Elephant In the Room 3/19/07

[jayflash]

Way back when G.W. Bush was first running for the U.S. presidency a surprising number of "average citizens" felt we'd find ourselves in another war if he got elected. Many of us suspected that our country would be embroiled in a lengthy conflict or two, thus providing job security for the "military-industrial complex" that former republican president, Eisenhower, warned the nation about 50 years ago.

I'm not as confident that things are better, now, in Iraq or the U.S. Certainly, it's good that Saddam is not in power, but the war isn't over and the cost to both nations will be staggering. The war's fallout has barely begun and, now, millions more hate us. A response to 911 was necessary, but destabilizing the Mid East may not have been the right one.

It's fairly easy to predict what our politicians will do if one takes the time to, regularly, scan multiple news sources throughout the years. After awhile it all adds up and the "average citizen" is able to foretell the direction our leaders will take. On average, however, most people have other priorities than monitoring the politics of legislation and, therefore, base their votes upon bumper stickers and 15 second commercials.

 

[Manzerick]

God bless all of the troops serving in the war!!

 

[pedalinbob]

"There are conscientious objectors being forced to serve but to me it's a different catagory as the draft, even though it is a form of involuntary service."

Wow, I didn't know people were forced to join the military.
What is it that soldiers do again? ;o)

 

[Datasaurusrex]

"There are conscientious objectors being forced to serve but to me it's a different catagory as the draft, even though it is a form of involuntary service."

Wow, I didn't know people were forced to join the military.
What is it that soldiers do again? ;o)

As I said, it's different than the draft but obviously there is an involuntary 'element' in the conscientious objector issue.

Personally, I think they got the exact job they wanted. They accepted taxpayers money for X number of years, and college fund grants, etc. And I assume there was full disclosure/meeing of the mind/etc prior to enlistment, so the contract stands as valid.

So yes, I don't have much sympathy for those currently being 'forced' to serve right now. In the time of draft, now that's a different story entirely.

 

[Greta]

In the time of draft, now that's a different story entirely.

Um... but we aren't in a time of draft right now. And that's not what this thread is about. So um... back on topic please?

 

[ringzero]

Draft riots, & march to the sea ('total warfare') show a fundamental shift away from the form of military that freed us from the yoke of the English. That shift has just gone further since the late 1800s. Most of our founding fathers would find our standing military, and interventionist policies, deplorable...Excuse me for being a bit jaded.

Most of the founding fathers would have found the concept of using a conscript Army to fight a war to be deplorable. (As in the Civl War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Namn.) Of course, the founders would also see most of the modern Federal government as truly deplorable.

Remember the lyrics from the Marine Hymn: "From the halls of Montezuema to the shores of Tripoli?" Those lyrics refer to President Thomas Jefferson sending the US Navy and Marines to intervene in North Africa in 1801. Although Congress did not formally declare War, it did support Jefferson's interventionist policy.

It is true that the founders were philosophically opposed to keeping a large standing Army, but those early Presidents often wished for a larger, better equipped military when trouble arose. The size of both the Navy and the Army was severely constrained by a lack of revenue at the time.



.

 

[Datasaurusrex]

We're in a time of 'draft registration,' but yes, not in a time of actual draft. As the liberal femanists are so prone to say: "My body, my choice." Unless YOUR body is forced to sign up for the draft, then really your right to dictate what happens to my body should be limited (regardless of past, present or future employment).

I'd rather (aspire to) conform to the ideals laid forth by the founding fathers, than justify current actions by looking at how the founding fathers fell short of realizing their own ideals.

A non-professional, non-standing army, comprised of all volunteers (w/o any ability to conscript) is the ultimate check against entering into, or starting, an unjust war. I don't trust congress to vote us into a war, I don't trust the president to unilaterally decide we should start a war... rather I do trust the fact that if enough free citizens are willing to fight for a cause then most likely the cause is just... if not enough free citizens are willing to go into the meat grinder, then the cause probably isn't just.

But as to the topic of the thread, whatever the heck that is or was, or was intended to be, it just wasn't well defined by jayflash. He made 3 comments, not even questions just blanket comments. As to those three comments:

1) Yeah sure, agreed. To bad that as they sacrifice in Iraq, in the name of freedom, that we are losing our basic liberties in the States, videlicet; patriot act 1 & 2, loss of habeas corpus, essential nullification of posse comitatus act, et cetera.

2) No, I disagree to an extent. Yes both parties are responsible (they both screw us over, screw over the rest of the world, and generally muck things up). No, all Americans are NOT responsible. You state that they are because "we elected the politicos," but that's wrong. The politicos get elected with 50+% of the vote, which means 49.9-% of the people are flat out not represented. I dont' see how you can lay any blame at their feet. If there was a system of proportional representation then sure, share the blame equally. The tragedy aspect, no comment.

3) The greens are just crazy imho, repackaged hippy communism that will lead to totalitarianism. The libertarians are also crazy (although I tend to agree with them to an extent). Specifically the globalist agenda of the libertarians is just anti-American and will never fly. But essentially both '3rd parties' are a waste since the machine is geared toward the false dichotomy of our two party system (where we merely have a difference of degree, not of kind). There is no way for a 3rd party to break over the threashold in the forseeable future, given the forseeable circumstances. In other words, don't hold your breath or waste your money.

Lastly, voting has been prove to be highly over rated. In the last 10 years there has simply been too many proven cases of election fraud and misconduct (on both sides of the coin). We're in a position where elections can be won if there are enough recounts, or if a suit is filed and gets before the right judge.

There's an old saying that "In America you get as much justice as you can afford." Well, that's true of elections too: money buys them, sometimes before the fact, and sometimes after. Welcome to corporate America, and yes both dems and repubs have already been bought, lock stock and barrel.

 

[jayflash]

Hello, Datasaur.

Your points are taken. Although my thread was, perhaps, not well defined it was an attempt to recognize an important national/international anniversary and crisis. The silence is deafening, as the saying goes. The elephant in the room is a large problem which can't be ignored, but few will talk about. If the latest information about Iraq is accurate, most Iraqis are worse off, now, and don't want us there. Apparently, the war we started has killed more innocents than Saddam, himself. So the surgery was successful but the patient died? We'll see. I've grave concerns but will hope for the best - that our soldiers haven't died in vain.

We, as an entire nation, not individuals, it might be argued, share in the blame for what our government does. That's a real problem with the winner take-all form of representation in the USA. The two major parties continue to fight electoral changes that, while benefiting the nation, will weaken their stranglehold on power. So by continuing to vote for compromised candidates, democratic voters are also, partly, responsible for the war's and government policy.

Data, your well worn opinion that any political parties, other than the Two, are just a bunch of crazies is exactly why the USA is suffering so many problems. A thorough reading of the Green Party platform will show that they would return power to the individual - check it out, you'd be surprised how sane it is. We don't remember our history and keep electing the same old left or right political machine. So who's crazy when you advocate for continuing to do what we've always done while expecting different results?

 

[James S]

I actually WANT my government and my military to intervene where necessary and before it becomes necessary to think that we might need an extra few million untrained conscripted foot soldiers. If they are able to send in smaller number of troops and take care of problems and problem dictators before we reach that point then all the better.

The problem is not that they did that in Iraq, the problem is that we dont all agree that Iraq was the kind of problem that needed fixing that way and that they did a good job fixing it.

Never the less, cities and towns in Iraq continue to be turned over to local control and our guys move on to the next town area to get the bad guys. And the bad guys haven't managed to come here and we haven't gotten involved in a land war in Asia yet.

We would all like to live in a world where no military force was necessary, at least I think I would, I'd have to think through all the other implications. But as much as we like to imagine it's real it just isn't.

So we really DO want intervention to keep a draft from ever being necessary. We're just arguing about the specifics from the comfort of our living rooms and that is what bugs me. How can we know how wrong the guys with the info were if all we do is read the NYT to get our news and our military strategy?

 

[jayflash]

Proper intervention such as our participation in the multilateral action in Serbia/Croatia is a good example of preventing a larger, bloodier, war. We didn't rush into that conflict and had popular and greater backing from other nations.

Iraq was the opposite in that the US rushed into war with less help from other nations. There was no imminent danger and considering the many years of negotiations we've had with other nations over disagreements, why didn't we extend that patience to Iraq? After the long war they had with Iran and the beating we gave them in the first Gulf War, Iraq was pitifully weak.

Due to the Iraq war the US now faces a much larger problem and many more enemies. My hope is that this war won't force us to reinstate the draft. We don't know how continued involvement over there will affect future enlistment, especially if hostilities continue to worsen.

One might wonder why our allies have "cut & run"? Perhaps it's time we recognize the war was a tragic mistake and reconsider our course of action. We may also want to think about the house of cards our economy is becoming - it's stretched very thin. Perhaps we should concentrate on saving ourselves so that the USA will remain a world power able to lend its assistance in other tragedies, such as the genocide in Darfur.

 

[Glass]

Saha and James S. pretty much summed up my feelings on this subject, and did a far better job than I could have.

But, one thing I want to touch on might be taken as insulting, but, I promise that is not my intention.

I don't care one bit how many people in the world "hate us" now.

It would be great if the US was loved and respected by the entire world, but we should not base our foreign policy decisions on how much people will like us for what we do. That would be stupid, and destructive to our nation.

I'm sure the North Koreans would say they love us if we started give them billions in aid. But, does anyone actually think that would be a good idea?

Patrick

 

[jch79]

But, one thing I want to touch on might be taken as insulting, but, I promise that is not my intention.

I don't care one bit how many people in the world "hate us" now.

It would be great if the US was loved and respected by the entire world, but we should not base our foreign policy decisions on how much people will like us for what we do. That would be stupid, and destructive to our nation.

I'm sure the North Koreans would say they love us if we started give them billions in aid. But, does anyone actually think that would be a good idea?

Interesting, although some of those countries have been through a lot more than the US, which is still a "young pup" of a country. Even some of our allies have started to question our intentions - and these are countries that are literally thousands of years old, with experience far beyond ours - should we listen to what they might be saying... :shrug:

I believe we're seen as a country that's suffering growing pains and struggling with the immense power we have gained over a short period of time. Do other countries have the right to be cautious? Absolutely - we're a superpower, there's not doubt about it: as we all know, power can corrupt, and superpwer... well, can super corrupt. But do they have the right to be contemptuous? Well, luckily that's not up for me to decide.

That's my thought. I love this country, and hope that in my tiny way, I might be making the slightest of difference toward the better... or at least not going the other way.

john

 

[Glass]

Yes, we are a relatively young country. IIRC, we also have the oldest Constitution of any nation.

BTW, I helped arrest a 77 year old woman for DUII last night. Age and experience does not, unfortunately, always equal wisdom.

We cannot fall into the trap of letting world opinion make our decisions for us. Just because a bunch of people in another country protest what we do, does not mean they are right and we are wrong. There are just as many idiots in other countries as there are here. But, there are also a huge number good, hard working, people in other parts of the world, and their opinion, I'm open to.

To make a blanket statement that the rest of the world hates us now and we should change to make them happy, is, well, retarded.

If you spend your time trying to please everyone else, you will die before your time.

Patrick

 

[ringzero]

Proper intervention such as our participation in the multilateral action in Serbia/Croatia is a good example of preventing a larger, bloodier, war. We didn't rush into that conflict and had popular and greater backing from other nations.

The lengthy bombing of Serbia was a disgraceful violation of international law and was done without UN approval. There was *no* US national interest in intervening there, and no rationale for bombing Serbian civilians. American troops are still in former Yugoslavia years later.

Iraq was the opposite in that the US rushed into war with less help from other nations. There was no imminent danger...

At least a case can be made that the intervention in Iraq was in the US national interest. The initial invasion was brilliantly done. Perhaps the occupation of Iraq could have been handled better, or perhaps not.

In any event, US casualties have been incredibly low compared to past conflicts. Consider that the military has carried out the invasion, conquest, and occupation of a foreign nation with something over 3000 American deaths.

More soldiers have been lost in single battles in past wars than in four years in Iraq.

One might wonder why our allies have "cut & run"? Perhaps it's time we recognize the war was a tragic mistake and reconsider our course of action.

What allies have cut and run? The only allies that really count, the Brits and Aussies, are still in Iraq. I think the Danes, Poles, and Japanese are still there with a few thousand troops total. Several other countries have small numbers of troops in Iraq which are mainly symbolic.

Whether intervention in Iraq was a tragic mistake remains to be seen. I think the invasion was a good thing, but must admit being impatient with the occupation and slow pace of reconstruction. We'll see how it turns out.

Perhaps we should concentrate on saving ourselves so that the USA will remain a world power able to lend its assistance in other tragedies, such as the genocide in Darfur.

The US has no national interest in Darfur. I hope not to see any American blood and treasure wasted there. Unless Islamic terrorists that are a threat to the US move into Darfur, I see no valid reason for going there.


.

 

[PhantomPhoton]

Numbers? Ok.... as of March 16th, 2007, "... 3,208 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,581 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers." ... Hell! That's not even as many as died at the World Trade Center IN ONE DAY!! I'm not trying to minimize the losses of any one of those 3,208 lives, however if you're going to compare losses or talk losses... then let's talk about them in real numbers and let's compare them properly.

And here, Sasha, you fall into a commonly pointed out political quagmire.
These two numbers have nothing to do with each other.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

3,208 members of our armed forces deceased from actions in Iraq has nothing to do with the approximately 2,973 souls (not including the 19 hijackers) who lost their lives in relation to 09/11/2001.
[source wikipedia; would you please give your source for the 3,208? I'm interested to know where this came from]

Yes the "in one day" is significant. But it still does not bring any validity to this arguement. Imo you are implying that 9/11 deaths vs. Armed forces deaths in Iraq, these two numbers are directly related. If you want numbers, don't compare two sets of unrelated numbers. Don't fall for the politics.


I live in a military town, and have co-workers, neighbors, friends, and students who are military, some of them have been deployed in Aghanistan and Iraq. I support them and thier families. I did not support the war, and still do not support the "war." This is a paradox... the soldiers are the army but the army is not the soldier... that is semantically abused too often by politicians.

We are no longer at war. We are in occupation. An occupation of a territory on the brink of an ethnic, civil war with generations of hatred on both sides. The current administration put our troops in the middle of it.

We can't change what has happened, and passing the blame won't solve the problems that we are stuck with.

I won't go further here and I've no intention of trying to force my beleifs on others in the "underground" at this time.
I don't think that four years of shameful human stupidity and humanitarian disaster is going to be rectified in an online forum. I'll stick to my bumper stickers.

 

[jch79]

To make a blanket statement that the rest of the world hates us now and we should change to make them happy, is, well, retarded.

Ok, well I didn't say that, or just about anything else you accused me of saying, and refuted. I understand why this subject is pointless to talk about, and not encouraged at CPF. Words get put into people's mouths, emotions and feelings flare, name calling ensues, and no minds are ever changed. :shrug:

 

[ringzero]

These two numbers have nothing to do with each other. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

This statement is incredible.

If the attacks of 9-11 had not happened, do you honestly believe that US forces would be occupying Iraq today?


.

 

[tygger]

This statement is incredible.

If the attacks of 9-11 had not happened, do you honestly believe that US forces would be occupying Iraq today?

its likely they would. securing access to energy reserves (through whatever means necessary) has been a top priority since before the clinton administration. if the cover for invading iraq wasn't 9/11 and WMDs it would have been something else. on the other hand, if saddam had allowed washington to build large, permanent military bases in iraq and was an aquiescing dictator, there wouldn't have been a shot fired. global politics and resource aquisition is an ugly business.