Phoenix32890 wrote:Snood-I dunno- I have this "thing" about the concept of a "tribal mentality". I think that what we are seeing in the middle east (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, all at each others' throats, just to illustrate a small part of the conflict in the area) is a glaring example of this idea in action.
I have never been one to think in terms of "my family, right or wrong". If you screw up, you screw up, even if you are my brother. If my brother gets into a fight, and I disagree with him, I let him take his lunps. It is only if I agree that he is right, that I would come to his aid.
In the middle of a fight, if I need my brother's help, I sure hope he isn't standing around trying to figure out who was "right" in the argument that preceded the whole thing. I'd hope his concern would be jumping in and making sure I get home in one piece.
One of the things that has kept me sane in spite of serving is the thought that I would be concerned with the welfare of the soldier to my left and right - helping protect them and myslef - if the **** got thick.
If you and I and edgar and everyone else here found ourselves being shot at together, that would quickly become our mindset.
Our brothers and sisters are being shot at.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Snood-I dunno- I have this "thing" about the concept of a "tribal mentality". I think that what we are seeing in the middle east (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, all at each others' throats, just to illustrate a small part of the conflict in the area) is a glaring example of this idea in action.
I have never been one to think in terms of "my family, right or wrong". If you screw up, you screw up, even if you are my brother. If my brother gets into a fight, and I disagree with him, I let him take his lunps. It is only if I agree that he is right, that I would come to his aid.
In the middle of a fight, if I need my brother's help, I sure hope he isn't standing around trying to figure out who was "right" in the argument that preceded the whole thing. I'd hope his concern would be jumping in and making sure I get home in one piece.
One of the things that has kept me sane in spite of serving is the thought that I would be concerned with the welfare of the soldier to my left and right - helping protect them and myself - if the **** got thick.
If you and I and edgar and everyone else here found ourselves being shot at together, that would quickly become our mindset.
Our brothers and sisters are being shot at.
I know it sounds corny, but this Thanksgiving, I want to remember the troops in Iraq. And around the world, for that matter. These are men and women who have answered a call and sacrificed for their country, even in the worst of political times. This is a war with an overwhelmingly dubious provenance.
Launched by a corrupt leadership that has perverted our democracy at home and disgraced our country around the world. And yet, a substantial number of brave men and women have signed up, for whatever reasons, to defend us.
There will be other wars, right and wrong, in our future. We owe thanks to those who serve, even though we would all be better off if they came home.
-Alec Baldwin
snood wrote: These are men and women who have answered a call and sacrificed for their country, even in the worst of political times. This is a war with an overwhelmingly dubious provenance.
I don't know what "call" you're talking about, because these men and women all volunteered for duty, with the expectation, that the USA would not be at war. Had they known they'd be in Iraq, how many would have volunteered for Guard Duty?
snood wrote:If a brother or sister is in a fistfight and needs help, its the responsibility of the others to aid them.
Regardless of who started the fistfight?
hamburger wrote:just watched frank sesno and susan page on CNN talk about charlie rangel's proposal .
frank sesno is both a special correspondent to CNN and a lecturer at george washington university .
sesno said that he makes it a point of asking his students if they have served in the military or if they intend to sign up after graduation .
he claims that so far he has not yet found a single student who has either served or is planning to serve in the military .
in his opinion there is a complete disconnect between most young people and the military and the war in iraq . it's something they don't seem to be very interested in , he said .
hbg
It is rationally a foregone conclusion among many that any CNN poll will yield a conclusion that is anti-military, anti-conservative and definitely anti-Bush.
Some tempering facts flying in the face of Sesno's poll:
Pace Explains High Re-up Rate Among Deployed Servicemembers
Soldier's Re-Enlist Beyond U.S. Goal-Dated 7/17/05
Not bad for serving in a Vietnam-like quagmire in a civil war where they have no armor, no training, and morale is so low.
I wonder who is right?
Libs or the guys reinlisting?
snood wrote:I know it sounds corny, but this Thanksgiving, I want to remember the troops in Iraq. And around the world, for that matter. These are men and women who have answered a call and sacrificed for their country, even in the worst of political times. This is a war with an overwhelmingly dubious provenance.
Launched by a corrupt leadership that has perverted our democracy at home and disgraced our country around the world. And yet, a substantial number of brave men and women have signed up, for whatever reasons, to defend us.
There will be other wars, right and wrong, in our future. We owe thanks to those who serve, even though we would all be better off if they came home.
-Alec Baldwin
"If Bush gets elected I'm leaving the country"
"I know that's a harsh thing to say, perhaps, but that what happened in 2000 did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City."
"I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I'm thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death. We would stone him to death! Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families."
"I'd rather die in a New York bombing than live some kind of shallow life somewhere else."
"I am a hope-to-die, carry-me-out-in-a-box Democrat."
Source:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Alec Baldwin
Quote:P*E*T*A*B has been established by those who love to laugh at the incredibly silly. As such, they should be protected and left alone, free to pursue a life of moronic statements which provide us stress relief through laughter.
source: see above post
Fine, but is this pro or contra draft?
Frankly, I detest the notion that young people who are unemployed or underemployed and unable to get into college (because of lack of educational preparation or money for tuition) are "structurally" selected to die in wars initiated by the wealthy and powerful whose children are "structurally" protected from such a risk.
Everyone should at least in principle be at risk (exclulding age, of course). The reality that wealthy people can more easily find ways to get out of military obligation is another matter.
I like the idea that with the draft young people are more inclined to take international politics seriously and engage the government as peace advocates. Isn't the draft a major basis for the hippie movement?
(excluding the fact that many young men became Bob Dylan politicos just to get laid).
One flaw in the "fight along with my brothers" even in an unjust war: You would be lending a hand in killing innocents on the other side, as well as assuring by your willing service that you agree with the war. Better to educate your brother than help perpetuate the wrong being done. Another flaw: If you are in uniform fighting for your life, you have no opportunity to seek to inflluence your government to change its policy.
"Better to educate your brother than help perpetuate the wrong being done. "
an appropriate message for thanksgiving ! thanks , edgar !
hbg
Rangel's notion that the draft will inhibit the use of warfare is unfounded. just as is his premise that a draft makes for a fairer representation of society within the military.
When the Vietnam War was launched it was, generally, supported by the nation. Those that had already been drafted into the military while perhaps not being overjoyed at the prospect of being sent to fight in Southeast Asia, were not contemplating going AWOL and bolting for the border. In retrospect, it may be difficult to imagine how the majority of Americans may have thought going to war in Vietnam was vital to the interests of the country, but they, in fact, did.
When the Iraq War was launched, it too was, generally, supported by the nation, and there really is no reason to believe it would not have been if the draft was still in place.
The role of the draft in bringing the Vietnam war to an end has, I think, been overstated. Certainly there was a sense among many young men that it was not a conflict deserving their ultimate sacrifice, but of those who did not obtain deferments and were actually drafted, very very few refused to serve. To the extent that the anti-war movement involved draft aged men, it tended to be those who had sought and obtained deferments. By the time most of the deferments were done away with and the lottery was put in place, the war had become extremely unpopular and certainly not solely because young men who reached the age of 19 didn't want to go to war.
That politicians would refrain from employing and supporting warfare if there own children were at risk may seem to be a intuitively sound notion, but I don't think it holds water. A fair number of politicians who support the Iraqi war have members of their family serving in the military. Many others don't have family members who qualify for service.
That national leaders without relatives at risk are perforce capriciously putting other folks' children at risk is a rather cynical opinion. That they should not be making decisions about war is simply a stupid one.
I think it is pretty well taken as a matter of fact that a volunteer military will be a more effective force than one built through conscription, and the argument that it consists of only the poor and members of minorities is a red herring. Certainly military service has, in many cases, been ultimately of value to draftees, but this is by no means a given. As someone has already pointed out, we don't draft police officers and fire fighters despite the fact that the welfare of our society requires them, and no one would think twice about such an approach.
Yes, there is a lot to be said for citizens serving their country and their countrymen but compulsory service tends to strip the practice of its nobility, and its not necessary.
Should the volunteer military come up short in terms of recruits, the answer is to sweeten the pot, make joining more attractive. Cops in NYC are paid pretty good wages and have great benefits. There is no shortage of them and we do not consider them mercenaries, but professionals.
A conflict that is of a scope great enough to overwhelm our currently sized all-volunteer military is likely to involve a direct threat to the homeland. In such a case I suspect enlistment would greatly increase, but if it did not, then reinstituting the draft would be in order.
Best idea is to privatize it and call it Halliburton War and let them bear the burden in terms of financing and personnel.
There is something to be said for the superiority of a volunteer military.
But I'm not so sure that the sole motive for volunteering has been patriotism. At least I hope not because that would indicate that the lower classes--those with inferior opportunities in civillian life--are more patriotic than are the more wealthy. In that case Kerry's botched joke wouldn't be too far off the mark.
I agree that IF we do not need more military--and we would not if our government were less adventurous--we should not have it. But at least the reserves (including national guard) should be mandatory (as in Isreal). That IS a matter of national defense, not international aggression. But this last point may be wrong on factual grounds. I'm not sure.
I know its simplistic, but I think I look at the draft issue somewhat in terms of the shared responsibility of a family. If a brother or sister is in a fistfight and needs help, its the responsibility of the others to aid them.
-snood
Others (including siblings) often aid by breaking-up fistfights; and it is not the responsibility of anyone to do so.
