture, cd collections maybe, whatever they can come up with to make it homey. They can live without chains or shackles on their legs, since that would make it hard for them to play baseball or the other activities the prison offers. I could go much farther with this but hopefully that's enough to show how off the mark calling the service "prison" is....a little overkill on the comparison, I would think. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
There are also some pretty valuable perks after leaving the service, just for having served. For just a couple of examples from many, the G.I. Bill helped pay my way through school. After leaving the "working class" a few years back and being unable to get medical insurance, the VA medical program certainly helped my peace of mind. BTW, I was not drafted but did serve with many who were. I would have to say the, for the most part, those of us who volunteered had a much better attitude than those conscripted. And that three years contributed a lot toward my maturing process. I don't like to consider what my outcome might have been had I not "committed." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's called a choice, Reb, and I don't have any problem with that at all. Indeed, I'd probably be willing to go further than that and consider imposing costs as well as offering benefits. The danger, of course, is that we want to avoid a system where people are essentially buying their way out of government service and only the poor get stuck. In other words, everyone should get choices equally, not just the wealthy. quote: Mike, everything you listed in that paragraph is a privilege in the service, not a right. That an owner treats his slaves well doesn't make them any less slaves. I think it's also pertinent that many of the privileges you cite didn't exist in an army that was largely driven by conscription. Draftees have never, in my experience, been treated the same as enlistees. The owner doesn't have to be nice when the slaves have no choice. quote: Maybe, Mike, but what I and the world once believed was based on blatant, bald-faced lies. We didn't know any better. The people who told the lies, on the other hand, were also the people who took us into Iraq. The DID know better. Okay, that's not entirely fair. I have to believe that Bush really was convinced that Iraq was a threat. However, his belief clearly wasn't based on the evidence he concocted for us as a justification for what he wanted to do. He was wrong. And even that is okay. But our system is specifically designed to avoid the mistakes one man can inflict on us and that system was circumvented because Bush had more faith in his own beliefs than in our government. He lied to get his own way and that is decidingly NOT okay. I said I thought Americans would willingly fight in the fact of a threat, Mike, but in my opinion, Iraq wasn't a threat. They didn't have WMD. There was no reason to believe Al Qaeda was using Iraq as a safe haven and, indeed, plenty of evidence suggesting Saddam Hussein had his own reasons to keep them out. Afghanistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were legitimate threats. Iraq was not. I believe, had we not been diverted from the real threats, we'd be safer today than we are. We'd also be about 450 billion dollars richer and there'd be over 3,000 more Americans alive to enjoy it. Yea, Mike, that was four years ago. Things have changed. I believe Iraq is more of a threat to America today than ever it was before Bush invaded, possibly in a physical sense since we seem to have opened the door to Al Qaeda, but more probably in an ideological sense. We gave our word and I personally think that has to mean something. I don't believe we had any right to promise what wasn't ours to give, but having made the promise we can't just start looking for an easy way to escape it. Lack of integrity is what got us into this mess. Lack of integrity can't be our way out. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: I can sympathize with your understanding here, and that's precisely why though I'm no fan of war in general because whole communities full of innocent families and children are put into harms way in chasing the enemy, I found it was no use complaining when we went into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and other al-Qaeda sympathizers, as they truly were the ones largely responsible for the 9/11 atrocities, and believed the President deserved our support in keeping his eye on the real suspects. It was beginning in October 2002 approximately that I began getting skeptical about this administration, when both the House and Senate voted to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Although I believed at the time like a strong majority of Americans that it was possible he had dangerous weapons in his arsenal, I also believed from the beginning that he wasn't a real threat to our own country given years of sanctions had crippled his ability and technological capability to launch an attack on us, and moreover recognized that according to our own intelligence, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon and one from Egypt, and none from Iraq, so I believed from the start, anti-war politics aside, that this was a diversion from the real networks and militia responsible for the attacks on our country. I also believed and stand by my belief that this war was illegal from the beginning because it was conducted without United Nations approval and therefore violated international law. I admit myself that I didn't expect the civil conflict in Iraq in result of a war like this would get so bad that a civil war could widen beyond Iraq's borders into the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, etc. as many fear now regardless if we stay or leave, and turn into another sort of Darfur situation that has been spreading into Chad and Somalia. But I DID predict from the beginning that an Iraq war would encourage great power struggles between the various religious and ethnic groups there, and potentially break the country apart, and passionately and vocally opposed the war by participating in anti-war marches before the March 20th, 2003 invasion in that I especially believed a war in Iraq could damage peace and stability in the Middle East for decades. Finally, I simply believe that war generally speaking ultimately solves virtually nothing for humanity. As we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day tomorrow, many remember King only as a civil rights champion and desegregation advocate, when in fact he was also known for his controversial anti-war stands at the time, particularly the escalation in Vietnam. In fact, in April 1967, King made a striking anti-war speech at Riverside Church in New York, where I have studied and remember many of the words by heart from it, where one passage went as follows: * "Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." * And I believe the kind of economic populist concerns reflected in King's speech influenced many hearts of Americans in the 2006 elections, where many feel billions too many are being spent on this operation and shortchanging many Americans back at home. Prominent American conservative Merle Haggard even wrote a song last year titled "Rebuild America First", which also resonates with the message that we should begin planning to get out of Iraq and turn our attention back to re-building this country first above all else, which I believe that belief exploded following Hurricane Katrina, where many were shocked in disbelief at a great American city being hit as hard as it was, and now leaving many to believe that if our government on every level can't protect a city with a population under one million covering 4,190 square miles in our own country, how can we expect to establish democracy in a foreign country covering 170,000 square miles with a population ranging between 26 and 28 million? I believe it'll be a historical and colossal mistake that we went into Iraq, and essentially have already lost Iraq because the war has weakened alliances and public opinion of our nation worldwide and fomented new terrorists, and moreover because I believe this war has been made up as the administration has went along. This administration said nation-building was wrong for America before he was elected, before he was for it. He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control, and now last Wednesday promised to mold them with Iraqi units. He has told us time and time again the war was necessary for different reasons: because Saddam was a bad guy and a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, because of establishing elections in Iraq, because of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, because of new waves of "fascism" in the Middle East, because of "sacrifice". He said recently more troops were not necessary, and now is adamant that more troops are necessary. He said the decisions for more troops are up to the generals, and then removes some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary including General Casey. He said repeatedly before we would "stay the course", then says we were never about “stay the course.” He insisted before that we weren't going to go door-to-door in Baghdad, yet last Wednesday said that to gain the trust of the Iraqis, we would go door-to-door there. At this point, is it any wonder why a strong majority of the American public feel this administration has no credibility on this war, and simply can't trust this president? It might interest some to know that at dairy farms, "surge" is the brandname of a sort of milking machine. That is precisely what this administration is doing with this war I believe; milking this Iraq agenda for all it's worth in a desperate attempt to "salvage" their legacy. And in doing so, more American troops will inevitably and needlessly be losing their lives, and acting as though it's the next president's responsibility to beginning planning to gradually pull them out instead of him, which is what angers me the most about this whole thing. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Draftees have never, in my experience, been treated the same as enlistees. The owner doesn't have to be nice when the slaves have no choice. Well, I can't speak for your personal experiences, Ron, but when I went in there were a combination of enlistees and draftees and it was not possible to differentiate between the two. We were all treated the same way and all expected to act the same way. When classifications came out and locations assigned after basic, there was no favoritism shown that I could see. Maybe, Mike, but what I and the world once believed was based on blatant, bald-faced lies. We didn't know any better. The people who told the lies, on the other hand, were also the people who took us into Iraq. The DID know better. Interesting that you would be so hard on Clinton, Ron, or were you one of the few back in '97 and '98 who did not believe him when he called Iraq the gravest threat to America and advised Congress it was necessary to declare war on them and invade? When HE spoke of Iraq's WMD's? Were you one of the few who listened to Kennedy, Pelosi and the group state that it was vital to invade Iraq and didn't believe them? If so, you were in a minority. Or is it easier just to lay it on Bush and disregard the rest? Your opinion now is that Iraq was not a threat. Was it your opinion when we went in? We had been hit by a terrorist attack which killed thousands. We had Hussein sitting there, with a clear hatred of the United States declaring he had wmd's. We had Al-Qaida on the run in need of safe havens. Was it your opinion THEN that Iraq was no threat, either as a safe haven or as a supplier of weapons to terrorist groups or do you say it now after the fact because wmd's were not found? Iraq is more a threat to America today? How do you figure that? Iraq is no threat at all. The terrorists causing trouble in Iraq are not even Iraqis for the most part. Iraq is only a threat to terrorist organizations and countries that do not want to see a democracy in the Middle East. You and Reb speak of slavery and forced servitude as if anything that obligates another makes them a slave. What about jobs? When you accept a job, you are required to follow the company rules and do what you are expected to do. Yes, you can say shove it and leave but, unless you are either wealthy or have a life-long dream of being a street bum, you will have to find another job and there you will also be expected to follow their policies. Leave that and you have to find another and so on and so on and so on. Same applies to marriages or relationships. Life is filled with obligations, Ron, and you can't yell slavery whenever one comes up. Personally, I don't believe that one of those obligations being to your country is a bad thing. It made us what we are today. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If I remember correctly, the question we were debating here at that time, wasn't whether or not Iraq had WMD's (I'm pretty sure we all agreed on that at that time), but whether this made Iraq an imminent threat to our security. A threat, yes. An imminent threat, no. Was it necessary to invade Iraq at that time? The answer, of course, is no. Now. Now, of course, the argument has changed and changed again. The new argument is that we can't pull out because it's like Vietnam. We must protect people with purple thumbs just as we didn't protect 'our friends' in Vietnam. You know Bush, the father, was wrong. We haven't kicked the Vietnam complex at all. We keep reliving it. What is in the best interests of the United States? Whether it's reinstating the draft, protecting 'our friends', backing our president, or whatever, I keep feeling that that question is never really asked. Anymore. Sorry, I just wanted to get that off my chest. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
An excellent question, Brad. It is the crux of everything. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Speaking of Viet-Nam, I don't recall Democratic congressmen screaming that it was not right or bemoaning the loss of American troops or claiming that Viet-Nam was not a threat to the US.....but, since it was a Democratic president handling the controls, that's to be expected. If Bush were a Democrat, we wouldn't be hearing them now, either, and yet they speak about what is "good for America" in their speeches. Each can judge the validity of their passion and outragefor himself. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I've been following along with this thread as I find it very interesting. I've been remembering the war in Viet Nam and remember hearing from those who fought in it, saying that we should have never lost the war, but, our administration at that time, neglected to send our full force and technology...was that idle talk? Can I rightfully compare Iraq with Nam? I don't think so...but ponder what is different about Iraq...is this situation any different really? Shall we pull out? I would hate to do that...but in the same, honestly admit, I hate to see us loose more young men if we are not going to go in there full force and with a different attitude and strategy. In listening to others, they say, if we stay, we'll be there for many years...just like we're still in Germany? And it seems to me, you cannot change a culture over night, that it takes years and years. Also, what really bothers me is why we're in Iraq at all...when we should be after Bin Launden and his crew of murders? Or is it the Presidents perception, that Iraq is a start and a presence closer to the situations at hand in the Middle East and or, could it have been his agenda to maintain a presence in the Middle East and Iraq was a beginning. Something pulls at my inner being saying we should stay? What I'd like to know is what are the long term effects.... If we pull out, I feel we will be abandoning the efforts already put forth...if we stay, then my attitude would be, we've got to go over there full force and with everything we've got and take over? And am I being naive, but is now the time to ask ourselves what is in only the best interest of the U.S.? Shouldn't we also consider those over there who are in danger? I mean, wasn't that first and foremost on our agenda when we infiltrated as we did? And if we pull out, what does that say to the soldiers and their families who have lost their lives, would it be wrong for me to believe then, that they lost their lives for nothing? Shouldn't we be considering the effects of this what we do, on everyone involved? And Brad, I'm not suggesting your wrong...but shouldn't we also be considering where we leave those people in Iraq if we leave? Will they be overrun? Do they indeed have the ability to fight for themselves? Or shouldn't we consider that, as well? I don't think American's should conclude based on political agendas or anger at the other party, or even on past wars...but first and foremost consider everything else and the present...and yes, I know that is something that will never happen, but I suppose what should be said to Americans to remind them, forget about your parties and past blunders, and think about all the effects of pulling out or staying...which would be the best to do for all concerned, or be best for the U.S. in the long run. And if we pull out, will that put the world in more danger of more 911 attacks. Did our being in Iraq really cut down on terrorist attacks, are we really that much safer? Adding, I believe strongly still, that our military input on this, would and should have a bearing. I think we should ask them and listen, consider and weigh all our options? Yes or no? Just some questions that I don't have a clue of how to answer to myself. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Lee, I wasn't trying to persuade anyone. My worry, wrongly perhaps, is that we have somehow stopped thinking about what's the most important thing. I am as you well know a committed internationalist, but I don't think I've ever wavered on one point. In international politics, self-interest is all there is. Why? Because that is what everybody else is going to think. It's not left or right, up or down, 4th or 5th dimension. It's what's best for us. Even if we haven't visted our home in awhile. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hi Brad I know you weren't trying to persuade anyone...and greatly understand your worry and concern... "Because that is what everybody else is going to think" I suppose, you've answered all my questions...if self-interest remains our purpose, well, in my belief, we will always be destined to fail...and self-insterest of course should account, but.....????? Do you understand what I'm trying to explain? Perhaps I've lived to sheltered a life...but would like to understand politics more clearly, more objectively...putting emotion aside. And do you mean us as a national community or as an American Community. I'm sorry, sometime you have to hit me with a 2 x 4 to get my attention....please feel free to draw pictures...  I'm kidding...to a degreeThanks Brad... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: That last point is precisely the point I was making earlier in the thread on post #19; how can you ever expect to change a culture when you don't even understand the culture and the people you're trying to liberate, especially the schism that has defined the battle line in Islam for almost 1,400 years. The neoconservative architects of this war believed we were likely to do just that in weeks, many pundits who paraded behind the war while virtually facillitating no dialogue and public discussion beforehand believed likewise, and it feels as though even the President believed so. quote: That's one of the lamest excuses to me, as to me that's like saying Lesotho is the center of the war on terror in Africa, or that Larson B is the center of the war on terror in Antarctica, cherry-picking some random country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 atrocities and then gambling on the premise that a floodgate of democracy will open and torrentially pour across the soils of all surrounding countries. Over half of Americans don't buy that argument either that Iraq is linked to the war on terror either. quote: Our government launched the invasion because it was believed that not only did they have weapons of mass destruction, mobile labs, aluminum tubes, mobile labs and yellowcake...but that Saddam was a material threat to OUR nation and incessantly claimed that Saddam was widely responsible for 9/11, despite reports in advance noting that none of the 19 hijackers responsible for the September 11th atrocities came from Iraq, nor does multiple studies and investigations find any evidence of the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Saddam was indeed a tyrant who committed horrible war crimes on his own people, and I am glad he can no longer harm another innocent spirit, and indeed I believe it's important that we continue to think very much about those who are in danger each day and pray for relief and peace to come to their communities, as millions have been doing for months already for Darfur. But I also believe that we must be more reasonable, and we shouldn't go routinely invading other countries in hopes of modernizing societies, and should only respond if a country poses a huge and knowledgable threat to our national security and interests. The neoconservative's "long war" doctrine is that the only sure ways to build democratic societies elsewhere in the world is to invade country by country militarily, combat all the stifling forces there, and then work to try to modernize each country. Many always claim a non-violent peaceful belief is naive and utopian, but I happen to believe this neoconservative notion of spreading peace worldwide is far more utopian and naive, and already they're determined to go into Iran and Syria even while we're still in Iraq. quote: They never lost their lives for nothing from the beginning, that's the whole point. Courage and bravery is to be commended that's in the hearts of all our young men and women in uniform, which has glistened in them long before they ever started serving in Iraq, and no matter what happens to each individual serving there, they were born with these honors and will live on with these honors. Although I believe Iraq is a colossal mess in the general sense and condemn this administration in its handling of it, I wholeheartedly praise everything our young men and women have done in reaching out to each Iraqi community and at least making a most genuine and compassionate effort to improve their way of life locally in Iraq, from building and re-building schools and hospitals, to providing fresh water to the citizens, to teaching them new sports, to offering child-care services; what they've done is most inspirational and shows that even in the biggest blunders of war, there's always an uplifting and human side to it that's represented in the hearts and minds of our young men and women in uniform and the civilians. THAT'S why their efforts will NEVER be met in vain and they will NEVER die for nothing; they offered their hearts to help and reach out to a national populace, and even if a functioning democracy is never established there, I believe these altruistic efforts will be greatly appreciated to many Iraqi communities, and there are many reasonable Iraqis that will separate the politics of the government from that of our children. quote: That's why a majority of the American public does NOT favor immediate withdrawal of ALL our forces there, but rather a phased withdrawal; though a strong majority of Americans now disapprove of this war's handling and also believe it is a mistake that we invaded to begin with, the most unfortunate problem is that we are there, and we need to at least make a genuine effort to train and provide for the Iraqi forces so that they will be able to effectively protect their country against inevitable constant insurgent attacks. But it is beyond naive that we stay there for years and years, as that's only going to stretch our military further, it's only going to lead to many more needless lives of American soldiers, it's only going to further strain our nation economically, and frankly I believe it is the occupation there that has triggered the increasing sectarian violence there to begin with. quote: Yet you also have to consider the very real prospect that if we STAY, that's also going to put the world at greater risk of 9/11 attacks. Constant polling trends show heavy majorities of Iraqis of all religious and cultural faiths wanting us to leave, and a far more scarier poll result that makes me extremely worried every day is nearly half of Iraqis believing that suicide attacks on our troops, regardless of their opinions on the groups committing them, are justified. That's a TERRIBLE problem, and should nothing improve in terms of public opinion there, I don't see how our presence there for years to come will in any way make attacks on our nation less likely. It is in my opinion that we have already lost the war in Iraq, because this war has fomented new terrorists largely because many extremists there have exploited events like the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Somarra and the violence in Fallujah in making us look like the real enemy and thus brainwashing many young Iraqis nationally into joining al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, thus we're sadly losing the information war against these propagandists. * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: It's here that you bring up a good critical point regarding that though I'm convinced Bush does not have a plan for victory in Iraq and has rather just made so much up as he went along, the Democrats also don't have one, and thus is what makes this entire issue frustrating. I also believe that the Democrats are also putting politics over substance on Iraq, and if they truly don't believe in the troop surge as they are united on, they should vote AGAINST funding the surge. There's a conservative columnist named David Reinhard who writes regularly for the Oregonian who I rarely agree with, but I believe he was absolutely dead-on in yesterday's editorial titled "With Soldiers Lives On The Line, Vote Substance, Not Symbolism" when he said that lawmakers should be acting as though our soldiers' lives depend on it, and if they have an alternative plan, they should share it, and those who believe we have lost and there's no way to win should cut the funding for the operation besides that that provides the armor and safety for our troops, to put an end to the "harping, whining, kvetching, moaning or second-guessing" and for once make a move that's more than merely symbolic like the Democrats and some Republicans including Gordon Smith, Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback intend to do. As Reinhard argues in closing in his column: "Our soldiers in Iraq face real bullets. Is it too much to ask lawmakers who say they want the United States out of Iraq to cast real votes?" And that I think relates to your point about the "validity of their passion and outrage". Now that the American public responded in the 2006 elections and the Democrats now have power that they didn't have in twelve years, there's no excuses for that inactivity and "symbolism" they continue to project. One of my New Years Resolutions, by the way, was that now that the Democrats have power, I'm going to be far more aggressively vocal against them when there's something I don't like about their leadership, and already I believe is's maddening that first Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joseph Biden, John Kerry and other congressional Democrats were initially FOR the troops escalation (Reid was for it as early as last month) before they came out AGAINST it, and yet while they've come out against it they only resort to a weenie plan of symbolic votes against the surge that's widely unsatisfactory to the American public. That's politics for you. As Reinhard also stated: * "Congress doesn't have a lot of power over the commander-in-chief once we're at war, but it certainly has the power of the purse. Cutting off funds for the last-chance "surge" or the larger war would be an awful policy, but at least it would be a real policy. That is, something that would matter. A symbolic non-binding vote is no more than a posture." * It feels as though these Democrats are just licking their pointer fingers, lifting it up in the sky to test the winds and the barometer, and then cynically retreating to their shells. And though I don't have any sympathy for the stubborness on Bush's part, I also have no sympathy for the lack of integrity and substance among the Democratic leadership as well. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Dear Noah, thank you for bringing so much information to the table, your comments are helpful, and please don’t think the following is directed at you…they are questions I’ve asked myself over and over again and would simply like to bring them to the table. I was for this war in the beginning, if we were going in there to literally help those people and not for oil or any political agenda, but to honestly help to stop the rapes, torture, etc. Now, I’m not so sure, we should pull out, and leave those people just yet... And Ron wrote something which speaks volumes…… “I believe Iraq is more of a threat to America today than ever it was before Bush invaded, possibly in a physical sense since we seem to have opened the door to Al Qaeda, but more probably in an ideological sense. We gave our word and I personally think that has to mean something. I don't believe we had any right to promise what wasn't ours to give, but having made the promise we can't just start looking for an easy way to escape it. Lack of integrity is what got us into this mess. Lack of integrity can't be our way out.” In other words…my concern is not winning, but walking away in the end, as men who did what was best for no other reason then a thread of human decency and to preserve life…but again…call me naive? That said, adding, I’ve always felt, we (Americans) interfere way to much in the lives of other cultures…aloof in thinking we shall tell them how to live…and try to control their way of thinking to our liking...how smug? Whose to say we are always the ones who are right? I mean, we’ve got so much right here in this country that needs to be addressed…is this a way for our nation and it’s leaders to ignore our own problems, and another major concern which still remains a mystery to me, why the US cannot obtain global support on this war? And here is another thought I’ve tossed around… we are not going to turn Iraq into a model democracy. Yet we were told in the beginning, a few months to a year to change an entire culture....The Sunnis don't want democracy. The Shiites don't want democracy and neither do the Kurds. The Saudis surely do not want a new democracy as a neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians. None of these countries in that region with tyrannical rulers want us to succeed. Whats more is, do you think they're above slipping terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans? I think not? I remember a history class that never left my mind…our teacher was trying to help us understand, way back then about terrorists…in saying, even though you kill the leader, there will always be another tyrannical ruler to succeed, and another, and another. So what makes our government so smug as to think we are going to turn things around to begin with? The Middle East are countries of old culture and belief and even though they fight each other, they are brothers in their own being. Yes, Saddam is gone, but do we actually believe that culture of his is gone with him? And, do we actually believe that with his death, we scared off those that would harm us…I think not. The plan to conquer Iraq was impulsive from the beginning. Our troops were not properly trained nor equipped to do the job given them. (Sent to the desert in jungle fatigues? Not given body armor? Completely untrained in handling prisoners?) Another reason why a mandatory draft in times of peace is good. To train our men in all these areas, in the event the expertise are needed. And if not needed, well, I’d feel a lot safer if our men were trained and ready to respond, ready to make snap decision…be those decisions popular or not… Another point, wasn’t Iraq already in ruin, financially bankrupt, from years of sanctions imposed on it’s economy by the U.S.? That being said, gives those people reason enough to hate us, don’t you think? And correct me please if I’m wrong, but weren’t most of the people involved in the attack against the US on 911 directly Arabic? I don't believe it's about winning, or should be? Lastly, all human beings have an agenda/ulterior motive...even if it's simply wanting to know our lives account for something...I'm wondering what our government was thinking when they invaded Iraq? Remembering people do things for many reasons, not just one... I’m just thinking out loud here and pondering this entire situation. Do I think we should leave right now? I think if we do, we will be the worst for it...in the whole big picture of things... but if we stay, I hope we certainly do have some new tacticle strategy in mind? [This message has been edited by LeeJ (01-15-2007 06:33 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
LeeJ~ I applaud your rationality by way of logical and ethical thinking-through over the measure of this thread. As far as changing Iraq's culture, so true. Who are we? The culture police? If someone came into my yard, knocked on my door, and told me I needed to change my culture like it was a pair of dirty underwear, I'd tell them to get the hell off my porch. On a larger scale, if America went into another civil war and became divided, torn, and weakened by years worth of interior strife and fighting, would we want to adapt/adopt the way of life of a conquering nation who infiltrated and overpowered us? I'm sure there are a million arguments to bolster the hows and whys that won't ever happen, but it is happening to Iraq. I believe we would pull together just to fight that foreign power, even at odds, even in the face of pure hate for each other. It's still our country, it's still home to our families and beliefs. Americans still value freedom, where others have their own blood ties they fight for, for different reasons. I understand the threat. It gives me more than an uneasy feeling when our death happens to be the very thing that guarantees some a sure passage into heaven. All I have to say to those is: If the virgin thing is true, I have no worries of being trapped in that fantasy, Thank God. I'll not allow them to make me live in fear. Now, I think the bones that need pickin' belong to a certain man who is supposed to be leading this country. We have men and women serving as the backbone of this country while the man in charge appears to be able to live without a spine. This is an injustice to their loyalty. If a liar's pants really did catch on fire, he'd be toast, though thankfully not, because there may be innocents standing too closely. I think America and the rest of the world has had all the toast it can stomach, within the context of ruined, and not actual food, bless their hearts. At this time, I'd support a presidential lottery before I'd support any notion of a draft. Makes more sense to me, for all practical purposes, to draw from those worthy candidates that have proven themselves during their time in service as leaders, peace keepers, business heads and exemplar strategists who managed to solve conflicts, before things ever escalated into a war or a complete breakdown of institutional disaster. . Name them and put them in the lottery, before we take thousands of more lives out and put them on the line for the sake of peace that won't keep. I know, we'd all have a better chance at winning the state lotteries before that ever happens. But if the Selective Service, out of convenience, pulls my birth date again, like they did in 1969, I will report for duty, because that's twice in my lifetime that Sept. 14th came up as the 1st batch to report for service. They will lock me up and tell me I'm too old and crazy, but I have something to say about it: I want to support our troops whether Bush does or not. Okay, I'm done now. Thanks again for caring and sharing. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
