Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Eugenek

Quote:are you claiming the military isn't recruiting largely from ghetto folks, white trash or greencard soldiers?

Yes, I claim this. I was in the military. It isn't made largely of "ghetto folks, white trash or greencard soldiers". This also begs the question...so what if it were largely ghetto folks, white trash and greencard soldiers? Are these classes you've named somehow inferior or incapable of acting as professional soldiers in the US military?

Do you know what "begs the question" means? It doesn't mean that a question is so good that it begs to be asked. It means that the premise of an argument assumes what it seeks to prove [1]. At any rate, the issue isn't that the poor make less capable soldiers, that's a distraction from the charge that there is a defacto economic draft of the poor in the USA.

Regretably that's an arguement used by those that would like to restart the draft and not by those that feel we should provide more economic opportunities to our impoverished youth. The fact would remain that the draft would be used to cover shortfalls in those that volunteer and it would still fall disproportionately on the poor. The fact also remains that military service is a path out of poverty for many of our youth. Considering the backgrounds many come from that service is a good thing for many of them despite the dangers involved. That military service fall disproportionately on the poor is, to me, an irrelevant point. Why not point out that flipping burgers at McDonald's falls disproportionately on the poor?

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
IF Iraq HAD nukes or would soon be capable of making them would invading Iraq be wrong?

It really depends on the circumstances. It would be wrong to invade a country just because it had nukes or would soon be capable of making them.

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
Unfortunately, I think the era of allowing people to attack us first is over. Now the enemy can have devastating effects with little resources invested. Now the enemy doesn't even have to be a nation-state. Just nineteen people killed nearly 3000 people five years ago. How do we fight that? How do we fight an enemy who accepts suicide missions as a tactical weapon. An enemy who doesn't care to survive. I don't think we yet know.

You don't fight that with military force but with intelligence services and more police like force. How do you fight the mafia? The Vietcong accepted suicide missions as a tactical weapon. The Japanese too for that matter. We've had decades to come up with methods to fight "suiciders" (as Rumsfeld terms it).

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
That would be half the people who voted. I begrudge those who didn't care enough to vote. For the war, fine. Against the war, fine. Didn't vote, buzz off. If the Iraq war is so unpopular how is it that President Bush was re-elected? It should have been a landslide defeat.

The media failed to inform the public, that's how he was re-elected. The NYT sat on several stories that would have been severely damaging to his re-election. And they repeated the Swiftboat smears without question. And they didn't dig deep enough into all of the threat alert warnings issued whenever news harmful to the President's re-election chances came up. The Dems are at fault too for not fighting back strongly enough. For example, while on vacation at the Grand Canyon, Kerry was asked whether he would have voted for the war had he known then what he knew now and he stupidly said yes.

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
Either there an awful lot of media hype or an awful lot of complainers who don't bother to vote and try to change it.

In experience walking precincts I've found that people that don't vote don't complain.

Quote:Original post by Eugenek

Quote:I think our at-home Police protect 'us' more than our current soldiers in Iraq. Why arn't we praising them?

I agree and I do. However, that is the police's job. The military has no police powers outside of their bases within the US. Imagine the "US is a dictatorship" crowd if that were allowed. The US military has very little power in the United States. That's done for a reason and Thailand is an example. The military can't protect us as the local police do. It's illegal. The type of military protection is different so they can't really be compared.

Are you referring to the Posse Comitatus act? According to this commentary: Power of the Pen:

Quote:
...
Bush’s signing statements also imply that he considers the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—which prohibited using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement—null and void. Congress passed laws in 2004 and 2005 prohibiting the military from using intelligence not “lawfully collected” on American citizens. In both cases, as Savage noted, “Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.” It is appalling that Congress would feel it necessary to pass a law declaring that the Pentagon cannot violate the Bill of Rights—but the president responds by declaring that he will not be bound by any such law—or by the Constitution.
...

According to this article, Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity:

Quote:
The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.
...
The proposals, and other Pentagon steps aimed at improving its ability to analyze counterterrorism intelligence collected inside the United States, have drawn complaints from civil liberties advocates and a few members of Congress, who say the Defense Department's push into domestic collection is proceeding with little scrutiny by the Congress or the public.

"We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a recent interview.
...
Among the steps already taken by the Pentagon that enhanced its domestic capabilities was the establishment after 9/11 of Northern Command, or Northcom, in Colorado Springs, to provide military forces to help in reacting to terrorist threats in the continental United States. Today, Northcom's intelligence centers in Colorado and Texas fuse reports from CIFA, the FBI and other U.S. agencies, and are staffed by 290 intelligence analysts. That is more than the roughly 200 analysts working for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and far more than those at the Department of Homeland Security.
...
The order recognizes that in the post-9/11 era, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity will be "increasingly required to perform domestic missions," and as a result, "there will be increased instances whereby Marine intelligence activities may come across information regarding U.S. persons." Among domestic targets listed are people in the United States who it "is reasonably believed threaten the physical security of Defense Department employees, installations, operations or official visitors."
...

And one last reference, Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans:

Quote:
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.

Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.
...

I can supply additional references but I think that's enough.

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
Who protected the American people better in World War II? Was it the local police or the military? Other than in the waters off the eastern coast the military did no fighting in the United States. Were the Japanese or Germans really contemplating invading the US? I doubt it. I believe both would have accepting peace with the US if offered. How many Americans civilians deaths did the US military prevent in World War I, World War II and Korea? The police and military have different jobs.

The GWOT isn't WW2. OBL isn't worse than Hitler and Stalin as some elites have asserted in recent months. There was some conjecture last year regarding the "lost" sequel to Mein Kampf that Hitler had indeed contemplated invading and conquering the United States [1].

Quote:Original post by Eugenek
These days even the size and capabilities of the US military doesn't seem to intimidate those who hate the US. Of course, that's good. It does mean that the US isn't quite the bully it is made out to be. If it were Iran and North Korea would be glass and Chavez would be dead.

That doesn't follow. The size and capabilities of the US military does indeed intimidate those that hate the US. That's why they employ fourth generation tactics. They know full well they wouldn't have a chance against the US military otherwise. Furthermore, that Iran and North Korea haven't been nuked doesn't mean that the US isn't the bully that some make it out to be. A school yard bully doesn't have to kill those he intimidates in order to qualify as a bully. Lastly, that Chavez remains alive doesn't testify to that point either. It could just as readily mean that attempts to assasinate him have failed. This is from today's news: Venezuela's Chavez says Washington plotting against him, cites alleged White House informant.

Quote:Original post by Eugenek

Quote:Original post by LessBread
Do you know what "begs the question" means? It doesn't mean that a question is so good that it begs to be asked. It means that the premise of an argument assumes what it seeks to prove [1]. At any rate, the issue isn't that the poor make less capable soldiers, that's a distraction from the charge that there is a defacto economic draft of the poor in the USA.

Sorry, you are correct. My only defense is I was using the modern usage of the phrase described in the article you linked.

You don't need to apologize. The mistake is common and it didn't offend me. I think that modern usage can be blamed on lazy television reporters trying to puff themselves up. Another similar corruption is irregardless.

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
Regretably that's an arguement used by those that would like to restart the draft and not by those that feel we should provide more economic opportunities to our impoverished youth. The fact would remain that the draft would be used to cover shortfalls in those that volunteer and it would still fall disproportionately on the poor. The fact also remains that military service is a path out of poverty for many of our youth. Considering the backgrounds many come from that service is a good thing for many of them despite the dangers involved. That military service fall disproportionately on the poor is, to me, an irrelevant point. Why not point out that flipping burgers at McDonald's falls disproportionately on the poor?

I disagree. I think it's an argument used by both sorts of people. It also seems to me to be an argument used by people seeking to point out that the people that send our troops to war don't have any skin in the fight so to speak. Flipping burgers at McDonald's does fall disproportionately on the poor, but the risks of working at McDonald's can't be compared with those of military service and a McDonald's employee can quit at any time without risking jail time for doing so.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
Regretably that's an arguement used by those that would like to restart the draft and not by those that feel we should provide more economic opportunities to our impoverished youth. The fact would remain that the draft would be used to cover shortfalls in those that volunteer and it would still fall disproportionately on the poor. The fact also remains that military service is a path out of poverty for many of our youth. Considering the backgrounds many come from that service is a good thing for many of them despite the dangers involved. That military service fall disproportionately on the poor is, to me, an irrelevant point. Why not point out that flipping burgers at McDonald's falls disproportionately on the poor?

I disagree. I think it's an argument used by both sorts of people. It also seems to me to be an argument used by people seeking to point out that the people that send our troops to war don't have any skin in the fight so to speak. Flipping burgers at McDonald's does fall disproportionately on the poor, but the risks of working at McDonald's can't be compared with those of military service and a McDonald's employee can quit at any time without risking jail time for doing so.

Are you serious? If you're working at McDonald's flipping burgers to support your family you face extreme risks and it's very doubtful quiting is an option. Have you ever been poor? Have you ever personally known people living in extreme poverty? The idea that some 18 year old kid with a 16 year old girlfriend and a newborn baby living on the south side of chicago with no support from his or her family is better off trying to make a go of it flipping burgers at McDonald's than joining the military is a joke.

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
Regretably that's an arguement used by those that would like to restart the draft and not by those that feel we should provide more economic opportunities to our impoverished youth. The fact would remain that the draft would be used to cover shortfalls in those that volunteer and it would still fall disproportionately on the poor. The fact also remains that military service is a path out of poverty for many of our youth. Considering the backgrounds many come from that service is a good thing for many of them despite the dangers involved. That military service fall disproportionately on the poor is, to me, an irrelevant point. Why not point out that flipping burgers at McDonald's falls disproportionately on the poor?

I disagree. I think it's an argument used by both sorts of people. It also seems to me to be an argument used by people seeking to point out that the people that send our troops to war don't have any skin in the fight so to speak. Flipping burgers at McDonald's does fall disproportionately on the poor, but the risks of working at McDonald's can't be compared with those of military service and a McDonald's employee can quit at any time without risking jail time for doing so.

Are you serious? If you're working at McDonald's flipping burgers to support your family you face extreme risks and it's very doubtful quiting is an option. Have you ever been poor? Have you ever personally known people living in extreme poverty? The idea that some 18 year old kid with a 16 year old girlfriend and a newborn baby living on the south side of chicago with no support from his or her family is better off trying to make a go of it flipping burgers at McDonald's than joining the military is a joke.

Of course I'm serious. How many people have died while flipping burgers? How many people lost limbs while flipping burgers? How many people got thrown in jail for not showing up to work flipping burgers? I never said anything about some hypothetical teenage father being better off flipping burgers than joining the military. That joke is yours.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
I was fighting in Kuwait

And this is where I stop responding to you.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
you shitty little punk

But not before I point that out to the mods.

This reminds me of my last day at school before I left for training. Some 50+ year old thought it was time to throw a temper tantrum about how he was going to beat up a 30 year old who kept cursing at him. That was very upsetting to think that I was about to leave my proffessor behind to deal with a student who had so little respect that he would make a scene in the academics office about how he was going to beat someone up. I know my proffessor isn't an aggressive guy, but that 6ft tall old guy, certaintly was.

I was still far from a fighting mood as Iraq and finals were on my mind. However, I spoke up and I told that man that it wasn't worth it and that he was letting the other guy win by giving in over mere words. The man was quick to lash out at me but I did not move and I kept a non-threatening posture as I spoke. I even told him about Iraq and from that he responded that he had sons there and he hoped that I would be safe. Unfortunately, he still left that office talking about how he wanted to fight that other guy.

Perhaps that is the lesson here again, perhaps that's a lesson here in Iraq. You cannot save everyone from their mistakes. An individual determined to be ingorant will continue to be so, but at least it will not weigh on my concious that I did nothing.

Now I need to get back off the internet and resume doing something.

Quote:Original post by T1Oracle

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
I was fighting in Kuwait

And this is where I stop responding to you.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish
you shitty little punk

But not before I point that out to the mods.

[...]

Perhaps that is the lesson here again, perhaps that's a lesson here in Iraq. You cannot save everyone from their mistakes. An individual determined to be ingorant will continue to be so, but at least it will not weigh on my concious that I did nothing.

Now I need to get back off the internet and resume doing something.

When people start prating about duty and honour, I reach for my pun.

Military service does not grant you an automatic, inalienable right to accolades of Honour and Citizenship. It may be honourable to _defend_ one's own home, certainly. But it is absolutely not honourable to attack another tribe on some flimsy pretext. And last time I looked, US soldiers still had the vote too.

I hate to break this to you (and anyone else who seriously believes that nobody on this board has any reliable information about military service), but most of us are likely to be related to at least _one_ war veteran or military type. WW2 wasn't all that long ago. Vietnam was even more recent. Our parents and/or grandparents generally never shut up about how they "were in the war" for us. My father was in the Territorial Army for well over a decade. My grandfathers fought on _opposite sides_ during WW2. My father has his own father's WW2 medals on the wall in his study, as well as his diaries.

So please. Don't prate to us about war and how "ignorant" we are. War is a base, shameful business, not something to be proud of. It's a symptom of our species' flaws and failings. It's what happens when we discover that we really, _really_ suck at just getting along.

Europeans, I can assure you, are intimately acquainted with war and its consequences. We are surrounded by reminders of what wars can do. I live in a house that was built on the bombed ruins of its predecessor. WW2 was fought _here_, on _our soil_. Germans bombed London and Coventry for _months_. France, Germany, Italy and large swathes of North Africa and Eastern Europe still have many, many scars. Very few families were unaffected.

And that's just _one_ of the many, many wars we have seen here. It's called the "Old World" for a reason, dammit.

Bin Laden has got the US _exactly_ where he wants it. He's pulling your administration's strings. He's going to die with a smile on his face, because this one, bearded tosser, who lived in a cave on the other side of the world, managed to turn a nation of 300 million people into his personal plaything. Oh sure, some day, Bush will hold another "We got him!" press event, but Bin Laden is dying anyway; he has _already_ won.

But I don't really hold too much ill will towards the US. (Although Bush really doesn't do the country's PR any favours.) My ire is reserved for my own country's administration -- Blair and his twisted, swivel-eyed cohorts -- who really should know better and should have tried harder to prevent this mess.

In fairness to my fellow countrymen, the UK is not (and never has been, contrary to popular myth, a "democracy" -- Blair won with a mere 35% of the votes. And Britons did mount the biggest ever protest march in this nation's history against the war in Iraq. Blair ignored it, even though a far smaller march was the catalyst for creating his political party in the first place. So anyone claiming that the UK "supported" the attack on Iraq really needs to get his facts straight.

Enough!

Regards,

as an aside, I've had a nagging, growing desire for the last YEAR to join the Army and try to become an Army Ranger.