# US Draft



## 7starmantis (Jun 2, 2004)

I found this on another board I was reading. I'm not convinced its even real, but it was interesting to read.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Think its real? Think it will or even could happen? I'm not sure I even believe this is a real bill, but I thought it could bring up some interesting conversations.

Here is a link to the actual bills. http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2003/S89/default.asp

It says in the congress article that everyone would be required to serve in some capacity. I just don't see that ever happening in America, do we really have the capacity to back up such a requirement, because I know a whole bunch of people who would do some heavy protesting.


Discuss,
 7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2004)

Oh...its damn real. If they did it for Vietnam in very recent history, there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.

Perhaps this discussion belongs in the study?

 :asian:


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 2, 2004)

Actually I think there already is a discussion on it.  If I stumble across it again, I'll link it here.


----------



## Rick Wade (Jun 2, 2004)

It hasn't even been discussed in Congress.  beside I don't want anyone in my military that doesn't want to be here.

V/R


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 2, 2004)

My husband found this discussion/forum:

publicenemy.com  

also Dev Hardware Forums

"Reinstating The Military Draft"

if anyone knows how to do a link, please feel free to do so.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 2, 2004)

Uh, is that supposed to be the rap group?


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 2, 2004)

http://www.publicenemy.com/pb/  >>EB Soldiers

That directs you to the right place - sorry for any inconvenience

There is an article by Marianne Means, syndicated columnist entitled "Reinstating military draft would equalize sharing the load in Iraq" at the top"  

article came from:
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/173848_means19.html


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 2, 2004)

I keep hearing that used as the excuse for possible reinstatement, and I honestly don't understand.  Is there already a draft for lower class only citizens that I don't know about?  What do they base their classes on, honestly?  I know it's suppsoed to be economic, but sometimes I think there's other factors at play.  

Speaking as someone who's middle class, I have no desire to be in the military.  Note, I didn't say the military is bad.  As a matter of fact, I have alot of friends in the armed forces, and they have my full support, but it's just not the life for me. All of them come from middle class families, none of them are disfunctional or anything.  Why did THEY join?  because they wanted to.  Some out of a feeling of loyalty, some out of interest, some felt the need to carry on their family legacy of military service.  Sure, I can understand some social stratifcation as far as military service, as there are fewer job opportunities for the underprivledged, but I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be.  Also, what's to be gained from shoving some middle class and "blue bloods" into the fray, other than the sharp increase in court marshalls due to being AWOL, body bags, and funeral services?  Is that somehow going to create more jobs for those people considered "lower class" and get them up to "Middle Class"?  but then what happens to the middle class?  are they now Lower class?  This whole caste system that still exists is absurd, but I'm getting way off topic, so I'll leave it for another thread.

My suggestion as an alternative to the draft:

(Editor's note:  This is from a non-military mouth, so it could be inaccurate.  That was your warning)

There has to be more than a few soldiers stuck behind a desk stateside or otherwise that are wanting to get back out in the field.  Tech jobs, secretaries, and musicians are just some examples.  Granted, not ALL of them are, but some are.  Now, why doesn't the government reallocate THOSE people into the field and create those a civillian contractor jobs?  They may not pay the best, but it's a job!  I'm a computer geek by trade, and I'd definitely consider taking a government job like that if that soldier was needed to defend the country.  So not only does that get well trained fighters into the field, instead of unwilling participants straight out of boot, it creates jobs and could possibly stimulate the economy!  

/shrug. Just a thought some of my friends and myself kicked around one night.  Please, flame away if you feel the need, but it is my opinion.


----------



## Ping898 (Jun 2, 2004)

Well, the whole lower class thing is that before with the draft if you were in college and making like a minimum of C's or something you didn't have to go, or least not right away, which meant if you couldn't afford college, i.e. typically the lower classes got hit the hardest.

As for rellocating soldiers and replacing with gov. contractors, they are doing that, least are by me.  We are down to two soldiers where I work and one is out in about a month and the other guy is his replacement.  Don't forget some of the soldiers working desk duty here are soldiers who have already had a tour or two in Iraq or Afghan and are on their year off of combat before going back again later.

Personally, I think we'll pull out before we ever have a draft, but I do think there is something to be said for having some sort of mandatory civil service or like volunteeer  work like the peace corps for a few years for everyone.  Don't think it'll happen while I am alive though so I am not holding my breathe.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2004)

In the past it has been up to 9 people to support one person on the front line.
I believe it is less now.

This includes doctors, nurses, transportation, etc, ..., .

My problem with the selective service was nto the military itself. It was the discrimination. If a male did not register he could not get financial aid for college  and faced other problmes as well. No such requirement was there for females. Hence my opening statment. If there is to be a registration make it everyone from 18 and older. Those not fit for combat, either physical or mental or what have you, may and can serve in times of need in other positions that are required to keep the big green machine moving.

Personally, I agree with Mr. Wade. Yet, if it is to be implemented, it should not be based upon discrimanation of males only.

Just my opinion.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 2, 2004)

See also: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5726


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> See also: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5726



Quoted from Budoseek by John Bennett:


> Military Conscription in 2005
> It's beginning to look like young people in the US will again be subject to military conspription in 2005.
> 
> There is pending legislation in the House and Senate. $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System budget. The pentagon has quietly begun filling the 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.
> ...



I guess they have considered to bring women into the selective services.


 :asian:


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 3, 2004)

Selective Service has the government line - don't worry-nothing has been decided but apparently has all their ducks in a row.

http://www.sss.gov/

----lists classifications, exemptions/deferments-a few but not college

----20 yr. olds or will be 20 in the year of the draft would be called first
     then 22, 23, 24, 25

My son is 17, his team just won paintball at the national guard event locally
and has been soiicited and sent alot of material from all the branches lately.

My daughter just turned 20. She's been in two years of college.

I can't think this country would strip the colleges - not all of them are "upper class" but they are the future of the country.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 3, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I found this on another board I was reading. I'm not convinced its even real, but it was interesting to read.
> <snip> It says in the congress article that *everyone* would be required to serve in some capacity. I just don't see that ever happening in America, do we really have the capacity to back up such a requirement, because I know a whole bunch of people who would do some heavy protesting.
> Discuss,
> 7sm



*Everyone??*  Heh, I'd like to see them try to draft this 40+yr. old, deaf in one ear, severe hearing loss in another (I use a hearing aid ok) guy like me... or about 20 million other deaf/hearing impaired individuals. What about blind, crippled, mentally ill? 
Yes, yes I know I'm sure it was meant to read "everyone CAPABLE" of serving. 
A new draft wouldn't be at all surprising. Hope Canada and Mexico are ready for a slight population increase.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 3, 2004)

Let's call "the draft" what it is -- _conscription_.  Back when the British government used to do it, "press gangs" kidnapped able-bodied men and "pressed" them into service whether they liked it or not.

Conscriptoin is _immoral_.  Your life does not belong to the State.  It has not right to send you to die against your will.  While you should _want_ to defend your nation, any nation that cannot survive with a volunteer military does not _deserve_ to survive.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 3, 2004)

Hmmm the draft may come back in the USA.


Just the oportunity we have been waiting for.





With all thier young men gone.







We can sneak in and get our COLONYS back ( evil chuckle) :mp5: 




Seriously though you had better be wary as who knows what the government may do.
Wish they would bring the draft (conscription) back over here, it might make some of our youth wake up.

David


----------



## OULobo (Jun 3, 2004)

I personally think the draft is a good idea, and that is not because I am past the max age. I was batting around the idea of voluntary service and would've gladly gone if I was drafted. I chose not to go first because of college, then because of my fiance (I wasn't about to leave her here alone with all your freaky-deakys), then because my knee made me unfit. I favor the notion that people have an obligation to their country, but I wouldn't vote for it. On principle I don't like the idea of forcing people into the military that don't want to be there. It makes for bad soldiers. 

The military is often seen as a way to get from the lower classes to the middle classes with equal opportunity and hard work. My Dad even joined just to get out of his hometown. I don't see a need to change it. 

If I'm not mistaken I thought I remember seeing a blurb in the nationals section of the local paper that mentioned that a bill to reinstate the draft was again shot down. The blurb mentioned that this type of bill comes to a vote about every two or three years, pushed by some senator that wants to use it as a platform. It never passes, but now the notion is back in people's minds so who knows what could happen. Especially if Dubya get a second chance in the office (God help us if that happens).


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 3, 2004)

I think some sort of two year "compulsory civic service" is a good thing.  Instead of just military branches though, I think giving back by working with Americorp/Peace Corp or other civic service types of groups would help everyone involved.

Some of the commentary made here and by the general population comes from a lack of direct contact with the wider range of the world.  Hands on experience with third world, poverty level families/communities or other areas that could benefit from helping hands can be just as enlightening as joining the military and leaving the comfort zone of the everyday.

The problem with stuff like this is that it is viewed as impressment and not character building and that governments generally are motivated by practical necessity and not personal growth and education when compulsory duty/draft issues are considered.  Much like the Religion conversations have brought up, the large body decision makers are usually motivated more by a need to maintain the whole than by a desire to teach/develop the individual.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jun 3, 2004)

My problem with the two year "compulsory civic service" is that in a country loudly proclaiming freedom and individual rights, that would be a huge step backwards in my opinion for human or individual rights. We fought and died for the right to agree with things and the right to disagree, I don't see how "mandatory service" could be justified under the bill of rights. 

I'm not sayign its a bad thing, I just dont see how it could be pulled off, legally.

7sm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 3, 2004)

So what's the question?  If we stay in Iraq, the US will HAVE TO reinstate the draft in order to maintain a steady supply of troops. I have no problem with the concept of "defending our country," but under no circumstances would I want me, my kids, or anyone else for that matter, putting themselves in harm's way for the sole purpose of fattening the wallets Cheney (Halliburton), Bush (Bush energy), and the rest of the corporate representatives in our govt. Our administration is using our young people and our tax money to run a personal little war so they can get rich.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 3, 2004)

Been there  done that.
Wasn't my idea but my uncle Sam though it would be a nice jesture if i helped my country a little. 
I have to say that if it goes into effect once again that both men and women should have to register and both should serve in some capacity.
 I also feel that if you are not registered (and are in the age group to do so) you should get no government help on anything, and face jail time. . You also would be in violation a law and those not of  U.S. citizenship who are caught not registering should be deported


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 3, 2004)

> I also feel that if you are not registered (and are in the age group to do so) you should get no government help on anything, and face jail time. .


I am 21 and I am not registered. I am fully aware that I may be denied government benifits, employment, finacial aid for my schooling, etc. and that is fine with me. Putting me in jail? Yes, I am such a criminal. I go to school, work a full time job, and run a MA club. I am a productive, tax paying member of our society and I put back into it by teaching the younger generation. I don't ask for nor receive any government aid. Plus the prisons are already crowded. Where would you put me? You are better off letting me work and produce on the home front.

Don't take me wrong. I have nothing against serving in the military. I almost registered myself my senior year of high school. The reason I did not join was because I decided I need to get a college education first and I also wanted to run a MA school so taking time off to join the military would put me behind in my plans. Also, I had a girlfriend at the time and I felt it would be unfair to her to leave her for that long. 

The only way I would join the military now was to protect this country from invasion to protect those I love. In those cases, I do not need a draft to register. However, by registering, I can be sent to serve and die for a cause I do not believe in. Lets take the Iraq war for example....


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> The only way I would join the military now was to protect this country from invasion to protect those I love. In those cases, I do not need a draft to register. However, by registering, I can be sent to serve and die for a cause I do not believe in. Lets take the Iraq war for example....


Would you have fought in WWII if you were of age then???


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 3, 2004)

> Would you have fought in WWII if you were of age then???


After pearl harbor? Of course.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

I only ask because I dont believe that Invasion was necessarily an immediate worry. Many US citizens were against it then too (not a majority mind you) and thought that we should have stayed out of it. Even then why would you have fought Germany if Japan was responsible for Pearl?


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 3, 2004)

> I only ask because I dont believe that Invasion was necessarily an immediate worry. Many US citizens were against it then too (not a majority mind you) and thought that we should have stayed out of it. Even then why would you have fought Germany if Japan was responsible for Pearl?


Never said I would've fought Germany. I hate the sea, but I probably would've went for the marines and hope to be stationed in the Pacific. Though I am not sure at the time if I would want to fight Germany. No, they did not invade us, but they were going for domination of at least Europe, which is what I would consider a serious threat to us anyway.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 3, 2004)

Ch. 5 KSTP News tonight did a quick story on the draft.  One House Representative Gutnecht said there was no support for the draft, that it won't go anywhere. I would tend to trust his opinion, for what's its worth.
But then its the government and there's politics to consider.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Personally, I think every US citizen should be willing to serve their country in whatever need and am for draft registration should the need arise...Im against the draft for pure morale, motivation, combat effectiveness reasons. Better results out of volunteer soldiery. From all I hear, recruitment hasnt been hurting...expand the force and budget for more troops.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 3, 2004)

> Personally, I think every US citizen should be willing to serve their country in whatever need and am for draft registration should the need arise...Im against the draft for pure morale, motivation, combat effectiveness reasons


I am willing to serve my country, however I am against draft registration because now, unless you decide to flee the country because you are now a fugitive, you are stuck serveing in a war no matter the cause if our Congress decides to do a draft. I would much rather get the facts for the war and find out why we need the troops and what they will be doing before I commit myself to military service and possibly dieing or killing a human being. I am not so much worried about myself, but those who love and depend on me. That is no fair to them unless the situation requires it.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, I think every US citizen should be willing to serve their country in whatever need and am for draft registration should the need arise...



That is the problem, I don't trust the government to decide a viable need for the draft. They are too quick to push the button, without taking into account the long term effects. Without going too far off topic, this is the same administration that decided an anti-terrorism bill meant an anti-drug, anti-porn, anti-arab, bill that in their eyes has the ability to completly nullify our civil rights. Look what happened the last time we let them decide if we should go to war, they picked the easy target that turned out not to be so easy and tried to justify it with threats that no one can find and crimes that hardly call for war, not to mention they ignored a real national threat while it beefs up its nuclear arsenal. Trust these putzes with my life and duty, not likely.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> That is the problem, I don't trust the government to decide a viable need for the draft. They are too quick to push the button, without taking into account the long term effects.


And if the government is instituting a draft that could mean that the citizenry has proven itself to be untrustworthy - at least in the category of 'contributing back to the whole' - and the we have gone the way of 'half-American' as far as I am concerned.  I know that we live by the constitution and bill of rights, but some of the spirit/assumption/hope in these documents and in the creators of them was that we would all come together and willingly support the group - not sit on our collective arses and claim "I am within my rights to do nothing - you can't make me."

There is a constant and shifting balance between individual civil rights/needs and the needs of the State from its individuals.  I think being a participating member of this country, minimally, is voting, paying taxes and supporting your chosen causes.  But that is like saying that it is good enough to be a "C" student in school, or that we should hover around the bottom of the scale.

I am not a fan of the draft - voluntary military is a more effective animal.  Look at the volumes of volunteers and willing draftees during WWII vs. any action after that.  We have become an individualistic nation and not a nation of individuals.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 4, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And if the government is instituting a draft that could mean that the citizenry has proven itself to be untrustworthy. . .



It could or it could mean that the current administration is looking for a way to force people to justify their expensive toys and force people to play with them in the sand.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And if the government is instituting a draft that could mean that the citizenry has proven itself to be untrustworthy


This administration has made it clear that it does not trust the citizenry.  It lies, it hides the truth, it deceives, it keeps the citizens out of the political process.

And by the way, enlisting after WWII is not in the same category as enlisting for the Iraq war.   We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese.  People enlisted to defend our country.

Despite what the Bush administration wants you to believe (and that 70% of Americans actually do believe) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  That was the work of Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan.  The Bush administration pulled our resources out of Afghanistan to go to war in Iraq, which was what Bush planned to do even before he was inaugurated.  Al Qaeda was not in Iraq--until now.  Our invasion has turned Iraq into a Terrorism Generator.

No wonder people are against the draft.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 7, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> This administration has made it clear that it does not trust the citizenry. It lies, it hides the truth, it deceives, it keeps the citizens out of the political process.
> 
> And by the way, enlisting after WWII is not in the same category as enlisting for the Iraq war. We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. People enlisted to defend our country.
> 
> ...


Citizens are involved in the political process: Vote, lobby and call/write your politicians. As far as I know no one in the Bush admin has been censoring/blocking any of these things. 

I think the problem is the 'no apology' approach that Bush takes makes him come off cocky. He makes executive decisions (but hasn't been charged with any violations of a political process so he must be working within the rules because congress would be like a school of frenzied sharks if he could be charged/impeached) w/o playing politics with congress. People (voters) tend to hate the politicians who play politics and wheel and deal - but when Bush does business claiming to be a "Washington Outsider" (not really accurate but sort of saying that he isn't trying to be a gamesman) he is a power monger.... I don't agree with everything he does, but I do like that he is not asking by your leave for every decision. He has to know that he is not winning many friends (at least his public relations people do) and he is still working the same way. That tells me he is doing things that he feels are right and not 'popular' at the expense of a chance at another term in office.... standing on principles.

There was a draft/selective service process during WWII as well if I remember correctly, the number of volunteers was such that it usually isn't even mentioned - and it would be inconsistent with the presentation of the "greatest generation" legacy that is promoted. What does that say about generations since? Are we 'smarter/wiser' or just more self involved and unwilling to come together because we are better informed by the media (which is partially motivated by profit when they use their own version of shock and awe imaging to trade increased subscriptions and Neilson ratings for really expensive advertising space)? 

Have we inherited the post traumatic exhaustion of fighting and death that we don't see any honor in standing together for what is right in principle? There has been a lot of talk about the desensitising of people to violence because of violence in the media/entertainment. I would say another affect has been the vicarious trauma and learned fear as well. People have become more afraid (and I agree that by god it is a good thing to fear war so you make better decisions about whether to go or not) to the point of selling out integrity and principle (all packaged in the name of 'immoral political motivations' and "i will not support an unjust war" - War, like life is neither fair nor just) because of the pictures on TV as well.

No I don't think that the prioritizing of Iraq over Afg is right, but I do think that there are good reasons be be in both conflicts. SHussein screwed over and shrugged off his signed treaty agreed committments and got away with it for 11 years because the UN did not take him to task. If there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found, but they were there before (my own opinion but partially based on some of the data, along with some basic logic) then he had PLENTY of time to shuffle them off to other places through poorly controlled or totally uncontrolled borders, even could have sold them to fund the rebuilding of his new military.

The idea that there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US entered is conjecture and unproven. Even if it could be proven that they were there before US boots on the ground, was it a large enough threat to justify entry into Iraq? I don't think so. I do think there were other reasons to enter Iraq that had nothing to do with ALQ.

We are still involved in Afg, there are still military operations running there.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 7, 2004)

Draft ramping up for 2005 

Glad I'm turning 27 this year... (wow, that's the first time i've heard myself say that).


----------



## Cyrus (Jun 7, 2004)

I dissaprove heavily of it but, one person can't make all that much diffrence so what it comes down to is a little bit of forced forward in my plans because my friend and i already planned on moving to New Zealand someday or other and i already talked to my parents about it (even though i'm 19 and could leave if i wanted to) they said if the draft passes then here i come New Zealand because i won't stick around the u.s much longer to be forced into something that I have no intrest in at all. Plus I will finally get to change my name if i leave also because i won't change it unless my parents agree too. So if the draft passes and you feel the U.S just isn't the place for you my last  name will probably be 
Rysa by then  so you can look me up the only thing we plan on doing there is training all day basically so whats another person or 10 or 20 more fun and experience.


----------



## Disco (Jun 7, 2004)

Understand one MAJOR point of contention here. Regardless if you trust or don't trust the government/Bush and Co. or you attempt to make up your own personal justifications for not wanting to be a part of the collective.

"THIS COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED"........ 9/11 - New York City WTC - How many thousands of our country men/women were KILLED?

We are in a war unlike anything else we could possibly imagine. Remember the Japanese Kamikazi of WWII? Well they pale compared to the brainwashed zealots of the mid-east. Every country in the mid-east has a deep-rooted hatred for America and it's lifestyle. There are multiple generations and new one's being schooled, whose goal is death to our way of life. If the political process deems that a draft becomes a necessity, so be it. We are currently reaching for people in the reserves, nat'l guard and that well is about exhausted. Make no mistake about it, our nation is in peril. The mid-east has it's hands around our throats with oil pricing and this country runs on oil. So if we need to press people into service to keep our way of life, bring it on. We are not that far removed from WWII and Pearl Harbor. The WTC is our new Pearl Harbor. Even though this is a country of and for individuals, we have always managed to come together to protect and defend ourselves and neighbors. That's what makes us who we are as a country. If you happen to be one who is so opposed to this concept, then I wish you well in your new home. From my point of view, you are not welcomed here anylonger. You pay a dis-service to all those that have fought and died so you can have the chance to say you don't like it here. 

With much respect and bowed head in prayer for all that are in the service of our country. May God Bless and keep you all safe, to return to those that love and respect you.

Mike Dunn  :asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 7, 2004)

Personally, I'd like to see the military relax its guidelines over who can serve.  Not everyone needs to be able to be in combat to be able to support our armed forces.

I was told I could not serve.  I was looking into the military as a way to get some good legal experience after I finish law school.  I'd go in as a JAG officer.  However, I was told I can't serve.  The reason:  I get heartburn and take a pill every day.  Apparently, taking medication daily is an automatic disqualification.  No medical complications, just heartburn if I eat something spicy.  So, I take a medication to be able to eat what I want.  If I don't get my medication, I'm a little uncomfortable, but nothing that would be considered debilitating.

They said I could not serve, despite scoring damn near perfectly on the AFOQT (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test) simply because I swallow a damn pill every day.  Their rationale:  "we can't guarantee you'll alway have access to your medication."  hmmph.  Well, then, put me in a position where that CAN be guaranteed.  There are plenty of JAG lawyers stationed stateside who would never have a problem picking up a prescription.  I passed every single one of their tests with flying colors, including the physical fitness test, and they don't want me because I take heartburn medication.  how completely stupid.

What about opening the military up to those who are physically disabled?  Someone in a wheelchair is perfectly capable of answering a telephone, doing virtually any kind of desk job, acting as a lawyer, a doctor, or a nurse.  Taking on disabled people who want to serve would free able-bodied folks for other positions or locations.  No conscription necessary.

What about the people who have asthma?  I'm sure there are many positions that are not overly physically straining.  There's got to be something they can do to support the military.

Lets use the people who WANT to volunteer, in whatever capacity they are able, before we begin drafting those who do not want to serve.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 7, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> Understand one MAJOR point of contention here. Regardless if you trust or don't trust the government/Bush and Co. or you attempt to make up your own personal justifications for not wanting to be a part of the collective.
> 
> "THIS COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED"........ 9/11 - New York City WTC - How many thousands of our country men/women were KILLED?
> 
> ...



I'll never agree that this country is in a war against terrorism. Currently, terrorist is a term used to label people an established government doesn't like for various and sundry reasons. Terrorists is currently a term used to describe people of action that are violently acting against our way of life. One man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter and revolutionary. The attackers of the WTC were true terrorists and wars against them can only be waged either completely defensivly or in, according to most international laws, an illegal way. We cannot wage war on an idea, or the small, scattered and unidentifiable people that ascribe to it. We can only worsen the situation with widespread violence against entire nations of people of which only a small fraction are willing to partake in such action against the US. I would suggest education, examination and compromise, not just elimination and indiscriminate, sometimes arbitrary, military action. Blanket statements that lump the entire mid-east, with all its varied religions, governments, ideals and people as having a "deep-rooted hatred for America and it's lifestyle" is ludicrous. Secondly, the question is whether the people believe the "political process" is valid and untainted in such a way that it is making the choice of the people and not a few warmongering, profiteers with the power to overcome the will of the people by pressing into the draft into law. The peril to this nation is it's leaders using it's resources and young lives for personal gain and vendetta. IMHO 9/11 has no direct connection to Pearl Harbour at all. If I oppose the concept of going to war for some political big wig's wishes I will, and as it stands currently the majority of the people in this country agree. Until that changes this is still my home and I have as much right to live in it as anyone who disagrees with me, whether they think I am welcome or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

"Make no mistake about it, our nation is in peril. The mid-east has it's hands around our throats with oil pricing and this country runs on oil. So if we need to press people into service to keep our way of life, bring it on."

Uh....well, it does have the advantage of being clear. It's not freedom, nor democracy, nor civil rights, nor our history, nor any of that silly stuff they taught me about back in school that is valuable about, "our way of life."

Sorry, dude. Somehow I am absolutely unwilling to go off and fight to preserve the government's and the people's right to waste resources like drunken sailors on leave in Manila.

And just FYI, you might consider the fact that democratic values do NOT involve running off and getting yourself killed for a not-very-bright President and a spineless Congress, who got us into this mess for reasons that--surprise, surprise!--turn out to be lies or mistakes.

Democratic values involve a well-educated, knowledgeable citizenry recognizing grim necessities when they arrive and taking on their responsibilites.

But by all means, let's give the likes of Dick Thornburgh the power to force kids into the military.

Hey, I've got a question: did ANY of these tub-thumpers in the White House serve in the military? And a worse question: did any of their opponents go? Kerrey, Gore, Kerry, Clark, Carter, McGovern....hey wait. Do I detect a pattern?


----------



## Disco (Jun 7, 2004)

We cannot wage war on an idea..................

Now that's ludicrous. Every war ever fought was because of an idea.

You think that it's only small, scattered and unidentifiable people that ascribe to it. I assume that you have not seen the hords of young people, clapping, laughing and just having a grand time, as Americans are being dragged thru the street and their bodies being defiled while the Humvee's burn in the background. Not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Somolia, and even Kuwait. The CBS news show 20/20 did interviews in the middle east with college age people. Everyone either leaned or was aggressively condeming of the U.S. and it's lifestyle and politics.  

"I'll never agree that this country is in a war against terrorism"...........

I could care less if you agree or not. Just because you decide to call it something else or just totally disavow that it exists, does not mean that it dosen't exist. You said yourself that those that attacked the WTC were terrorists. If you think that education, examination and compromise, will solve the problem, then I do feel sorry for you. You may mean well, but your living in a different realm than the rest of us. Everything that you stated has been in effect for many years and look at the results. We are dealing with people who have opposing religious beliefs, i.e. your war based on an idea. You are entitled to your opinion, for that is but one of the freedom's this country offers. I actually agree with your stand on not going to war for some political big wigs pocket book, but if you think there is no correlation between Pearl Harbor and the WTC, then anything I say falls on deaf ears. We stand opposed, but that is our right, our heritage as Americans. We can agree to disagree. I stand up for and am willing to defend your right to be opposed to me. I just hope that you and other's that think along your same lines will be willing to stand for me.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

I wonder...If US Troops caught BinLaden, shot him and dragged him through the street tied to a HMMWV what would the reaction here be? If Terrorists did the same to say, the President, what would the reaction in the Mid East be?


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 7, 2004)

waging war won't kill an idea.  you may kill some of the idea's supporters, but by doing so, you turn them into martyrs.  You can wage war against a nation, but when you try to wage war against an idea, it never completely works.  The best way to fight against an idea is to educate rather than eradicate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> You think that it's only small, scattered and unidentifiable people that ascribe to it. I assume that you have not seen the hords of young people, clapping, laughing and just having a grand time, as Americans are being dragged thru the street and their bodies being defiled while the Humvee's burn in the background. Not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Somolia, and even Kuwait. The CBS news show 20/20 did interviews in the middle east with college age people. Everyone either leaned or was aggressively condeming of the U.S. and it's lifestyle and politics.



The people you see on those reports are not the entirety of the _middle east_.  Perhaps you should consider why the corporate media would like you to believe that.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 7, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> waging war won't kill an idea.  you may kill some of the idea's supporters, but by doing so, you turn them into martyrs.  You can wage war against a nation, but when you try to wage war against an idea, it never completely works.  The best way to fight against an idea is to educate rather than eradicate.



My thoughts exactly. 



			
				Disco said:
			
		

> You think that it's only small, scattered and unidentifiable people that ascribe to it. I assume that you have not seen the hords of young people, clapping, laughing and just having a grand time, as Americans are being dragged thru the street and their bodies being defiled while the Humvee's burn in the background. Not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Somolia, and even Kuwait.



Right those are the hundreds that the cameramen want to print because it sells papers and whips up the extremists, meanwhile standing behind the camera huddled in their houses waiting to be bombed, shelled or arrested are the thousands and tens of thousands that don't ascribe to extremist and terroristic beliefs. Then there are those who fight because they just don't want us on their soil, not because they hate us or our "way of life".




			
				Disco said:
			
		

> Everything that you stated has been in effect for many years and look at the results.



Yes, many years of relative peace and prosparity(sp). 



			
				Disco said:
			
		

> We are dealing with people who have opposing religious beliefs, i.e. your war based on an idea. You are entitled to your opinion, for that is but one of the freedom's this country offers. I actually agree with your stand on not going to war for some political big wigs pocket book, but if you think there is no correlation between Pearl Harbor and the WTC, then anything I say falls on deaf ears. We stand opposed, but that is our right, our heritage as Americans. We can agree to disagree. I stand up for and am willing to defend your right to be opposed to me. I just hope that you and other's that think along your same lines will be willing to stand for me



The reason I don't agree is because the Pearl harbor was an attack by a sovereign nation for the purpose of nationalistic conquest. The attack was something that allowed the US pop. to gel against an identifyable nation with a pop. whose vast majority agreed in it's government. The 9/11 attacks were acts of a group of religious extremists with no nation or government, that acted without the support of the pop. of the area they resided in or the support of the people who practice the religion that they claim to practice. In standing for my right to speak my mind, I am in gist supporting your right to speak. I don't claim that your notions are invalid or that your right to speak be denied, only that until the majority of the nation agrees with you I won't be silenced or sent away at anyone's whim. I'll fight if you give me a good reason (that we have) and a valid justifiable target (this we are missing).


----------



## Disco (Jun 7, 2004)

The 9/11 attacks were acts of a group of religious extremists with no nation or government, that acted without the support of the pop. of the area they resided in or the support of the people who practice the religion that they claim to practice.

You will also notice that those same so called people who reside and show no active support and who practice the religon, actually do support the agenda.  By doing nothing to either physically stop or offer intelligence to those that could stop the killing. The old saying, "For evil to succeed, good men must do nothing".

Originally Posted by Nightingale
waging war won't kill an idea. I'm sure the Jewish community from the holocaust travisty would be in total agreement......


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 7, 2004)

I got my draft notice after 9 weeks of Air Force basic training!  My DI laughed and told me I still had three more weeks of boot camp and then the Army could have me.  He was joking of course.  While I do not like anyone to be forced into the military I do believe a few years of it does a world of good for young people.  Like, it gets you away from mommy and daddy and makes an adult out of you in a hurry.


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 7, 2004)

Waging war DIDN'T kill the idea of anti-semitism.  Its still alive and well, unfortunately (KKK, among others). What's been slowly strangling anti-semitism is education, not war.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> What about opening the military up to those who are physically disabled? Someone in a wheelchair is perfectly capable of answering a telephone, doing virtually any kind of desk job, acting as a lawyer, a doctor, or a nurse. Taking on disabled people who want to serve would free able-bodied folks for other positions or locations. No conscription necessary.
> 
> What about the people who have asthma? I'm sure there are many positions that are not overly physically straining. There's got to be something they can do to support the military.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that, no matter what position you take in the military, be it on the front lines or behind a desk, you still have to pass Basic Training.  Those in a wheelchair or with permanent respiratory problems couldn't even go through Basic to get to the desk job.  

There's one reason I'm thankful for my own disability; no military service.


----------



## Disco (Jun 7, 2004)

Waging war DIDN'T kill the idea of anti-semitism. Its still alive and well, unfortunately (KKK, among others). What's been slowly strangling anti-semitism is education, not war.

Education? What form of education? Were talking the like / dislike of a nationallity. So I guess we don't have to worry about the Palestine / Israel conflict and all the arab countries, cause were going to educate them into friendship.   

Granted, the idea of anti-semitism is alive and well and still living worldwide. But the wholesale slaughter of a race of people was stopped. You decide which is more viable.

I wonder what the old timers (WWII/Korean) would say and think of this discussion.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that, no matter what position you take in the military, be it on the front lines or behind a desk, you still have to pass Basic Training.  Those in a wheelchair or with permanent respiratory problems couldn't even go through Basic to get to the desk job.
> 
> There's one reason I'm thankful for my own disability; no military service.



My guess is that they would be put into a separate work force, acting like civilian contractors or civilian military employees. 



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I wonder what the old timers (WWII/Korean) would say and think of this discussion.



It depends on which one you ask. 

Not all older vets are crusty scrappers, many if not most detest war or armed conflict for any reason, many believe that the horrors of war that they experienced and crimes against man that war forced them to commit are not worth any cause. The image of the salty cantankerous rough vet is one that many adopt because the vets that are very vocal and active, fit this stereotype. There are many many more vets that choose not to be vocal, either because they don't want to be recognized for their actions, aren't proud of what they did, don't want to remember or just don't think it's anybody else's business. I've found this humble silent majority is very much against any war.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> What about opening the military up to those who are physically disabled? Someone in a wheelchair is perfectly capable of answering a telephone, doing virtually any kind of desk job, acting as a lawyer, a doctor, or a nurse. Taking on disabled people who want to serve would free able-bodied folks for other positions or locations. No conscription necessary.


I was reading IMMEDIATE ACTION by Andy McNabb about his experiences in the British SAS and he described taking classes being taught by wounded/disabled SAS vets.  I am not sure the exact logistics of it, but they were either contractors or actual ranked/serial numbered members of the British Army.  Either way, I think it is beneficial all around.  The military doesn't loose out on the experience and professionalism of these servicemen/women and the soldier still is a contributing member of the culture that they chose to be a part of, and made a huge sacrifice for in the process - has to be good for the psyche.  

I don't know about enlisting handicap/disabled people into the military only because it would create a serious drain on the already criticized budget - which is the down side to the process of keeping disabled vets/servicemen in as well.  Providing/Accomodating for a relatively small percentage/but large population of handicap people is expensive and would mean more money that isn't going to the development of force readiness.  It also would mean some kind of limited duty/rank/pay system that would require special management (more money, complications to the already affectionately termed "puzzle palace" system of the Pentagon).


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> Waging war DIDN'T kill the idea of anti-semitism. Its still alive and well, unfortunately (KKK, among others). What's been slowly strangling anti-semitism is education, not war.
> 
> Education? What form of education? Were talking the like / dislike of a nationallity. So I guess we don't have to worry about the Palestine / Israel conflict and all the arab countries, cause were going to educate them into friendship.
> 
> ...



(Notice:  There is OPINION coming!!!)

We went to war in WWII because of an attack on our soil by the ally of a country the world didn't like much, due to the atrocities (BUZZWORD ALERT) that were being perpetrated.  Fine.  We went in, got the job done, and got the heck out.  All the world was happy and life was good... for a while...

Korea/Viet nam.  The world doesn't like us as much anymore.  Calls us bullies and baby-killers.  But, since we're the biggest and baddest dog on the block since the collapse of the eastern bloc countries, we take up the reigns for democracy and shove our proverbial foot in the door.  We went in, got our butts kicked, and got out (more nam that korea, but you get the picture).  

Fast forward to present day.  Who are we after?  Al-Queda?  Al-Queda does NOT equal Iraq.  It doesn't equal Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, or any other country in the middle east.  As someone so eloquently pointed out already, they are a bunch of religious zealots striking from the shadows through autonomous groups (you know, those cells (BUZZWORD ALERT) you hear about on CNN).  Now our leader, in all of his infinite wisdom, decided to put a face on this terror, and make up crap that just flat out wasn't true to implicate him.  Yes, he was doing bad stuff to his people, just like Hitler.  Unlike Hitler, he was doing it to ALL his people, not just one group.  Bad man.  Very bad.  However, he was NOT leading Al-Queda, because that group doesn't HAVE a leader!!  So, lets talk about our position.  We went in, de-throned this tyrant, and....  wait... we're still there?  Why?  Why didn't we GTFO like all the others wanted us to?  Simple...  $$$...  The longer we stay in there, the longer we can build rights to "our" oil.  Wait... aren't we looking for WMD (BUZZWORD ALERT)?  What do you mean we can't find any??  Can't we at least plant some to make it LOOK like we found em??  No?!  why??  because it's unethical?!!?

This "War on Terrorism" is dumb.  As has been pointed out by many leading news sources (notice Fox and CNN do NOT count as leading news sources), There are more terrorist groups forming and being trained now than any other time.  Why?  Because we're still there.  Because we're "fighting for democracy".  Bull****.  

I very much agree with Lobo in 2 of his points.
1)  For every terrorist in Iraq that wants to kill our people for our beliefs and way of life, there's 20 that just want them to leave by any means necessary, huddling in their houses until some grunt comes along and shoves a gun in their face (our side or theirs, it doesn't matter).

2) Ask most Vets about war.  They'll tell you some stories, I'm sure, but 9 out of 10 of them would say they'd never do it again.  War is no place for kids, which most of them were when they were drafted.  Sure, it'll "get you away from mommy and daddy and make you an adult quick".  If you call mentally scarred from shell shock (that would be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for those of the George Carlin era ), and possibly an amputee (IF you survive) an adult.

Now, after all that babbling, I guess this post comes down to one thing.  Naming this war.  All wars have x vs. y.  For example, WWII was the Axis VS. Allies.  I think this war would be "The brainwashed religious zealots VS. The brainwashed idealistic zealots"...

 :flame: (Note:  Opinion done.  Please flame if necessary)...


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> This "War on Terrorism" is dumb. As has been pointed out by many leading news sources (notice Fox and CNN do NOT count as leading news sources), There are more terrorist groups forming and being trained now than any other time. Why? Because we're still there. Because we're "fighting for democracy". Bull****.
> 
> I very much agree with Lobo in 2 of his points.
> 1) For every terrorist in Iraq that wants to kill our people for our beliefs and way of life, there's 20 that just want them to leave by any means necessary, huddling in their houses until some grunt comes along and shoves a gun in their face (our side or theirs, it doesn't matter).
> ...


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

I agree that those other nations should be accountable for the happenings inside their borders (i.e. training camps and drug trafficking).  The problem is that we should not be sending troops in and just doing it ourselves.  All that does is ruin other countries' opinion of the US, as we are now viewed as the terrorists.  We've taken the "You listen to us or we'll come blow the living crap out of your country" approach.  Doesn't that sound like what was done to us?

Tell that to the vicitims of 9/11?  I can't, because they're just that.  Victims of a terrible tragedy.  What would their surviving relatives and loved ones say?  I'm not sure.  I can say that if one of my loved ones were there and perished, I'd want their memory to live on in dignity, not spun into some ethnocentric propaganda machine.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Tell that to the victims of 911.


I risk offending a ton of people, but this needs to be said, that line is the most overused clique' currently heard. What I would tell the victims of 9/11 is that I am unbelievably sorry for their loss and I will lend aid in any way they need. I don't cry often and I cried that day. I am sorry some overzelous, brainwashed, nutjob got the idea that Islam was about violence and death, instead of enlightenment, clean living and peace. Moreover I'm sorry some overzelouse brainwashed nutjob is going use our government to try and take their children and grandchildren to a die in horrible way in an unwelcoming far away place to "defend" us against people and things that aren't even there. 

Consequently its almost the same thing I would tell a survivor of the Holucaust, the Tibetan massaqures, the Hutu civil wars, ect. Retaliation and anger are a vicious cycle of death.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I agree that those other nations should be accountable for the happenings inside their borders (i.e. training camps and drug trafficking). The problem is that we should not be sending troops in and just doing it ourselves. All that does is ruin other countries' opinion of the US, as we are now viewed as the terrorists. We've taken the "You listen to us or we'll come blow the living crap out of your country" approach. Doesn't that sound like what was done to us?
> 
> Tell that to the vicitims of 9/11? I can't, because they're just that. Victims of a terrible tragedy. What would their surviving relatives and loved ones say? I'm not sure. I can say that if one of my loved ones were there and perished, I'd want their memory to live on in dignity, not spun into some ethnocentric propaganda machine.


That is not the approach considering that we are in the process of, and always intended to, work out the transfer of sovereignity back to Iraq, we are helping to fund/build and safeguard schools that are being run by and for Afg culture/nation building along side the counter/anti-terror operations.  If we are exposing the collaboration of nations/individuals with known terrorists and 'negotiating' with them to stop by threatening to refuse their business/won't offer them US business of support instead of bombing their country and all the innocent bystanders, how is that wrong?  The same process is applied domestically with businesses that sell cig/alcohol to minors.

By victims, I also meant the survivors who are suffering as living victims of the attack. If it was a relative/loved one of mine, I would want to see action by my government to minimize the risk of someone else suffering the same anguish...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

The Tibetan approach worked well with the Chinese didnt it? Peace and Love win the day if you are willing to sacrifice a ton of lives and be treated like sheep. Reactionary violence isnt the way. Agreed. But military operations are a valid tool.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> By victims, I also meant the survivors who are suffering as living victims of the attack. If it was a relative/loved one of mine, I would want to see action by my government to minimize the risk of someone else suffering the same anguish...



Not at the cost of causing the same anguish.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I risk offending a ton of people, but this needs to be said, that line is the most overused clique' currently heard. What I would tell the victims of 9/11 is that I am unbelievably sorry for their loss and I will lend aid in any way they need. .


It is only a cliche when the significance of it is lost on the listener....

Those who died and their survivors is a direct result of a system that was funded, supported and condoned by someone(s).  As I have already said, I would like to think that as those of us still living would see the honor in trying to eliminate the structures that made such an attack possible eliminated.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Not at the cost of causing the same anguish.


Then I guess you don't intend on defending yourself or anyone else with your martial training because you will be inflicting the same anguish on someone else when you do....


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is only a cliche when the significance of it is lost on the listener....
> 
> Those who died and their survivors is a direct result of a system that was funded, supported and condoned by someone(s).  As I have already said, I would like to think that as those of us still living would see the honor in trying to eliminate the structures that made such an attack possible eliminated.



I think it is a little ironic that you say that with you signature line saying, 

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 - 1973), The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

Is attacking a terrorist camp done "in the name of justice" or as a means of taking down a terrorist organization? That quote is from TLOTR...lots of fighting in that book huh?


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Then I guess you don't intend on defending yourself or anyone else with your martial training because you will be inflicting the same anguish on someone else when you do....



Self defense is selfish proactive violence. It is to stop myself from dying, when I am still alive, not to take vengance on other for their actions killing others. The differance is the immediacy and the victim, now and me.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I think it is a little ironic that you say that with you signature line saying,
> 
> "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
> J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 - 1973), The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One


I am neither eager nor am I the one making the decision to deal out death in the name of justice.  Taking that quote back into context, it was Gandalf's respond to Frodo when Frodo is critical of Bilbo because he showed Gollum mercy instead of outright killing him when he had the chance.

I am not eager about this, but I do think it is just to focus on disabling a system that would willingly kill non combative women, children and men.

Iraq, as another story, needed to be held accoutable for its non compliance with the treaty agreements....

Not eager, but not going to get stepped on or watch a cancer grow again in front of my eyes.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Self defense is selfish proactive violence. It is to stop myself from dying, when I am still alive, not to take vengance on other for their actions killing others. The differance is the immediacy and the victim, now and me.


increase the scale and say that the identifiable being "you" are defending is a nation called "USA" (usually referred to on this scale as a singular entity) and you have the same thing happening.  Military objectives/politics is about objectives not vengeance.


----------



## Disco (Jun 8, 2004)

There is one point of contention that we are overlooking. This is addressed to both pro and con. It's not just 9/11. There were many incidents prior to 9/11. The WTC was hit in 91 I believe. The navy ship that was attacked was prior to 9/11. The embassy attack that killed all those marines was prior to 9/11. There are more but the point is made. Is war a wonderful thing? Hell no. War is a stupid waste of people and resources. But war has been in man's history since the written word was invented. What's happening in the middle east is nothing new, it's been going on since the 40's. Yes since the creation of the jewish homeland. Regardless of who started what and when and where, we are up to our eyeballs in a nasty, winner take all fight. Sure Bush and company are going to make there blood money on the lives of our young, but the die is cast (no pun intended). We can use any pretext we feel that will reinforce our individual opinions, but that will not change the mess were in. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, rest assured that the foe we are now against only cares about their warped version of their beliefs. They have migrated thruout the entire globe and are bent on our distruction. 

I personally think that we screwed up by going into Iraq. We should have done it the first time when everybody was with us, but that still would not eliminate the overall threat posed by these people. We are allies with who they hate the most, so wheather we like it or not, we are the target.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> There is one point of contention that we are overlooking. This is addressed to both pro and con. It's not just 9/11. There were many incidents prior to 9/11. The WTC was hit in 91 I believe. The navy ship that was attacked was prior to 9/11. The embassy attack that killed all those marines was prior to 9/11. There are more but the point is made. Is war a wonderful thing? Hell no. War is a stupid waste of people and resources. But war has been in man's history since the written word was invented. What's happening in the middle east is nothing new, it's been going on since the 40's. Yes since the creation of the jewish homeland. Regardless of who started what and when and where, we are up to our eyeballs in a nasty, winner take all fight. Sure Bush and company are going to make there blood money on the lives of our young, but the die is cast (no pun intended). We can use any pretext we feel that will reinforce our individual opinions, but that will not change the mess were in. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, rest assured that the foe we are now against only cares about their warped version of their beliefs. They have migrated thruout the entire globe and are bent on our distruction.
> 
> I personally think that we screwed up by going into Iraq. We should have done it the first time when everybody was with us, but that still would not eliminate the overall threat posed by these people. We are allies with who they hate the most, so wheather we like it or not, we are the target.


I have mentioned the multiple WTC attacks before, but the media tends to promote short term memory use only


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 8, 2004)

"Sure Bush and company are going to make there blood money on the lives of our young, but the die is cast (no pun intended)."

This is the argument in FAVOR?

By the way, as long as we're listing horrors, we did sorta shoot down an Iranian airliner with well over 200 passengers a few years back. Apparently an Aegis cruiser's very expensive phased-array radar cannot distinguish a 747 in a landing pattern and an attacking MiG...


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That is not the approach considering that we are in the process of, and always intended to, work out the transfer of sovereignity back to Iraq, we are helping to fund/build and safeguard schools that are being run by and for Afg culture/nation building along side the counter/anti-terror operations.  If we are exposing the collaboration of nations/individuals with known terrorists and 'negotiating' with them to stop by threatening to refuse their business/won't offer them US business of support instead of bombing their country and all the innocent bystanders, how is that wrong?  The same process is applied domestically with businesses that sell cig/alcohol to minors.
> 
> By victims, I also meant the survivors who are suffering as living victims of the attack. If it was a relative/loved one of mine, I would want to see action by my government to minimize the risk of someone else suffering the same anguish...



It's not wrong to want those people to stand on their own, perhaps with a little helping hand from us (build schools/give food and medical aid, etc).  It's not wrong to remove a tyrannical dictator from power, who only existed to exert his power over the people.  It's wrong to sit there with troops basically invading a country that has outwardly said it doesn't want us there anymore, with no good reason to stay.  A "peacekeeping" force could be used, but make it a joint UN project, as opposed to a US/little UK project.  "An eye for an eye leaves a blind world" keeps coming to mind, in that revenge is not the answer.  You mentioned self-defense used as an analogy for this.  That doesn't quite apply here, due to the scale and the situation.  Allow me to illustrate:

1)  Self-defense is proactive.  You train for the possible altercation where you have to save the lives of you or loved ones.  This situation is reactive.  We invade a country that is (possibly) harboring people with the same ideology as the ones who committed a strike on our soil.  They, in turn lash out at us again for the invasion, of which we strike back again, and they strike, and we do again, and they do, and we do, and...  it becomes a vicious circle.  

2)  To use your analogy, I (USA) get punched in the eye by someone (Terror groups) on your lawn.  So, I hit back, and knock the guy on his butt, showing him that he's not all that.  End of fight.  Or is it?  So the guy wants to keep going.  Your buddies that are with you (UK, China, Russia, France, Germany, etc) all grab an arm and try to hold you back, as they think there's a better way, but you're too headstrong and break loose, continuing the fight.  Now you're on your own, going to that guys house, in the midst of his friends, and starting something.  Who's the bad guy now?


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> By the way, as long as we're listing horrors, we did sorta shoot down an Iranian airliner with well over 200 passengers a few years back. Apparently an Aegis cruiser's very expensive phased-array radar cannot distinguish a 747 in a landing pattern and an attacking MiG...



Good point.  Someone string up Bill Gates please, since all those run on Windows NT from what I've heard.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

The guy plants a bomb in my house and kills my family and says hes going to get the rest of my friend and relatives.....Im hunting him to the ends of the earth and you better not let him sleep in your house.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> It's not wrong to want those people to stand on their own, perhaps with a little helping hand from us (build schools/give food and medical aid, etc). It's not wrong to remove a tyrannical dictator from power, who only existed to exert his power over the people. It's wrong to sit there with troops basically invading a country that has outwardly said it doesn't want us there anymore, with no good reason to stay. A "peacekeeping" force could be used, but make it a joint UN project, as opposed to a US/little UK project. "An eye for an eye leaves a blind world" keeps coming to mind, in that revenge is not the answer. You mentioned self-defense used as an analogy for this. That doesn't quite apply here, due to the scale and the situation. Allow me to illustrate:
> 
> 1) Self-defense is proactive. You train for the possible altercation where you have to save the lives of you or loved ones. This situation is reactive. We invade a country that is (possibly) harboring people with the same ideology as the ones who committed a strike on our soil. They, in turn lash out at us again for the invasion, of which we strike back again, and they strike, and we do again, and they do, and we do, and... it becomes a vicious circle.
> 
> 2) To use your analogy, I (USA) get punched in the eye by someone (Terror groups) on your lawn. So, I hit back, and knock the guy on his butt, showing him that he's not all that. End of fight. Or is it? So the guy wants to keep going. Your buddies that are with you (UK, China, Russia, France, Germany, etc) all grab an arm and try to hold you back, as they think there's a better way, but you're too headstrong and break loose, continuing the fight. Now you're on your own, going to that guys house, in the midst of his friends, and starting something. Who's the bad guy now?


Who are you claiming doesn't want us there.  Religious/militia leaders who will profit from an environment of chaos or the average citizen who just wants stability so they can send their children to school and live according to their values....

Bosnia was the same way, some said they wanted us out but the average citizens were happy that they didn't have to worry about the upheaval.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Who are you claiming doesn't want us there.  Religious/militia leaders who will profit from an environment of chaos or the average citizen who just wants stability so they can send their children to school and live according to their values....
> 
> Bosnia was the same way, some said they wanted us out but the average citizens were happy that they didn't have to worry about the upheaval.



I think it's the average citizen who just wants stability.  Unfortuantely, in that part of the world, stability is a very limited and precious resource.  If we weren't there stirring up the the anti-americans, some other leader would come along, and they would have their own rebellion, etc etc.  Are we the ultimate cause of the situation?  No.  Are we doing anything to help it?  Not really, and we're most likely making it worse.




			
				tgace said:
			
		

> The guy plants a bomb in my house and kills my family and says hes going to get the rest of my friend and relatives.....Im hunting him to the ends of the earth and you better not let him sleep in your house.


... Or what, you're going to bomb my house too?  Then I'll find people to bomb you, and their friends will bomb you, and you'll come back and bomb us, and we'll find more friends to bomb you...

How many lives do we have to throw into the machine to get the gears to stop grinding and the operators to think about what they're doing?  (that goes for both sides, not just ours).


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> ... Or what, you're going to bomb my house too? Then I'll find people to bomb you, and their friends will bomb you, and you'll come back and bomb us, and we'll find more friends to bomb you...
> 
> How many lives do we have to throw into the machine to get the gears to stop grinding and the operators to think about what they're doing? (that goes for both sides, not just ours).


OK...Ill just crack a beer and wait for the explosions.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I think it's the average citizen who just wants stability. Unfortuantely, in that part of the world, stability is a very limited and precious resource. If we weren't there stirring up the the anti-americans, some other leader would come along, and they would have their own rebellion, etc etc. Are we the ultimate cause of the situation? No. Are we doing anything to help it? Not really, and we're most likely making it worse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Think all you want but in Bosnia, I spoke directly with citizens and the majority said they appreciated the presence.  My old unit just came back from Iraq and a few of the guys I have had the chance to hear from have said the same thing about their time there.  Don't let the sound bytes of news stories that support the theme of a particular article fool you into thinking that it is the majority.  The squeeky wheel gets the grease and the contraversial group gets the camera lights...

Asking a person from Iraq/Bosnia 10 years from now is going to be the real test of whether it was for the best or not.  Asking people 'how is the move going' in the middle of it will illicit a different response than after all the boxes are unpacked and the dust has settled.  Stress can really skew perspectives.  Things are in an upheaval.  Even the good commentary is not to be totally believed because tomorrow, the same person might be 'down with Bush'ing all over because soldiers were doing a sweep through his neighborhood and he is upset at the disruption....


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> There is one point of contention that we are overlooking. This is addressed to both pro and con. It's not just 9/11. There were many incidents prior to 9/11. The WTC was hit in 91 I believe. The navy ship that was attacked was prior to 9/11. The embassy attack that killed all those marines was prior to 9/11. There are more but the point is made. Is war a wonderful thing? Hell no. War is a stupid waste of people and resources. But war has been in man's history since the written word was invented. What's happening in the middle east is nothing new, it's been going on since the 40's. Yes since the creation of the jewish homeland. Regardless of who started what and when and where, we are up to our eyeballs in a nasty, winner take all fight. Sure Bush and company are going to make there blood money on the lives of our young, but the die is cast (no pun intended). We can use any pretext we feel that will reinforce our individual opinions, but that will not change the mess were in. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, rest assured that the foe we are now against only cares about their warped version of their beliefs. They have migrated thruout the entire globe and are bent on our distruction.
> 
> I personally think that we screwed up by going into Iraq. We should have done it the first time when everybody was with us, but that still would not eliminate the overall threat posed by these people. We are allies with who they hate the most, so wheather we like it or not, we are the target.




Now that is a good post. I agree almost totally. The only contention is that I don't think any war is "winner take all". The intricacy of war and foreign relations are too complicated to believe that if we "win", we will have no problems of this kind anymore. A long grinding process culminated in this mess and it will take a long grinding process to stop it, if it is stoppable. No war, which is often veiwed as a relatively quick solution, will solve this issue. It will take good foreign relations, education, understanding, sympathy and sacrifice.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guy plants a bomb in my house and kills my family and says hes going to get the rest of my friend and relatives.....Im hunting him to the ends of the earth and you better not let him sleep in your house.



I would say "Welcome, my son, to the machine" (God I love Pink Floyd), but it sounds like you are helping to build it.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

Like I said before...OK, Ill just crack a beer and wait for the explosions. What do you recommend?


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Like I said before...OK, Ill just crack a beer and wait for the explosions.



I'd rather pull a "strangelove" and ride the first missile home.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Asking a person from Iraq/Bosnia 10 years from now is going to be the real test of whether it was for the best or not.  Asking people 'how is the move going' in the middle of it will illicit a different response than after all the boxes are unpacked and the dust has settled.  Stress can really skew perspectives.  Things are in an upheaval.  Even the good commentary is not to be totally believed because tomorrow, the same person might be 'down with Bush'ing all over because soldiers were doing a sweep through his neighborhood and he is upset at the disruption....



True.  Very true.  My only hope is that the upheaval ends sometime.  Unfortunately that can't be decided by just one side.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 8, 2004)

Disco said:
			
		

> There is one point of contention that we are overlooking. This is addressed to both pro and con. It's not just 9/11. There were many incidents prior to 9/11. The WTC was hit in 91 I believe. The navy ship that was attacked was prior to 9/11. The embassy attack that killed all those marines was prior to 9/11.


This is true...these were all Al Qaeda attacks.  One problem:  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda (until now), and there was no Iraqi state sponsored terrorism against the US since the early 90s.  Want to know why?  That's because the US bombed the Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters after we discovered a plot to kill our president. Iraq got the message.

Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, which we rightfully attacked after 9/11, but Bush began changing his focus to Iraq a month or two after we entered Afghanistan. In fact, the Bush administraton began planning its Iraq program even before Bush was inaugurated.  He pulled out of Afghanistan prematurely, allowing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to regroup.

Attacking Iraq after 9/11 made as much sense as would, let's say, bombing Canada after Pearl Harbor.

Not to mention the fact that the majority of the 9/11 conspirators were Saudi...but then, the Saudis are exempt, because Bush is a lifelong friend of the Sauds.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

I don't know why the insistence that we are no longer in Afg.  We still have operations and assets there.  We are still doing humanitarian operations there.

On a humorous note, if you are going to try and wage war on more than one country in the middle east, heck make it a one stop shopping spree for supplies and logistics.... get off the plain and head north.  Those passengers with orders for Iraq please follow the yellow line to the left for loading and unloading of passengers and equiptment.... if you are holding orders for Afg. please follow the red line to the right for the loading and unloading of passengers and equiptment.... reminds me of the "AIRPLANE" movie schtick.

"NO, the JUST war is the red line to the RIGHT"
"NO, the JUST war is the yellow line to the LEFT"

"Well, maybe if you weren't wearing the stained dress from our failed trist you MIGHT just see that you are mistaken and the JUST war is...."


----------



## OULobo (Jun 9, 2004)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/05-31-2004/insider/draft.htm


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 9, 2004)

> "The proposal, which the agencys acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25."



Great.  So are they going to put in stipulations for parents?  Grad students?  People with key skills that we need stateside?  My opinion of this idea gets worse everytime I read something new.


----------



## oldnewbie (Jun 9, 2004)

I don't think we are going to need a draft, if my recent experiences with High School are any example.

Last year, my son's High School started it's first ROTC program. They expected 50-75 kids to join (out of approx 1,000) They got 144 signed up and had to turn away others for lack of room in the program. (My son was one to join)
At the end of this year, the announced that they were gaining another instructor, and could expand. They have over 250 signed up before summer break. Most of the seniors in the program enlisted before school was over.

After speaking with the Master Sargent, he informed me that this was similar in other High Schools around the area.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 9, 2004)

oldnewbie said:
			
		

> I don't think we are going to need a draft, if my recent experiences with High School are any example.
> 
> Last year, my son's High School started it's first ROTC program. They expected 50-75 kids to join (out of approx 1,000) They got 144 signed up and had to turn away others for lack of room in the program. (My son was one to join)
> At the end of this year, the announced that they were gaining another instructor, and could expand. They have over 250 signed up before summer break. Most of the seniors in the program enlisted before school was over.
> ...



I have some friends of friends who are in their early twenties who are either Reserve or college and looking at reserve or enlisting after school or some even during school.

A friend of mine who is an Officer in the Naval Reserve is also a Chaplain. She is headed out the first of July for she signed up to go active. She will be stationed in the Indian Ocean area, for about a year.

I agree there are many who will or have plans to sign up.

 :asian:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 9, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Citizens are involved in the political process: Vote, lobby and call/write your politicians. As far as I know no one in the Bush admin has been censoring/blocking any of these things.


Yes of course we can vote.  UNLESS Diebold promises to "deliver the votes to the President in November" with paperless, tamper-prone voting machines...in which case our votes may not matter.

Of course we can call/write our representatives with our views on the issues.  UNLESS we AND our representatives are lied to about the facts, in which case we can't offer an educated viewpoint.  Or if, for instance, our elected administrators refuse to testify in public under oath about the facts, because then we can't learn what the facts are.

There's also the pesky issue of secret, no bid contracts which might illegally involve the influence of our elected officials, which make the ordinary citizen superfluous.

There's no question, political activism is important, but let's not be naive.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 9, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Of course we can call/write our representatives with our views on the issues.  UNLESS we AND our representatives are lied to about the facts, in which case we can't offer an educated viewpoint.  Or if, for instance, our elected administrators refuse to testify in public under oath about the facts, because then we can't learn what the facts are.
> 
> There's no question, political activism is important, but let's not be naive.



Well, I called my state representative, he didn't get back to me, he did a news spot on a Minneapolis TV station.  He says there is "no support for a draft so it won't go anywhere" but my take is, that is the PRESENT position, he is Republican by the way.  I also emailed CNN, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune and our town's newspaper.  I emailed my senator, no response but on his board the draft is a "hot topic".  Haven't hear anything in the news and no response from any of them to me except one state rep.

No representative has addressed the fact that the budget for Selective Services has increased to 28 million dollars (on their webside under Perfect Plan) and has a deadline for Mar. 31, 2005 to be totally READY FOR A DRAFT.  And it can be implemented I believe in 95 days. Why has it increased from a $240,000 in 2002 (not exact figure-from memory) to a 28 MILLION dollar budget in 2004? Why has Selective Service posted the draft board positions on the net and then have it taken it off so suddenly when it got noticed. The elections.  What do they expect to happen in Mar. '05.  Pretty strong possibility, the draft, I would think, that's why they allocated the funds. And alot of people are going to be on a government payroll doing what? These are all the questions I have. 

Bush keeps the war going, and Kerry has said that we need more troops over there, so it doesn't matter who is elected, on this aspect the war machine will be fed.

There is the other side of this "draft talk" in that it's pre-conditioning to adjust the public to a draft. Slowly after the election, leaking more and more till people start to debate it.  And then the "crisis" will be escalated and "patriotic duty" will be the only thing heard from the media.  Maybe, I'm pessimistic but, if the war continues to stretch our armed forces thin, it could happen.  I can only pray, that it doesn't.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Lookin' like time to dig out the old records...Country Joe and the Fish....the Airplane's "Volunteers"...."Alice's Restaurant..." poor old Phil Ochs' "I Ain't A-Marchin' Anymore..." "Universal Soldier..." "WAR!! What is it good for?"

And the old movies..."Paths of Glory..." "Go Tell The Spartans..." "The Big Red One..." 

All I ask is that Peter, Paul and Mary do NOT stage a comeback. And where's John Lennon when we need 'im? 

But, service automatically guarantees citizenship. Do you want to know more?


----------



## oldnewbie (Jun 10, 2004)

> All I ask is that Peter, Paul and Mary do NOT stage a comeback.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 10, 2004)

*shudders*

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!  All those old hippie singers must have political dirt on some key influential congressmen/senators.  They are the ones pushing this draft, JUST so they can make a "retro" comback and sell more records!  Summer of Love II, 2005!  :uhyeah: 

And they said pot-smokers were dumb...   LOL  :boing2:


----------



## oldnewbie (Jun 10, 2004)

Well I guess it's now or never. They look like they won't make it to 2005....:wink2:


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 13, 2004)

I think the problem is this, both sides are right and wrong at the same time.

If we are going to fight and go to war, we need to go all out. If we are going for peace and want to talk and educate, we need to got all out.

Who are we fighting? A group of people? So why are we attacking a nation? By attacking a country we are creating terroists. For each person we kill, their friends and family will take up arms. They will continue to retaliate as long as we fight. The solution? If you are going to fight, then we need to wipe out every man, woman, and child. You need to destroy their factories, their hospitals, their homes, everything. Complete genocide. This way their will be no one left to be terroists. Otherwise, only attacking a country will only make things worse. For some reason, this sounds familiar. Two middle eastern nations fighting back and forth for years and it has yet to be solved. Not to mention that Europe will have something to say about it.

If we are going the peace route, then we need to take out our troops. We need to support their governement, gain their trust, and give them support (that they asked for) in hunting down terroist groups in their own country. We sure as hell wouldn't let a european countries' military force onto our soil to destroy areas and places of suspected terrioist hideouts. By not giving the people a visable reason to hate us, then it will be hard to continue the hate. It will take decades, perhaps centuries but the better off, more educated a people are, the more likly they are to avoid violence. The problem with this is (and I support the "war people" in this thought) how do you allow murderers and people who are planning to attack you to live?

Either way, education and helping or going to war and conducting military operations, is valid, but we must fully commit one way or another. It is hard to educate and gain trust when you are fighting someone and if you are going to fight someone, get the job done or else nothing will get done. If you are not willing to completely destroy the nation and it's people, then nothing will get done and violence will keep going back and forth. This is a hard pill to swallow. On the same token, if we go the peace route, then we will have to put up with terroist attacks for a long time and suffer them while things slow down over the decades. We will have to rely on intellegence to stop the threat before it happens. That is also a hard pill to swallow. Either way, we can't do it half-assed and sacrifice will be called for either way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 5, 2004)

More info on possible reinstatement of the draft.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1115.htm

http://www.livejournal.com/users/lostsatyr/156786.html


----------

