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.

 

Pioneers Of A World Without War Are Youths Who Reject Military Service?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Firstly, before I say anything I'd like to ask the MODs to put this thread wherever you see fit because I don't have a clue where to put it.

Youths.

They are the most important member of society in almost every part of the world. Logical, since they are the future of our nations and are the ones who will determine the outcome of tomorrow. Educate them early from the age of 5 and when they reach their adulthood, a wise and intelligent man he will be. Teach him/her hate from young and forever it will be nestled in their principles.

War.

With so many anti-war sentiment going on around the world, is it logical to say that if we want a future with no war and conflict, our youths must reject military service?

In U.S, "counter-recruiters" tell off people (youths and kids) who are interested in joining the military the downside of enlisting : abuse and harsh realities of the allegiance they swear upon.

Activist Put "Truth In Recruiting"



"Lewis, of Helena, said the state chapter of Veterans for Peace is coming together more slowly than he would like. He is also a member of Just Don't Go, a Montana group committed to "stopping the militarization of our schools."

Early on, the military shows off its shiny helicopters to kids and gives them little military pins, he said. The kids are primed.

"By the time they get old enough for us to talk to, they almost need to be deprogrammed," Lewis said.

They can't compete with the Department of Defense's resources, he said — Lewis can't furnish shiny helicopters emblazoned with peace signs.

He would keep kids from joining the military altogether.

While Lewis rants about "cutting off the oxygen supply to the empire," the services whip some kids into shape."


I want to ask the members of this forum, is this a wise decision? In one view, yes, with youths totally dedicated to a peaceful "war-less" world and against military service, the world will be a much better place as soon as we die and our youths take over. It will be a whole different world with a new generation impregnated with ideas of peace and tranquility.

On the other hand, I believe in peace time is where we reload our guns, rifles and what have you and put them on "safe". We cannot let our world be vulnerable to any foreign or domestic threats. Military service is essential to the security of mankind. Furthermore, without this primal instinct to fight, we can no longer defend and protect our loved ones.

I don't see 10 peace-loving hippies ever winning a battle against one fully loaded support gunner.

What say you?

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 28-3-2006 by sanctum]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
i say for the moment , the title of your post says it all, but soon or later , new world order's warfare won't need any kid running a tank like if they were in their favourite videogame.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
They certainly will be, and I definitely will be urging any children I have to do the same.

Thing is, I don't think "counter-recruiters" are even necessary, the news does as good a job as you could hope for in showing the real face of the military - to expand and consolidate its authority at any cost.

The "primal instinct to fight" is just an excuse for not exercising respect, tolerance and intelligence.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

In U.S, "counter-recruiters" tell off people (youths and kids) who are interested in joining the military the downside of enlisting : abuse and harsh realities of the allegiance they swear upon.


I say bring Abe back and tell him to do to these “counter-recruiters” what he did to the copperheads in the North.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

posted by Heartagram: “YOUTHS: They are the most important members of society in almost every part of the world. [Edited by Don W]


Wrong. Youths are the most energetic. The most vocal. But rarely are youths the most important. A lot of them in the US do not even vote. And very few have any real money. Politicians in any “free” country nowadays want to know ONLY how many votes do you control and how much money do you have to give to me? What youths lack in experience they make up in exuberance.


“ . . Logical, since they are the future of our nations and are the ones who will determine the outcome of tomorrow. Educate them early from the age of 5 and when they reach their adulthood, a wise and intelligent man he will be. Teach him or her hate from youth and forever it will be nestled in their principles.


Of course, this is a paraphrase of the Proverbs of Solomon, “Raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart therefrom.” You Hope! This prediction is about as accurate as any other prediction. But it sounds good and gives parents a both support and a good feeling when they commence the indoctrination of their children, most often at the instance of the local cleric. This quote must be old, as I think we are now satisfied a child learns from the first moment of life outside the womb. As relates to HATE, just look at the Balkans. So many people so close together so many memories so much alike yet so much different.


With so much anti-war sentiment going on around the world, is it logical to say that if we want a future with no war and conflict, our youths must reject military service?


There has always been a small cadre of folks who resisted the ‘rush to judgment,’ the rush to war. Consider that 30,000 inhabitants of the first 13 colonies who FLED to Canada at the close of the Revolutionary War, 1783, to avoid harsh retribution taken by the winning segment of the colonists.

Abraham Lincoln banned the Baltimore newspapers because they were anti-Union. There were war protesters in ‘Woodrow Wilson’s War,’ as it was called by anti-War people. FDR faced a very strong anti-war movement in the late 1930s, led in part by ‘Lucky Lindy,’ the ‘American Eagle,’ Charles Lindbergh. The America First movement. It advocated a “fortress America” approach to foreign affairs. ASIDE: Americans were so self-confident about their 1775 cause that they included a provision in the Articles of Confederation that Canada could join the Confederation anytime without further approval.

Of course, the most significant anti-war movement was that of the mid and late 1960s which allied itself with the civil rights movement of the same time frame, and which possessed an irresistible moral force. Rare. Very rare. Ironically, much of the Peace Movement’s IMPETUS came from the LIES of the Government, much as we see today. Who said, “Truth will out?”


In U. S,, "counter-recruiters" tell people (youths and kids) who are interested in joining the military the downside of enlisting: abuse and harsh realities of the allegiance they swear upon. Early on, the military shows off its shiny helicopters to kids and gives them little military pins. Kids are primed. By the time they get old enough for us to talk to, they almost need to be reprogrammed. [Edited by Don W]


Societies need their youth to make up the armed forces that are sometimes legitimately required to defend. I regard the Second World War as the best example of that. In no other instance I am aware of was the contrast between democracy and totalitarianism so clear, and the consequences of one becoming dominant so forbidding. 1939 to 1945 was no time for pacifism. Youths alone are trainable to charge head-on into an enemy’s machine gun nest. Old men just won’t do that. But youth are not informed or experienced enough to lay plans how to approach the machine gun nest. The young and the old form a team essential to victory. Our General Patton lost more men than Britain’s Field Marshal Montgomery but Patton’s men would not have traded their man for the Brit. Odd?


I want to ask the members of this forum, is this a wise decision? In one view, yes, with youths totally dedicated to a peaceful "war-less" world and against military service, the world will be a much better place as soon as we die and our youths take over. It will be a whole different world with a new generation impregnated with ideas of peace and tranquility.


Kind, humane, generous thoughts. Unfortunately, since the builders of the pyramids chiseled chariots in warfare on the walls, mankind has engaged in the violence and killing we call war. I suppose this is genetic. It comes from our pre-hominid history of territoriality. Of dominance. I’ve seen a few people who were not like that in my lifetime. I saw one in 1952. I had joined the USAF, and in our basic training flight of 72 men, there was one young man who could not be provoked to anger. We tried. Sort of a group-select-out. At the end of our 9 weeks of basic training, he was discharged as “unsuitable” for military service. An HD, of course. I described him as representative of the NEXT evolutionary step for mankind. Until his kind are the majority, we will have war.

Consider: I believe Geo W and the GOP quickly recognized the unimaginable opportunity given to them by Osama on Nine Eleven. WAR TRUMPS ECONOMY. The GOP has used the War on Terrorism to win elections in 2002, 2004 and are now hyping the WAR HYSTERIA over Iran, in preparation for the November 7, 2006, election. And so many Americans just love it! Kicking butt. Our claim to fame. It is easer and even cheaper than actually solving the REAL problems in organized society. Don’t misread me. I “love” our soldiers, I just HATE this administration. Every pol tries to equate our love of the soldiers with 'love' of his policies, however errant and ignorant those happen to be. “Support our Troops” is the mantra of the demagogue who cannot justify his choice of war but which sense of loyalty he wants theover of, or to ransfer to himself. DON’T LET HIM DO IT!


[edit on 3/28/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Haven't heard of these anti-recruiters, but I say it's a good thing, to have someone to go to if you're a child who is considering the army who doesn't have a vested interest (like a quota to fill) in getting you to sign up, but will tell you possible negative consequences of your decision. The active phrase is "go to." I don't agree with recruiters or anti-recruiters around high schools in principle. I think they both fall under the same category as people who have no business telling kids what to do with their lives at a time when the kids are just starting to see the world outside of school life and the possibilities that lie beyond. Although on the other hand, I suppose it's a good opportunity for a kid to ask questions about a career choice he or she is considering. But ultimately it should be presented as one option among many, one with potential benefits and potential consequences. I wonder- how many schools have recruiters visiting and how many do so in conjunction with college or other career fairs or recruiters? (It's an honest question, not a rhetorical one, I genuinely don't know.)

The best thing a kid could do is speak to someone they trust who has military experience and get their opinion, rather than to a recruiter or an anti-recruiter, but lacking that, I guess having both available is better than just one or the other.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

posted by glastonaut: “Thing is, I don't think "counter-recruiters" are even necessary, the news does as good a job as you could hope for in showing the real face of the military - to expand and consolidate its authority at any cost. The "primal instinct to fight" is just an excuse for not exercising respect, tolerance and intelligence.


I am not a general, nor am I a colonel. But I did spend 2 years in the Army National Guard, 4 years active duty in the Air Force and 4 years in the AF Reserve. Would that make me an “authority?” No, but it does make me an informed observer.

I don’t like the import of the phrase - “ . . in showing the real face of the military - to expand and consolidate its authority at any cost.” Au contraire! The American military and naval institution has produced a surprisingly large number of highly competent generals and admirals. And unlike the most part of the world, none of them with political ambitions until after they have completed their military or naval service. BRAVO!

One military person I hold in disdain is Douglas MacArthur. Yet, he and his father are alone in both having been Army Chief of Staff and each having been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

You may think it unseemly of me to gainsay such a man. I do it only in these 2 respects. First, in 1932, Chief of Staff Gen. MacArthur displayed what later came to be known as the Nuremberg Syndrome, that is, he obeyed an order to disperse the bonus marchers which in my opinion neither he nor any Army officer should have obeyed. Resignation was the proper response.

And second, I fault him for intentionally provoking China at Korea‘s Yalu River late in 1950, in the expectation the U.S. would use the atom bomb against the Chinese. For this he was fired. A bad ending for a lifetime of glorious service to his country which is unlikely to ever be repeated. But remember, in America we all put our pants on the same way, one leg at a time.

Back to 2006. We are learning slowly piece by piece, that the U.S. military not only advised the WH against the Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq - a/k/a “Operation Iraqi Freedom” - but the top military had repeatedly requested many more soldiers on the ground to keep order in Iraq after the regime had been toppled. We are learning now, albeit late, how one misapprehending man - Donald Rumsfeld - I call him the Oberfuhrer - has wrecked the traditional and proper relationship between civilian control and military expertise at the Pentagon.

Fate dealt America an entirely unpredictable and fretfully a near fatal blow when the once discarded cold warriors - Cheney and Rumsfeld - were juxtaposed with the Supreme Court’s designated president, Geo W. This unlikely trio thinks “control” is an obligatory word to define narrowly and indeed, literally and not to use as descriptive of an inter-institutional relationship. Just as Geo W fancies “Command-in-Chief” means 6 stars and command in the field, so Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld thinks he is capable of strategic planning. Hmm?

I assert, glastonaut, you must replace “military” with “administration” in your declaration!

[edit on 3/28/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Teach him/her hate from young and forever it will be nestled
in their principles.


Yep. That's very true. Just one look at the children in Palestine being
taught that Jews are 'apes and pigs' ... Look what they grow up to be.
Terrorist homicide bombers.


is it logical to say that if we want a future with no war and conflict, our youths must reject military service?


Absolutely not. Peace through strength. If Americans turned their backs
on their country and refused to protect it, then we would be run over
and destroyed in an instant. The ONLY thing holding back WWIV ... the
ONLY thing holding back China from destroying America ... the ONLY thing
holding back the radical muslims from totally destroying us infidels ...
the ONLY thing holding all this back is the fact that we have selfless
Americans who are willing to put their country before their own
desires and who understand that the freedoms we have are not free.


In U.S, "counter-recruiters" tell off people (youths and kids) who are interested in joining the military the downside of enlisting


Oh? It's too back those 'counter-recruiters' don't also tell the young
adults what would happen if no one joined the military - that the
freedoms we all have today (including chatting here on the internet)
... these freedoms are here ONLY because others who came before us
were willing to put on the US Military Uniform and to fight for it.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
FlyingFan Announces: Einstein - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


posted by FlyersFan: “ . . look at the children in Palestine being taught that Jews are 'apes and pigs' . . Look what they grow up to be . . Terrorist homicide bombers.”


I think it was the Oberfuhrer who said, “You fight the war with what you have, not with what you’d want.” Him talking about the shortage of flak vests and no armor for humvees in Iraq. Can you imagine how much EXTRA the taxpayers had to pay to correct this miscalculation? It must cost us billions to clean up behind the Dynamic Trio, Geo W, VP Cheney and the Oberfuhrer. Not to mention the 2,400 dead GIs such NON-PLANNING caused. I guess there is no downside for mucking things up if you are on top of it all? But I digress.

Israel has the IDF. An army, a navy and an air force. The US gives Israel $1.5 billion a year to help defray costs. Israel’s IDF can train in public, ride around in armored vehicles, use helicopters to rocket a suspected enemy, employ satellites to manage the “battlefield.” Palestinians have none of the accouterments of war. So brave people offer their lives for the benefit of their fellow countrymen. So why mock them?


“ . . Peace through strength.”


Why does this remind me of the sign ‘ARBEIT MACHT FREI’ over the entrance to Dachau? Loosely, “Power of Work Sets You Free.”


If Americans turned their backs on their country and refused to protect it, then we would be run over and destroyed in an instant. The ONLY thing holding back WW IV . . the
ONLY thing holding back China from destroying America . . the ONLY thing holding back the radical Muslims from totally destroying us infidels . .


Geez! Sounds like I’ve just tuned into the 700 Club and His High Holiness Pat Robertson? Uhh, Flyer, did anyone ever call you paranoid?


“ . . Americans who are willing to put their country before their own desires and who understand that the freedoms we have are not free . . the freedoms we all have today


Darn! Now you’ve shifted to the Geo W pro WAR rhetoric, F/Fan. Like the freedom to be overheard by the NSA? Like the freedom to be held incognita in a secret place? Indefinitely? Hmm? What dictionary are you using, F/Fan? Stand still for a minute! So I can get this net over your head.

[edit on 3/28/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Does religion automatically make one a war monger?

WHAT are you talking about???
Nevermind. I don't care.


But I digress.

Yes you definately do.


Palestinians .... So brave people offer their lives for
the benefit of their fellow countrymen. So why mock them?


That's sick. Homocide bombers are not brave. They are cowards who
kill innocent people and who prolong death and destruction when there
is no need. It all could have ended when Clinton had the Camp David
talks and Arafat was offered EVERYTHING from the Jews with the only
exception being that they'd have to share Jerusalem. Arafat, and the
Palestinians chose to continue the bloodbath instead of having peace.
They have been programmed to hate Jews for so long that if they
actually had to live peacefully with them they wouldn't know how to.

Also - they do not offer their lives for the benefit of their fellow countrymen.
If they were offering their lives for their fellow Palestinians (can't say
countrymen, so far they keep turning down a chance to have their own country)... if they really were offering their lives then they'd do so in a
peaceful manner and for the betterment of everyone. Instead what they
do is just cause their fellow 'palestinians' more grief.


Why does this remind me of the sign ...

Because you want it to. It's a quote from Ronald Reagan.


did anyone ever call you paranoid?

Nope. If you are calling me paranoid then you need to plug back
into the real world. The absolute fact of the matter is that the only
reason America hasn't been overrun by China now and the USSR
before it, is because we had a strong defense. That's a fact.


Darn! Now you’ve shifted to the Geo W pro WAR rhetoric, F/Fan.
Obnoxious aren't you? It's the absolute truth that the freedoms
we have today did not come free or cheap. That's not pro war rhetoric.
That's a fact. People before us gave their lives fighting the NAZIs, fighting
to keep America safe and free. Deal with it.


Like the freedom to be overheard by the NSA?

I don't care. They only listen in if you are a terrorist suspect calling another
terrorist suspect in a hostile overseas area of the world. YOU are the one
being paranoid. Or is the problem that you have something illegal to hide?


Stand still for a minute! So I can get this net over your head.

You are an ignorant little newbie troll, aren't you? Grow up.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
A world without war is not much of a world since war is just as integral as peace. It would be nice if the world was all sunshine and bunnies but the fact is that sometimes the peace process doesnt work and it becomes necessary to make war to initiate change. Would the world be better off if instead of fighting Hitler and Stalin in WWII they continually hammered at peaceful attempts while being mowed down in droves?

Think of creative destruction for a second, when the forrest burns from a fire new life springs up in its place. The same is true for war and the lingering effect it has on a people. Without war and conflict all the times of peace and relative bliss would become meaningless because we would have nothing to judge it against. Sure the death and suffering of war is a negative thing, but the after effects of learning, of freeing people from the rule of dictators, and clearing the political slate allowing a new start is sometimes worth the cost of war.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I become annoyed - perhaps too easily - when important topics are discussed but leaving out critical details. Consider the January 26 win by Hamas. Objective observers say Hamas spends 90% of its funds on health clinics, schools, and other community needs of the much disadvantaged Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.

The West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Golan. Gaza - a minuscule and worthless piece of land - was recently “returned” to its inhabitants. Wow! The late Arafat’s al Fatah - largest component of the PLO - and dominant in post-1967 politics, was beaten handily in the Palestinian’s first open election.

Even before the final tally was announced, the United States and Israel announced neither would not only not deal with Hamas, they would not even talk to Hamas. Did I not see a movie like this: “Dumb and Dumber?” This hasty and totally unnecessary decision was lamely excused as due to Hamas having been designated a terrorist group by the US and Israel. So what? One man's terrorist is another man's hero.

The US Israel demand is for Hamas to renounce their prior use of violent means of resistance to the occupation, first. That is child-like, silly. That is tantamount to surrender before you begin negotiations. Does any right thinking person believe Israel or the US would talk to any Palestinian for one New York minute without the threat of more violence hanging over their collective heads? Surrender first, then we’ll talk! Good gosh. That’s a crazy concept. But one which gullible Americans seem to eat up! A delaying tactic. Not genuine.

I become annoyed when I hear the popular but deceitful litany about “innocent people.” As if we cared. It is well established that around the world 27,000 children starve to death or die of maladies exacerbated by poor diet, every day. Or that scores of people are dying daily in Darfur? And 50 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are at high risk of starvation? So please, to do not tell me our (used in the collective sense) motives are in any real way related to the “innocent people” concept. Our practices belie our declarations.

If Germany at Dachau and Auschwitz and Japan at Nanking and Bataan had not already discarded “innocent people” as a viable concept, then surely the US and UK at Dresden and America at Hiroshima have done so. And just how, pray tell, does a US “free fire zone” in ‘Nam fit into the innocent people concept? It sounds very much to me as if “innocent people” has become a term of convenience. If you don’t have M1A1 tanks or F16s and Apaches, then you use what you have. In war, there are no innocents.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
The West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Golan.
Gaza - a minuscule and worthless piece of land


I agree with you. AND I can't see why God would care who
owns it. Each side says God wants them to have it. Does
the all powerful God who created the entire universe care
about who gets that tiny spit of land??? I doubt it very much


the United States and Israel announced neither would
not only not deal with Hamas, they would not even talk to Hamas.


At this time the United States can't. It's illegal. Somewhere in the
halls of the US senate a law was passed that said our government
CAN'T deal with Hamas at all. This wasn't passed in the last few
months. It's been there for years. The details have been posted
on one of the numerous Palestinian/Israeli discussion threads that
are here. I can't remember exactly when that law was passed,
but it's in place. If G.W., or anyone in the US Government, were
to deal with Hamas, they would be breaking US law and subject
to prosecution.

As far as Israel goes ... of course they aren't going to deal with
Hamas. Hamas has said that their reason for existing is to
wipe Israel off the face of the planet. If your next door neighbor
on your street vowed to destroy you no matter what, I highly doubt
that you'd go knocking on their door and ask them over for dinner.
Third parties need to be involved. However, due to the laws here
in America, it can't be us.


BTW ... just for future reference ... I'm NOT a fundamentalist and I
can't stand the 700 club nor Pat Robertson (or just about any of
the TV preachers).


[edit on 3/30/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven
A world without war is not much of a world since war is
just as integral as peace.


Aha!! You've studied basic sociology in college, haven't you?

That is exactly what just about every sociologist will tell you.
Even if you rid the world of 'war', then people will HAVE to find
something to fight about and condemn. Even the puritans of
old had gotten rid of most major 'sins', and they began to
nitpick. Soon, things as unimportant as a woman combing hair
in public became a major sin and replaced the old biggie sins
that had been done away with.



[edit on 3/30/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
We will have an all volunteer military or the draft no two ways about it

People who are not willing to fight for a way of life they like will live under those who will fight



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join