|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: Deadly Ernest about who ought to be signing up |
 |
|
I found this in the comments section of an op-ed article in The Nation Online, an article describing the problems military recruiters are facing and the less-than-ethical means they are being forced to emply.
The guy who posted it just calls himself"Deadly Ernest," hence the thread title - I'm curious if any of us can argue with his math : he comes up with 9 million American males who ought to be putting their vote for bush to the test by putting on a uniform as well ... any ideas why he seems to be wrong?
The original article and the comment quoted here can be found at this link.
| Quote: |
I've started to use this little point:
In November 2004, 55 million people expressed their support for George Bush's war in Iraq.
If you account for age and "disability", leave about a third of those people as capable of donning a uniform and joining the battle. That would leave about 18 million.
If you're one of those absolutely opposed to women serving in the military, take half that number, leaving 9 million men.
So, we're talking approximately 9 (or 18 ) million people who are capable of filling the recruiters' quotas overwhelmingly.
Where are they? They're hiding, saying "Not me! Let someone else fight the war that I support!" |
Were I of a combative frame of mind, I might also ask why so few of the supporters of Bush's War who frequest these forums have yet to sign up and put their asses on the line ... what the hell, everyone knows I'm fairly combative, so I will include that question in this thread.
What's your excuse, you guys?
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:07 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
See, they're fighting in different ways, that's all:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endofthewor1d
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
i think my stand on politics is clear by now. but if i were someone inclined to support bush or a war, i don't see why that would make me obligated to actually go to war. one of the freedoms i would be fighting for would be the freedom to not be in the military. if the draft were put back into place, maybe i'd have a delimma to think about. but as it stands, if there are people who are more willing to go to war than i am, why would i?
had i been alive in the 40's, i would have supported u.s. involvement in ww2, but i wouldn't have gone to war if i didn't have to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The pay sucks, the application procedure is a nightmare, the commitment is long-term and the majority of the job seems to be busywork and bureaucracy. I've considered it, and even applied to a branch of the military, but the closer I got the more I realized it wasn't the job for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| The pay sucks, the application procedure is a nightmare, the commitment is long-term and the majority of the job seems to be busywork and bureaucracy. I've considered it, and even applied to a branch of the military, but the closer I got the more I realized it wasn't the job for me. |
That's a good answer. That's what I've heard from most people I know there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endofthewor1d wrote: |
| i if i were someone inclined to support bush or a war, i don't see why that would make me obligated to actually go to war. |
By supporting the war, you support sending people to fight it. Inevitably some of them will die. If you are unwilling to do so yourself, or even risk that might happen, and yet by word and attitude you promote the military action ... then perhaps a question needs to be asked about it.
Both Bush and Cheney, other members of this administration as well, very carefully chose other options rather than serve in the jungles of Vietnam. I actually have no problem with that. The problem I have is that they grew old and attained positions of power that enabled them to send others to do what they would not. It seems only a little dissimilar to people who post on the internet about the righteousness of this cause and yet have no apparent interest in putting their asses on the line.
| Quote: |
| had i been alive in the 40's, i would have supported u.s. involvement in ww2, but i wouldn't have gone to war if i didn't have to. |
Can't speak for whatever country you are from, but in the US at that time there WAS a draft and a in addition a lot of stigma was attached to young able-bodied men in the US who for whatever reason did not enlist voluntarily. Basically, you had to have a good excuse, like a physical defect that is not obvious to anyone who meets you but is still sufficient that an Arny doctor would disqualify you.
The same does not apply today, and in fact parents are telling their kids in droves to stay away from this particular career option.
Parents who love their children are also Americans who love their country. The clear message is that these are people who do not believe that there is anything in Iraq that threatens America.
And in the meantime you find both men and women of enlistment age who seem have no problem about spending absurd amounts of time and energy on the internet singing the praises of this endeavor ... and yet they leave the house every day wearing civilian clothes.
I'm just wondering, that's all.
joe_doufu
| Quote: |
| The pay sucks, the application procedure is a nightmare, the commitment is long-term and the majority of the job seems to be busywork and bureaucracy. I've considered it, and even applied to a branch of the military, but the closer I got the more I realized it wasn't the job for me. |
I've read that they have recently raised enlistment bonuses from $6000 all the way to $20,000 and to me that sounds like good wages just for writing your name on a piece of paper. I have also heard they they are offering 15 month enlistments rather than the usual 24, and quotas are down so much that recruiters are even giving high school kids tips on how to beat the drug test.
I've also read that the quotas are so off-line that recruiters have gotten into fistfights with each other over who gets "credit" for signing up a particular high school dropout. Seems to me a guy with a college diploma who can teach English in Asia would be a cinch to get in ... but if it's "not the job" for you (no arguments there) then just WHO is the job for?
Last edited by The Bobster on Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:48 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endofthewor1d wrote: |
| if the draft were put back into place, maybe i'd have a delimma to think about. |
A "delimma"?
Isn't that a make of car?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guangho
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Location: a spot full of deception, stupidity, and public micturation and thus unfit for longterm residency
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Granted with a draft we would still have modern day Dubyas dodging it by getting stoned in the national guard, but it would give people something to think about.
P.S.: I know Dubya was in the National Guard and I'm not dissing them. It's just that in 1967-68 or so, most young men would have given their left nut to get a spot in the Guard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy</ | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
