is a draft imminent? [Archive] - Love-Scent Pheromones Forum

Biohazard

02-13-2005, 12:07 AM

If we were to

use tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real

quick-like, heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.

Those pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ,

any ideas?

$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends

to be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?

I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong

with that, if you join up soon that is.

It would be a tactical air strike on Iranian facilities using

standard munitions, not nukes. There's already unmanned aerial surveillance over Iran to search for targets and

collect air samples to detect "nukular" activity. Would Iran step it up a notch and invade another predominantly

Muslim nation to retaliate? End up killing a lot of Muslims as collateral, and still be able to claim to the Muslim

world that it was acting to defend itself? Interesting question with lots of diplomatic consequences for Iran.

Also, while they're busy sending their army across the border to fight Americans, would they be toppled by

opposition forces from within?

The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of

range of first strike mortar fire. But any invasion of the South by the North will result in a huge mushroom cloud

over Pyongyang within 48 hours. It would be over before we even need a draft. Their "bluff" is that they claim to

have nukes. Their poker face isn't very good.

I am a Bush supporter in that the alternative doesn't

represent a position that is acceptable to me. But I'm certainly no Greenpeace-looking yuppy liberal either if you

were curious. ;)

I am quoting your $100 bet because I will take you up on that. Seriously. I have a Paypal

account you can send money to by the end of the year. :D

koolking1

02-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Should you win I

will send to your paypal account (I have one myself) $100 on Jan 1st 2006. Should I win you will pay me right away?

I mention this just so we are firm on the rules of this bet.

I am not a pacifist by any stretch of the

imagination. I would like to see the authoritarian rulers in Iran toppled. I do not think that the internal

resistance there is of much consequence. I would like to see the North Korean peasants freed as well.

Let

me get this straight, you are saying we won't nuke the Iranians but we will nuke the North Koreans? Could you

elaborate on why that is so? Is there some fine line in place that differentiates the two. Yes, I know you said we

would not use nukes to destroy their nuclear facilities but what about the next day when the entire Iranian Armed

Forces head towards and into Iraq? Actually, this would be just one more good enough reason to get our troops out

of Iraq within the next 30-60 days.

If we do attack Iran, my own feeling is that whatever internal

resistance existing there will change their views dramatically once we attack and rally to the "national cause" to

repel the so-called "Great Satan". One only has to look to Iraq where the vast majority there want us out and out

soon. The Shia majority won the so-called free election there. Don't you think they will be turning to Iran now?

How do you think the Shia are going to react when we tell them that Allawi is going to remain in charge anyways?

Biohazard

02-13-2005, 06:01 PM

Koolking, we're on. $100 via

Paypal on Jan 1st, 2006. I'm going to make sure this account is linked to my current email so that I can be

reached in case I owe you money.

A plan to nuke North Korea was in the works during the Clinton days -- it

was declassified last year to remind them what awaits if they step beyond their borders. The use of nukes is NOT a

first strike option. It would only be used to defend North Korea's neighbors. This is the only way we could ever

justify using nukes. I'm not sure if Iran would step it up in retaliation to a single attack on their facilities

and throw a crutch into the recovery of another mostly Muslim nation in Iraq. I'll reiterate that Iran has to

contemplate the killing of a lot of Muslim civilians in the process of invading Iraq to kill Americans just because

they lost a building. You think the Iraqi civilians will welcome Iranians waltzing throught their neighborhoods

after all they've endured already in the past two years? Besides, there is a lot of open desert the Iranian

soldiers have to travel after they cross in to Iraq. Open desert = field day for American air power. All we'd

need to do is drop a MOAB on a few thousand of their soldiers hiking out in the open and they'll be scurrying in

the opposite direction.

I am worried about the Shia rule in Iraq, but apparently they've assured

everyone they're not like the Iranians seeing as how Iraq is more ethnically diverse and a theocracy would cause

more problems than it's worth. The new Iraqi government will not have a "Supreme Leader," although there will be

an important role for Islamic customs just as Christian customs have played a major part in domestic laws of the

United States. They'll have some type of a parliament that's analagous to the U.S. congress, which does present

at least some semblance of power balance unlike Iran. Let's not jump to conclusions about how it'll turn out,

good or bad.

DAdams91982

02-17-2005, 07:59 AM

Hahaha.. I love these

conversations... Your just blatenly dumb if you think there is going to be a draft (No offense of course). Bottom

line is it is not going to happen, and that statement is so obsurd that Im not even going to qualify my comment

about it.

SrA Adams

belgareth

02-17-2005, 08:14 AM

I'm curious why it's so dumb,

other than your opinion? Isn't it a numbers situation? The pros in the military are very good at what they do but

can they handle all the potential fronts? If not, where will the manpower come from? Technology helps a lot but

somebody has to be there to run the equipment too, don't they?

Personally, I don't claim to know either way

but am willing to learn. If you can explain I would appreciate it.

koolking1

02-17-2005, 08:33 AM

Well, time will tell.

I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis and am glad to see the meaningful and rancor-less dialogue. You may have

guessed that I personnaly do want a return to the draft as well as thinking it may happen. I write to my

Congressman about this from time to time and also keep up with Rep. Rangel's (and others) ideas about this issue.

I really did get the feeling from watching Bush's Inaugural speech that he has something in mind for our younger

folks. At any rate, I am good for the money in this wager.

Adams, you can call me dumb all you want -

coming from you I take it as a compliment. So, thanks!!!!

DrSmellThis

02-17-2005, 11:50 AM

George Bush has said he is not

planning a draft, and that we're not going to attack Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any other countries, other than our

own. I for one absolutely believe him. :rant:

DumLuc

02-17-2005, 12:02 PM

The guy is a Texan, a Skull and

Boner, and was raised by an Illuminate;why would he not tell us anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth; so help him God.

belgareth

02-17-2005, 02:09 PM

What does being a Texan have to

do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather offensive.

DumLuc

02-17-2005, 02:23 PM

Come on now, Tex, you must know

that present company is excepted. Besides it was either that or the fact that he was a Republican and I figured

that anyTexan would be big enough to take a good natured jibe and I know a Republican wouldn't.

belgareth

02-17-2005, 02:38 PM

:) I'm actually a transplanted

Texan but feel that it beats the devil out of anywhere else I've lived.

I don't know about the republicans not

taking a jab well either. After living in many parts of the country and knowing a lot of democratss, green

party'ers, republicans and so on I have to conclude that they are all about the same in their ability to laugh at

themselves or take being laughed at. If I had to pick a stiff necked group it certanly wouldn't be the republicans

or any other purely political group, for that matter. I've offended my fair share of liberals over the years. A few

times I've even managed to offend both parties simultaneously. It made me grin for weeks afterwards just thinking

about it.

Holmes

02-18-2005, 11:13 AM

I'll bet anyone here that there

may or may not be a draft.

Who's on?

koolking1

02-18-2005, 11:33 AM

of course, I am!!! I need

to find some sucker to bet me $100 that there will be a draft.

DrSmellThis

02-18-2005, 02:03 PM

I'll bet anyone

here that there may or may not be a draft.

Who's on?:lol: ..........

Felstorm

02-21-2005, 03:49 AM

the rhetoric

is ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?
Having been in

the military within the last administration, I wouldn't be too surprised if it does happen.

People that say

that a draft will absolutley not happen, are deluding themselves. When I was in for Basic at Ft.Knox they were

gearing up to take on 3 more training companies. In fact I helped clean out the Cold WAr era barracks to make way

for new bunks, wall lockers, and training equipment. The Army doesn't do this unless they are going to be training

privates in those buildings. Thomas White came and inspected those buildings that I cleaned out, and shook my hand

and congratulated me and my platoon on how good of a job we did in preparing those training barracks.

I was

told by Col. Ballantyne that there were 'contingency' plans to instate an overnight draft and get 100 thousand new

footsloggers on the field within three months should Iran or N.K. get uppity and do something stupid.

There

were also unconfirmed rumors that Thomas White proposed a bill that would force all graduating teenagers to a

mandatory two-years of military service. At the same time I was told by my Sergeant Major that the President would

be instituting a "stop-loss" order when we we invaded Iraq. All of which In learned when we were still bombing

civilians and Taliban in Afghanistan.

So far, the invasion of Iraq, and the 'stop-loss' order have happened.

So I wouldn't be too damn surprised to find out that 18-30yo's get the Selective Service call-up in the near

future. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in sunny Fallujah in the next few months.

And as

an aside...

I find that draft dodgers and would-be draft dodgers are hypocrits. They enjoy all the priviledges

of what the soldier class has provided to them, yet refuse to serve so their cushy way of life can continue.

For every draft dodging tree-hugging dope-addled hippy, there was a man that sacrificed his life to ensure that

punk could smoke his dope, spout his stupidity, and zone out on his boob-tube.

That's not to say I haven't

smoked pot, hugged a tree, spouted stupidity, or zoned out to a boob-tube. But I'm willing to lay down my life so

this severly screwed-up country can exist for others to straighten out, and then promptly screw up all over again.

Freedom and liberty come at a cost, sometimes a terrible one. There is no 'just' war, there is only war. War

is about survival of your ideology, your way of life, your community, and ultimately your DNA. There will always be

a battlefeild. Those that refuse to participate in the survival of the very way of life that allowed them that

freedom of thought and voice are, in my opinion, some very sad, scared, and unhealthy human animals.

koolking1

02-21-2005, 07:04 AM

my source of information

that leads me to believe a draft will be coming is within the military. The only other explanation I can divine for

this rumor would be wishful thinking or a morale-booster rumor circulating amongst Reserve and Guard troops who need

a break.

Scott Ritter is claiming a Jun 2005 attack on Iran has been bought off on by Pres Bush (Ritter has

been right in the past and has a lot of credibility). Jun 2005 also coincides with Iran's planned Coup d Etat of

the oil industry and choice of world currency (Euro instead of Dollar).

Iran is not going to sit still

while we destroy their nuclear facilities - ground troops (and lots of them) will likely be needed. "the Iraq

dilemna may be looked at in the future as a minor happening in the overall greater war".

koolking1

02-21-2005, 03:14 PM

Army Having

Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service

By

Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A01

The active-duty Army

is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those

that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with

senior officers .

For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4

percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half

of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the Army is rushing

incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average

number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty

recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary

incentives.

Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed

to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young

American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq

conflict.

"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin

L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing

settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our

goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."

Other senior military

officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging

for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in

January for the first time in nearly a decade.

Because the Army is the main U.S. military ground force, its

ability to draw recruits is critical to the nation's preparedness to fight current and future wars. The Army can

sustain its ranks through retaining more experienced soldiers -- and indeed retention in 2004 was 107 percent -- but

if too few young recruits sign up, the force will begin to age. Moreover, higher retention in the active-duty Army

translates into a dwindling stream of recruits for the already troubled Army Guard and Reserve.

Army

officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for

fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.

Still, the recruiting difficulties reflect

unprecedented demands on today's soldiers that are unlikely to let up soon. Never before has the all-volunteer Army

deployed to war zones in such large numbers for multiple, yearlong tours. It is doing so with a total force cut by

300,000 troops -- from 28 active-duty and reserve divisions to 18 -- since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The

Army is now working to add 30,000 soldiers by 2009, expanding the active-duty force from 482,000 to 512,000, as it

builds 10 to 15 new combat brigades to add to divisions for overseas tours. But cultivating so many fresh recruits

without lowering standards is a serious challenge, senior Army leaders say. "If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can

do that pretty quick, but now grow 30,000 of them back," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, told a House

Armed Services committee hearing Feb. 9. "It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier."

Time,

however, is what the Army lacks.

Beyond replacing normal turnover each year, officials say the Army must

accelerate recruitment to meet an aggressive timeline for filling out the new brigades of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers

each, as well as to expand and reorganize the 33 existing brigades.

Newly trained troops are essentially

being rationed out -- a process Army officers call "turning on the faucet" -- a few months before the brigades are

to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The military plans to keep about 120,000 troops in Iraq through 2006.

"The priority fill goes to deploying units to make sure they are at full strength before they go overseas,"

says Col. Joseph Anderson, who until this month served as chief of staff of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort

Campbell, Ky.

Such demands have led the Army to deplete its reservoir of enlistees in the Delayed Entry

Program (DEP). The DEP consists of people who have signed enlistment contracts but opt to delay their entry to

training camps for up to a year. DEP numbers fell from 33,249 at the beginning of fiscal 2004 to 14,739 at the start

of this fiscal year, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.

As a result, while the Army began

last year with 45.9 percent of its recruiting goal filled by the pool, this year it started with just 18.4 percent

in the pool -- the lowest amount since 2001 and well below the 30 percent average for the past decade. That means

the Army must redouble its efforts to meet this year's target.

"Would we like a deeper DEP, a greater

number? Of course we would," Hagenbeck said. But despite his anticipation of an even tougher recruiting environment

in 2006 -- resulting from an improving economy and public uncertainty over the Iraq war -- he said the overriding

need to hasten recruits to units means there are no plans to replenish the DEP this year.

Meanwhile, netting

each new recruit is proving more difficult and time-consuming, Hagenbeck said, requiring the Army to put hundreds

more active-duty recruiters on the job.

"The youngsters that are joining us are spending more time with the

recruiters before they raise their right hand," he said. Today, most prospective enlistees contact the Army via the

Internet, he said, asking numerous questions that require more recruiters to answer online and follow up with phone

calls.

But few candidates will join up before meeting a recruiter in person and spending significant amounts

of time with one, he said. "They ultimately want to see a soldier, a recruiter, and talk to them eyeball to

eyeball," he said. As a result, "the recruiter who could go out and recruit two people this week might be consumed

with recruiting that one."

The average cost of signing up a recruit is also beginning to rise, from $15,265

in fiscal 2001 to $15,967 in fiscal 2004 -- the result of more recruiters, advertising, and increased enlistment

bonuses. In January, the Army announced a new six-month advertising contract with Leo Burnett USA worth an estimated

$100 million. The Army is offering bonuses of as much as $20,000 to enlist on active duty for four years, with

special monetary incentives for candidates who have college degrees, sign up for high-priority jobs or agree to move

quickly into training.

The Army is also paying more to retain active-duty soldiers, 50 percent of whom now

receive reenlistment bonuses, compared with 39 percent in 2003, Army officials said.

"We may not get exactly

the number of people we want, but we're not sacrificing quality," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a House

committee Feb. 9.

The Army is offering higher ranks to enlistees who have spent time in college or junior

ROTC, and as a result is bringing in more recruits at ranks above private, or E-1.

Such policies could

partly explain a shift in the Army's junior enlisted ranks that has perplexed military analysts. The number of

privates (E-1 through E-3) in the active-duty Army has sharply declined from 126,100 in October 2001 to 107,500 in

December 2004. Meanwhile, the number of corporals and specialists (E-4) has risen from 95,400 to 115,500.

Another explanation is that the active-duty Army is maintaining its force strength more through retention

than recruitment, resulting in a subtle aging of the force -- a trend already evident in the Army Reserve, officials

said.

DrSmellThis

02-25-2005, 11:33 AM

For the Few

and the Proud, Concern Over the 'Few' Part
By Eric Schmitt /

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25marine.html?)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - The Iraq war's dampening effect on recruiting has led to a plan by the Marine Corps to put

hundreds of additional recruiters on the streets over the next several months and offer new re-enlistment bonuses of

up to $35,000, military officials said Thursday.

Recruiters and other military officials say the "Falluja

effect" - a steady drumbeat of military casualties from Iraq, punctuated by graphic televised images of urban combat

- is searing an image into the public eye that Marine officers say is difficult to overcome.

The Marines make

up about 21 percent of the 150,000 military personnel in Iraq now but have suffered 31 percent of the military

deaths there, according to Pentagon statistics.

The Army and other services have often increased the number of

recruiters and dangled incentives to bolster their enlistment efforts in lean years. But for the Marines, steps of

this magnitude, including the largest one-time increase in recruiters in recent memory, are unheard of in a service

whose macho image has historically been a magnet for young people seeking adventure and danger in a military career.

Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, predicted on Thursday that the Marines would achieve their

overall recruiting goal for this fiscal year, even after the service missed its monthly quota in January, the first

such lapse in nearly a decade. But General Hagee indicated that recruiters were facing some of toughest conditions

they have ever faced, starting in the homes of their prized recruits.

"What the recruiters are telling us is

that they have to spend more time with the parents," General Hagee said. "Parents have influence, and rightly so, on

the decision these young men and young women are going to make. They're saying, 'It's not maybe a bad idea to

join the Marine Corps, but why don't you consider it a year from now, or two years from now; let's think about

this.' "

At issue is the Marines' decision to rebuild its recruiting ranks, which had fallen recently to

2,410 full-time recruiters from 2,650 before the Iraq war, as commanders siphoned off marines who had been scheduled

for recruiting duty to perform combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The recruiting force atrophied," said Maj.

David M. Griesmer, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. "Now we need to get back up to where we need

to be." Major Griesmer said the Marines would add nearly 250 recruiters between now and October 2006.

General

Hagee said, "We are putting more recruiters out there on the street."

In a reflection of the difficult market

for Marine recruiters, the service offers bonuses of up to $35,000 to retain combat veterans of Iraq and

Afghanistan.

What is unusual about these incentives is that the Marines Corps for the first time is offering

re-enlistment bonuses, averaging $20,000, to its most junior infantrymen, rather than relying mainly on

inexperienced troops fresh from boot camp to replenish the infantry. About 75 percent of enlisted marines leave the

service after their first tour, requiring a steady stream of recruits moving through training centers in San Diego

and Parris Island, S.C.

"We need infantrymen," General Hagee said, explaining the shift in bonus priorities.

"That's what we're using over there on the ground."

General Hagee said the initial wave of bonuses had

increased re-enlistment rates among infantry units, but Marine officials said they did not have specific figures

readily available.

The Marines' decision to strengthen recruiting comes as the Army has added hundreds of new

recruiters and is pushing incoming recruits into training as fast as possible.

In a wide-ranging breakfast

interview with reporters, General Hagee touched on several issues regarding Iraq that military specialists say

contribute to the climate of concern among potential recruits and their parents.

General Hagee said the

military had an all-out effort under way to combat the remotely detonated roadside bombs that are the No. 1 killer

of American troops in Iraq. The Marines, he said, are using a sophisticated computer program to help identify

potential vulnerabilities of supply convoys protected by electronic jamming devices.

When it comes to

recruiting, the traditional enticements of military service, like travel, education benefits and the Marine Corps

mystique, now must vie with the concerns of recruits and their parents, recruiters say.

"The parents have always

been the challenge," said Gunnery Sgt. Larry Pyles, who has been a recruiter for five years in the DuPage South

office in Naperville, Ill.

DrSmellThis

02-25-2005, 12:00 PM

If Bush can drum up support in the GOP power base for attacking Iran, Syria

and/or N. Korea as he wants to; and we cannot withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (Why does no one mention

Afghanistan any more?); there will be a draft. This is not rocket science. It is the fundamental project of

neocons.

I'm fairly certain the Bush administration is timing the inevitable escalation of their aggressive

rhetoric and stance toward Iran and Syria, to allow for more human resources to be freed up from current

engagements, if possible. They also have to time it to account for pushing through and implementing a draft. I do

know contingency plans are already well in place for an emergency draft. This raises the possiblity of allowing

another terrorist attack to happen at home (remember the 52 warnings, "My Pet Goat", Richard Clarke, the PNAC wish

for another Pearl Harbor; and failure to scramble planes despite plenty of awareness and time?), to ensure the

necessary support and human resources will be available.

If redirecting human resources from Iraq and

Afghanistan is impossible; and yet they are still able to control mainstream media and the press as they have, they

will probably be able to tell enough lies and evoke enough terror at home to convince people to go along with

expanding the "war against terrorism." (Anybody heard from Bin Laden lately? I heard he's a "three handicap" now!).

A draft would be forthcoming.

Otherwise, no one knows; and I doubt the decision has been made.

Implementing

a draft would have political costs for Republicans, since that brings war home to citizens regardless of political

bent (There is a political bias toward the right in soldier families which would be nullified if families weren't

volunteers). If there is a draft, the level of protest will be comparable to the 1960's. Some will arm themselves

in rebellion, just like then (then Patty Hearst will have something to do again).

It takes balls to bet on this

either way. I don't know if this whole process can play itself out in a year.

koolking1

09-23-2005, 09:39 AM

I want the

draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's

because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.

from

EASTBAYEXPRESS.com

"News
War Pornography
Gore-for-porn swap by US soldiers in Iraq makes Abu Ghraib

look like kid stuff.
By Chris Thompson

Published: Wednesday, September 21,

2005

NowThatsFuckedUp.com

Who / What:
NowThatsFuckedUp.com

The War

Pornographers

Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by

Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
Send this story to a friend

Feature
Fishin' for Evildoers
All aboard the August Vollmer, Alameda County's terror-fightin'

gunboat.

Bottom Feeder
Condé Nasty
Construction-happy Wired magnates feud with NIMBY neighborhood --

again. Oops! Dellums might just run after all, but rival Nacho wants that church vote.

City of Warts
A

Nation's Forgotten Suffering
Haiti sets the standard for misery, and yet, save one Oakland journalist, US media

don't consider its pain and mayhem terribly newsworthy.

Cityside
When Silence Equals Death
Hybrid

vehicles are good for the planet, but bad news for the visually impaired. What's a well-meaning lefty to

do?

Letters
Letters for the week of September 21-27, 2005
Git yer frankin' facts straight! We don't

even have a water cooler. And whatever does Chris Thompson expect he's going to accomplish?

If you

want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American

soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly

mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him

post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures

of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.
At Wilson's Web site, you can see an Arab man's

face sliced off and placed in a bowl filled with blood. Another man's head, his face crusted with dried blood and

powder burns, lies on a bed of gravel. A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint

lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck

blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as US Marines, laugh and smile for the camera

while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet.

The captions that accompany these

images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier

who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look

like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears

the caption: "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled

his collection, "die haji die." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.

This is a moral

catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials have banned the media

from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media

officials have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and

American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu

Ghraib has dragged on for months, with no less a figure than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers

arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But

none of these can compare to the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for

porn.

"Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures

of it, I would have said that's a lie," sighed the recently retired General Michael Marchand – who as Assistant

Judge Advocate General for the Army was responsible for reforming military training policy to make sure nothing like

Abu Ghraib ever happens again. "What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."

But for Chris Wilson,

it's all in a day's work. "It's an unedited look at the war from their point of view," he says of the soldiers

who contribute the images. "There's always going to be a slant from the news media. ... And this is a photo that

comes straight from their camera to the site. To me, it's just a more real look at what's going on."

Wilson, a 27-year-old Web entrepreneur living in Florida, created the Web site a year ago, asked fans to

contribute pictures of their wives and girlfriends, and posted footage and photographs bearing titles such as "wife

working cock" and "ass fucking my wife on the stairs." The site was a big hit with soldiers stationed overseas;

about a third of his customers, or more than fifty thousand people, work in the military. Wilson says he started

getting e-mail from soldiers thanking him for keeping up their morale and "bringing a little piece of the States to

them." But other soldiers complained that they had problems buying memberships to his service. "They wanted to join

the site, the amateur wife and girlfriend site," he says. "But they couldn't, because the addresses associated with

their credit cards were Quackistan or something, they were in such a high-risk country, that the credit card

companies wouldn't approve the purchase."

That's when Wilson hit upon the idea of offering free

memberships to soldiers. All they had to do was send a picture of life in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they'd get all

the free porn they wanted. All sorts of images began appearing over the transom, but he dedicated a special site to

view the most "gory" pictures. Asked what he feels upon viewing a new crop, Wilson says: "Personally, I don't look

at it one way or another. It's newsworthy, and people can form their own opinions."

Wilson's Web site has

made the news before – but not for posting pictures of murdered human beings. Last October, the New York Post

reported that the Pentagon was investigating Wilson for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a

few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked soldiers in Iraq from accessing the Web site, which had

posted five more pictures of nude female soldiers, some of whom had posed with machine guns and grenades. After the

Post's stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even

after he started posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie

pics. It wasn't until reporters from the European press contacted him last week that anyone took notice of

Wilson's snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.

"The soldiers thing, I think the Italians picked

it up first," Wilson says. "I've done interviews with the Italians, the French, Amsterdam. ... They were very

critical, saying the US wouldn't pick it up, because it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical

questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."

According to Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris

Conway, Pentagon policy may be ambivalent when it comes to soldiers posting pictures of mutilated war victims.

"There are policies in place that, on the one hand, safeguard sensitive and classified information, and on the other

hand protects the First Amendment rights of servicemembers," he says, adding that field commanders may issue

additional directives. "In plain English, if you're on the job working for the Department of Defense, you

shouldn't be freelancing. You should be doing your duty."

If American soldiers are always considered

representatives of their government while in the field, international law clearly prohibits publishing and

ridiculing images of war dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who

have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be

respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva

Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if

possible according to the rites off the religion to which they belonged."

Nothing about this appalling trade

could begin to be called "honorable." This latest scandal doesn't just demean the bodies of the dead – it demeans

us all, in ways we won't begin to understand for years. One of the pictures on Wilson's site depicts a woman whose

right leg has been torn off by a land mine, and a medical worker is holding the mangled stump up to the camera. The

woman's vagina is visible under the hem of her skirt. The caption for this picture reads: "Nice puss – bad

foot."

We have decided to make available six of the photos originally posted on NowThatsFuckedUp.com, along

with the soldiers' original subject headings. This decision to repost them was not made lightly, but we concluded

that the graphic nature of the photos, juxtaposed with their flippant treatment by members of the US military, is

newsworthy as a statement on US military culture. WARNING: These are brutally graphic war images that many readers

will find disturbing. They should NOT be viewed by children or the faint of heart. With that disclaimer, you will

find them here. Click on the small photos to view the larger photos with captions. "

Biohazard

09-23-2005, 06:50 PM

I want the

draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's

because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.

Nice to see

you're still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet. "Slipping?" Look at any army and you'll find

immature members not acting honorably. Americans have done bad things to enemy bodies in every war going all the

way back to pre-independence days. Ever hear of scalping Native Indians in the 1700s? Removal of gold teeth from

the Japanese in WWII? The worst was probably in Vietnam, and a large part of it was low morale among the servicemen

due to being drafted. Therefore, I cannot see why you would want a draft.

You're a doomsday monger. And

you have delusions of how the world really works. Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months. ;)

DrSmellThis

09-24-2005, 03:36 AM

I'm also confused about how

the world really works. I can't even figure out why all those people are dying over in Iraq, why Iraqis are our

enemies; or whether our all-volunteer military has a high morale.

koolking1

09-24-2005, 07:31 AM

Sigma

09-24-2005, 11:32 AM

What does being a

Texan have to do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather

offensive.

Agreed. Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so

caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy stereotype is beyond me.

Biohazard

09-24-2005, 01:02 PM

laughing here,

in addition to this bet I also occasionally bet college football, notably Florida State. When I win I graciously

accept the money from whomever I've made the bet while making a comment such as "hey, it could have easily gone the

other way" or when I lose, I hand over the cash and whoever gets it says something like, "hey, thanks, it could

have easily gone the other way". We keep it gentlemanly.

"You're a doomsday monger".

Hardly. My

belief is that if we all try hard we can make this world a better place. Your belief seems to be that since war

crimes have been committed in the past that we should expect and, most sadly mirroring your personality, accept

their happening again and again.

"And you have delusions of how the world really works."

You'll

have to explain how that is? Expatiate please.

"Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months."

I

don't think so. It's put up or shut up now that you've pissed me off. Will one of the forum members please

volunteer to accept my $100 and Biohazards $100 to later disburse to the winner within a week of Jan 1st, 2006? If

someone is nice enough to do this, I'll add an extra $25 so they can have a nice meal on me. Thanks in advance.

Biohazard, you might be so generous yourself although it's certainly not required.

"Nice to see you're

still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet."

I don't like your implication. Most people on

this board know that I have been and will likely continue to be "around". I also know that my chances of winning

are dwindling as the months quickly go by and actually getting the money out now works to my benefit and yours as

I'm leaving on Jan 8th for a 4 month trek around the world (sure hope my being delusional doesn't impact my

trip!!!).

Good Luck to you.

I had hoped my little emoticon at the end of my post signified

that I was simply giving a little good natured ribbing. I know we haven't posted in a while (I was only alerted by

email when this topic was updated), but my impression was that this was a friendly bet and that no one was taking

politics all too seriously. I didn't know you had an emotional involvement, so I apologize if a nerve was hit. I

know we're discussing a topic where people are dying, but still I thought most of this dialogue was tongue in

cheek. People joke about war all the time on the late night shows.

When I mentioned "delusional," I meant

retrospectively it appears you believe that the military has been better (on a moral level) in the past, claiming

that in the 1980s the military was headed somewhere where it hasn't been before in the past. All I did was rebut

your statement with a little reality about what the past entailed. No, we should not accept these atrocities as

"boys being boys," but the reality is that humans are by nature that way and there will always be the very few who

will behave as such, draft or no draft. I just happen to believe that it occurs less now, because in the past, many

draftees do not wish to be fighting and therefore do not hold themselves to the highest expectations of military

honor.

Wanting a draft to come back is indeed being a "doomsday monger." Why would you want a draft

back, knowing how much chaos it would cause in American society? Remember the resistance during Vietnam? Why would

you want that to occur? That was what boggled me and you still haven't offered an explanation for that

statement.

I have no problem upping the ante to $125 to send to a third party to mediate our bet. But I do

not see the necessity since I do not believe that there is any real friction between us, other than a little

misunderstanding of intent.

belgareth

09-24-2005, 01:31 PM

Agreed. Texas is

one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy

stereotype is beyond me.

Moving to Texas was quite a cultural shock for me after living in

ultra-liberal, open-minded California for so many years. For all the high minded idealistic noises they made in

California I see less bigotry, both overt and covert, and far greater diversity here than I ever saw in California.

The majority here just don't care what color you are, they have a much greater live and let live attitude. In my

own opinion it is a result of not having equality shoved down their throats. There's no resentment built up here

over it. People in California seemed to be so busy proving they didn't care that they never had time to actually

made the time to get to know those other kinds of people.

belgareth

09-24-2005, 02:01 PM

I think Koolking is right

though that we need a draft.

koolking1

09-24-2005, 02:28 PM

Biohazard

09-24-2005, 03:48 PM

"No. Our

all-volunteer armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft.

It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service

on behalf of my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you.

Ask what you can do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often

about the need for our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the

military?

No, I am not in the military as I mentioned in my first post here. Although I have

considered the route my brother has taken when I am done with my current work. He is applying his engineering

skills to the design of weapons systems for the Air Force. With my particular skills, I'd guess I'd be working in

biological/chemical research as an officer. Right now I think I'm doing good by working in the civilian medical

research sector.

My feelings have not changed. If situations were grave enough whereby a draft is

indeed needed -- which is not at the current momemt, although you disagree -- and I am selected, I would not resist.

"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range

of first strike mortar fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very

definitive statement on your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am

curious.

North Korea has not been bashful about "re-uniting" the Korean people under communist rule.

Any action in the Korean peninsula would be initiated by a first strike by the North Koreans, which appeared more

likely 7 months ago but not now. Having American ground personel survive the first encounter would be important in

coordinating a counter-offensive. If a war did break out in Korea, it think it would still not require a draft. I

think nukes would be dropped on NK and it would be over before it really even gets started.

I'd be happy to

answer any more questions. This is an interesting discussion.

koolking1

10-04-2005, 11:03 AM

October 4, 2005 latimes.com

: National News Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size

THE NATION
Army to Lower Bar

for Recruits
By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

"WASHINGTON — Facing recruiting shortages brought on

by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near

the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.

Coming off a recruiting year

in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced

that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the

16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential

military personnel.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting

class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might

dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch.

The continuing violence in Iraq has made the

Army's annual mission to bolster its ranks especially difficult in recent months. The Army fell nearly 7,000

recruits short of its goal for the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Friday. Army officials have said that recruiters

might be faced with an even bigger challenge during the current fiscal year.

Harvey insisted that the Army

was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each

military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.

Yet one Army official said that the policy

change is also a concession to reality. The Army failed to meet its benchmark for 2005, and decided to widen the

pool of recruits it could target during the 2006 fiscal year. The Army official spoke on condition of anonymity

because the 2005 recruiting figures would not be formally announced until next week.

Before being admitted

into the military, a potential recruit takes a group of tests known as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery. The recruits fall into categories based on their performance on the aptitude tests.

Harvey said he

saw no reason why the Army standards should be more stringent than Pentagon guidelines, and pointed out that the

Army already allows more Category IV troops to join the National Guard than it does the active duty

ranks.

"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a

straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines,"

he said.

Harvey spoke to reporters during a convention of the Assn. of the U.S. Army, a private organization

that supports active duty and reserve soldiers.

Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's

requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th

percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense

Department benchmarks.

The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting

recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each

service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.

Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems

staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV

recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.

The Army's recruiting problems have

become more pressing as the violence in Iraq has intensified, scaring potential recruits away. Recruiters in 2005

accepted more individuals whom they might have rejected previously.

Harvey denied Monday that the Army was in

the midst of a recruiting crisis, pointing to a series of new initiatives — including increasing the Army's

advertising budget by $130 million and putting 3,000 more recruiters on the streets — that he hoped would reverse

the downward trend."

Sounds to me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

belgareth

10-04-2005, 11:31 AM

Aren't they called cannon

fodder?

Netghost56

10-04-2005, 11:47 AM

I scored a 207 on my ASVAB in

99. That's 66% academic, 97% verbal, and 45% math.

But in the military's eyes, I don't exist, so I'm not

worried the least bit about a draft.

I do worry about my friends, and if I had siblings, I'd worry about them as

well.

Three of my cousins have married military men, and they are haggard these days as their spouses are

overseas. I don't think it's worth the hardship to go through that.

Biohazard

10-04-2005, 04:03 PM

Sounds to

me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

There's always been a call for a

few good men to enlist in the military, since the founding of this country. Every president, from Washington to

GWB, has felt that military service is an honorable career option for our nation's youth.

Falling

short of recruiting goals doesn't mean a draft is coming. I doubt there is even one general who would welcome a

draft, much less the rank and file soldiers who's backs should rightly be covered by someone who wants to be on the

front lines. A draft would weaken the effectiveness of the armed forces IMO, and I do not see how that would

improve the "morality" among the men and women who serve, as you seemed to have implied.

I think a

large part of recruiting shortages is the result of selective negative reporting by the media. If 99.99% of the

soldiers carry out their duties with honor, then 99.99% of the news stories should focus on the good work that is

being done. I'm not saying that bad deeds ought to be covered up, but one must really question the sensationalist

mentality of the media in what it chooses to focus on. Surely, one has plenty of material to use to bash the

current administration without having to use our servicemen and women as tools for a political

agenda.

Anyhow, have you decided to use a third party mediator to make the payout?

Netghost56

10-04-2005, 04:10 PM

Media? Ok. I don't think

billing the military as a great career move is right. The military is a tough job that requires you to go against

what you believe. They don't show the killing in their recruitment commercials.

And I'm primarily against

their recruitment tactics where they prey on the lower class people. Our military is turning into the French Foreign

Legion.

koolking1

10-05-2005, 10:55 AM

from the Army

Times:

October 04, 2005

Senate gives nod to
recruiting older citizens

By Rick Maze
Times

staff writer

Legislation allowing military recruits to enter service up to age 42 and to create a new

$1,000 finder’s fee for service members who tip off recruiters to good prospects has received tentative approval in

the Senate.
A package of 81 approved amendments to the 2006 defense authorization bill unveiled Monday includes a

recruiting and retention plan, proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and prepared by the Army, that also:

•

Raises the maximum enlistment bonus.

• Allows people with prior military service to get more than one bonus

for joining the reserves.

• Increases the maximum bonus for officers joining the reserves.

Sen. John

Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who submitted the package of approved amendments, said

the 81 amendments in it represented those on which agreement had been reached between Democrats and Republicans

during the two-month delay in work on the defense bill.

Warner said the package has amendments offered by 68

of the 100 senators, and that he and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, his committee’s ranking Democrat, would urge its

adoption when the Senate gets back to work on the bill, which could be this week.

Raising enlistment and

re-enlistment bonuses is the military’s traditional response to past problems in manning the force, but increasing

the maximum recruiting age and paying a referral bonus are new ideas, both aimed at the Army and its recruiting

difficulties.

The current age limit for active-duty recruits, 35, would increase to 42 for the all of the

services.

The provision is not controversial because it is expected the military would use the new authority

sparingly. The Army is the only service to express interest, and Army officials told the House Armed Services

Committee earlier this year that the new authority would be used only for a few critical specialties.

The

finder’s fee idea, however, does come with some controversy. Under the proposal, a member of the Army, Army Reserve

or Army National Guard could receive a $1,000 bonus for referring a person who has never served in the armed forces

to a recruiter.

For the finder to get the fee, the potential recruit would have to enlist in the Army, Army

Reserve or Army National Guard and finish basic and advanced training. No payments would be given for referring an

immediate family member, and anyone in a recruiting or career counselor assignment would be

ineligible.

McCain’s proposal limits the number of bonuses to 1,000 as an initial test and would cancel the

program on Jan. 1, 2008.

Army officials have talked about wanting to offer bonuses of up to $2,500 and

another new enlistment incentive of up to $25,000 that could be used as a down payment on the purchase of a home.

"

are nursing homes next stop for recruiters?

BioHazard, I'll be replying to you shortly.

Alas, no one here has stepped up to the plate to hold the dough so it's back to plan A. One of us pays up

on the 1st of Jan 2005. However, should I lose and I'll be confident that I've lost if nothing happens prior to

Dec 25th, I'll get the cash out to you then as I will have a lot to do shortly after that.

Biohazard

10-05-2005, 11:01 PM

Koolking, I don't see how

opening the recruitment requirements suggests that we are heading towards a draft. One thing you have overlooked is

the long-term political agenda of the Bush administration. They are establishing dominance of the Republican party

for generations to come. Bush has appointed Hispanics to positions of power, he's kissing Vincente Fox's ass, not

touching the illegal immigration issue, making deeper inroads with Black churches, and has appointed "stealth"

conservatives (one a woman) to the Supreme Court in order to appear more bipartisan. I see Republicans gaining even

more seats in 2006. All of this is negated by the re-instution of a draft.

If anything, it will be a

Democrat who will re-institute a draft. I remember there was one Democratic congressman (forget who) who proposed a

bill last year to re-institute a draft in order to force ruling presidents to be more prudent in using military

force (since now their relatives are liable to be drafted). A draft amounts to political suicide.

wood elf

10-06-2005, 04:41 AM

Many nations around the world

use a draft. Is it such a terrible thing? Some have a fine military tradition where others do not. Is it likely that

the problem is leadership, principle and patriotism rather than the draft itself? Two fine examples. Switzerland has

a draft but has a fine and honorable military. The French Foriegn legion was volunteer but had no such reputation

for their behavoir.

koolking1

10-06-2005, 05:11 AM

Armies are sometimes called

upon to settle civil unrest. Up until Hurricane Katrina, USA Federal troops were never called upon, Constituional

requirements were honored. Neither were armed security company contractors called upon. All Federal troops today

are volunteers and have been for some 30 years now. The Army has been changed from a concept of "citizen-soldier"

to "professional warrior". In contrast, the Soviet Red Army had been, up until the demise of the Soviet Union,

made up of mostly conscripts with a cadre of professional officers and nco's. During the counter-coup attempt by

remnants of the Soviet regime, Soviet troops with heavy tank support were ordered in to give some teeth to the

counter-coup elements holed up in the Kremlin. 1000s of protestors outside of the Kremlin were in grave danger.

But, a miracle happened, the mostly conscripted Soviet Army troops refused to shoot their fellow citizens. The

counter-coup was finished off without bloodshed.

Up until it seems yesterday, the United States government

was not acknowledging any serious problem with the Avian bird flu. Now, the Commander-in-Chief, President George

Bush, is suggesting that only the Army will be able to handle possible forced quarantines of specific geographical

areas that my be affected by this flu. This could get interesting.

belgareth

10-06-2005, 05:17 AM

You make a good case for the

draft. An army of citizen soldiers would seem less likely to fire on their fellow man. My biggest fear is a

government that is becoming more and more oppressive. The use of an all volunteer service to quell the masses is a

scary thought.

The other side of it is the overall poor quality of the soviet army. Rather than rely of skill

the soviet army relied on massive number making a lot of young people not much more than living targets for their

opponents.

koolking1

10-06-2005, 05:21 AM

"The other side of it is

the overall poor quality of the soviet army. Rather than rely of skill the soviet army relied on massive number

making a lot of young people not much more than living targets for their opponents."

That's exactly true and

one big reason the Soviets (behind closed doors though) were never really considered a serious threat to USA

security. Of course, the general public only heard of the Red Menace to keep them frightened.

belgareth

10-06-2005, 05:55 AM

There's a whole mentality

discussion here that I intended to address in another thread. In order to maintain the fiction of our need for a big

government there must always be an outside enemy. Think "1984". Without an outside threat to stand together against,

much of the government's purpose wanes and they can't have that. Mustn't let the taxpayer funded empires within

our government be dismantled. Once the USSR collapsed it was critical to develop new enemies to protect us from. A

majority of government functionality is no more than smoke and mirrors. They create and fill the need where without

the government's interference those needs would not exist in the first place. I've always found it rather

appalling that otherwise intelligent people fall into that trap.

Big M

10-06-2005, 10:03 AM

If they would pass a law that

makes it mandatory all high school grads must serve a minimum of two years in the military , They would not need to

reinstate the the draft . We would have plenty of military man power , Not only that it would be a great Character

builder , For the screwed up youth our society is putting out in the streets today.

koolking1

10-06-2005, 10:11 AM

Hi Michael, the problem

with your proposal is that the military doesn't need that many people. They really only need a small percentage of

the pool of 18-22 years olds but even so, they are having trouble recruiting. I sorta like your idea and sorta

don't. Honestly, not everyone is cut out for it. I would prefer to see them draft in the college age bracket -

smarter, more level-headed folks.

belgareth

10-06-2005, 11:24 AM

His idea does have merit,

Koolking. Add the stipulation that only some of the draftees serve in the armed forces. There is a lot of civil

service work to do as well.

koolking1

10-06-2005, 01:20 PM

that I would go for. Would

be good for the kids too but they wouldn't realize it for years later.

belgareth

10-06-2005, 01:41 PM

That wouldn't be much

different than you and me, would it?

Biohazard

10-06-2005, 05:21 PM

belgareth

10-07-2005, 06:07 AM

There's an

ideological problem with mandating military service in today's era of America. It's basically inferring that .gov

owns each person to some extent. The citizens of a more socialistic society might be okay with that idea, but

Americans tend to view themselves as individuals. Volunteerism and charity, rather than obligatory action, is

today's accepted norm. Know anyone who is truly happy about the amount of income tax they pay? How many people

would be in favor of a "volunteer tax," whereby you can pay anywhere from let's say 5-50%?
Citizens of

less socialist societies generally recognize an obligation to serve their country. I make a differentiation between

country and government here. IMHO, our government sucks big time. However, this is still our country and if more

people took an interest in helping it to be a better place instead of demanding the country and the government do

for them or even just apathetically sitting on their hands, it would be a different place. What exactly is your

obligation to your country and what do you do to fulfill it?

I disagree with you guys on the

merits of a draft. Each generation of older guys has the same negative view of the youth in their era. And in 20

years when I'm in my 40s, I'm sure I'll be saying the same thing of the then 18-25 guys. But I actually believe

today's youth are contributing more to society than in previous eras. Sure, there are more fat, lazy,

nintendo-playing kids today. But I get the feeling that volunteerism and generosity is also more common among

today's youth than ever before. Just look at all the different social help groups that exist today. And also

educational pursuit is as high today than it has ever been. Look at the stiff competition for spots in top tier

colleges now. So to say that today's youth need some shaping up is a little off-base. Besides, it's not .gov's

responsibility to shape kids up. That's a job for parents.

While I respect the fact that you have every

right to an opinion, the belief that older generations have a problem with younger ones is pure tripe. Having grown

up in the 60's and 70's I'd also strongly disagree that there is more involvement from younger people today. I

work with a service club, we built a playground recently. Despite all our efforts to recruit younger people to help

us, the average age of workers was close to 50. Maybe our years has given us perspective on involvement and

responsibilities that younger people don't have yet because they haven't been there and done that.

I do agree

with you that it is the parent's part to provide early education in social particiation. It would be nice if more

parents would do so. However, that does not change anything once they turn 18, they then have the rights and

obligations of an adult. The parents work is, in theory, done. Like it or not, social participation is at an all

time low with young people leading the trend.

In my own case, I did not start college until completing military

service. I can tell you from experience how much more I got out of school than the people just a few years younger

than me who had no real world experience. A lot of bright young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying

because they had no experience to relate to it.

Now, why doesn't the volunteerism of today's

youth translate to increased popularity of military service? That's a tough one to answer. Possibly, in the absence

of a grave foreign threat equivilent to the German-Japan axis of WWII, today's youth don't feel a real sense of

urgency to serve the country in a uniform.
You didn't address the other part of the suggestion. For those

who feel strongly about not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a huge, unfilled need

there too.

Netghost56

10-07-2005, 08:26 AM

I'd be interested in taking

an active role in government (if not for my background), but I doubt my views would be accepted, plus I'd be the

only green liberal in a room full of redcoats :lol:

I do agree with you that it is the parent's

part to provide early education in social particiation. It would be nice if more parents would do so. However, that

does not change anything once they turn 18, they then have the rights and obligations of an adult. The parents work

is, in theory, done. Like it or not, social participation is at an all time low with young people leading the

trend.
You have to realize what a young person is thinking about when they're 18. Once they graduate they

need a job (if not already employed), or go to college. With the way things are, I believe more and more will head

into the workplace right out of high school, which means they'll be working menial jobs. Obviously, many will be

able to advance, but for the rest, it's a grim future, and with no job security, they won't be much dedicated to

their job duties. Hence, you have young people drifting from job to job, they've already given up their dreams long

ago, now they just want to survive, and many are full of anguish, which hurts them and their jobs (and the

consumer). What's left? For many, acceptance of their place in life, marriage, kids, mortgage. For others,

drugs/alcohol, crime, and/or depression. Neither outlook is tantalizing to me.

In my own

case, I did not start college until completing military service. I can tell you from experience how much more I got

out of school than the people just a few years younger than me who had no real world experience. A lot of bright

young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying because they had no experience to relate to

it.
Most young people don't have the luxury of time these days. Financial aid (The ones you actually have

a chance to get) institutions most often want you to go right to college, the time of eligibility is usually just

one year, starting in your last semester of high school. If you were to take a full year off (or more) then even if

you get FA you'll have to pay part of the fees out of your pocket. True, if I were to go back to college next year

I wouldn't have sleep through all my classes. But most people just can't afford to waste time

now.

You didn't address the other part of the suggestion. For those who feel strongly about

not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a huge, unfilled need there

too.

There's no openings in this area. Plus most of our civil employees are the rudest people you could

meet. That's not very encouraging for those jobs.

belgareth

10-07-2005, 09:24 AM

I'd be

interested in taking an active role in government (if not for my background), but I doubt my views would be

accepted, plus I'd be the only green liberal in a room full of redcoats :lol:
Have you tried it? You might

be surprised. I also wonder why you wouldn't want to voice an opinion if they are so far away from what you

believe.

You have to realize what a young person is thinking about when they're 18. Once

they graduate they need a job (if not already employed), or go to college. With the way things are, I believe more

and more will head into the workplace right out of high school, which means they'll be working menial jobs.

Obviously, many will be able to advance, but for the rest, it's a grim future, and with no job security, they

won't be much dedicated to their job duties. Hence, you have young people drifting from job to job, they've

already given up their dreams long ago, now they just want to survive, and many are full of anguish, which hurts

them and their jobs (and the consumer). What's left? For many, acceptance of their place in life, marriage, kids,

mortgage. For others, drugs/alcohol, crime, and/or depression. Neither outlook is tantalizing to me.

You

have to realize I was a young person at one time too and have a decent memory.

So, why wouldn't many, if not

almost all, of them want the opportunity to do something to gain job skills and build up some educational funds. The

latter is the only reason I joined the military. Times have been worse and have been better but those that succeed

in either of those times were the ones who took every opportunity they could get.

You need to understand a

different point of view. Dispair and dejection are your choice to make. You are exactly what you decide to be, same

as I am. Anguish is fine if that's how you choose to live your life but, by what right do you take that out on the

job you do for somebody else? When you hired on you agreed to do a job. Part of doing that job is doing it the best

you can despite circumstances. If you are unwilling to do the job to the best of your ability, go find another job

you'll do better at. To accept a job and not do the best you can at it is to break an implied contract with the

employer and the public you serve. That's no different than breaking your word any other time and it is always

wrong.

Most young people don't have the luxury of time these days. Financial aid (The ones

you actually have a chance to get) institutions most often want you to go right to college, the time of eligibility

is usually just one year, starting in your last semester of high school. If you were to take a full year off (or

more) then even if you get FA you'll have to pay part of the fees out of your pocket. True, if I were to go back to

college next year I wouldn't have sleep through all my classes. But most people just can't afford to waste time

now.

You are contradicting yourself. Are these the same 'most' that are drifting around trying to

survive? Every grant I've seen has stipulations for military service but I haven't seen them all by any measure.

You are also forgetting that a person can attend college classes while in the military. The military also has sign

up bonuses that can be banked and funds matching programs to help build up a nest egg for school.

There's no openings in this area. Plus most of our civil employees are the rudest people you

could meet. That's not very encouraging for those jobs.
So? And...? Are you telling me that you would turn

down an opportunity to move to New Orleans if the government was willing to feed, clothe, shelter and pay you to

work there for two years? How about Arizona? New York?

Netghost, I am going to apologise in advance because I

am going to be blunt and you'll probably be offended.

So what if you can't get a job in your home town, move!

I did it, as did many others. The above is defeatist bullshit! I got the same bullshit from one of my daughters

about six months ago.

In my daughter's case, she was whining that she couldn't find a job and wanted me to

take over her car and insurance payments. We made a deal, she would follow my instructions to the letter on job

hunting for one month, if she wasn't working by then we would help her on a month to month basis. In four days she

had half a dozen job prospects, in the next week two offers. She went to work. Next she claimed she didn't make

enough money so we went back to my instructions and within a month she had a better job.

The process is so

simple as to be absurd, any child can do it. Dress nicely, carry notes of everything you'll need for an application

and go to a business area. Start at one corner and enter every business and tell them you are looking for work.

Don't turn down anything you are capable of doing, be willing to shovel manure or clean toilets and be prepared to

start work right now. Have a great, not just good, attitude. When you get to the end of the block, cross the street

and work your way back. Repeat as needed. Once you are working, do the job to the very best of your ability, no

matter what the job is. After a couple of months you can use your free time to look for a better job if this one

doesn't suit you. You look for a better job in much the same way but have the freedom to turn down anything equal

to or less than what you already have.

My own story is going to sound like one of those "Why, when I was your

age..." tales but I assure you every word of it is true. When I finished high scool there was little work as the

economy was in a recession. I joined the army. After my release from duty I decided to go to school. The school that

I wished to attend was about 400 miles away. I arrived there with about $250 in my pocket and all the possessions I

could carry on my motorcycle. Sold the motorcycle to put a roof over my head and feed myself, bought a bicycle.

Followed my instructions from above which came to me from my dad who grew up during the great depression. Enrolled

in school. For the next four years I worked evenings 40 hours a week, commuted by bicycle most of that and attended

engineering school. Do you want to know all the different ways you can prepare a $0.10 bag of ramen noodles? I'm an

expert at it.

Since then I've had a number of jobs, been broke a share of the time and did well some of it.

Worked my way up to a corporate executive level then started a small business. Damn near went broke my first year at

that. Now it's a thriving business and I'm one of the most content people around.

Do you know what the point

is? The point is I never once told anybody why I couldn't do something. Instead I found a way to get where I was

going. ANYBODY who wants too bad enough can do the same thing, all it takes is hard work and a lack of excuses.

koolking1

10-07-2005, 11:28 AM

"But I actually believe

today's youth are contributing more to society than in previous eras. Sure, there are more fat, lazy,

nintendo-playing kids today. But I get the feeling that volunteerism and generosity is also more common among

today's youth than ever before."

BioHazard, I do believe you when you say the above. You "feel" it to be

true. Unfortunately, your feelings and reality are not in synch. I do believe you have a certain amount of respect

for deceased President Kennedy based upon past posting(s), is that because of his Peace Corps initiative or ??? At

any rate, back in the 60s the Peace Corps was filled mainly with idealistic youth, mainly of college age and

somewhat older (22-28). In order for you not to have to feel your way around, why not do some research and find out

the average age of a Peace Corps volunteer is these days - give it a shot, get the truth and not some feel good

feelings!!!

If we had a voluntary tax system we all know the country would be broke in short order (not

that it isn't anyway). We have a voluntary military though, is it broke? Well I don't "feel" that it's quite

broke but one might ask the CINCs of the Guard and Reserves what they think? Did you see the reaction to President

Bush the last time he made a canned rah rah speech in front of a captive military audience? Those boys and girls

ain't happy, who would be if they were on their way to their 3rd combat tour in almost as many years. Aside from

all my other reasons why I want a draft (which I will soon chronicle here) let's consider those going over there

for the 3rd time, might it not be a noble gesture on your part to volunteer and replace one of them? Yes, it would

be.

Biohazard

10-07-2005, 02:12 PM

Citizens of

less socialist societies generally recognize an obligation to serve their country. I make a differentiation between

country and government here. IMHO, our government sucks big time. However, this is still our country and if more

people took an interest in helping it to be a better place instead of demanding the country and the government do

for them or even just apathetically sitting on their hands, it would be a different place. What exactly is your

obligation to your country and what do you do to fulfill it?
…
You didn't address the other part of the

suggestion. For those who feel strongly about not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a

huge, unfilled need there too

If someone gains a technical skill through formal education, let’s

say in medicine, engineering, science, etc., it invariably helps our country be a better place. Technology drives

our economy while at the same time providing services that generally make our lives more efficient. This is what I

do, I just happen to be compensated fairly well for it. It might not have the immediate emotional impact equivalent

to handing out food after a natural disaster, but it’s far from being apathetic. Serving food at a soup kitchen

isn’t the only way to help our fellow citizens. But in my early adulthood, I have seen many of my 18-25 y/o

colleagues volunteer for civil service for no pay. Some have volunteered at health clinics between med school

semesters, some have tutored kids, and yes, some have even built a playground believe it or not. There are plenty

of universities in the country that are filled with such self-motivated, driven young adults. They must be to have

made it that far.

Do I need to pick up a rifle to serve my country? I could (heck I even personally own

military firearms), and I certainly would if absolutely needed as I stated in my first post. I just do not think it

is absolutely needed now. And would it bother anyone if I serve in the military as a biological/chemical weapons

scientist?

In my own case, I did not start college until completing military service. I

can tell you from experience how much more I got out of school than the people just a few years younger than me who

had no real world experience. A lot of bright young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying because

they had no experience to relate to it.

Real-world experience can certainly enhance one’s educational

experience in certain fields of study. Many MBA programs don’t allow applicants until they’ve been working

full-time for 2+ years. Since I studied natural science, real-world experience wouldn’t have helped me much since

it’s almost a purely technical field.

So, I still do not think you’ve made a convincing argument for the

benefits of mandatory military service. But it seems we do agree that military service can be beneficial for some.

I just don’t think we need to make it mandatory.

belgareth

10-07-2005, 03:18 PM

If someone

gains a technical skill through formal education, let’s say in medicine, engineering, science, etc., it invariably

helps our country be a better place. Technology drives our economy while at the same time providing services that

generally make our lives more efficient. This is what I do, I just happen to be compensated fairly well for it. It

might not have the immediate emotional impact equivalent to handing out food after a natural disaster, but it’s far

from being apathetic. Serving food at a soup kitchen isn’t the only way to help our fellow citizens. But in my early

adulthood, I have seen many of my 18-25 y/o colleagues volunteer for civil service for no pay. Some have volunteered

at health clinics between med school semesters, some have tutored kids, and yes, some have even built a playground

believe it or not. There are plenty of universities in the country that are filled with such self-motivated, driven

young adults. They must be to have made it that far.

Do I need to pick up a rifle to serve my country? I could

(heck I even personally own military firearms), and I certainly would if absolutely needed as I stated in my first

post. I just do not think it is absolutely needed now. And would it bother anyone if I serve in the military as a

biological/chemical weapons scientist?

In other words, you don't feel you should do things to help out

or that other than earning a living you have no obligation? So, you have a technical degree? Having a substantial

technical education myself and having worked in technology all my life I think I have a grasp of how much good it

can do. Your employment mostly helps you, what about the rest of society? You also didn't answer the question about

doing it as civil service work. Overall, your reply is pretty much what I expected though. Without trying to be

snide about it, that's a dodge.

Why should it bother anyone if you served as a chemical or biological weapons

specialist? We do not use those weapons so any work you might do would be life saving.

Real-world experience can certainly enhance one’s educational experience in certain fields of study. Many MBA

programs don’t allow applicants until they’ve been working full-time for 2+ years. Since I studied natural science,

real-world experience wouldn’t have helped me much since it’s almost a purely technical field.

So, I still do

not think you’ve made a convincing argument for the benefits of mandatory military service. But it seems we do agree

that military service can be beneficial for some. I just don’t think we need to make it mandatory.
I think

in time you'll see it differently. So, you don't feel some type of real world experience in the natural sciences

would have helped you? Real world experience helps in many ways that aren't apparent on the face of it. The people

in calculus classes who had real world experience were better at grasping things too. I think it has more to do with

a mindset than anything else.

You still haven't addressed the part about the option of civil work rather than

military. Would you be adverse to that? You haven't made any case yet for not making it mandatory either

Netghost56

10-07-2005, 09:03 PM

Belgareth, I wasn't wasn't

speaking of myself, except in the first paragraph. I was just generalizing and giving my opinion.

belgareth

10-07-2005, 10:21 PM

The you was figurative in some

cases as well. It's nearly impossible for me to accept "I can't" from anybody, most especially myself. I have no

sympathy for those who choose their lives then complain or for those that do less than their best. For every bad

thing that has happened in my own life I can see where my actions put me into the position for them to happen. For

every good thing, the same applies. The point is still the same; each and every person unhappy with their lives can

only blame themselves for not choosing another path or for staying on the path they are on. Each and every happily

successful person can move forward knowing they are creating themselves.

To be honest, I was quite impressed

when we all thought the hurricane was coming our way. You got up and did all the right things to take control of

your life. Not once did you whine about how unfair it was or abandon those around you or wait for others to do for

you. You showed something of tremendous importance that you would do well to cultivate in all your personal affairs.

If I seem harsh towards others, you should hear the words I have for myself when my actions are less than they

should be. Don't ever accept less than you can be and if you are not what you want to be, you are the only one who

can make it different. That can only be achieved by your own actions.

koolking1

10-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Now all I hope is that they

discipline any soldiers who sent in pics of war dead/wounded, a national disgrace ended finally.

"Polk

County Web site operator arrested on obscenity charges

Anthony Colarossi | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted

October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM EDT

Chris Wilson (POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Oct 7, 2005

A Polk

County man who operates a pornographic Web site that also displays disturbing images of Iraqi and Afghan war dead

sent in by U.S. troops has been arrested on 300 obscenity-related charges.

Polk authorities arrested Chris

Wilson, 27, of Edgewood Drive in Lakeland, said his attorney, Larry Walters. Sheriff's officials said Wilson was

being held at the Polk County Jail with bail set at $151,000.

Wilson is charged with one count of wholesale

distribution of obscene material and 300 misdemeanor counts related to 20 online films and 80 photographs obtained

from his Web site.

For each film and photograph there are three counts -- distribution of obscene material,

offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute."

DrSmellThis

10-08-2005, 02:36 PM

Now all I

hope is that they discipline any soldiers who sent in pics of war dead/wounded, a national disgrace ended finally.

"Polk County Web site operator arrested on obscenity charges

Anthony Colarossi | Sentinel Staff Writer

Posted October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM EDT

Chris Wilson (POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Oct 7, 2005

A Polk

County man who operates a pornographic Web site that also displays disturbing images of Iraqi and Afghan war dead

sent in by U.S. troops has been arrested on 300 obscenity-related charges.

Polk authorities arrested Chris

Wilson, 27, of Edgewood Drive in Lakeland, said his attorney, Larry Walters. Sheriff's officials said Wilson was

being held at the Polk County Jail with bail set at $151,000.

Wilson is charged with one count of wholesale

distribution of obscene material and 300 misdemeanor counts related to 20 online films and 80 photographs obtained

from his Web site.

For each film and photograph there are three counts -- distribution of obscene material,

offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute."Sounds

like another First Amendment case may be going to the Supreme Court. I find what he did to be offensive, from what I

read, though I haven't seen the site. But was it illegal? Should he be thrown in prison?

Biohazard

10-08-2005, 03:21 PM

In other

words, you don't feel you should do things to help out or that other than earning a living you have no obligation?

So, you have a technical degree? Having a substantial technical education myself and having worked in technology all

my life I think I have a grasp of how much good it can do. Your employment mostly helps you, what about the rest of

society? You also didn't answer the question about doing it as civil service work. Overall, your reply is pretty

much what I expected though. Without trying to be snide about it, that's a dodge.

Correct, my

employment mostly helps me directly now, but it will help many down the road. I emphasized this already. My work

doesn't put an immediate smile on a needy child's face everyday, but it will do so for many eventually. And

that's a big reason why I do what I do, in addition to being able to be self-sufficient. Even you said people

ought to take more personal responsibility in their own well-being, and that there's too much of the "society owes

me" mentality around. If one is drafted to the military for civil service work, are they not paid for what they do?

I don't know anyone who can take a career in civil service without a salary.

Why should it

bother anyone if you served as a chemical or biological weapons specialist? We do not use those weapons so any work

you might do would be life saving.

It's obvious I'm pro-military, and therefore many ask me if I

would ever serve. But what they're really asking is whether or not I'd be willing to be on battlefield and put

myself in direct danger. And I would if needed, but pointing out that one can serve without being in the direct

line of fire is sort of a return jab. But it's obvious you weren't asking me that, but I thought maybe koolking

was.

You still haven't addressed the part about the option of civil work rather than

military. Would you be adverse to that? You haven't made any case yet for not making it mandatory

either

No, I would not be adversed to it. But why does one need to be in a uniform to serve their

communities?

My argument against a draft is based more on practical issues. First, I honestly do believe

it would weaken our fighting capabilites. Every military person I know personally agrees. Also, there is too much

resistance today against a draft that there would be some serious civil unrest and social breakdown if one were to

be re-instated now. If you're talking about a draft for purely non-fighting positions, we're kind of drifting

away from the original topic.

But I'll get back to you on that. I gotta run.

Biohazard

10-08-2005, 10:33 PM

Okay belgareth, I'm back and I

re-read your posts a little more carefully now. Are you suggesting that the federal government ought to hold some

sort of draft where selected young men and women are not trained for combat, but rather trained and paid to carry

out domestic public services? I'm sorry, but that seems a little silly. The federal government really shouldn't

be in charge of employing people to clean up beaches, build playgrounds, serve food at soup kitchens, plant trees,

etc. That's just piling up more beuracracy into domestic life and would be an inefficient use of tax payer

dollars. These duties are best left to the various civilian entities.

Ideally, the federal government's

role in domestic life should be kept to the extreme minimum. The obvious exception would be responding to

catastrophes, and they can't even get that right for the most part. The military sector of the federal government

should be in the business of training people for combat.

Please clarify if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm

trying to decipher your idea of what type of "draft" ought to be re-implemented. When koolking started this thread,

we were talking about a draft used to fight wars. But it seems like you have another idea.

belgareth

10-10-2005, 09:26 AM

That's not suggesting

anything. I'm asking you a question.

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 11:18 AM

That's not

suggesting anything. I'm asking you a question.

I didn't quite understand your question initially,

which is why I asked for clarification. But I've answered your question above now that I catch your drift. I

think it's an inefficient use of funds for the feds to have a program of "purely civil service draftees." This

sounds almost communistic, and honestly it's the first time I've ever heard of such an idea. The military exists

for combat, not building domestic infrastructure.

So now we've come full circle. The purely civil

service draft idea exists only as a fantasy, and a military combat draft would never make it through in this day and

age. We're just back to my very first post now, where I stated things are going to stay the way they are now.

belgareth

10-10-2005, 12:00 PM

Ok, so your only obligation to

your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil function would be wrong.

Does that sum it up?

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 12:53 PM

Ok, so your

only obligation to your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil

function would be wrong. Does that sum it up?

If you are drafted for civil service, you will get paid

(by the gov't) and you will be earning a living performing civil service. How is that different from a civilian

performing the same work for pay? The only difference is the government uniform. Earning a living and performing

civil service are not mutually exclusive as you make it sound. "Obligation" to your community is fulfilled in many

ways.

Civil service in and of itself is ideologically noble and I have already stated I am not adversed to

it. Holding a draft for that sole purpose is not economically sound and therefore wrong (i.e. bad for the country

in the end). One doesn't need to be employed by .gov in order to be of service to their community.

belgareth

10-10-2005, 01:16 PM

Mtnjim

10-10-2005, 01:41 PM

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 04:45 PM

However, the

simple act of being employed, no matter what field you work in, does not constitute serving your country. I could

easily make the same claim since I provide a technical service to the community and I employ others. Personally, I

think that would be a bunch of crap. What is yours, or any citizen's, responsibility to their country?

But why does one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep

trying to lead me into agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way

to serve is to help fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed

by private security contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth

baseball and building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian

sector jobs into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in

your eyes. But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My

responsibility to the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have

a responsibility to my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's

not volunteerism anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed

off now that I have a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 04:48 PM

Were the draft

reinstated, the “civil service” draft would surely only be for “conscientious objectors”. The military would need

all of the “cannon fodder” it could get. Speaking as someone who was drafted---several

times!!

That might be a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased

back in by giving draftees the option of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind

battle lines. But then, one would still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I

think forcing people to work for the government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

belgareth

10-10-2005, 05:52 PM

But why does

one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep trying to lead me into

agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way to serve is to help

fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed by private security

contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth baseball and

building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian sector jobs

into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in your eyes.

But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My responsibility to

the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have a responsibility to

my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's not volunteerism

anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed off now that I have

a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying

to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe your obligation is to the society you live

in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other obligation to society than what you mention

above?

belgareth

10-10-2005, 05:53 PM

That might be

a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased back in by giving draftees the option

of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind battle lines. But then, one would

still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I think forcing people to work for the

government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

You are forced to work for the

government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 06:27 PM

You are forced

to work for the government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

And no

one really likes it.

belgareth

10-10-2005, 06:31 PM

The/we continue to allow it.

Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord

of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 06:32 PM

No, that's

not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe

your obligation is to the society you live in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other

obligation to society than what you mention above?

I don't know how much more one is expected to

give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to fight a war in the hypothetical

situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through volunteerism. The rest of the time I

use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what I can?

Biohazard

10-10-2005, 06:35 PM

The/we

continue to allow it. Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an

example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

I

don't think we'll allow any type of draft, however.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 03:58 AM

I never said otherwise.

However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the assumptions

that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples all around

you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft are not

that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full consent. How

many rights did we cheerfully give away?

I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what you think your obligations

to the community and your country are. I don't have time to discuss it this morning but will come back to it

later.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 09:01 AM

I don't know

how much more one is expected to give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to

fight a war in the hypothetical situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through

volunteerism. The rest of the time I use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what

I can?

That's my question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking

what your obligation is. It's a moral/ethical question.

Mtnjim

10-11-2005, 09:41 AM

...Take the

cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands

out.

I think the "Excise tax" that we pay for phone service, tires etc. is an even bigger idiocy. Enacted

to fund the Spanish American war, a war that ended 100 years ago, it is still being collected.:hammer:

Biohazard

10-11-2005, 09:47 AM

However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the

assumptions that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples

all around you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft

are not that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full

consent. How many rights did we cheerfully give away?

Many won't notice when you steal a

dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their pinky, and they'll notice

and resist.

When New Orleans instituted gun confiscations, there was some major hollering going on. An

appeal went through the judicial system and was successful, stopping the confiscations. I assume lawsuits are

following as well for loss of property and possible violation of civil rights. How's that for a little resistance,

short of violence? You're right, many people don't resist when they should. It takes something really outrageous

before things get nasty, sometimes leading to riots (how many times has that happened in our country?). A draft is

just the right recipe for that.

Biohazard

10-11-2005, 09:55 AM

That's my

question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking what your obligation is. It's

a moral/ethical question.

I thought I answered that in my very first post. Maybe not about community

service and social volunteerism, because this thread was about fighting wars.

It just took me a

while to understand that what you really want is the government to pay young people to do what amounts to community

service work. It's like saying, "You don't want to volunteer in your community? Fine, we'll pay you to

vounteer." Makes no sense to me.

Fighting wars for the country (via draft if there is one) is a mutually

exclusive obligation, and a much different one at that than building playgrounds in your neighborhood.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 09:56 AM

While I don't agree it is as

big an idiocy, it certainly stands as a good example when I claim there is no such thing as a temporary tax.

My

reasoning behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably

will at first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every

dime of it and likely a few extra dimes as well.

As a result of this tax a certain number of people will quit

smoking and fewer will start, which is a good thing. However, that reduces the tax revenue that is a part of the

government's new budget. So, the government comes back and says "We have a budget shortfall and need to find

additional sources of revenue. Now we are going to tax this item" The same do-gooders who supported the cigarette

tax will end up paying those tax dollars a couple years down the road because there aren't enough smokers to fill

the coffers anymore and there's no such thing as a temporary tax.

In other words, it's all another government

shell game.

Mtnjim

10-11-2005, 10:13 AM

...My reasoning

behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably will at

first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every dime of

it and likely a few extra dimes as well....

True enough. The cigarette tax is passed as "providing funds

to care for the people made ill by smoking", then used for everything but...

And the people made ill by smoking?

They are out of luck.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 11:10 AM

Now you've got it. The best

part is that public memory is so short that they can pull it again and again and again and so on. Kind of like

social security. It's broke, let's increase taxes and cut services. Then we can raid it to balance the budget. In

a few years we can claim it's broke and do it again.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 11:55 AM

Many won't

notice when you steal a dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their

pinky, and they'll notice and resist.

When New Orleans instituted gun confiscations, there was some major

hollering going on. An appeal went through the judicial system and was successful, stopping the confiscations. I

assume lawsuits are following as well for loss of property and possible violation of civil rights. How's that for a

little resistance, short of violence? You're right, many people don't resist when they should. It takes something

really outrageous before things get nasty, sometimes leading to riots (how many times has that happened in our

country?). A draft is just the right recipe for that.

I'll believe it when I see it. The courts are a

favorite venue in this country for everything. When you spill hot coffeee in your lap, go to the courts instead of

saying "Oh, stupid me. I should have known better." So far, I've seen more cases of the majority placidly doing

whatever they are told. When you talk about gun owners, for the most part you are talking about a different, more

militant group in the first place. You aren't talking about the majority. There may be resistance if a draft is

started. There was during Vietnam too. A small minority while the rest did as they were told. You probably won't

agree but the youth today are a lot less likely to do something about it than they were in the 60's and 70's.

Youth today are much too apathetic.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 11:58 AM

I thought I

answered that in my very first post. Maybe not about community service and social volunteerism, because this thread

was about fighting wars.

It just took me a while to understand that what you really want is the government to

pay young people to do what amounts to community service work. It's like saying, "You don't want to volunteer in

your community? Fine, we'll pay you to vounteer." Makes no sense to me.

Fighting wars for the country (via

draft if there is one) is a mutually exclusive obligation, and a much different one at that than building

playgrounds in your neighborhood.

Wrong again! I am asking what your obligation is. Nothing more or

less. You keep trying to put all sorts of meanings to a straight forward question. Can you simply answer the one

simple question without all the hyperbole?

Bruce

10-11-2005, 12:47 PM

Bel,

I'm not taking any

sides here, but I don't think Bio understands exactly what your question is. I know I don't, though I admit I

haven't read all the posts very carefully. I go through this with my wife a lot. She's talking to me in

Japanese, so that complicates things a bit, but basically the problem is the same. She asks me a question and looks

a little pieved about something which I'm not too clear on. I have two options try to answer what I *think* the

question is and maybe elaborate quite a bit hoping to get it with a sort of scatter-gun approach, OR... ask her to

clarify. Neither seem to go over very well, and the next thing you know we have a "fight" of some sort going

on.

Anyway, I originally just poked my nose in here thinking I would comment on what an amazing forum we have

here where a topic like that can pop up and it doesn't immediately turn into a pissing match.

Peace Love and

Hare Krsna; bells beads incense etc etc
B

belgareth

10-11-2005, 02:14 PM

Biohazard

10-11-2005, 08:30 PM

Hi Bruce,

My question is:
What, in his opinion is a person's obligation to the society he/she lives in. I am not

asking what he has done, will do, can do etc. All I want to know is what a person should be expected to do for their

society as a member of that society. There's not even a right or wrong answer, I want an opinion.

And no, I

am not in favor of the government paying young people to do civil service work specifically. Nor have I in any way

said or implied it.

But you said you want a draft back, if not for anything else, for domestic social

work. You feel that it's every young person's obligation to do community service work, and a draft which pays

young people to do that work is a means to achieve that. That is what you've directly implied by wanting your

"civil service" draft.

Maybe we are on different pages. You keep thinking ideologically, I keep thinking

about the practical implications of your ideas. You want more social involvement by the youth, and that's

perfectly fine. But you want some sort of draft to achieve that. I thought I answered your question a long while

ago, as we agreed that everyone young person's obligation is to help their community whenever they can. But you

want some type of legislation to make sure every able-bodied young person does that work, even if it means they will

get a paycheck for it.

It seems I'm not the only person who is struggling with your logic. :)

Biohazard

10-11-2005, 08:35 PM

I'll believe

it when I see it. The courts are a favorite venue in this country for everything. When you spill hot coffeee in your

lap, go to the courts instead of saying "Oh, stupid me. I should have known better." So far, I've seen more cases

of the majority placidly doing whatever they are told. When you talk about gun owners, for the most part you are

talking about a different, more militant group in the first place. You aren't talking about the majority. There may

be resistance if a draft is started. There was during Vietnam too. A small minority while the rest did as they were

told. You probably won't agree but the youth today are a lot less likely to do something about it than they were in

the 60's and 70's. Youth today are much too apathetic.

Means of communication, and therefore the

ability to organize, are eons above the 60s. I bring up the gun issue only as an example that there are different

degrees in the perception of injustice and therefore differences in response -- either passivity or resistance.

People can pay federal income tax and various other taxes without making a big fuss, because even after all the

taxation one often still enjoys a standard of living better than most of the world. This is the "stealing a dollar"

analogy. But if you actively confiscate property, and that act endangers you personally (loss of a means of self

defense), then people start to actively resist. This is the "cutting off the pinky" analogy. See how a military

draft falls into the latter analogy? All I was doing was trying to rebut your argument that since we don't resist

unjust taxation, we won't resist a military draft.

But it's a moot point, because a military draft

isn't coming back in any way, shape, or form any time soon. Remember, this thread started out as a bet on that

topic between Koolking and myself.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 08:59 PM

Means of

communication, and therefore the ability to organize, are eons above the 60s. I bring up the gun issue only as an

example that there are different degrees in the perception of injustice and therefore differences in response --

either passivity or resistance. People can pay federal income tax and various other taxes without making a big fuss,

because even after all the taxation one often still enjoys a standard of living better than most of the world. This

is the "stealing a dollar" analogy. But if you actively confiscate property, and that act endangers you personally

(loss of a means of self defense), then people start to actively resist. This is the "cutting off the pinky"

analogy. See how a military draft falls into the latter analogy? All I was doing was trying to rebut your argument

that since we don't resist unjust taxation, we won't resist a military draft.

But it's a moot point, because

a military draft isn't coming back in any way, shape, or form any time soon. Remember, this thread started out as a

bet on that topic between Koolking and myself.
I don't know if a draft is or is not coming back. If it

does it probably won't be for a while yet as the political climate isn't such that it is feasible right now.

Although I may be wrong on this point, I don't believe a republican has ever started a draft, that it has always

been the democrats. It was also the democrats that suggested it most recently and who blamed Bush for it. If a draft

is started again it most likely won't be until a democrat is in office again. However, the real telling will be

when we start seeing more arguments made in the mass media about it. There has been mention so far but not enough to

sway public opinion.

That's an interesting thought about the loss of self defense and I will agree it can be a

motivator. Aparently the political animals in some states and some members of the federal government don't agree

with you. There are a few PACs that think guns can be taken away too. The reasons to take arms away can be argued

back and forth but several states are actively making firearm possession more difficult all the time.

belgareth

10-11-2005, 09:42 PM

But you said

you want a draft back, if not for anything else, for domestic social work. You feel that it's every young person's

obligation to do community service work, and a draft which pays young people to do that work is a means to achieve

that. That is what you've directly implied by wanting your "civil service" draft.

Maybe we are on different

pages. You keep thinking ideologically, I keep thinking about the practical implications of your ideas. You want

more social involvement by the youth, and that's perfectly fine. But you want some sort of draft to achieve that. I

thought I answered your question a long while ago, as we agreed that everyone young person's obligation is to help

their community whenever they can. But you want some type of legislation to make sure every able-bodied young person

does that work, even if it means they will get a paycheck for it.

It seems I'm not the only person who is

struggling with your logic. :)

I said that we need a draft and suggested the stipulation that not all

would be required to serve in the armed forces. How you got the rest of that as my statements is beyond me. I did

not say at any time that I wanted it back specifically for civil work nor that I wanted a civil service draft. It

was offered as an option to cover a hypothetical objection.

Since you have obviously read what I said, you

should remember that I define country as seperate from government. My question is regarding obligation to country

and is not in any way meant to imply youths only. We all have an interest here. You may have also noticed where I

have repeatedly showed a lack of support for the government of this country. Why would I want to do anything that

would increase government? You seem to take my questions as statements of intent, they aren't. They are questions

to try to determine where others stand and to add possibilities, to make people think. In all I have made far fewer

statements on my position than you have attributed to me.

You are absolutely right that I am thinking

ideologically. I am an engineer by training. Engineers build things based on concepts. Until there is a concept

nothing can be built. To simply say something is wrong or these bad things will happen if you do this is rather

pointless and a waste of time. Or to be more precise, to repair or correct something that is broken you have to know

what it should be doing so you can make it work. Otherwise you accomplish nothing. I am goal oriented.

Logically

then, shouldn't my first action be to establish a goal, an ideology? Isn't that the necessary first step? The

question is and has been 'What is an individual's obligation to the society they live in?' Then, the next step is

to act on that, isn't it? Shouldn't the next step be to determine where I can apply the least force to get the

most reaction? Where, in a dynamic engine like our society would you apply the force and in what manner to achieve

the greatest results? Logically, wouldn't getting the youth motivated have the greatest long term impact? At how

many points could energy be applied to the machine in order to achieve some result?

You think if a draft is

started there will be riots, I think you are wrong. I am not sure where you get your opinion but I know where mine

come from. I deal with young people ranging from junoir high schoolers that I talk to as part of special projects to

motivate them to college students where I am invited to speak regularly. My impression is that there will be some

minor resistance. And you know what? That really saddens me and I hope that enough of them will get mad enough to

actually stand up and scream about it. And maybe, just maybe a few of their friends will get pulled into it and do

some screaming too. At least they'll be involved and doing something. Do you have even a guess as to the percentage

of 18-25 year olds that even bother to vote?

Early on you made a statement that started this. You said that your

employment was enough of a contribution to society because you work in a technical field that helps humanity. In my

opinion, that's pathetic. Then when I try to get you to make a statement about what a person should do, the best

you can give me is "that everyone young person's obligation is to help their community whenever they can" Do you

supervise others? I do. That is a vague non-statement that could mean anything and appears to be an evasion. At

least that's how I'd view it if one of my subordinates gave me such a non-answer. I am trying to tie you down on

what each of us owes our country. Instead of answering you keep telling me what I said.

Regarding your

comparison of attitudes about guns and taxes. A couple thoughts for you. First, we are mostly talking about Joe Blue

Collar worker here. He couldn't care less how people live elsewhere. He's interested in paying his mortgage,

putting food on the table, braces on his kid and gas in his car. Self defense is a rather low level consideration

for most Americans. The second is that is that tax revolt has been and still is one of the driving factors in this

country, starting with the Boston Tea Party and continuing to this day. Do you know that my clients gripe more about

the $20 in sales taxes than they do about my $100 per hour labor charge on their invoices.

Biohazard

10-11-2005, 10:51 PM

You think if

a draft is started there will be riots, I think you are wrong. I am not sure where you get your opinion but I know

where mine come from. I deal with young people ranging from junoir high schoolers that I talk to as part of special

projects to motivate them to college students where I am invited to speak regularly. My impression is that there

will be some minor resistance. And you know what? That really saddens me and I hope that enough of them will get mad

enough to actually stand up and scream about it. And maybe, just maybe a few of their friends will get pulled into

it and do some screaming too. At least they'll be involved and doing something. Do you have even a guess as to the

percentage of 18-25 year olds that even bother to vote?

A very small percentage of the 18-25

group vote, I know that. The majority of the resistance would be from the soccer moms and the anti-war crowd, whom

I think swing a pretty big stick.

Early on you made a statement that started this. You said

that your employment was enough of a contribution to society because you work in a technical field that helps

humanity. In my opinion, that's pathetic. Then when I try to get you to make a statement about what a person should

do, the best you can give me is "that everyone young person's obligation is to help their community whenever they

can" Do you supervise others? I do. That is a vague non-statement that could mean anything and appears to be an

evasion. At least that's how I'd view it if one of my subordinates gave me such a non-answer. I am trying to tie

you down on what each of us owes our country. Instead of answering you keep telling me what I

said.

You directly asked me what I personally am doing or have done to serve my country:

"What exactly is your obligation to your country and what do you do to fulfill it?"

This was within the context of you WANTING a draft to return because you think it will get more people involved

in community service. I interpreted that as you meaning that in order to help their country, you must be in uniform

or something. (1) I stated in my first post that it is my obligation to serve in the armed forces, if drafted. (2)

It's not the mere act of being employed, but the nobility of the work one is involved which is of service to their

country. Whether you are paid for it or not is irrelevant. Although it never hurts to volunteer when one can.

Regarding your comparison of attitudes about guns and taxes. A couple thoughts for you.

First, we are mostly talking about Joe Blue Collar worker here. He couldn't care less how people live elsewhere.

He's interested in paying his mortgage, putting food on the table, braces on his kid and gas in his car. Self

defense is a rather low level consideration for most Americans. The second is that is that tax revolt has been and

still is one of the driving factors in this country, starting with the Boston Tea Party and continuing to this day.

Do you know that my clients gripe more about the $20 in sales taxes than they do about my $100 per hour labor charge

on their invoices.

It's not the guns themselves or any object that is the issue. Don't focus on

that. It's DEGREE OF PERCEIVED INJUSTICE that serves as the motivation for passive or active resistance, whatever

the issue is. Flight or fight, in its most basic form. A tax doesn't directly harm your personal well-being,

you're still alive after paying your taxes. Being interned in a slave camp directly harms your personal

well-being. Being put on the front lines of a war zone directly harms your personal-well being.

See the

difference? If a burglar comes into your home with the intent to steal some food and leave, you're probably not

going to confront the burglar. Now, if a serial murderer comes into your home with the intent of slashing your

throat, you're going to fight, right?

belgareth

10-12-2005, 05:45 AM

You do dance well. :) I take it

that all those words simply mean that other than fighting if drafted you/we have no further obligation to our

country. I am looking for a clear statement from you. Personally, I think fighting is the lowest and least important

of all our obligations. Fighting can only be justified in the event of an attack on our country which clearly was

not done by Saddam Hussien or the Iraqi people. All the deaths in Iraq and Afganistan, the Balkans and so on can be

directly attributed to our government's policies. We, as citizens can only make a difference by being involved and

making our voices heard. The current crop of young people are not doing that to any degree and it is getting

worse.

Please stop telling me what I want, especially since you obviously have no clue what I want. To restate,

we NEED a draft under current conditions and leadership. I WANT an end to our participatin in all foreign wars. We

need to correct the current apathy towards our country. We need to change our view on education and government. We

need to reduce government by more than half and help people take more responsibility for themselves and their

society.

Your outlook is interesting in view of the facts. The anti-war crowd is currently of almost no

consequence. Primarily because they are mostly inactive. Soccer moms rising up in protest?:rofl: We saw the dismal

results of an attempt to do that recently.

I think one of the disconnects here is that you are applying your

bias to the gun/tax question. I am a gun owner myself and am very much self defense oriented. But I also see those

around me and hear them talking. Even down here in the south self defense is not a priority. In California where I

lived until about 7 years ago it is almost considered an abberation to have a focus on self defense and reliance.

Everywhere I go taxation is and people are unhappy about it. Additionally, you completely dismiss history in your

evaluation. Not uncommon but a mistake. Despite what you might want to believe, people haven't changed all that

much in the last few thousand years.

Your answers are pretty classic non-answers and declarations on

non-responsibility that are endemic in this country. If that's the world you choose to live in, I guess that's up

to you.

Biohazard

10-12-2005, 12:18 PM

You do dance

well. :) I take it that all those words simply mean that other than fighting if drafted you/we have no further

obligation to our country. I am looking for a clear statement from you...

Your answers are pretty classic

non-answers and declarations on non-responsibility that are endemic in this country. If that's the world you choose

to live in, I guess that's up to you.

Military service and doing some type of work in the

civilian sector that is of benefit to the community. The latter part need not be done in uniform, nor does it need

to be on a purely volunteer basis. Becoming a school teacher, for instance, is a paid career, yet it is indeed of

true "service" to the community and therefore country.

These points I made in the first page, and feel

I've been a straight shooter from the beginning. You are disappointed in my answer, which is ironic since you said

that there is "no right or wrong answer." That is why we're on, what, page 4 now because you were trying to prod

me for another answer that was satisfactory to you.

You tell me, what further obligations a citizen has to

their country? I've stated military service, if drafted. And in the meantime taking up some type of work in the

civilian sector that is of some tangible benefit to society.

Personally, I think fighting is

the lowest and least important of all our obligations. Fighting can only be justified in the event of an attack on

our country which clearly was not done by Saddam Hussien or the Iraqi people. All the deaths in Iraq and Afganistan,

the Balkans and so on can be directly attributed to our government's policies. We, as citizens can only make a

difference by being involved and making our voices heard. The current crop of young people are not doing that to any

degree and it is getting worse.

Please stop telling me what I want, especially since you obviously have no

clue what I want. To restate, we NEED a draft under current conditions and leadership. I WANT an end to our

participatin in all foreign wars. We need to correct the current apathy towards our country. We need to change our

view on education and government. We need to reduce government by more than half and help people take more

responsibility for themselves and their society.

That's fine and dandy, but it's a pretty big

stretch to say all of that is addressed with an armed forces draft. I think you're trying [in vain] to change

cultural shortcomings with legislation. Serving time in the military can shape some people up, in other cases it

destroys them, yet in others it changes nothing. I know ex-servicemen who don't care about politics and community.

Heck, my brother doesn't even care about politics and community, at least not with the same emotion as you. And

he's serving right now in the Air Force!

Your outlook is interesting in view of the facts.

The anti-war crowd is currently of almost no consequence. Primarily because they are mostly inactive. Soccer moms

rising up in protest?:rofl: We saw the dismal results of an attempt to do that recently.

Both of

us can hypothesize all we want about the future and anticipated outcomes to various issues. But it's a moot point

as I stated above, because a draft is not coming back any time soon. We disagree, so let it be.

I

think one of the disconnects here is that you are applying your bias to the gun/tax question. I am a gun owner

myself and am very much self defense oriented. But I also see those around me and hear them talking. Even down here

in the south self defense is not a priority. In California where I lived until about 7 years ago it is almost

considered an abberation to have a focus on self defense and reliance. Everywhere I go taxation is and people are

unhappy about it. Additionally, you completely dismiss history in your evaluation. Not uncommon but a mistake.

Despite what you might want to believe, people haven't changed all that much in the last few thousand

years.

I did state above that people do care about taxation very much and are dismayed to a

significant extent. But on an emotional scale, taxation is in the low to medium range. Anything that directly has

to do with personal well-being, is on the high end. For instance, people can get more outraged about police

brutality than about a 0.5% sales tax increase. Catching my drift, yet?

belgareth

10-12-2005, 01:16 PM

Military

service and doing some type of work in the civilian sector that is of benefit to the community. The latter part need

not be done in uniform, nor does it need to be on a purely volunteer basis. Becoming a school teacher, for instance,

is a paid career, yet it is indeed of true "service" to the community and therefore country.

These points I

made in the first page, and feel I've been a straight shooter from the beginning. You are disappointed in my

answer, which is ironic since you said that there is "no right or wrong answer." That is why we're on, what, page 4

now because you were trying to prod me for another answer that was satisfactory to you.

You tell me, what

further obligations a citizen has to their country? I've stated military service, if drafted. And in the meantime

taking up some type of work in the civilian sector that is of some tangible benefit to society.

I am

asking you that. Do you consider a job as the only obligation then, providing it meets certain criteria? Are there

no others? I asked that before and I am asking it again because you seem to be missing the question. In it's

simplist form you can tell me that no, there are no other obligations. Or you can tell me yes there are. In either

case I invite you to elaborate. I am not trying to get a different response so much as a response to the original

question. Should I interpret your remarks to mean that a job you deem 'noble' or military service in a time oif

need sufficient to fulfill a person's obligations to their country?

That's fine and

dandy, but it's a pretty big stretch to say all of that is addressed with an armed forces draft. I think you're

trying [in vain] to change cultural shortcomings with legislation. Serving time in the military can shape some

people up, in other cases it destroys them, yet in others it changes nothing. I know ex-servicemen who don't care

about politics and community. Heck, my brother doesn't even care about politics and community, at least not with

the same emotion as you. And he's serving right now in the Air Force!

Please tell me where I said that

all of it would be addressed in an armed services draft. Rather, I think I implied that education is the approach

best used. Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I am not trying to legislate anything at the moment. In

fact, I would be all for a drastic reduction in laws as implied in my statements about reducing government and

taking responsibility for ourselves. I made a simple statement that I think we need a draft. Further comments were

made trying to clarify a simple question I am asking you.

Both of us can hypothesize all we

want about the future and anticipated outcomes to various issues. But it's a moot point as I stated above, because

a draft is not coming back any time soon. We disagree, so let it be.

We'll see. I am not arguing that

point and am not sure why you keep trying to. In part I have voiced agreement about the likelihood of a draft in as

much a I don't believe the political climate is such right now that it is feasible. Our reasons differ thus

circumstances for the future depending on the scenerio differ. It seems much more likely once Bush is out of office

because I believe national frustration with his policies and the dems dirty tricks department will serve to oust the

republicans. Not voicing an opinion about good or bad, only a prediction of the future.

I did

state above that people do care about taxation very much and are dismayed to a significant extent. But on an

emotional scale, taxation is in the low to medium range. Anything that directly has to do with personal well-being,

is on the high end. For instance, people can get more outraged about police brutality than about a 0.5% sales tax

increase. Catching my drift, yet?

I caught your drift a long time ago and think you are only partially

right, my opinion is in large part based on history. You also seem to have completely overlooked the fact that tax

increases directly impact the well being of the majority of the population. I'm not sure why you choose to limit

your perspective to sales taxes as they only indirectly impact ones ability to buy food and are changes rarely

affect housing issues directly.

On the other hand, gun control for example, only affects a small portion of the

population. A much more proactive and militant part but still a small part. Agreed that police brutality does

outrage people even though I imagine that most people realize the low probability of them becoming the victim which

lowers the likelihood of them taking action.

Biohazard

10-12-2005, 06:09 PM

I am asking

you that. Do you consider a job as the only obligation then, providing it meets certain criteria? Are there no

others? I asked that before and I am asking it again because you seem to be missing the question. In it's simplist

form you can tell me that no, there are no other obligations. Or you can tell me yes there are. In either case I

invite you to elaborate. I am not trying to get a different response so much as a response to the original question.

Should I interpret your remarks to mean that a job you deem 'noble' or military service in a time oif need

sufficient to fulfill a person's obligations to their country?

Yes, I believe it is a reasonable

expectation for each citizen to pursue civilian work that contributes to the betterment of society. I think people

are also obliged to charity when possible, through various forms of volunteerism. All of this can be fulfilled in

the absence of a draft. I do not see what more we can practically expect of each citizen.

What more do you

expect of each citizen?

Please tell me where I said that all of it would be addressed in an

armed services draft. Rather, I think I implied that education is the approach best used. Also, please stop putting

words in my mouth. I am not trying to legislate anything at the moment. In fact, I would be all for a drastic

reduction in laws as implied in my statements about reducing government and taking responsibility for ourselves. I

made a simple statement that I think we need a draft. Further comments were made trying to clarify a simple question

I am asking you.

Don’t rant about extraneous topics then. If you want to talk about reducing

government and changing foreign policy, start a new thread. Otherwise, it’s reasonable for me to believe that you

think a draft has some connection to those issues.

You want a draft to return. Then in post #52, you

emphasize that there is a lot of civil service work to be done, and these jobs can possibly be fulfilled by drafting

people (and paying them) to do that work. Is that not legislation?

I believe a military draftee should be

trained to fight. If you're not going to send him to support a war cause, there is no reason to put him on

government payroll. Reduce the size of government, right?

I caught your drift a long time ago and

think you are only partially right, my opinion is in large part based on history. You also seem to have completely

overlooked the fact that tax increases directly impact the well being of the majority of the population. I'm not

sure why you choose to limit your perspective to sales taxes as they only indirectly impact ones ability to buy food

and are changes rarely affect housing issues directly.

I agree, but PERCEPTION is the key. The

average person isn’t insightful enough to see that they can be physically hurt by taxes, because it’s an indirect

effect. Therefore, not enough widespread emotion over taxes to cause some type of revolt that disrupts society. On

the other hand, anything that directly causes physical harm is easy enough to understand by the masses, and

therefore induces an immediate emotional reaction. Police brutality and excusal of it by governing bodies is only

one example.

On the other hand, gun control for example, only affects a small portion of the

population. A much more proactive and militant part but still a small part. Agreed that police brutality does

outrage people even though I imagine that most people realize the low probability of them becoming the victim which

lowers the likelihood of them taking action.

And a draft would affect a large portion of the

population. So what is exactly your point?

belgareth

10-13-2005, 05:39 AM

Yes, I

believe it is a reasonable expectation for each citizen to pursue civilian work that contributes to the betterment

of society. I think people are also obliged to charity when possible, through various forms of volunteerism. All of

this can be fulfilled in the absence of a draft. I do not see what more we can practically expect of each citizen.

What more do you expect of each citizen?

Ok, that was the answer I was looking for all along.,

thank you. In my opinion each of us has an obligation to participate. Why are we in Iraq and Afganistan? It seems

that public opinion has never been strongly in favor of us being in either place and in the case of Iraq it is

likely that had we been given full disclosure of the relevent information the public would have been much more

against it. The subject of a draft would not even have come up have even come up, in all likelihood were we not

fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. How did we get to the position where our elected representatives do not follow the

wishes of those who placed them in office? There's a whole discussion that can be wrapped around that but to try to

be brief it is a direct result of our lack of participation in the system.

So, I think we each have an

obligation to:
Learn as much as possible about the issues then vote our concience.
Contact our elected

representatives to let them know when they do something right or wrong.
Hold all public servants responsible for

their actions.
Participate in the education of our children.
Bring to public notice abuses by any entity. (Ok,

that's a can of worms so let's call it a generalization)
There are many other things but the whole issue of the

draft is directly related to our lack of doing the above things.

Don’t rant about extraneous

topics then. If you want to talk about reducing government and changing foreign policy, start a new thread.

Otherwise, it’s reasonable for me to believe that you think a draft has some connection to those issues.

The subjects were brought up in response to your comments. However, as you can see from my statements above, I do

see them as related.

You want a draft to return. Then in post #52, you emphasize that there is a

lot of civil service work to be done, and these jobs can possibly be fulfilled by drafting people (and paying them)

to do that work. Is that not legislation?

No I don't want a draft returned. This is a repetition of

something I corrected you on before. I said "Under current conditions and leadership we need a draft" You do

understand that there is a difference between need and want, right?. Go back and read post # 52 again. I couldn't

reasonably call a question an emphasis.

I believe a military draftee should be trained to fight.

If you're not going to send him to support a war cause, there is no reason to put him on government payroll. Reduce

the size of government, right?

Go back and look at the context. "Under current conditions and leadership

we need a draft" is a pretty clear statement. Maybe the context under which I said reduce government is less clear.

You had brought up the term ideology and under that portion of the conversation I said I am all for reducing

government. Two seperate contexts. Do you see the difference?

I agree, but PERCEPTION is the

key. The average person isn’t insightful enough to see that they can be physically hurt by taxes, because it’s an

indirect effect. Therefore, not enough widespread emotion over taxes to cause some type of revolt that disrupts

society. On the other hand, anything that directly causes physical harm is easy enough to understand by the masses,

and therefore induces an immediate emotional reaction. Police brutality and excusal of it by governing bodies is

only one example.

Rather elitist, isn't it? In my opinion rather insulting and narrow minded too. Almost

any person seeing their paycheck staying the same or rising slightly while their tax bills continue to rise and

squeeze their budget should be able to connect the two. The concept is pretty simple. You continue to ignore the

fact that history plainly shows that people do see taxes as a direct harm to themselves. Possibly you are missing

the point that with taxes it is a constant, growing irritation that eventually CAN result in violence. It has

happened repeatedly in our history. I do agree that direct harm can cause a reaction as well. I think both can cause

reactions both again I point to history to say that taxes have resulted in more violence.

And a

draft would affect a large portion of the population. So what is exactly your point?

What percentage of

the population would be DIRECTLY impacted by a draft?

koolking1

10-13-2005, 09:48 AM

from the Oct 9th NY Times

by Frank Rich and only quoted in part:

"For good measure, Mr. Bush then flouted credibility one more time to

set the stage for the next administration fiasco. In the event of a bird flu epidemic, he said, one option for

effecting a quarantine would be to use the military. What military? Last week The Army Times reported that the

Pentagon, its resources already overstretched by Iraq, would try to bolster sagging recruitment by tapping "a

demographic long deemed off limits: high school dropouts who don't have a General Educational Development

credential."

A draft would only affect a very small portion of the population directly.

Biohazard

10-13-2005, 12:09 PM

So, I

think we each have an obligation to:
Learn as much as possible about the issues then vote our

concience.
Contact our elected representatives to let them know when they do something right or wrong.
Hold

all public servants responsible for their actions.
Participate in the education of our children.
Bring to

public notice abuses by any entity. (Ok, that's a can of worms so let's call it a generalization)
There are

many other things but the whole issue of the draft is directly related to our lack of doing the above

things.

Meh. I'm by nature a skeptic. I do not think a draft would make more people "involved"

in their country. I mentioned above why I think it wouldn't, based partly on current and ex-military I know.

Sure, it's a small sample size, sure. But it's a HUGE leap of faith to think a draft would instill the widespread

civilian responsibilities (aka obligations to society) you are hoping for. But hey, everyone is allowed to dream.

;)

On the other hand, I see that you may be on the same line of thought as the democratic congressman who

wants a draft returned, as it may force politicians to be more prudent in the use of military force and more

citizens would voice their opinions since they personally are involved in the war effort. It's tough to say

whether or not we'd be in Afghanistan or Iraq were we still using a draftee military. I strongly think we'd still

be in 'Stan because the emotion form 9-11 provided, and still do, enough public support. Iraq may be a whole

different story, however.

No I don't want a draft returned. This is a repetition of something I

corrected you on before. I said "Under current conditions and leadership we need a draft" You do understand that

there is a difference between need and want, right?. Go back and read post # 52 again. I couldn't reasonably call a

question an emphasis.

"Under current conditions and leadership we need a draft" seemed pretty vague.

I doubt anyone else understood what you really meant by that. On one hand, you've made the argument that military

service can prepare young people for college as it did in your case, and that increasing the involvement of young

people in community service even via a draft would be beneficial to society. You're really all over the place now,

IMO. I don't know what your point is anymore. Let's see if someone else gets you, and perhaps they'll respond.

Rather elitist, isn't it? In my opinion rather insulting and narrow minded too. Almost any person

seeing their paycheck staying the same or rising slightly while their tax bills continue to rise and squeeze their

budget should be able to connect the two. The concept is pretty simple. You continue to ignore the fact that history

plainly shows that people do see taxes as a direct harm to themselves. Possibly you are missing the point that with

taxes it is a constant, growing irritation that eventually CAN result in violence. It has happened repeatedly in our

history. I do agree that direct harm can cause a reaction as well. I think both can cause reactions both again I

point to history to say that taxes have resulted in more violence.

Possibly "elitist," depending on

persprective. Or it could simply be blunt way of pointing out the realities of human beings. The glass is either

half full or half empty, I guess.

What percentage of the population would be DIRECTLY

impacted by a draft?

Directly? Only the 18-26 crowd under current selective service guidelines. I

was thinking more like the families of draftees are also "directly" affected as well. Whether, they would provide

enough resistance to a draft, your guess is as good as mine.

But a draft isn't coming back as long as

Republicans are in the majority of congress. I do believe a draft needs to get through congress, but correct me if

I'm wrong. And honestly, I do see Republicans enjoying the same domination in politics as the Dems enjoyed for

most of the 1900s. And they would not jeopardize that by speaking of a draft -- I mentioned this above somewhere.

Not that Repubs are some great party, but Dems have gone so far off the deep end that they are becoming less and

less of a viable option for many.

belgareth

10-13-2005, 02:11 PM

Biohazard

10-13-2005, 09:33 PM

Ah, I've got

it. You are of the opinion that I'm a democrat or have democratic beliefs. Ok, that makes a little more sense.

It's almost as laughable as the other forum member who tried to pin being a republican on me a year or so ago. I'm

going to end this discussion because no matter how many times I say something, no matter the number of ways you

manage to misconstrue what I said or take it out of context. There's no point in talking when it is going to be

handled that way. You'll continue to believe whatever you want and it really doesn't matter. At least I know what

I said and I meant.

Actually, no. I could tell from your previous posts you're independent-ish,

like myself.

We both agreed that a draft would not likely come back under a Republican majority. I pointed

it out to emphasize that all of our debating about what would happen if a draft returned is pretty much pure

speculation, because a draft won't return. You can hope and pray all you want, it ain't coming back.

I believe you have some intricate ideas on how to improve our country. At minimum, one can understand that

you believe not enough people are "involved" in our country, and a draft can correct that by getting more people

involved in community service and caring about the actions of politicians. That argument makes sense if it is

exclusive of political climate -- this is the obligation of all citizens regardless of who's in charge.

But yet, you say in your recent posts that you feel the need for a draft is only due to the policies of the

current administration. Sort of like a "conditional draft" that is indeed dependent not on cultural shortcomings,

but on governmental shortcomings. This is where I believe you lose everyone.

The onus is on your position

to provide a clear, persuasive argument for the benefits of a draft. You're plaintiff in this situation, because

you are arguing for change. And I think you've failed to do that.

A third party who reads this thread

would likely understand my position and logic from the beginning -- that it's a citizen's obligation to serve in

the armed forces when drafted and, while in the civilian sector, be a productive part of society through work,

whether it's a paid career or volunteerism. Koolking understands what I'm saying, even though we disagree. But I

don't even think he, and surely not Bruce, understands your argument.

Netghost56

10-13-2005, 09:54 PM

belgareth

10-14-2005, 02:11 AM

Perhaps if you'd have taken

things in context, not twisted my words and not tried to put your own slant on everything I said you would have

better understood what I was saying. This discussion was degenerating into a serious of correcting your

misinterpretations and thats a waste of time.

Biohazard

10-14-2005, 09:47 AM

Perhaps if

you'd have taken things in context, not twisted my words and not tried to put your own slant on everything I said

you would have better understood what I was saying. This discussion was degenerating into a serious of correcting

your misinterpretations and thats a waste of time.

I was honestly trying to understand you, but as I

said above you weren't very coherent in your arguments.

koolking1

10-15-2005, 12:53 PM

"Perhaps if you'd have

taken things in context, not twisted my words and not tried to put your own slant on everything I said you would

have better understood what I was saying. This discussion was degenerating into a serious of correcting your

misinterpretations and thats a waste of time."

Pretty much why I'm not going to debate BioHazard. I will

make comments from time to time on this thread if it continues though.

NetGhost: The reserves have

historically been used in our oversea wars. The Guard is supposed to mainly handle USA domestic issues but can also

be called upon for oversea duty. They had a big presence in the first Gulf War but were ridiculed extensively for

being unfit and untrained for combat duties. I sometimes wonder now if they aren't being punished now for their

lack of readiness in the 1st Gulf War. Or, perhaps getting trained really well for upcoming domestic issues.

belgareth

10-15-2005, 02:40 PM

I wouldn't

join the military just to fight a specific war. If I were to join, it would be because I felt there was need to.

I wouldn't fight a war I didn't believe in. If I were in the military now I'd be in Leavenworth, breaking

rocks, because I would've flat refused to go to Iraq. I would, however, have gone to Afghanistan. And if I was in

the Reserve, I would have flat refused to go overseas anywhere, because I have been told that the Reserve was

created for home defense only.

When you join the military you take an oath. The oath basically says

you'll follow orders. I remember how many kids joined up then whined that it wasn't fair that they had to do this

or that. What they failed to do was understand that it is a two way deal. You get training, room, board and

something to do to earn those things. In return, you follow orders. Once you've given your word on that, how could

you not go if ordered?

What is my obligation to the country? To help others. To give back to

the community. To show others just how great a place this is.

But until I can believe that, I can't fufill my

obligation.

"Whats the use of defending something if it isn't worth defending?"

You, me and

everybody around us are responsible for making our country what it is. If you don't feel it is a good place to be

you should be trying to change it. Not being involved because you don't like something about your country isn't

the way to make it better. Perhaps if you acted as an example, others would see and follow you.

Koolking,

Thank you.

Netghost56

10-15-2005, 05:06 PM

DrSmellThis

10-15-2005, 08:29 PM

Despite what our service

people sign up for, there are certain situations in which someone in the military is bound by law to refuse orders.

Sometimes, in situations where law doesn't require dissent, morality might.

People inside or outside of the

legal system can debate what those situations are, in individual cases, and well do. But it is not always

easy and clear to condemn someone who refuses to follow an order for reasons of conscience; even legally; much less

morally. There are often grey areas there.

For example, Lindy Englund might have refused a few prisoner abuse

orders, to her and the country's benefit (and the prisoners'); but failed to do so. That probably wasn't even a

grey area.

Dissent can be the highest -- and only -- form of patriotism, to paraphrase Jefferson. It can also be

legally required.

People have reason to debate whether or not the Iraq War is legal, by national and/or

international codes. But notwithstanding the legal issues, I do have a lot of compassion for the patriots who joined

thinking they were defending the U.S. after 9/11; only to find themselves invading a non-threatening country; the

invasion justified entirely by various lies told by their commander in chief and his staff.

I for one don't

blame some of them for believing their conscience -- or even the law -- was telling them to dissent.

belgareth

10-16-2005, 01:51 AM

Well,

obviously I do help others.

But on the military, let me ask you? Do you consider me unpatriotic for refusing to

sign up? I'm not ranting, but I'm curious as to what you think. Talking about things like obligation, loyalty, and

duty one can't help but think of patriotism. Do you think one's obligation to his/her country runs hand in hand

with their patriotism?

I consider myself patriotic, but perhaps less though than others. Where is the grey area?

Being loyal to the country but not to the government?? Are you unpatriotic if you don't think your leader is

competent? Alot of people think so.
At one time, didn't you tell me you couldn't sign up due to some

medical issue?

I do not think patriotism is necessarily shown by military service. I've made the

differentiation between government and country several times, loyalty to your country is patriotism, loyalty to the

pack of liars and theives that make up the ruling elite in this country is another issue altogether. You could argue

that congress and both major political parties are not only unpatriotic but are traitors to this country in as much

as their concerns are furthering their own agenda instead of doing the right things for this country. As a direct

result of their actions the country as a whole suffers. You also could argue that those who do not bother to vote or

only vote the party line without considering the issues are unpatriotic. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Let's take a clearly wild for instance. The government decides to imposse martial law and confiscate all

firearms as part of a military take over. What would be the patriotic thing to do? In my opinion, the people not the

government are this country. In a case like that you'd be honor bound to cast your lot with the people thus

resisting the government. Haven't I mentioned several times about the common illusion that the people work for the

government? The reality is the government should be working for the people, not sucking them dry.

To follow up

on something DST said: under military law you are required to refuse what you believe to be an illegal order. Things

like abusing prisoners and shooting civilians or wounded prisoners are illegal and you are required to refuse and

report those orders appropriately, attention to military law is part of the oath you take. As with anything there

is a certain amount of judgment you need to exercise.

But, when you sign up and take the oath you are agreeing

to follow lawful orders, if that includes fighting in a war you don't agree with, that's too bad. You voluntarily

took the oath and the military has a reasonable expectation that you will keep you word. Part of that oath is to

accept the decisions of your commander and chief. Can you imagine the bedlam otherwise? Every person in a uniform

refusing certain actions for morality reasons?

As a great defender of free will and the right to make your own

decisions I would be remiss if I failed to bring up that you can object, you have every right to object. If you take

an oath then refuse to fulfill it, it is your decision to make. If you end up in Leavenworth for not fulfilling your

oath, that is called consequences for your actions. I cannot fault the military of holding you to your word.

DrSmellThis

10-16-2005, 01:55 PM

There is no moral absolute

rule, such as "never break an oath", that short circuits the rest of morality. Morality itself fails if that is the

case. In order to have a successful morality, any oath that requires subjugating the rest of one's morality must be

regarded as an invalid oath.

Arguably, there are clear, compelling moral grounds for refusing to

fight a clearly unjust war, even if it requires breaking a legal promise.

That is only a personal decision each

has to make, as Bel pointed out; and indeed it would be unrealistic to suppose there would be no consequences to

actions; though part of those consequences include that you'll have a chance to fight in court. That is also

separate from the question of whether those expected consequences are ultimately just. As things stand, that too is

debatable.

But are there legal grounds? Is the Iraq war legal? Are any of those orders lawful? Again that is

debatable, at least.

Yes, some "bedlam" might result when soldiers start to refuse their redeployments, etc, as

is already happening.

But that too is a consequence of actions. If the whole basis for a situation is unjust, it

is impossible to achieve clear, pure justice in any part of that situation. The rulers set it up so no one

operating within the unjust system can act with innocence, regardless of their decisions. Since there is no

right way, different individuals are going to come to different conclusions, and exhibit different behaviors, in an

irrational, unjust situation. Leaders should expect societal bedlam when their rule is criminal, especially on

matters of war and peace. For some, bedlam might on occasion be considered as a necessary thing.

I am not

condoning anything in that regard, but just noting that these legal and moral issues do not lend themselves to

"black and white treatment". Indeed there are different perspectives.

belgareth

10-16-2005, 03:38 PM

When you joined the military

you hopefully made the moral choices before you gave an oath. If not, that's your own fault. However, giving an

oath, whether to a child or a government or another adult still means you gave your oath. If you didn't consider

the implications before the fact you screwed up. Once you have given your oath honor requires you keep it. It's

very rare for me to make a promise because I don't break my word, ever. To me, in my world view, that would be to

dishonor myself. So, before I'll give my word I will be certain of why I am doing so. Anything less complettely

negates the act of giving oath.

A military run any other way would be a disaster and the related blooodshed

would be horrendous. Can you imagine a bunch of disparete groups running around with those weapons and the freedom

to do as they would? There's a goood reason for discipline in the military.

belgareth

10-16-2005, 04:41 PM

To elaborate a little further

on an oath, once your oath becomes something less than cast in stone it loses all value. If I know that a person has

reversed themselves on their given word in the past I have no reason to trust them to keep it in the future. It is

very black and white. By the same token, when people see how reluctantly I give a promise and the lengths I'll go

to keep that promise they are more likely to trust me. I don't trust any person who does not keep their promises

and wouldn't expect anybody to trust me if I didn't keep mine.

Mtnjim

10-17-2005, 10:04 AM

NetGhost: The

reserves have historically been used in our oversea wars. The Guard is supposed to mainly handle USA domestic issues

but can also be called upon for oversea duty. They had a big presence in the first Gulf War but were ridiculed

extensively for being unfit and untrained for combat duties. I sometimes wonder now if they aren't being punished

now for their lack of readiness in the 1st Gulf War. Or, perhaps getting trained really well for upcoming domestic

issues.

I see it as a way of avoiding the draft. The military was short on the number of troops to do

what "W" wanted, so the choices were
1-don't do it.
2-use the reserves etc.
or
3- Draft more meat.

But they

can't go on this way too much longer. The military is falling short of their enlistment goals and have been for the

past several months. Hopefully there will be "student deferments" and some of you can consider graduate school!

Also, I hear the weather is nice in Canada this time of year.

koolking1

10-17-2005, 11:25 AM

aside from dwindling levels

of new recruits you have the dramatic problem of the current guys/gals being sent onto their 3rd combat tour in as

many years. This is damn near criminal in my mind but also perfectly legal and there is always the argument:

"well, they are all volunteers and should be ready to accept the bad duty when it comes along". They can't go on

to a 4th tour, well - actually then can but..... my God. Now, how is this war supposed to last for 10 years

without a whole bunch of new folks? Where did I get the 10 years from? - why the Sec of Def.

The above is

not the main reason I want a return to the draft but it is a compelling one nonetheless. Ask the spouses, kids, and

parents of these combat vets if they think it's right or fair.

DrSmellThis

10-17-2005, 11:59 AM

So once again, Bel; if keeping an oath turned out to require you to violate everything

else about your personal morality, you would keep the oath, no matter how deplorable the acts were, and how

inconsistent with your integrity? (Forget about legal aspects here, for clarity.)

Oath keeping is your moral

absolute, and this is black and white to you? If so, dare I ask you to ask yourself to rethink this?

Does anyone

recall what I've been saying for years about the pandemic of black and white thinking? I meant it.

If

everyone was willing to jettison the rest of their morality/ethics/conscience -- the whole ball of wax -- for any

oath, might that have consequences for society too? If so, what might some of these be?? No, really. Think this

through.

What if you later came to believe the oath was a grave error? You're fallible. Would that

matter?

Or what if circumstances changed after your oath that would have prevented you from giving the oath in

the first place had you been able to predict them (or even known or realized, if you could have before)?

As a

simple example, what if you, in a moment of indiscretion, swore an oath of loyalty to someone who later turned out

to be a Mob Boss? He then orders you to kill your aunt, along with her entire Bridge Club, and to bring him the

chips and dip on a platter?

I'm supposed to trust someone more, knowing they would keep that

oath??!

Here's an even simpler, clearer example. What if somebody makes a bad oath? They promise to be the worst

person they could be. Would it be morally wrong for them to break that oath at some later date? Or, would it be

wrong for the mobster to repent, and renounce his or her loyalty oath?

Does anyone think it's really impossible

to make a promise appropriately "sacred," without making it a black and white moral absolute, while

still keeping the bigger picture of one's ethics and conscience intact?

It's safe to let go of all

black and white thinking! Really! Trust me here, kids! I will keep you mentally and spiritually safe on this

one! And then some! A moral rule like "promise keeping" doesn't "lose all value" if it ceases to be a back and

white absolute! The rule instead achieves full value only when embedded in the bigger ethical picture, when

it gets its whole value from that. As a black and white absolute a moral rule is valuable only by accident, if at

all. It might well have negative value.

People can actually trust me far more than they otherwise could,

since I respect no moral rule as a black and white absolute, even "promise keeping". Really and truly! You,

my aunt, and her bridge club can trust that I'd tell that mob boss to stick that promise up his @$$!

Anyone

interested in the ethical issues are also welcome to read my previous posts on this matter above, since none of the

crucial issues raised were acknowledged or addressed by others thereafter in the thread. FYI, I wrote a doctoral

dissertation on ethics with the help of the nation's premier moral pholosopher; studied it passionately for years;

and so am professionally conversant in the field.

belgareth

10-17-2005, 02:38 PM

The problem here is the huge

difference in core philosophies. In a way your thinking is as much black and white as mine. You firmly tell us there

are no black and whites yet that statement is an example of one. Ok, it's spliting hairs. I'm a techie, that's

what we do. :)

If you'll go back and read what I said, I was clear that I rarely give a promise. That's

because I intend to keep every promise I make and have a good track record of doing so. When I make a promise I am

dead serious about it. To be dead serious I need to know exactly what I am promising. Otherwise I don't make the

promise, period. A person who makes promises without assuring themselves they know what they are getting into is

being irresponsible. That goes back to a basic way of seeing things that we do differently. I believe in the

individual being always, absolutely and completely responsible for their every action. You, as I understand it from

other statements, disagree with that. That's fine, it's your choice in how you live your life and where you place

your values. It isn't my place to tell you how to live or to judge you for it. The only person I judge is me. The

only way I can meet the demands of my beliefs is through living by those standards. Anything short of that is not

acceptable to me.

The bottom line for me is that I am happy in my life, have self respect and the respect of

others around me, I have what I consider to be my honor intact, people trust me, I am able to help others and am

successful in my professional endeavors. Maybe I could have those things by living by other standards and maybe I

couldn't. The question is, if I am content, why would I want to be different than I am?

Since you mention it I

guess I should explain something about how I deal with the legal aspects of my life. Those laws I agree with or feel

are necessary I obey, those I don't feel that way about I ignore. Again, to me, it's that simple. If there are

repercussions for an action of mine, I have already considered it and am willing to deal with it if and when it

becomes necessarry.

DrSmellThis

10-17-2005, 03:24 PM

In a way your

thinking is as much black and white as mine. You firmly tell us there are no black and whites yet that statement is

an example of one. :)Um, no. But good luck trying to demonstrate this one. This is a word/concept game at

most. Everything I believe "transcends literalness", and is knowingly subject/slave to a maximally bigger context,

to the continuing extent of my ability, including what I am saying now. Language and ideas are both metaphoric in

their essence. Granted, these statements are extremely easy to misinterpret, since explaining them would be out of

place here. But I'm just saying it for the record in case it comes up later somewhere else.

I am not so stupid

as to expect to change your mind. Please know that I mean no offense, and respect/admire you a great deal; but often

speak frankly to my friends when I think it's ultimately beneficial to do so.

Belgareth, frankly it's pretty

obvious from your time here that when you make up your mind about something no one (so far) can change it through

reasoning with you, even if you are mistaken. You have decided your beliefs are fine the way they are. You protect

them in a mildly macho fashion like it's important to your sense of manhood. Maybe when everyone's back is turned

you might change a contested belief in private and then convince yourself it was your idea to do so. I don't know.

I bet even the ones who love you and accept you the most believe you are excessively stubborn. That is a minor fault

in most all respects. I have minor and major faults. The only time that frustrates me is if you let that interfere

with other readers in my blogging projects here. Usually you don't. In this case I am sharing some issues I believe

I know about ethics, issues that ethicists (anyone who devotes their life work to understanding ethics) would

generally acknowledge as being central. Your last post wasn't bad in that respect, but does show a marked lack of

considering the crucial issues I raised. You just bull ahead repeating your initial opinion. It might not seem that

way to you, since you are trying to identify "core philosophies" and all. IMHO, there are some things you're not

getting, but who am I?

You seems to view responsibility in a black and white fashion too, despite the

limits/imperfections of humanity and the concept of responsibility. It's good for you, but fails when applied to

others, when you would have eveyone held responsible in your absolute, black and white, severe manner.

Your

beliefs are sufficient to your contentment, apparently. I can think of plenty of other reasons to modify beliefs,

regardless of whether or not I feel content while believing whatever I believe.

There are many worse faults than

that, and I may even have cornered the market on them. But I think you could have a tremendous growth experience

were you interested in this area of growth.

I hope and intend to make up for this negative feedback by

supporting your position and qualities many other times here on the forum, whenever possible. Thank you for your

continued, sizable contributions here.

belgareth

10-17-2005, 03:39 PM

Doc,

You still

misunderstand me. You study one form of philosophy and believe it is right, I study another and believe the same.

Mine, and hopefully yours, is a constant learning experience and a striving to better myself. If that's

stubbornness then so be it.

If you choose to consider my statements as word games, that is entirely up to you.

I tried to make it light to avoid offending you but left the deeper implications to you. Apparently you missed them.

That's fine too.

You are welcome to your blogging projects, I even declined to participate in one that you

started recently for reasons you may or may not understand. I note that nobody else has participated in it either. I

honestly hope others do join in and look forward to their input.

However, your right is not the only right and

my lack of agreement with yours does not make mine wrong. The difference here is that I don't judge yours and

wouldn't presume to do so. Until you take the time to learn mine it might be better if you refrained from judging

mine and me. I will offer this though, I have found a tremendous level of happiness by following the teachings I

follow. Are you telling me that others cannot do the same? The world is full of differnt types of people, some will

be happy with your beliefs and others will not. I only offer an alternative.

DrSmellThis

10-17-2005, 04:54 PM

I don't claim to understand

you, and don't claim "my philosophy" (whatever that is) is Right with a capital R. I try very hard to say only

those things which I think work best as ideas in this little realm we're inhabiting; things that by most people's

standards of rationality should work as well as possible; including your own standards of rationality, were I

fortunate enough to know what they were.

Sometimes people want their beliefs to somehow apply to others or be

maximally useful to them. Sometimes someone will say something internally inconsistent, something that doesn't work

well by their own standards, if the truth about those standards were understood, or by others' standards for

rational living. Sometimes statements don't make sense to oneself and/or others. Philosophical statements fail

philosophically due to those kinds of reasons.

BTW, you keep saying "choose to believe." That is a pregnant

cliche, and overused in pop culture. When I believe something, it is hopefully not mere brute, naked willfulness or

choice, because both humility and realism require that my beliefs are in part subject to something bigger than just

me. It's a never ending process of choosing and yielding, a cycle of interaction. Beliefs that are a matter of

"brute willfullness" are often problematic.

Indeed I am telling you that some of your articulated

versions of beliefs would likely pose problems for people were others to adopt them literally as a way of

life, believing them literally true. Those problems would become magified greatly were those articulated principles

to become law and be forced on others, small government or otherwise. I called attention to some of those problems

above, as regards oaths being a matter of black and white, severe absolutism.

I accept that you experience that

your beliefs work very well for you personally. Whether they work well enough will continue to be for you to decide,

though others who care for you might express concerns from time to time. ;)

The problems come with applying your

concepts of responsibility, honor, obligation, and black and white absolutes, as articulated in your words here, in

others' lives, by whatever process.

In many other posts over the years here I have argued that black and white,

absolutist thinking is easily one of the most destructive forces on our planet (causing, for example,

terrorism). It is literally a mental illness; a thought disorder; and a pandemic. Since it's not really a physical

entity, most people can't see it, and therefore don't realize how destructive it is. I fight it wherever I see it.

Somebody needs to!

I was born to be a philosopher. It's not widely considered very cool, sexy, or hip, let me

assure you. It's geeky to the extreme. Geeks think I'm extremely geeky. But when I "philosophize", it is with the

hope of sharing a kind of gift with others, not so much self-expression. To succeed in contributing to others lives,

through the exchange of ideas, I have to be held responsible for my words, and have to do the same to others who

participate in the conversations that result. The words are all people have to take away. When someone chooses to

participate with me in a challenging manner, they should know that I will be a stickler like that, and that this is

the reason. Perhaps knowing that will make it somewhat easier, and lead to better cooperative efforts (shared

responsibility) on some occasions. It's not primarily about us.

Perhaps you hurt your public case by keeping the

core of your beliefs private, as you have indicated you do. I respect that fully. Many of us choose that way,

especially as regards our spirituality. But the logical consequence is that your partially articulated philosophy

might not be "ready to eat" by the public, who wouldn't realize that. There is no warning label. But you are a role

model here for some folks, and you seem to enjoy that role. There is a potential issue there, then, when it goes

beyond "take it or leave it self expression".

BTW, although I have no idea what your core beliefs are, I can

just tell you I've been around the block a few times with radical spiritual views on human responsibility, (even

seriously entertaining ideas that we're entirely and literally creating our own very physical existence and the

world's each moment through choosing to believe it, etc.) and might already be familiar with some of the

beliefs you might be going from. I take my responsibility to openmindedness (and vice versa :))quite seriously, and

have been on an intellectual (but not just) journey for a long time. Of course, that's none of my business

whatsoever.

I do and will encourage and support you on your path to the extent of my ability.

I look forward

to leaning more about your beliefs, and only make rational evaluations of what you literally write here, in terms of

how literally ready the philosophy is for application in others' lives, whether it makes public sense for others'

benefit. I hold you responsible for your words in that sense. I am a stickler on that, yet don't claim

absolutes, like to knowing your actual philosophy.

If I give you critical issues to think about, there is

no reason to think that this process couldn't result in something positive, and vice versa.

You have alerted me

to things that have changed my beliefs on some occasions. I am open to changing my mind on anything. It's just that

on some things, sometimes, someone "has to get up pretty early in the morning to do so for me". ;) Then again, just

as often the random gal making my taco modifies my world view through something she says.

I try to keep things

self contained here on the forum, so people can evaluate my words as they stand over time, and hold me to them. That

is one reason I write at such length.

So I thought you admitted to being stubborn. Has that changed? :POKE:For

godssakes, man, relax! If we could get in a contest to list our faults, I could whup you! :) It's not like I'm

never stubborn. I only mention it as a practical issue with forum conversations. No biggie.

belgareth

10-17-2005, 08:43 PM

My point and the only absolute

is one you deny, that is individual personal responsibility and I live by it just the way I say it. It does not give

me the right to tell others how to live, it does not give me the right to judge them. The only judgements I make are

about harm to others. You use terrorists as an example of a flaw in my beliefs but terrorists are trying to use

force to change society. My philosophy does not permit that. The individual's rights and responsibilities in life

are the point. The only force I use is for defense, nothing else.

If I am a role model I am sorry for that. I

don't want anybody to follow me. I want them to find their own course in life where they can be happy and

productive without harming others. All I intend to do is help any person who wishes to try the become the best they

can be. No more and no less.

Each of us is an individual and each has to find their own way. I can offer

guidance if somebody is willing to search but nothing more. We each have to determine for ourselves what is the

right course for our lives. You seem to have chosen your course and I'm happy for you. But it is your personal

course that you are following, nobody else's. Your reality is not mine, mine is not yours and no amount of talking

will change that.

Over the years I have been fortunate enough to have a number of (IMHO) great mentors. Each has

taught me important lessons as has life in general and the other people I've met along the way. One of the most

important lessons has been to always think before I act so I know what I am doing and, more importantly, why I am

doing it. Another is to always act with honor no matter what the situation. The third is to make my given word

sacred to myself. None of those things need to matter to anybody but me but they must matter to me. There have been

many other lessons and I'd imagine that there will be many more.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not upset

with you, only stating that you don't seem to understand where I am coming from and suggesting it would be better

not to judge what you do not understand. You are right that I am stubborn but you are wrong about how my mind works.

I don't play that ego game you attribute to me simply because I don't care enough what anybody thinks of me to

need it. simply put, I disagree with you on certain points. At the same time, we agree on others. Both are still

just fine with me. I really do hope that your path that you follow gives you the kiind of happiness and fulfillment

mine gives me. That's all I really want. How you get that, so long as you do no harm to others is entirely up to

you.

It still isn't clear, is it?

DrSmellThis

10-18-2005, 02:24 PM

Unfortunately not. It's

almost as if you are trying to simplify everything to a certain place where you like to be. I think your reply is

great for readers with no interest in the line of reasoning and debate about oaths, morality, and the military.

Others, like myself, might be left scratching their heads.

I admire that you choose your own way to live and are

happy with that. I admire you in general; your individualism and business success. I would never try to change your

life. BTW, even the most individualistic people need role models, such as yourself and your own mentors; and I hope

you can accept that role as a mature man in society. Kids look to us, like it or not. They can gain inspiration and

wisdom from your life story.

Does that have anything to do with the debate? No. (Besides, you have in fact been

trying to tell others, or at least imply, what some of their responsibilities are.)

Did anyone here "deny

individual personal responsibility"? Of course not. I argued in the "philosohical stuff" thread that responsibility

is not black and white (a simple example for those who want for now to skip the argument: executing mentally

retarded people, because they are "responsible, period"), and suggested those insights would ultimately

strengthen our efforts toward responsibility. You declined for personal reasons to respond to an extensive list

of issues that support my argument. But please, if you are going to decline to participate, at least don't

mischaracterize my position as being black and white like your stated position: "You're either with Responsibility,

or against it!"

Trying to simplify the world to black and white like this so you can take the white side is in

fact a type of pandemic mental mistake that is an essential cause of terrorism and many other kinds of destruction.

Whether you personally are against terrorism is irrelevant here. We all suffer from this kind of harmful thought

disorder in some ways, myself included.

I also argued in detail that any moral rule, such as oath keeping,

(or don't steal, etc.) must subject to the larger moral life, including human imperfections, unknowns, and

circumstances that might apply, for a morality or moral life to reliably succeed. (I made this same argument in a

doctoral dissertation, so know that years of thought, research and study went into it.). For example, just because

someone makes an oath doesn't mean that's all anyone needs to know, as lots of abused divorcees with small

children can attest. (Someone replying they shouldn't have made the oath misses the point in multiple ways, such as

the fact that they did.) No one responded to this argument in an even remotely direct fashion.

There are a lot of

holes in your simplistic argument (basically: "an oath is an oath. Period. We are responsible, period."). You are

under no obligation to repair those holes. In fact I am suggesting you can not do so, without abandoning your

position.

That is different from suggesting you should change the way you live, or that you should adopt my

reality. For that matter, in the other thread I already had suggested that a person living by a mythic notion of

absolute Responsibility, as if it were literally black and white, can work out well for a lot of people in

their personal lives as far as helping them develop decision skills, overcome handicaps, succeed professionally etc.

But this was just one of many neglected points.

As it stands, you have a problem in reasoning, but no obligation

to solve it. Your literal words on these issues, as they stand, can not make sense to a reader. I'm not suggesting

that it has to be a problem in your daily life, or that if it was you should recognize it. As long as you don't try

to tell others what their responsibilities are (e.g., keeping military oaths), suggest you have a better way to

think, or seek to advocate for "responsibility" politics that would be made law of the land for everyone else, you

should be fine.

Again, arguments must evaluated by their words and their implications, as they stand, regardless

of unstated private philosophies and our understanding of it. It's not about you or me. It's about what readers

will take away. You keep thinking that's judging what someone doesn't know. It's rather evaluating only what can

be known, as it stands.

belgareth

10-18-2005, 03:57 PM

I am not simplifying, rather it

seems that you choose to do so with your faulty perception of my position. I addressed your comments about oaths in

stating that before giving an oath a person must be fully aware of what they are promising and why. Once a person

has fulfilled that responsibility they can give an oath in good faith. If a person haphazardly gives oaths then it

seems likely they also will be unable to fulfill those oaths. That is part of personal responsibility for their

actions. As you said but seem to be missing from my statements, there is a greater moral rule. That rule is that a

person is responsible to think and assure themselves of what they are doing before making promises or oaths so they

can be reasonably sure of fulfilling those oaths. That is called being responsible for their actions. Was there

something more than that you were looking for?

You stated that I viewed personal responsibility as black and

white and that it is a fantasy. Personally, I believe that the lack of personal responsibility is the fantasy world

and the single biggest cause of problems in this world, possibly second depending on how some things are defined. If

you'll take the time to go back and read other threads where this subject has come up you'll find where I mention

protecting the sick/weak/poor and helping them, mostly because you implied the same things before and I had to

correct you then. If you missed that you certainly couldn't have missed how much effort I expend to do exactly

that. In my case my actions speak far louder than your words. Please think before you make an statement like that. I

never said anything about executing them or in any way implied it. That's something out of your own mind so please

don't attribute it to me.

The holes you cite are in your perception of my position as I imagine many of the

fallacies I percieve in your position are because I don't fully understand it. The difference is that I don't

attack your position or you, only state mine and leave it to others to decide their course. Your opinion that I have

an unsolvable problem in reasoning is a mirror image of how I see your position. The difference lies in how we deal

with it. I know I don't understand your philosophy and have no reason to be concerned that it may in some way run

counter to my own. It's yours and if you are happy living with it I am very happy for you. I have nothing to prove

about the right or wrong or flaws in how you believe.

Yes, I realize that people need inspiration and role

models. I've served as such many times to diverse groups. I consider it to be part of my obligation to my society.

However, since you once stated that it would be innappropriate to discuss what you do I will apply the same to

myself out of consideration for your sensitivities. The difference is that I accepted your statement and never

brought it up again while you try to use my similar request against me.

Do you know what I tell them? Keep in

mind that I keep getting invited back time after time. I tell them to get up and take control of their lives, that

they are the deciding factor in what they become. That they are the ones who can make themselves into anything they

want to be if they want it badly enough to work for it. Of course, I tailor it to the audience but I talk to them

about being completely responsible for themselves, being honest at all times, caring for others and for their world.

That's what my whole philosophy is about. Mine is in no way about bending others to my beliefs or faulting others

beliefs or demonstrating that I can ignorantly nitpick at somebody else's belief. Mine is all about encouraging

others to live to the best of their abilities in a free world.

I'm not sure why you have this issue about

laws, I never mentioned it and have no intention of ever trying to make any of my beliefs into law. That may be

where you wish to go but not me. That to me is a dominance issue and I don't want to dominate anybody.

DrSmellThis

10-18-2005, 04:18 PM

* Again, no one can always be

fully, perfectly aware of what they are promising and why. Reasonbly, so, yes. BUt there are always unknowns, and

imperfections. And if someone makes a mistake making an oath, what do you do then? I assume you'd avocate the hit

man to kill your aunt.You need to forget the past and do the right thing.

* No the point is not the greater

rule, because all rules are inadequate when abstracted out from the whole moral life.

* Reasonbly sure of

meeting obligations i cn go with in most cases. That is exactly what I was arguing for when I said "appropriately

sacred" oath. Maybe there's an opportunity to finally find agreement here. If you'll notice, that rejects the

black and white stuff.

* You are fantasizing I said you are in favor of executing mentally retarded people.

Silly.

* You have nothing to prove about my position and therefore do not address it. Fine. Believe what you

want, but I'll continue to be concerned for readers.

* Again, no one is advocating a lack of personal

responsibility, but against a faultly notion of "responsiblity".

* For someone who never attacks anyone's

position, you sure do a lot of attacking of others' positions. For someone with nothing to prove you sure do a lot

of arguing. I don't apologize for arguing a philosophical point, because I think it of benefit to do so. Again if

you were just expressing yourself and leaving it at that, none of this would happen.

* Your idea that I am using

something about role modeling against you is from Mars.

* Are others misunderstanding your position or just

trying in vain to hold someone responsible for their words?

* None of this is personal attack, but is arguing a

philosophical point. All opinions advanced for a public purpose are not equally sound.

belgareth

10-18-2005, 04:58 PM

1. Why would you choose to deal

with the type of people that could possibly be a hit man? That's part of personal responsibility. Why can't one

always strive to be there vision of perfect? Exacting expectations are part of that striving.

2. Exactly right

about rules. That's what I keep trying to tell you. You don't understand my philosophies but keep making

statements about them.

3. Needless to say that there are no certainties in life. I may make a promise and get

hit by a car ending up in the hospital. While arguably it was my choice to be where I was if I was exercising due

prudence I couldn't be reasonably held acountable in that situation. However, upon my recovery I still would be

responsible for doing whatever possible to fulfill that promise. I made it in good faith. Of course, something

neither of us has mentioned is that promises are almost always two sided. I don't consider a promise made under

false conditions valid but that is so vague as to almost a useless statement without a specific case.

4. Ok,

fine. You made the statement in a previous post. Clarify what you meant when you brought it up. I was using your

example in another attempt to clarify a point.

5. That's fine. I'm concerned for readers too. We see things

differently. Not a problem for me.

6. I'll skip this one for now as I don't want you to be able to claim I am

miscontruing your words.

7. Every statement I made was an attempt to clarify your misrepresentations and

misconceptions. If you would stop trying to tell me what I think and getting it completely wrong, none of this would

happen.

8. To clarify, a while back I asked something about what you actually do for others. Your statement was

to the effect of "I don't think it's appropriate to discuss how much I actually do" I don't remember the exact

words you used, anybody interested is welcome to go back and look for it. I never mentioned it again until today.

You have mentioned at least twice my preference for not talking about certain parts of my philosophy, even though I

made it a point of telling you in a private PM that I'd prefer not to discuss some things and asked for your

understanding. Do you see the difference? What part of it is from mars? That I feel I had a reasonable expectations

of your keeping a confidence?

9. If others are misunderstanding my position I invite them to ask me about it. As

I said, I am williing to give advice but I don't want to lead. It follows that I am willing to answer questions.

You have been making statments about my beliefs, not asking questions. For my own reasons there are areas I am not

going to talk about but that's not too much of a hindrance.

10. 'Equally sound' in a philisophical discussion

is slippery. I'm not even going to go into wrong and right. Who am I to judge such things? It isn't in my pervue

to make those decisions for anybody other than myself. For all I know you may be and quite probably are 100% correct

from your reality. Please don't read too much into the word reality as it is another slippery thing. I accept that

I probably am completely off base for you. We each have to decide for ourselves what is right.

DrSmellThis

10-18-2005, 06:33 PM

* I apologize if I violated

your confidence. I was under the impression that you mentioned it publically before I did, and that it was crucial

to the discussion. I agree I may well have been mistaken to do so, though. Again, nothing was meant as any kind of

attack. I'm not sure what that has to do with role modeling, or my position that how much money I give to

charities, etc. is not a matter for public debate.

* Again, when somebody makes statements, they sometimes

don't realize what the implications of those statements are, as written. People take those implications at face

value -- and they should because the mass public likely is -- and then that person sometimes feel misunderstood,

because they didn't phrase it to capture their deeper meaning precisely. Obviously, you might disagree with that,

but I feel pretty sure it happens. That comes down to, first, rigorous discipline when choosing words and phrasing

things, and is a learned skill. Second, it has to do with trying to find a better way to phrase something later,

when put on the spot. Having to do so much writing in grad school, and my intense study of philosophy taught me to

consider that important. I have had to work very hard at that, and still do. One can prevent most misunderstandings

at that point. Maybe I could ask more questions (I'll try to look for appropriate opportunities to do so), but the

responsibility can't be mostly on the reader to ask questions, when someone might have made a mistake phrasing it.

It would take forever to question everything you disagree with. Your words seemed clear enough to me, for example.

You don't mince words (which works much better on the street than in philosophical settings). If someone corrects

your words, the best thing to do is say, "oops, I misspoke slightly, I guess I should have said ...." I do that from

time to time here. Nobody cares that you misspeak, or chose a nonoptimal word, ever, in that case. The thing

to do is not to assume an unrepentant doggedness -- just correct it so it more clearly expresses the subtleties of

your position. The best philosophers do that all the time when faced with a legitimate challenge. Then few will

misunderstand. Again, this has less to do with someone misunderstanding your position, and more to do with

responsibility for words; for example, overly strong words.

* When someone disagrees with me, I wish they would

take the words and analyze them logically as they stand. I try very hard (too hard in this forum, honestly) to

account for possiblilities in my word choice, and want very much to be held responsible for that so that people will

be forced to recognize all the meanings that were embedded and see how they interconnect. It's all designed to be

in the words as typed. Of course I fail at that. We all do. But that's the goal.

But give me a break -- to claim

I'm against responsibility or don't believe in it? That's ridiculous, judging by every literal word I've

written.

I personally believe I'm not terrible at understanding the literal implications of your words as

written, since doing that with others has been a strength of mine in the past. You often make extreme,

strong-sounding statements, (everyone is "absolutely and fully responsible ... It is black and white"); these words

have implications in the context in which they were used; and you might want to take responsibility for it,

preferably before writing them. You cannot make extreme, all or nothing statements and not expect rebuttals. In

philosophy classes they warn you agains all or nothing statements all the time. Those are consequences for that

action. Intellectual responsibility is one kind of responsibility.

I claim no achievement at "understanding your

position", however.

* Regarding oaths, etc., it is irrational and self defeating to expect perfection in a

literal sense. Again, I already accounted for the metaphorical sense in a few other posts. You aim for it, and

accept that you'll always have imperfections.

More literal extremes. They make for nonsensical philosophy. Ask

any philosophy teacher. Words are too inadequate to be usable for making extreme, categorical statements.

*

Again, I'll be more mindful of your confidence in the future. I apologize.

I guess that if you're not going to

respond in the future, however, then I'd hope you wouldn't carry on as if you had addressed my points, points

which fully deserved to be addressed in that discussion, since they cut to the heart of it. I felt it was as if I

hadn't written any of it. That is where I wronglyfelt it necessary to remind you you hadn't responded somehow,

since there was no acknowledgement of having covered the crucial issues in depth already. I didn't know how else to

handle it, and still don't. I wish I'd done better. I do not want to impinge on anyone's privacy of their

beliefs, and will be more mindful.

belgareth

10-18-2005, 08:15 PM

Doc,

Thank you for your

words. I am really not trying to anger you as it does not serve any purpose. Instead I am trying hard to make myself

clear. You and I followed different paths and had different teachers who taught from different schools of thought.

If each of us is happy in our path and do no harm to others what is there to be concerned about? I think one of the

ways that we differ the most is even in philosophy I cannot comfortably think within the accepted boxes, often

enough I cannot even find the danged box. It works for me but I do not claim or think it will work for you or any

other person. That's for each to choose on their own. I do not claim that my path is right or anything of the sort,

it simply exists. Right and wrong have little meaning in my beliefs.

I do believe in absolute and complete

responsibility for MY actions and I do believe that everybody should live by that. With few exceptions I can't

force people to and wouldn't even try but it is how I believe. Every action a person makes is volitional, they do

what they do as a matter of choices they make. We can claim extenuating circumstances but really, we choose to do

everything we do. We can exclude from that statement the mentally incapable to some degree but otherwise it is the

philosophy that I have been taught, teach my children, teach others and I live by. All I can say is that it works

for me. Others that I've taught the same lessons seem to feel the same but I guess you'd have to ask them as I

don't speak for them. Your philosophies may not accept that way of thinking, what I learned demands it.

I do

not wish to speak for or change anybody or even have them believe me. It simply does not matter. If they are

destined to find a path similar to my own, then they will find it. If not, then they won't. All I can do is

continue to strive towards being the best possible version of myself I can be and lend a helping hand whenever it is

needed. I already know that perfection is impossible as it is not a destination but a path to follow, something to

strive for, no more. There are other things, other goals to strive for but I am not going to speak of them here.

Then, in the end, when my death finally overtakes me I can look it in the face without fear or remorse. My last song

will be one where I can be proud of how I've lived, what I've done and where I've been.

It still isn't

clear, is it? Perhaps if we had an appropriate place and the time I could make it clear but I think our

philisophical bents are too different for it to really translate. That too is neither good nor bad. My beliefs

include accepting each person for what they are? Can you accept me for what I am?

DrSmellThis

10-18-2005, 08:43 PM

I do accept you for who you

are. We just need a practical techniques to engage in disagreements better on the forum. Maybe we'll get better

with practice. If not, we'll both deal, responsible beings that we are.

Maybe someday I'll understand what you

mean by absolute and complete responsibility. I did understand your examples and agreed with most of them, while

seeing them as consistent with my stated position. But you must still mean something different. In my language, due

to human imperfections, interdependence, and the human condition, we also share certain responsibilities; accept

imperfections to some extent; and know that although everyone can aim for perfect responsibility, everyone is also

irresponsible in some ways, and this will never go away. Knowing it will never go away, we develop compassion and

understanding. This realism helps us attain responsibility more effectively. I am cocreating my world, and always

have responsibility, but never absolute, complete responsibility. My actions fit my intentionality always with some

imperfection, even if I strive to be perfect, and I accept that. I hope others around me can too. I am imperfect.

That is not a cop out for me, but just lets me be realistic, and ultimately more responsible, since I can plan for

my own irresponsibillity so to speak, or even ask for help. I am responsible only for aiming for my best at all

times. I will die happy if I do that.

There are always constraints to freedom, it is formed by the world and our

bodies, as well as our will.

belgareth

10-18-2005, 09:16 PM

Sorry Doc, that last was

retorical and I didn't expect an answer.:rofl: The only way to get better is to get better. :) To try is to fail,

to do is to succede. They stole that and used it in a star wars movie but the phrase is actually older than

Constantanopolis. In came about long before the christians were more than a bunch of smelly vagabonds wandering the

roads and begging.

Of course we are imperfect and of course we all act irresponsibly, I think it has something

to do with being human. That doesn't mean that I should accept it from myself, I would be failing in my own eyes if

I did. No matter what, I made the choice to be/act irresponsibly. My question is why I acted irresponsibly and how

can I better my actions the next time? It is striving to follow the path that matters, not the human frailty that

allows us to fall from it from time to time. I do not ask my friends to accept my failures no more than I judge them

for theirs. They can judge me however they wish but anybody who knows me well knows that I am their friend in the

deepest sense. I like them and offer my hand in friendship as they are and expect no more from them than they do the

same. Because I believe we each have that freedom to make those choices for ourselves I can only believe each person

is responsible for themselves. All interdependencies are a matter of choices made by each person, thus they are once

again our own responsibility.

Am I being any clearer?

In the end, every act for good or ill, every mistake

and every success will be the result of what the individual does of their on volition. We each re-make ourselves in

our self image each and every moment of our lives. I take the responsibility for making my self image what and who I

am. I decide, no one else. That is complete responsibility for ones self.

koolking1

10-19-2005, 07:19 AM

Updated: 08:48 AM

EDT
One in Four Iraq Vets Ailing Upon Return

By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

More than one in four U.S.

troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment,

according to the Pentagon's first detailed screening of servicemembers leaving a war zone. (Related: Troops

screened as never before) Almost 1,700 servicemembers returning from the war this year said they harbored thoughts

of hurting themselves or that they would be better off dead. More than 250 said they had such thoughts "a lot."

Nearly 20,000 reported nightmares or unwanted war recollections; more than 3,700 said they had concerns that they

might "hurt or lose control" with someone else.

These survey results, which have not been publicly released,

were provided to USA TODAY by the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. They offer a window on

the war and how the ongoing insurgency has added to the strain on troops.

Overall, since the war began, about

28% of Iraq veterans — about 50,000 servicemembers this year alone — returned with problems ranging from lingering

battle wounds to toothaches, from suicidal thoughts to strained marriages. The figure dwarfs the Pentagon's

official Iraq casualty count: 1,971 U.S. troops dead and 15,220 wounded as of Tuesday.

A greater percentage

of soldiers and Marines surveyed in 2004-05 said they felt in "great danger" of being killed than said so in 2003,

after a more conventional phase of fighting. Twice as many surveyed in 2004-05 had fired a weapon in

combat.

"The (wartime) deployments do take a toll," says Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "We

send them to austere locations, places that are extremely hot, extremely cold, very wet, very dry ... where they may

also encounter an armed enemy."

The Pentagon's goal is to identify all troops in need of care in part by

screening every servicemember on a wide range of issues before and after overseas duty.

Begun in

1997 and expanded in 2003, it is the most detailed health assessment of deployed troops ever. It came in response to

ailments that surfaced after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Jim Benson, a spokesman at the Department of Veterans

Affairs, says comparable data from previous wars don't exist.

In October 2004, a federal panel of medical

experts that studied illnesses of Gulf War veterans estimated that one in seven suffer war-related health

problems.

Benson said the percentage of troops back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with health issues

is close to the portion of former servicemembers coming to the VA for mental health or medical care. He says 101,000

of the 431,000 war vets who have separated from the military, or about 23%, have sought help.

Contributing:

Paul Overberg

Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Netghost56

10-19-2005, 07:21 PM

Rice:

U.S. May Still Be in Iraq in 10 Years

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined on

Wednesday to rule out American forces still being needed in Iraq a decade from now. Senators warned that the Bush

administration must play it straight with the public or risk losing public support for the war.

Pushed by

senators from both parties to define the limits of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East, Rice also declined

to rule out the use of military force in Iran or Syria, although she said the administration prefers diplomacy.

"I don't think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military

force," Rice said.

Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations committee for only the second time since

members gave her an unexpectedly tepid endorsement to replace Colin Powell in January, and she fielded pointed

questions about U.S. intentions and commitment on Iraq from lawmakers who said they are hearing complaints at

home.

"Our country is sick at heart at the spin and false expectations," Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting

record), D-Calif., told Rice. "They want the truth and they deserve it."

Rice said Iraq's police and Army

forces are becoming better able to handle the country's security without U.S. help, and she repeated President

Bush's warning that setting a timetable for withdrawal plays into terrorists' hands.

"The terrorists want us

to get discouraged and quit," Rice said. "They believe we do not have the will to see this through."

Rice said

the United States will follow a model that was successful in Afghanistan. Starting next month, she said, joint

diplomatic-military groups — called Provincial Reconstruction Teams — will work alongside Iraqis as they train

police, set up courts, and help local governments establish essential services.

By State Department design, Rice

testified before the committee just days after Iraq apparently approved its first constitution since a U.S.-led

coalition ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. Her appearance also coincided with the start of Saddam's

trial in Baghdad for a 1982 massacre of 150 of his fellow Iraqis.

Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record),

R-Ind., agreed with the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach but said there are legitimate questions to

ask about the future.

"We should recognize that most Americans are focused on an exit strategy in Iraq," said

Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might

provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon

which our troops are likely to come home."

An AP-Ipsos poll this month found 61 percent of respondents

disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq while 32 percent said they approve. In August, 53 percent said the United

States made a mistake by going to war while 43 percent said it was the right decision.

The figures represent a

sharp drop-off from strong support for the war in the early going. The war also had overwhelming support in

Congress, including from most of Rice's questioners Wednesday.

"One thing the Vietnam generation learned is no

foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. And we haven't gotten that

informed consent in terms of them knowing what they're signing on to from here on out," Sen. Joseph P. Biden Jr.,

D-Del., told Rice. "So I'm not looking for a date to get out of Iraq. But at what point, assuming the strategy

works, do you think we'll be able to see some sign of bringing some American forces home?"

Rice did not address

the Vietnam comparison, and said the question of withdrawal is one for military planners.

"I really don't want

to hazard what I think would be a guess, even if it were an assessment, of when that might be possible," Rice said

of a troop withdrawal.

Later, Sen. Paul Sarbanes (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., told Rice that her response

to questions about U.S. troop withdrawal leaves open the possibility that U.S. forces could be in Iraq five or even

10 years down the road. Rice did not dispute that.

"I don't know how to speculate about what will happen 10

years from now, but I do believe that we are moving on a course on which Iraqi security forces are rather rapidly

able to take care of their own security concerns," Rice responded.

Boxer read quotation after quotation from

administration figures about Iraq, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's February 2003 prediction that

the war could "last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months," to make the point that the war has not gone as the

administration predicted.

Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, read portions of a letter

from a father who lost a son in Iraq. The letter called the war a "misguided effort."

"We have to really level

with the American people," Voinovich told Rice. "This is not going to be over in two years ... we're not going to

just be able to walk out of Iraq and this is going to be over."

___

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019

/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_18 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_18)

koolking1

10-20-2005, 07:07 AM

‘Cheney

cabal hijacked US foreign policy’
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last

updated: October 20 2005 00:19

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the

government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and

more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr

Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard

Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy

did not know were being made.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far

more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”

Transcript: Colonel Lawrence

Wilkerson
Click here

Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as

the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.

It also resulted in bitter

battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.

“If you're not prepared to stop the

feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say

that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”

The comments, made at the New America

Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official

since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary,

early last year.

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr

Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.

“He's not happy with my

speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

Among his other

charges:

■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the

decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to

abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned

it.”

■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of

the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president

to build her intimacy with the president”.

■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is

overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in

Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.

Mr Wilkerson said former president George

H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast,

he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them

either”.

“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of

the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we

conduct diplomacy today.”

www.newamerica.net

DrSmellThis

10-20-2005, 07:58 AM

Powell's top aide sqawks...

koolking1

11-18-2005, 11:48 AM

from the NY Times:

"November 18, 2005
Vital Military Jobs Go Unfilled, Study Says
By DAMIEN

CAVE
The military is falling far behind in its effort to recruit and re-enlist soldiers for some of the most

vital combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new government report.

The report, completed

by the Government Accountability Office, shows that the Army, National Guard and Marines signed up as few as a third

of the Special Forces soldiers, intelligence specialists and translators that they had aimed for over the last

year.

Both the Army and the Marines, for instance, fell short of their goals for hiring roadside bomb

defusers by about 20 percent in each of the last two years. The Army Reserve, meanwhile, failed to fill about a

third of its more than 1,500 intelligence analysts jobs. And in the National Guard, there have been consistent

shortages filling positions involving tanks, field artillery and intelligence.

The report found that, in all,

the military, which is engaged in the most demanding wartime recruitment effort since the 1970's, had failed to

fully staff 41 percent of its array of combat and noncombat specialties.

Officials with the accountability

office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, found that some of the critical shortfalls had been masked by

the overfilling of other positions in an effort to reach overall recruiting goals. As a result, the G.A.O. report

questioned whether Congress had been given an accurate picture by the Pentagon of the military's ability to

maintain the force it needs for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The aggregate recruiting numbers are rather

meaningless," said Derek B. Stewart, the G.A.O.'s director of military personnel. "For Congress and this nation to

truly understand what's happening with the all-volunteer force and its ability to recruit and retain highly

qualified people, you have to drill down into occupational specialties. And when you do, it's very

revealing."

David S. C. Chu, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, denied that the

military lacked what it needed to complete the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the report failed to

appreciate how the Defense Department handled its recruiting efforts, and had "failed to take into account the

dynamic nature of the problem we're trying to solve."

"This report tries to cast that pall on what's going

on, but it's misread the fundamental mechanics of how the department actually manages personnel," Dr. Chu said. He

said the targets the G.A.O. used to calculate shortfalls were annual guideposts for staffing levels, which could be

adjusted according to circumstance. "The report assumes that all positions will always be filled," he said. "That's

not in fact the strategy."

Some military experts also said the gaps would be dangerous only if they

continued. Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the problems posed by the

shortfalls would be eased if the military began to reduce its deployment in Iraq.

"We are taking a gamble

here that the Iraq mission can be wound down before the cumulative problems become really serious," Mr. O'Hanlon

said.

The specific number of jobs the military can fill is in fact authorized each year by Congress, which

defines the military's personnel budget on the basis of what the Pentagon says it needs. James R. Hosek, a military

personnel analyst at the RAND Corporation, said the military had become more willing to disregard specific titles

and use soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen for a variety of tasks that might not be directly related to their job

descriptions.

The report showed that Congress needs to monitor these shifts better and ensure that the

military is effective and efficient, Mr. Hosek said.

The report found signs of wasted spending. In many cases

the military offered enlistment bonuses to people who signed up for jobs that were already overfilled. An Army

recruiter in New York, who insisted on anonymity because he had not been authorized to speak to the news media, said

it was not uncommon for noncombat positions to be opened up at the end of a tough recruiting month even the Army did

not need more people to do the job.

As a result, the report found that shortfalls in many occupations were

more severe than overall recruiting totals. The active-duty Army missed its target of 80,000 soldiers by 8 percent

last year, but fell short of its goal for human intelligence experts by 35 percent.

The Marine Corps, which

reached its recruitment goal last year after missing a few monthly quotas, struggled to fill several positions. It

hired only about three out of every four linguists for the Middle East and Asia that it said it needed for last

year.

Even the Navy and Air Force, which met their annual targets for overall recruitment last year, could

not find enough qualified people for several combat and intelligence positions, according to the report.

The

war, several military experts said, has scared many young people away from dangerous work.

"Prospective

recruits, when they think about rewards and sacrifices of military service, realize that some positions are simply a

lot more dangerous than others," said Mr. Hosek, the personnel expert at RAND.

There are nonetheless some

bright spots for the military in the G.A.O. analysis. Dr. Chu said there had been growth in the Special Forces

ranks, thanks in part to a new bonus of $150,000 for those who qualify. He said bonuses were also part of the reason

some jobs were overfilled.

But some military experts doubt that these small triumphs will be enough to keep

the ranks - and the right jobs - filled at a time of war.

"I'm not convinced that we can cap the problem,"

Mr. O'Hanlon said. "I think there's a strong possibility the situation could worsen."

40 + days to go,

will I lose the bet?

Biohazard

11-18-2005, 12:35 PM

from the NY

Times:

40 + days to go, will I lose the bet?

You might as well concede. It's not happening

under the current political climate, much less during the hiloday season.

koolking1

11-18-2005, 12:53 PM

one never knows for sure -

as I've said before, I'll concede just prior to the New Year so that I can get the cash to you before I head out

on my long vacation.

There's been some talk of having to send some troops on their fourth tour in the

middle of next year if this thing keeps going as I suspect it will.

Biohazard

11-27-2005, 02:58 PM

I saw a recent CNN special on

North Korea, and it reminded me of how ridiculously large (and relatively untrained and unmanageable) their military

is. If we had a draft now or required every 18 year old to serve to some extent, our armed forces would grow to 20+

million or so. Note to self: don't be like North Korea.

US mulls troop cuts in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/ts_nm/iraq_forces_dc_2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The

Pentagon plans to shrink the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, currently 155,000, to about 138,000 after the

December 15 Iraqi elections and is considering dropping the number to about 100,000 next summer if conditions allow,

defense officials said on Wednesday.

But officials said a variety of planning scenarios, including the

possibility of no cut in troop levels, are being reviewed based on political and security conditions in Iraq and

progress in developing U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces.

The officials stressed no decisions had been made.

This comes amid intensifying debate in the U.S. Congress over whether U.S. troops should be withdrawn after 2-1/2

years of war in Iraq.

"The United States military looks at the full range of things that could occur in Iraq

and makes plans accordingly, and makes plans for conditions that would lead to a smaller coalition force as well as

conditions that would lead to a larger coalition force," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Whitman said

the plan was to drop back to 138,000 troops, considered the recent baseline level for the U.S. force, following the

December 15 elections in which Iraqis will select a new permanent government.

The Pentagon increased U.S.

troop levels in Iraq ahead of the October 15 referendum in which Iraqis approved a constitution, and the U.S. force

peaked in October at about 161,000, the highest level of the war. After temporarily dropping by several thousand

troops, the size of the U.S. force again is rising to help provide security for the December 15 elections.

In

March and again in July, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, predicted a "fairly substantial"

reduction in American forces next spring and summer if Iraq's political process goes positively and progress is

made in developing Iraqi security forces. Pentagon officials said in August that meant a reduction of perhaps 20,000

to 30,000 troops from the level of 138,000 then in Iraq.

PHASED REDUCTION

A defense official, who

asked not to be named, said such a cut remains under consideration, but options for a smaller cut or no reduction

remain on the table.

"There is the potential over the course of next summer to get to 100,000. Nothing is

going to happen fast. It will all be phased," said the official.

"If you start going down below that, you

might be sending a message that we're cutting and running," the official added.

The No. 2 U.S. commander in

Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. John Vines, said on Tuesday a "precipitous pullout" of U.S. forces would be destabilizing to

Iraq.

The considerations come amid debate in Congress over the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Rep. John

Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, an influential Democrat on military affairs who fought as a

Marine in Vietnam and voted for the Iraq war, called last week for U.S. forces to be withdrawn within six

months.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday she suspected American forces "are not going

to be needed in the numbers that they're there for all that much longer" due to progress being made by the

Iraqis.

Defense officials said the political debate will not drive decisions on troop levels.

U.S.

forces are engaged in a fierce fight with insurgents. There have been 2,108 U.S. military deaths in a war that began

in March 2003, the Pentagon said on Wednesday, with another 15,804 troops wounded in action. Thousands of Iraqis

have also been killed.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is forecasting an improving security situation. Last

week he said, "In terms of Iraq, the insurgency is going to diminish, I think, after these elections."

"So I

think we'll see the coalition forces being able to pare down," Rumsfeld said.

belgareth

11-28-2005, 05:58 AM

Folks,

By request I have

re-opened this thread. However, I have to ask everybody to work with me. There are people from all over the world on

this forum, including many in or from the countries involved in this conflict. This is a very emotional issue to

some people. Let's keep that in mind when we post. We are friends here and as friends we should do our best to not

say things to cause others pain.

The subject of which countries should or should not be allowed to fight or

have certain weapons is very touchy right now. I can honestly see both sides of it and have my own strong

convictions. But they are not for this thread! Please cooperate with that so this thread can stay open.

koolking1

11-29-2005, 09:39 AM

Netghost56

11-29-2005, 10:14 AM

please accept my apologies.

DrSmellThis

11-29-2005, 03:30 PM

Bio and I

asked that this thread remain open, mainly due to our wager and for the interesting topic that "a draft" is. I'd

also appreciate it if we can keep it all friendly and let this bet play out. I'm not going to ask Bio to make this

a double or nothing bet but will, after paying up, go for the same bet next year!!!Congressman and famous

hawk Jack Murtha did just say we either had to withdraw from Iraq or reinstate a draft.

belgareth

11-29-2005, 03:36 PM

Congressman

and famous hawk Jack Murtha did just say we either had to withdraw from Iraq or reinstate a draft.
Based on

manpower needs and recruiting success levels, that seems like a very reasonable observation. How'd that guy ever

get into politics making rational statements like that? :POKE: :rofl:

Biohazard

11-30-2005, 12:08 AM

Bio and I

asked that this thread remain open, mainly due to our wager and for the interesting topic that "a draft" is. I'd

also appreciate it if we can keep it all friendly and let this bet play out. I'm not going to ask Bio to make this

a double or nothing bet but will, after paying up, go for the same bet next year!!!

Why do you keep

insisting on donating money to me!?!?! LOL. I don't care much for upping the ante, but I will give you a chance

to win your money back next year. :)

koolking1

11-30-2005, 10:54 AM

I haven't really made up

my mind if the bet is worth making again (on my behalf) but I am going to think it through a bit and we'll see what

happens. Things are changing now in the Pentagon with the new and apparently quite brave Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs. Time will tell.

Biohazard

12-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Bush Aide: Troop Reductions

May Come in 06

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_1;_ylt=AjiBEI5kYbpgij65Fo0UGyBsbEwB;_ylu

=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute

ago

WASHINGTON - The United States may be ready to reduce troops in Iraq next year if Iraqis continue

making progress at the current rate, President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday.

Stephen

Hadley appeared on a round of Sunday talk shows to follow up on President Bush's speech on Iraq from the U.S. Naval

Academy last week. Hadley echoed Bush's statement that decisions about troop withdrawals would be made when U.S.

commanders there felt Iraqis were ready to govern and protect themselves without U.S. help, but said that could come

as early as 2006.

"We think that if trends continue and we continue to make the progress and the Iraqis

continue to make the progress we're making, we'll be in a position sometime next year for us to — for the

commanders on the ground to make their assessments," Hadley said on ABC's "This Week." "And it may be at that point

they will come to the president and say, we want to make some adjustments."

Hadley said the deaths in Iraq,

now above 2,100, have been very difficult for the president. Still, he said Bush expects insurgent attacks will

increase in the next couple of weeks before Iraq's Dec. 15 elections.

Hadley was repeatedly asked on "Fox

News Sunday" whether Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong when he said last May that the insurgency was in its last

throes, but he would not directly answer. "Clearly, there's a lot more work to do," he said.

Sen. John

McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said he also thinks it is possible to bring U.S. troops home in the next

year or two, "but it's going to be tough." He said one of the biggest mistakes that the Bush administration made in

fighting the war was to have too few troops in Iraq.

"We've made serious mistakes, and I'm frustrated by

them, and most Americans are, too," McCain said on "Meet the Press." "But most Americans, I think, still appreciate

that if we had some kind of premature withdrawal that the consequences would be very severe."

Senate Foreign

Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Bush has an uphill struggle to convince Americans that he

can be successful in Iraq. He said civil war there is possible. "That would be catastrophic, not only for Iraq but

the Middle East and for our interests," Lugar said.

Some Democrats criticized Bush for not being more

aggressive about troops withdrawals.

Bush's former campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry said it's more dangerous

for the mission to keep troops in Iraq in such large numbers. The Massachusetts Democrat has called for Bush to

bring home 20,000 troops if the December elections are successful and he said Sunday that there should also be a

political summit in the region immediately.

Kerry said if he would not have voted for the resolution

authorizing war if he knew then what he knows now.

"They misled us and misled the nation," Kerry said.

DrSmellThis

12-05-2005, 08:22 PM

belgareth

12-05-2005, 08:35 PM

Netghost56

12-05-2005, 08:36 PM

Yes, that's why alot of

people are comparing him to Nixon (the conservatives compare him to Johnson). On another site earlier

today:

The bottom line is things wouldn't be grand with a Democratic President...

However, there would be significant changes. A reduction in theocratic policy, less burden on the middle class,

less imperial foreign policy that doesn't do any good whatsoever. That's not to say suddenly oil prices hit the

floor, the economy booms, everyone loves us, and Islamic terrorism vanishes. But Bush and the neo-cons are

finished, and honestly I suspect we'll hear impeachment talk before this term is in its 3rd

year.

DrSmellThis

12-05-2005, 08:44 PM

I don't

think Bush has the political capitol to institute a draft. He couldn't do it on his own authority and congress

isn't going to back him on it. Maybe the next president if we are still stuck in this quagmire but not this

one.Good point.

It will come down to clarity on the question of "what noble cause" we are fighting for

-- or even "what practical goal". Right now it looks like the presence of our forces is just fanning the flames of

terrorism and rebellion, by all accounts. The whole thing would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, through a

political process, before it could be possible to achieve what they say they want to achieve.

This

administration is not capable of that, of moving beyond their existing, simplistic ideas; of doing anything but

blindly "staying the course," by their own proclamation. Right now we are simply pissing money and lives away.

Congressman Murtha and his many close Pentagon friends and colleagues are right about this.

BTW, Koolking is

right to see the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's speaking up against Rumsfeld as significant. It doesn't

get any more than telling than that, as regards the attitude of the military. I don't think the generals are going

to support Bush forever on this, especially given that their Chairman is already starting to contradict the

authority of the Administration. They actually care about their men, and are tired of having been ignored; when, for

example, they projected needing a half million troops on the ground (not counting support troops), IIRC. This

repeated, insistent claim by Bush that he always listens to his generals must really anger them.

belgareth

12-05-2005, 08:46 PM

We never have been able to do

any real good there. The war in Iraq was and is a fruad done for political reasons that had nothing to do with the

avowed goals. You are absolutely right that we are making terrorism and rebellion worse. We should have never gone

there and we should get out, the sooner the better.

Biohazard

12-05-2005, 10:06 PM

If Bush was

going to be an "effective" Commander in Chief, in addition to a "good" warmonger, he would institute a draft.

But I'm not sure he is committed to excellence in anything, even bad things. He can just milk the current

forces until they're "dry"; or all get killed/rebel/go insane; and take the short term gains for his cronies. "Once

they've snorted all the coke, they'll happily leave the party". He will count on continued Republican governmental

control; the continued support of the religious right; and on the upper eschelon of neocons to bring in another gang

to continue their corporate imperialism.

By the same token, he is not going to care about the recent poor

report card from the 9/11 commission, since he is not about excellence in fighting terrorism, except as it

supports his neocon "coke habit."

C'mon man, you don't have to come off sounding like some leftist

partisan. These paragraphs look like they were just cut and pasted from some militant Democratic or Socialist

interest board.

Surely one can criticize the president's decisions without inferring that he's somehow not

genuine about improving the country and the world. And if you're inferring that his decisions won't somehow

affect the ability of Republicans to stay in power, you're wrong. I do believe if Democrats make some slight

adjustments in their ideals, and move towards the middle, they can start regaining a foothold. So this

administration indeed has a lot to lose (for instance if Kerry didn't pull his gun charade in Ohio he might have

won), and therefore must strive for continual progress.

But back to the current goings-on of the world.

The US economy seems robust, gas prices are down so people appear to be spending more this holiday season, now talk

of troop withdrawals. The illegal immigration issue needs some work still. But overall, these are not good news

for those who are hoping for a change in the political landscape.

DrSmellThis

12-06-2005, 01:22 AM

These

paragraphs look like they were just cut and pasted from some militant Democratic or Socialist interest board.

Surely one can criticize the president's decisions without inferring that he's somehow not genuine about

improving the country and the world.That's me -- militant socialist. Don't know what got into me,

questioning the genuineness and integrity of our president. More middle of the road, status quo Dems is just what we

need. Go Hillary.

koolking1

12-06-2005, 01:28 PM

"BTW, Koolking is right to

see the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's speaking up against Rumsfeld as significant. It doesn't get any

more than telling than that, as regards the attitude of the military. I don't think the generals are going to

support Bush forever on this, especially given that their Chairman is already starting to contradict the authority

of the Administration. They actually care about their men, and are tired of having been ignored; when, for example,

they projected needing a half million troops on the ground (not counting support troops), IIRC. This repeated,

insistent claim by Bush that he always listens to his generals must really anger them."

I've read on the

WayneMadsen site that there's to be a big meeting of former Jt Chiefs of Staff, Intel agency heads, some current

congressmen, to include Sen McCain in Washington tomorrow. Very telling is that this meeting is being

"investigated" by the Pentagon perhaps directed by Rumsfeld. Topic: "Torture"

Biohazard

12-07-2005, 02:22 PM

That's me

-- militant socialist. Don't know what got into me, questioning the genuineness and integrity of our president.

More middle of the road, status quo Dems is just what we need. Go Hillary.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Just teasing ya man. I'm just saying ad hominem attacks are for kids. You can make decent arguments directly

against GWB's decisions, just like any other president. It also makes you more credible.

DrSmellThis

12-07-2005, 02:57 PM

Hook, line,

and sinker. Just teasing ya man. I'm just saying ad hominem attacks are for kids. You can make decent arguments

directly against GWB's decisions, just like any other president. It also makes you more credible.I get it.

His character, intentions and honesty are off limits.

belgareth

12-07-2005, 08:53 PM

Sources: Units' Deployment May Be Canceled By LOLITA C. BALDOR,

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has tentative

plans to halt the scheduled deployment of two brigades to Iraq and instead send in smaller teams to support and

train Iraqi forces in what could be an early step toward an eventual drawdown of U.S. forces, defense officials said

Wednesday.

The proposal comes amid growing pressure from Congress

and the public to pull troops out of Iraq. Details are still under discussion, and it would largely depend on the

military and political conditions there after the parliamentary elections next week, said the

officials.

The two officials, who did not want to be identified

because the plans have not yet been finalized, said a third brigade, initially scheduled to go to Afghanistan,

may also stay home. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to announce the plan after the Iraq election

next Thursday, if all goes well, they said.

Pentagon officials have

said all along that they hope to reduce U.S. troop levels, now at about 154,000, as Iraqi security forces become

more capable of defending their own country. A brigade usually numbers around 3,500

troops.

Under the plan, deployment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry

Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be canceled. Instead, for the first time, portions of the brigade would

be divided into 10- or 11-member military transition teams that would be sent separately into Iraq to work with

Iraqi security forces.

Also, some other members of the brigade would

go to Iraq to do security duty, such as guarding high profile targets.

The second unit that would not deploy to Iraq is the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, which is currently in

Kuwait and is usually based in Germany. Under the plan, up to two-thirds of the brigade would return to Germany,

while the rest would stay in Kuwait, prepared to respond to any emergency in

Iraq.

The 4th Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Polk,

La., would not go to Afghanistan.

NATO has been gradually

expanding across Afghanistan, assuming responsibility for security from the U.S.-led coalition. The NATO-led force

has about 12,000 soldiers from 36 nations and is responsible for security in Kabul as well as northern and western

regions of the country. A separate, 20,000-strong U.S.-led force is in the east and south hunting Taliban and

al-Qaida fighters.

The new deployment plan would not dramatically

reduce the number U.S. forces in Iraq but instead would set the stage for a gradual troop reduction, allowing the

military to stop or delay other unit deployments planned for 2006-2008.

President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal timetable, and the administration has consistently said

U.S. troops will remain as long as needed. The administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney at the forefront,

has strongly criticized a call last week by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., for a U.S.

withdrawal within six months.

A month ago, the Pentagon announced

that more than 92,000 troops would be in the next rotation of U.S. forces in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the 92,000 should

not be taken as the final troop level and said the exact size would not be decided until after the election. The

usual troop level this year has been about 138,000, but the total peaked at about 160,000 this fall because of

concerns about heightened violence during the elections.

DrSmellThis

12-08-2005, 07:55 PM

In rereading this thread, the

sad thing is that there really does need to be an armed forces. Security has a cost; and defending your

country really is a brave, responsible, wonderful and patriotic thing.

But this whole beautiful rationale

gets compromised and contaminated when a nation's leadership exhibits a pattern of using their armed forces for

unjust, nonsensical, and destructive ends.

That creates a situation where there is no clear best way,

speaking in general, to do the right thing as a patriot, regarding joining the military; as well as

fighting and following orders when you are in the military. The moral waters of patriotism can only be

muddy at that point, as much as some want still to cast it as a black and white issue. You are reduced to having

to consider each situation individually. This is one reason why I avoid judging soldiers and "non-soldiers" for

their response to this situation.

The same is true of a draft as is true of participating in the military, for

the same reason.

You can have a draft, and there would be many positive aspects to recommend it. There would

also be many negative aspects to advise against it. In terms of abstract generalities, it's not one way or the

other, given our recent foreign policy. Whether having a draft is truly the right thing to do or not must therefore

depend on many things in the moment, and situation. What is right under this administration versus another might

well be different things, for example. You also have to consider current world events, national security plans, war

plans, expected courses of future domestic and international events, and timetables; as regards war and peace; in

order to make a morally and politically sound decision. Even then you are likely calculating odds, and guessing

about uncertainties along the way. And it's not just whether or not you draft. It's what else you do.

I am

still open to all reasonable arguments and proposals for and against a draft, but haven't heard one that accounts

for all it would have to account for, in the big picture of the moment. There simply cannot be a good, brief,

abstract, general argument either way.

The more fundamental issue is that we shouldn't have to be in this

situation in the first place; and need to work to change this predicament we're in. Perhaps that is where our

energy should go.

The only real solution is to have politics "stop at the water's edge" -- where leaders would

never let their political agenda affect matters of war and peace to the point of sending our sons and daughters to

kill or be killed; when it is not absolutely necessary; and when it is not a last resort. Should "the water's edge"

be violated, no one can really feel deeply and confidently good about themselves and each other, until such

leadership is removed. So people cannot agree about the best way to "support our troops", for example.

When a

leader violates a country's trust, and the most precious part of their souls; by misusing the military for

politics, power and profit; it is just about the worst crime against his or her own people that a leader can commit.

Every young person who dies needlessly serves to drive that point home.

Biohazard

12-08-2005, 10:54 PM

I get it.

His character, intentions and honesty are off limits.

Those are fair game whenever appropriate. But

the way you phrased it like, "Bush doesn't want to excel at anything... therefore his actions...." just made it

seem like you're trying to bring down someone's argument by primarily attacking the person, not the argument.

That's all I was pointing out.

DrSmellThis

12-08-2005, 11:56 PM

Those are

fair game whenever appropriate. But the way you phrased it like, "Bush doesn't want to excel at anything...

therefore his actions...." just made it seem like you're trying to bring down someone's argument by primarily

attacking the person, not the argument. That's all I was pointing out.Thanks for the explanation. I really

don't believe our president (or his closest associates) is committed to excellence in his actual job; or to the

welfare of the world; or to the average citizen. That is indeed an opinion about the person. So I'm on thin

ice here any way you look at it. But with the winter of discontent settling in for so many, maybe it'll be OK

on the ice.

Mtnjim

12-09-2005, 10:15 AM

Thanks for the

explanation. I really don't believe our president (or his closest associates) is committed to excellence in his

actual job; or to the welfare of the world; or to the average citizen. ...
Personally, I don't think he is

capable of excellence, based on his history.
Look at his "military career" where he basically just walked away from

it. After that his daddy set him up in a gas property buying business where he failed. and so on. His "success" in

his political jobs only comes from people behind him pulling the strings and making decisions for him. Just my

opinion.

koolking1

12-09-2005, 12:50 PM

Bush on the Constitution:

'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
Email this article

Printer friendly page

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet

with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions

of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger

that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like

Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the

more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched

attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush

retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the

meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop

throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve

talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States

called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of

the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots

have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto

Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside,

for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or

Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the

Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine –

in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an

oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice

Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the

phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to

mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have

to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything

else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a

controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed

some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban

on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of

rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a

one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight

terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told

President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care?

After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

Sounding more and more dictatorial. I wonder if an enlistment contract is just a piece of paper. When will

this end?

belgareth

12-09-2005, 01:02 PM

The consitution is a piece of

paper. The concepts written on that piece of paper are great concepts though I agree that they are in many ways

outdated and it needs updating. Over time our society has changed in innumerable ways and much is not addressed in

the constitution allowing the goverment many opportunities to skirt the intent of this wonderful document. The

updating it needs would take power away from the government in hundreds of little ways and would enforce greater

accountability of the government to the people. The intent of the constitution was to prevent a ruling elite to set

itself above the people but that is exactly what we have, isn't it? It was intended that the will of the people be

the final word not just another reason to turn to the courts to twist its intent out of all recognition.

No, it

is not a living document and yes it does need updating by the people, not by the government.

DrSmellThis

12-09-2005, 02:40 PM

Did you all buy yor Patriot

Act toilet paper yet? It has the words of the constitution printed on it.

DrSmellThis

12-09-2005, 02:52 PM

No, it is

not a living document and yes it does need updating by the people, not by the government.Sometimes you have

to change something to keep it the same in spirit, intent and effect. Society has changed a great deal since 1776.

As long as its truly the people that change it, it's OK. We could all send our amendments to our congressmen, and

the newspapers.

belgareth

12-09-2005, 03:10 PM

Sometimes

you have to change something to keep it the same in spirit, intent and effect. Society has changed a great deal

since 1776. As long as its truly the people that change it, it's OK.

That's more or less what I said.

Unfortunately, the part about the ruling elite is a problem. So long as they 'the government' are in charge of

'we the people', it isn't going to happen that way. One of the most important criteria of our form of government

is citizen legislators and that is not true of our government today. Those in power will not willingly give up their

power and privilage. It takes us back to a topic of a few years ago, we've come full circle in this conversation.

If and until the people work together at the polls and through voicing their displeasure with business as usual it

will continue to get worse. I don't know about anybody else but I certanly wouldn't trust the ruling elite, any of

it, to touch the constitution.

belgareth

12-10-2005, 09:01 AM

koolking1

12-10-2005, 11:28 AM

belgareth

12-10-2005, 11:47 AM

"we should

immediately pull out of Washington DC"

I agree one hundred percent. There are only a handful of people I will

now vote for and I'm determined to act locally and vote out the incumbents, Dem or Rep.

I'm with you.

you've got a whole handful that you'll vote for? I admit Joe Lieberman jumped a couple notches in my opinion when

he once again said what he thinks instead of following the party line. Maybe there is still some honor in our

capitol after all. I don't completely agree with what he said but admire his courage in saying it.

Netghost56

12-10-2005, 05:25 PM

DrSmellThis

12-10-2005, 09:07 PM

If you

consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22

months, and a total of
2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C.

is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you
are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's

Capitol,
which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than
you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We

should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.LOL. Not quarreling with your humorous point, but just a

reminder -- these kind of statistics are meaningless unless you include the time periods over which the deaths

occur. You have to match apples with apples. To get a real picture of the war damage, you also need to account for

injured/maimed (e.g., lost limbs), and people who are injured or killed and are not counted (e.g., they died away

from the theater of operations (e.g., German hospitals); or we injured indirectly). Another factor is that many of

those troops are support troops, and not in combat, IIRC.

Biohazard

12-11-2005, 12:15 PM

LOL. Not

quarreling with your humorous point, but just a reminder -- these kind of statistics are meaningless unless you

include the time periods over which the deaths occur. You have to match apples with apples. To get a real picture of

the war damage, you also need to account for injured/maimed (e.g., lost limbs), and people who are injured or killed

and are not counted (e.g., they died away from the theater of operations (e.g., German hospitals); or we injured

indirectly). Another factor is that many of those troops are support troops, and not in combat,

IIRC.

If we use the casualty rate of the war, which includes all those who have been taken out of

service by death and injury, and compare it to DC's total rate of violent crime victimization, it could still be

fairly close. The problem is that not everyone reports a violent crime (my guess is less than 30%), but every war

casualty is recorded.

DrSmellThis

12-11-2005, 03:37 PM

If we use the

casualty rate of the war, which includes all those who have been taken out of service by death and injury, and

compare it to DC's total rate of violent crime victimization, it could still be fairly close. The problem is that

not everyone reports a violent crime (my guess is less than 30%), but every war casualty is

recorded.Regarding that one factor, you might be right, or might not; but we don't know until we see the

numbers; on all those factors, for that matter. That's all I'm saying. Combat is way more dangerous than

not being in combat, and the kinds of injuries that result can be pretty serious. I was saying all that more because

of other contexts where such statistics are misused, and misinterpreted; not this thread.

belgareth

12-12-2005, 05:00 AM

I don't

completely agree with what he said but admire his courage in saying it.

I'm not sure courage has anything to

do with. IMO, he doesn't seem to have much power these days.

(Talking about crossing party lines) John McCain,

however...

One of the points I admired was his crossing the party lines. Party politics are one of the

biggest problems in our system. They cause people to waste a mountain of time following the prty line instead of

engaging in rational debate.

DrSmellThis

12-12-2005, 10:20 PM

One of the

points I admired was his crossing the party lines. Party politics are one of the biggest problems in our system.

They cause people to waste a mountain of time following the prty line instead of engaging in rational

debate.I agree, though I'm not the biggest Lieberman fan. But when there are checks and balances

everywhere, at least people have more pressure to make good arguments. If not, politicians feel they aren't

answerable for their decisions, and confine their words to meaningless slogans and rhetoric. If somehow ordinary

citizens could be made into a more poweful check and balance, that would make a huge differnece. Single party

dominance isn't a good thing either.

tim929

12-12-2005, 11:15 PM

Regarding that one factor,

you might be right, or might not; but we don't know until we see the numbers; on all those factors, for that

matter. That's all I'm saying. Combat is way more dangerous than not being in combat, and the kinds of

injuries that result can be pretty serious. I was saying all that more because of other contexts where such

statistics are misused, and misinterpreted; not this thread.

Interesting you should say that.Being in

combat is most definately more dangerous than not being in combat.And there is a definate difference between having

an accident or being the victem of a crime versus having someone try to set off a couple hundred pounds of high

explosive next to your vehichle,or taking a pot shot at you with a high powered rifle or an RPG.The injuries that

one might expect to suffer from being mugged pale in comparison to shrapnel wounds inflicted by an exploding

IED.Many of the wounds that our men and women are suffering in Iraq right now are permenantly debilitating and

disfiguring.A friend of mine has recently returned from the desert and we(his friends) are helping him work through

the emotional trauma of having spent a year in a place where everyone wants to blow you up.So the actual casualties

are alot higher than the listed casualties.

He had the pleasure of seeing people with limbs blown off.One of

thier local advisors(Iraqi) was blown a distance of one hundred fifteen meters(yes,they measured) when he identified

an IED.The opperators of the device saw that it had been discovered and set the damn thing off and split.They

figured it was at least four 122 MM artilery shels slaved together with det cord and blasting caps.Needles to say,he

met allah without alot of fanfare and screaming,but it sent a point home to all the G.I.'s on the patrol that they

werent in Kansas anymore.Shortly folowing the chow hall suicide bombing he was eating at a simmilar chow hall

sitting accross from an Iraqi local who...well...to spare you the long discription,fit the profile of a suicide

bomber.Heavy jackets being worn in 120 degree heat seems alittle "off."Once he was identified the whole place came

unglued with people who were convinced that they were gonna die.My friend was two feet from him and looking him in

the eye.It was a false alarm,but it wakes him up at night thinking about it.

These are the people who ultimately

come home from the war,beat thier children and alienate thier families and turn to a life of booze and drugs to numb

the pain.Much the way survivors of the Revolutionary war,the Civil war,WWI,WWII,Korea,Viet Nam,Desert Storm...and a

host of little untold skirmishes in various third world shit holes like Somalia or Panama.These people are

casualties too.And they always seem to be ignored.

Mtnjim

12-13-2005, 01:22 PM

...These are the

people who ultimately come home from the war,beat thier children and alienate thier families and turn to a life of

booze and drugs to numb the pain.Much the way survivors of the Revolutionary war,the Civil war,WWI,WWII,Korea,Viet

Nam,Desert Storm...and a host of little untold skirmishes in various third world shit holes like Somalia or

Panama.These people are casualties too.And they always seem to be ignored.

Here in San Diego County, the

estimate is that the majority of the homeless are Viet Nam vets (my war). I guess some of us did better than others,

I wonder what the demographic will be like in 35 years.

koolking1

12-17-2005, 02:34 PM

"Posted on Fri, Dec. 16, 2005
Army accepts more low-aptitude recruitsBy Tom BowmanBaltimore SunWASHINGTON – The

Army met its recruiting goal for November by again accepting a high percentage of recruits who scored in the lowest

category on the military’s aptitude tests, Pentagon officials said Thursday, raising renewed concerns that the

quality of the all-volunteer force will suffer.
The Army exceeded its 5,600 recruit goal by 256 for November,

while the Army Reserve brought in 1,454 recruits, exceeding its target by 112. To do so, they accepted a “double

digit” percentage of recruits who scored between 16 and 30 out of a possible 99 on the military’s aptitude test,

said officials who requested anonymity.
Last month, the Baltimore Sun reported that the Army reached its

recruiting goals in October by accepting 12 percent from these low scorers, known as Category IV recruits. The Army

may accept no more than 4 percent annually, according to Defense Department rules. While officials last month

disclosed the percentage accepted in October, Thursday they refused to reveal the November figure.
“We are not

giving out (aptitude test) categories during the course of the year,” said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army

Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
Still, Army officials continue to say that at the end of the recruiting

year, next Sept. 30, the total percentage of Category IV soldiers will be no more than 4 percent.
For more than a

decade, the Army kept its Category IV soldiers to 2 percent of its recruitment pool.
But last year, faced with a

difficult recruiting climate because of the war in Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey decided to double the number

of Category IV soldiers.
“We will be at 4 percent at the end of the fiscal year, that’s what matters,” said Lt.

Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for Army personnel.
The increasing reliance on the lowest-scoring recruits is

troubling to former officers who fear that the quality of the force will erode.
They say that the increasingly

high-tech Army needs even more qualified soldiers. And with troops facing more complex duties involving nation

building and peacekeeping duties, good judgment is more important."

Laughing here.

Biohazard

12-17-2005, 07:46 PM

A Category IV recruit, while

not the ideal candidate for armed forces work, is still likely to do a job better than someone who absolutely

doesn't want to be there IMO.

koolking1

12-19-2005, 08:12 AM

I beg to differ. While in

Vietnam I witnessed many many folks who had zero desire to be there doing much better things than the jail house

dropout types. Often the folks who did not want to be there had some amount of education and did things like teach

English at night on their own time thereby helping enormously with our relations with the Vietnamese people.

Less than stellar folks can learn however but it's best to have people who already can think on their two

feet available.

If we follow your line of reasoning Bio perhaps we should be recruiting from the pool of

those with less than normal IQs, after all, why not let them die instead of someone like yourself who can contribute

to our society by not being in the military.

tim929

12-19-2005, 09:09 AM

Low aptitude recruits are best

suited to REMF (Rear Echelon Mother F#*$ers,for you civilians) type positions.Under fire,I would hate to the think

that the guy with the M-16 and a bunch of frag grenades behind me has a tough time remembering left from right.Low

aptitude recruits also tend to be the anti scocial,dropped out of highschool to persue drugs,abused by thier step

father types.You dont need someone with anger management issues running around with an M-240 machinegun and an

attitude problem in an environment where the folks around you are often hostile but still non-combatants.

A

friend of mine just got back from Iraq and there have been a few issues with guys having a hard time not wanting to

mow down a bunch of people who pissed them off.Granted,if you piss off a guy with a gun your taking your

chances...but still...as Americans,we are supposed to be "better than that."

koolking1

12-19-2005, 09:21 AM

for Tim's

post!!!!

Biohazard

12-19-2005, 09:22 PM

I beg to

differ. While in Vietnam I witnessed many many folks who had zero desire to be there doing much better things than

the jail house dropout types. Often the folks who did not want to be there had some amount of education and did

things like teach English at night on their own time thereby helping enormously with our relations with the

Vietnamese people.

Fair enough. But your generation vs. my generation. Do the memories of

Vietnam make my generation overall more resistant to mandatory service, thereby reducing their effectiveness as

soldiers? Possibly.

Either way, draftees or category IV soldiers, it's not ideal.

tim929

12-20-2005, 12:20 AM

Memories of Viet Nam have had an

enormous impact on how this current generation views warfare in general.Thier parents were raised durring the war

and those men and women raised thier children to be...no offense intended...whimps.Mothers and fathers actively

discourage thier children from entering the selctive service program as a direct result of the lies and

misinformation and controversy surrounding the Viet Nam debacle.Parents protest the presence of Army recruiters in

the public high schools for fear that thier little sons and daughters may be shipped off to fight in yet another

meaningless war.

This is the generation of pacifists and pussies,raised by hand-wringing liberal women with an

agenda.Now dont get me wrong...Viet Nam was a disgrace...the current confligration...same thing...pure stupidity.But

the fault for that lies not with the millitary or the politicians or even President Bush.The blame for ALL of or

governments problems,from the war to scocial security to welfare to health care to the price of eggs and cheese lays

squarely on the shoulders of the voters and ONLY the voters!It is the civic duty of every red blooded American to

not only vote,but to be INTIMATELY INVOLVED in the public process at every level of government.Local,county,state

and federal policies are OUR resposability.It is the responsability of everyone to make sure that if a congressman

farts,we know what he ate that gave him gas! If a congressman is in the process of helping to make a decision,its

our responsability to make sure that nobody is hiding a bunch of pork in the deal to pay off his friends with.And

when these people get caught doing something wrong,its our responsability to make sure they are tarred and feathered

for thier offenses instead of re-elected.

The American people have spent so much time watching reruns of

Sinefeld and Friends and so little time paying attention to what might actualy be important that or elected

officials can quite literaly get away with murder and we do nothing about it.Our education system cranks out people

who are perfectly suited to thier place as burger flippers for a large national corperate chain.Our colleges crank

out perfectly moulded mid-level managers well suited to quoting company policy and not asking too many questions.And

as long as we have reruns and pizza delivery,everything is fine.

The nice,well meaning folks who gather in the

town square with the nice little home made signs with cute little slogans painted on them have NO IDEA that the

people in the whitehouse couldnt care less about them.More over,the nice folks at these cute little rallies arent

even being heard by the people in the party that they belong to.They are routeenly held up as an example by the

media and the politicians but the agenda the politicians end up making policies that not only dont accomplish the

intended goal,but also provide massive amounts of pork for things that thier supporters will never know about

because they are to distracted in the noise and confusion.

belgareth

12-20-2005, 01:24 AM

All very true. Thanks Tim.

I've been saying the same things for a long time. Until we crawl out of our holes, stand up and make it clear the

the status quo is unacceptable, it is going to continue to get worse. Every one of us has an obligation to be a part

of the system and make our voices heard. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on any issue, only that we are

watching and holding those representing us responsible fopr representing us, not themselves or their corporate

clients.

DrSmellThis

12-20-2005, 03:59 AM

That's all true. One person

can make a difference. If I can wax optimistic, it's probably heading more toward involvement, as people are

becoming aware of the consequences of not doing so, along with the internet's influence. Hopefully we will see

greater accountability as the public mind becomes more aware of everything our leadership does.

Biohazard

12-20-2005, 12:50 PM

But, does it not require a

significant amount of intelligence and dedication to understand politics? I mean, half the country doesn't even

know how to use a computer. Those of us who make it on the net follow the news, do our own research, discuss these

issues almost on a daily basis with peers, and therefore we can make informed decisions. Many such "well-read"

people completely agree with the Iraq war, others don't. I seem to detect some inferences here that if more

citizens paid attention to politics that we wouldn't be in Iraq now and/or many of our domestic problems would be

solved with a perfect solution. I don't follow.

My folks are just regular blue-collared people who work

40-50 hour weeks. They have almost no concept of politics and don't have the time to learn it. That's the

practical reality of it. I think it's unrealistic to expect EVERYONE to understand the system as much as each one

of us does.

belgareth

12-20-2005, 01:50 PM

I didn't mean to infer that we

wouldn't be in Iraq if more people followed politics. My statement was intended at face value, that we would be in

better shape politically if a greater percentage participated in the system. Personally, I think more people are not

involved out of a feeling of being disenfranchised and plain apathy than not having the time. Not only that, I think

the feeling of apathy is encouraged to some degree. My opinion is that we would still be in Iraq regardless of the

percentage of the population that participates.

You probably didn't mean it that way but your remarks sounded

elitist, that the majority are not capable of understanding politics and should not be allowed to participate. I

think that is part of the problem in the capitol today, a belief that the people aren't smart enough to figure out

what is going on. Maybe they aren't but that doesn't entitled us to determine that or take the right to make those

decisions away from them. They work in this economy, they pay taxes into the system and their children are sent to

die in other countries, certainly they have the right to a say in the matter regardless of whether their

comprehension is the same as ours. Keep in mind that in some countries voluntary participation exceeds 90% of the

eligible voters. In other countries participation is mandatory. It seems to work for them and I'd bet that the bell

curve applies to their intelligence levels about the same as it does ours.

All that said, I have another thought

on the matter. In almost every country in the world and likely in all time periods, some portion of the population

has believed that they had the best possible form of government. Many of the Iraqi people believed that about their

country before we invaded and many of the people in China believe that about their own country as well. What

independent measure do we have that really proves we have the best country or form of government? I'm not saying we

do or don't, I'm asking how we know this to be a fact and how that gives us the right too impose our forms of

government and political beliefs on others who may or may not feel it is the right form of government for them.

tim929

12-20-2005, 03:10 PM

Originaly posted by

Biohazard

But, does it not require a significant amount of intelligence and dedication to understand

politics? I mean, half the country doesn't even know how to use a computer. Those of us who make it on the net

follow the news, do our own research, discuss these issues almost on a daily basis with peers, and therefore we can

make informed decisions. Many such "well-read" people completely agree with the Iraq war, others don't. I seem to

detect some inferences here that if more citizens paid attention to politics that we wouldn't be in Iraq now and/or

many of our domestic problems would be solved with a perfect solution. I don't follow.

My folks are just

regular blue-collared people who work 40-50 hour weeks. They have almost no concept of politics and don't have the

time to learn it. That's the practical reality of it. I think it's unrealistic to expect EVERYONE to understand

the system as much as each one of us does.

You said a mouthful when you said that your folks work

forty to fifty hours per week.Part of the process of desolving the American family has been and ever shrinking

standard of living created by lower and lower wages requiring more and more hours of work to stay ahead of the

game.One of the side bennefits of that for our masters is that if people are working themselves into the ground.They

havent got the time to spend learning about what is going on on Mount Olympus.By the time the average working stiff

gets home,he or she has just enough energy to park the kids in front of the TV,scarf down a microwave meal and veg

out to the latest reality TV show or sit-com.The intelectual numbing of America is not only destructive to our way

of life,it is...in my rather carefuly considered and researched oppinion,INTENTIONAL!

In Rome,the emperors

had a policy that was called "bread and circuses."Keep the people fed well enough that they dont complain and

entertained well enoguh that they are distracted,and senators can go on about thier marry way of

lying,cheating,stealing,manipulating and generaly undermining everything for thier own personal gain without getting

any real opposition from the dweebs they rule over.

In Nazi Germany,Joseph Goebbles (yes,I spelled it right...I

checked:type: ) figured out the ultimate version of that technique and the Nazi government implimented it with

brutal efficency.The Nazi's dumped HUGE amounts of money into the German equivelent to Hollywood and Adolph Hitlers

own personal contingent of SS Grenadiers would often star as extras in movies,stage plays and musicals.One

particularly good German vocalist had problems because she was a very tall and stocky woman and her extras on stage

always ended up lokking like little girls around her.Enter the SS Grenadiers...these men appeared in her stage show

IN DRAG(!!) because they made her look smaller and the propoganda machine wanted her to be successful and be able to

put on a good show.Fifty of Germanys toughest and best trained soldiers in dresses and wigs.

We now have an

industry that rakes in many hundreds of billions of dollars every year for providing the invaluable service of

keeping everybody from using thier brains for anything other than a door stop.They even know this in the highest

echelons of Hollywood and they laugh all the way to the bank.Oh...lest we forget...the music industry is,in my

estimation just a part of Hollywood and not its own seperate entity...they work very closely together on many

projects.I know people who can quote...line by line every episode of Sinfeld or Friends,and know exactly who is

going to get voted off the island and so forth,who dont even have a clue who they voted for for CONGRESS FOR GOD'S

SAKE !!!! (Sorry...my meds need to be adjusted.)

The Europeans laugh at us when they hear how many hours we work

and how little vacation time we get each year and how few of us take the time to bother to vote.The average European

knows beyond a shadow of doubt that the average American is a complete idiot regarding anything beyond sit-coms and

Hollywood divorces.And,while they laugh...they also resent the hell out of us because our stupidity comes with a

price that the rest of the world has to pay.All this will eventualy come back to bite us in the ass,and it wont be

pretty.

:rant: As long as Im railing against all this neat stuff...have I taken the time to mention our

wonderful consumer goods industry?The people who use the mind numbing qualities of television to convince us that we

need to buy lots more of the latest electronic crap and shiny things that we dont realy have a legitimate use for so

that they can rake in hundreds of billions more of our hard earned money?And that way we can all spend that much

more time at work,sacraficing our children and our health for the bennefit of the captains of industry and the folks

whos policies ruin life for so many other people around the world.My friend who just got back from Iraq spent some

time in Kuwait and one of the locals that he befriended there told him this...

"We dont hate Americans.Americans

are realy nice people.We hate the fact that you bring with you things that threaten our way of life and our

families.Like Britney Spears and pornography."

Okay...the meds have finaly kicked in...I feel much

better....:thumbsup:

Biohazard

12-20-2005, 04:54 PM

You said a

mouthful when you said that your folks work forty to fifty hours per week.Part of the process of desolving the

American family has been and ever shrinking standard of living created by lower and lower wages requiring more and

more hours of work to stay ahead of the game.One of the side bennefits of that for our masters is that if people are

working themselves into the ground.They havent got the time to spend learning about what is going on on Mount

Olympus.By the time the average working stiff gets home,he or she has just enough energy to park the kids in front

of the TV,scarf down a microwave meal and veg out to the latest reality TV show or sit-com.The intelectual numbing

of America is not only destructive to our way of life,it is...in my rather carefuly considered and researched

oppinion,INTENTIONAL!

Kind of reeks of entitlement here, no offense. Everyone is

entitled to a comfy job with flexible hours? Please. My folks don't have an education, which is why they have the

careers they have. They admit it, and have taught me to do better. They don't feel cheated by the system, they

own a house valued at $650,000 minimum, have full health benefits, and actually have quite a bit of discretionary

money to the point they're always offering me money. You can live fairly well in America even on relatively low

wages, my folks raised me on it.

Now, the downside is that many people don't have time to pay attention to

politics due to the way our economy works. But personally, I think it's unrealistic to expect every single person

to be actively engaged in our society anyway. Pragmatism vs. idealism.

Biohazard

12-20-2005, 05:08 PM

I didn't mean

to infer that we wouldn't be in Iraq if more people followed politics. My statement was intended at face value,

that we would be in better shape politically if a greater percentage participated in the system. Personally, I think

more people are not involved out of a feeling of being disenfranchised and plain apathy than not having the time.

Not only that, I think the feeling of apathy is encouraged to some degree. My opinion is that we would still be in

Iraq regardless of the percentage of the population that participates.

You probably didn't mean it that way

but your remarks sounded elitist, that the majority are not capable of understanding politics and should not be

allowed to participate. I think that is part of the problem in the capitol today, a belief that the people aren't

smart enough to figure out what is going on. Maybe they aren't but that doesn't entitled us to determine that or

take the right to make those decisions away from them. They work in this economy, they pay taxes into the system and

their children are sent to die in other countries, certainly they have the right to a say in the matter regardless

of whether their comprehension is the same as ours. Keep in mind that in some countries voluntary participation

exceeds 90% of the eligible voters. In other countries participation is mandatory. It seems to work for them and

I'd bet that the bell curve applies to their intelligence levels about the same as it does ours.

No one is suggesting taking away voting rights.

I know it sounds elitist, even before you

mentioned it. But honestly, having someone show up to the polls without really researching anything wouldn't

impact our politics or society significantly. All you will have are extra people who are flipping a coin before

deciding how to vote. That's all I'm saying. The only tangible impact would be if they really learned about the

system enough to know what actions are necessary to affect it. That takes serious effort.

Personally, I

would like to see more people pay attention to the goings on of the world. But realistically, that's a lot to

expect of people on a large scale.

Netghost56

12-20-2005, 05:10 PM

You can live

fairly well in America even on relatively low wages, my folks raised me on it.

That's a wild statement.

It's hard to believe that you're living well when your neighbor is trashtalking the fact that he owns three cars

and you own one.

On top of the obvious, greed turns people against each other. Either burn yourself out on long

hours/low pay, or do as Dick and Jane do. THAT's the American way. :rant:

belgareth

12-20-2005, 05:11 PM

No one is

suggesting taking away voting rights.

I know it sounds elitist, even before you mentioned it. But honestly,

having someone show up to the polls without really researching anything wouldn't impact our politics or society

significantly. All you will have are extra people who are flipping a coin before deciding how to vote. That's all

I'm saying. The only tangible impact would be if they really learned about the system enough to know what actions

are necessary to affect it. That takes serious effort.

Personally, I would like to see more people pay attention

to the goings on of the world. But realistically, that's a lot to expect of people on a large scale.
It

works in other coutries. Why not here? I admit it would take a huge change in outlook but wouldn't it be worth

it?

Biohazard

12-20-2005, 05:18 PM

That's a

wild statement. It's hard to believe that you're living well when your neighbor is trashtalking the fact that he

owns three cars and you own one.

On top of the obvious, greed turns people against each other. Either burn

yourself out on long hours/low pay, or do as Dick and Jane do. THAT's the American way. :rant:

Why

are you equating "living well" with how many luxury items one owns? Living well means not struggling to obtain

basic necessities. This can be done even on low wages, I personally can attest to that. I should have cleared that

up, sorry.

Biohazard

12-20-2005, 05:20 PM

It works in

other coutries. Why not here? I admit it would take a huge change in outlook but wouldn't it be worth

it?

Face value, I agree we'd be better off. But in terms of tangible effects? I don't see it

happening.

Netghost56

12-20-2005, 05:23 PM

tim929

12-20-2005, 05:46 PM

I am not talking about an

entitlement so much as simply a reversion back to common sense.I cant believe I am going to write this again but

here goes...:frustrate

In 1938 Congress passed the Federal minimum wage act.They determined that .25 cents per

hour over a forty hour work week was the MINIMUM REASONABLE LIVING WAGE.That would keep clothes on your back,food on

your table,pay your baisic living expenses such as power and so forth and provide you with a baisic roof to keep it

all under.Adjusted for cost of living and inflation over the last 67 years,would put the Federal Minimum Wage at

nearly $16.00 an hour.Its interesting that "prevailing wage" is calculated in exactly that fasion.Companies that

perform contract work for the government are required by law to pay "prevailing wages."The hard numbers fluctuate up

and down slightly,but in point of fact,federal jobs and contract jobs typicly start in that neck of the woods.

The usual method of calculating wages has been a very simple formula for years.Unskilled labor starts at...minimum

wage.Semi-skilled labor typicaly gets minimum wage plus 50% and works its way up to skilled labor,which begins

around minimum wage x 2 and goes up from there...to max out around 4x minimum wage.The government contractors get

around paying more that double by putting people on salery and calling it good.But with a minimum wage that isnt

even half of what it should be,whats a family to do?

The big seperation began in the mid 1960's.All at once it

was being discovered that there were alot of very expensive Government programs that were going to need

funding.There was a nice little war going on in South East Asia and a whole pile of expensive toys being purchased

to ward off the Soviet menace.The war on poverty began in earnest.And that is a war that we are now,ultimatly

loosing because jobs dont pay living wages anymore.All of these neat things cost alot of money.And there are only

two people in the United States who pay taxes.Consumers pay it in higher prices and emloyees pay it in lower

wages.After that its just a question of who writes the actual check.

Couple all this with consumerism and a

general malaise regarding political involvement and, voila...you have what amounts to slavery.Dont be fooled by what

looks like a decent standard of living.The people you see day to day with a decent standard of living are working

far more for less than thier parents or grandparents did.What makes the whole thing so insidious is the fact that

these changes have been so gradual that nobody has realy noticed it.But Labor Department statistics from our own

government bear out the truth,and have been tracking the decline since I graduated high school in the mid 80's.

As for politics being too "complicated" for the average "Joe Sixpack"...rubbish! Politics realy arent any more

than ninety percent smoke,mirrors and slight of hand and ten percent substance.I used to think that it was all too

complex.But the reality is that much the same way lawyers unnecessarily complicate simple things to confuse the

layman,lawmakers spin things into a frenzy and use parlor tricks to throw the hounds off the scent.Politicians

are,after all is said and done...just elected lawyers.They arent called "lawmakers" for no apperant reason.

The

only people that cant follow politics are the folks that either have no real interest and just dont care,or people

who have been fooled by the smoke screen into thinking that things are "too complex." I have had the dubious honor

of meeting and shaking hands with two state lawmakers and a congressman in my life.These men are,for all intents and

purposes,about as smart as the average used car salesman.I used to sell used cars so I can dis them all I want:POKE:

These guys arent something special that only years of intense training can produce.They arent doctors or surgeons or

rocket making dudes,they are just realy charismatic salesmen.They are realy good at bullshitting people into buying

thier line of crap.

There is no entitlement involved in what I have said...I only want to see a return to common

sense wages and working/living standards so that families can actualy start acting like families again instead of

strangers that share a house.Once that is accomplished things will settle down quite a bit and people can start

focusing on the realy important things in life.

By the way...if you find yourself strapped for time and cant

seem to get everything in your life done...try turning off the television...it worked for me. I have more time than

I know what to do with.

Okay...my doctors are here and they say I have had enough excitement for one day.Time

for me to lay down now...:sick:

belgareth

12-20-2005, 06:02 PM

Face value, I

agree we'd be better off. But in terms of tangible effects? I don't see it happening.
Of course it won't

happen if nobody tries. Nobody knows what might happen were people to become more involved. Tangible effect?

Impossible to guess.

But that wasn't the question. Other countries manage a huge participation, why wouldn't

it work here?

Biohazard

12-21-2005, 12:47 AM

Of course it

won't happen if nobody tries. Nobody knows what might happen were people to become more involved. Tangible effect?

Impossible to guess.

But that wasn't the question. Other countries manage a huge participation, why

wouldn't it work here?

Probably because of our entertainment culture. It's good and bad, but much

more the former than latter, IMO. I like how rich American culture is, from movies to sports to electronic

technology. The cynic may see it as an "empty culture," because most American citizens are pre-occupied with short

term happiness above most things. That's just a product of how much our society has to offer in the social arena,

and I see little wrong with it. Give these other countries everything our culture offers, and you'll probably see

less people paying attention to politics as well.

To get involved in politics where you're not just

showing up to the poll and thinking "eenie, meenie, mynie, mo... this is how I'll vote," takes some effort. It

takes a bit of time and research to arrive at a decision that you can intelligently defend. It's this type of

involvement that will make a significant change in our country, not the type of involvement where you decide at the

last minute in the polling booth how you'll vote -- I think a surprisingly large percentage of voters actually do

this.

If you want to change all this, you have to make a fundamental change to our culture as you said.

You also have to ask, how practical is this goal?

Biohazard

12-21-2005, 12:55 AM

I call that

"getting by". For three generations my family has been getting by, but now because of me we're

sliding.

"living well" to me is the same as "well off". That means you can afford

luxuries.

Has your family felt "exploited" because they don't own a Mercedes like their employers

do? Or are they like my folks, who realize that people deserve what they get, and that even a modest living in

America is way, way better than living in a mud hut half way around the world? Put things in perspective, and you

can be happy and comfortable while living modestly.

Biohazard

12-21-2005, 01:16 AM

As for politics

being too "complicated" for the average "Joe Sixpack"...rubbish! Politics realy arent any more than ninety percent

smoke,mirrors and slight of hand and ten percent substance.I used to think that it was all too complex.But the

reality is that much the same way lawyers unnecessarily complicate simple things to confuse the layman,lawmakers

spin things into a frenzy and use parlor tricks to throw the hounds off the scent.Politicians are,after all is said

and done...just elected lawyers.They arent called "lawmakers" for no apperant reason.

The only people that

cant follow politics are the folks that either have no real interest and just dont care,or people who have been

fooled by the smoke screen into thinking that things are "too complex." I have had the dubious honor of meeting and

shaking hands with two state lawmakers and a congressman in my life.These men are,for all intents and purposes,about

as smart as the average used car salesman.I used to sell used cars so I can dis them all I want These guys arent

something special that only years of intense training can produce.They arent doctors or surgeons or rocket making

dudes,they are just realy charismatic salesmen.They are realy good at bullshitting people into buying thier line of

crap.

Lotta rambling in your post, so I'll just respond to what I think is most relevant to my

recent posts. ;)

You just contradicted yourself. You say politics isn't complex, yet each citizen must

wade through all the "smoke an mirrors" to get to the facts. When you buy a used car, you have to do some legwork

to find out the true history of that car. Seeing through politicians and not just simply regurgitating their

cliches and campaign slogans requires independent research.

I have an old college buddy who failed out.

When I asked him for specific reasons why he was voting for Kerry last year, he told me nothing but catch phrases.

"Bush is a screw-up." "Democrats are the party of the average Joe Lunch Bucket." "Iraq is vietnam." etc etc.

Nothing specific about how Kerry's plans would benefit the country or him personally -- because he's never taken

the time to learn about how the system works. You see, anyone can have an opinion. Not everyone has an opinion

that is well thought out. An opinion without a rational defense is kind of worthless.

belgareth

12-21-2005, 04:46 AM

Probably

because of our entertainment culture. It's good and bad, but much more the former than latter, IMO. I like how rich

American culture is, from movies to sports to electronic technology. The cynic may see it as an "empty culture,"

because most American citizens are pre-occupied with short term happiness above most things. That's just a product

of how much our society has to offer in the social arena, and I see little wrong with it. Give these other countries

everything our culture offers, and you'll probably see less people paying attention to politics as well.

To

get involved in politics where you're not just showing up to the poll and thinking "eenie, meenie, mynie, mo...

this is how I'll vote," takes some effort. It takes a bit of time and research to arrive at a decision that you can

intelligently defend. It's this type of involvement that will make a significant change in our country, not the

type of involvement where you decide at the last minute in the polling booth how you'll vote -- I think a

surprisingly large percentage of voters actually do this.

If you want to change all this, you have to make a

fundamental change to our culture as you said. You also have to ask, how practical is this goal?
Japan has

an entertanment culture at least equal to our own yet regularly has a 90% or better showing at the polls. The same

applies to Australia. Obviously that is not the reason for the low showing at the polls in this country.

To get

involved by your standards or by the majority's ability? Under law and within reason, voter pamphlets are written

to be understood by a person with a basic high school education. While arguably not as complete an understanding of

issues as I would like to see, it is sufficient to the purpose of allowing a person to make moderately informed

decisions. The point of voting is not whether or not you can defend your decision, intelligently or otherwise.

Ballots would not be secret if that were the case. The point is your right under the consitution to participate and

voice your opinion as you see fit. That is, IMHO, both a right and an obligation under our representative

government.

Under the constitution we have a representative government, that's the way our government is

legally structured. Practicality arguments are irrelevent even if true which I do not concede since other nations

seem able to accomplish it under similar conditions. I also do not claim that it is the best or preferred form of

government, only the naked fact that it is the legal structure we have to work within. We have few choices here if

we are to claim to be part of that structure. We can either support it or change it. If we claim to support it then

say that the system is too complicated for the average person to participate we are making a mockery of the basic

concept of representative government and hypocrites of ourselves. If your intent is to change it, as seems to be

implied by your argument then I'd like to know what form of government is best and how you intend to justify it.

I'm certanly not convinced that what we call our government is the best and so am willing to listen to any rational

suggestion.

tim929

12-21-2005, 08:48 AM

You just contradicted

yourself. You say politics isn't complex, yet each citizen must wade through all the "smoke an mirrors" to get to

the facts.

Wading through the smoke and mirrors is a product of people not being terribly interested in

hearing anything more than the slogans spewed out by politicians.The Romans had...funny thing...forums! Much like

this one.These forums could be found in almost every town with a population.The forum was a gathering place for

locals and travelers alike to gather and discuss relavent issues and through the sharing of information and view

points develope a better understanding of the world of politics in Rome.The lamps burned constantly in the forums.It

was the only place to hear news of the world outside the city gates.It was one of the several venues for scocial

interaction among peers.It was a place of learning,not only for the elders of the community but for anyone who chose

to participate.And almost anyones voice could be heard.

Building a forum in towns was considered to be of the

utmost importance by local governors because it gave people a place to discuss important issues publicly and the

oppinions that were developed within the forum would eventualy find thier way to the govenors palace for his

consideration.Not building a forum in a town or city was a great way to end up with extremely costly riots on your

hands.The forums were powerful enough that govenors ignored these oppinions at thier own grave risk,and many times

they had a very profound impact uppon the political climate of the province.
People who could be seen at the forum

ranged from every possible walk of life and aged from barely old enough to talk to barely young enough to be

alive.Doctors and carpenters and farmers and bakers and stone masons and politicians and teachers and

lawyers...everyone was welcome.In many provinces there were special days every month where even slaves were allowed

to voice thier various grievences and concerns publicly.Involvement was not leagaly mandatory,but non-participation

was scocialy devistating.

As the senate and the emperors ignored the rumblings comming from the provincial

forums,the condition of Rome declined.As arrogance seperated politicians from the people,Rome suffered.But the fact

that there was a venue that was available to almost everyone where they could be heard and...just as importantly

where they could hear,left a huge mark on what government did and how the people viewed it.In this country,the

internet is the closest thing we have to those forums.Various political groups of every bent and persuation can make

thier oppinions known.Unfortunately,this lacks the personal touch that is realy necessary to not only have a serious

impact on real world politics,but to teach people new to politics the ropes so that they too can be informed and

involved.

For the smoke and mirrors of politics,you only realy have to wade through them once...after that,the

rest is easy.But where does one go to learn to do that?There is no communal forum.Nobody attends town hall meetings

anymore.No one attends city counsel meetings...and the council chambers are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a certain amount

of seating available for the public.But...ya know...The Apprentice is on tonight...and want to see what Donnald is

going to say to that smart ass kid...And Im tired after a long days work...

.

Biohazard

12-21-2005, 07:59 PM

Japan has an

entertanment culture at least equal to our own yet regularly has a 90% or better showing at the polls. The same

applies to Australia. Obviously that is not the reason for the low showing at the polls in this country.

To

get involved by your standards or by the majority's ability? Under law and within reason, voter pamphlets are

written to be understood by a person with a basic high school education. While arguably not as complete an

understanding of issues as I would like to see, it is sufficient to the purpose of allowing a person to make

moderately informed decisions. The point of voting is not whether or not you can defend your decision, intelligently

or otherwise. Ballots would not be secret if that were the case. The point is your right under the consitution to

participate and voice your opinion as you see fit. That is, IMHO, both a right and an obligation under our

representative government.

Under the constitution we have a representative government, that's the way our

government is legally structured. Practicality arguments are irrelevent even if true which I do not concede since

other nations seem able to accomplish it under similar conditions. I also do not claim that it is the best or

preferred form of government, only the naked fact that it is the legal structure we have to work within. We have few

choices here if we are to claim to be part of that structure. We can either support it or change it. If we claim to

support it then say that the system is too complicated for the average person to participate we are making a mockery

of the basic concept of representative government and hypocrites of ourselves. If your intent is to change it, as

seems to be implied by your argument then I'd like to know what form of government is best and how you intend to

justify it. I'm certanly not convinced that what we call our government is the best and so am willing to listen to

any rational suggestion.

Those numbers from Japan and Aus are astounding. But from our earlier

discussions about citizens' obligations to our country, you rattled off a list of things you inferred would happen

if more people were involved in the political process. Correct me if I'm wrong. Things like ending all foreign

wars, holding politicians accountable for their secret misdeeds, among other things. I agree with you that more

voter participation is generally a good thing. I just don't see how simply having more [generally undecided]

people show up to polls in and of itself does anything more than simply uphold the status quo. 50% vote one way,

the other 50% goes the other way. Net effect? Nothing.

Biohazard

12-21-2005, 08:03 PM

Wading through

the smoke and mirrors is a product of people not being terribly interested in hearing anything more than the slogans

spewed out by politicians.The Romans had...funny thing...forums! Much like this one.These forums could be found in

almost every town with a population.The forum was a gathering place for locals and travelers alike to gather and

discuss relavent issues and through the sharing of information and view points develope a better understanding of

the world of politics in Rome.The lamps burned constantly in the forums.It was the only place to hear news of the

world outside the city gates.It was one of the several venues for scocial interaction among peers.It was a place of

learning,not only for the elders of the community but for anyone who chose to participate.And almost anyones voice

could be heard.

Building a forum in towns was considered to be of the utmost importance by local governors

because it gave people a place to discuss important issues publicly and the oppinions that were developed within the

forum would eventualy find thier way to the govenors palace for his consideration.Not building a forum in a town or

city was a great way to end up with extremely costly riots on your hands.The forums were powerful enough that

govenors ignored these oppinions at thier own grave risk,and many times they had a very profound impact uppon the

political climate of the province.
People who could be seen at the forum ranged from every possible walk of life

and aged from barely old enough to talk to barely young enough to be alive.Doctors and carpenters and farmers and

bakers and stone masons and politicians and teachers and lawyers...everyone was welcome.In many provinces there were

special days every month where even slaves were allowed to voice thier various grievences and concerns

publicly.Involvement was not leagaly mandatory,but non-participation was scocialy devistating.

As the senate

and the emperors ignored the rumblings comming from the provincial forums,the condition of Rome declined.As

arrogance seperated politicians from the people,Rome suffered.But the fact that there was a venue that was available

to almost everyone where they could be heard and...just as importantly where they could hear,left a huge mark on

what government did and how the people viewed it.In this country,the internet is the closest thing we have to those

forums.Various political groups of every bent and persuation can make thier oppinions known.Unfortunately,this lacks

the personal touch that is realy necessary to not only have a serious impact on real world politics,but to teach

people new to politics the ropes so that they too can be informed and involved.

For the smoke and mirrors of

politics,you only realy have to wade through them once...after that,the rest is easy.But where does one go to learn

to do that?There is no communal forum.Nobody attends town hall meetings anymore.No one attends city counsel

meetings...and the council chambers are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a certain amount of seating available for the

public.But...ya know...The Apprentice is on tonight...and want to see what Donnald is going to say to that smart ass

kid...And Im tired after a long days work...

.

I have no idea what you just said!

:) But I'll say this. If you want to change the status quo, it takes more than just showing up to the poll booth

and randomly punching up your ballot.

tim929

12-22-2005, 12:42 AM

Your absolutly right! it does

take more than simply showing up and punching a ballot. We are blessed in this day and age with a wealth of

information comming at us from a variety of sources.We are also blessed with a variety of different organizations

who seek to pour over all that data and find the hidden truth.And many of them do an excelent job.Our news media

used to be a good watch dog over politics,but comercialism has kinda ruined that over the last three decades.But

watchdog groups do still exist and they are a very effective way of staying informed on various issues.Most produce

monthly news letters,free of all the hype and noise created by the politicians,and these news letters can help

people to make informed decisions regarding almost any issue.

But first comes the process of learning what

America is all about.The concept of its system of government,system of laws,cultural and moral leanings and so

forth.In other words...what exactly does it take to be an ACTUAL citizen as opposed to just having been born

here?Alot of people have been born in the United States.But does that realy make them citizens?In high schools they

used to have classes called civics.Im sure we all had a class that went by that name.But in bygone years,those

civics classes were intended to teach young men and women about the price of being an American.They were taught

about the constitution and its meanings,taught about our system of goverment,the responsibilities of the citizen and

so forth.In my civics class,our teacher was a died in the wool dungeon master who expected nothing less than

perfection from his students in regards to the study of civics.And without his magic "OK" you didnt graduate high

school...PERIOD.

He regarded...and rightly so,civics to be the single most important class in the history of the

world.It was his class that was designed to prepair young people to handle thier dutys and responsabilities as

citizens and voters.The emphasis in todays public school system however has shifted considerably,and the

requirements of the typical civics class have had to be dumbed down to a point where students in most schools have a

tough time remembering the difference between the executive branch of government and the judicial branch.The

constitution is...and should always be held up as the second most sacred document in the world by American

citizens.Second only to whatever religious documents you subscribe to.

Training a citizen is hard work,and in

many ways our education system falls tragicly short of producing effective citizens.I suspect that this shortfall

isnt as much a matter of people getting dumber,as it is the powers that be not wanting too many people knowing what

they can do to make a diference.

Im gonna go eat cheetoes and watch South Park now....:rofl:

belgareth

12-22-2005, 06:43 AM

Those numbers

from Japan and Aus are astounding. But from our earlier discussions about citizens' obligations to our country, you

rattled off a list of things you inferred would happen if more people were involved in the political process.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Things like ending all foreign wars, holding politicians accountable for their secret

misdeeds, among other things. I agree with you that more voter participation is generally a good thing. I just

don't see how simply having more [generally undecided] people show up to polls in and of itself does anything more

than simply uphold the status quo. 50% vote one way, the other 50% goes the other way. Net effect?

Nothing.Actually the vote usually goes about 40/40/20 with the 20% being independents, small parties and

such. Those voting in the 40/40 groups usually vote right along party lines. Over the years both major parties have

lost huge portions of their membership through disenchantment with party policies. As a result of that and other

factors, the non-voting majority tends to be closer to 25/25/50 with a large percentage of the 25'ers likely to

vote their mind rather than any party line. Of the 50%'ers, most are completely disgusted with the way the

government operates but feel they cannot do anything about it so don't bother. The error is obvious. That

'inbalance' is one of the reasons that both major parties try so hard to register new voters to their party. They

hope that by getting them signed up themselves they will have some influence in how they vote.

What would

actually happen if participation went up to 90% is anybody's guess, you have your opinion and I have mine. But

right now many in politics seem to feel they can rest on their laurals because nobody's watching them very closely.

Consider the potential of 40 percent or more of the voting population unalianged to any particular party. It

doesn't take much imagination to see that there would be numerous changes within our country. Exactly what they

would be is anybody's guess but at the least I think it would result in greater accountability.

Additionally, I

think Tim has it right that participation is discouraged, that the government would really prefer our opinions be

suppressed.

Biohazard

12-22-2005, 11:57 PM

Your absolutly

right! it does take more than simply showing up and punching a ballot. We are blessed in this day and age with a

wealth of information comming at us from a variety of sources.We are also blessed with a variety of different

organizations who seek to pour over all that data and find the hidden truth.And many of them do an excelent job.Our

news media used to be a good watch dog over politics,but comercialism has kinda ruined that over the last three

decades.But watchdog groups do still exist and they are a very effective way of staying informed on various

issues.Most produce monthly news letters,free of all the hype and noise created by the politicians,and these news

letters can help people to make informed decisions regarding almost any issue.

But first comes the process

of learning what America is all about.The concept of its system of government,system of laws,cultural and moral

leanings and so forth.In other words...what exactly does it take to be an ACTUAL citizen as opposed to just having

been born here?Alot of people have been born in the United States.But does that realy make them citizens?In high

schools they used to have classes called civics.Im sure we all had a class that went by that name.But in bygone

years,those civics classes were intended to teach young men and women about the price of being an American.They were

taught about the constitution and its meanings,taught about our system of goverment,the responsibilities of the

citizen and so forth.In my civics class,our teacher was a died in the wool dungeon master who expected nothing less

than perfection from his students in regards to the study of civics.And without his magic "OK" you didnt graduate

high school...PERIOD.

He regarded...and rightly so,civics to be the single most important class in the

history of the world.It was his class that was designed to prepair young people to handle thier dutys and

responsabilities as citizens and voters.The emphasis in todays public school system however has shifted

considerably,and the requirements of the typical civics class have had to be dumbed down to a point where students

in most schools have a tough time remembering the difference between the executive branch of government and the

judicial branch.The constitution is...and should always be held up as the second most sacred document in the world

by American citizens.Second only to whatever religious documents you subscribe to.

Training a citizen is

hard work,and in many ways our education system falls tragicly short of producing effective citizens.I suspect that

this shortfall isnt as much a matter of people getting dumber,as it is the powers that be not wanting too many

people knowing what they can do to make a diference.

Im gonna go eat cheetoes and watch South Park

now....:rofl:

Glad you finally agree with me that it takes some serious dedication to learn about the

system in order to make a difference in one's country. Are you going back on your claim now that everything is

"simple" to understand?

Biohazard

12-23-2005, 12:30 AM

Actually the

vote usually goes about 40/40/20 with the 20% being independents, small parties and such. Those voting in the 40/40

groups usually vote right along party lines. Over the years both major parties have lost huge portions of their

membership through disenchantment with party policies. As a result of that and other factors, the non-voting

majority tends to be closer to 25/25/50 with a large percentage of the 25'ers likely to vote their mind rather than

any party line. Of the 50%'ers, most are completely disgusted with the way the government operates but feel they

cannot do anything about it so don't bother. The error is obvious. That 'inbalance' is one of the reasons that

both major parties try so hard to register new voters to their party. They hope that by getting them signed up

themselves they will have some influence in how they vote.

What would actually happen if participation went

up to 90% is anybody's guess, you have your opinion and I have mine. But right now many in politics seem to feel

they can rest on their laurals because nobody's watching them very closely. Consider the potential of 40 percent or

more of the voting population unalianged to any particular party. It doesn't take much imagination to see that

there would be numerous changes within our country. Exactly what they would be is anybody's guess but at the least

I think it would result in greater accountability.

Additionally, I think Tim has it right that participation

is discouraged, that the government would really prefer our opinions be suppressed.

Okay, so you're

talking about the classical "swing" group. I classify this group as moderates who's votes can be bought, more or

less, with catch phrases, punch lines, and commercial bombardment. They have no strong identity. You buy that

group, you win, basically. They go one of two ways for the most part, right or left depending on the weather.

I felt that you and Tim were trivializing how difficult it is to impose real change. It's not as simple as

just getting 90% of the people to take 1 hour out of their day every election cycle (say every 2 years) to punch a

card. Would that automatically mean that foreign wars would stop, that government would shrink, that politicians

would suddenly become transparent, that somehow utopia is otherwise achieved? Unfortunately, I think more voters

just means more voters, that's it. It might make us feel better about our "representative" government, but I

don't go on feelings.

It takes organization to effect change. Let's look at the NRA, as an example.

I don't know if this is still true, but Fortune mag ranked the NRA as the #1 most powerful lobbying group in

Washington a few years ago. We're talking a group of 4 million citizens, or little more than 1% of the population,

who have had a big hand in re-shaping congress over the past decade. Why? Because they're active, they understand

the mathematics of the political system and the nuances of law, they have sharp lawyers, and they know how to

communicate effectively. This takes skill and intelligence to put it all together into a winning package.

Basically, you need a plan. Just speaking idealistically like "go rock the vote" a la MTV ain't gonna cut it.

Sorry.

The smart man invests his time and energy into things that are likely going to net a return. Not

things he hopes and prays will net a return.

belgareth

12-23-2005, 01:58 AM

No, I don't think in the sense

you mean swing group that is what I am talking about. Most swing voters are not bought but are buying a bill of

goods themselves. In point they are buying the person rather than anything else. The average swing voter is trying

to do what they believe is right. I think you are over-simplifying those dynamics.

I figured that's what you

thought but you misunderstand the issues if you see it that way. The dynamics are a lot more complicated. You are

assuming there's an agenda other than creating involvement which is a goal in itself. Agreed about organizations

like the NRA, who lose battles often enough. I am not trying to shape policy, only trying to get the engine working.

Shaping policy is for the voters to do of their own free will. With as many different motives as are out there and

the general level of disgust with both political parties existing in the non-voting majority, change would occur if

you could get them involved. What change in particular is anybody's guess.

How a smart man invests is entirely

dependent on what his end goals are, nothing more. Your view of a return and mine are entirely different. By

definition, we have a representative government. That means participation by the people being represented. If you

want to change the type of gevernment we have I'm all ears as to where you'd like to take it. But until then, the

goal is to have the people, all the people voicing their opinions.

tim929

12-23-2005, 12:14 PM

Glad you finally agree

with me that it takes some serious dedication to learn about the system in order to make a difference in one's

country. Are you going back on your claim now that everything is "simple" to understand?

Yes...I am

standing on my claim that it is simple.I have a life...I work,have a scocial life and various responsabilities,just

like every other American.It didnt take me a lifetime to understand politics.Just alittle bit of personal

involvement from time to time and a genuine concern for the state of my community.It realy doesnt take a masters

degree to "get it," it just takes alittle effort and a desire to know whats going on.Talking with friends,reading

the paper once in a while,listening to other peoples oppinions...

It helps alot if you start with some idea of

whats supposed to be going on in the first place.And thats where our education system fails.Ous schools fail to

properly develop the knowledge of citizenship in our young people.In high school,you have plenty of time on your

hands to be able to learn what America is all about.And as we get older,many of these things become more and more

important to YOUR standard of living.It therefore stands to reson that a person would take and interest in the

workings of government.

I have a very close friend whos family came here after being run out of the

Philipines.They came to this country with exactly forty dollars and the clothes on thier backs.Not only do they

speak better english that the average American,they are extremely involved politicaly.My friend is a captain in the

U.S. Army...and is fiercely proud to serve and defend his adopted country.He is also very active in the state

political scene and his wife served with (party name deleted) as a fund raiser and local deligate to the party

convention.These people have children,responsabilities,jobs and so forth...but they are still very involved in the

process.

The fact is that they were raised under a dictatorship and they understand all too well the inportance

of personal involvement in the system.The average American is...for lack of a better term...to lazy to get

involved.We leave it to others because we dont want to spend alittle time.It frustrates them to no end to see

apathetic people who dont bother to get involved or vote.

If you ask people who have become U.S. citizens,you

will get largely the same response.People who came here from the Baltic states,asia,Russia and so forth will roll

thier eyes at the apethy of Americans.These people take thier freedom very seriously.Why dont we?

Okay...my

T.V.dinner is getting cold....

Biohazard

12-23-2005, 07:59 PM

...it just takes

alittle effort and a desire to know whats going on...

My point exactly. Easier said than done for

many, at least to the point where it would induce the degree of change you've discussed above.

koolking1

03-04-2006, 11:25 AM

UrbanSurvival.com:

"Its Real: Prison Labor for the Military

We received an interesting news tip

yesterday - and one that we find quite interesting. It has to do with official plans of the US Army to enact

something called the "Civilian Inmate Labor Program." The general idea is that with troop manpower running low, and

local demand for prisoner housing running high, the US Army can pick up some cheap labor from the Federal Bureau of

Prisons and perhaps State prisons.

As you may recall, we reported a few weeks back that we've heard that

troops are in such short supply in Iraq that ordinary seamen off Navy Trident subs are being given quickie training

as sentries, rather than serving on strategic missile platforms, and off they go to Iraq. Now, with the receipt of

the Army plans to use federal prisoners for labor, we have to ask what kind of picture this paints of the

military's state of readiness?

Specifics of the program, outlined in official Army Regulation 210-35 at

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf include some of the following:

The newest set of

changes quietly went into effect 14 February 2005.

The unclassified regulations describe their purpose as

follows: "This regulation provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and

civilian prison camps on Army installations. Sources of civilian inmate labor are limited to on– and off–post

Federal corrections facilities, State and/or local corrections facilities operating from on–post prison camps

pursuant to leases under Section 2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667), and off–post State corrections

facilities participating in the demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103–337.

Otherwise, State and/or local inmate labor from off–post corrections facilities is currently excluded from this

program."

"(2) Under no circumstances will the following types of inmates be permitted in the Civilian Inmate

Labor Program: (a) A person in whom there is a significant public interest as determined by the corrections facility

superintendent in coordination with the installation commander. (b) A person who has been a significant management

problem in their current corrections facility or in another facility. (c) A principal organized crime figure. (d) An

inmate convicted of a sex offense or whose criminal history includes such conduct. (e) An inmate convicted of a

violent crime or whose criminal history includes such conduct. (f) An inmate convicted of the sale or intent to

distribute illegal drugs who held a leadership position in any drug conspiracy, or has been involved with drugs

within the last 3 years while in prison. (g) An escape risk. (h) An inmate who poses a threat to the general public

as determined by the corrections facility superintendent in coordination with the installation commander. (i) An

inmate declared or found insane or mentally incompetent by a court, administrative proceeding, or physician, or

under treatment for a mental disease or disorder. (j) An inmate convicted of arson. (k) A Federal inmate convicted

while on active duty, presently serving a sentence for that conviction.

In short, this seems to be a low key

program, perhaps driven in part by state facilities that are trying to find "creative ways" to offload minimum

security inmates because of the huge number of prisoners in US prisons today. Nevertheless, some of the wording is

troubling:

Chapter 3 Establishing Civilian Inmate Prison Camps on Army Installations 3–1.

Policy

statement It is not Army policy to solicit offers from correctional systems to establish civilian inmate prison

camps on Army installations. Nevertheless, the Army recognizes that these correctional systems may approach

installations to lease land on which to build corrections facilities, or to lease unoccupied facilities. The Army

will evaluate requests to establish civilian inmate prison camps on Army installations on a case by case basis.

These prison camps will house minimum and low security inmates, as determined by the correctional systems. However,

the Army’s primary purpose for allowing establishment of prison camps on Army installations is to use the resident

nonviolent civilian inmate labor pool to work on the leased portions of the installation.

The regulations are

not particularly complex, and are an interesting read if you have worries about the Army building prison camps at

which a nonviolent civilian could be impressed. Has as kind of World War II-ish kind of ring to it, doesn't

it?"

I've been doing a lot of travelling lately so haven't been posting. I did meet a whole bunch of GIs

in Ireland at the airport on their way to Afghanistan, one guy for his 3rd time hardly seems fair to me, oh well.

belgareth

03-04-2006, 10:02 PM

While I am not at all opposed

to using prison labor in such a way, it is a disturbing reflection on the military's ability to recruit capable

people to serve in the armed forces. It does reinforce your notion that a draft is imminent.

Biohazard

03-05-2006, 03:34 AM

It does

reinforce your notion that a draft is imminent.

Or that it's not. One can interpret that article as

.gov/.mil are doing everything they can to avoid a general draft. Anyhow, they better draft me soon, I might be too

old by the time they get around to re-instituting a draft! ;)

Biohazard

03-12-2006, 01:05 PM

Looks like more kids these days

aren't military material. I wonder if a draft was ever re-instated, would we suddenly have a spike in asthma

diagnoses?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/uncle_sam_wants_you

Military

Shuns Many of Recruiting Age

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a

Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato — or some combination of the above.

As for that

fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With

U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S.

economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street — and

the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32

million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some

way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start

factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army

Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75

percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While

the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has

no figures to counter it.

"Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal,

director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "So they blame the

pool."

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate

analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best

and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall

pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1

million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million

when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are

considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional,

all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

_the rising rate of

obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

_a decline in physical fitness; one-third

of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

_a near-epidemic rise in the use

of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible

for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to

about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be

using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical

performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many

dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be

rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this

group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who

might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential

recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

In the budget year that ended last

September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services — or about

11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors

such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault — prompting criticism that the Army is lowering

its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about

180,000.

And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be

offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work. The military is

increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.