It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War: Who Goes; Who Stays

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
When I came home from the Persian Gulf War I was talking to my grandmother on the phone. Instead of congratulating me on a job well done, she sniffed, "Well, if your father had lived, you never would have joined the military." That was a fine how do you do.


Had my father been alive, it's hard to say what I would have done. AFterall, I've always been very independent-minded, adventurous and hawkish on defense. There was never any run to Canada in my wiring.

I walked away from two athletic scholarships and quit college after the first semester. It wasn't for me at the time. I had to get out there and find myself first. The Army was exactly what the doctor ordered.

Luckily, I was not one who was forced into choosing the Army b/c I had no alternative, financially. It was my choice. Many are not so lucky. Here is a good article on this subject.



War: Who Goes; Who Stays

by Douglas Herman

According to a list provided by our Nation’s Oldest Newspaper, a large number of prominent hawks pushing for war with Iraq either dodged the draft at grad school or attained medical deferments while naïve guys like me volunteered to serve. Paul Fussell, author and World War II combat vet, defined these disparities well in his best-selling book, Class. Fussell outlined nine levels of society and classified those who did the dangerous heavy lifting, such as soldiering, as mid to lower level "proles." By contrast, he explained, the rich and super rich who went to the best schools eventually attained unlimited power and made the rules that the rest of us must follow. Thus th ey attained the power to blithely send others out to die without ever stepping on a battlefield themselves or sending their sons there.

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a Princeton alum serving under a Yale alum, recently described Vietnam Era draftees as adding "no value, no advantage" to the war effort I wondered why he so casually dismissed those servicemen who had little power to choose? Nearly ten million military personnel served during the Vietnam Era from 1964-1975, of which 75% of the draftees were from lower-middle or working class families. In Vietnam, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II, yet the majority of Vietnam Era soldiers volunteered, recalling how their fathers had answered the call to arms a quarter century earlier. The Greatest Generation willingly went to war; the Greediest Generation went to Wall Street to make money after grad school. Then having attained power, or "class," they loudly call for the lower classes to do their "Patriotic duty" and rush off to war.

"It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don’t know anything about war," said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran.

"They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off."
www.strike-the-root.com...




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well, the truth is back then people of all sorts were coming up with ways to avoid the draft. That goes for people on both sides of the equation. Many advocated peace and wouldn't go to war because they felt it was wrong. But there were also many who were supporting the conflict but felt it was something "someone else should do." You know the sort of person. "Gosh it's nice to help the homeless, I hope someone will take care of them." See, those are the people who support ConceptXYZ as long as it doesn't involve them dirtying their hands.

When it comes to war, can you blame them? Well, I dunno... I'll be very honest here. I was born after the Vietnam war was over. I can't say anything concrete, but if I was 18 during that time, and I knew that 6 of my neighbors were drafted, 1 came home nuts, 3 came home dead, and 2 haven't been heard from in a year... I wouldn't want to go either. (This of course can not be compared to today's voluntary paying army). If I was rich and influential, would I use it to avoid the draft? Maybe I would. Maybe my parents would force me to. Congratulations son! You're becoming a Priest/Rabbi. Just sign here.

We do hear a lot about who went or didn't go. Most of our national level candidates are from prominent backgrounds right? So yeah, they had the resources at their disposal to avoid a draft that maybe the average Joe did not. Would the average Joe had done the same thing if he had those resources... I dunno but from what I've read and heard no one was "happy" to be drafted.

I'm certainly not saying everyone, but maybe more would've. In any event, I'm always awed by people who've served as I don't know if I would have been able to go through something Vietnam and be the same.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
No one comes home from war unchanged. That's the beauty of it.

I mentioned on another thread that perhaps the reason more Democrats oppose war and the machinations of the military/industrial complex is because, currently, more of them have actually served and seen war. That doesn't necessarily make them against war per se; but, it certainly informs them greatly. For example: I knew we'd be screwed trying to occupy Iraq with such an anemic force. That was a no-brainer.

I love George the firsts remarks on that...



Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
www.thememoryhole.org...


But I digress.. I can't help but wonder what heir Rumsfeld intends to do when he can't get anyone to join the Guard or the Reserves anymore? Hmmm... maybe that's a no brainer, too.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I tell you what my phone rings everyday several times with recruiters after my son and my daughter.

My husband is telling me that many recruiters are getting fired because they can not fill their quotes.

Right now if this problem keeps on going the military is going to reach big time low.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't know why anyone would join under the current circumstances.
I believe, unless we pull out, they will most certainly have to begin the draft. There's just no other way around it.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I don't know why anyone would join under the current circumstances.
I believe, unless we pull out, they will most certainly have to begin the draft. There's just no other way around it.


I think the draft is certainly a stretch as far as military might goes. I don't think it's so much a military problem, as a political problem.

We do not need a draft, although the "need" might arise should the "reason" invent itself, but we have an equal chance of that on either side.

But alas, the war in Iraq is but a small problem on a big plate.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
No need for a draft? Think again..



Dear Ken: About That Cakewalk...

by Paul Craig Roberts


The Washington establishment must be wondering today how it was convinced into making such a fatal mistake. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had no terrorist links or involvement in the September 11 terror attack. U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) now stand at 10 percent of the U.S. invasion force. A few thousand lightly armed insurgents have tied down eight U.S. divisions. Iraq's infrastructure lies in ruins. Fallujah, once a city of 300,000, has been destroyed. The U.S. has lost control of the roads, and most of the U.S. fighting force is confined to protecting supply lines and its own bases. The U.S. military is cracking under the strain of prolonged service in the field. The cost of the war mounts, putting more pressure on a collapsing U.S. dollar. The U.S. occupation has recruited thousands of new terrorists for Osama bin Laden and provided a training ground. Torture and torture memos have destroyed America's moral reputation. Civil war looms as neither Sunnis, Shi'ites, nor Kurds are willing to support a government they do not control. Anti-American feelings throughout the Middle East threaten to undermine the secular puppets that the U.S. keeps afloat in Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Generals speak of staying another three, five, seven, and 10 years in order "to get the job done."
www.antiwar.com...




Heading for the Exits
Diplomacy and disengagement: the buzz is "out now"
by Justin Raimondo

The "good news" propaganda is for the red-state masses, but our lawmakers and other insiders know what the real score is. We're getting our asses kicked in Iraq, and there's no polite way to say it. That's why the buzz over "disengagement," i.e., heading for the exits, is getting louder, with a front page treatment in the New York Times informing us that

"Conversation has started bubbling up in Congress, in the Pentagon, and some days even in the White House about when and how American forces might begin to disengage in Iraq."

Members of Congress are returning from their districts, where they've had to listen to rising concerns among their constituents about the costs of this war: the public was never solidly behind it, and since the lies that dragged us into it have been exposed, they are now even less supportive. $5.8 billion per month, skyrocketing casualties, and a military stretched to the breaking point – no wonder it's a Republican congressman, Rep. Howard Coble, dean of North Carolina's congressional delegation – and an enthusiastic supporter of President George W. Bush – who is among the first to raise the issue of exiting Iraq.
www.antiwar.com...




General Says Army Reserve Is Becoming a 'Broken' Force

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01

The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."

In the memo, dated Dec. 20, Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly lashed out at what he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing the force. He complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities.

The three-star general, who has a reputation for speaking bluntly, said the situation has reached a point at which the Army Reserve is "in grave danger of being unable to meet" its operational requirements if other national emergencies arise.
www.washingtonpost.com...







[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
We don't need a draft to defend ourselves regardless of what the nitwits in Washington (or those who cover them ) say.

Iraq is not a National Security issue.

Neither was Afghanistan, but perhaps revenge is nice every so often.

In any case, no army will withstand guerilla activity, because as the army cracks down, the people will begin to gain the parents vs. children (the people being the children) attitude.

We'll see no end to the "terrorists" even if we kill or capture every original member.

The new recruits will carry the torch.

Hold the elections and get the hell out George. There is no winning this war any time soon.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Hold the elections and get the hell out George. There is no winning this war any time soon.


There's no winning this war, period. Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor) has said we either change strategy (upwards of 500,000 troops plus way more money) or git the hell out.

Bottom line: We need 10 troops to every 1 insurgent. There is 20,000+ insurgents and counting. Each and every day that number grows. Our military cannot keep up with it, especially with Rumsfeld in charge.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
ok stop.

We agree.

-We have little to no need to look outside our country.
-We need no overseas bases.
-We need domestic reform or we will fail
-We need to get off the oil

to name a few.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
-We have little to no need to look outside our country.
-We need no overseas bases.
-We need domestic reform or we will fail
-We need to get off the oil

to name a few.


Jethro, yer not so Krazy, afterall.
We need some overseas bases, but not nearly the number we have. That is, if we are pursuing an honorable foreign policy (which is not the current one). We should bring 'em home from South Korea and West Germany, for sure and station them along our Northern and southern borders.

We're never gonna get off the oil as long as our greedy politicians are enmeshed in that industry and profiting from it.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I'm only krazy because some people do not have a serious respect for the Libertarian viewpoint (which is rediculous to me). Not even the Republicans can dig it. As a former disenfranchised Republican, my oldest buddies don't get what I'm saying.

I say to eliminate the income tax, and they look at me like I'm crazy. I don't know why Republicans would be wierded out by cutting taxes. I thought that's what we were about. Being people who want to keep cutting taxes, there has to be some logical conclusion to all the cutting. I merely propose speeding it up, but hit major opposition from my SIDE.

I catch heat on the same issue from the democrats. They all worry about the social programs, although none of them seem to be knowledgeable about the Federal revenues and where they come from.

Ah, nevermind. I get frustrated sometimes.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I like Chuck Hagel and the other republicans that dont let the politician in themselves speak. They're not the "Oh.. Thats what democrats think.. Then I'm against it" They speak what they believe and I love that in anyone.

I really didnt have a problem with Bush until he started this Iraq business. I kept Fox News on all the time watching the case for Iraq unfold and I never once believed in it. I always had this feeling something is wrong here.

Infact I wonder what changed Bush's mind about Iraq. Rumsfield wanted to go in Iraq right after 9/11. He and others wanted to find a link to Iraq and 9/11 and tried to convince Bush we need to do something about Iraq, but Bush said that Iraq was not the threat, Al Qeada was. (Thats from the 9/11 Commision Report, I think)... What changed his mind? And why wont he admit he had made a mistake?

Jethro, I'm interested in the Libertarian party as well. They seem to represent what we all want. They seem to take the best of both Republicans and Democrats. However, eliminating the income tax... I dont like that. I dont like paying it either, hehe, but I think a fair tax would be the best solution. As long as its a low rate



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The libertarians are pretty big into the no income tax thing. It seems like a solution that is too big, but it would be done in tandem with other events.

The elimination of the Dept. of Education and public schooling (unless the state decided to keep it, which I think most would). Most school money comes from the personal property taxes made on the local level supplemented with State money from their taxes.

Federal oversight and adding money to the equation is unneeded and wasteful.

I think we can all agree that the less levels money goes through, the less the percentage of waste. This would rule the Federal government out of all social programs, education, etc (not including the military or defense spending).

The state was set up, and is fully equipped to manage all the jobs the federal government has set up.

I have been looking to the federal budget and the source of its money. The information is simply not there, or is too long to really get a handle on.

Doing things on the local (or if really needed the State) level brings:

1) Greater control of their own money
2) Greater control of the taxes taken
3) Greatly increased transparency in spending
4) Easier access to the people who represent you
5) Allows local people to assess the problems in their area rather than letting the federal government try to fumble through a blanket approach (which they hope to cover most).

The Libertarians are like the Marine Corps, keep it simple stupid, and handle problems at the lowest level possible.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I've said it before. "Democrats hate war, Republicans love war. Democrats fight in wars, Republicans use money and power to get out of it."

Almost always the same thing. You get rich powerful men telling the people with little power that they need to invade this country or that country. Why more democrats then republicans have fought in wars. Well, except for true republicans who actually do as they say and do as they do. The ones who don't say invade this country, while I go play golf at the country club. The ones who say hell, this may not be right, but it is for my country, I'm going.(Or already went ie Gulf War or Korea) But the rest? The ones who sit in their office making millions off of contract deals with the government.(HALIBURTON!) Or say, like Cheney for example. He quit college, but when the draft started what did he do? Went to college, it was an out. Then that wasn't good enough, you had to be married. Couple months later he is married. But then that isn't good enough, you have to have kids, 9 months later he has kids. Strange, bet if they didn't make being married an out for the draft he woul still be single, childless.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
lol I dont know about that James


and I am under the impression that many in the military are diehard republicans while the ones that give Michael Moore his material are there just for the college money.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Thatoneguy]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Actually James, the majority in the military are conservative.

There are plenty of conservative poor people, and I'm sure that it is still a major step up for them.

But the military has always been for poorer people (enlisted at least). It has been a great in getting people skills to last their lifetimes.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Ahhh, good intentions,....but they go as far as your first reality check. What comes next is the will to excel or the search for nooks. Love hate love is the best way I can describe my fours years. I'm glad I did it, for reasons both large and small. It changed my outlook on many things, especially the undying issues of race, religion, and gender. I don't recognize the term "military" because it's as descriptive a term as the word "air." The five recognized branches of the U.S. military are all completely different, each creates a very distinct setting and mission-orientated mindset. In the end, not all are good, not all are bad, but all are important.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The Libertarians are like the Marine Corps, keep it simple stupid, and handle problems at the lowest level possible.


I've been a Republican since long before I was old enuff to vote. I also have very Libertarian tendencies. Libertarianism is probably the closest thing to what our founding fathers envisioned for our nation's governance. Today a great many Republicans don't have a clue what the GOP has long stood for. They have been deceived terribly by the warmongering, big government, big spending Neo Cons and their paid shills in the tv and print media.

George W. Bush truly is amazing. This past election is the first time I have ever voted for a Democrat. No one has ever induced me to do that before. I also voted for as many Libertarians as I could at the state level. We have GOT to start getting third party candidates (and more) in there at all levels to break up the corrupted two-party lock on the system. Otherwise, there is no hope for our Democracy.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Today a great many Republicans don't have a clue what the GOP has long stood for. They have been deceived terribly by the warmongering, big government, big spending Neo Cons and their paid shills in the tv and print media.


I am in the same boat as you my man, but I have seen the Republicans be singleminded about abortion, "Security", or fear of the big bad "commie libs".

It's rediculous. Conservatives hate what the left says about them, then go ahead and vote for the reasons that make the other side say those things in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join