why do nations sacrifice their young?

this past weekend i took a flight up north & had a stopover in atlanta. the airport was full of young men heading off to iraq. 100s of boys, all obviously under 25, many even looked like they were 12. obivously theyre 18 but still...

it was hard to sit there & see them waiting for their flights. not just because they were all so cute, but just the idea of sending off a kid straight out of highschool to die for a country that most of the world hates... i just think its stupid, and i dont understand the logic.

and its not just the US... many countries require military service of young men before college... but those countries arent out stomping all over the world in the name of 'terror'....

*sigh* .... i dunno... i have young friends and they are terrified of a draft. and i am too. i dont believe in it, and im losing faith in this country. quite frankly if a draft were ever about to come into being, i think i'd take my friends & leave the country.

ok, rant over. back to work :)

I don't think there's any way around a draft at all.

it's gonna happen, and it's just a matter of when.

As bad as a draft sounds, just think, you could be living over there where the ruler told you what to do or you had your head cut off. Or like in Korea, by law you must do X number of years in the service or goto jail.

People are so fast to jump up and say what they hate about where they live, but just think... It could be a LOT worse. :specs:

I love America. No country on this planet is perfect. No country on this planet has stayed in power. It's easy to hate the most powerful country. Traveling overseas I've seen HUNDREDS of reasons why people would be jealous of America and want us to fail. One thing that's important to realize is they hate America, yet want us to give them something. Part of us staying in power is by showing our military might... and sadly, some of our people die doing this.

A great site to goto is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fthefallen.htm . The farther back the date range you select, the more photos you can see. The site shows photos of each troop and how he died. A lot of really hot guys.. their whole lives ahead of them.

After watching Farenheight 911 it's easy to see why Bush has sent our troops to Iraq... they showed proof that Bush, and others in power, had TRILLIONS of dollars to make in military contracts there. By going to war a few select companies have gone through the roof in profits. Also don't forget that Iraq was first to find WMD, now that we didn't find any it's to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Some thing the reason Bush allowed 142 of Bin Ladens relatives to leave the states, while all other flights were grounded, was because his proven fiancial ties with the bin laden family and because they own 7% of the entire U.S. economy in their business dealings.

Enough of that.... but to answer your question.. there are many reasons to send these poor guys to die.. unfortunately, right now, they are all the wrong reasons. >off my soapbox now<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by andymike
As bad as a draft sounds, just think, you could be living over there where the ruler told you what to do or you had your head cut off. Or like in Korea, by law you must do X number of years in the service or goto jail.

People are so fast to jump up and say what they hate about where they live, but just think... It could be a LOT worse. :specs:

---

Eh I dunno about that. The whole reason we - the United States of America - profess to having an entitlement to impose our influence upon others and lead this supposed campaign to spread democracy and freedom across the world is because we say it can't get worse. Not here.

No... we won't chop of someone's head for pissin' on an effigy of Bush.
No... we won't kidnap and torture Ralph Nader for attempting to disrupt the established political order.
No... we won't put AKs in to the hands of 14yos and throw them in to the middle of some tribal conflict.

When we see ourselves stripped of our civil rights we're entitled to be outraged and fight it because we operate from the accepted premise that civil rights are what we deserve and are inalienably ours. We don't have to suck it up and take it just because people have had it worse in Rwanda.
When some of our troops torture and murder Iraqi civilians and prisoners, we should be outraged because we operate from and preach the idea that to do so is wrong. We can't just shrug it off because Saddam Hussein was doing it more often and at a larger scale.

We can't claim some kind of righteous or principled guidance above the standards we find fault with in others but then borrow the standards of others to excuse or own failings and shortcomings when it suits us to do so. What's wrong and right isn't determined by who is doing it or who did it first. We decided a long time ago that the draft was wrong, that a volunteer military was right, and that young people should be free to set their own course in life. That certain principles of duty and service, along with practical experience and benefits gained would encourage people to join the military of their own accord. To go back on that and abandon those notions wouldn't be acceptible because other countries have a draft. It'd be unacceptable because we, as a country, decided the draft was wrong.

I look back on the days when I first joined the service 10 years ago. And think about how young, impressionable, naive, immature, inexperienced and unwise to the world I was. As were my friends in the service at the time. We were kids. We had so limited an understanding of the world around us, had yet to experience so much in life. Fresh out of high school like the models on some of your twink sites. And to think that kids that are today like we were back then are out dying in a war that's been poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly if at all justified, poorly reasoned... pretty sorry.

GWB... Dick... Rummy... Wolfie... Condi... they all have blood on their hands. And though the American people don't seem to think they should be held accountable to that, at some point down the line and many decades from now when they're older and grayer and long since retired and pass on to meet their makers, blissfully in their sleep and of natural causes and content in their belief they accomplished something worthwhile in their lives, I hope they then wake up to an eternity of forced realization they signed the death warrants of thousands of kids whose trust they'd abused and neglected and the guilt imposed by the untold tens of thousands they condemned to die and then, finally then, are faced with the reality of how sinisterly lived their lives were.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BDBionic
I look back on the days when I first joined the service 10 years ago. And think about how young, naive, immature, inexperienced and unwise to the world I was.

---

Your whole post was very well said and SO on the mark! In reference to the quote above... how did you join? Were you recruited? On Farenheight 911 they follow some recruiters around and see how they goto the poor parts of town, find something someone is interested in ( like basketball ) and they say " Hey, you can play basketball on the army's basketball team and travel the world " So cynical. They also make the point that, of all our U.S. senators, only 1 has a child in the armed forces.

It's common knowledge that people join the forces for economic reasons, not, in most cases, for the reasons they would have joined 100 years ago. People now join the army so they can get an education and have steady employment, isn't that what our government is supposed to give us anyway? :wacko:

There is not going to be a draft. In fact the entire plan of a 21st century US military prohibits a draft. Donald Rumsfeld has spoken extensively about this --- repeatedly. He says that the new force structure should be too specialized and require too much training for there to be a draft. A draft would also cost a lot of additional money.

The Wall Street Journal has written extensively about countries with conscription also are the ones with worst prepared militaries. The paper's example was Belgium, where their military essentially is a benefits-laden long-term civil service job.

So not only is the cabinet leadership speaking at length that there should be no draft, but also conservative journalists and policy experts write extensively making the case against a draft.

The draft is only used as a tool to scare young people --- something I would argue is morally questionable. Think about it -- the intention of the entire government and public policy writers is to not create a draft. So the motive to keep bringing up a draft is what? To scare people? Is that admirable? Is that even intellectually honest?

I guess my point is to just think about what you are saying here. I know people feel strongly against the war, which I respect.

Furthermore, all the soldiers you saw in the Atlanta airport volunteered for what they are doing. I do not see any way you can think of them as victims.... they volunteered. The country as one collective mass did not make them go.

On an interesting note, around Christmas, I ran into a friend of mine (gay) who was in the Army, and then later he stayed in the reserves. He actually *reenlisted* back into the Army for Iraq last year.

One small example that apparently there is ample interest in military service, and not cause to reinstate the draft.

I actually wanted to go into the Navy when I was a kid. I think in my teen years I figured out I was gay, and opted out of all that. Others did, and I actually respect them for joining the military.... something I chose not to do.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
Furthermore, all the soldiers you saw in the Atlanta airport volunteered for what they are doing. I do not see any way you can think of them as victims.... they volunteered.

---

They didn't "volunteer" they entered a contract with the government to received money, and benefits, for their services.

How many people would we have in the army if money, or education, wasn't their main motivation? It's irresponsible to imply that most of our servicemen are there for altruistic reasons.

In regards to servicemen reenlisting: Servicemen get bonuses, and extra benefits, to re-enlist. Active duty soldiers can get $20,000 to re-enlist for 3 years , reserve soldiers cant get $5,000. SOURCE Do a search under bonuses to re enlist for the armed forces and see what comes up.

More people are there to make money, get an education and see the world then are there for the altruistic reasons you suggest.

All this talking about drafts and service men makes me want to head down to SD and do my part for the country. Mainly see how many hotties I can get in one night at the local club. :specs:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirt
In reference to the quote above... how did you join? Were you recruited?

---

Out of high school I applied to several of the service academies. Military Academy (West Point), Naval Academy (Annapolis), Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs) and Coast Guard Academy (New London). Got an appointment/acceptance to each.

I didn't join out of some higher sense of service. I applied because 1) they're all esteemed institutions of higher learning 2) you're guaranteed a job upon graduation (as a commissioned officer in the academy's respective service) and 3) because they're free. I didn't want to burden my family with the costs of a college education, nor did I want to assume untold thousands of dollars in educational loan debts. Further, I wasn't a resident of any state and was denied resident tuition status to all the public universities I applied to (I grew up overseas, though am an American citizen). So I chose the USCG Academy in the beliefs I'd be practically and actively engaged in doing good things - saving lives, keeping drugs from entering the country, protecting the environment - as opposed to conditioned for the purpose of taking lives and aggressively asserting the influence of one state upon another.

Once there, I did indeed eagerly embrace the sense of duty and patriotism that they work hard to instill in you right from the get go and was very proud to be doing what I was doing. But it was definitely a financial decision from the start. It all became pointless in the end anyways, however, when ... "No one asked, but I told the wrong person", as I refer to it these days. hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
Furthermore, all the soldiers you saw in the Atlanta airport volunteered for what they are doing. I do not see any way you can think of them as victims.... they volunteered. The country as one collective mass did not make them go.

---

I just don't buy that argument. Whereas I agree there will be no draft, I don't agree that because they're volunteers, servicemen and women aren't entitled to protection from the faulty judgement of their leadership.

I very strongly believe they're victims, here. Whether or not we have a volunteer service, the burden rests on the shoulders of this country's civilian leadership to only send our troops in to harms way when it is plainly justified and indeed right to do so.

The burden doesn't rest upon the shoulders of servicemen and women to blindly accept being placed in to harms way when and where told.

If the president tells this country's troops to go to war, it happens because it's an order. Not because it's inherently right.

Fact of the matter is that the US military today and for the last many years has operated with educational and financialal incentives as their main recruitment tool. Not duty or service or patriotism. The only branch that's engaged in recruitment focused upon the latter is the Marine Corps, which is a smaller force easier to staff and with a history and reputation more conducive to successful recruitment without need for supplemental incentives. The Army, Navy and Air Force have all stressed tuition assistance, career training, and the advantages to be gained in a post-service civilian life as the best reasons to join up. And that is indeed why a great many people do join up. I can assure you patriotism, sacrifice and duty by in large is a sentiment instilled in most servicemen and women early in their time in. That's what basic training, military tradition and ritual and the constant indoctrination that takes place inevitably does. But it's more often instilled later on than inherent from the get go.

Sure, they signed a contract and agreed as a legal adult to accept the possible consequences - war - of making themselves available to those benefits. But that doesn't mean this country's leaders have the right to be irresponsible and reckless in calling upon them to pay up.

How many of you would date an 18 year old? Trust one to run your business? Lend your car to one? And yet going off to fight and die in war isn't plain wrong in light of their age?

These kids signed up to serve their country and it's the obligation of this nation's military and civilian leadership to ensure their lives are placed at risk if and only if it's clearly justified, right and proper. In that, we've failed them miserably.

Great post Bionic.

I have to say... the morning I watched the world trade centers get attacked I wanted to join the forces and get revenge. Had I done so, I would have trusted the government to send me to the right place! On F911 you see interviews with soldiers who didn't believe what they were doing was right and were starting to see they were not there for the reasons they were told.

I regret the loss of life in any conflict and, unfortunately, younger people are easier to control, have more incentive to join, in better shape, and will live to fight longer in the forces then someone who is older.

Thank God our technology has decreased the loss of U.S. life in warfare. I long for the day a troop of robots is sent to do our bidding instead of our children.

hrmmmmmmm.... okay -- Brian and Squirt, you know what: You guys got me on my "military solidiers as volunteers, not victims" stuff. You guys are technically right on a lot of points. I am not Deanna Troi. I do not have Betazoid powers and have not scanned the minds of all the soldiers to determine that they are volunteers eager to fight in combat. Zing!

However, on the other hand, I think you guys are kinda overreacting here. Some recruits may feel like they have gotten a raw deal. But just look at the troops and the actions overall. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, they very much know what they are doing when they enlist. It's like when guys start sleeping with other guys, they aren't tricked into tricking. You know what you are doing.

Plus, compare that to the Vietnam War, where there really was revolt in the trenches. You do not see that here with Iraq, beyond occasional instances which I am sure you would find in any situation. In fact, if they feel misled and tricked, wouldn't the military ballots have voted against Bush? Go look and see who won the vote totals in Fort Hood, Texas - where their Army infantry division has had a lot of deaths in Iraq. You will not see blue....

And with Vietnam you had huge revolt at the polls. LBJ went from a historic 1964 election to leaving disgraced and humiliated in 1968. Note that the 1968 and the 2004 elections have one interesting similarity ---- they were all about the war at that time.

I loved watching Rumsfeld getting grilled that razor question by the soldier on the armored hum-vees. And actually, I kinda think he did too.

I know it is all a matter of perspective. My main beef here was to try to dispell the draft fog. I guess we can all agree that if things go really badly in Iraq next year - the Republicans will be in deep shit. And a lot can go wrong. I guess a lot depends on how that end of January election goes.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
In fact, if they feel misled and tricked, wouldn't the military ballots have voted against Bush?

---

I never said they were tricked or mislead, I said that money and education were their motives.

I agree with you, they definately knew what they were getting into, especially the ones that enlisted after 911. Some who enlist during peacetime feel they might be lucky and not see combat.

Regardless of why they are there, I do support our troops, they are risking their lives and trusting the government is puting their lives at stake for the right reasons.

Squirt,

Money and education may very well have been there motives however, nobody forced them to make the choice, they made it of their own free will.

Irrespective of what is happening in the world right now, people who do enlist for the armed forces, in any country know full well there is a possibility of going to war, you dont think they perhaps should have spent more time considering what effect enlisting would have on their lives in the event of a war?

They made the choice.. they have to deal with the repercussions of that choice just as if you or i were to to rob a bank, we would need to deal with the repercussions on that choice.

They are doing the job that they have been PAID and EDUCATED to do.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee
Money and education may very well have been there motives however, nobody forced them to make the choice..."

---

I never said anyone forced people to join the armed forces Lee. I said "...they entered a contract with the government to received money, and benefits, for their services."

You do however bring up an interesting point Lee. When you're in an impoverished small town or city, with 50% or higher unemployment, I guess nobody really forces you to do what's needed to survive, you just do it.

how sad if you perceive that your only hope of survival is to do something that can cause you to be killed.

If I felt I had to choose between gangs, crime, drugs, or the military, I'd choose the military.

I see a recurring double standard by many of those people who claim to be either pro war, or identify themselves from some odd reason as "pro military" and "patriotic" as per however it is they describe those 2 things.

On the one hand, they call all soldiers heros. When a soldier dies they expect everyone to glorify and idolize and commend them for some sort of "noble sacrifice" and profess to be staunch supporters of people who have offered to give their lives in defense of our freedom and to whom we owe our freedom.

On the other hand, when you attempt to suggest people in the military shouldn't be expected to sacrifice their lives any more than anyone else, they run about saying "Well it's their job! If they didn't want to do it, they shouldn't have signed up! They're just doing their job and that's that!"

Well... which one is it?

If a guy dies in combat was he just doing his job and thus not deserve any more praise than anyone else?

Such subjective interpretation of what it means to be in the military and who serves.

What people who use the "It's their job. If they didn't want to do it, they shouldn't have signed up" argument are all too often doing is absolving and excusing this country's civilian leadership from holding any responsibility for their own actions. Military servicemen and women shouldn't give their lives for flawed causes and unjust campaigns because it's their job. Their job isn't to fight and die more than it is all of our jobs to ensure they never do for anything less than the absolute most justified reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
Plus, compare that to the Vietnam War, where there really was revolt in the trenches. You do not see that here with Iraq, beyond occasional instances which I am sure you would find in any situation. In fact, if they feel misled and tricked, wouldn't the military ballots have voted against Bush? Go look and see who won the vote totals in Fort Hood, Texas - where their Army infantry division has had a lot of deaths in Iraq. You will not see blue....

---

I think that's an oversimplified analysis of of certain facts with respect to things on the whole.

The military has been for a good few decades now traditionally Republican. The military is traditionally conservative.

Just as certain minority groups traditionally vote Democrat even though quite the case could be argued that it doesn't necessarily do them any good to do so or the Democratic Party doesn't really inherently look out for them or take their best interests to heart.

Further, military indoctrination and culture favors the development of loyalty towards those in the chain of command and the people who hand your orders down to you. The same culture that enables someone to put faith in the orders of a commanding officer or the nation's civilian leadership and risk death carrying them out. It's to be expected that regardless of circumstances there will be a significant amount of support within the military for the president in office.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
And with Vietnam you had huge revolt at the polls. LBJ went from a historic 1964 election to leaving disgraced and humiliated in 1968. Note that the 1968 and the 2004 elections have one interesting similarity ---- they were all about the war at that time.

---

I think some different circumstances make the Vietnam timeline not really applicable to the 2004 election.
1. There was no Sept. 11 with Vietnam. Had the VC committed a massive terrorist attack upon US soil in 1965, who knows what LBJ would have been able to get away with. Further, by the time 1968 came around the conflict in Vietnam had been going on for a good while longer than Iraq. With a draftee army, no less.
I definitely agree with you that time will tell and depending on how things go in the next few years, there could be quite shift in sentiment. But I don't think there's been enough time as of yet to be able to draw comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq with respect to the public's attitudes toward them.