|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 14, @12:22PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If war is declared, and it probably will be, 100% proof that the draft is totally unnecessary will be plainly obvious. There will be NO NEED to force the unwilling into battle. Men (and women, if we are permitted to do so) will line up around the block to register for service. Sure, a few pacifists will not register, but they will be a tiny minority. We will not *need* them.
I am 30 and chronically ill, so even if I were male, even if the prohibition against women in combat were lifted, the military would not take me. However, I'd surely quit my dot-com job and go work in a war factory.
Actually though, and we were talking about this at work this morning, this era of modern war will not be about hand-to-hand combat. There will be a little bit of that, but most soldiers are going to be fighting remotely, firing off bombs and such. Technical skill will be in far, far more demand than simple brawn. I can see the military recruiting computer programmers and other white-collar workers with high levels of technical skill.
If the military does decide to accept women, something will have to be done to accomodate the children of both single parents, and two-parent families where both spouses are serving concurrently. That's not insurmountable. It'll just take some thought. Perhaps a stipend can be given by the military to grandparents or other family members so they can care for the children. This is not a welfare freebie, but earned by those in service. The country owes it to them to care for their children while they serve.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fighting remotely has not at all proven to be an effective means of fighting against a determined foe like, for example, the Afghan soldiers who fought the Russians a few years ago. To achieve real, lasting victory, we will still need foot soldiers to take and keep real estate. We may have no intention of doing that for the long term. But in order to secure the objective of interest, this will still need to be done, at least for a minimal period.
I appreciate and respect Anonymous User's sentiment, but I disagree on the notion of real victory being achieved by a "video-game war." We did not achieve real victory in the Balkans or in Desert Storm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that combating cyber-terrorism will be a major concern in the months and years to come. There will be opportunities to serve as a civil servant or contractor for our military agencies, if you truely wish to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny thing. I was brought up, of course, with the feminist notion that the only reason we have wars at all is because of (yech) men, and their nasty excess testosterone which makes them love violence. Of course, I've long known that this is just another of the many lies that make up the feminist Big Lie; nevertheless, I'm still male-naive enough to be slightly shocked by this sort of bloodthirsty, jingoistic, "neanderthal" talk from a female. Ugly. Nevertheless, it's good to see the mask fall away.
The truth is, men fight wars for one reason: to please women, either by (1) gaining more territory and goods, or (2) defending what they have from those engaged in (1). The bottom line is, in all sexual species females rarely chose losers as mates. It's no accident that "peaceful" men are nearly always retired from the sexual marketplace.
Actually, this "war" already began long ago; this is just the first time that people here have had the opportunity to experience what their government has been systematically imposing on other, mostly "colored," populations around the world for decades -- with, of course, the cheerful support of the American people. The last time the reality of war was experienced on American soil was in the 1860s, and then only on the losing side -- not in New York.
The events of last Tuesday came as no surprise to me, nor to anyone who's been paying attention to world events, but I will admit to being a little bit surprised at just how easily Americans have been manipulated into wild enthusiasm for a "war" which will certainly benefit no one other than the very rich, very powerful few who engineered this disaster -- the same who, for instance, made a mint selling supplies to both sides throughout World War II. What could be better for "the economy" than a perpetual, unwinnable war?
It is precisely because Americans have fallen for the idea that such suffering can be safely imposed on others from a distance, like a video game, that those who have been enduring it finally became desperate enough to deliberately commit suicide -- hardly the act of a "coward" -- to bring the experience home to their tormenters. And in a most intelligent, sophisticated manner: they didn't blow up Grand Central Station, they attacked the headquarters of the real rulers. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
All the great teachers have taught one truth: sooner or later, one way or another, you get what you give. Without fail. But nobody ever listens.
"Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Indeed, over and over and over. *Sigh.*
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
