Re: Already covered in the above thread.

Post #71,763 by dshellman 12/31/02 2:08:12 PM Reply	Re: Already covered in the above thread. One of "Hack's" points in his article was about how many died because of incompetence. Putting more people into service (whether via draft or manditory) would only worsen that because of the lack of training that would occur (would have to occur, since training is really expensive, and from a statistical perspective, the more people you have from a centralized perspective, the less training possible, assuming you don't have unlimited funds). I'm certainly not suggesting we go to war. I'm also not suggesting that we never go to war. It happens. For whatever the reasons (usually not good ones, but that's besides the point). Also, let me clarify one of my statements. Coersion (sp?) to fight is different (in my book) from defending oneself (and we're certainly NOT defending ourself by attacking Iraq). The reason for this clarification is that I'm not against the draft...just manditory service for all. The draft was meant to create soldiers in times of war. Manditory service is meant to coerse people to be involved in the military (outside war-time). If the only reason (I've only heard one really good one so far) for creating a manditory service is to prevent us from going to war, I think it's a waste of time. There are other ways and other issues that, to me, are more important in deterring war (and/or the casualties of war). Dan
Post #71,765 by Brandioch 12/31/02 3:18:13 PM Reply	Remove the abstraction. I'm certainly not suggesting we go to war. I'm also not suggesting that we never go to war. It happens. For whatever the reasons (usually not good ones, but that's besides the point). No. That is the point. What are YOU willing to risk your life for? What are YOU willing to risk your child's for? Are the reasons that we have for going to war with Iraq good enough for you to risk your like to kill Iraqis? This makes it a personal decision for each and every citizen (except those with medical waivers). As for mandatory service, I guess that depends upon what the service is. I think it is a good idea when tied to The Draft. When YOUR life is on the line, you take a much deeper interest in the politics of war. If the only reason (I've only heard one really good one so far) for creating a manditory service is to prevent us from going to war, I think it's a waste of time. There are other ways and other issues that, to me, are more important in deterring war (and/or the casualties of war). Not to prevent war. Just to make the decision to go to war a more meaningful one than just ordering someone you've never met (or even heard of) to go get radiation poisoning or maybe a bullet or a lost limb from a landmine. If it isn't important enough for YOU to risk your life doing, why are you willing to send someone else?
Post #71,801 by Ashton 12/31/02 9:01:07 PM Reply	Agree with the intention. Short on the probability. That is - that 'making war' would demand, perhaps for the first time in most-all of the rich societies (Switzerland may be The exception) - putting bodies where the jingoistic mouths live. Why that.. that! would render obsolescent the wry ballet, The Green Table and retire the white-glove clad gesticulators.. almost. Among points raised above: 1) Inefficiency. The idea of the "10 persons behind every one actually engaged" - this re initial training, refining of skills etc. This also re the much more complex interrelation to The Economy as a whole, and that part dedicated to 'Peace Actions\ufffd'. Since that is the topic for a shelf of opinions - let's stick with one inherited dinosaur at a time. 2) Prerequisites: if.. we cannot even get campaign finance reform First, thus restoring a semblance of politicos representing constituents who are Not CIEIOs - then no such wholesale redefinition of citizens' obligations has as much chance as say, Rev. Foulwell speaking without that smirk on his face. I don't see any sustainable argument against the reasoning For such a change; I see lots of dissembling and Flag-waving noise most likely torpedoing any efforts to bring it about. Kennedy's inaug. speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you..." - was 42 years ago. This is now. All-in-all, I believe that this is unlikely ever to be implemented. This for all reasons of the paranoid style in Murican politico-babble. Being sure that Your ox is not gored - is the mother's milk of every politico's actual manipulations - and the For Release hype is always a string of soothing blab words, eagerly swallowed. In the end, and perhaps even before a campaign finance reform could happen: We (very many) would have to have rediscovered a respect for language - demonstrated by ridicule of those who patently field the blab words. Y'know? Besides, from such an epiphany -- we would then be able to embark upon so many related reforms, that we would soon be unrecognizable as we became.. more and more, an adult civilization (!) The above matter might even be rendered moot! Lovely idea, that last - but have you checked our average raw material lately? Betcha we gots legions of Marlowes - and hardly a single Sgt. York or Audie Murphy in the flock of consumers du jour. I believe that most Muricans take it as inexorable techno 'advancement': the Nintendo war fought by the uniformed potato on the couch, presented on Tee Vee for the nightly vicarious Ten Minutes of Hate. That er bravery of being out of range, per someone's sig. Missing so far in Dubya's flailings to emulate G\ufffdbbels - are the caricatures of Saddam: with buck-teeth (a la 'Japs', in US posters) or as a rodent (Jews in G's film clips). There's never anything new in propaganda to support a planned next ~~war~~ Peace/Freedom action. Ashton When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #72,057 by dshellman 1/2/03 1:49:46 PM Reply	Re: Remove the abstraction. I think the issue isn't whether we should go to war or not (or whether going to war in general or not)...it's how that decision is arrived at. At least, I think that's what you're getting at. If that's correct, and my assumption that creating a manditory military service is a tool to making the correct answer to the question of going to war or not is correct, then my point is that the tool of manditoary military service a) won't work and b) is impractical. I believe I've outlined the impractical part, but I think I can come up with other reasons if necessary. As for the won't work part...well, that's a much harder debate, but which partically depends upon the impracticality. That is, sometimes the right answer is wrong because it's impractical (we deal with this sort of thing in the technology world all the time). Of course, was it really the right answer, then? Of course, that's assuming that I consider manditory military service the right answer...which I don't. But, I also don't think it's practical (even if it was the right one). And, obviously, when experience is available, we can draw upon that for insight. And manditory military service isn't new; in fact, I believe the Swiss practice it today. However, I certainly can't use that experience to argue my point, since I'm not familiar with that type of history (or current affairs). So, I don't think it'll work from a practical perspective. From a philosophical perspective, I don't think it's the right answer. But, I don't think it's about whether or not we should go to war, because I don't think it deters that. I can certainly answer the question of what circumstances I would go to war (or my children), but I don't think that's relevant to this discussion (btw, from a full disclosure perspective, I would probably be found in that medical group that wouldn't have to serve, anyway; but I do have three daughters, and the thought of them being anywhere near the front line is as abominable to me as almost the worst thing I can think of). And the reason I don't think it's relevant is that I don't see the answer being different than if there were manditory military service. On top of that fact, it would have other consequences (side-effects) that would hurt more than help. Oh, and I might add....as another argument as to why Congress/etc. wouldn't be deterred because their children were in the military: they're children would never be on the front line where dying would take place (or other, possibly worse, non-dying stuff like bio-warfare, etc.)....guaranteed. Dan
Post #72,066 by Brandioch 1/2/03 3:01:27 PM Reply	This is my last attempt. During the Vietnam war, we had The Draft. Lots of people who did not meet any of the criteria for exceptions did not get drafted. That is because only a percentage of the population was actually drafted. Therefore, The Draft != Universal Service. Therefore, The Draft does not have the problems you state when you talk about Universal Service (mandatory military service by any other name). But The Draft would (if instated without any exceptions other than medical) force individuals to consider what effect going to war would have on them. End of Discussion. I have clearly stated in previous posts that The Draft is not Universal Service. They are two completely different items with different agendas and different costs. Buh bye.
Post #72,074 by dshellman 1/2/03 4:03:58 PM Reply	Speaking of last attempts... I'm not sure how this discussion jumped from universal service (which the original article was about, I believe) to the draft. I already mentioned in a previous post that I wasn't against the draft. I'm against universal service. So if you're trying to convince me that the draft is a good thing, then fine....I agree. Take away the exceptions to it? Sure (though I am against putting females on the front lines, but that's a separate issue). So, from that perspectice, sure, it's the end of the discussion (since we agree). No problems there. Dan

Welcome to IWETHEY!