Jason, many of the old money power elite you mention do have offspring in the military. Are they enlisted? no, they are officers that most likely graduate from West Point or some other school. Point is, they are protected in positions they usually do not merit (think Bush) and never see a foot soldier unless it is too give a speech or pass through a medical ward shaking hands. I cannot believe we would ever need a draft, but that is my opinion based on living with military...perhaps I am duped? There need is not the same for the footsoldier that it was in WWII or even Vietnam. It is much more technical and even though all you see on TV is the foot soldier's going room to room, the bulk is far removed from the frontlines. Put it this way, there are more murders on American soil everyday, than there is in the whole war as waged today and that includes civilians.
many politicians kids go to the military just to say they did = G. Bush is perfect example. <<<<The point was that I don't believe for a second that people will avoid war for the noble reasons you originally described (reduce oppression, etc.). Tribes of people (government officials, nations, religious organizations, etc) will war if the cost to that specific organization is not that great and the payoff far outweighs the cost. The neocons probably benefited overall in the Iraq war. A draft or conscription would probably help deter war because wealthy and powerful people's children would also be put in harms way to protect resources. For example, the neoconservatives would be put at risk of death (or their children) instead of just having other people die to protect their resources. It is quite amazing how a group of old men and a few old women can convince young people to readily died for a cause while those old people sit well out of harms way and don't incur the financial sacrifices.>>>> Jason On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jason (Memphis) <[email protected] > wrote: > > The point was that I don't believe for a second that people will avoid > war for the noble reasons you originally described (reduce oppression, > etc.). Tribes of people (government officials, nations, religious > organizations, etc) will war if the cost to that specific organization > is not that great and the payoff far outweighs the cost. The neocons > probably benefited overall in the Iraq war. > > A draft or conscription would probably help deter war because wealthy > and powerful people's children would also be put in harms way to > protect resources. For example, the neoconservatives would be put at > risk of death (or their children) instead of just having other people > die to protect their resources. It is quite amazing how a group of > old men and a few old women can convince young people to readily died > for a cause while those old people sit well out of harms way and don't > incur the financial sacrifices. > > Jason > > On Dec 26, 11:23 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 26, 7:24 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > hmmmm....I wonder if an informed citizenry wouldn't just continue use > > > the military to increase wealth but not talk about it so openly. > > > > I don't think Americans would do this at this time. The United > > Nations, nuclear weapons and breakdown of international trade would be > > additional deterrents for the USA as well as other nations. I also > > believe that Americans as a whole don't like war. However, if an > > informed citizenry > > increased the wealth of all, or at least most, and sacrificed human > > lives to do it, it might be crazy and cruel, but at least it would be > > more equitible than what we have now. Presently a few thousand have > > lost lives of friends or family members, more have been seriously > > wounded, nearly all have lost money, by way of the national debt, and > > a few have made billions. Or nation as a whole has been severly > > weakened. This is not even counting the horrendous situation on the > > other side (the Iraqis and Afghanis). It is time to bring the war > > profiteers, and their puppets in our goverment, to trial. > > > > By the way, I forgot to mention General Butler's solution. He > > suggested conscripting suppilies as well as soldiers, thereby taking > > the profit out of war for arms dealers. > > > > On Dec 26, 7:24 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > "[The military] of an informed citizenry...will be used for self- > > > defense and when feasible to help fight tyranny and oppression." > > > > > hmmmm....I wonder if an informed citizenry wouldn't just continue use > > > the military to increase wealth but not talk about it so openly. That > > > seems to be the trend and tendency. I don't think that tendency or > > > trend will stop until the bloodlines amongst countries and economic > > > ties are so strong that too many informed citizens would be upset with > > > the killing of their relatives from the opposing country and wouldn't > > > want to risk damaging the economic gains from that opposing country. > > > > > Jason > > > > > On Dec 26, 10:18 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know what Obama plans to do with the military as far as base > > > > closures and the size of the standing army. As I see it he has one of > > > > two reasonable routes. > > > > > > 1. He can accept that America has taken the role of worldwide > enforcer > > > > and do the job right. The first most important step here is to take > > > > the army back from control of the international corporations. I > > > > believe that war for profit has been the primary force running the > > > > American army for well over 100 years. As evidence, here is a link to > > > > the book "War Is A Racket," by Major General Smedley Butler. > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html > > > > Once the army is following the will of an informed citizenry, then it > > > > will be used for self-defense and when feasible to help fight tyranny > > > > and oppression. Notice that I said when feasible. Helping others, > when > > > > possible, does help us, or so I believe. But not when it leaves us > > > > overextended. Then it helps no one. Life Guards, for example, are > > > > taught not to attempt a rescue that they think is not possible. Why > > > > risk two lives. Why run down our military, lose American lives and > > > > ruin our economy for nothing. The army must not be dominated by > > > > mercenaries. This is one of the things that led to the downfall of > > > > Rome. When our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and > friends > > > > are in the army, we will not go to war so easily. When we do, we will > > > > have a plan to win with the fewest possible casualties, like > Clinton's > > > > war in Yugoslavia. If the Commander in chief is failing, he should be > > > > recalled. Much of the killing of non participating civilians occurs > > > > when the mission is not clear and it stalls, like in Vietnam and in > > > > Iraq. > > > > > > 2. The second approach would be to give up being the world's > > > > policeman. Neither the Iraq or Afghanistan wars would have been > > > > necessary. The Afghanis were willing to turn Bin Laden and his crew > > > > over to a neutral world court. Now they are roaming free. The > pressure > > > > was working on Saddam Hussein. Inspectors were being allowed to do > > > > their jobs. Of course if these wars had been run properly then things > > > > wouldn't have turned out so badly and as much as I hate war, I might > > > > believe that we did the right thing. > > > > > > As I see it these are two reasonable options. Both of them are far > > > > from ideal, but necessary in the world that we live in > > > > > > On Dec 25, 10:01 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No, I did not say anti-military, but any generic reference to > faceless > > > > > people as child killers is not exactly positive either. We risk > dehumanize > > > > > them like we accuse them of dehumanizing their target enemy if we > drop the > > > > > casual killer labels. I believe we agree on most as I said before, > how we > > > > > say it is just as important. Curious enough, the old GI benefits > you > > > > > mention are in place, and for some, particularly those diagnosed > with > > > > > traumatic stress disorder, reprieve has finally come, it is now > > > > > formally recognized as an actual medical condition.... > > > > > > > read more » > > > > > > > Education benefits are working if you use them. Active Duty > military offers > > > > > a GI bill of $50,000 - while not Ivy League, can get you a degree > that will > > > > > keep you from re-enlisting if you are done with active duty. The > rest is up > > > > > to the individual's drive. I'm not sure that the National Guard > has > > > > > decreased or increased, do not have the stats on that, but surely > the border > > > > > duty and over seas tours have. National Guard and Reserve have been > on the > > > > > rise for years since the decrease of combat troop count, and base > closures, > > > > > but more attention has spotlighted them since Bush and 9/11. What > Obama's > > > > > appointees do will be interesting. Any suppositions on that? > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Isparklaria < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > Crossbow, > > > > > > > > While I enjoyed your reply, I think you misread mine. I am not > against > > > > > > the military. I just want to see it reporting to a President who > > > > > > reports to the people. I would like see the public informed and > also > > > > > > able to recall a president who is definately incompetant and > probably > > > > > > criminal. I would also like to se the old GI benefits restored > where > > > > > > military service gets you a college education. I would like to > see > > > > > > real military service, not Bush's national guard stint, be a > > > > > > prequisite to be commander in chief. I would like to see national > > > > > > service of some sort, either military or peace corps or something > else > > > > > > required for full citizenship. Enough service would also get you > a > > > > > > free college education. There are many more changes that I would > like > > > > > > to see. I am not for killing but I accept the necessity for now > and > > > > > > for any forseable future of a strong military. But it must, must, > > > > > > must, must be accountable to the people. The people and or the > friends > > > > > > and family should also be in the army, so that war hurts all of > us, > > > > > > not just the few who have enlisted. And a tax cut durring a war > so > > > > > > that we don't feel it. That is a treasonous act. > > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:53 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "the average joe is quickly turned into a killer through > military > > > > > > > training" As well as are martial artists and police, whose > training is > > > > > > > much deeper at times than footsoldiers...and I believe those > are whom you > > > > > > > are concentrating on - right? Interesting that you choose only > the > > > > > > > perspective of "killing machine" as not all troops are trained > to be foot > > > > > > > soldiers, but a vast majority of today's standing armies are > technical > > > > > > and > > > > > > > removed to supply line and command. Most of the boot camp > training and > > > > > > > follow-up techinical schools are focused on building teamwork, > and > > > > > > > preventive/protective technology instead of end result killing. > Of course > > > > > > > units are taught to kill in unison, while covering thier asses, > to > > > > > > survive > > > > > > > long enough to achieve objectives. Where was a standing > military > > > > > > > invented? WHY? originally? to protect and if you are Amerind, > it was war > > > > > > for > > > > > > > resources to survive. Even Chimps do this today over > territory. > > > > > > > MOST primitive tribes either trade or fight, or both on > occasion. > > > > > > Soldiers > > > > > > > are never instant inhuman killing machines. When was the last > time you > > > > > > > really talked to a lifer in the military? or a bootcamp > graduate? Many > > > > > > > humans can kill and we all can be cruel! I am not just blasting > you for > > > > > > > questioning, or divulging your perspective,, I am protesting a > current of > > > > > > > codswallop fueled by this Burning Bush administration that has > made a > > > > > > > mockery of many. Along with the spining hate mongers of TV!... > > > > > > > > > read more » > > > > > > > > > Too many people believe in HollyWoods version of the Arnold > Swartzenegger > > > > > > > commando. All movies with military representations follow a > stupid > > > > > > > off-base generic, very far removed, twisted glorification of > the real > > > > > > > thing. Though I agree with much that you are saying about the > regimes > > > > > > that > > > > > > > control our soldiers...some of your information is very > unrepresentative > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the real military human on a day to day basis. This > administration has > > > > > > done > > > > > > > more damage to the image of soldiery than the Vietnam War > because the > > > > > > > current altercation has potential to never end. You are > accusing the > > > > > > many, > > > > > > > and degrading the few in the manner you present them. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- gnothe se auton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
