Originally posted by torch71Well you obviously got my implied point that the citizens on each side can take similar blind jingoistic positions on war and to some extent they would be no different to each other. If people are to break the cycle of war they will have to determine not to be sucked in by nationalistic justifications and learn when to say no.
There is no country out there that is not wrong in one way or another in the eyes of certain citizens.
Originally posted by kmax87The cycle of war will never end. It's been going on since the begining of mankind and it will only end with mankinds demise.
Well you obviously got my implied point that the citizens on each side can take similar blind jingoistic positions on war and to some extent they would be no different to each other. If people are to break the cycle of war they will have to determine not to be sucked in by nationalistic justifications and learn when to say no.
I’d resist because I’m waaaay too old. Seriously had I known in 1965 what I know today about going off to fight in somebody’s war, I’d probably be a Canadian. I think the military is a good experience for a young man…if they don’t get their legs blown off or their guts blown out or killed or have to watch it happen to a friend. Got too many friend’s of long ago with their names on the Viet Nam war memorial in Washington DC to encourage anybody to go through it today.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes.
Imagine you woke up this morning to the news that Lisbon had been nuked by terrorists who claim to be Iranian agents (assuming you don't live in Lisbon). Iran of course denies it.
Still seem so far fetched?
Terrorists wouldn't claim to be Iranian agents. They can't be terrorists if they are Iranian agents. They would just be Iranians!
In that case, the US would retaliate against Iran with Nukes levelling the country. There would be no need for US troops in Iran since they'd all be dead.
But if they actually were Iranian agents, they wouldn't tell everyone they were iranian agents. That would be stupid. The only logical conclusion you can make is that they are terrorists and are trying to blame Iran.
Therefore, you don't invade Iran, you just go after the terrorists. You don't need a draft to go after terrorists. The US has plenty of troops for that.
Originally posted by torch71Really? Tell that to your republican congress who don't have any of their kids serving in the military.
In my opinion all draft dodgers should be exiled and never be allowed to return to this country. If you are not willing to pay a price for freedom, you should not benefit from the rewards!!!
Originally posted by darvlayDrafting of slaves - forced people to be used as economic resources for financial gain of their owners.
Why not? After all, we did accept tens of thousands of African-Americans escaping slavery. The difference isn't that big.
Drafting of military - forced people to kill other people.
The US sure knows how to benefit from forced labour i tell ya.
Originally posted by kmax87"If people are to break the cycle of war they will have to determine not to be sucked in by nationalistic justifications and learn when to say no."
Well you obviously got my implied point that the citizens on each side can take similar blind jingoistic positions on war and to some extent they would be no different to each other. If people are to break the cycle of war they will have to determine not to be sucked in by nationalistic justifications and learn when to say no.
Ah, when you have some free time, you will be explaining this to BeenLaidin's followers also. Correct?
Granny.
Originally posted by uzlessRemember that scene from Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael and a soldier accost politicians in Washington D.C. and asked them to send their children to Iraq? Most of us recognized that rhetorical masquerade for what it was. Obviously, no person can sign their adult children up for the military.
Really? Tell that to your republican congress who don't have any of their kids serving in the military.
But the impression Moore gave in the movie was that no lawmakers have children serving in Iraq. That's not true. It turns out that no less than five federal legislators (four Republicans and a Democrat) have children currently serving in Iraq. This does not include state legislators children. Nor does this include any legislators who have children enrolled in the military but perhaps deployed to other places in the world, but even if these five soldiers represent all children of legislators in the military its actually fairly even, percentage wise, with the number of families in the general population who have children deployed.
So, in essence, Michael Moore misrepresented the facts. Which isn't all that surprising at all.