User:Silverback/conscription

Bush v. Kerry on the Draft

John Kerry is a nationalist with the hubris to believe he knows what is best for others. Look at his "100 Day Plan to Change America", he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you...".

Look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area.

Don't be duped by scare mongering. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictable than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe for personal reasons. Note that Bush chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that Kerry's service was admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also.

It appears the Bush Administration's fear mongering that Cleveland would be attacked by al-Qaeda if Kerry was president worked more than Kerry's fear mongering that we would have a draft if Bush was re-elected. Interesting generalizations about "duty types", I was previously under the impression that most were Republicans simply because AF volunteers generally vote that way. Of course there are even easier ways to end the debate about conscription, like quit thinking everything is a matter of our national security. - Dejitarob 21:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Each side had their share of the terrorism scare mongering. Kerry was harping on the tax cuts while airline luggage, bridges, tunnels, buildings etc. were neglected. It would be a waste of money to harden every soft target in the United States, there are too many, just consider the number of elementary schools, etc. The dollars are more efficiently spent on intelligence, investigations and surveilance overseas. Al Qaeda appears to already be mostly depleted of recruits westernized enough to penetrate the US. If the US can keep resources like oil revenue out of their hands, it will have won most of the battle.--Silverback 22:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The dollars are more efficiently spent on intelligence, investigations and surveilance overseas. I totally agree but both candidates were equally as bad and many hacks even to this day continue to unrealistically inflate the importance of domestic security like borders and ports. The 9/11 report showed just how lucky the hijackers were that our intelligence was asphyxiatingly beaurucratic. But I wouldn't be too sure that al-Qaeda cannot "blend in", as they previously did and their recruitment is very high. Worried about oil revenues being funneled for terrorism? Yet another reason to stop cuddling the Sauds, Sabahs, Sa'ids, Nahyans and Thanis. Of course we will need to invest more than the current measly $1 billion/year in alternative energy, mandate greater efficiency, tackle the pathetic system called public transportation and stop designing energy plans around energy corporations. As more crude exporters transform to net importers, we can do it now or tomorrow. History reveals that the battle will continue as long as there is widespread support and sympathies. Anyways, I enjoy discussions with someone who is educated and informed but I wish I knew of a less cumbersome and more populated medium than the backend of a user's page on an encylopedia. Do you know of any forums/irc channels/etc? - Dejitarob 06:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, recruitment is high now, but the 9/11 attackers were western educated, middle and upper class fundamentalists. These are a rare resource and the madrossa and al Jazeera culture is not providing this kind of education. I agree about the need for an energy policy, and the high oil prices have got the ball rolling on exploration, conservation and alternative energy. It is difficult to find good forums. Wikipedia, as clumsy as this is, at least provides some permanence. I can't see putting the effort into transitory chat rooms or blogs. Here at least, even if things can be reverted or overwritten, they are recoverable, and there is a culture of presenting more than one side.--Silverback 08:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Americans... *shudders* Al Quaida running out of recruits? I'm curious as to which world you live in. The attack on Afghanistan, albeit backed by the international community out of 9\11 sympathy, increased their recruitment more than enough. Think about it, you are attacked in the heart of your homeland, the western world rallies to your aid. Al Quaida is attacked at their heart, and any passive sympathizers they might have had, rallied to theirs. The war on Iraq, not even backed internationally, made even more sympathizers join their ranks, in addition to a great number of other, new terrorist organizations popping up all over the world. Several studies have shown that the danger of terrorist attacks, as well as the danger to westerners visiting arab countries, has radically increased after you began your crusafe.

"Lack of westernised recruits"? You have no idea, do you? How many westerners did you lot, illegaly even, incarcerate on your Guantanamo base? More than enough to hijack another twenty planes. Thinking that only arabs can be terrorists, and that everyone in the western world actually supports the actions of the USA, is naïve. Hundreds of thousands of people in my little country are already enraged. If only 0,1% of those are crazy enough to turn to terrorism, it'd be several hundred people from one of the wealthiest countries in the world turning on you. We've got less than half the population of NYC in the entire country together. Europe has twice as many inhabitants as the US of A. A very, very large percentage of that population is more than fed up with seeing a country they regard as little more than an overgrown bully boy telling them what to do, who to shoot, and where to stick it when they're done.

It's no secret that the US is the new world. You say "ancient architecture", and you think 300 year old timber lodge. We say "ancient architecture" and we think 3000 year old temples. You say "the poets of old" and think of Poe. We say "the poets of old" and think Homer. No offense to timber lodges or Poe, but it doesen't quite fit our perception of "antique". My point is that the US, although it frankly hates being reminded, is young. It has no cultural heritage worth notice. Thus, Europe laughs a little when the US beats its chest, and shouts about greatness. We wonder when it presumes to be our superior. We shudder when it orders us about, screams at us for cowardice and inferiority. We turn to rage when it runs us over, laughing at our "ridiculous" notion that peace is good, and war is bad. You want to fight, it's no wonder. It's what every hyperactive child with inferiority complexes wants. It's just to show the possession of some potency. But we've tried it. We were bathing in one anothers blood before the first inuits crossed the straits to Alaska. It was lust war plunder and new land that drove the first Europeans - my ancestors, the vikings - to North America. We know what it is, and we don't like it.

Still, that's just what the US is doing. Calling us cowards and weasels, pretending to know better, acting all high and mighty - we are fed up. It's not that we don't like Americans. We do. Even if you ridicule us, scoff at us, treat us with great disrespect. It's okay, we understand. It's just that it's getting tiresome. We've gone with it for the past 50-60 years, and that's okay. We got in a fight, a real big one, and we bombed one another back to the bleedin' stone age. You came over, helped us out - well, those of us who didn't turn to scary scary communism - and suddenly put yourselves in charge. Well, sure. Why not? So we bought your coke, your movies, your fashions and your cars. We treat you as an equal, as a brother, millions of us adore you, want to be you. But still, you do not grow up. Rather, you turn to infantile, childish screaming and shouting. Gah. So we stop buying your coke, your movies, your fashions, your cars. You just scream louder. Did you know 1 out of 7 Americans cannot place the US on an unmarked map of the world? No. You propably don't even believe me. That's okay. We understand. We wouldn't want to believe it either.

Really, it's okay. We just need to blow off some steam now and then, you know? When a kid raves around all the time, just like the babysitter in Calvin & Hobbes we go a bit mad now and then. It's okay. We understand. You can continue now. --TVPR 08:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to..." made me laugh.

Unsigned one, I had fun writing it too. But with a little historical perspective, it is a quite defensible position. Hopefully, you are no swayed by the extremes of election rhetoric.--Silverback 07:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)-

I've no need to be swayed - it wasn't my election. But as far as electioneering goes, it seems that American poltics is most entertaining (albeit not something I should wish to experience).--Cyberjunkie 15:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Favorite Links

Response to TPVR

I think what Europeans and progressives (sorry about the generalization) lack is perspective, Americans do to some extent too. Yes, Europeans have a long history, but the object lessons don't seem to have taken. They've tried appeasement and got WWII, they failed to work to end conscription in the late twenties when Einstein and Gandhi tried to get a movement going and still practice this most destructive weapon of mass destruction today. Now, their unification culture just seems to move from one form of collectivist thinking to another, from nationalism to internationalism and moral and cultural relativism. But you don't have any answers that you know will work, you just criticise from the sidelines.

Aye, we do criticise from the sidelines, and we don't have answers we know will work. But as I said, we do know that bombing for peace is like fornicating for chastity, to use a suitable cliché. Oh, but first, allow me to apologize for my assaulting style earlier - at times, I tend to abandon tact as means of discussion, seeing as though most people appearing to be radical right-wing fundamentalist, or just have fallen victim to rampant patriotism, do not seem to understand descent arguments. And, to be blunt, you do, at times, appear to be one such.

As for the draft in Europe - it isn't a problem. European teenagers are drafted in small numbers, usually no more than 50% of the yearly number of 18-year olds are called in. They go through a 10-12 month training program. They go home. The reason we do not see the draft as a problem is that we do not go to war. Nobody is going to war with us. We prefer negotiating, for as I said before, we know war deen't slve ny problems. To add, Europe does not have one single huge arms industry whih would profit immensely from us going to war, which may be half the reason nobody is lobbying for it either. It's merely a preparation - if someone (say, the US) should attack us, no man would be completely blank as to how to operate a firearm. Where all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms in the case of invasion (but in reality just killtheir neighbours with them instead), we keep the guns out of the people until war is upon us. Another thing is that the draft is not a forced draft. If you do not want to do military service, for whatever reason, you do public service instead - and don't tell me it's so horrible to do paid service for your community, as a pre-school teacher or whatnot.

Moving on, the EU is an oddity. On the one hand, I support it, as a unipolar world like this one, with the US as the only effective superpower, there can be no balance - and the EU has potential for becoming the counterweight the world needs. At the moment, it's too much like it's been all along; just a ragtag assembly of independent nations. However, it's slowly changing, and it's turning into a supernational governing body with actual power. It recently got its own constitution, and is assembling a small army that is to stand seperately from the participating countries. Anyway, on the other hand, the EU central body is too much like the US government in Washington - corrupt like nothing else, lobbyists having all the power, effectively meaning an EU-led world would only have been a US-led world just with European corporations in power rather than American ones. Also, hating to admit this, I must say I'm somewhat fond of the idea of separate nation-states. But at the same time, I'm not. It's an incredibly complex dilemma, as you apparently well know.

al Qaeda and the Arabs were manufacturing enough hate in their madrossas and Wahabi mosques to plan 9/11 and be "educating" thousands of others. In the year 2001, when over 3000 people were killed in the al Qaeda attacks, over 1.4 million Americans died of all causes. The violence you are making so much of from terrorism that seems rampant in Iraq and less frequently elsewhere, adds up to a few dozen people a day at most. Elections have been held in Palestine, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, who is to say that living examples of democracy and individual freedom won't be more educational and attractive than madrossas of hate, and won't win out in the end. In the mean time collective societies through their governments kill thousands of times more people by delaying access to life saving drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration is estimated to have killed over 1 million people by delaying access to just two classes of drugs, clot busters and beta blockers. So, yes the killing of innocent people should stop, but governments and voters justify it everyday. So why the outrage over a little extra killing in the hopes of a better life for all in the long run? American didn't attack Iraq, it attacked the Saddam regime, it is racist or nationalist to argue that he had more right to be there than us. Our intentions for the Iraqi people were certainly more noble, or at least less coercive.

Now, this is where I get pissed. And got pissed the last time as well. You're absolutely right that there are other things that kills much more than the occupation of Iraq. Sure thing. But the thing you're not right about is that you have any more right to be in power in Iraq than Saddam Hussein. The sufferings of the Iraqi people has not decreased after the American invasion - rather the contrary. People could not always speak their mind before, sure, but at least they could get married without needing to fear bomb raids. They could go to resturants without needing to worry about missiles gone astray. Over there, are you even told what's happening? Were you told, during the war, that you'd fired cruise missiles at Kuwait by accident? Did you register how many of your own and allied planes you shot down? The main cause of "coalition" KIA's were American missiles, grenades, shells and bombs gone astray. One of, if not the main cause of death amongst US soldiers today is suicide. They're being told they'll be greeted as heroes, and once they get there, being snuffed at, shot at, and generally despised, what happens? Of course they kill themselves. Their country has tricked them to sign up for a war that was everything but noble.

But my main problem with you, your argumentation, your general type of people, and basically most Americans: You think democracy solves every problem. Here's a tip; check out your own country. See what good democracy has done you. Check out your inner cities, your public schools, your so-called welfare system. Take a glance at the difference in pay for a worker in a company and his boss at the very top. Here, your average corporation manager makes what, 30-40 times more than a worker - that's Europe as a whole. At your place, it's tenfold that number. People starve in the land of the free, mate. That's what democracy is doing.

Note; I'm not saying democracy is really horrible. I'm just saying that it, like every other governing form man has ever devised, has its flaws. In communism, the flaw is man's in-baked egoism. In democracy, it's rampant corruption and cronyism.

The Europeans have a pretty good strategy that allows them to avoid all the risks and the costs of the coming Pax Americana, just sit on the sidelines as freeriders and criticise America to keep the terrorist focus away from yourselves. Could America have adopted it? Could she have suddenly become pacifist, and hope the peoples with built up hate against her would forgive and forget? There certainly would have been nothing wrong with abandoning the oppressive state of Israel, I wouldn't support my own government if it conscripted, so I can't justify supporting a foreign government that similiarly oppresses its "own" people. Look at me, talking as if governments "owned" or had "rights" to people. Part of the solution is we have to stop thinking that way, sovereignty of nation states is unworthy of respect, if helping to free people from oppression means violating "internationally recognized" sovereignty, so what? Such international law is beneath respect as is any law which protects the violator rather than the violated. So, the US could have abandoned Israel, and tolerated a humanitarian disaster in the middle east and diverted the wahabi fundamentalists for awhile. But what would have sprung up? What would be the trajectory of civilization on this planet? What would these moral primitives do once they coralled all the that oil wealth and knew that Europe had no choice but to submit?

Do you know something funny? Terrorists are terrorists because they are mad at someone. They are mad at you. They are mad at you for, and get this, a reason. American corporations may have come in and exploited all natural rescources, then left. They might have come in, bought up all the fresh water and power supplies from the public, and went on to charge heavily for it. Maybe the US Army has bombed them for some political reason. Maybe they're just hungry and poor and yearning to breathe free, but can't, so they take it out on you. Now, if you take the military budget of the entire world, minus the US, and spend it on humanitarian efforts, there would be food, water, health care, medicines and more than enough leftover money for entertainment as well - for the entire developing world. We wouldn't need sacrifice our chips, our TV sets, or our 6.6 litre engine convertibles. We'd just need to stop buying bombs, guns and tanks. Now, that's the entire world minus the US. If the US dropped their military as well, the entire feed\water\nurse\entertain-the-world scheme could have been repeated another full time. At least. And here comes the funny part - people with food, water, hospitals and entertainment don't, as a rule, become terrorists. They become trade partners. And badabing, up goes the economy. But we wouldn't want that, now would we - a peaceful demilitarized world where nobody could be bothered with hijacking planes on an empty stomach, because some white-skinned dickhead just blew his family to bits during the wedding ceremony.

Frankly sometimes one's past condemns one to a situation where there are not any painless morally clean ways out. Bush chose action and trying to divert the trajectory in the middle east. I can't say his strategy was right, or will work, but it certainly is interesting and does immediate near term massive good at little cost in lives, just ask the Kurds and the Shiites. How many times does America have to be proven right in the end before Europe learns? Perhaps America doesn't know anymore than Europe, but just has a little more tendency to follow its moral compass or intuition, than overthink itself into inaction. America has been wrong before, of course, such as getting involved in wwI at all, and then once involved not insisting on a just peace. And she is wrong now about the drug war, which is costing far more lives than Iraq, yet is not getting the headlines.

To summarize my reply to your reply, I must admire your faith in your government. I do think it's admirable that you seem to believe they went to a bloody full-scale war with the best intentions. The kurds are, for your information, enraged. The Turks, who've been opressing and persecuted them even worse than Saddam's regime - yes, that's right, Turkey, your allies and friends - still won't cut them any slack, and when they turn to their "benefactors" - the Americans in the region, pleading them to invade Turkey, they get a cold shoulder. We're talking about a people who've been warring against everyone and everything, just like the Palestinians, for longer than I care to recall. As for the Shiites, sure, they're much happier - it looks like they'll get a chance to opress the Sunnis in Iraq, in the most lovely payback-ish way. Revenge sure is sweet. The Sunni, the other hand, are being shot at, and shoot back, and will propably get the same treatment Serbs in Kosovo got after the latest NATO-intervention as soon as the US flee. I say flee, not withdraw, as that's what's happening.

Which makes Condoleezza Rice's statement about Iran, that "they should fullfill their international obligations, or we'll just have to take the next step. And I think we all know what that means", more than a little amusing. First, she represents a country that, on every turn, has neglected their own intntl. obligations 100%, and second, the US has just about no more military power left. 130,000 men are standing in Iraq, and cannot be pulled out in quite a long time. Reserves are being called in - 50-year old women who quit the army ages ago, even - and those who've returned from Iraq are being called down once again. What's next step going to be? Invading Iran, which actually has an army, with coke cans?

So, what about perspective?--Silverback 12:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A broad perspective is important. One has to be able to realize ones wrongs as well as take pride in ones rights. I know Europe has done much wrong. Incredible amounts of wrong. But attacking Iraq, on false grounds, against international law, with false motives - that was not, in any concievable meaning of the word, right. Only rightist. --TVPR 19:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)