Having lived most of my life with the draft, I agree fully that unjust wars just wouldn't last as long if there were that more egalitarian method of human manipulation.
Overall, I have not thought that the current case for the privatization of war and the associated mercenaries would bode well for humanity. On Dec 27, 9:34 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 stress disorder, reprieve has finally come, it is now > > > > > formally recognized as an actual medical condition.... > > > > > > read more » > > > > > > Education benefits are working if you use them. Active Duty military > > > > > offers > > > > > a GI bill of $50,000 - while not Ivy League, can get you a degree > > > > > that will > > > > > keep you from re-enlisting if you are done with active duty. The > > > > > rest is up > > > > > to the individual's drive. I'm not sure that the National Guard has > > > > > decreased or increased, do not have the stats on that, but surely the > > > > > border > > > > > duty and over seas tours have. National Guard and Reserve have been > > > > > on the > > > > > rise for years since the decrease of combat troop count, and base > > > > > closures, > > > > > but more attention has spotlighted them since Bush and 9/11. What > > > > > Obama's > > > > > appointees do will be interesting. Any suppositions on that? > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Isparklaria > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Crossbow, > > > > > > > While I enjoyed your reply, I think you misread mine. I am not > > > > > > against > > > > > > the military. I just want to see it reporting to a President who > > > > > > reports to the people. I would like see the public informed and also > > > > > > able to recall a president who is definately incompetant and > > > > > > probably > > > > > > criminal. I would also like to se the old GI benefits restored where > > > > > > military service gets you a college education. I would like to see > > > > > > real military service, not Bush's national guard stint, be a > > > > > > prequisite to be commander in chief. I would like to see national > > > > > > service of some sort, either military or peace corps or something > > > > > > else > > > > > > required for full citizenship. Enough service would also get you a > > > > > > free college education. There are many more changes that I would > > > > > > like > > > > > > to see. I am not for killing but I accept the necessity for now and > > > > > > for any forseable future of a strong military. But it must, must, > > > > > > must, must be accountable to the people. The people and or the > > > > > > friends > > > > > > and family should also be in the army, so that war hurts all of us, > > > > > > not just the few who have enlisted. And a tax cut durring a war so > > > > > > that we don't feel it. That is a treasonous act. > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:53 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "the average joe is quickly turned into a killer through military > > > > > > > training" As well as are martial artists and police, whose > > > > > > > training is > > > > > > > much deeper at times than footsoldiers...and I believe those are > > > > > > > whom you > > > > > > > are concentrating on - right? Interesting that you choose only > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > perspective of "killing machine" as not all troops are trained to > > > > > > > be foot > > > > > > > soldiers, but a vast majority of today's standing armies are > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > and > > > > > > > removed to supply line and command. Most of the boot camp > > > > > > > training and > > > > > > > follow-up techinical schools are focused on building teamwork, and > > > > > > > preventive/protective technology instead of end result killing. > > > > > > > Of course > > > > > > > units are taught to kill in unison, while covering thier asses, to > > > > > > survive > > > > > > > long enough to achieve objectives. Where was a standing military > > > > > > > invented? WHY? originally? to protect and if you are Amerind, it > > > > > > > was war > > > > > > for > > > > > > > resources to survive. Even Chimps do this today over territory. > > > > > > > MOST primitive tribes either trade or fight, or both on occasion. > > > > > > Soldiers > > > > > > > are never instant inhuman killing > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
