Tuesday, May 25, 2004
A second note on the DRAFT.
This is an email I just wrote which I'm particularly proud of in response to a friend's email that perhaps a Draft (or required national service) is the best and most prudent option for the US. He mentioned the fact that I might bludgeon him for saying so...
I'm not going to bludgeon you, but I'm certainly going to ask you why you think that our nation's youth should pay for what you've all ready called Bush's 'mess.' Certainly, people should 'fight for their country', but we (and I mean ME because I'm the age that this legislation effects) don't deserve to have to pay with our lives for the mess our president has made after we've protested (and I did), written letters (which I did) and after WE have sided with a consensus of the global community (the UN) that this was not the proper course of action to begin with. This war was wrong. We did not need to be there and we should get the hell out. Now. I've written scads about this in my blog, which I urge you to read (http://mattmager.blogspot.com look for the 5/5 entry that starts 'I don't like to talk about this'). I'm admittedly not an expert, but I don't think that mandatory military service is going to fix the basic problems--again read that blog entry to see why, it's about as this letter.
As a side note to the comment about North Korea: they're using the same tactics that everyone else uses to get sanctions lifted. We do it too. The Israeli government, right after they were established, had a nuclear facility paid for by the French that they made atomic weapons with. They threatened Nixon that they would use these on the Palestinians (unbeknownst to them) if we didn't help them with more troops. We did, and the 'temple weapons' as they were called were never used. There's a long history of people using nuclear devices as negotiating tools, rather than actual weapons. Though there are reports that the leader of North Korea is insane, I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot bigger to-do if there was any real threat. They play fairer than our media likes to pretend. Is there a danger there--yes. Is it something that's a foreseeable threat--maybe. Would we be hearing so little about it if there were a clear and present danger?...I think you can see where I'm going with this. They're not ACTUALLY going to do any bomb dropping and their nuclear program isn't actually functioning--if they were, we'd be there, taking over THEIR country--after all, that's the way we do things now, right?
I mean really: pre-emptive air strikes and now required military service--It's ridiculous to think that we're supposedly the most 'free' nation and yet the longer this president who is the 'leader' of the free world stays in office, the more he strips the freedoms of his people after he's created, again, what you admit, is HIS big mess.
Certainly, given the present escalation of the conditions in Iraq, we would need to have more troops, but we shouldn't be there in the first place. We all know by now that there are no WMD. We all know that this war wasn't about Saddam Hussein--that's why Halliburton and all the other major corporate contributors to the Bush campaign are still hanging around Iraq like an incurable jock-itch. The prisoner abuse scandal has now been pinned to everyone up the ranks to Rumsfeld AND Bush--meaning that the people who hate us have ammunition given to them by our president, who is NOW going to send out the nations CHILDREN in their fire? I think it's more than just a coincidence that a lot of the countries have been taking their troops away from Iraq and limiting their communication with President Bush.
I've just re-read the way the bill is written and under almost every item the words 'The President's Discretion' (or something to the same effect) are emblazoned clearly as a factor in determining just about everything with regards to the required national service. What does that mean? It means that the President will be able to decide who (read: which tax brackets) this will mandatory service will apply to. Do you think the Bush girls will be off in active duty in Iraq? I don't think so. They, like the rest of the rich, will be sitting in desk jobs (like baby Bush did...When he SHOWED UP--which was next to never) in cushy places in the states while the poor serve out arduous tours of duty wherever oil futures could be helped by a conflict.
I wonder what his daughters think about this. They've just finished college, and though both of them went to wealthy universities, I can't help but think that they'll both have friends who aren't as fortunate (read: Powerful) as them. I wonder what they think of the fact that their friends are about to be catapulted irrevocably into a repeat of one of the most disenfranchising and deadly events in American history. Sadly, given the fact that Kerry is all ready favored over Bush by a margin of 10-20 % points by people under 25, I don't see why their father would care if he kills us--we're not his supporters. If we were contributing to his campaign, maybe we'd have a chance--but there aren't many 24 year olds who own Oil or Utility companies to give him monetary blow-jobs to stave off this kind of legislation.
Presidential discretion...My ass.
And, as a last note, please look at this website to see why sending more troops would actually do no good.
This is an email I just wrote which I'm particularly proud of in response to a friend's email that perhaps a Draft (or required national service) is the best and most prudent option for the US. He mentioned the fact that I might bludgeon him for saying so...
I'm not going to bludgeon you, but I'm certainly going to ask you why you think that our nation's youth should pay for what you've all ready called Bush's 'mess.' Certainly, people should 'fight for their country', but we (and I mean ME because I'm the age that this legislation effects) don't deserve to have to pay with our lives for the mess our president has made after we've protested (and I did), written letters (which I did) and after WE have sided with a consensus of the global community (the UN) that this was not the proper course of action to begin with. This war was wrong. We did not need to be there and we should get the hell out. Now. I've written scads about this in my blog, which I urge you to read (http://mattmager.blogspot.com look for the 5/5 entry that starts 'I don't like to talk about this'). I'm admittedly not an expert, but I don't think that mandatory military service is going to fix the basic problems--again read that blog entry to see why, it's about as this letter.
As a side note to the comment about North Korea: they're using the same tactics that everyone else uses to get sanctions lifted. We do it too. The Israeli government, right after they were established, had a nuclear facility paid for by the French that they made atomic weapons with. They threatened Nixon that they would use these on the Palestinians (unbeknownst to them) if we didn't help them with more troops. We did, and the 'temple weapons' as they were called were never used. There's a long history of people using nuclear devices as negotiating tools, rather than actual weapons. Though there are reports that the leader of North Korea is insane, I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot bigger to-do if there was any real threat. They play fairer than our media likes to pretend. Is there a danger there--yes. Is it something that's a foreseeable threat--maybe. Would we be hearing so little about it if there were a clear and present danger?...I think you can see where I'm going with this. They're not ACTUALLY going to do any bomb dropping and their nuclear program isn't actually functioning--if they were, we'd be there, taking over THEIR country--after all, that's the way we do things now, right?
I mean really: pre-emptive air strikes and now required military service--It's ridiculous to think that we're supposedly the most 'free' nation and yet the longer this president who is the 'leader' of the free world stays in office, the more he strips the freedoms of his people after he's created, again, what you admit, is HIS big mess.
Certainly, given the present escalation of the conditions in Iraq, we would need to have more troops, but we shouldn't be there in the first place. We all know by now that there are no WMD. We all know that this war wasn't about Saddam Hussein--that's why Halliburton and all the other major corporate contributors to the Bush campaign are still hanging around Iraq like an incurable jock-itch. The prisoner abuse scandal has now been pinned to everyone up the ranks to Rumsfeld AND Bush--meaning that the people who hate us have ammunition given to them by our president, who is NOW going to send out the nations CHILDREN in their fire? I think it's more than just a coincidence that a lot of the countries have been taking their troops away from Iraq and limiting their communication with President Bush.
I've just re-read the way the bill is written and under almost every item the words 'The President's Discretion' (or something to the same effect) are emblazoned clearly as a factor in determining just about everything with regards to the required national service. What does that mean? It means that the President will be able to decide who (read: which tax brackets) this will mandatory service will apply to. Do you think the Bush girls will be off in active duty in Iraq? I don't think so. They, like the rest of the rich, will be sitting in desk jobs (like baby Bush did...When he SHOWED UP--which was next to never) in cushy places in the states while the poor serve out arduous tours of duty wherever oil futures could be helped by a conflict.
I wonder what his daughters think about this. They've just finished college, and though both of them went to wealthy universities, I can't help but think that they'll both have friends who aren't as fortunate (read: Powerful) as them. I wonder what they think of the fact that their friends are about to be catapulted irrevocably into a repeat of one of the most disenfranchising and deadly events in American history. Sadly, given the fact that Kerry is all ready favored over Bush by a margin of 10-20 % points by people under 25, I don't see why their father would care if he kills us--we're not his supporters. If we were contributing to his campaign, maybe we'd have a chance--but there aren't many 24 year olds who own Oil or Utility companies to give him monetary blow-jobs to stave off this kind of legislation.
Presidential discretion...My ass.
And, as a last note, please look at this website to see why sending more troops would actually do no good.
