Re: a military draft

In article <66edndQIHps9lV_fRVn-vA@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dennis White <dennybop@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:d9shbg$2c2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <5NKdnVSTHp3jXVzfRVn-ig@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Dennis White <dennybop@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>snipped...
> Ian said:
>
>> I don't think you will find it I who is generating the defensive and rude
>> attacks here. There is a subtle distinction between your not liking what
>> I say, and the notion that I am attacking you in what I say. I think that
>> distinction is between you constantly thinking I am talking about you in
>> what I say, while I have never for a moment thought that. I think what I
>> am saying is something that has to be said.
>
>I don't think or assume you are referring to me in any way unless you
>pointedly address remarks to me or use my name. I have assumed that some of
>those comments were defensive and some meant to attack.
>
>Like when the rhetorical question is asked of me:
>"Not something one is permitted to do is it Dennis" (sic)

I don't remember the context, but I presume I was suggesting that there was
something I thought one should be permitted to say or do, and that I further
assumed this to be something that you'd wish to deny me the right/opportunity
to say.

>I also assumed the rhetorical question was somewhat defensive
>
>"I'm not posting here for your benefit Dennis".

I most certainly am not posting for your benefit Dennis. You have been on
my case for years, and I long ago resolved that the less I had to do with
you the better it would be for the both of us. That is why I deliberately
did not reply to your last email. I simply don't think that you and I
can enjoy a dialog and don't think it wise to do that which one can expect
no profit from. So as I said "I'm not posting for your benefit Dennis".

>which seems kind of harsh and sarcastic to me.
>
>"There is a subtle distinction between your not liking what
>I say, and the notion that I am attacking you in what I say...etc".
>Which seems presumptious to me. At any rate, it is far from any motivation
>or reasoning I've felt subject to.
>
>I could add more, but my point here is not to inflame. It is to try to
>present a reasonable explanation of why I think people often mistake the
>actions of some...even a majority...for the intent of all.

I do not myself think it reasonable to take a generic comment made about
"middle america" supporting the war in Iraq, and translate such a comment
into a statement about my perception of all Americans. If I was to talk
about Joe America would you tell me that your name wasn't Joe, or tell
me that you knew a Joe whose surname was America. It is your habit of
turning any generic statement made about America as a collective into
a specific discussion about how wrong it is to generalise which I find
less than helpful when I make such general statements as the one which
provoked this thread.

As I said in an
>earlier post I believe the lumping together of entire populations is
>dangerous because it leads to division and violence. I also know that one
>of the most effective ways of demonizing any form of community and
>justifying conflict with them is to make others "faceless" by painting all
>with a broad stroke.

You've got the division whether I do the lumping or not. I was in New
York city when Bush spoke at the UN. I can tell you that the division
between those who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush was so
strong that the two sides couldn't even eat a meal together. America
is probably divided as a nation as at any point in recent history.
George Bush for all his kinder gentler America retoric has been a
very devisive leader, more interested in this own agenda than in
any form of compromise or national reconciliation. I see it as you
who is being devisive by your us and them mentality and your constant
assertions that your not one of them. It is not I who am fostering
this notion that there are two very different America's one which
went to war and one which didn't.

>
>
>I believe you referred to the same South Park episode once before. I
>assumed your point was the script of the South Park episode was somehow
>intended to be derisive of the anti-war movement in America.. And that you
>were at least in partial agreement with a fictitious seven-year-olds
>synopsis (just a joke). Actually I am a fan of South Park, and I've seen
>the episode you refer to. However, I usually see South Parks writers using
>it as a way to poke fun at everyone and everything. Their goal is to
>deflate as many egos as possible. Sometimes the sacred cows they demolish
>are deserving, sometimes not. They are equal opportunity offenders. I
>thought the episode you refer to was hysterically funny in it's put down of
>a particular brand of liberal mindlessnes. But I will also say that there
>are many groups with many agendas and methods who can be described as
>"anti-war". There are mindless individuals ready to jump on any liberal
>bandwagon. There are Quakers. There are Anarchists. There are naive
>idealists and drugged-out crack smokers.
>

The point of that South Park episode was that as long as the anti-war movement
doesn't have the courage to say that what America collectively did was wrong,
but instead seeks to shield America from its collective responsibility for
having acted wrongly, by arguing that not all Americans supported this war,
they are serving their nations interest, and are useful in preserving the
status quo.. far from providing something that constructively deters the
USofA from future wars, by education the US population about how wrong
war is, they are instead permitting the US to go to war, while giving the
US plausable deniability about having done so. As Cartman says giving
a nation the freedom to go to war while concurrently permitting people to
oppose that war is letting that nation have its cake and eat it too.

I really take offence at your trying to argue that America as a collective
has done no wrong in invading Iraq because America as a collective didn't
invade Iraq -- the US government did; or some America of which you are
not a part did; or some minority did; or as others have tried to argue
Britain did it to so why blame Americans; or any other to my mind weak
argument designed primarily not to address or acknowledge the wrong done
by the US to the Iraqi people, but rather to undermine and defang the
very wrongness of what America has done.

>>
>> Whether you personally listen to what I say or simply take umbrage at it
>> is
>> entirely up to you. I'm not posting here for your benefit Dennis.
>
>I have never believed you were.
>
>But don't
>> place the blame at my feet when you first respond to what I say about
>> "middle
>> america" claiming yourself to be within that generic designation and then
>> try
>> to make out that it is I who am fanning flames here.
>
>I don't recall claiming to be within the generic designation "middle
>america" (sic). I doubt anyone who encountered me or my saw my lifestyle
>even briefly would think of me as "middle american".

No and you don't live in Ohio but all these things said you still decided
to make an issue of my saying that "middle america" supported the idea
of invading and occupying Iraq. In plain English the president of the
US had the support of the majority of the population according to polls,
regarding his desire to invade Iraq.

>>
>> The original discussion was about the draft. My position is that there
>> are
>> more important issues to worry about than the draft... specifically
>> whether
>> the US gets further into Iraq, or starts extracting itself from Iraq.
>
>I believe this is a serious topic that deserves attention.
>

Well I've not seen any discussion on that. As far as I know from reading
this newsgroup only Engineer and I are in favour of the US deciding to pull
out of Iraq tonight. I read that 60% of American's now are basically in
agreement with Engineer and I, although in the real world Engineer, I and that
60% are realistic enough to grasp that any pull out will take time. I presume
since no one has said otherwise that the rest of SRQ remains very much in
favour of the US staying until the "job" is done.


> And
>> a supplimental to that position was that its pretty rich that America as
>> a collective can go to war,
>
>I think you can justify claiming that America collectively has gone to war.
>It is the policy of the American government, American armed forces have
>invaded Iraq.

I don't think you can dissociate America as a society from the actions of
America's armed forces. It is not just the policy of the American government.
I have been told that it is a policy preached and supported in churches.
When I was in Hawaii every other car had "God bless our troops", "God bless
America", pink ribbons, yellow ribbons, etc. etc. It is duplicitous to
suggest that somehow the American armed forces are involved in this war
in Iraq but that that is the extent of America's involvement in this war.
America is as a society fully committed to this war. America as a society
is providing the arms, the funding, the grunts, the logistics, and the
support for this war.
>
> believe that it will be a cakewalk, and express
>> few qualms about doing so,
>
> I don't believe the above can used to describe the collective, unless
>you're willing to say that the Pentagon Brass who advised the Bush
>administration against entering Iraq also believed it would be a cakewalk
>and expressed few qualms...simply because they are part of the American
>"collective".

If I'd intended to limit my comments to the Pentagon Brass, I would have
said "The Pentagon Brass...". Actually I think you have things backwards.
It was the pentagon brass who warned that Iraq might not be a cakewalk.
It was generals in that brass who were dismissed by Rumsfelt when they
cautioned that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to control
Iraq.

> I don't believe that the millions who marched and urged the
>administration not to enter Iraq believed it would be a cakewalk and
>expressed few qualms about doing so simply because they aree part of the
>American "collective"

No, neither do I. But then I don't myself believe that a generic statement
X about a collective such as "American's" implies that X is true of all
Americans. I don't think the claim that American's re-elected Bush suggests
that every American voted for Bush. Your millions who opposed this war if
they were simply millions were pretty insignificant in the total scheme of
things. The US has a population of approximately 300,000,000 people. If
three million did as you say your talking about a mere 1% opposing this
war. That would appear to leave the vast majority of America, in the
position of not agreeing with that 1%. Should that vast majority of
Americans not be considered accountable for not having opposed a war
they subsequently come to think is a bad idea, because of the few who
did.

>
>
>and then two years later when it has become a
>> fiasco, think that they can just like that change there minds get the
>> magic
>> 60% opposed to war and move on as if nothing has happened.
>

>Move on? Where do you suppose these people are moving on to? The next fad
>diet? The latest TV offering? I can't imagine that you believe so many
>Americans are so vapid that, in spite of many of their believing the
>invasion of Iraq to be a good thing, they would shrug their shoulders and
>blithely "move on" once they had had enough of the war in Iraq. At any
>rate, the above statement is patently unprovable since you and I cannot read
>the hearts and minds of others, and neither one of us can prove anyone
>anywhere believes "nothing has happened". I think you are attempting to
>divine the thoughts of others, and by doing so are putting your own spin on
>what you believe others to be thinking.
>

You too are putting your own spin on my words. To move on as if nothing
has happened isn't to move on to something different. It is to put the
accountability for what has happened behind one -- when George Bush said
we've had our accountability moment we've moved on, I don't remember you
asking him where he had moved on to.

>A lot has happened,
>> and all that has happened from which no profit can be derived is a sunk
>> cost.
>
>I'm not exactly sure of the meaning here. Is there another way of putting
>it that might help me?

The term "sunk cost" comes from economics. It is used to convey the notion
that one draws the line whereever one is today, and doesn't try to justify
future expenditure/effort etc. on the basis of things one already lost the
ability to profit from. Claiming for example that one must stay in Iraq
to redeem the lives of those lost there already, is an example of being
misled by a sunk cost -- those who died are dead. Claiming that the US
has spent billions on Iraq and that it must stay to justify that expenditure
is predicating an argument on a sunk cost if there is no hope that by
staying one can recover those billions. A sunk cost is just that.. a
prior cost from which no profit can be derived.

>
>
>> The universe Americans live in today is not the same universe that would
>> exist today if the US had not invaded Iraq.
>
>But I don't believe Canadians live in a different universe, and that the
>actions of Canadians have the power to affect the universe in equally good
>or bad ways. BTW, I'd argue the same universe today would not exist today
>if the 1992 Olympic Games had not been held in Barcelona. I don't believe
>the same universe today would exist if Genn Gould had not come to the
>world's attention. It's a way of looking at things that I can't relate to.
>I feel that I can't second-guess history. Too many variables. OTOH I
>believe all of us have an ability to affect the future.
>

You present examples where actions might have changed the world but your
not quite sure how. The world that Americans inhabit today as a consequence
of American policies in Iraq is one easily recognisable as different from
the world Americans used to inhabit. The world no longer perceives America
as America the good. There is no longer the faith that democracy is good.
American military might has proven to have logical limits. Gas is at almost
60 dollars a barrel. The risk of terrorism is higher. The examples you
cite might have produced some ripples in the future. Invading Iraq was
no small ripple in terms of how it would impact on the future.

>Some things once broken can't
>> be mended.
>
>I guess I'd say I agree, but I wouldn't use the same metaphor. But, is it
>possible that Iraq was broke in another way before the Bush sponsored
>invasion? From the abuses of the Turks, the French the British etc.? From
>the homegrown abuse of greedy and corrupt officials that were "in it" for
>their own gain? I'm not justifying the US invasion. I'm just pointing out
>that I think that things were also broken for generations before the
>craziness of US invasion and occupation.
>

Yes, but was it broken beyond repair before the US invasion. Is it broken
beyond repair now. If it is to be repaired how best is this to be done.

>And as I have said ultimately if the US government thinks that
>> the draft is the way to go, there will be a draft, not because of
>> opposition
>> to it, but despite the opposition to it.
>
>
>When you say US government I am reminded that my biggest bugaboo with your
>argument is that I believe that it is -governing elements in power- who
>*might* (because I do not know it to be true) want a draft. I'm unsure how
>many Americans would want it. I'm not even sure if the heads of the
>military would want it.

When I say US government that is what I mean to say. I don't think Americans
want the draft. I think they wanted a war won with such ease that it could be
won by using the existing volunteer army. But it may be that Americans can't
have all the things they want. There may come a time when the stark choice
is between having a draft versus loosing the war. I think the war lost
already so thats not a tough choice for me, but I think that Americans
should be considering the trade-offs.. not just have a list of do wants,
and another list of don't wants, and a presumption that they'll get all
their wants and none of their do not wants.

>Perhaps a draft would initially see little opposition. Maybe not. But it
>has to be remembered that ultimately the outcry of Americans as well as
>people of many other nationalities were in part responsible for the
>elimination of an earlier draft, and the war in Viet Nam which was supplied
>with troops by that draft
>

It is not clear that a draft would help. People who don't want to be soldiers
who are forced to become soldiers against their will probably don't end up
being grade A soldiers. The more that the US throws at the problem the
bigger the propaganda victory for Al-Quaeda et. al. if they still fail.

Ian

.

Relevant Pages

  • Has America Become Fascist?
    ... Has America Become Fascist? ... the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill's Section 333 allows the president ... post-World War One epoch in Europe and Asia. ... there have been no mass arrests of native-born Americans it is only ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Has America Become Fascist?
    ... Has America Become Fascist? ... the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill's Section 333 allows the president ... post-World War One epoch in Europe and Asia. ... there have been no mass arrests of native-born Americans it is only ...
    (soc.culture.canada)
  • Re: Re: Jewed into monsters
    ... The reason America is invading countries in the Middle East can be ... "After its war with Iran, Iraq suffered from a crushing debt because ... political Jews are still retailing the INC's rubbish. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Americans reject Republican Premise on Iraq 2:1
    ... When 70 per cent of Americans say they are against the Iraq War, it doesn't take a lot of intuition to figure this one out. ... Deep concern about the economy also works for the Democrats, and it's an even more dominant issue; 90 percent say it's in bad shape and nearly eight in 10 don't believe the government's stimulus checks will help. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Dead soldier deflates the Texas cross defiler!
    ... On the one hand, if establishing order and democracy in Iraq is absolutely impossible and ultimately doomed to failure, then staying one more minute would be stupid. ... I thought it highly unlikely that anything but what has already happened in Iraq would happen and said so as I opposed the war in the beginning, but the country decided to do it. ... If only a minority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, then getting out and arresting George Bush would be the right thing to do, but America, including most Democratic elected representatives voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading