Bring back draft

Asherman

Just a little bit patronizing, perhaps?

You presume you have a better take on the real present situation than others who disagree with you. Fine.

You presume criticism of the military is either unwarranted or unAmerican or traitorous. Fine.

You presume that if persons disagree with your present assessment of American administration policy that they therefore don't appreciate individual soldiers or the military function. Fine.

But your unabashed confidence in your rightness in these matters doesn't allow a lot of conversation.

I never said I had no use for the military. I served in the Navy and came very close to volunteering to serve in Vietnam (before I learned what the war was all about). I merely make the point that our elected officials are human and subject to making mistakes. I do not believe protesting blatantly misguided policy in any way repudiates the need to have a strong military. I do not believe resisting the notion of a draft is being anti the military. But we've got to allow for some hint of morality in there, somewhere. I will not go to some place to attack a nation that is not provoking attack just because a president says it's the thing to do. As a free person I've got to be convinced he knows what he's talking about. I will always vote to keep the military strong for the forseeable future, and I will support the legitemate use of force to go after the kind of people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City federal building. But, I will rot in jail or even be shot before I will follow an order to attack unnecessarily.

BTW, why is the pilots/speed thing being treated as news? I've been hearing that since I was 10.

CI: I echo the very sentiment as Blatham, and I don't think I'm talking from the "cheap seats". Doesn't it infuriate you that the first Iraqi War was at the behest of the American CIA?? Are you aware they sucked Saddam into that war, and into Kuwait. They endangered your son's life for George Bush the First, and nothing more. They sure as heck weren't defending this country.

Cheney wrote this whole scenario that is happening now, in 1992. The Bushes and the Cheney's having been planning this war, and the takeover of the mideast since 1992. It's a suckers war, being fought for oil. Just like the first one!

Anon

My confidence and willingness to be hardnosed about conclusions reached is often interpreted as patronising, arrogant, and agressive. I'm afraid that there probably is some truth in those accusations. I do try to restrain myself, but occasionally what is patently foolish to me provokes an emotional response. Sorry about that, but the notion that the military is some sort of evil gang made up of losers and brutes expressed by some here makes me blood boil.

Those who have served, or will serve to preserve our way of life are entitled to our respect and appreciation. Those who disagree with a policy should argue against it and resist it without regard for the hardships it might entail. Those also deserve respect and consideration.

However, those who selfishly accept the benefits of another's blood and then denigrate their sacrifices are contemptable. Cowardice is contemptable. We all must face the same fears, but those who shrink back unwilling to stand alongside their comrads faced with the ultimate risk are not of the same sort as the scared kid who rolls onto an unexploded hand grenade. Personally I refuse to put the coward on the same footing as the man/woman who is willing to die, even though they are afraid and disagree with the political policy that brought them into harm's way.

As free citizens we have a duty and responsiblity to question and even resist policies we feel are bad for our country. It is not reasonable however to work against our country and Constitution when it is engaged in a war. Hate and resist the policy, but do not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

In the present circumstances the relevant question, I think should be: Is there a determined effort on the part of certain factions of Radical Islam to do grievous harm to our country, and if not stopped will those enemies kill and harm others? I don't think reasonable person would think that we are not at war today, and will be at war for a very long time. A second question, Has the military demonstrated the capability necessary to destroy our enemies armed threat? The reasonable answer again is that it has. Since the greatest physical danger is posed by forces utilizing unconventional tactics, what options have we to protect ourselves? Finding and neutralizing small semi-automonous cells of terrorists is more a law enforcement function than it is military. What can/should the military might of the nation be used for? If it sat idle in garrison, the nation would rightfully be angry. Enemy states avoid direct confrontations they can not win, and disassociate themselves with the terrorist organizations they secretly support with money, arms, and other resources. Does that mean that they should not be targets? If we can separate the body that nourishes and cheers on the killing fangs of the enemy, we can and will reduce the lethality our soldiers and citizens will face tomorrow. If we allow the enemy to escape our wrath, they will become stronger and more willing to bomb and murder our innocent citizenry.

Anon, As I've said on many A2K forums, I have NEVER trusted GWBush. Especially where it concerns his myopic intent to have a war with Iraq. What we are discussing is a need for this country to have a strong military at all times. The question is, should the US bring back the draft? To this question, I answered yes, and gave my reasons for it. c.i.

Asherman

To much of your post above, my response is, "yes, of course".

But 'cowadice' isn't what you are bumping into in this discussion, and it's not entirely sporting of you to throw it into the mix. I think we have all acknowledged, in some manner, that soldiers in battle act heroically, so let's assume that a given and drop it.

You make the 'aid' and comfort to enemy' argument during war. Well, to term this present situation 'war' is deeply questionable. "War' gets thrown around a lot to forward programs and agendas precisely because of the connotations it carries (war on poverty, war on drugs, etc). If you mean 9-11, the term and strategies and tools of typical warfare are greatly irrelevant. If you mean Iraq, there is no war - unless of course the US starts one. But you do the trick of putting the two into one box because...actually, why do you? Because they are mainly Arabs? Because this administration says they are in one box?

Of course, as the populations is considerably less willing to buy into the proposed justifications for this war than WW2, for example, then tough luck for the hawks if those folks shout "Stop!"

CI:

And on that my friend, we agree wholeheartedly. I just think they're are more ways to serve your country than be in the military. Many more!

An everpresent, strong military has the disadvantage of using it to make it cost effective. I hope you're as happy with this strong military when we have to pay for it. Right now they are just wracking up the bills, and spending money we don't and won't have.

Something has got to give ... What do you think that will be??

Anon

Asherman:

Cowardice is certainly not a charge you can fire at me, and I will tell you like CI, I echo Blatham to the word!

Many of my "lifer friends" of which I have many, have the disadvantage of not living in the real world. They lived the sheltered existance of the military and had the military mantra drummed into them so they truly have no other thoughts. I often have to correct them on things that happened in the real world while they were away.

I try to be compassionate with them.

Anon

Anon, We don't have much choice do we? The Supreme Court of the land appointed Sir George as our president. He's the first president of this country that was appointed by another branch of our government. What is more disturbing is that GW enjoys a high job rating with the "American people." As an individual, not much I can do, but cringe every time GW speaks. And I'm not talking about his sloppy English! As for our military spending, we spend more than the top eleven countries put together that do spend on their military. Our government never had common sense on their spending of our tax money. I don't expect to see that change during my life time. c.i.

All the males of my wife's and mine family were drafted. In all families, there were dead soldiers during WWI and WWII.

When the medical was given to me [that doesn't sound like the correct translation?], I could choose between Army, Airforce and Navy (due to the fact that I had passed "Gymnasium" [high school]) or I had to undergo some really hard examination to get accepted as conscientious objector (and then go for two years instead of 18 months to some social service).

I didn't like weapons at all - but wanted to defend my country in case of aggression, personally. (I joined the Navy, btw, because they asked "Army, Airforce or Navy - Army is okay".)
During these 18 months and ten years of reserve exercises (not voluntarily, I've only chosen the time of the year [wonder, why this always was, when my unit was abroad?] I've learnt that to be in an armed force as a profession like any other.
Some can do this better, other SERVE THEIR COUNTRY on another field.

Because there never will be anywhere a really correct and impartial system of draft, I'm completely against it.

Walter, We call that "medical exam." What I really wanted to tell you is that you explained how the "system" works in your country, how you served, and why you are against the draft. Your way to post a response to a very complex issue can be understood by all. Thank you. c.i.

Thanks, c.i.!

But it should be "worked"!
When I "ruled the seven seas", they said, "18 months is the minimum to learn AND serve". Now, they are doing this within 9 months. (And ten months for conscientious objector - who nowadays just have to say "no, I don't want to serve in the military forces".) And "of course", no women are drafted, no one with a business, two left feet or/and too much money - oops, sorry - "seriously handicaped".

Hello All!

Here's one man's opinion about what we're fighting for!


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05FRIE.html


Anon

I like Thomas Friedman! At least there is a reason for a war with Iraq, even if it is a lousy one, full of oil business greed. I STILL don't know why we were fighting in Viet Nam. There wasn't oil, there weren't WMD, no horrifying genocide and we don't even like the French. It was a very confusing war.

I don't either, Pifka. Thirty years ago, I thought I knew what it was all about. Now, I'm grateful they decided my time were better spent in Germany.

So it was the two of us, who prevented war here at that time, roger :wink:

Piffka:

I went to Vietnam in 1965 as a 23 yr old nurse(Army Student Nurse Program), believing that we were going to control Communism and uphold the SEATO treaty. I came back after caring for wounded and dying Americans completely disallusioned with my government. While there I volunteered in a Catholic hospital that took in the civilians that were wounded by American bombing...especially napalm victims. I cleaned and debrided napalm burns on babies through the elderly...I was so naive when I went to Vietnam, but came away very disturbed. The boys and men I held in my arms as they were dying and asking for their mothers was heartbreaking, but when I knew that my government was doing something that I did not believe it would do, was when I had my epiphany. Now my life is divided into before Vietnam...and after Vietnam. That is why my name is Vietnamnurse.

I do not believe my government anymore. I know they lie and prevaricate to obtain their goals. My hospital meets at reunions almost every two years. We are all physicians, nurses, and corpsmen. We do not support a pre-emptive war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html

May I tell you what did it for me, Vietnamnurse? Personal conversations with several who had been there. In and amongst the other stories was an almost unspoken theme that we were not only unwelcome by the part of the general population that didn't directly profit from our presence, they were more afraid of us than anyone else.