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 (209389)	11/29/2006 12:38:52 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"When the representatives and administration get enough backing to take action on something, then we may actually accomplish something (for better or worse). Recent operations have been along these lines.....The funding has been appropriated, the military/political organization exists and there are willing participants (volunteers). Done. " Your conclusion assumes a static state. In the real world getting people to buy into a war is just the first step. In order to continue to get "volunteers" and "funding" after the "sale" is made, the war must perform as advertised. That means the reasons for the war must be verified, the war must be capable of a successful conclusion and the costs must not be seen as outweighing the benefits. In the case of the Iraqi war the Madison Avenue types who falsely hyped the war should have warned the Administration what to expect when the goods were eventually seen as inferior. Many people want their money back and brand loyalty is disappearing like a cat from a cold bath. I'll bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican so you probably know what I mean. "I see no reason under our current situation to compel, coerce or force those to "scared", "busy", "smart", "consciencious", or otherwise opposed to engaging in violent conflict. Do you?" That's tough question for me to answer. It seems criminal to compel someone to serve and die involuntarily. On the other hand, if they don't serve then whoever takes their place can get just as dead and that seems equally criminal. That's one of the reasons I served in a war I didn't believe in. I think a draft could be "just" if you conscripted people on a random basis but made service in the combat MOS's voluntary. You could raise the pay and you'd get some pretty good people who were crazy/daring enough to volunteer for that duty. I'd like to see that because the thing that bothers me about the "all volunteer army" is that Americans tend to think of the soldiers as mercenaries who, as Rumsfeld so subtly stated, "volunteered and shouldn't complain." In a draft-staffed war we tend to think of them more as "our children." They could, after all, end up being our children and we emphasize with them more because we see them as being less eager for battle. I think that's a good governor on the engine of war. We need to think many times before we start that engine revving on the blood of our young. In "our current situation" I think the presence of a draft might have ended this war before it began. If not, I think it would have ended the "popularity" of this war long ago and the election in 2004 would have pressured us to end it sooner. "The only way I see that as being fair, would be for every citizen to be required to commit to a contribution that is equally compensatory to what is required of those who end up wearing a uniform." For those who are getting shot up and saying goodbye to their buddies and their own lives, there is no contribution that is "equally compensatory." As cruel as it sounds, that risk of stepping into the darkness should be shared by us all, equally. That means that none of us should bear that risk, or all of us should bear at least part of it. Only then will we make the kind of cost/benefit decisions that reflect the true costs of the killing and dying. Ed