<p>I DON’T support the troops. I support the AMERICANS - the PEOPLE who have been pressed to serve, and put themselves at great risk, both of dying and of killing. I support my country by advocating forthrightly what I think is right for it, including health care for our veterans (which is apparently in very short supply), and, especially, chemical dependency benefits for them, which in my professional work I help supply. Oh, and a mother here left behind with 7 children, and has been attending our Meeting, while her husband has been in Iraq. I am very partisan - openly, forthrightly, and outspokenly - and I believe that the best thing that can be done for the troops - and their families - is not to send them lap rugs and airconditioners, but to bring them home now. </p>
<p>But I am heartened - really - that you are acting on what you believe to be right. We have that in common.</p>
<p>EK, in the year 2000, the majority of voters in the US voted for Al Gore as president. Probably most of the Bush voters would have had second thoughts if they knew Bush was likely to follow the course he has - during the 2000 campaign, Bush and Cheney made a big point of opposing the concept of “nation building” … presumeably that would have precluded the idea of using our army to “spread democracy”. </p>
<p>So why should anyone volunteer for the military to be part of a war that the vast majority of citizens do not and never did support. I say that the majority “never” supported the war because during the times that polls showed support for the Iraq invasion, that support was premised on false information – the Bush administration chose to lie to the country and to the world about WMD’s – it’s reasonable that they could have foreseen that once those lies were exposed, support for the war would dissapate.</p>
<p>The great value of an all-volunteer army is that it is a curb on abuse of military power – a government that must rely on volunteers has a hard time going around and invading other countries that pose no real threat to their own. So basically - refraining from enlisting is the same as voting “no” to this war - eventually, lack of manpower will force a withdrawal of troops. </p>
<p>I’m quite sure that if this country were truly threatened there would be no shortage of volunteers to defend the nation. But I personally who consider it immoral or at the very least hypocritical for anyone who claims to oppose the Iraq war to volunteer for military service - so of course when the majority of people oppose the war, recruitment goals will fall short.</p>
<p>This may have been reported elsewhere but parents of HS students must be alert to the portion of No Child Left Behind that enables or assures that military recruiters have in school access to your children ages 16 and above. NCLB declared that military recruiters were entitled to the same access as colleges, tradeschools, other recruiters and that schools had to comply if they received any federal monies. Although Harvard was recruiting at our school, the rep did not go table to table, giving out bait, promising to travel the world, or assuring each student that they could sign up for Harvard. The recruiters do not keep the same distance that admissions officers do, they are highly visible in the cafeteria to the younger students they are not allowed to solicit. It is my younger son who is excited to see them - my older son knows better. However, email communications are sent from this contact that sound like a travel agency’s come on. It’s really inappropriate to have this type recruiting in the high school cafeteria. Parents should be aware that they can opt out of providing their child’s name and other information to these recruiters through the school.</p>
<p>CAlmom.
I disagree with you on two counts.
First, while I generally agree with your comments about the 2000 election. In 2004 there was an obvious re-election of George Bush at the same time there was not real doubt about the status of the war. YOu may not agree with the results (40something percent didnt) but those were the results</p>
<p>Second, In reality you cannot wait until the country is truly threatened to issue a ‘call to arms’ --a capable, well-trained miltiary is in my opinion a necessity of any viable state/country.</p>
<p>I do agree with you bascially on the all-volunteer army. I have read a number of papers about the current state of the military, and there are numerous references to adapting to current culture for the volunteer army. I am not a military person, but being around modeern soldiers and officers is not like the old stereotypical barking/nail eating drill sargeant type. I might add for full disclosure that my son was accepted to West Point’s ‘civil prep’ program this year and will most likely join the class of 2010 in the fall of 2006</p>
<p>Rileydog: I don’t think recruiters should get preferential treatment, and I am for ‘truth in advertising’ but I don’t know why you would want to deny access to opportunities to students. I guess I think it is fine, if a parent wants to opt there child out of the recruiters files, but I don’t see why allowing recruiters equal access is bad.</p>
<p>My point isn’t to rehash the election, my point is that in a democracy people vote with their bodies as well as at the polls - and the reason that the military can’t meet its goals is because the majority of people are now opposed to the war. Compulsory service would enable the government to prolong the war as happened with the Vietnam war, at least until people took to the streets as they did in the 60’s & 70’s. However, with a volunteer army - the protest does not have to be overt - it’s as simple as staying away from the recruitment center.</p>
<p>You are right, our government needs a strong military ready for the defense of this country if attacked. I’m sure if the military offered a recruitment option that allowed volunteers to specify that they would be allowed to pick & choose which wars they wanted to participate in, refusing orders without adverse consequence for any war they personally opposed - then there would be more ability to meet recruitment goals. But the military still adheres to an all-or-nothing definition of “consciencious objector” – which pretty much leaves no choice for those who oppose the war or do not want to risk their lives fighting to protect US corporate interests in Iraq. </p>
<p>I’d like to note that I do know many people who strongly supported this war, but who are opposed to the idea of their own children entering the military – that is, they are pro war as long as it is some other kid’s body. I think they are hypocritical as well – my point is only that people should act in accordance with their beliefs. So I do respect your son’s decision to go to West Point – certainly that is his right and you should be very proud of him. But the point is, he has a choice - and he is choosing to enter the miitary at a time when it is not a very popular option. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the Bush’s adventurism has hurt the military, hurt our country, and unfortunately hurt Iraq and the Iraqi people. Perhaps better planning would have allowed the violent ousting of Saddam Hussein without necessarily bringing on the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure and the current raging insurgency – but in any case it was not done.</p>
<p>I’m going to play the devil’s advocate and ask why one is obligated to support people who kill for a living, as that is, fundamentally, what the Army is about. It isn’t war that I’m opposed to, but rather the taking of people’s lives. Conscripts, civillians, and even “freedom fighters” have a right to live. How can an honest person say that the death of an Iraqi is less significant than the death of an American?</p>
<p>As a reseve soldier just returning from Iraq after 18 months, I would first like to thank you for the contributions you made. If only there were more people like you, the conditions over there for the soldiers would be so much better.</p>
<p>second, as far as people supporting the troops, I understand some people don’t believe in this war, and to be truthful, I myself am divided. BUT the soldiers that are over there, are making huge sacrifices! They are laying down there lives and missing their families so that everyone can have freedom. Just look at it this way, you should atleast suport them for volenteeing because if they didn’t who would? A draft would be the answer.</p>
<p>Not many people enjoy killing, and just because people are over there fighting a war, does not mean we value the Iraqi lives less. We are just doing what we have to do. There will always be war unfortunatly, so if people didn’t volenteer, the government would be forced to have a draft. So don’t you think you should support the troops for making it possible for you to stay home and not have to kill?</p>
<p>corinnas54
Thank you for your service. It is greatly appreciated by the vast, albeit silent, majority. Take care, keep safe and let your colleagues know that they are appreciated. Isn’t it great to know that there are people like you who are willing to fight for the right of others to speak their mind about the war? Thanks again.</p>
<p>" So don’t you think you should support the troops for making it possible for you to stay home and not have to kill?"</p>
<p>I authorize NO ONE to kill on my behalf, thank you. My religious beliefs strictly prohibit my hiring others to do so. I and many of my religious compatriots still struggle with whether, in all good conscience, we can pay you to do so, and some have undergone great hardships over the past 300 years when they chose not to do so, even indirectly. Please don’t imagine that we haven’t considered the tradeoffs, the contradictions, the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the concepts behind just and unjust wars, the question of what constitutes defense, the Kantian imperative, or virtually every possible argument that would remove scruples about hiring others to kill on our behalf. We have - and probably more than you could possibly know. I am sincerely glad that you feel justified in your actions, and believe in them - it would feel truly horrible to me if you didn’t.</p>
<p>I will support you in the best way I know how, which is to bring you home permanently so that you will neither kill nor die on your own behalf.</p>
<p>Perhaps I used a poor choice of words, but my point is not that you should have to hire people to kill for you. But we live in a country that has had to fight for freedom. You want to bring all of the troops home, and that is a wonderful sentiment. And perhaps you do not believe in this war, but under what circumstances would it be ok for us to fight? I was only suggesting, that whether people support the war or not, they should atleast support the people fighting over there. If we didn’t volenteer to do it…the government would force everyone to go(by draft) so people who do not choose to fight should appreciate those who will do it for them.</p>
<p>“And perhaps you do not believe in this war, but under what circumstances would it be ok for us to fight?”</p>
<p>I think that is a question you have to answer for yourself, and no one else can answer it for you. But I want to make it clear that you do NOT “do it for me”. No government can force an individual to kill - they can just make it distinctly uncomfortable or painful if you don’t. This, to me, is very old news.</p>
<p>An old story from my faith tradition: the 26-year-old William Penn was a commander in the Queen’s Navy. Besides coming from a “fighting family” (his father was the Admiral), he also enjoyed the trappings, finery, and salary of his office. He met George Fox, an itinerant leather worker, well below him in social class. Nonetheless, he thought he had become “convinced”, but still was unsure about throwing down his office (for an almost stay in a 17th century dungeon, which did, in fact, eventually happen.) So he asked Fox what he should do about his command. Fox’s reply was: “Wear thy sword as long as thee is able.”</p>
<p>If you feel called upon to fight, I can fully respect that, even if I don’t agree with it. I feel much worse for those who are called upon to fight, but don’t feel called to do so. But the best support I can offer is to work to make it so that neither of you have to kill (or die), even on your own behalf.</p>
<p>This was all I was asking for…I don’t expect everyone to agree with my beliefs, I fully support your right to a different opinion. I don’t feel anyone should be persecuted for not wanting to fight or kill. I was just saying that because so many people are willing to do so, it allows those who don’t want to, to make that choice without the fear of being persecuted, and that in itself is part of what makes america great.</p>
<p>I think it will go on for many years to come. The government over there is hanging on by a very thin thread, and unfortunetly those who oppose the change will fight till there is nobody left. Eventually after many years I think democracy will win, but until then it will be a hard battle to fight.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for the entire population, but from my experience I do believe they support us and do want democracy. I had a chance to interact with thousands of Iraqi people and I got the overall feeling that it was long overdue.</p>