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: cnyndwllr who wrote (209442)	11/29/2006 1:33:39 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

”Your conclusion assumes a static state. No it recognizes the current state, which I agree is dynamic and is changing as we speak. 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. No argument with that. I'll bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican so you probably know what I mean. You lose that bet. I vote my conscience, and so far have not voted for a Republican for President. Maybe next time, maybe not. >>>Me: "I see no reason under our current situation to compel, coerce, or force those too "scared", "busy", "smart", "consciencious", or otherwise opposed to engaging in violent conflict. Do you?" <<< That's tough question for me to answer. Rightfully so; it shouldn’t be easy for anyone. It seems criminal to compel someone to serve and die involuntarily. It is a crime against humanity that cannot be excused by blaming it on societal mores. On the other hand, if they don't serve then whoever takes their place can get just as dead and that seems equally criminal. Huh? Who was it that said, "What if they gave a war and nobody came," Guthry? No one takes my place in a fight for something I don't want or believe in. We all choose, to some extent, our path in life that will lead up to our deaths. It could be drinking, smoking that cause us to die at an early age. It could be obesity. It could be a cause that we choose to sacrifice our lives to. None of those choices are criminal acts done too us. So we all choose what to live for, which is the same as saying we choose what to die for. The ultimate question we continue to press upon ourselves is, “is the life we’ve chosen worth living”, If the answer is no we change or commit suicide. Choosing military service for someone who is against it is not the same as someone choosing it because they believe it is a worthwhile cause. I don’t agree with your logic. Btw we all end up dead. That does not justify taking away someone’s freedom to chose a violent lifestyle over a peaceful one. That's one of the reasons I served in a war I didn't believe in. If you made such a mistake, its never too late to just change your view of it. I have children and would never encourage them to do things just because I did it that way. I encourage all of them to show me they can do better than I’ve done. I am the first to expose my own failures and weaknesses, and believe I have become a stronger person for it. ”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 remember the last lottery. There were guys who had no idea what to do with their lives and admitted that if they got drafted they wouldn’t object. There were other guys who adamantly opposed what was going on in VietNam. The latter often got drafted and caused nothing but problems while in the military. I’m sure you remember how awful the military morale was in 1970 or so. There is nothing fair about that and I don’t see how anyone could be thinking that would result a good fighting force in the future. ” 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." Joining the military is a choice. There should be grievance procedures that are according to due process but it should always be looked at for what it is; a choice to join a deadly violent force, organized behind political goals. I don’t mean that as a callous remark, it is simply the fact of the matter. 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. Such ‘children’ and their mommies/daddies do not belong in a fox hole. No one should go unless or until they are educated enough and mature enough to understand the commitment and the sacrifices that may be required as a consequence of joining the force (a fighting force). Why would we want our children, if they are opposed to battle, to be signed up for the military (a deadly violent force)? This thinking actually puts the idea of a draft into the category of anti-military. I think that's a good governor on the engine of war. Civilian decision making (Congress and Administration) is by design qualified to operate as that governor. ”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.” Ok well then we agree the draft is more likely to act as an anti-military mechanism than to strengthen our fighting force. It looks to me like a sideways ploy and not a healthy one. 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. Not everyone in the military is getting shot up. In fact a small percentage of military personnel are. However, everyone in the military has chosen the compensation they will receive over compensation for alternative civilian choices. They all have their own reasons. Some believe in the cause and are bold about taking such risks. Others have made the choice for different reasons but it is a choice. In other words the sacrifices made by military service are not identical. What I’m suggesting is that if you are going to impose a life change on people being drafted, then everyone in the country should be compelled to make adjustments in their life style that are as significant. Until there is universal war in the world, I don’t think that will get support. Even if that were the case; if I saw it as a conscientious conflict for me personally, I would object. That means that none of us should bear that risk, None of us are forced to at the moment. It is a choice. We all take risks. I saw an article today that claims over 25% of Japanese who have had credit reductions committed suicide. mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp The choices/risks that make life worth living for one person, do not necessarily work for others. I am for choice, but if you are going to impose life changing roles on one then do it for all.