|
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 Nov 14, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Well, try this on for size:
1. I want the army to send its soldiers to overseas troublespots.
2. I don't want the army to recruit soldiers.
I guess this might not be a technical contradiction, but I don't quite see how its really plausible for both ideas to work at the same time. |
The objection raised to military recruiting in SF is not a new one, as has been noted. What is new is that the recruiters going into high schools in that city will be sending those kids off to Iraq. That is what is new, and that is what is objectionable, to the people of San Francisco. And to be clear, the wording of the documernt does not prohibit them but merely says that the city and the school district do not encourage it.
The meaasage is, to wit : the kids recruited right now will die or come home maimed, or crippled by PTSD due to what they saw, did or had to help cover up. And none of it will benefit the people of this country.
Myself, I'm not a fan of sending troops to the Sudan for a humanitarian mission, either, but mainly because I seem to recall that's what Mogadshu was all about. And Blackhawk Down was rerun on OCN just the other night so I recall very clearly how that turned out.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but it seems I need to :
When those of us on the Liberal Left look at Sudan and ask why Bush points to the humanitarian reasons for ousting Saddam and does nothing about the carnage there in Africa, we are begging a question that is so obvious it need not be stated ...
"Isn't it mainly because, well - is there is very much OIL in Sudan? No? There isn't? Then why are you bothering me about it?"
Bush admitted quite some time ago there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda, none worth mentioning, and nothing at all to do with 9/11 - isn't it odd how they still SAY it, though? They keep on saying it. Just the other night, on Meet the Press (I think) some Bush hack was invoking the WTC with regard to Iraq ... made me angry, but the good news is the interviewer called him on it, which would never have happened even 9 months ago.
We have known for a while that WMDs did not exist in Iraq at the time we invaded, though we were told otherwise. Today, the poll numbers have reversed entirely from what they once were, and the American people know they were lied to, misled aboiut the quality of evidence, and that they were never in danger from Saddam.
The White House tells us about all the atrocities committed by Saddam while he was in power, but then we also learn about atrocities we OUSELVES have commited in the short time we have been there : Abu Ghraib, Fallajah, and outside of Iraq as well in Gitmo and Afghanistan, our repudiation of the Geneva Convention while writing memos condoning prisoner abuse, campaigning in Congress to allow torture and rendition to third party countries all the while claiming that we are not a nation that tortures ...
Any sane person will ask : How can we claim to be better than what we oppose ?
Yowsah. I went on a rant and lost track of what I was responding to. Point is, when SF votes to discourage military recruiting, they are making a statement against this war. THIS war, the one in Iraq, right now. THAT is what is going on here.
If we leave today, no argument, Iraq will be in a world of hurt. News flash, it is so right now. Their world is hurting. If we leave in 5 years, or 10 or longer ...OUR world will be hurting also.
I love my country and I do not whan to see that happen.
End this thing. End it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yowsah. I went on a rant and lost track of what I was responding to. Point is, when SF votes to discourage military recruiting, they are making a statement against this war. THIS war, the one in Iraq, right now. THAT is what is going on here. |
Actually, Bobster, according to the proposition itself:
| Quote: |
Whereas, the federal Solomon Amendment specifically orders colleges and universities that receive federal money to violate their own legal policies of non-discrimination against gays and lesbians by allowing recruiters for the military, which bars gays and lesbians from serving openly, on campus; and,
Whereas, a de facto ��economic draft�� forces tens of thousands of low and middleincome students to join the military in order to get money to go to college or get job or technical training |
So it seems the objections go somewhat beyond the current war in Iraq. So if you're someone who agrees with the reasoning behind Prop 1, then you would have to continue opposing campus recruitment, even if the troops all came home tomorrow.
And, yes, I maintain that there is a bit of a "disconnect" between thinking that we should discourage recruitment until some unspecified time in the future(like, when exactly will the "de facto economic draft" disappear?), but also thinking that the military should go around the world conducting humanitarian interventions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Korea Newfie
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Well, try this on for size:
1. I want the army to send its soldiers to overseas troublespots.
2. I don't want the army to recruit soldiers.
I guess this might not be a technical contradiction, but I don't quite see how its really plausible for both ideas to work at the same time. |
My point had been that they're not in conflict, but the more I think about it, the more I think they're entirely complementary.
People don't like how GWB is careless with the lives of his soldiers.
At the end of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore (love him or hate him) had a good line:
"They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkable, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return......is that we never send them into harm's way...... unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
People can not want the lives of their family, friends, and neighbours wasted for oil profits, and oppose the draft.
As The Bobster said, the draft is a direct result of the war (since this war, enrollment has gone done, and the military is extending terms of current soldiers. If people didn't see that lives were being wasted, enrollment would still be up). Therefore, I don't think it's at all inappropriate for people to be against needless death and the draft.
That people like Bill O'Reilly can watch his president send off people to needless deaths, and call those who oppose it unpatriotic is one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| There IS a contradiction if liberals think that the army should be used for "good causes", but then turn around and say that the army shouldn't be allowed to recruit. And, given the general fuzzy-headedness that prevails among liberals in general, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people who voted for Proposition 1 are also people who want the army to go around the world conducting "humanitarian interventions", or whatever the Clintonian buzzword of the day is. |
Is this your "commonsense" sense month or something? This is the second best thing I have seen you right on this board.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| There IS a contradiction if liberals think that the army should be used for "good causes", but then turn around and say that the army shouldn't be allowed to recruit. And, given the general fuzzy-headedness that prevails among liberals in general, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people who voted for Proposition 1 are also people who want the army to go around the world conducting "humanitarian interventions", or whatever the Clintonian buzzword of the day is. |
I remember a conversation with an American soldier in Itaewon a while ago, in which he told me that he joined the military to 'protect the constitution' - an honorable step on his part I thought, that he wanted to be in the US armed forces so that he could defend the values of his country. The war in Afghanistan I am sure, met this objective for him.
The original justification for the assault on Iraq was built on principles that would appeal to the above soldier (Saddam's supposed contact with Bin Laden, WMD's - we all remember the lines), and as Korea Newfie mentions, that trust must surely have been broken for him, when these things turned out to be fabrications.
I don't think liberals are as liberal with young lives as perhaps you suggest, everyone knows that military action is NEVER simple, Bobster mentions Mogadishu and we're all seeing what's happening in Iraq, even Afganistan is troublesome. This is why we need to work together for an effective UN, if you ask me, these times sure do highlight this need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As The Bobster said, the draft is a direct result of the war (since this war, enrollment has gone done, and the military is extending terms of current soldiers. If people didn't see that lives were being wasted, enrollment would still be up). Therefore, I don't think it's at all inappropriate for people to be against needless death and the draft.
|
Well, I'm not sure if opposing campus recruitment is the same thing as opposing the draft, in the commonly understood sense of the word "draft". In fact, if "draft" is taken to include the extension of current terms, then you're helping to end "the draft" by recruiting new soldiers.
And anyway, as I pointed out above, the proposition includes discrimination against gays and the tendency of poor people to join the military as reasons for opposing recruitment. But these factors would be present with or without the war in Iraq.
But yes. IF a person's only reason for opposing campus recruitment is that he's against the current war in Iraq, and IF he would happily have recruiters on campus as soon as the war ends, then there is no contradiction between opposing recruitement at the present time and thinking the military should go around the world fighting 'good" battles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
