how do you feel about mandatory military service?

by The Humper 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  5go

  All the other attacks were during the Carter/Clinton presidency. Hardly anything was done in retaliation to those attacks. That's why there were more attacks

  Funny you forgot Reagan and the cut and run in lebenon

  In fact, the 9/11 attacks were planned during the Clinton administration, so don't blame Bush for not "reacting" before 9/11. I have to be fair to the Democrats....Before 9/11, you couldn't get the backing of the country to increase national security and terrorist defense measures. People didn't want to pay more taxes for that.....until it happene

  Does make you wonder why they let it happen does it. 4 planes turn around during a training exersise to till with such a senario and nothing was done and fly to their target for nearly a hour

  The argument resonates with many Americans because it corresponds to how they experienced 9-11. They were shocked and unsure what to do.

  But most Americans are not part of the air traffic control system, which is run by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or the air defense system, run by the military.

  War Games by the US military on 9/1 1 paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?

  There has been virtually no media coverage of the issues of the 9/11 war games, the "amazing coincidence" of a "plane into building" exercise being conducted that morning, or the alleged role of Vice President Richard Cheney in overseeing the war games that morning.

  related pages:

  • NORAD / Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance
  • National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise on 9/11

  Most are unaware that these systems have routine procedures developed over many years. These procedures, practiced in drills and used in day-to-day situations, are meant to ensure that air safety and air defense personnel can function when confronted with unexpected events, even though ordinary people are understandably at a loss.

  Consider this, by way of comparison. Imagine that one night a Canadian arsonist slips into Buffalo, New York, and using a new incendiary device, starts fires in four elementary schools.

  People pull fire alarms near two of the schools. A neighbor calls the Fire Department when he sees smoke billowing out of the third school. And there is a Fire Station right across the street from the fourth school.

  Yet not one fire truck arrives until after the schools have burned to the ground.

  When asked why, the Buffalo Fire Chief explains, "We're good at dealing with Buffalo arsonists but nobody expected some guy to sneak in from Canada!"

  The Chief would be laughed out of court. People would say, "When the alarms came in, how could anyone in the Fire Department have known that these fires were started by a Canadian arsonist? And even if they did know, why wouldn't they just follow their normal procedures - you know, slide down the pole, put on their coats, climb into the fire truck, turn on the siren. Why didn't they at least show up and try to put out these fires?"

  The same holds true for 9-11.

  As we have documented in 'Mr. Cheney's Cover Story,' the FAA and the military have routine procedures for intercepting commercial jets. (3)

  An Air Traffic Controller can call for an escort (that is, a military jet) to be sent up to find out why a commercial jet has flown off course and guide it to a safe landing place. Or an escort can be used to put pressure on an uncooperative pilot or to intimidate a hijacker with a show of force. (4)

  Which brings us to the matter of Andrews Air Force base. Andrews is ten miles from the Pentagon. It is the airport used by the President and other top officials, so of course it has to have escort planes. This was especially true on 9-11 because Air Force One, the President's jet, was in flight that day.

  In fact, Andrews keeps combat units "in the highest possible state of readiness." (5)

  So here is the question that leaders such as George Bush, General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld refuse to answer because they have no acceptable answer:

  Why weren't jet fighters scrambled from Andrew Air Force base to intercept American Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon?
• 

  hubert

  My apologies, 5go. I really did forget. Not on purpose.

  Hubert
• 

  frankiespeakin

  5go,

  I have always though that way as wel but it would end being a shelter for the elite's kids so no, everyone goes or your don't get privilages like the ability to vote, hold office or go to colledge. If you don't want to kill become a medic.

  So you want government to make military mandatory? And you think the government should use strong arm tactics and take away freedoms if they don't comply? Sounds like a totalitarianism to me. Why give the government so much control over peoples lives?
• 

  5go

  So you want government to make military mandatory? And you think the government should use strong arm tactics and take away freedoms if they don't comply? Sounds like a totalitarianism to me. Why give the government so much control over peoples lives?

  No totalitarain is saying that only nazi's can join the military and then they have the weapons. In saying all most serve regardless of rank, religion, or party afiliation you keep the power equal in society without one group having control of the military of government.

  Besides just because we have fredom does not mean we are free from societal obligations. You pay your taxes without any choise.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  5,

  Besides just because we have fredom does not mean we are free from societal obligations. You pay your taxes without any choise.

  There is nothing social about manditory military service, just because one is born in a country does not obligate one to fight for the particular government that presently rules. Only the brain dead or heavily indoctrinated would view it as social duty. You need to question authorty, not blindly follow leaders. If everyone just blindly goes along with what ever a government dictates I see no hope for humanity.
• 

  Abaddon

  Do you know why (most) Nordic countries have mandatory military service? Because they were "occupied" in World War Two, or other wars. These countries don't want it to happen again, that's why they have a strong military, as a deterrent to invasion by hostile countries.

  That's true, but equally the Netherlands, France and Belgium, who were also occupied, have no conscripion.

  No matter what practical arguments there are for conscription, or history making forced military service more or less attractive, for me the first question one must broach is that of the individual's rights.

  Does a government have the right to force people to carry out work - even if it is non-military work?

  I say no. End of argument. For me.

  On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with incentivising people to undertake some form of National Service, military or otherwise.

  Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest". Apathy and lack of engagement in politics is a serious problem in the West. Maybe those who actually get off their ass and do something for their society - by volunteering for a few years of National Service in military or non-military forms - are the ones who should be allowed to vote.

  Terrorism is never going away. We will be fighting it for decades, maybe even centuries.

  If you can get a decent job, an education, are not oppressed... well, a new Plasma TV and a holiday are an awful lot more tangible than any number of virgins in the here-after. Comfortable people do not become terrorists unless they have pretty big internal issues - and we will always have nut-jobs, like McVee (sp?).

  Whilst there is no justifying terrorist's actions, given the backgrounds most are recruited from one can see attacking those backgrounds one can stop a generational supply of terrorists from the same culture.

  As for the War on Terror;

  List the names of people involved in the Reagan administration.

  List the names of people involved in the Bush II administration.

  In the '70's and '80's, the USSR knew it was never going to be able to match American military spending. The economy was getting stretched. Their attempts at detente were rebuffed. They were forced to continue spending vast amounts, and yet large portions of their defensive strength was seldom as good on the ground as it was on paper. The 'Soviet threat' was vastly exaggerated, people in the US were happy to see vast amounts spent on arms, the financial backers of the Administration made huge profits. People felt the government was keeping them safe and voted for them again.

  In the '00's the 'Terrorist threat' is vastly exaggerated. A war? Talk to the people in Iraq about a war. Talk about tens of thousands of dead, sometimes hundreds in a day, day after day. That is war. The innocent lives lost in the West to terrorism are as tragic as those in the Iraq and Afghanistan, but 'us' in the West... unless we are in the military we are not at war. We watch the news.

  The chances of any one Western civilian being harmed by terrorist activity is very low. Say 800 million people. A few thousand deaths in the US, not yet a thousand in Europe. Over seven years. Do the maths. There is not that appreciable a difference between your chance of death due to Soviet aggression in the 1980's and your chance of death by terrorism now. In Iraq there are 20 something million and hundreds of thousands have died. That's a thousand times greater chance of dying in Iraq than in the West during the War on Terror. We watch the news.

  Just as back in the Cold War days, where Soviet capabilities were hyped up, so too was Saddam capabilities hyped up, and an attack on Saddam equated to an attack on terror. People in the US are happy to see vast amounts spent on arms, the financial backers of the Administration make huge profits. People feel the government are keeping them safe and vote for them again.

  Except this time round rather than a vast political Empire with nuclear weapons, we are fighting a small percentage of a few hundred million Muslims (most Muslims are not even risks, it's the Arab cultures and the prostelyzation of their Islam that are dodgy), the military elements of which have to spend almost all their time hiding, and to whom IED's, AK-47 and RPG's are the acme of their armoury. Some of them are even so desperate, and so incapable of inflicting damage in an open direct attack, they kill themselves and others indiscriminately. I mean, come on, whilst one may or may not feel threatened by suicide bombers, you got to admit they are still pretty desperate.

  Yet despite the contracts (vast military Empire; bunch of extremist idiots who can be stereotyped as people who can't hold down a decent job and live in a cave), we're spending roughly the same in real terms...

  Funny that? That means the ONLY people who really benefit, are those who have shares in arms companies. Everyone else; Arab, Jew, Christian, Muslim - gets shafted.

  Oh, yeah; match up the common names from the two Administrations mentioned above. They've done it twice.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Ab,

  Maybe those who actually get off their ass and do something for their society - by volunteering for a few years of National Service in military or non-military forms - are the ones who should be allowed to vote.

  Come on we in the US are taxed to death, to keep the war machine ready to spread US imperialism, we need a break, from too much government, the government is already too top heavy, with lying politicians, who do the bidding of the rich under the disguise of fighting for freedom.

  I could see it if the government was more transparent, not invovled in covert activity to remove certain rulers, and destablize other governments, and not bought off and beholding to big business. But it's an awful lot to ask when they can't even come clean and be honest and truly look out for welfare of its citizens.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I watched part of the debates - but did not know this was a topic.

  Interestingly, I was speaking out in full support of precisely this idea this morning with a friend. I propose a two year mandatory period. Exemptions would apply in limited cases perhaps - like religious objectors. It would create a 'standing army' of millions - and a large reserve for those who stay actively interested after the formal time period. No need to draft in time of war - the argument that forced service doesn't work misses a big mark - this country has had to employ a forced draft for major conflicts like Viet-nam anyway.

  Several advantages - not the least of which is a reestablishment of discipline into the youth of our nation. It would encourage higher education due to the military picking up part of the cost [or some college could be part of the military training itself to kick start school]. It might help reduce some other societal problems also. It would lend focus during the service portion, and alertness when they returned to civilian status.

  I am all for it - and find it interesting that some politicians support it. I did not know that.

  Thanx for posting this.

  Jeff
• 

  bigdreaux

  i completly respect and support the military. but, what makes it so good, is, the people are DEDICATED men and women. if your forced to do something, you have a tendency to get bitter. i think it should stay voluntary, but, if we get invaded, it is everyones responsibility to take up arms and defend this great land.
• 

  5go

  Come on we in the US are taxed to death, to keep the war machine ready to spread US imperialism, we need a break, from too much government, the government is already too top heavy, with lying politicians, who do the bidding of the rich under the disguise of fighting for freedom.

  That war machine is implace because we have a voluteer army remember the saying " they signed up for it" not "they are doing their duty to country". They signed on the dotted line means the masses need not worry they wanted it, no guilt but, what if they didn't then well maybe the people would be guilted if not scared to use it for fool errans. Not only that but, if only those that serve were allowed to hold office after being on the bottom rung of the millitary, they might have some empathy politicians don't have currently.