Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (144148)	8/26/2004 4:46:54 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

During the Viet-Nam war the National Guard was not a forced option as the draft was but an option for those who wanted to avoid Viet Nam service without the stigma of C.O. or draft dodger. If one were called to armed duty(where killing was necessary) in the National Guard and if one then decided to be a C.O. one risked jail. So it is logical that Bush II was pro Viet Nam war until it can be demonstrated that he said he wasn't(in such a way that it could be heard). Claiming that Bush II was not pro Viet Nam war is equivalent to claiming that Bush II was a hypocrite in that he took the chicken way out. As to your statement "...Many people were in the military who were anti-war and many were in who were neutral...." if you define many as 1, 2, many OK I agree, but your "many" is still a small number. Sneering about Clinton's social engineering experiments is a cheap shot. You mix primary and secondary objectives in your argument. The military has always been a way out of poverty(social engineering), a secondary objective which, by the way, didn't apply to Blacks during and after WWII.

To: one_less who wrote (144148)	8/26/2004 8:08:42 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<Many people were in the military who were anti-war and many were in who were neutral but willing to fight if they were ordered to do so by their commanders. Kerry was in the military and anti-war ... as were many of that period. Ever heard of the draft?> And the draft is being threatened again. Being drafted to defend freedom is an oxymoron. Cowards who don't wish to pay the market-determined price of their freedom enslave others who are forced against their will to kill and be killed. At the time I admired Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali who told the cowardly thugs where they could go with their conscription of him. The cowardly government officials attacked him and punished him for having a mind of his own. What price freedom? He pointed out that Vietcong didn't call him nigger. It's funny to see the Rabid Republican Right in this stream, all gung ho to defend freedom, subscribing [to use the word loosely since they have deep pockets and short arms] to the idea of compulsory military service, the press gang, conscription, and force, with threat of prison for the recalcitrant, or death if one resists sufficiently. Neocon called Islamic Jihad people cowards. True cowards are the conscriptors. Neocon did, on reflection, realize that Islamic Jihadists can't realistically be called cowards. I wonder if he can see that those in favour of conscription are self-centred greedy cowards. I note that Hawkmoon is paid the going rate to provide services in Iraq. Conscription provides cannon fodder for the "real" military people to be the boss and order said conscripts around. If all the generals and muckity-mucks and politicians who support and enact the draft were to be paid the same as the lowest paid of the conscripts, and pay rates for citizens and all government employees were also reduced to the same lowest rate, I can see it would be a bit more reasonable. It would then look remarkably like the worst excesses of totalitarian communist rule, which is apparently a great threat to be confronted with noocular weapons and everything else. One would have to declare war on oneself. Weird, but that's what freedom means! Another civil war. Bring it on! Mqurice