View Full Version : Out sooner?
There are noises that the recent shooting of 16 Afghans by an American soldier may speed up our withdrawal. It is tragic that this event occurred and tragic that it may take something like it to get us out sooner. It is also tragic that we have sent young men and women into repeated tours of duty in totally useless wars. The soldier that is accused served 3 tours in Iraq and now in Afghanistan; that is wrong, just wrong. I'll say it one more time: If we had to pay cash for these wars instead of indenturing our grandchildren to the Chinese and if we had a draft so each and every one of our sons and daughters was equally liable to have to go fight these wars, we would be mighty careful about which wars we chose to get into
There are noises that the recent shooting of 16 Afghans by an American soldier may speed up our withdrawal. It is tragic that this event occurred and tragic that it may take something like it to get us out sooner. It is also tragic that we have sent young men and women into repeated tours of duty in totally useless wars. The soldier that is accused served 3 tours in Iraq and now in Afghanistan; that is wrong, just wrong. I'll say it one more time: If we had to pay cash for these wars instead of indenturing our grandchildren to the Chinese and if we had a draft so each and every one of our sons and daughters was equally liable to have to go fight these wars, we would be mighty careful about which wars we chose to get into
+1 agreed
ApatheticNoMore
3-13-12, 1:43pm
and if we had a draft so each and every one of our sons and daughters was equally liable to have to go fight these wars, we would be mighty careful about which wars we chose to get into
why do you think so? It's not going to be the Senator's sons serving in the draft you know. It's not going to be the children of the 1% serving in the draft, even if we had one. They probably wouldn't have a college exemption, but there is and always has been a priviledged exemption (look at all the politicians who somehow dodged or got hardly serving positions in the military). And those are the people who run the country, who buy the politicians, who call the shots. But the masses would rise up if there was a draft ... um it is incredibly hard to get the American people to rise up about anything. It took years and years to get any momentum going on Vietnam. No to the draft! I completely oppose it, it's wrong to force more of our young to die (which will happen with 100% certainty if the draft was implemented) in the mere hopes (with unknown probability of it actually happening) of it leading to some anti-war revolution. I can't believe that anyone would actually cut off their nose to spite their face this way, give them our own young people to die in the wars, just on some abstract belief that maybe it will lead to peace someday ....
I mean we need if not really a revolution (maybe a Ron Paul revolution :)) at least resistence in this country, but that is not the way! No to more people dying for these wars, no to more poor and middle class people dying to serve the interests of empire. Oh, I'm not keen on the solution the U.S. government has resorted to now, corporate mercenaries, it's ugly. But the draft is even worse. Now forrcing people to pay for the wars, I'm ok with. Being forced to pay money for something is still not being forced to die for it. However I think the decision to deficit finance wars is strategic. I think by and large the wars are another thing with no natural bottom up demand (the people are not clammoring for them), but if you want to continue to make wars regardless without too much resistence .... you deficit finance, you money printing finance.
Ha I was reading commentary the other day (not economists or anything) about the 1970s, that of course a lost war leads to inflation, economic malaise etc. - that it was just "duh" really, that it was almost inevitable. You end up with the costs of war without the conquered resources to make up for it (return on investment :( ). But I think in the middle east they actually are fighting to win, I still think they are carrying out "the project for a new American century" and so on, going for all the resources in the middle east.
No war with Iran! No war with Syria! (geez yes is Syria an absolute mess, but the U.S. means no good there).
The fact is we can no longer afford to be there. The cost so far outweighs the potential benefits that it's ridiculous. A tragic event, but if anything good could possibly come of it, it would be that it accelerated our withdrawal from that conflict, where we don't even have a yardstick to measure whether we've "won" or not (whatever the hell that word means). We need those billions here, to rebuild our nation's economy directly. Sad, stupid, wasteful war.
Bring them home.
I would like to see the every news broadcast on every station start and end with a point blank,hit in the face, names of the dead, no opinion report on the war. There is too much other fluff on those entertainment news stations. Vietnam was slightly before I was old enough to grasp it, but I remember the news and terrible pictures and my Dad saying Bring them home.
I think it is not in the regular thought of the everyday people. It just goes on with out much thought.
Bring them all home yesterday.
I questioned going in the first place, and including many others, and really, what is going on in libya? anyway, we should have not gotten into this ideology in the 80s.
IshbelRobertson
3-13-12, 3:29pm
Six young (in the main, aged 20-23) British army personnel were killed about a week ago in Afghanistan. The Taliban know that this is a war of attrition and just keep picking off foreigners with IEDs. Maybe the US soldier just couldn't take the pressure any more. We train our military to kill - and yet we expect them to keep their humanity. A very, very thin line to walk, I suspect.
Having experienced the protests against the Vietnam War, I have always wondered why people don't really seem upset about the last few. Or at least one does not see a lot of protest against them. It just drags on and on and life goes on as if war is now a normal part of it all. For a while, the "war on terrorism" made sense, but now I just don't think so.
My guess is the 24/7/365 news (entertainment) stations. They have to grab attention, be entertaining, the war just does not do that for them. So people are not tuned into it, it is just part of daily life somewhere over there, away from here, not really affecting them.
I don’t think we should be in the nation-building business. However, I do think we should be in the subversion, economic sanction, punitive raid and proxy war business where our enemies are concerned. It seems to me that rather than remaking various fragments of the British and Ottoman Empires into Western democracies, it would be more cost-effective to destabilize the major threats and encourage their enemies.
ApatheticNoMore
3-13-12, 5:50pm
Having experienced the protests against the Vietnam War, I have always wondered why people don't really seem upset about the last few. Or at least one does not see a lot of protest against them. It just drags on and on and life goes on as if war is now a normal part of it all.
I read an argument recently that the war with Iran could start without the American people even knowing about it. Now a war with Iran will be big, and no it's not something you can keep under wraps permanently I wouldn't think, too much information control needed for that (heck the costs outweight the benefits of total censorship even if it was achievable). HOWEVER .... you could keep the *start* of a war completely from the American people, it seems feasible. Basically we have special forces already operating in countries we didn't know we had them in until recently, we have troops on the ground in countries we didn't know we had them in until recently. It's bad enough they (the Obama administration and the military industrial complex) don't get congressional approval, they dont' go to congress, but to twist an old phrase ... WHAT IF .... they had a war and NOBODY KNEW?
For a while, the "war on terrorism" made sense, but now I just don't think so.
I'm not sure it ever did. It seemed bizarre to me at the time, not normal. The whole 9-11 reaction seemed bizarre to me at the time. Ok the shock didn't seem bizarre I felt that too. I'm not so cynical and worldly I wasn't shocked to my core by that attack just like everyone else. But then the U.S. flags everywhere ... what was that about? And then war as the reaction? Why? Against a country that wasn't involved of course, but why war as the reaction period? Years later and with a lot more political sophistication than just "this seems strange, why are people and government reacting this way?", wasn't it a criminal prosecution that was needed rather than wars? It was a criminal act for sure, by non-state actors (with some state backing yes but ...).
My guess is the 24/7/365 news (entertainment) stations. They have to grab attention, be entertaining, the war just does not do that for them. So people are not tuned into it, it is just part of daily life somewhere over there, away from here, not really affecting them.
It's strategic. :) Conspiracy. Well not really conspiracy proper, but I think there are a lot of interests aligned - the media - the government - large corporations.
ApatheticNoMore
3-13-12, 5:56pm
However, I do think we should be in the subversion, economic sanction, punitive raid and proxy war business where our enemies are concerned. It seems to me that rather than remaking various fragments of the British and Ottoman Empires into Western democracies, it would be more cost-effective to destabilize the major threats and encourage their enemies.
Don't be surprised when it backfires and leads to outright war. Don't be suprised if they attack after sanctions are leading to the hardships and sometimes deaths of their people. Frankly the striking back could almost be argued to be self-defense, but of course it will be framed as being agrression. Why yes U.S. sanctions were just leading their people to go hungry and without medical care and for some to die but then they attacked a battleship, the savages .... they attacked, and unsoliticited act of naked agression!
Don't be surprised when it backfires and leads to outright war. Don't be suprised if they attack after sanctions are leading to the hardships and sometimes deaths of their people. Frankly the striking back could almost be argued to be self-defense, but of course it will be framed as being agrression. Why yes U.S. sanctions were just leading their people to go hungry and without medical care and for some to die but then they attacked a battleship, the savages .... they attacked, and unsoliticited act of naked agression!
That could be. But I think a naive pacifism wouldn't yield even worse results.
Apathetic No More--the draft that I would propose would have no exemptions--perhaps a lottery based a birthdates similar to the one enacted shortly before the VN war ended (could there possibly be a correlation?)
I would have MAJOR problems with a lottery. There's no way on earth I would let my son go fight in a senseless war. No Way. I'm not saying that there aren't battles worth fighting. But I haven't seen any for a long time.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 4:25pm
Apathetic No More--the draft that I would propose would have no exemptions--perhaps a lottery based a birthdates similar to the one enacted shortly before the VN war ended (could there possibly be a correlation?)
I think you are proposing utopia to suggest that there will ever realistically be a draft with no exemptions or where the priviledged don't pull strings to serve in the soft positions while the rest are cannon fodder. I just don't think this is ever going to be realistically acheivable (or you'd need an entirely different psychology where serving in the draft was a great honor, and I'm not sure that psychology is really compatable with peace either, since it would probably have to be rather militaristic - I really think I'd rather opt for a nation of shopkeepers :)).
I mean I'm o.k. with idealism, but that dream of a draft where everyone serves equally, is just so far from how power and priviledge actually works that I think it is very dangerous to push for a draft in this real world. I don't think people who are against the wars (as I am) should be pro-draft. If pro-draft people get what they are agitating for (a total draft - but in the real world where there are still such things as power and priviledge - and with American wealth inequality - boy are there), things are going to be worse not better. The children of the 99% will be cannon fodder, the 1% will still pull strings. What is historically accurate is people have literally had to flee countries to avoid drafts.
That is exactly why I think everyone should have a vested interest in who fights wars. If everyone thought that their precious son or daughter would face having his legs blown off or worse, we'd be pretty darn certain that it was worth fighting. And if we had to pay the real cost of the war in taxes, there would be a lot more concern about a wars cost.
Personally, I felt most betrayed by Colin Powell. When he went before the U.N. and made the case for going into Iraq, I trusted him and thought that he must know a lot more about the situation than I did. I honestly thought that with his experience in Vietnam and Gulf War I ,he would not go unless it was absolutely imperative. I was wrong.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.