Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Answer to Migisi

In response to Answer to Migisi posted by Migisi:

I know. THat's what it's SAD!!!!

The woman who organized it has two sons serving right now in Iraq. And she told me how infuriating, upsetting, and discouraging it is - for her sons! (and her daughter as well who completed her tour earlier) - that so many Americans are either AGAINST what they are doing or apathetic/ambivalent about it. Truly a sad shame!

» Migisi - American Exceptionalism

In response to American Exceptionalism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
But I am NOT willing to let other nations dictate AMERICAN foreign policy.
.
Nor are other nations willing to let AMERICAN foreign policy dictate to them. And that's the resentment against Americans - because we've meddled FAR too much in foreign affairs which we have no right to.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Answer to Migisi

In response to Answer to Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:
.
...that so many Americans are either AGAINST what they are doing or apathetic/ambivalent about it.
.
Troops today are not conscripted, so one can only assume that by voluntarily signing up for military service, they support Bush and his war. If you check the latest polls, you'll find that Bush and his war aren't very popular these days. That's the reason for the rally's sparce attendance, IMO. I know ~I~ wouldn't have attended a pro-Bush pep rally for the Iraq war. Even if there was free food and drink.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Incomprehensible

In response to Answer to Migisi posted by Migisi:

Even if there was free food and drink.

That's taking things a bit far now, don't you think?

» Migisi - Incomprehensible

In response to Incomprehensible posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Well, if you promise there'll be chocolate, I might reconsider. Tee hee.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Answer to Migisi

In response to Answer to Migisi posted by Migisi:

.
The military has been thoroughly politicized and that is why it is a one hundred percent voluntary force.
.
The Founding Fathers warned against a "STANDING" military during times of peace.
.
Members of the military were never able to vote in elections. The purpose was to keep the military from being politicized. As we can all see the military is highly in favor of the Bush administration which holds the authorization for pay and benefits in its hands. In other words, our military is corrupted by politics. That would have been reprehensible to the Founders.
.
Why does anyone think the Founders were opposed to a "Standing" military in times of peace?
.
A conscripted military in which young men are trained--serve out a total of one year--and then released back into civilian life is not a "Standing" military.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Military

In response to Answer to Migisi posted by pink101:

The military has been thoroughly politicized and that is why it is a one hundred percent voluntary force.

The military has not been as thoroughly politicized as you say. I yield to your past military experience, but I speak as one familiar with the PRESENT military. Though it is voluntary - and this DOES INDEED mean that it reflects the culture of young people who WANT to serve their country in the military, this is NOT a bad thing.

The Founding Fathers warned against a "STANDING" military during times of peace.

Yes, they did. Ironically, the anti-Federalists (whom you criticize) were the ones LEADING THE CHARGE against a standing military.

But, fortunately, our first two Presidents understood (and our third CAME to understand) that a Republic NEEDS a strong, standing military to survive!

Members of the military were never able to vote in elections.

What? In the beginning, the voting franchise was limited BY MOST STATES to white male property owners generally 21 years of age or older. This meant that many of those in the ranks were ineligible to vote. But this was a consequence of the larger voting rights policies.

The purpose was to keep the military from being politicized. As we can all see the military is highly in favor of the Bush administration which holds the authorization for pay and benefits in its hands. In other words, our military is corrupted by politics. That would have been reprehensible to the Founders.

Interestingly, you touch on some good points here, but you're applying it the wrong way. One of the reasons that the Founders insisted via their states in limiting the voting franchise to property owners was NOT because they favored the rich - BUT because they feared the rich would exploit and manipulate the poor in the same way that YOU say is now happening with the military.

But...the Founders were NOT against individual military members voting, except for that consideration I just mentioned above. They didn't want OFFICERS and/or powerful government officials commandeering our soldiers to the polls.

It's a different situation today, though. Are you suggesting that a person should give up his or her right to vote when he or she puts on the uniform????????

Why does anyone think the Founders were opposed to a "Standing" military in times of peace?

They feared a strong military in the hands of a strong, central government - one that would try to build a dictatorship.

A conscripted military in which young men are trained--serve out a total of one year--and then released back into civilian life is not a "Standing" military.

It would be a highly inefficient one.

This was one of the HUGE FRUSTRATIONS that General Washington had in the American Revolution. Short enlistments. People would come in and as soon as they were trained and incorporated into the Continental Army - their enlistment would expire. And then the process had to be repeated all over again.

It was one of the reasons the Revolution lasted for so stinking long!! If Washington had gotten the standing, professional army that he wanted (at the outset), he could've brought the war to a successful conclusion MUCH SOONER!

» pink101 - Military

In response to Military posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I wrote, "A conscripted military in which young men are trained--serve out a total of one year--and then released back into civilian life is not a 'Standing' military."
.
and, Brian Responded with
.
It would be a highly inefficient one.
.
Please accept my apologies for saying this but you don't know what you're talking about.
.
A military reserve, highly trained and ready to report in a moment's notice is probably as good a service as can be had. For one thing, they are individuals out of the regular society with a highly developed sense of what it means to be an American. They identify one hundred percent with every other American and do not see themselves as a class of people unto themselves.
.
My military training was during a time when the draft was still going. Individuals drafted into the military were given the choice--if they qualified--to either go into the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Coast Guard. Other than that, many young men enlisted when they got out of high school so they wouldn't have their career interrupted.
.
A drafted army, it can be argued very well, is far better than a so-called "volunteer" army and in many ways.
.
The military is thoroughly politicized. They depend on the party in power to provide them with their working conditions and they represent a large voting block. When I say, thoroughly politicized, I am not necessarily saying they vote one party or the other; but, they can be influenced to vote one way or the other. I'm sure the percentage of registered voters in the military approaches much closer to 100 percent than it does in the civilian population. Long time career people in the military are very politically oriented. My family has career military members.
.
Comparing today's military in any way to the rag tag military of America's War for Independence is impossible. Volunteers came and went as they felt like it. I'm just learning some things about the Whigs and the Tories and how they fought each other. It's more appropriate to call that war a civil war than it is to call it a revolutionary war. It was a lot like the war being fought in Iraq in many respects. Bush should have read some history.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Military

In response to Military posted by pink101:

No offense taken at all on your comment, Pink. But I obviously disagree with you.

Set the military aside for a moment. ANY organization that had a sizable turnover in its personnel every year would be unstable and inefficient. Continuity is important to a company's workforce.

With today's military, I would think this is even more so, given its sheer size and scope - and all the technology involved. Not to mention the "culture" of the military, which is critical to its success.

» pink101 - NO Winners--ONLY Losers

In response to Military posted by BrianTubbs:
.
While what you think seems to be correct, our interest, as a nation, is not focused on the idea of efficiency in the sense that you are portraying.
.
The German military under Himmler was an extra efficient force. The worked like clock work.
.
But, our interest looks for efficiency is a different sense.
.
Of course, we want the most highly developed technologically based core of experts to give us the top capabilities that come to us in our postmodern times. But, we need far more than that. Your mind set seems to have been highly influenced by the crack-pot Rumsfeld who almost single handedly has destroyed our military with his stupidity based on such logic as you are expressing.
.
http://www.rumsfield.com/index.php
.
America's defenses depend on civilian soldiers that represent a broad base of the people being served--not the people being ruled. The more Americans that are trained and ready to respond to the call to service, the better our chances are for success.
.
We are--once again--finding ourself involved in a war that cannot be won--only lost. That was the case with the first civil war this country experienced, the American War for Independence that we call the American Revolution. The Viet Nam and the Korean experiences were both such wars. America's military leaders knew full well at the end of the Viet Nam experience that we should never again allow our military to fight such a war with out specific goals and objectives with specific strategies in place. But, here we are once again, in such a war right up to our eyeballs.
.
It's time for people like you to let go of your loyalties to the misguided effort in this Iraq War--which is all about attrition. Sooner or later, that war will come to our shores and when it does, you will learn how much folly the ineptitude the Bush Dynasty's present sitting honcho has worked on us. Sad but true. Bush has no goal except his cry for victory and this is a war, like I wrote above, that cannot be won--only lost.
.
Mark my words, there will be NO winners.
.
.

-- posted by pink101