Subject: [IP] Calling Old Man Potter.... From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Date: Thu, November 6, 2003 17:06 To: ip@v2.listbox.com Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:56:58 -0600 From: Bob Alberti <alberti@sanction.net> Subject: Calling Old Man Potter.... To: dave@farber.net Uncle Sam wants you! You can volunteer now for your local draft board. http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html More info at http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm Or go directly to the online form to volunteer for your local draft board! https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp Bob Alberti, CISSP, President Sanction, Inc. Phone: (612) 486-5000 ext 211 PO Box 583453 http://www.sanction.net Mpls, MN 55458-3453 "You run backups, but have you ever tested whether you can restore files?"78 responses total.
So we don't have a draft but we still have draft boards. Hey, that'll give me something to do when I retire. What's the pay scale?
Hey, at the rate things are going we might need to have a draft again, eventually.
Right, John. The Selective Service Act still requires registration at 18. The mechanism is being maintained in case it is ever needed.
This response has been erased.
Okay, scratch that idea. They couldn't pay me enough anyway.
This response has been erased.
re #6...I think the military has an image problem and deservedly so. Look at the scandal at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, where it turns out that female cadets, a lot of them, were sexually assaulted or sexually harrassed and often didn't report it, because the military justice system was stacked against them. Look at the Navy with the tailhook scandal. It is the military culture that causes those scandals. If you were a young person, and you looked at the military, and saw that you would be giving up a lot of your rights and letting yourself be subjected to intense psychological and social pressures, why would you join? The fact is that when the draft was done away with, the quality of our servicemen went down because not that many people want to volunteer for that kind of abuse. The kids who volunteer for the military today seem to be either from longtime military families, where service is part of their family culture, or kids who join because they want the financial assistance, or lack opportunities elsewhere. and cross you said "don't blame the military for war", but you forget that to the military, war is business. Without war, the military has a harder time justifying its relevance. I don't think most people blamed the military for the war in Vietnam, but people DID blame the military for extending and prolonging the war. After a while, it wasn't even about winning the war in Vietnam, it was about keeping it going. Military leaders today would not mind a lengthy u.s. police presence in Iraq if they were honest about it, because it pumps money into the military. It provides growth for the military establishment and the military culture. For them, it is good for business.
Oh richard, puh-leeze...
I dunno. If you substitute "military-industrial complex" for "the military" in what Richard is saying, I think there's considerable validity in it.
Jim's experience with the military was that it rewarded successful dishonesty by making rules that were impossible to follow. You had to study after curfew if you wanted to pass, for instance.
Personally, I think either Selective Service should be done away with, or women should be required to register as well. As it currently stands, it's a bit of an anachronism.
Does not considerable blame for the "scandals" lie at the feet of those who have ill-advisedly chosen to turn an institution that is meant to fight and defend into one that is just another tool for social engineering and cultural experimentation? If anything has deterred many young men from serving, it is very possible that having to accept "dumbed down" training standards for women could be the reason.
This response has been erased.
i'd be down with the national park gig but couldn't you combine military activity with trash collection like shooting litterbugs at glacier national park or something?
"Drop and give me twenty". "You eat it (a donut). They're paying for it." "I want that head so clean and sanitary that the Virgin mary herself would be proud to come in and take a dump." "I will tear off your ear and skullf*ck you!!" This sort of stuff is why I never joined, and why I oppose a draft.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #12: Should we return to the days of an all-male military, then? Or maybe an all-white military? How far back should we go?
AN ALL GAY MILITARY!
This response has been erased.
wwII in germany?
re #19: you're going to get me in trouble for laughing too loud at work. :) As I believe I have said elsewhere, the main reason (aside from having my head ripped off and my neck shat down, that is) I will never join the military is that I am not willing to surrender my personal authority over the morality of my actions. If I am to be put in a situation where I have to decide whether or not to shoot another human being, I am damn well going to reserve the right to make my own decision about whether or not to do it; I will not allow anyone else the right to order me to do it. That's the main problem I have with the idea of mandatory national service. If you have your choice of, say, active military service or cleaning up trash in national parks, that's one thing, but to be forced into military service, ugh.
This response has been erased.
(You still have that personal responsibility, flem. If the order is unlawful, disobey it.) Since the switch to an all-volunteer force, the standards have gone up. When I was recruiting, I had to get three high school graduates to accept one drop-out. The actual percentage of high school graduates was much higher, somewhere around 90 per cent. I doubt it's gotten easier.
What if the military views the order as lawful but the soldier sees it as immoral?
Then follow your conscience and take your lumps. Just like M. Ali did, back in the mid-1960s.
I want to hear anyone say if they had a college daughter, they'd want her going to the air force academy, giving all that has been reported about what has gone on, and how callous and sexist the military leadership is there. Even people I know who are military veterans don't deny that the military is sexist and homophobic. I think "don't ask, don't tell" is a bad policy regarding gays in the military. This is a policy Clinton reluctantly signed off on when the military pitched a hissy fit over his campaign promise to make it legal for openly gay people to serve in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a disgrace IMO, it is simply the military being allowed to discriminate as they always have. So a gay solder must stay in the closet for the length of his or her military service, while straight soldiers and other military can flaunt their sexuality blatantly (see Tailhook)
Richard, Tailhook was 12 years ago, and the Navy did an about face after that, instituting a "zero tolerance" policy on sexual harrassment. I haven't been in the military, but what I've heard is that in the Navy, at least, sexual harrassment is now taken very seriously.
just because there is a zero tolerence level does not mean there is no sexual harrasment. I have worked for any number of employers that had zero-tollerence, but people still did it. And it ain't just the men.
This response has been erased.
Not quite. Think of the dog in "The Jerk", and you'll get closer to what is actually said.
My understanding is that drill sergeants are no longer allowed to verbally abuse recruits, let alone lay hands on them. The sergeants are supposed to respect the recruits. When I was in Army basic training (1982), they were allowed to say pretty much anything they wanted, but not to lay on hands. They pretty much *didn't* lay on hands. I was never struck by a drill sergeant. So, if I understand policy correctly, they're probably actually not verbally assaulting recruits. I find it a little hard to imagine... but my father found it hard to imagine they didn't hit. We both have trouble imagining a non-smoking Army, women in combat, and the integration of gays into the military. People seem to often assume that military culture cannot and *will* not change, but that's not at all a correct assumption. re resp:6: Currently, there are National Guard and Reservists who have been sent overseas for a 1 year tour of duty. They thought they were going for a 6 week to 3 month tour, and then that got extended after they'd reported. One of the effects is likely to be an exodus from the Reserves/Guard as these people are sent home. If the exodus is big enough, and there aren't enough replacements, one possible effect is reinstatement of the draft. I don't think it likely, and I don't think it's a good idea, but it's possible. Socially, there's already a small movement in favor of reinstituting the draft. The military is made up of disproportionate numbers of minorities and people from poor families. Some want to correct that by picking a representative cross-section of young men. re resp:27: I have a co-worker with a daughter at West Point. I'm told there is still some discomfort with women in the service academies, but it's getting less all the time. There's a *lot* less tolerance for harrassment.
The argument for the draft in #32 ignores the fact that rich kids generally got out of it anyway.
Fags can't integrate into the military, because any military with fags isn't a military at all.
I am in favor of universal service. Right out of high school all able bodied students do service for some period of time, either in the military or otehr social service.
Universal service would be very expensive but a lot would get done. It certainly would have some interesting effects on the labor market for low skilled workers.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
So unless you're willing to do something you consider immoral you're not military material?
This response has been erased.
How do you know what situations you'll be faced with when you signed up 4 years ago, maybe under another administration when we were still vacationing in the country we're now bombing?
This response has been erased.
I think Dan's last comment is out of line. However, I do have a question: What particular immoral actions are you envisioning, Mary? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
See the comments section on atrios.blogspot.com for a similar though more lengthy discussion of this. The flashpoint was the notion that the military's anti-gay policy would be a problem if there were a draft, now that homosexuality doesn't carry the social stigma it once did. Some argued that, in a wartime situation necessitating a draft, people wouldn't be able to escape service by claiming to be gay, or by BEING gay. Indeed, the common draft-escape routes of the Vietnam era (including Canada) have all been closed now. But a friend of mine who served in Vietnam (and worked as a medic in hospitals and battle zones) pointed out that you can't make somebody into a soldier without his or her active cooperation. Even just wetting the bed every single night will eventually get you thrown out of the service. A passive-aggressive refusal to do anything would probably work too. Not an easy path, mind you, and you'll get a "bad" discharge paper which may affect future employment, but if you're really determined not to be in the military ...
re: "#18 (gull): Re #12: Should we return to the days of an all-male military, then?" That, Mr. gull, would depend upon whether the purpose of the military is to fight or to achieve some other ephemeral social purpose. re: "#36 (slynne): Universal service would be very expensive but a lot would get done." Ms. slynne, Your conclusion is absolutely unsupportable. Particulary with reference to a government program. klg
This response has been erased.
I guess klg never heard of the CCC or WPA, nor the Interstate Highway System.
resp:35 "other social service" You mean like Peace Corps or AmeriCorps?
Re: #43 One example would be our Interrogation techniques on Iraqi citizens. It is documented that the US military, in some instances, resorts to forcing those in custody to knell (yes, on their knees), naked, in cold and brightly lit rooms, for 12 hours or more without relief. When the commanders were asked about this they replied this was within the rules of the Geneva convention. Amnesty International is involved. That's a well documented and recent example of a legal but immoral US military action, in my opinion.
This response has been erased.
The Geneva Convention is part of the kinder and gentler aspects of war to which the USA agreed.
This response has been erased.
re #21 v...uhhh, nope! both japanese-americans and african-americans foguth amazingly well in wwii in europe. wwii was not all-white by *any* stretch of the imagination.
there were african americans in the german army?
*hic*
I believe that troops were segregated in WW II, though, i.e. blacks fought in separate units from whites. Correct me if I'm wrong. Truman integrated the armed forces, after WW II was over.
Here is some basic background on the 100th and 442nd units
in WWII:
http://www.ohanamagazine.com/marapr2001/feature.html
War is both kinder and gentler as a result of international law. Poison gas is illegal, and all sorts of mistreatment of prisoners is illegal. Even making your own weapons or modifying them to do more damage is illegal. For example, it's illegal to carve notches in your bullets to make them turn so they do more damage. The idea is that the purpose of warfare is to defeat the enemy, not to kill off the individuals in their army. People do still die, but not as many, and not in as many terrible ways. Even if the Geneva Convention is not always strictly followed, it is generally followed, most of the time. That's a good thing, a *very* good thing. Few want to die in combat, or be tortured if they're captured.
re: "#49 (gelinas): I guess klg never heard of the CCC or WPA, nor the Interstate Highway System." Perhaps, Mr. gelinas, you could e-mail me a 1,500 word summary, then? Many thanks. klg
I can do better than that: all three accomplished many things, and all three cost of lots of money.
Please provide footnotes and references. Thank you.
(Re #58: URL doesn't work.)
(strange, just tested it again from home this time and it still works)
Are landmines still illegal? Lots of them were used in Bosnia. They kill civilians for many years afterwards. Bosnia hired special crews to find and remove them. I did a translation about this, also a long time ago about underwater mine removal.
I don't think landmines are covered by the Geneva convention. There is a large worldwide effort to ban them, though.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #36: > It certainly would have some interesting effects on the labor market > for low skilled workers. The government would just let more illegal aliens in to make up for it. ;> Re #47: You didn't answer the other half of my question. Would the military also be better off if it hadn't been racially integrated? That was a social experiment at the time. Re #48: I think it's because the gung-ho redneck culture in the military considers gay men a threat to all that is manly and American.
shit...i didn't realize that tod, jep, jack and tom from ASH, the lady who was the playground supervisor at my last job, my cousin mike, jerryr and numeroud friends and family both male and female were gung-ho rednecks!!! i must stop associating with them IMMEDIATELY!!!
This response has been erased.
did you have nekkid lady mudflaps on your humvees?
Haha. Tom from ASH was a total redneck. HAHAHAHA!
re #57 .. nto a contention .. *both* the black adn japanese units were segregated. and they fought damn well! each/both (whatever your choice).
separating military service froem gung-h rednecks is beyond phlappy-choe. /sighs
This response has been erased.
re #70/// .. and me too,you dip. /
/\ad awghioer whore ,.
You have several choices: