(Yeah, I did it on purpose. I notice that the two thread title ingredients that
get the most interest here are "Religion" and "Michael Moore". Why that is,
should be a thread subject all it's own. By tomorrow, there will be 2 or more
pages of responses to this and hundreds of views. Mods, please show restraint,<br> because it is an important subject, and an actual proposal posted by a TFP member to put the possibility of a full military draft on the table",
especially given the presumably high number of TFP members, potentially of draft age, makes now the time to
bring attention to this "canary in a coal mine", of a post for consideration of a "full military draft" proposal, to as many TFPers who stray by here, as possible.)
<b>
The thread question is simple. Should our government be considering a military draft before the national leaders show by example of influencing a
signifigant number of their own young family members to serve in some
signifigant way in America's "War on Terror", and in Bush's spread of democracy?</b>
This started as a reply to a post on the "Looks like we're going to have a draft after all" thread". <br>I responded in disagreement to someone who posted that the possibility of a "full military draft" should be on the table now.
Bush and Cheny and the leadership in the House and the Senate rant on
about how "America was attacked", to implore us to commit to their misguided war, disguised as a reasonable and effective military response...........
watch what they do, no what they say. Michael Moore is vilified by many of
you, for making a movie that pointed out the obvious.
Yeah we need a "full military draft" because the example of the families of
our national leaders compells it:
Is the lemming-like, reflexive support of the Bush rhetoric and policy so strong that no argument, <br>no matter how obvious, can prompt any questioning of the gap between militaristic propoganda versus real world signs of true leadership?
Instead of Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 influencing all Americans to question the true motives and intentions of our national leaders with regard to easily measurable results of their efforts to set an example by influencing their own family members to serve in the cause of "defending America" here is an (typical ?) example of the reaction of the right to Michael Moore pointing out the discrepancy in Bush and in Congress's rhetoric.
<a href="http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/740/">http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/740/</a>
Quote:
<a href="http://myhome.hanafos.com/~commo7/senators'%20sons%20in%20war%20an%20army%20of%20one.htm">Senators' Sons in War: An Army of One</a>
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, March 21 2003. As one of 99 senators who voted on Thursday to commend President Bush for his leadership on Iraq, Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, wanted the troops to know that "we are proud of our military, proud of their capability and confident that they will win this war."
Mr. Johnson's pride, though, is tinged with a father's fear. He is the lone member of the Senate ?and possibly the only member of Congress ?whose child is helping in the fighting in Iraq.
Mr. Johnson's son Brooks, 31, is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, in a helicopter assault unit that, the last the senator knew, was stationed in Kuwait, awaiting orders. Last fall, the senator voted to give the president authority to wage war with Iraq, a decision that effectively put his son in the risky spot today......
..............Members of Congress with children in the military have been much more of a rarity since the demise of the draft. Those whose sons and daughters enlist, as did Sergeant Johnson, are rarer still. Two House members have children who joined as officers, according to a survey.
Critics of the war say armed conflict might be less likely if the politicians who made the decisions to commit troops put their own sons and daughters at risk, an argument put forth by Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of Manhattan, when he introduced legislation to revive the draft.
Some scholars say war itself might be waged differently if the children of the elite were involved.
"When you have the leadership of the country not having its children in the ranks, I think that sends a subliminal message to society that these wars cannot take casualties," said Charles C. Moskos, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University who specializes in the military.
Professor Moskos noted the difference between today and decades past was that "all of the Kennedy brothers served, none of the Kennedy cousins served."....................
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/jan-june04/schaeffer_04-22.html">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/jan-june04/schaeffer_04-22.html</a>
Guest essayist Frank Schaeffer, whose latest book is " Faith of Our Sons: A Father's Wartime Diary" offers some thoughts about those who send troops to war.
FRANK SCHAEFFER: The military records of the presidential candidates are hot topics. But as the father of a member of our military, I'm less interested in the candidate's past service than in asking "Where are their children?"
From March through December of 2003, my son, a corporal in the United States Marine corps, was facing roadside bombs and random bullets in Afghanistan. I was proud of John's service, and terrified. What our political leaders said about "supporting our troops" didn't comfort me. In one crucial respect, they and I had nothing in common. Almost none of their children were in harm's way.
SPOKESMAN: Yesterday, December 7, 1941...
FRANK SCHAEFFER: At one time, many of our leaders were also military parents. Jon Meacham notes in his recent book, "Franklin and Winston," that Eleanor Roosevelt wrote, "I think my husband would have been very much upset if the boys had not wanted to go into the war immediately, but he did not have to worry very much because they either were already in before the war began, or they went in immediately."
Roosevelt's most influential advisor, Harry Hopkins, also had children who volunteered. His youngest son, Stephen, was killed in the Pacific. Many members of Congress had sons or daughters serving. Some were wounded, and others killed. A lot has changed since our political elites were encouraging, even expected, their children to volunteer.
According to an article by Tom Ford in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune wherein he cited two experts on trends in military service, only 30 percent of the 535 members of Congress have a military background. This number is down from 1969 when more than two-thirds had served. And only six representatives and one senator are known to have children serving.
I never served in the military, and I was dismayed when my son volunteered. And I don't mean to single out individuals, but several examples illustrate a serious dilemma: When it comes to service, our ruling class no longer puts its money where its mouth is.
President Bush refers to the U.S. military as our finest young men and women; his daughters did not volunteer. As first lady, Sen. Hillary Clinton, often said that she looked to Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as role models. But there is no evidence Senator Clinton is "very much upset" by the fact that her service-age daughter did not volunteer to fight in the war that Senator Clinton voted for and Senator Kerry's children did not volunteer. Yet the fact that he did not inspire his children to serve is not seen as a disqualification for his seeking the office of commander and, in these days of the all-volunteer military, recruiter-in-chief.
Leaders on the right talk about the need to project American power. Where is their practical patriotism? Where are their children? Leaders on the left talk about fairness to working people. Where is their practical solidarity with the working people defending them? Where are their children?
In Pericles' funeral oration, he says, "For a man's counsel cannot have equal weight or worth when he alone has no children to risk in the general danger." To me, this summarizes a serious moral problem: the unfairness of being led by a class that only sends the sons and daughters of others to defend us.
Eleanor wrote of her wartime farewell to her sons, "I imagine every mother felt as I did when I said good-bye. Life had to go on, and you had to do what was required of you, but something inside of you died." I wish we were still led by women and men who could honestly identify with "every mother" and father who has experienced the heart-stopping mix of pride and sorrow attending a farewell to a son or daughter who has volunteered to defend us. If we were, this country would be fairer. If we were, our leaders' words about war and peace would have weight.
|
An update on the activities of a true patriot who truly lives by his convictions. IMO, neither Bush nor Rumsfeld are fit to command this Marine.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.newsrecord.org/news/2005/02/16/News/AntiWar.Marine.To.Speak-865195.shtml">http://www.newsrecord.org/news/2005/02/16/News/AntiWar.Marine.To.Speak-865195.shtml</a>
<b>Anti-war Marine to speak</b>
By Meghan Goth
Published: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
He appears on controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's latest film Fahrenheit 9/11, and some may recognize his voice from the independent national radio show Democracy Now.
But this Thursday he will make an appearance at the University of Cincinnati.
Anti-war activist and U.S. Marine Abdul R. Henderson will present his speech, "Stories from the Front Line," at 7 p.m. tomorrow in the Tangeman University Center Great Hall.
Henderson will address "how individuals can take a stronger role in their countries' political decisions," according to Ahoo Tabatabai, program coordinator for the UC Diversity Education Program.
The Diversity Education Program is sponsoring Henderson's visit.
Henderson is currently making a trip around the United States to visit various universities.
His goal is to promote the anti-war movement, he said.
"I want to make [students] aware of current events and have a better sense of national security issues, and especially get them to participate in voting," he said.
Despite what some might think, Henderson said that he does not find it difficult or of conflicting interest to be in the Marine Corps and participate in an anti-war movement.
"I do have a first amendment right," he said. "Just by joining the military, I don't give up that right."
Henderson joined the Marine Corps in 1999 and was sent to Iraq when the war started during spring 2003.
He stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 that he will not return to Iraq if the military calls his reserve unit back to active duty.
Henderson said he wants students to be informed of what is going on in the world.
"They are the new generation and will be the new leaders of the country," he said.
Henderson's visit to UC was arranged after his agent, Raul Davis, visited programmers at the university to ask whether a speech by Henderson would fit in well with other UC programs.
Tabatabai said that the point of Henderson's visit to UC is not 'to push political viewpoints, but to show folks that political change is possible through students."
"My understanding is that he sees the war as an economic venture and not how it is being portrayed as a war of liberation," Tabatabai said.
She also noted that Henderson said he thinks many poor black individuals are being recruited into the military.
He said that the issue needs to be recognized and addressed by young people.
"He made the statement that he, as a poor person, doesn't want to go to Iraq and kill other poor people," she said.
<b>
Tabatabai said she encourages all students to see Henderson's speech.
If nothing else, she said, Henderson's ideas might broaden students' minds and political perspective.</b>
"[Henderson] embodies very interesting identities," she said. "He is well-spoken and outgoing."
|
02-17-2005, 09:46 AM
