|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 78 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 7 of 78:
| 
Nov 7 18:28 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 8 of 78:
|
Nov 7 18:53 UTC 2003 |
Oh richard, puh-leeze...
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 78:
|
Nov 7 19:01 UTC 2003 |
I dunno. If you substitute "military-industrial complex" for "the
military" in what Richard is saying, I think there's considerable
validity in it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 10 of 78:
|
Nov 7 19:22 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 78:
|
Nov 7 19:30 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:02 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 13 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 14 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:08 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
drew
|
|
response 15 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:25 UTC 2003 |
"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.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 78:
|
Nov 7 20:55 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 19 of 78:
|
Nov 7 21:03 UTC 2003 |
AN ALL GAY MILITARY!
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 78:
|
Nov 7 21:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 21 of 78:
|
Nov 7 21:14 UTC 2003 |
wwII in germany?
|
flem
|
|
response 22 of 78:
|
Nov 7 22:02 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 78:
|
Nov 7 22:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 24 of 78:
|
Nov 8 01:32 UTC 2003 |
(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.
|
mary
|
|
response 25 of 78:
|
Nov 8 02:27 UTC 2003 |
What if the military views the order as lawful but the
soldier sees it as immoral?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 78:
|
Nov 8 03:16 UTC 2003 |
Then follow your conscience and take your lumps.
Just like M. Ali did, back in the mid-1960s.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 78:
|
Nov 8 03:43 UTC 2003 |
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)
|
aruba
|
|
response 28 of 78:
|
Nov 8 04:01 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 78:
|
Nov 8 04:31 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 78:
|
Nov 8 04:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 31 of 78:
|
Nov 8 04:53 UTC 2003 |
Not quite. Think of the dog in "The Jerk", and you'll get closer to what
is actually said.
|