|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 78 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 78:
| 
Nov 8 14:07 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 78:
|
Nov 8 16:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 38 of 78:
|
Nov 8 19:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 39 of 78:
|
Nov 8 22:08 UTC 2003 |
So unless you're willing to do something you consider immoral
you're not military material?
|
cross
|
|
response 40 of 78:
|
Nov 8 22:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 41 of 78:
|
Nov 8 22:46 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
cross
|
|
response 42 of 78:
|
Nov 8 23:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 43 of 78:
|
Nov 9 00:29 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 78:
|
Nov 9 00:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 78:
|
Nov 9 01:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 46 of 78:
|
Nov 9 03:53 UTC 2003 |
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 ...
|
klg
|
|
response 47 of 78:
|
Nov 9 03:57 UTC 2003 |
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
|
cross
|
|
response 48 of 78:
|
Nov 9 06:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 49 of 78:
|
Nov 9 06:21 UTC 2003 |
I guess klg never heard of the CCC or WPA, nor the Interstate Highway System.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 50 of 78:
|
Nov 9 09:06 UTC 2003 |
resp:35 "other social service" You mean like Peace Corps or
AmeriCorps?
|
mary
|
|
response 51 of 78:
|
Nov 9 11:11 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 52 of 78:
|
Nov 9 16:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 78:
|
Nov 9 17:52 UTC 2003 |
The Geneva Convention is part of the kinder and gentler aspects of war to
which the USA agreed.
|
cross
|
|
response 54 of 78:
|
Nov 9 18:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 55 of 78:
|
Nov 9 19:08 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 56 of 78:
|
Nov 9 19:19 UTC 2003 |
there were african americans in the german army?
*hic*
|
remmers
|
|
response 57 of 78:
|
Nov 9 22:32 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 58 of 78:
|
Nov 10 02:31 UTC 2003 |
Here is some basic background on the 100th and 442nd units
in WWII:
http://www.ohanamagazine.com/marapr2001/feature.html
|
jep
|
|
response 59 of 78:
|
Nov 10 02:46 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 60 of 78:
|
Nov 10 03:06 UTC 2003 |
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
|