In a message dated 6/3/05 12:45:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I agree that a military recruiter will paint as "rosey" a picture of
service as possible, but no one has to volunteer.>> sorry, larry, but many, many, many enlisted men sign up because from their perspective, at the time they put their name on the dotted line, that was their only viable option. the military is keenly aware that the socio-economic realities of our country do most of the recruiting for them (why else do you think they gave up the draft?). sure, the recruiter may reel in a few good souls who were tipping in the other direction, but for the most part his job is that of making sure that those who come to his or her office (who for the most part have already made up their minds) fill out the forms properly, and acknowledge whatever disclaimers/full disclosure statements the recruiter may be required to utter. <<It is interesting the much of the activism against the Military is located. . .w[h]ere discourse and discussion is supposted to be applauded, but the military which defends those rights are not allowed to have free expression. . .protesting a member wearing a Military uniform is dishonorable and violates that individuals right to free speech.>> oh lord. where does this mind set come from? do you not see the mental short-circuit necessary to accept this thought process? yes, centers of higher learning champion discourse and debate, the exchange of ideas. and for the military--an institution to which, as has been amply discussed in this thread already, free discourse and exchange of ideas is anathema--to seek recruits therein is itself an attack on higher learning and what it represents. the concept of a civilian nation, a civilian society, was central to our (the u.s.) constitution. civilian, representative government is clearly and unmistakably placed in charge of the armed forces. the military as a culture or member of society in itself, is in no way recognized. in fact, implicit to this formula is that the military has no role, nor right to a voice, in society/the civil forum. therefore, to argue that a person in uniform (in the literal sense, not figuratively) has a right to free speech, stands on shaky ground if you're suggesting that the wearing of the uniform (and in so doing, acting as a representative of or spokesman for the military) is itself the speech or a central component of it. furthermore, all this claptrap about defending 'those rights' is no more than a political artifact. in reality, not since the war of 1812 has the u.s. been engaged in a conflict where personal liberties could be construed as being directly attacked, seeing that britain was trying to take back the colonies which had won their independence and, ion the process had taken the ideas of personal and political liberties to a new level (not, i should add, that the american revolution was exactly about 'those rights'). this isn't to say there weren't other occasions where 'those rights' were indirectly threatened, certainly. but come on, let's be honest. wwII, for example, wasn't really about defending personal liberties, not primarily. if it were, the u.s would have gotten involved much sooner. it was really a war against aggression and economic competition (particularly in the pacific theatre). and it takes a mental contortion of titanic proportions to accept the idea that slaughtering thousands and thousands of an indegenous people all the way on the other side of the globe, as the u.s. did when taking the phillipines from spain, or bloodily dismembering a nation, as we are still in the process of doing in iraq, constitutes a defense of 'those rights'. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
