Re: The chasm between us

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:49:34 -0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Josh Hayes
<joshno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
>news:7489i11nboprvb9u00pr4hd8aqdokp669k@xxxxxxx:
>
>> The only justification needed is this: There historically
>> have been nations which desired to conquer the US and which
>> had the means to do so, absent the US military.
>
>Not since WWII, and even then, it's a stretch.

Wow; all the way since WWII! Have we gotten that far back in
the archeological digs? And I *don't* consider it "a
stretch"; both Germany and Japan were quite open about their
intentions, as was the Stalinist Soviet Union et seq. They
weren't kidding; they weren't bluffing; and if the US had
downsized the military to 1930's levels after WWII we
wouldn't be having this conversation.

>The trouble is, your argument here:
>
>
>> If protecting one's society from those who desire to destroy it
>> isn't service to that society then there is no such thing as
>> service to society. The fact that use of the military has
>> been abused by politicians has no bearing on the fact that
>> military service *is* service to society, in concept and
>> frequently in fact.
>
>may have been valid 65 years ago. It isn't any more. In the interim, those
>who would "destroy [american] society" could have done so at any time by
>dropping gigatons on us, and there wasn't a thing our military could have
>done to prevent it -- sure, we could have done the same to them, but that's
>not protection, is it?

Well, observation says yes, it is. Frequently the only thing
dissuading an aggressor is fear of retaliation. McNamara's
comment re:MAD ("General, you don't have a war plan; what
you have is a kind of horrible spasm!") was absolutely true,
but apparently it worked as intended.

>Those who would "destroy" us now have no military means to do so, never
>will, and our military will never be able to stop the means these Bad Guys
>DO have available to them (e.g. suitcase bombs).

The military has *never* been able to prevent sabotage and
terrorism; that's not its job. So your point is...?

>Our military, today, serves only to extend the will of our corporate-
>enthralled government globally. The same National Guard members who should
>have been on hand to help in the Katrina aftermath were instead dashing
>around a fictional country which doesn't want us and is waiting for us to
>leave so it can devolve into bloody civil war. Well done, all.

I *hope* that Iraq can be stabilized, and can become one of
the very few democracies in the region (which is indicated
by the voter turnout), but I don't really expect it.
Democracy can't be bestowed from outside; it has to come
from the population in question. I'm not betting on that
population, but I'm cheering for them.

>On the other hand, I know a couple of dozen young people who have enlisted
>in Americorps, all of whom are making a real difference in the USA.
>
>I also know several who are on missions associated with the American
>Friends Service Committee and the UN Quaker Organization: they too are
>making real differences and acting in ways that will protect and defend our
>country, by making people like and respect our country.

They have my respect and gratitude. But the fact that there
is a need and niche for this sort of "foreign aid" (and
that's what it is, but the *good* kind) doesn't rule out the
need for a strong military. Yes, it takes two nations to
make a war, just as it takes two individuals to make a
fight. But it only takes one active participant in each case
to make a massacre or a murder.

>>>Privilege: You can't be serious! The US military has historically
>>>and continues to be willing to take almost anyone.
>>
>> That has been true of the Army, especially in the past in
>> time of war. It is *not* generally true for the other three
>> services (four, if one counts the Coast Guard).
>
>Disagree: the Navy also has a history of being un-picky for enlisted men.
>The AF and Marines (and CG) are, you're right, pretty picky.

Hmmm...you may be correct about the Navy, but there were far
fewer Navy conscripts than Army ones.

>>> The vast majority of
>>>those who joined in the 20th century were conscripted. The vast
>>>majority who have joined since the draft was stopped have done so
>>>because they needed a job, thought they'd get job training they could
>>>use in civilian life, or saw it as a way to pay for college. They
>>>joined out of pure self-interest.
>>
>> Thank you. The volunteers with whom I served would be happy
>> to learn that living in tents for less than $100 a month and
>> getting shot at while eating lousy food, when they could
>> have been in the US going to college or learning a trade,
>> was a matter of "pure self-interest". You have
>> an...*interesting*...concept of "self-interest".
>
>I thought you were in Vietnam, Bob -- maybe I misunderstood. The
>overwhelming majority of US military in Nam were conscripts, not
>volunteers. Maybe I'm misreading you here.

I was. They were. My fellow Marines weren't. Try reading
that paragraph again.

>My neighbor across the street is, believe me, not at all grateful for his
>opportunity to have his health ruined in the interests of...what?

I never said anyone was grateful for getting his ass shot
off; I said that putting oneself in a situation in which
that is a possible outcome, and doing so in order to attempt
(as best an individual can) to protect one's society, is not
done for self-interest. I see no reason to change that
statement.

>> You think that implementation of US policy, especially WRT
>> treaties, has nothing to do with the Constitution?
>
>The implementation of US policy in foreign lands typically has no more than
>passing relevance to the Constitution. We as a country are perfectly
>willing to abrogate treaties when we want to; to suggest that we have some
>sacred duty because of a treaty is ludicrous, and certainly has nothing to
>do with the Constitution. although see Article VI, clause 2:
>
>"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
>be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
>made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
>the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
>in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I believe you've tied in the Constitutional connection to
treaties quite well; thanks!

>Of course, since the US government has a long and rich history of
>abrogating treaties, this seems to be nothing more than hand-waving.

As I stated previously, the actions of politicians have no
bearing on one's duty to one's society; in the case of the
US, the Constitution *is* that society, in a very real
sense.

>>>About the same time Lyndon Johnson sent a million troops to Viet Nam
>>>to <sarcasm on> preserve and protect the US Constitution <sarcasm
>>>off>.
>>
>> Nope; that was to support an ally with whom we had a treaty.
>> You *do* understand treaties, right?
>
>Sure, and we had a treaty with a "government" which nobody believed was
>real, but it was sure convenient for us. But see above: for our govt,
>treaty, shmeaty is the rule.

Again, irrelevant.

>> IOW, about the same time I, along with quite a few other
>> volunteers, was on the way to SE Asia. OK.
>
>And many times more conscripts than volunteers. OK.

And your point is...?

>I'm sure you didn't want to give the impression that the military force was
>mostly volunteers, did you? That would be a flat out lie, and I know you
>don't want to do that.

Absolutely not (but nice innuendo there); the Army was
almost entirely conscripts, and was by far the largest
component. Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do
with my statements. The fact that many more individuals were
forced to serve than volunteered in no way diminishes the
fact the volunteering is a privilege. And BTW, I
*completely* disagree with the idea of a draft; if one feels
no sense of obligation toward one's society it can't be
beaten in, and there's no way I want an individual nursing a
resentful "conscript syndrome" guarding my back in combat.

>>Of course, our "two
>> broad oceans" would have protected us indefinitely; there
>> was no need to actually go to war.
>>
>> Do you actually *believe* this twaddle?
>
>Perhaps. I call it a jump ball.
>
>> And you might recall (or learn) that the sequence went:
>>
>> Japan attacks the US
>> US declares war on Japan
>> Germany declares war on the US
>>
>> IOW, the US entered the war independently, not to support
>> our allies. Prior to our entry into WWII the US was formally
>> neutral.
>
>But of course, was anything BUT neutral (see lend-lease etc).

I wrote precisely what I meant; what part of "formally" did
you miss?

>I'm not saying that was a bad idea. As a Quaker, I'd probably have been
>thrown in jail along with the elders of the Meeting I attended as a child
>(at least three of whom served over 3 years in jail during WWII). But I
>certainly understand that for those willing to kill, or to support people
>who are willing to kill, WWII was a moral imperative for our military.
>
>There have been none since then.

I tend to agree, assuming of course that one believes that
treaties *should* be broken when it happens to be
inconvenient to uphold them.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The chasm between us
    ... > leave so it can devolve into bloody civil war. ... the Navy also has a history of being un-picky for enlisted men. ... The volunteers with whom I served would be happy ... > passing relevance to the Constitution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The chasm between us
    ... >>>military is service to society. ... Thus judges who uphold the constitution perform equal ... >>>protecting the US Constitution. ... >> was no need to actually go to war. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • OT: No soup for you.
    ... War members create are here's the simple Were it Justice to. ... destruction given Constitution best flagrant to to it Gonzales agreed take. ... Against prosecute is that the as to Act of simple known it. ... Straussian it Supreme it can to. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... war to force them to remain. ... "Withdrawing" from the Union and attacking the troops who were still ... southern states to secede. ... evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... war to force them to remain. ... "Withdrawing" from the Union and attacking the troops who were still ... southern states to secede. ... evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment ...
    (talk.origins)