Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
interesting willravel:
i had not considered the extent to which last night's little talk might have in fact been aimed primarily at the military. this is an interesting angle to consider--i think i underestimated it because of the aesthetic preference the bush crowd seems to have for surrounding themselves with people in uniform in general, as if that is the a priori support base for their policies.
|
Reminicent of the Bush fighter landing on the aircraft carrier. Isn't propoganda fun?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
given the lunacy, the non-planning of the iraq escapade, and given that the most direct result of that--and a whole series of other rumsfeld-specific decisions regarding how the military would be deployed--it is the soldiers who obviously stand to pay directly and most severely, i would not be surprised if there were real problems relative to this occupation developing from within the military.
i have seen lots of isolated stories about crumbling support for bushpolicies within the military, but frankly have no idea of how widespread that kind of drift is, what its motors are--or even how one would go about finding out about this--whether it is tracked in any way, where the results of such tracking might be found, etc. i mean, given the nature of the military as a top-down structure owing its obedience to the commander in chief (no matter what level of nitwit that commander might be) i wonder if there is even any interest in tracking shifts in the general attitudes within the military vis-a-vis an action.
does anyone know whether data like this is either produced or available, and if so where one might find it?
|
Right now information on that is sketchy at best,probably completly skewed no matter where you get it from. Honestly, the best way to find out is to speak one-on-one to military officers over there. I get to chat on AIM with my buddies pretty often. I've also gotten a few letters from them (they were obviously opened, isn't that illegal?). 5 of 6 people I know over there are considering the C.O. discharge so much that they'd mention it on AIM, which is hardly secure. The best thing we can do for them right now is to remind them that you don't have to fight an illegal war, and you don't have to follow illegal or immoral orders. If your C.O. tells you to go send a few shells into an orphanage or synagogue that is clearly filled with children and civilians, you can ask to be relieved. If you are afraid of a draft, you can even fill out a C.O. claim now.
To those over there right now, or those who are about to go: A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles. This person may either be assigned to Alternative Service, or not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.It depends on what your objection is based on. Know that you're claim will have to be presented and decided by a board. You will have to explain yourself. You can appeal the boards decision.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
a conjecture: it would seem to me that the bush squad might be realizing they have fucked up, based on dissent that is coming from all sides. consider the timing of the attempts to enlist eu assistance in the "reconstruction"--or the transition away from occupation toward actual reconstruction--it would make sense that there is significant discontent within the military over the nature and goals of this operation..and that this might be a significant factor in the decision to approach the eu.
it would seem to me that the most logical way out of this mess woudl be for the bushpeople to go, hat in hand, to the countries they blew off in 2002 and seek to internationalize the reconstruction and for the americans in general to take their leave of longterm dreams of controlling iraqi oil...which was pushed from the outset as the way this action would pay for itself.
but i doubt seriously that this administration is capable of that kind of reflection, much less this kind of action--my sense is that they are far too arrogant to be able to force themselves to submit to what they would see as humiliation.
but the consequences of not doing it would seem to be chaos in the short and longer run.
so it would seem to me that the wages of shortsighted arrogance will be many many more people killed, maimed, etc.
all this because i do not see how, at this point, the americans could possibly not find themselves cast as occupiers. which would mean that i do not see how the americans could possibly run a reconstruction that would not be undercut from the start because it would be seen as another mode of occupation.
|
I don't see that kind of reflection or action in the future. The last thing this administration wants to communicate is remorse. If they show remorse, they show weakness (in their twisted minds), and also open the possibility that they were wrong. We should outsource the reconstruction to companies from countries where we've ruined the economy, but we rarely do what we should.
What I think will happen is simply for this administration to continue in it's terrible reconstruction. The death toles will rise for American and English soldiers, rebels, and innocent non-combatent Iraqi civilians. Bush will finish his term as his popularity continues dropping, as it has been. When he leaves his office, the United States will still be in this horrific polarization that threatens to cause further civil unrest, and Iraq will still be a terrible place to be for soldiers and Iraqis alike.
Our only possible way out is if the Democrats, the Beowolf to the Republicans Grendel, can muster it's strength and really fight back. We need to call BS every time a FOX news anchor opens his or her mouth. We need to call the President on every speech in which he tells us the 'war' is going well. If the war is going so well, why is terrorism so high compared to where it was a year ago, two years ago, 5 years ago? If the war is going so well, why haven't the Iraqis accepted us with open arms? Why do we need greater privacy-invading acts for our own safety?
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm for consientious objectors