Actually, I think I will. I’m interested in the responses the thread will get.
Back on topic:
Regarding those that signed up after the war started, I think it needs to be noted that a lot of people sign up for the skill training, monetary, and medical (for their family) benefits, and do not want to fight. They are in the military because it appears to be the best option. They choose to accept the risk of injury or death to provide for themselves and their families.
There are some, however, that are not economically pressured into the military. A good friend of mine in high school, who came from a fairly wealthy neighborhood and got good grades, joined the marines because “it would be fun to shoot people.” I guess I should have seen it coming when he was overenthusiastic about playing airsoft and paintball in the woods, and insisted on “one-hit-kills.”
I’m confused on your words here… but in any case, I prefer not having a standing army and instead having a militia where many citizens choose to be well trained in defense and are ready to volunteer when called on.
What constitutes the republic is in the constitution, so yes, when they take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, they are at the command of that. When someone orders them to do something that is not consistent with upholding the constitution, then that order is invalid.
Interesting: The ad I got at the bottom of this page was “John McCain For President.”
Lots of interesting, and some outlandish opinions and misconceptions being tossed around here, though I wonder how I would have felt about the current war were I half my current age. Being older means a couple of things:
Hopefully I have learned and experienced more, to improve on my knowledge of the world in general and of how things “turn out.”
I lived through the Vietnam era and from then forward.
I grew up in a time when I had to register for Selective Service (mandatory at 18) but fortunately there was no draft. I was not old enough to be drafted.
I am too old for military service, so when I think about it, it’s generally in terms of “somebody else” and not me. But that was always the case, including during my “prime” years, assuming a draft was not reinstated.
You seem to imply that it does apply in this situation. What exactly do you think would happen in Iraq (and the surrounding areas) if US forces were to up and leave? This might rate a separate thread, but you seem to think the “war” would be over. Obviously our military thinks differently (we would lose). I think that whatever civil war Iraq is trying to have would suddenly be free to either happen or be put down (it’s possible) by Iraq’s own army.
I can’t reconcile the army’s version with anything “real-world” because that would mean getting more specific about identifying “the enemy” and possibly even having to explain the conditions under which they want their war to “end.” They keep talking about winning. Again, perhaps better in its own thread, but can anyone tell me when we’ll know if we won something?
So anyway, back to this topic, if US forces stop fighting, I think “peace” in Iraq will be highly unlikely for a while.
Do you mean US/coalition forces? There’s an easy answer to that one, at least easy for me who lived through the Vietnam era. Not-supporting our troops will change absolutely nothing politically, but will tend to ruin their lives starting now, and possibly without end. We made this mistake in Vietnam, kalling the soldiers baby killers and what-not. They don’t get to make the decisions! They are the tools of our messed-up diplomacy. Wars only end when the politicians say the soldiers can stop. Look at Japan in WWII. Do you think Japanese soldiers or civilians thought they were going to win the war at any time in 1945? It took two atomic bombs to convince the politicians.
There are definitely some bad and deceptive tactics being used in military recruitment. And when it comes to taking advantage of people, notice that the poor, minorities and generally less-privledged and less-educated people are at the top of the list. The armed forces aren’t doing anything special in that respect.
Who is likely to be more attracted to military service, someone who can afford college or someone who can’t? Someone who has a job, or someone with no job prospects because they live in a depressed area? Duh. Also, if you live in some horrible inner-city slum or backwoods country town with no apparent future prospects, joining the military might be a smart option.
There has been a show on PBS recently called Carrier. It’s a documentary about life aboard the U.S. Nimitz as it goes on a long cruise, spending most of its time talking to the individuals who make up the crew. It was fascinating to hear their thoughts on the war, why they joined up, how they like the Navy so far, etc. And this stuff was not “shined up” so it would make the Navy look good, it seems pretty raw and honest. As soldiers, they are committed to following whatever orders because that’s your only real option if you aren’t a politician. More about that later. But I was amazed to hear how ill-informed some of their opinions on the war were outside of that. Connecting it to 9/11 mostly, and otherwise not seeming to have a clear picture of why we’re at war over there (not that I do either). Definitely worth watching to learn about what our Navy people are like.
Life is full of these situations. Currently the people who did the same thing with risky, variable-rate mortgages are getting all the press. In their case, they knew the interest rate would go up, but they did it anyway. Is that somebody else’s fault? And then there’s the whole world of timeshares, or so-called “vacation ownership.” Run away. Don’t ask questions, don’t bother with the free offers, RUN AWAY!
Yes you should. You don’t have to support our roads. It’s the same basic idea, only our roads aren’t people. They don’t need your support. Our national parks do need your support though. Treat them nicely and don’t just toss your cigarettes around. OUR roads. OUR parks. OUR troops. They are part of America (or similar for whatever country you may live in). TROOPS DON’T MAKE POLICY. They are just the tools. If you want to not support someone, let it be politicians who want to continue policies that have shown not to work. Again, only politicians can stop a war.
An interesting approach, though entirely backwards. Troops ended the war in Vietnam? I don’t think so. The war became extremely unpopular at home, with larger and larger demonstrations by all sorts of people, including former soldiers. And riots. None of that ended the war, though it put pressure on the politicians to affect their decisions.
Soldiers follow orders. If they don’t follow (minor) orders they get reprimanded. If they don’t follow (major) orders they get court-martialed. For Gilby, this is the path of a soldier that refuses to follow an order because he thinks it violates the US Constitution. He has to battle it out in a court martial. The last thing he’ll ever be allowed to do is make policy.
Dang Pele, you really don’t know what a soldier is. You really don’t. The choice will be yours whether you want to learn this, I can only spout words at you.
A soldier is like one ant in an ant colony. He doesn’t get to decide what the colony does, that gets decided by the queen/president/chiefs of staff. If he goes against what the leaders decide, the other ants will eat him, or otherwise put him in jail. If he’s lucky he gets a dishonorable discharge. A soldier doesn’t decide to “shoot babies today.” He might get ordered to, but let’s save that for later.
A murderer or thug is doing something that’s against the law. Now the law gets pretty weird when it comes to war. In war, supposedly, as long as you’re following valid orders what you’re doing is “legal.” Long as your side wins, anyway. Low-ranking soldiers are hardly ever held accountable for their actions, even on the losing side, after a war is over. If they were following “legal” orders, they weren’t choosing to “murder” anyone even if they shot up lots of people. There are war crimes, which I’ll put into to major categories: extremely heinous but “official” orders (like killing everyone based on their race or religion), or non-official orders, like corruption within the ranks. Like your superiors making up orders for you that didn’t come down the chain of command.
But assuming neither of these “crimes” is taking place, soldiers aren’t criminals.
Now for the truly dumb part of your post:
Wait a minute. If you suddenly get drafted then what. Everything changes? Suddenly it’s okay to be a soldier because you’re one? Pretty selfish…
Oh I guess you don’t mean you being drafted, but it’s still the same argument. People join up to “protect the country.” Lately, that seems to have become a pretty abstract concept. Let’s protect the United States by killing insurgents in Iraq. Or by fighting the Communists in Vietnam or Korea. Maybe it was easier to understand with WWII, though even that war barely touched American soil it was still obvious what the consequences would be if we didn’t get involved. Were (volunteer) soldiers in WWII any less criminals
in your mind?
Ha. That’s funny. “People” don’t start wars. Wars are started by people with agendas, which aren’t the same people who end up in the infantry. “We want more land. More oil. To spread our religion. More power.” “People” don’t get to make those decisions either.
Though let’s remember that, at the time of that fateful vote, probably a vast majority of the American people were in favor of the idea of taking out Saddam Hussein. It sounded like a good idea at the time, right? We just kind of assumed our military had a plan, or they wouldn’t do it.
No sane military would, anyway. But if the politicians making the decisions had this great plan to build up a war economy, make billions for their big-business buddies and keep the nation “controllable through fear,” a war without end might sound like the perfect thing.
John I greatly respect your opinions. I cannot say for sure if you are correct in many of your statements, but then there are very few people who know the answer to many of the questions that we ask.
I see your point, but we’re talking about ending a war already started. My statement is in the context of an imperialist country (the US) invading the region and then the locals (from all over the middle east) fighting that invading country for their interests. They don’t want that country to be building a permanent presence there. They don’t want the invading country to pick sides of the many factions there.
We don’t know what would happen if the invading country left. In Vietnam, the predictions by the government were completely wrong. The invading country leaving will mean that they don’t have to fight that invading country anymore. There may be more fighting as the dust settles, but most the entire region (the middle east) would want stability and likely be able to hold off invasion from other local countries.
Corporatism at it’s finest… At least corporatism and empire isn’t sustainable forever.
That statement makes me feel that you still think there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the events fo 9-11.
Many of the insurgents in Iraq are fighting our soldiers only because they don’t want them there, they don’t want to live in an occupied nation, so yes if we left they would stop fighting us.
Last time I looked fighting against people who invade your country was called patriotic.
I still think that? I don’t believe I’ve ever made such a statement in the first place. My statements in this thread were not directed at any country in particular and were much more general than you are making them out to be.
I agree with everything you just said… If it weren’t for the americans in WWII, I may not be alive right now (though my grandma was rescued by the british)
John, I find it strange how you seem assume that whatever is illegal is also immoral and whatever is legal is morally justified…
Some gangsters also are just following whatever those above them say.
and that whole drafted thing. I can tell you my dad was drafted (as every israeli is) into the Israeli army. He didn’t want to go, he hated it, but he had too, you see. People that are soldiers who don’t want to be deserve respect I think.
Of course most soldiers are persuaded that they are doing the right thing, but still, they are doing something wrong, just like some murderers. I don’t think that deserves our support.
Of course, in almost all cases there are a few odd exceptions.
But John, we already won the war in Iraq! Remember, three years ago, Mission Accomplished? Hah hah hah, anyways: This is, as you said, a whole different thread, but I’ll see what I can do. If the US pulled up and left, there would be almost no change in what’s going on there. It already is civil war. There are many many independent reporters in Iraq who will tell you that, but you actually have to find them (Google). The war would not be over, but our troops would not be involved. I think I mentioned a peoples right to self determination, and by fighting their war for them, especially when many people there don’t want us to be there, we’re preventing that from happening.
I think most people assume that we’ll have won when oil prices drop back to 50 bucks a gallon, but at this point they might settle for $100. Yes, I think this is a poorly thought out, economically driven war for oil.
True story.
Although I didn’t live it, I’ve done a lot of research, and talking to people who have. (One of my professors was an organizer behind the Kent state rally that ended in a massacre). Everything I’ve learned has pointed me towards the fact that after Vietnam we did support our troops, (the people did anyways, not the government). I’ve heard that that line from RAMBO is what gives people the misconception that we did not support our troops, and in actuality, there’s not one report of a soldier ever being called a baby killer, or spat upon. I’m sure that there were people being jerks out there though, I guess it’s just not the side that I’ve managed to find out about.
The government should be held to a higher standard. I think I covered most of everything else already. Even if military service seems like a good option, it’s usually not. Plus instead of spending all that tax (And debt) money on military budget, we could be spending it on other programs to educate or otherwise improve peoples situations.
Haven’t seen it; sounds interesting.
There’s a huge difference between plunking down money on a house, and seeing your mortgage skyrocket, and being shot at for four years, and then being turned away at a VA hospital. And yes, while I think that a lot of business is unscrupulous, real estate and everything connected with it probably more than most, my tax dollars don’t support it (well, maybe soon if the government starts bailing people out, but not in the same way). Like I said, the government should be held to a higher standard.
Also, as an anti-consumerist, it makes me smile a sad smile every time I see another mcmansion being foreclosed. But again, best left for another topic.
This is why I started the topic.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with you on this one, and give you an excellent starting point that you can look into, which will back up my view. First, check out the documentary Sir, No Sir.
“Sir, No Sir tells the long suppressed story of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one of the most vibrant and widespread upheavals of the 1960’s- one that had a profound impact on American society yet has been virtually obliterated from the collective memory of that time.”
It’s a great movie, and it might open your eyes, or at least get people to think more about this idea.
By the way, as unpopular as the war was in the US during Vietnam, it’s more unpopular now. As shown both by opinion polls and record numbers of people at demonstrations.
They are victims of fraud. These people were lured into buying a house with the assumption being that house values would go up and therefore they could cash in and refinance before the initial rate expired. The fraud is that the protections of the free market were not present because the government meddled in most parts of this market. In the free market, there would not have been a housing bubble, and the assumption that house prices will gradually go up would be a logical one in most cases. If house prices go down, then in a free market that is a risk the banks would have, as the homeowner could walk away from the house and mortgage. But what we have today, is that the banks were essentially insured by the government against this, through the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, etc. So to the bank, they didn’t care about the customer being able to stay current on the loan. All they really cared about was getting the profit from the closing costs.
What’s this have to do with supporting the troops or the war? War cost money. If they tried to increase taxes, people would have been even more upset about the war than they were for the first few years, because they would have felt the cost right away. Bush probably would not have been reelected and many others would not have either. Because of how our monetary system works, being that it’s backed by government debt where the Federal Reserve and the banks need to buy the debt to back their holdings, they needed to create demand for the banks and Federal Reserve to buy the debt. If a bank loans out $200,000, then the bank has to buy $20,000 in debt for their reserve requirement. So bills were passed to push the housing boom on us, with the propaganda from the politicians being that we need everyone to be a homeowner as that’s the American dream. Now we are feeling the effects, and since it was delayed, they can blame it on something other than the war… like blaming it on the market or a failure of capitalism, which then leads to more freedoms being taken from us.
On rereading my thread, I noticed how it looks like the statement “we would lose” was coming from me. No, my question is “Lose what?” The win/lose rhetoric comes from pro-war politicians and military people.
Naturally, if you’re in the military and in a war, you really, really want to win. We clearly did not win in Vietnam. That sucked. Did we win in Korea? Afghanistan? Bosnia? Somolia? Sometimes it’s just a crappy situation. You keep fighting whoever you’re fighting until the higher-ups say to stop. The higher-ups also get to decide who “won.” If both sides say they won, you know it’s one of those iffy situations.
With the Iraq “war,” there is no clear definition of winning, losing, or how we’ll know if/when the “war” is over. This conveniently allows it to go on forever, or at least until the US government gets the will to do something different. If anyone knows the parameters expected for a “win” in Iraq, I’d love to hear them.
Don’t mix two different problems. Though fraudulent practices have been used in the housing market (just as in any other, which was why I related it above), the decision to take on a risky loan with the assumption that the housing market would always go up must rest, at least in part, with the buyer. “Past performance is not an indicator of future performance in any market.” Something like that. That’s one of the many things someone buying a house should be expected to know.
I know it sucks. My sister-in-law is in an upside-down house right now. Not only do they have an evil adjustable-rate mortgage, they also folded in several other debts, turning a chunk of credit cards, car and some home improvement debts into a 30-year deal. Jacquie really wishes her sister had talked to her before making some of those decisions but she didn’t, and now they’re stuck.
You forgot to mention “like blaming it on the new administration,” which is what the political parties usually do.
I’m all for self-determination. The only difference here is that we forced Iraq into its current situation. It wasn’t self-determined at all. Remember how Bush I promoted the idea of self-determination during the 1991 Gulf war? That worked great until US forces left. Then it got ugly. If the American people allow ourselves to have a conscience (rather than trying to forget), we must try not to make similar mistakes again. Having created the current mess in Iraq, much as I’d be relieved if we just walked away, I believe we have a moral obligation to help clean it up. How? I’m not sure, but to complicate things, a big part of “how” is probably to go away because we are not wanted there.
I will assume you meant barrels there. Yes, if gas got cheap again it would sure make everybody happy. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s ever going to be very cheap, as it keeps getting more expensive to produce, even aside from wars and other political pressures. On a side note, the best incentive to get the world switching over to non-oil is for the price to keep going up. People around here are switching to mass-transit more, and finding out it’s not killing them.
I don’t think of this as a war “for” oil, but certainly it’s a war motivated by “control of” or “stabilization of” oil. Also, if the oil-producing countries really hated us, they could just stop selling to us. This probably wasn’t true in the past, but as big countries like China continue to ramp up and have increased oil appetites, there is less and less need to “rely” on us as a market for Middle Eastern oil.
I don’t agree. We tried to ignore our troops. We tried to forget the war. But the soldiers couldn’t, and they were “getting no love” from the general public. It caused a psychological scar that I think the nation is still getting over. The Gulf war helped a lot, believe it or not, because it was a military triumph. Our military was vindicated, and did its job expertly and professionally. But Iraq is a different war, it doesn’t have a clear end, it has Abu Graib, etc.
But we’re not shunning our troups. I’ve been at the airport to see one soldier return home to a few people with maybe a sign and a few balloons. when the soldier is greeted by their family the whole crowd in their vicinity bursts into applause and cheering. These people know their nation is behind them, even if that nation isn’t behind the war. This time, we understand the difference much better than in the Vietnam era. Anyway, that’s my perception of it having been in elementary school during Vietnam, and not an activist in the thick of things.
I’ll have to check out the film Sir, No Sir when I get the chance. Great discussion here!
I was actually referring to the whole setup by the government and the banking cartel being a fraudulent system.
If you were to give me a loan with a house as collateral, and then later my house value went down below the value of the loan, I could give you the keys and walk away. My risk is that it would damage my credit and cause other minor financial problems. Your risk is that you’re stuck with a low valued house. You are going to make very sure that I am qualified to afford the house and you are going to assess the risk of the house value going down. You are the expert and that is your job. But if your risk was eliminated by having the government set up a system where you can get your bad loans in someone elses hands, such as we had with the mortgage backed securities and the buying of the securities by the Federal Reserve, then your risk is eliminated and you really don’t care if I default later, so you won’t check out as much if I am qualified or assess a risk of house values going down. All you’d care about is that the more loans you make the more commissions you get.
I’m a bit confused on what you meant in your last few sentences there, although that could just be poor comprehension on my part. Are you saying that it is our moral obligation to stay in Iraq, even though the people of Iraq want us out? Or just a moral obligation to support them, be it monetarily, through aid, or through sharing of technology, now that we’ve created such a mess?
Either way: I’m all for giving the people of Iraq aid of any king (provided there are no strings attached, as would be the case through the WTO + World Bank). I’m against keeping troops there. I know that the mess in Iraq is partly our fault, but in my mind, saying that we should keep our military there because of that is almost saying that two wrongs will make a right.
Yeah, $100/Barrel sorry.
The high price of gas is another one of those two sided issues! I’m going to start a thread on that now too. See you there!
True, for the most part. Shutting off the tap for the USA’s oil supply would have far reaching effects. It’s not something that I’ve put a lot of thought into, but if OPEC decided to attempt some kind of oil embargo on the USA. I’d guess that repercussions would be drastic, and could be something that would lead the world into war.
I thought about this for a while. Since I didn’t live it, and it does seem reasonable, I’ll certianly believe you.
I agree 100%. That covers the industry side. That still leaves the consumer’s free choice to not make bad financial choices. Like using check-cashing stores instead of having a bank account. It’s amazing how many people do this (if you don’t believe it, look at how many of those establishments there are in your local area). Are they getting ripped off as a matter of course? Yes. Whose fault is it?
It’s our moral obligation to try to clean up our mess, in a way future generations of Americans don’t have to be embarrassed about. Since they’ll be the ones paying for it anyway. Though it would be interesting to know what the Iraqi people actually want. I imagine this is hard to find out.
I’m actually fine with strings, as long as they’re in the form of using the money for what it’s intended. If we give money to build schools and infrastructure, 100% of it should be used for that. Probably hard to enforce as we seem to have trouble doing that with our own public buildings.
They did it in 1973. No war, and you’d laugh at the prices gas leapt to at the time…
The earliest price I can remember paying for gas myself (after getting my license) was 54 cents a gallon. That was 1978.
Also I think the last time I paid 99 cents (or less) was in 1995, and that was for 95-octane gas in Utah or Idaho.
