Be offended if you want, you're free to, but I think that post as a whole is probably one of the least offensive things I've posted.

If I was you, I'd be offended that your American boys are dying in a desert for ungrateful people, to line oil company pockets, at your expense. I don't blame those boys and I respect the job they do, unfortunately for them, they're merely pawns in the game.

I don't see mandatory enlistment as a positive thing, especially during so called "peace time". Any experience one gets from the military can be obtained elsewhere. To suggest that military experience is somehow better for the majority is to my mind, a complete falsehood.

I am against forcing anyone to join the military. Whether you choose not to fight because you're a coward, you morally disagree with killing, or you don't like the reason for going to war, it should be your choice. If sufficient numbers are refusing to enlist, then perhaps we should examine the reason for that, and the reason for conflict. I fail to see how that is offensive or disrespectful to those that chose to enlist and serve their country in that manner.

I would refuse service in a war which I felt was unjustified and did nothing to preserve my freedom, (ie Iraq) the freedom fought for and won in the past. I'd have been the first guy in line to volunteer in WWII. Enlistment was never even the slightest problem in WWII.

Taxes -

Hypocritical perhaps, but I see two key differences -

1. Paying taxes doesn't endanger my life and my family's future.

2. No one likes taxes, but in the end, you get back what you put in. What has the war in Iraq got anyone, other than more taxes?

Look at other analogies for mandatory service -

Political office, Law enforcement, social work, small business ownership, garbage collection, all of these things and thousands more are required to keep this country going and free, and it would be extremely beneficial to the country if more people were involved. Should we make two years of service in one of these callings mandatory?

Not all freedoms are won and preserved by the gun.

Waxy

 

The number ONE political reason in existance; it would be unpopular and embaracing.

Probably near the top of the list could also be:

Mass panic
Stock market crash
ARMED public revolt (in America)


You even have to acknowledge the possibility of an American so outraged he straps a bomb on himself and blows up a government building.

Now that I spent so much time on the potentially graphic reasons, I won't waste any more of your time by going into the fact that full and unbiased media coverage of "newsworthy events" does not exist on a National scale in this country.

Mike.
(the optimist)
P.S. Are you aware that at the Library of Congress web site you can read declasified documents for yourself that prove conclusively that the CIA and OTHER US Government agencies installed, maintained, and provied the vast majority of dope for, Manuel Noriega (the deposed and jailed Panamanian "President")?

That has never been on CNN to my knowledge.

 

You talkin' to me? I don't get it.

 

There you go again; you're writing along there, sounding pretty good (well, sort of) and then you go an end with THIS statement.

I'm willing to learn. Make me a short list of countries where the people live relitively free and elect their own leaders where that freedom hasn't been won (and isn't preserved) by the gun?

(And PLEASE don't start running off a list of the Scandinavian countries. I mean FREE countries, and ones that have something anyone would want to take by force.)

 

The war on terrorism is a different kind of war than we have ever fought before. There are no conventional battlefields. The enemy is not trying to seize control of geographical objectives. They aim to kill our civilians and way of life. Their goal is for us to live in terror..... hence the term "terrorism."

Now, some of you don't believe Iraq had anything to do with the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. They may not have. I know of no direct connection. But Iraq is a haven for terrorism nonetheless. So are a dozen other countries throughout the world. Hell, a cell was even discovered in Alabama last year.

I believe there are two philosophical trains of thought here. On one side, you have those that believe America should be more of an isolationist and only take action when our shores are directly attacked by a conventional force. On the other side, you have those that believe we should take action whenever, wherever to support our national interest.

An analogy to the first group is those people that believe you should only worry about your truck when it won't run. They do minimal maintenance. The second group on the other hand, believes you need to change things when they even hint of wearing out. They are really into preventive maintenance. They never wait to something actually fails. Sometimes they seem to go a little overboard. Now, which group do you want to take a trip with?

Iraq's conventional Army was never a threat to our homeland. It never had the power to project itself beyond its borders. Saddam did however have the ability to sponsor terrorism. He did offer bounties of $25K to the family of any terrorists who killed an Israeli or American. Was he most the deserving dictator to be taken out? I don't know, probably not. But the cost-benefit ratio seemed to make sense to our leaders.

Men fight harder when they believe in the cause and believe that their country is behind them. But whether or not one supports the cause for war is irrelevant to the decision to carry out the orders given to them by their superiors, aka: the President. Soldiers are in fact pawns. Very honorable pawns that deserve your support and respect. My quote was aimed at those who are philosophically opposed to fighting for their country or anything else. They live with the freedoms given to them by others and curse them for the way they were won.

I do not believe military service should be mandatory. That may come as to surprise to some of you. I think it does the vast majority of people who join a lot of good. There are experiences to be had and development to be gained that cannot be found elsewhere. The leadership development in the U.S. military is second to none. I do think everyone should serve thier country in some sort or fashion, but I don't like the idea of makingn it mandatory. I would rather acknowledge your sacrifice, shake your hand and thank you for service.

Frankly, I don't want everyone in the military and certainly don't support the draft. Many don't have what it takes and the officers and NCO's don't have the time for your crap. If we're having enlistment/retention problems then maybe we should compensate them a little better and make military life more attractive.

 

Jarlaxle/Waxy:

I know we usually do not see eye to eye, but I side with you. No one should be forced to go into an all out battle for "justice and peace" and "goodwill towards men" if they don't agree to it. That's pointless IMO. I have great respect for the men/women who fought to make our country as great as it is. (even though we're slowly falling down the drain) Here's the kicker though... While I agree with you 2, I also agree in fighting for youself as well as your country. If I were forced into a battle for something I didn't believe in, I would still go for the beliefs of others. While in the battle I'd give everything I had for the lives of my fellow men/women. Most of you know me to be a bit of a "radical Christian" or "Bible thumper" or whatever, but even in the Bible there were much needed wars.

I sooooo wish that we lived in a perfect world where war was never an option. The problem is, whether we agree to it or not, war has and is coming. When it comes, and you are forced to fight for your freedoms, pride, rights, and your life, I sincerely hope every person would give their all for the sake of the cause. I'd rather die fighting for something, than live for nothing.

The war in Iraq... the hit us where it hurt for absolutely no other reason than hate and "religion." That's it. We absolutely had to fight back, or we would have just been hit again and again until we were dead. It's like Pit-Bull(sp?). Let's say he makes a great gaurd dog for a while and he's pretty loyal. Then, all of sudden, he turns on you. Not only you, but your wife and kids. There's only 1 thing to do with him, and it 'aint "give the dog a bone." If he attacks you even once...you have to eliminate the threat.

 

mikestjames,

To think that your freedom and way of life were won and are maintained strictly by violent action and conquest is pretty naive.

Money makes the world go around. The US, Canada, Australia, and most G7 and "industrialized" nations are in the position they are in right now because they have the economic and industrial might to get and maintain their current levels of wealth. Take away the economy, you take away their might.

On a individual scale, if I take away your ability to earn a living, I can very quickly take away your freedoms. No need for a gun. Think about it.

The stroke of a pen can be as powerful as the pulling of a trigger.

Waxy

PS - I've never been to the Scandinavian countries, but there must be a reason why they are consistently rated the top countries in the world in which to live.

 

Personally, I think it is because of the beautiful blond babes!!

 

agreed

 

20 years ago yesterday, 20 October 1983, 283 Marines were killed in Beiruit, and the matter quickly disappeared from peoples memory. It was an act of terrorism. Several years later, a gas was released in a Japanese subway. It, also, was an act of terrorism. 11 September 2001 aircraft started crashing into buildings here in the United States. This, for many, was the first act of terrorism.

However, as many know, it was not the first. It has been happening globally for years. The US has been a desired target for years. If I could explain fully what I know, it would be a rude awakening. And my knowledge BARELY scratches the surface.

As someone else tried to explain, we are currently involved in a method of warfare we have never been involved in. It's not a territorial warfare, or one of pure attrition. It's a battle to break up very well founded and organized networks. This will not be fast, nor pretty, nor will it end in glorious parades of confetti and glitter. It is more of a lifestyle switch. A new form of policing action. At least for us. The rest of the world has been doing it for years. We just started two years ago.

In any event, try not to criticize what you may not fully understand. There may be more information than meets the eye. Remember: at one time, everyone knew the world was flat.

Dan Q

 

I really hope that wasn't aimed towards me because I never criticized what's going on in Iraq. Actually, if you read me correctly, I support it.

 

No sir. It was a general statement. One for folks to take to heart if it fits, or to otherwise take in passing. But from what I've seen of your posts on this thread, it was not aimed at you.

Sorry for the ambiguity on that.

Dan Q

 

Not really, and definitely not since the PATRIOT Act.

 

Well, we're beating this to death, and getting WAY away from MTMD's subject, but...

Scandinavian countries are voted top in the world by the same people who voted to give Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize. 'Nuff said about that.

Powerful economic engines don't exist in a vacuum. You have to be able to KEEP what you have in order to enjoy it. Though naturally protected from our enemies (to certain extent) by geography, the world is getting smaller. We promote our interests in the world by military might, either directly or indirectly...you can't subtract force or threat of force from the equation. When we negotiate treaties, it is by threat of force that we gain advantage, whether that threat is implicit or not. As a Canadian, your perspective is naturally much different from mine...Canada is a defacto protectorate of the United States. We continue to make sure you have the right to wield your scary pens. How long do you think South Korea would would continue to enjoy their brand of democratic government and economic prosperity without the massive military machine (both U.S. and South Korean) that it takes to keep Kim Jong-Mentally-il in his cage? Remember 1950? Wag your pens all you want; put a guy with a Glock into a room with ten angry scribblers and see who comes out.

Finally, my skills are a valuable commodity in the economy. If, as a CEO, you don't properly value those skills , you can swish your pen around and end my income stream...for about fifteen minutes, or for as long as it takes me to pick up the phone. Who gets hurt worst in this scene? I'd probably net a raise in the move. Politicians can adversely affect us with their mighty pens, of course, but only at their peril. They need to get re-elected, and in extremis, they want to continue to live. History is FULL of examples illustrating what happens to powerful people when the rest get tired of their scribbling. Behind every powerful person armed with a pen are a bunch of thick-necked, beady-eyed gun toters making sure the scribbler gets to continue scribbling. Whenever someone else comes along with bigger, badder gun-toters, guess what happens?

What it all boils down to is that there are basically three types of people in the world: Those who can count, and those who can't.

(That's a joke, but meant to imply that you and I are never going to agree on this.)

I know I said I'd keep this short, but I guess I lied.

 

No economy means you better be a good subsistence farmer and hunter. No economy means no jobs, no matter what you do. You need to look at the big picture.

Ask a few guys who lived through the Great Depression if they ever thought they could lose everything they had and become un-employable overnight.

What can you do about the economy right now as a voter? Not a a hell of a lot. What makes you think that would change? Or that a politician would have the ability to change it?

It's the chicken and egg scenario. Does military might create wealth, prosperity and freedom, or do wealth, prosperity, and freedom lead to military might? Guns aren't free and they don't fire themselves.

If the US economy collapsed, all the high tech military might at its disposal would become useless paper weights.

Waxy