[Grovenet] Avoiding WAR (WAS: draft vs. volunteer)

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

I agree, Beth, that sharing the burden of the military isn't an integral
part of breaking away from the mold. 

Our government is charged with the responsibility of going to any length
needed to protect our country. That's how we justify dropping nuclear bombs
on children in Japan, burning alive more than 500,000 children, wounded
soldiers, elderly and refugees in Dresden in a single night, or ignoring the
pleas of millions of people who starved in Africa. 

Protecting our country is what we have hired our representatives in
Washington to do as their first obligation. After they've accomplished that
it's nice if we can reach out and help a few people, so long as it doesn't
jeopardize our affluence and safety. 

My point about universal military service is that as long as we rely on it
to survive, we all should participate in it. It's a horrible job to ask
anyone to do. One of the things I learned in the military is that a leader
never asks someone else to do what he wouldn't do himself. What right does
anyone have to expect someone else to leave their loved ones behind for a
time and perhaps bleed or die for our country if each of us hasn't done it
ourselves as well. 

Like you, I've puzzled over why the President decided to invade Iraq. There
are a lot of references to his earlier decision to get Saddam because Saddam
had threatened the President's father. Another possibility is that the
President and his Conservative Christian Extremist supporters saw the
opportunity to export not just "democracy" but Christianity, their form of
Christianity, all over the world and create a new Christian empire. 

It'd likely be peaceful, if one didn't mind the odd inquisition that might
slaughter a few million heretics. 

Or maybe the reason was no more than his desire to wield power and try to
make a place for himself as a "wartime president" even if he had to create
the war. 

But, under it all, is this question of national sovereignty. Can we live a
productive, useful life without out it? If not, is there a way to protect
our sovereignty without resorting to war? 

I think there may be. We've accomplished it here in the USA 150 years so
far. The Europeans have accomplished that for half a century with no end in
sight of a cooperative, common society in which they maintain their
respective identities while cooperating rather than threaten war. 

Steps in the right directions, but we and the Europeans still have armies in
case the system fails or a threat appears from outside the union. And as
long as nations need those armies, I think everyone has the responsibility
to do their share of the "dirty work". 

History shows me that if we don't, the awful Holocaust the Nazi's visited on
the Jews and others in Europe, the ghastly death by fire we Americans
visited on the people in cities of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those
things well some day come us or, more likely, our children or grandchildren.


I think 9/11 was just a preview: a snapshot of America's future if we
persist in our present course. 

It has been so throughout history. 

Ron D'Eau Claire




-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Beth Genly
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:21 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Avoiding WAR (WAS: draft vs. volunteer)


Ron, David,

If we are to "break away from that mold," I don't think training every 
young adult in "small arms fighting"  is the way to start!

We have conclusively shown ourselves, in Iraq, that "invading every 
country we fear" is not a solution.  If it had been done right, that is, 
if we went in intending to occupy Iraq as well as conquer it, and made 
all the right moves, it might have been far more expensive than it 
already has been, in money, but perhaps far less expensive in lives and 
international ill will.  But whether we do it the "right way" (whatever 
that might truly be) or not, I really don't think invading every place 
we fear is a possible option even for the richest country in the world.

Also, we really did not have to invade Iraq.  I am still wondering what 
the real reason for doing it might have been.  The invasion of 
Afghanistan did seem to have dismantled a good bit of Al Qaeda.  But 
because we distracted ourselves in a very big way with Iraq, our gains 
in Afghanistan are unraveling, and our military is severely overstretched. 

Going back to the idea of universal military service -- what is the 
benefit to be gained, in peacetime, or even small wars time, of having 
every adult trained in small arms fighting and command structure?  This 
is a very large country, with lots of pressing needs.  I hardly think 
that would be the best use of our resources.  If we must have universal 
service, what about Teach America, the Peace Corps, the Red Cross, and 
so on?

According to an article in this month's Atlantic Monthly, the military 
has identified AIDS in Africa as an extremely important threat to world 
stability and American interests.  The military has put considerable 
resources into health education and infrastructure construction in 
Africa as a result. This is wonderful -- but why does it have to be the 
military that does it?

Beth


Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> ...
> World empire is a well tried and proven way to ensure world peace. 
> When President Bush announced that we would invade any country we 
> "feared" (his word), I wondered if that was his plan. With all the 
> yahoos charging up and down the streets waving flags from their cars 
> it sounded like he might have had the support he needed. Indeed, I 
> wonder if some of the backlash that cost his party so dearly in the 
> last election wasn't more anger and disappointment over his failure to 
> pursue the idea of a "Pax Americana" than anything else.
>
> I have to agree that it is probably the shortest path from were we are 
> today to a world peace, and probably one that risked the fewest 
> American lives. The problem is that history shows us that such a peace 
> has never been long-lasting.
...


> Perhaps this is the point where we can consider whether we're bound to 
> following the rules of the animal kingdom or whether in our spiritual 
> arrogance there may be something we Humans can do that breaks away 
> from that mold.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>   

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet