[Sonny]

Why do you think the US and other major world powers have gone away from formally declaring war against their enemies? In fact, if memory serves, the last time a US President asked Congress to declare war on another power was in WWII. And yet we have fought several wars since, despite whatever cute phrase they hid it behind.

So why do you think this is? Why not just declare war on Korea or Viet Nam or Iraq? Or in the case of the UK, on Argentina?

[Darth Krawlie]

Takes too long.

[Undome Telcontar]

i think in our case we just weren't lending the argentinian insurgency any credence as a real invasion. it was just a minor annoyance.

[perfectsim]

To declare war you need to define it first.

[EwoksSuck]

perfectsim, on 15 Dec 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

To declare war you need to define it first.

Yes exactly. Instead you get these open ended resolutions that let the President act like a dictator and do whatever the hell he wants in the name of national security. It's Congress not doing their job. They shouldn't vote for one cent to go to war with out a formal declaration of war first.

This post has been edited by EwoksSuck: 15 December 2009 - 07:54 PM

[ShadowDog]

I have to agree with EW on this one. I've never had a problem with the US beating up on little punk assed countries but they could at least be honest about what's going on. "Police action." Get the **** out of here! Oh yeah, Ponch and Jon are over there arresting people in Korea, un huh.

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that THE PEOPLE of Western nations just don't have the stomachs nor the patience for a war anymore, and politicians are elected by the people. 2 and 2, bro. If they did, then war would have been declared the moment the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden, considering 9/11 is easily, and quite often, compared to Pearl Harbor. An easy case could have been made for Desert Storm and even Korea. But in the case of Korea, we had just finished a war about 6 years before, and in '91, everyone was still afraid of the word... wait for it... Vietnam. Oh, God, somebody said it. Yeah, scary word. Not to mention, if a nation is attacked, it pretty much amounts to a de facto state of war anyway. A declaration would just be to formalize it, make it official.

So no one wants to call it a war, because then people might get the impression that it is a war, and people don't like, are even afraid of, the word "war" anymore (which says something about today's society). And people here certainly don't want to feel like they're the aggressors. We can't be seen as aggressive now. Declare a war? God forbid.... I mean, we could offend someone or something. The worst attack against America should be responded to with... sensitivity. We need to try and understand where they're coming from.

Yeah, right. So it's a lot quicker (sort of a sidestep) for the houses of Congress just to pass a resolution "authorizing the use of force" (notice how they are careful not to call it "war," just as they're careful to use "surge" instead of "escalation.")

No, DK got it right in three words:

Takes too long.

This is not 1941. The people are not the same as we were in 1941. The declaration was immediate. Today? My God. Can you imagine how long it would take to get a war declaration? That would be on the floor for weeks.

[EwoksSuck]

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that THE PEOPLE of Western nations just don't have the stomachs nor the patience for a war anymore, and politicians are elected by the people. 2 and 2, bro. If they did, then war would have been declared the moment the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden, considering 9/11 is easily, and quite often, compared to Pearl Harbor. An easy case could have been made for Desert Storm and even Korea. But in the case of Korea, we had just finished a war about 6 years before, and in '91, everyone was still afraid of the word... wait for it... Vietnam. Oh, God, somebody said it. Yeah, scary word. Not to mention, if a nation is attacked, it pretty much amounts to a de facto state of war anyway. A declaration would just be to formalize it, make it official.

So no one wants to call it a war, because then people might get the impression that it is a war, and people don't like, are even afraid of, the word "war" anymore (which says something about today's society). And people here certainly don't want to feel like they're the aggressors. We can't be seen as aggressive now. Declare a war? God forbid.... I mean, we could offend someone or something. The worst attack against America should be responded to with... sensitivity. We need to try and understand where they're coming from.

Yeah, right. So it's a lot quicker (sort of a sidestep) for the houses of Congress just to pass a resolution "authorizing the use of force" (notice how they are careful not to call it "war," just as they're careful to use "surge" instead of "escalation.")

No, DK got it right in three words:

Takes too long.

This is not 1941. The people are not the same as we were in 1941. The declaration was immediate. Today? My God. Can you imagine how long it would take to get a war declaration? That would be on the floor for weeks.

But the reason we're sick of war is because we're tired of these ****ty little wars that get us nothing, don't achieve the stated goals that inspired them, and cost us a bunch of blood and treasure and the government won't even call them wars. I think everybody is cool with the idea of capturing and killing al-qaida right now. It's all of the bull**** nation building and invading countries that pose no real threat to us in the name of some political bull**** agenda that turns off a lot of people in the public. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, even Afghanistan to a degree have naturally left the public gun shy about going to war when our government is so willing to do it with a half baked plan driven by some policy wonks vision of the world as it should be. We find ourselves in one quagmire after another and spending decades in countries, that when it comes right down to it don't mean that much to us and our security. So of course a lot of the people in the public aren't patient in supporting a war anymore. Because the wars we wage are bull**** wars waged by another name in places that pose no direct threat to us.

This post has been edited by EwoksSuck: 16 December 2009 - 05:56 AM

[Lord Kargan]

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

This is not 1941. The people are not the same as we were in 1941. The declaration was immediate. Today? My God. Can you imagine how long it would take to get a war declaration? That would be on the floor for weeks.

QFT. Also, the declaration would not pass without a few billion in pork spending add-ons and a tax cut for good measure.

[Sonny]

Very interesting remarks here. A lot of food for thought.

[Destiny Skywalker]

Lord Kargan, on 16 Dec 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

This is not 1941. The people are not the same as we were in 1941. The declaration was immediate. Today? My God. Can you imagine how long it would take to get a war declaration? That would be on the floor for weeks.

QFT. Also, the declaration would not pass without a few billion in pork spending add-ons and a tax cut for good measure.

QF more T. It's a sad reflection on our lawmaking process.

[EwoksSuck]

Lord Kargan, on 16 Dec 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

This is not 1941. The people are not the same as we were in 1941. The declaration was immediate. Today? My God. Can you imagine how long it would take to get a war declaration? That would be on the floor for weeks.

QFT. Also, the declaration would not pass without a few billion in pork spending add-ons and a tax cut for good measure.

Yup, and don't forget the defense contracts that go to companies that have already failed to live up to prior multibillion dollar contracts. Because if Congress was actually interested in doing its job of oversight then this wouldn't happen either.

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Quote

QFT. Also, the declaration would not pass without a few billion in pork spending add-ons and a tax cut for good measure.

Quote

Yup, and don't forget the defense contracts that go to companies that have already failed to live up to prior multibillion dollar contracts. Because if Congress was actually interested in doing its job of oversight then this wouldn't happen either.

Yeah, that's right. Another good point. I couldn't tell you enough stories about KBR alone.

Quote

But the reason we're sick of war is because we're tired of these ****ty little wars that get us nothing, don't achieve the stated goals that inspired them, and cost us a bunch of blood and treasure and the government won't even call them wars. I think everybody is cool with the idea of capturing and killing al-qaida right now. It's all of the bull**** nation building and invading countries that pose no real threat to us in the name of some political bull**** agenda that turns off a lot of people in the public. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, even Afghanistan to a degree have naturally left the public gun shy about going to war when our government is so willing to do it with a half baked plan driven by some policy wonks vision of the world as it should be. We find ourselves in one quagmire after another and spending decades in countries, that when it comes right down to it don't mean that much to us and our security. So of course a lot of the people in the public aren't patient in supporting a war anymore. Because the wars we wage are bull**** wars waged by another name in places that pose no direct threat to us.

Yeah, that's definitely part of the problem. That is for sure. I am a hard critic of the Iraq War. I mean, I can't say that I think the overall effort was wrong, but a lot of mistakes that shouldn't have been made were made, and there were some huge roadblocks that took us much longer than it should have to overcome. Korea probably was necessary, if for nothing else, to show the communists that we weren't going to stand by while they just did whatever the hell they wanted. It was the first major theatre of the Cold War, and it's possible that history may have been much different had it not gone down, had we just let South Korea go. And Somolia was actually called for by the people who cried, "We're Americans. We can't let this happen." It was actually a success when we stuck to the plan. It was just a noble effort that backfired, because... well... some people in this world, you just can't save.

But regardless of all that (and let's eve cut the Iraq War out of the picture just for a moment, for the sake of this discussion), I still don't believe that the general public has the stomach for a war anymore. I mean, you go out and take a look around every so often at what people find important these days, and then tell me that you honestly believe they do. I don't. Yeah, maybe everyone was on board right after 9/11, but it wouldn't have lasted even if the Iraq War hadn't gone down. The people don't understand the concept behind certain types of wars. They measure outcomes strictly by casualties and monetary costs. "Oh, we lost more troops this month than last, that means the war's going badly." Really? Well, how the hell would you know?

And it's also the way society works now. Everyone is so damn sensitive to the stupidest things these days. When you think about it, you have to have some thick skin to be in a job like the military. But that's less than 1% of the population. Parents baby their children even when they're not children anymore. God forbid someone has to wait more than a minute for popcorn. Now I've met people who are tough as nails. But most people these days aren't. In this day and age, there's no room for patience. And wars (And I'm speaking in general, not about specific conflicts.) are not short nor cheap. And I just don't think that the public, generally speaking, has it in them anymore. And I think it has to do with the generation who has become the educators, writers, and politicians and what they're teaching wrotong and pushing through the floor. Look at what era they're from. In all honesty, maybe the wars are, in some small way, good for us. Maybe enough of this generation who fought in the wars will go on to become the next educators, writers, and politicians and can toughen this country up again.

[EwoksSuck]

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

But regardless of all that (and let's eve cut the Iraq War out of the picture just for a moment, for the sake of this discussion), I still don't believe that the general public has the stomach for a war anymore. I mean, you go out and take a look around every so often at what people find important these days, and then tell me that you honestly believe they do. I don't. Yeah, maybe everyone was on board right after 9/11, but it wouldn't have lasted even if the Iraq War hadn't gone down. The people don't understand the concept behind certain types of wars. They measure outcomes strictly by casualties and monetary costs. "Oh, we lost more troops this month than last, that means the war's going badly." Really? Well, how the hell would you know?

But I think that's not the public's fault. I see it as a failure of our leaders to explain to the public what the goals are in an effective way and a failure to elicit the publics support towards those goals. That's why I support the creation of a law that would require an automatic declaration of war that includes an automatic draft, a war tax, and access to war funds within 90 days of the President ordering our forces into combat. I give the president 90 days to deal with emergency situations or the need to do preemptive attacks when required. If the war is worth fighting the public should be behind it, if its not the President and our other leaders should be able to explain why the public should support the policy. If they can't do that, then they sure as hell shouldn't be leading us into war. 9/11 was a terrible attack on our country but it also represents one of the biggest missed opportunities in terms the good that could have come out of it if all that patriotism and good will had been channeled into positive things, that called the entire nation, not just some of us, to sacrifice for the good of the country.

Quote

And it's also the way society works now. Everyone is so damn sensitive to the stupidest things these days. When you think about it, you have to have some thick skin to be in a job like the military. But that's less than 1% of the population. Parents baby their children even when they're not children anymore. God forbid someone has to wait more than a minute for popcorn. Now I've met people who are tough as nails. But most people these days aren't. In this day and age, there's no room for patience. And wars (And I'm speaking in general, not about specific conflicts.) are not short nor cheap. And I just don't think that the public, generally speaking, has it in them anymore. And I think it has to do with the generation who has become the educators, writers, and politicians and what they're teaching wrotong and pushing through the floor. Look at what era they're from. In all honesty, maybe the wars are, in some small way, good for us. Maybe enough of this generation who fought in the wars will go on to become the next educators, writers, and politicians and can toughen this country up again.

I think people do what they have to do, and with the circumstances and the right leadership they can be called on to do some amazing things. Yeah our society has become pretty self involved and even decadent in its ways but I think if you had somebody with some integrity come on the TV every night after 9/11 and say this is the problem, this what we need to do, and all of us are going to have sacrifice, not just a few volunteers, it would get done. But nobody did that instead 9/11 was used to divide us more and I think made us weaker as a result.

[ming]

i'm a fan of authorizing the use of force and then leaving it in the presidents hands to use as a last bargaining tool. like the power company sending you a note that someone will be coming on tuesday to turn off your power. just because bush used it disingenuously doesn't mean flatly declaring war is any better.

and we didn't lose anything. we've only declared war in 5 conflicts. it's not as if those were our first five conflicts and at some point we stopped doing it because our penises got soft. partly the existence of the united nations has made it a bit of an archaic tradition. mostly it's what has already been explained. neutral and non-offensive wording will produce the strongest showing in congress's vote. and what is more important? strong wording against someone you're going to make war with anyway, or the unanimity of congress and the political spectrum? let's be adults about this.

america has much more stomach for war than we have ever had at any time in our isolationist history. to say contrary is just some tough guy bull**** usually accompanied by lighting a cigar and slapping a woman's ass. it's born by the same neoconservative dip****s who romanticize some cartoonish stereotype of america's late entrance into the two world wars.

[Epimetheus00]

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 16 Dec 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

And it's also the way society works now. Everyone is so damn sensitive to the stupidest things these days. When you think about it, you have to have some thick skin to be in a job like the military. But that's less than 1% of the population. Parents baby their children even when they're not children anymore. God forbid someone has to wait more than a minute for popcorn. Now I've met people who are tough as nails. But most people these days aren't. In this day and age, there's no room for patience. And wars (And I'm speaking in general, not about specific conflicts.) are not short nor cheap. And I just don't think that the public, generally speaking, has it in them anymore. And I think it has to do with the generation who has become the educators, writers, and politicians and what they're teaching wrotong and pushing through the floor. Look at what era they're from. In all honesty, maybe the wars are, in some small way, good for us. Maybe enough of this generation who fought in the wars will go on to become the next educators, writers, and politicians and can toughen this country up again.

I agree with you about the majority of the generation running this country right now. The hippies have messed this country up real bad with all their incredible selfishness and crazy notions on government policy and "ideals" on safety and how to teach and raise children are just the initial "issues", (I HATE the word issue and I take issue with this word. It's not an issue its a f**king problem and problems can be solved... issues are ongoing...) the problems aka debacles these freaks have given this country. Like I hear a lot of people say and I agree with them... a lot of the good people have suffered from or died in Vietnam and now we got the trash left to "lead." I can't say I agree with you on this latest generation that fought the war to lead people in the right direction because they are some of the folks directly exposed to and live by the hippies control over education and child rearing I can only say I fear for the generations ahead. Things are changing and people are getting tired of these fools but I think the damage has been done.

(I want to add the feminist movement as also a huge problem to the way this country is being casturated and breaking down but to go into detail will bring the casturated and the femi-butches to the stage and I don't really feel that derailing this thread is a good thing)

[REVROSWELL]

All good posts! I happen to agree with Epimetheus00's semi off topic post. Our male population is being feminized by a variety of sources the most respectable being our single parent moms of whom I admire greatly, much more than most men. And far more than the the men that left 'mom' to raise their children alone. In my opinion those are the dregs of society and should be charged with a civil crime of some kind! The feminists, as E'00 pointed out are the worst influence feminizing our boys. These (sometimes well meaning) activists are morphing our normal competitive rough and tumble boys into cowering afraid to compete womenMen. These feminized girley boys may harm our culture and IMO our ability to produce aggressive (male) leaders.

As for the war question, I think that some members touched on the reason we haven't declared war since WWII. Its far more complicated to sell to the voters. Words are powerful the Nazis of WWII applied the power of words and images in their propaganda to devastating effect, while use of the word 'war' isn'/t on the scale or intensity of the propaganda, not declaring it is. We are simply letting our leaders fool us with a wink and a nod. Nam wasn't a war wink wink, 54000 dead, nah..neither was the invasion of Iraq. And something else. Maybe the jerks in power have a reason for not telling us the truth, ya think?

RevRoz

This post has been edited by REVROSWELL: 17 December 2009 - 06:18 AM

[Antilla]

I blame the gays. And black people. And filthy Mexicans.

It all makes sense now.

Somehow.

[Lord Kargan]

REVROSWELL, on 17 Dec 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

All good posts! I happen to agree with Epimetheus00's semi off topic post. Our male population is being feminized by a variety of sources the most respectable being our single parent moms of whom I admire greatly, much more than most men. And far more than the the men that left 'mom' to raise their children alone. In my opinion those are the dregs of society and should be charged with a civil crime of some kind! The feminists, as E'00 pointed out are the worst influence feminizing our boys. These (sometimes well meaning) activists are morphing our normal competitive rough and tumble boys into cowering afraid to compete womenMen. These feminized girley boys may harm our culture and IMO our ability to produce aggressive (male) leaders.

As for the war question, I think that some members touched on the reason we haven't declared war since WWII. Its far more complicated to sell to the voters. Words are powerful the Nazis of WWII applied the power of words and images in their propaganda to devastating effect, while use of the word 'war' isn'/t on the scale or intensity of the propaganda, not declaring it is. We are simply letting our leaders fool us with a wink and a nod. Nam wasn't a war wink wink, 54000 dead, nah..neither was the invasion of Iraq. And something else. Maybe the jerks in power have a reason for not telling us the truth, ya think?

RevRoz

What are you saying here Rev? On the one hand, our men are all too feminized to fight, but on the other that our government lies to us about what it is we're doing overseas? Perhaps your second paragraph explains why we don't like going overseas to get killed. I certainly don't think America lacks the stomach for war. America is a very hawkish nation. But people don't like going overseas to kill and be killed to expand markets or keep oil cheep. This isn't because they're limp wristed girly men. It's because citizens in a democracy can and should expect better. It's human lives we're playing with here. They shouldn't be sacrificed cheaply or wantonly. As EwoksSuck has said, let our leaders be honest with us about what we're doing and why, and let's have the population as a whole bear the burden that war imposes. This will make us think twice before mobilizing.

I happen to agree (albeit for different reasons) that feminism has devastated our culture in some ways (and greatly enhanced it in others), but I wonder if a less violent and aggressive male really such a horrible thing to contemplate? I think it's well, well past time we started thinking with our big heads instead of our little heads and not be so willing to throw our lives away over macho bull**** or to protect the interest of the rich. Besides, the second us guys started actually thinking things through instead of clinging to some mindless conception of "manliness", the first people to realize the monster they created has turned on them will be modern women themselves, who will quite quickly learn the meaning of being careful what you wish for ...

[ShadowDog]

EwoksSuck, on 17 Dec 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

That's why I support the creation of a law that would require an automatic declaration of war that includes an automatic draft, a war tax, and access to war funds within 90 days of the President ordering our forces into combat. I give the president 90 days to deal with emergency situations or the need to do preemptive attacks when required. If the war is worth fighting the public should be behind it, if its not the President and our other leaders should be able to explain why the public should support the policy. If they can't do that, then they sure as hell shouldn't be leading us into war.

This is a strong take. I love this idea and I'd support it. The only thing I don't like is the automatic draft and in this day and age I don't think it's necessary. Why force soft cowards to fight (or run away to Canada) when you can dangle college educations and signing bonuses and get the cream of the crop? Also, fighting a modern war requires so much intelligence and education that you can't drag a draft card through a trailer park and get what you need like you could in the 60s. So, subtract the draft from what you said and I'm on board.

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Quote

Yeah our society has become pretty self involved and even decadent in its ways but I think if you had somebody with some integrity come on the TV every night after 9/11 and say this is the problem, this what we need to do, and all of us are going to have sacrifice, not just a few volunteers, it would get done.

Well, this is just where you and I don't agree then. I think what you're describing is the way the the public of United States (in general) used to be and should be, not the way it is. Not anymore.

People will rally around the flag in the midst of a disaster, call for a response, tie a little yellow ribbon around a tree, and then pretty much move on and forget the entire thing within a year or so. You think that the people today would go without gas on Tuesdays or meat on Thursdays or would carpool or take public transportation as much as possible or buy war bonds en masse or go out of their ways to do pretty much anything for "the war effort?" These are the people who b***h when they don't get a fortune cookie with their Chinese takeout, call everything "racism," or sue for a million dollars when they spill coffee on themselves. People are more interested in how many cheap broads Tiger Woods has bagged or the war between John and Kate Goesselin than the war in Afghanistan. The latter is just "that thing" happening "over there." Y'know, how it is, "It's 10,000 miles away. It doesn't have anything to do with me." Me. Me. mememememe. I swear, if we didn't live in such a technological age where our media can constantly blast it in our faces, the people (in general) probably wouldn't bother to keep up with it at all aside from the 1% who's family's are affected.

No, they might rally to the cause or whatever. But actually sacrifice something? I'm sorry. Call me cynical, but I don't believe that, bro. The freedom of the many will from now on be preserved by the sacrifices of the few. That's how it works now.

[Antilla]

If a conflict has became so totally abstract that its rumblings and consequences have became trivial to a nation, then that is a conflict that has outgrown its original intent - or was a jaunt that was probably never worth pursuing to begin with.

We can blame it on the Jews. Or the sissies. Or the super sly sleeper cells that have already began to syphon off our precious bodily fluids.

But that's the truth.

[Brando]

PeacefulMindedJedi, on 17 Dec 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

I swear, if we didn't live in such a technological age where our media can constantly blast it in our faces, the people (in general) probably wouldn't bother to keep up with it at all aside from the 1% who's family's are affected.

I actually think the media saturation is more the problem than the only thing helping.

[ShadowDog]

I have to agree with that, Brando.

[ShadowDog]

Antilla, on 17 Dec 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

I blame the gays. And black people. And filthy Mexicans.

It all makes sense now.

Somehow.

Antilla, on 17 Dec 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

If a conflict has became so totally abstract that its rumblings and consequences have became trivial to a nation, then that is a conflict that has outgrown its original intent - or was a jaunt that was probably never worth pursuing to begin with.

We can blame it on the Jews. Or the sissies. Or the super sly sleeper cells that have already began to syphon off our precious bodily fluids.

But that's the truth.

Hey, so what's your actual take on this in plain english? Why do you keep going for race humor? Are you saying that every war is racially motivated? A lot are but I don't know that every one has been. I know you're making a deep point here but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Ryn]

It's easy to hate on the browns.

[EwoksSuck]

ShadowDog, on 17 Dec 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

EwoksSuck, on 17 Dec 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

That's why I support the creation of a law that would require an automatic declaration of war that includes an automatic draft, a war tax, and access to war funds within 90 days of the President ordering our forces into combat. I give the president 90 days to deal with emergency situations or the need to do preemptive attacks when required. If the war is worth fighting the public should be behind it, if its not the President and our other leaders should be able to explain why the public should support the policy. If they can't do that, then they sure as hell shouldn't be leading us into war.

This is a strong take. I love this idea and I'd support it. The only thing I don't like is the automatic draft and in this day and age I don't think it's necessary. Why force soft cowards to fight (or run away to Canada) when you can dangle college educations and signing bonuses and get the cream of the crop? Also, fighting a modern war requires so much intelligence and education that you can't drag a draft card through a trailer park and get what you need like you could in the 60s. So, subtract the draft from what you said and I'm on board.

I support it because a draft makes us as a nation do a gut check. If we are really threatened people will gladly say okay I need to serve and accept a draft. People truly at fear of being attacked don't need any bonuses to defend themselves. But if the threat is questionable and the policy is dubious then it makes the public say you're not forcing me/ my kid to a war that is not worth fighting. For example see Vietnam. Also its unfair that a small percentage of our nation sacrifice and the rest of us just go on with our daily lives like nothing is going on. It's just to damn easy to sit back and let somebody else's kid die for a war you don't fully get/support. We are a Democratic Republic. If we are going to make war we as a nation should own it and be involved. If we are not then its probably time to ask if it is a war worth fighting and quit treating it like a video game on CNN.

[Sonny]

I see your point, Ewokssuck, but it's a Star Trek military these days. Having a draft for today's army would be like having a random draw of all hospital employees to see which one is going to perform surgery on you today. You might get lucky and draw the surgeon but you are just as likely to get the janitor. Do we really want the high school dropout pothead down the street controlling cruise missiles flying over friendly cities on their way to the enemy? It made sense when you needed cannon fodder to carry M1s through an unpopulated jungle but the idea of a random draft in this day and age is downright silly.

[REVROSWELL]

Lord Kargan, on 17 Dec 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

REVROSWELL, on 17 Dec 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

All good posts! I happen to agree with Epimetheus00's semi off topic post. Our male population is being feminized by a variety of sources the most respectable being our single parent moms of whom I admire greatly, much more than most men. And far more than the the men that left 'mom' to raise their children alone. In my opinion those are the dregs of society and should be charged with a civil crime of some kind! The feminists, as E'00 pointed out are the worst influence feminizing our boys. These (sometimes well meaning) activists are morphing our normal competitive rough and tumble boys into cowering afraid to compete womenMen. These feminized girley boys may harm our culture and IMO our ability to produce aggressive (male) leaders.

As for the war question, I think that some members touched on the reason we haven't declared war since WWII. Its far more complicated to sell to the voters. Words are powerful the Nazis of WWII applied the power of words and images in their propaganda to devastating effect, while use of the word 'war' isn'/t on the scale or intensity of the propaganda, not declaring it is. We are simply letting our leaders fool us with a wink and a nod. Nam wasn't a war wink wink, 54000 dead, nah..neither was the invasion of Iraq. And something else. Maybe the jerks in power have a reason for not telling us the truth, ya think?

RevRoz

What are you saying here Rev? On the one hand, our men are all too feminized to fight, but on the other that our government lies to us about what it is we're doing overseas? Perhaps your second paragraph explains why we don't like going overseas to get killed. I certainly don't think America lacks the stomach for war. America is a very hawkish nation. But people don't like going overseas to kill and be killed to expand markets or keep oil cheep. This isn't because they're limp wristed girly men. It's because citizens in a democracy can and should expect better. It's human lives we're playing with here. They shouldn't be sacrificed cheaply or wantonly. As EwoksSuck has said, let our leaders be honest with us about what we're doing and why, and let's have the population as a whole bear the burden that war imposes. This will make us think twice before mobilizing.

I happen to agree (albeit for different reasons) that feminism has devastated our culture in some ways (and greatly enhanced it in others), but I wonder if a less violent and aggressive male really such a horrible thing to contemplate? I think it's well, well past time we started thinking with our big heads instead of our little heads and not be so willing to throw our lives away over macho bull**** or to protect the interest of the rich. Besides, the second us guys started actually thinking things through instead of clinging to some mindless conception of "manliness", the first people to realize the monster they created has turned on them will be modern women themselves, who will quite quickly learn the meaning of being careful what you wish for ...

You make some very good points LK. Maybe I am just seeing local effects and they are so small as not to effect the big picture. You are correct in that the powers that be can create an enemy that most of our brave soldiers would fight against. And you are correct that in this brave new world with the technological/scientific Pandora already out of the box we may need more of a even more feminized mans touch in certian things. If that happens it will be interesting to see what does happen! Wouldn't it be, well exciting is the only word I can think of, to have an openly Gay man as president? Heck it may be an improvement!

Probably the reason my posts have a split personality is that I have one too, at least over some of the issues. I mean I hate capitalism on one hand because if thrives on greed and power. However its the system that has nurtured me and my family! That is the reason I say all governments are evil by default. But we have to live under some kind of government good or bad. Me? After thinking long and hard I have decided that there isn't too much I can do about our government, so I have decided to drop out as much as legally possible and work behind the scenes. Get off the grid and try to become invisible, help the causes that help others and watch the world go by. I truly don't trust our goverment and that is the reason for the invisible bit.

Maybe the global society will determine that we are all made from one color blood, and boot the despots that disagree out of office! I think we are all cosmologically entangled just as surely as are virtual pairs of particles, so our actions effect everything and everyone in a very small individual way. That's the reason we need millions of good peaceful actions, its entangled karma baby. But I hear that other head of the hydra, its saying if we get too nice and accommodating there are those in the world that will take that as a weakness....

The world; its complicated and scary...eh

peace

: {>

This post has been edited by REVROSWELL: 18 December 2009 - 10:37 AM

[Lord Kargan]

REVROSWELL, on 18 Dec 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Probably the reason my posts have a split personality is that I have one too, at least over some of the issues. I mean I hate capitalism on one hand because if thrives on greed and power. However its the system that has nurtured me and my family! That is the reason I say all governments are evil by default. But we have to live under some kind of government good or bad.

Yeah, I can relate.

[EwoksSuck]

Sonny, on 18 Dec 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

I see your point, Ewokssuck, but it's a Star Trek military these days. Having a draft for today's army would be like having a random draw of all hospital employees to see which one is going to perform surgery on you today. You might get lucky and draw the surgeon but you are just as likely to get the janitor. Do we really want the high school dropout pothead down the street controlling cruise missiles flying over friendly cities on their way to the enemy? It made sense when you needed cannon fodder to carry M1s through an unpopulated jungle but the idea of a random draft in this day and age is downright silly.

I'm sorry, while I understand that many in the military require a high level of intelligence to operate all of the gee-whiz technology our military uses these days, the argument that we can't have a draft because of this doesn't match up with reality. The Army until recently for example lowered its standards to meet recruitment goals. For example, the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007 - source. Also check the link for the reduced quality of High School graduate they were taking in as well. So the Army alone was using high school drop outs to fill up to 30% of its slots at the height of the Iraq war. And that's not even counting on all of the former convicted criminals, gang members, and dope heads that were allowed to volunteer to meet recruiting goals. Also don't forget the DoD is using a lot of civilian contractors to do jobs that used be done by the military, especially for non-combatant roles like truck drivers and food prep workers. A draft could meet the needs of the military. So the idea that an all volunteer force = smart troops is not automatically true. The number of qualified people willing to volunteer for a war like we wage in Iraq goes down and the military has to accept lower standards anyways. So why not use a draft, yeah you might get more people on the lower end, but you will get more folks on the higher end of the scale as well. And if too many of the people avoid the draft then you know the war is not worth fighting to begin with.


The only reason the recruiting situation improved recently was because the economy going in the tank. A lot of out of work young people are joining the military to ride out the recession and it has allowed the military to increase its standards again.

This post has been edited by EwoksSuck: 18 December 2009 - 05:59 PM

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Quote

And if too many of the people avoid the draft then you know the war is not worth fighting to begin with.

No. Negetive. That is not an indicator of anything. Not in this day and age. It's just like I said before. Nobody sees it anymore.

I think more people that you believe would run regardless. Regardless of what the cause was or any reasons behind the fight, you would have quite a few people running to Canada. Why? Because that's what daddy did and what mommy screamed for. You think they want to send their kids off to war? You think that in the entire time they spent raising their kids they had anything good to say about military service, especially during a time of war? And after all those years of hearing this and that from them, you think those kids want to run off and maybe get themselves killed for anything? You're kidding. Would as many run as did in the 1960s? Well, I don't know about that, but you'd have more than you seem to think. You have a lot of faith in the general public, much more than I, I'll say. It's the society we live in, bro. Again, this is not 1941. We don't exactly live in an age where self-sacrifice is high on the priorities list.

Because the draft is still very much a part of society. That's that "Selective Service" thing every dude has to fill out upon turning 18. Nice euphemism, huh? They'll never activate it unless the s**t really hits the fan though.

Quote

The only reason the recruiting situation improved recently was because the economy going in the tank. A lot of out of work young people are joining the military to ride out the recession and it has allowed the military to increase its standards again.

Yes. That and the fact that "big bro" joined to run off and fight five years ago, and now "little bro's" follwing in his footsteps. Been seeing a lot of that the past couple of years. The only brach that's really been struggling at all the past few years is the Army. It's partly because it has the most spots to fill and partly because of how they market themselves.

[REVROSWELL]

Ryn, on 18 Dec 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

It's easy to hate on the browns.

You mean the Cleavland browns?

; }>

[Sonny]

EwoksSuck, on 18 Dec 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

The Army until recently for example lowered its standards to meet recruitment goals. For example, the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007 - source. Also check the link for the reduced quality of High School graduate they were taking in as well. So the Army alone was using high school drop outs to fill up to 30% of its slots at the height of the Iraq war. And that's not even counting on all of the former convicted criminals, gang members, and dope heads that were allowed to volunteer to meet recruiting goals.

I just researched the national percentage of high school dropouts and it was 16% between 2005 and 2007 so that matches almost exactly with your quoted 83% of new recruits with diplomas so that tracks. And you raise an excellent point with the gang members in the military issue as I was just a couple days ago watching a special on just that issue. It is a serious problem in the military right now as they funnel weapons and technology back to the street gangs or to foreign buyers for a huge profit for their gangs. So that is a very valid issue.

I think for me it just comes down to the difference between choosing who comes in - even if at a lower standard there are still intelligent choices to be made - and having a random lottery that gives you no choice whatsoever. I just do not see how a random draw would improve on how many gang members or criminals or high school dropouts come in over what we get with conscious choices being made.

I would weigh in favor of choice even if at a lower standard over random lottery every time. I do respect your point of view Ewokssucks and think it is a valid option, just not one I personally stomach.

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Quote

It is a serious problem in the military right now as they funnel weapons and technology back to the street gangs or to foreign buyers for a huge profit for their gangs. So that is a very valid issue.

What? Where is this coming from? This is not a serious issue. The fact that some former gang memeber, who happened to get the "armorer" MOS, tried some money making scheme in which he was going to fix the books and sell weapons to his old gang buddies might constitute a "serious problem" in some documentary, but it's not some plague in the U.S. military. I can assure you that. Hell, there was a dude in my MOS who tried to hide a porn ring over a government network. I know guys who have tried to sell serialized gear (NVGs and s**t) on EBAY. But they're not "serious issues." You know what happens if a single weapon is reported missing after numerous counts? The base pretty much locks down. I've seen it happen. Vehicle inspections. Dog searches. Crazy s**t. So I highly doubt that widespread weapons smuggling is the bane of the U.S. military's existance right now.

And I've served with several former gang members. I can think of only one who tried to go back to his old ways. Bro, there was an article about a platoon of Marines in '03 where two guys, who had never known each other before the Marine Corps, who grew up just blocks from each other in South Central LA, and were former gang members of rival gangs, were placed. Same platoon. Same squad. Same fireteam. One was wounded during a fight near Umm Qasr or Nasiriyah somewhere, and the other ran out to get him and bring him back. The dude who grabbed the other even said, "A year ago I would've killed him just for walking down my street. Now I'm pulling him out of combat on my shoulders."

Honestly, in a war like this, those are some of the best guys to have around you. They've walked the s**thole streets with their heads on a swivel their entire lives. They've been shot at from behind windows and doors by people who look like everyone else. A lot of them already know how to live with violence and death. And most of them are in because they're trying to get away from that life. Very few want to go back to the nowhere life of gang violence. They're here as a stepping stone, so they can afford to go to school. Some even stay in and become good leaders. You'd be surprised how closely knit a combat unit really is. No one cares where you came from, only that you can watch their backs.

Things get exaggerated, bro. Are there some bad people in the military? Yeah. Are there some shiesty, dishonest, and/or stupid people? Yes. It's like anywhere. But all that stuff you see in those docs... mostly exaggerated. I've known quite a few convicted "criminals" since joining. And I put it in quotations, because here, they're not criminals anymore. It's like the dude says when you first enter boot, "I don't give a damn if you were rich, poor, black, white, a criminal, a geek, smart, stupid, f**k chicks, f**k dudes, f**k both, who your daddy was, or if you even know who your daddy was. I don't care why you joined. Here you're all equally f**king worthless. And here you will become one."

[ShadowDog]

Wow, I'd never even heard of this gang member in the military issue before now. I'll have to read up on this. But Peacey sounds like he knows what he's talking about so it doesn't sound like a big deal.

[EwoksSuck]

Yeah I don't think the gang thing is that big of a problem, except it just shows that the military for a while had to reduce its standards to get enough applicants signed up. Normally these folks would be turned down. I just mentioned it because it shows that an all volunteer force does not automatically equal the highest caliber force when it comes to war time, especially when the war is not popularly supported.

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

Oh, I can tell you... there are some people who... wow... I can't believe they even made it through high school much less the Marine Corps. But whatever. It's like anywhere else.

Coming from a gang backgound isn't really a huge deal, unless the applicant had a really serious rap sheet. Like I said, there are waivers for a lot of things. It's usually the gang related tattoos that cause the problems. They have to get them removed or altered before they can come in.

[Sonny]

I meant no offense, PeacefulMindedJedi. Clearly you had a closer look at this than I do so you would know what you are talking about.

[REVROSWELL]

EwoksSuck, on 19 Dec 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

Yeah I don't think the gang thing is that big of a problem, except it just shows that the military for a while had to reduce its standards to get enough applicants signed up. Normally these folks would be turned down. I just mentioned it because it shows that an all volunteer force does not automatically equal the highest caliber force when it comes to war time, especially when the war is not popularly supported.

It depends I suppose. Yes the draft will snare MDs and people that would not normally join the army. However I wonder who would make the better solider? A group of people who volunteered or those that were drafted? I don't think that the draftees would be better at anything really except they may have more income before they became employed by Uncle Sam. Does that make them better soldiers ? No I think not. I made it to a E-5 in the service (but my weapon was a pencil, heh PsyOps). I would choose a platoon of all volunteer guys over a drafted platoon to go into battle any day because I think the volunteers would be better motivated. Go screaming chickens.



RR