Hi y'all - most people live on scraps!
On Dec 29, 10:16 am, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote:
> That was just an observation based on experience and not intended to be
> derogatory to anyone's opinion/observations, as are all my posts at the
> heart. Do you think most people are ignorant intentionally because they do
> not have family on active duty and don't want to think about the
> raminfications of war because of the potential for death period and for
> nothing else? You can expect questions from me time to time:) These issues
> are infinetly important to me and my family - I have had to live with worry
> over family members in the military my whole life and have no problem
> examining upside down and sideways. My husband is enlisted, but believe it
> or not, I have family in the pentagon, CIA, FBI, and others, dead and alive,
> to think about as well. Top it off, I even know a few of those evil
> civilian contractors. It does give me a very, very, small window, but it is
> a poignant one with no excuses of glory or defense in it, though I will
> scream foul if I percieve one. What I do know scares me and what I don't
> scares me even more. It is good to have you all to work it over with:)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:47 AM, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
