Two things: you mistook what I said. I didn't say they were all poor, and I didn't say the Army is truly a terrible option. What I said was, "The troops on the ground are more likely to be poor or minorities than any given sample population of the same size in the US."
Second, whether they volunteered or not, they shouldn't be asked to give their lives for a lie. Bush should have been impeached over that. The selective memory he had for information he wanted to hear, discarding everything he didn't and excercising no discerning judgment, are a crime that innocent American kids have paid for with their lives. If Clinton can be impeached for infidelity, why is Bush still in office when he effectively asked 1,124 Americans to die for nothing? Iraq had no connection to 9/11, and never presented a threat, or even tried to present one, to Americans on American soil. Therefore, however evil Saddam Hussein might have been, the US has no business being there and over a thousand young soldiers would still be alive. Think about that staggering number. Think of everything they could have done in their lives - what if there was a Colin Powell among them? Thanks to George W. Bush, we'll never know, and their families have to live with that.
I don't neccessarily agree with the war in Iraq but I do agree that people aren't forced to join the army. It is a voluntary choice. I also don't agree that there will soon be a draft.
You know, I find it difficult to respect the American soldiers when I see some of them on tv using statements like, "we're going to kill all these f***ing Iraq mother*******" and stuff like that. I know a lot of soldiers are good people but I don't respect these soldiers who enjoy killing innocent citizens and are just crazy with power.
I can't speak about the life conditions of the poor people in the US since I wasn't raised in a ghetto but you can't use that as an excuse for everything!!!!! I hear stories on tv all the time about poor black men blaming society for them being in prison and on and on and on. You know what, I don't have sympathy for these people because most of them are blaming everyone but themselves for their actions. I just had to laugh when I was watching PI with Bill Mahar and four inmates were on the show. All they did was bitch about the conditions in jail as if they were entitled to live in a paradise behind bars. They don't take responsibility for their actions.
Thus, when I hear that being poor automatically forces you into the army, I am a bit skeptical. If these people tried to learn something instead of acting tough on the streets and listening to 50 cent all day, they could acquire skills so that they can apply for a job. Now, I know I'm going to get attacked for saying all of this. I'll just say that I know that some poor folks don't really have options but I think most of them do have options but are just lazy and think the world owes them something.
I am not a Bush supporter BUT I am not a Kerry supporter either. Heck, I'm a Canadian and not even a Paul Martin supporter.
Most of the Canadian Army is from the maritimes.
Care to guess why?
Having been one of them, I'm inclined to say I have little patience with civilians who say it was their choice to join, and therefore their risk. That's easy to say from an armchair.
It's also a choice to send them into harm's way. That choice wasn't made by them. That choice was made by people sitting in armchairs. Those people made the choice to kick the soldiers out of their armchairs and send them into harm's way. Those people made the choice to put them at risk.
Somebody has to take responsibility for that choice.
Guess who?
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:I'm inclined to say I have little patience with civilians who say it was their choice to join, and therefore their risk. That's easy to say from an armchair.
It's also a choice to send them into harm's way. That choice wasn't made by them. That choice was made by people sitting in armchairs. Those people made the choice to kick the soldiers out of their armchairs and send them into harm's way. Those people made the choice to put them at risk.
Somebody has to take responsibility for that choice
Those two points were EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. I'm glad you have the personal experience to back you up.
Let's not kid ourselves, it is implicitly understood that joining the armed forces opens one to risk that they might see combat. People join for alot of reasons, not just economic ones and recruiters are very clear that there are risks involved, that its not just a day job shining a neat weapon and shooting holes in paper targets in exchange for 3 square meals a day and money for a college education. The system has been set up where the President has the constitutional right to send the troops into harm's way, based on the intelligence they have at hand. John Kerry, France, Germany and the rest of the UN had the same intelligence suggesting Saddam had weapons of mass destruction on hand. Their view, which I disagree with, was to let diplomacy work to find out whether Saddam was willing to give up his weapons but how can diplomacy work when France, etc dont even have the will to enforce sanctions and deal with Saddam under the table vis a vis the Oil For Food program? It just boggles the mind to think they are willing to take that enormous risk of letting Saddam out of the box and wake up one morning to find out he's threatening to lob more Scud missiles at Iran or Israel.
Neil's sentiments for giving poor black kids another option besides the streets or the army are admirable, but I have yet to find a politician who can offer a clear, definitive program that wouldn't turn into a bureacratic hidebound mess that sucks up tax dollars and does little to help the people needed. We have programs here, one of which is OIC(Opportunities Investment Corporation) that gets federal grants and tax dollars to fund jobs programs, day care and educational programs among other community investment programs, and it has turned into a bureacratic nightmare with the politicians in charge siphoning off money to their political allies, falling behind on the projects they have promised to do and yet they demand more money and shrug off demands for more accountability.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:how can diplomacy work when France, etc dont even have the will to enforce sanctions and deal with Saddam under the table vis a vis the Oil For Food program?
Those being the sanctions that deprived millions of Iraqis of basic human necessities while continuing to allow Saddam Hussein to live in opulence? Sure, he usurped international aid for his own benefit, but he didn't suffer under the sanctions, the citizens of Iraq did. I think the "will" trumped logic in that case, but of course, the US has never been willing to admit mistakes, no matter how overwhelmingly obvious they might be.
After all, if they were, maybe the US would stop invading other countries and establishing governments that collapse in anarchy and leave their people worse off and create even stronger threats against neighbouring nations. Sigh.
Economic Sanctions are a good tool when used properly and all the actors involved in enforcing them agree to enforce them, Neil. After all, sanctions helped bring down apartheid in South Africa and helped free Nelson Mandela. Whose fault is it that the sanctions hurt the ordinary person more than Saddam? Saddam's the main culprit because he had control over distribution of international aid but the US and Europe share some blame for not agreeing to play the game according to the rules. Sigh, I'm beginning to think there is a strong need for international law and institutions governing how sanctions are carried out in a way that makes them less of a burden to the ordinary citizen.
Yes, that's definitely called for....although I do feel that when it's not effective, they should be revoked. Look at Cuba. What a pathetic joke. The US has so many ties to Cuba, and any American can travel there if they book with a Canadian airline, and yet these supposed "sanctions" are supposed to hold some weight? Please...that's just discrimination. Fidel Castro is not a name you hear bandied about with the worst dictators on Earth. I'll never understand why the US wastes its time with sanctions against Cuba in this day and age.
Wait, scratch that, I do know why - they don't admit their mistakes. Do American politicians think that after 45 years, it would somehow be admitting defeat of some sort to this tiny Communist nation? The sanctions have no positive effect. Cuba gets by. In the 90s the economic embargo was actually expanded!
At least it isn't destroying the average citizen like sanctions did in Iraq. The way I see it, if the sanctions still allowed Hussein to live like a particularly wealthy king, why not repeal them? Of course he'd usurp any outside help for his own purposes, but since the sanctions clearly did not work, they should have been repealed in order to help millions of citizens in even a small way.
The thing that gets me with regards to Cuba is how willfully ignorant some world politicians can be about the political repression going on everyday in Cuba. I agree that the sanctions are pretty ineffective but it is politically impossible right now for them to be lifted with the number of cuban-american exiles living in Florida. Would Paul Martin risk pissing off alot of Quebecers if he passed some law that they didnt like? Same thing applies in American politics. I'll just be glad when Castro finally kicks the bucket, maybe that will give real democracy a chance to flourish in Cuba.
I don't claim to be a political guru, and this may be off-topic, but are the whole US-Cuban sanctions still necessary? It is a bit ridiculous in this current age to restrict Americans from travelling to Cuba. I realize it is in the best interest of the US citizens to not travel there because of the current political tension (which to my knowledge is based entirely on ego), but when the US government has a 'not-so-secret' Camp X-Ray in Cuba, and US-China relations were going great until 'you-know-who' took power, and one of America's biggest threats is coming from North Korea, another gun-toting, communist lead country, and Russia is now part of the revised G8, how is Cuba even relevant anymore?
VioletlightHeron Wrote:The thing that gets me with regards to Cuba is how willfully ignorant some world politicians can be about the political repression going on everyday in Cuba. I agree that the sanctions are pretty ineffective but it is politically impossible right now for them to be lifted with the number of cuban-american exiles living in Florida. Would Paul Martin risk pissing off alot of Quebecers if he passed some law that they didnt like? Same thing applies in American politics. I'll just be glad when Castro finally kicks the bucket, maybe that will give real democracy a chance to flourish in Cuba.
I obviously posted after you, but that comparison doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The political repression in Cuba is not nearly as bad as it is in many Middle-Eastern countries, and the obvious Sudan. And Castro really only seems threatened by America's aggression, 'escapees' are the least of Castro's concern. Its run as a communist state, his motives are not based on retribution. And if, for some ridiculous reason, Paul Martin passed a law that threatened the rights of Quebec citizens there would be logical discussion, rebellion, and many evil facial gestures from Gilles Duceppe, but it wouldn't last 30-some odd years without being solved.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Most of the Canadian Army is from the maritimes.
Care to guess why?
Having been one of them, I'm inclined to say I have little patience with civilians who say it was their choice to join, and therefore their risk. That's easy to say from an armchair.
It's also a choice to send them into harm's way. That choice wasn't made by them. That choice was made by people sitting in armchairs. Those people made the choice to kick the soldiers out of their armchairs and send them into harm's way. Those people made the choice to put them at risk.
Somebody has to take responsibility for that choice.
Guess who?
How long were you in the army?
I was in for a short period of time and I can assure everybody that it was 100 percent voluntary. The soldiers understand the risk involved. Having said that, I don't agree with the way everything has been handled and Iraq should have never been invaded but if not Iraq, then soldiers could die in another war. I'm sure there are soldiers dying on simple peacekeeping missions.
True, Castro's Cuba today isnt as bad as the Sudan or Syria, but I think that's more a result of Castro's age and infirmities slowing him down and the collapse of the Soviet Union also helped put the brakes on his ability to spread and influence other countries. People tend to forget that back in the 60's,70's and 80's Cuba was very aggressive in trying to export Communism to other Latin American countries(Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicarauga, etc) and Grenada marked the end of his attempts to involve his government in other countries affairs in ways other than political gestures and propaganda.
The point isn't that service isn't voluntary. The point is that someone bears responsibility for what happens to soldiers.
Nobody wanted to guess who, so I'll tell you: go look in the mirror.
That's right. American soldiers wouldn't be dying in Iraq if the American people didn't ultimately support it. Same goes for Canadians who died in Bosnia, Croatia, Afghanistan and whereever else.
And that's why I don't have a lot of patience with this too-bad-so-sad, you-volunteered garbage. They volunteered. You didn't.
Armchair generals die in bed.
das_hips Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:The thing that gets me with regards to Cuba is how willfully ignorant some world politicians can be about the political repression going on everyday in Cuba. I agree that the sanctions are pretty ineffective but it is politically impossible right now for them to be lifted with the number of cuban-american exiles living in Florida. Would Paul Martin risk pissing off alot of Quebecers if he passed some law that they didnt like? Same thing applies in American politics. I'll just be glad when Castro finally kicks the bucket, maybe that will give real democracy a chance to flourish in Cuba.
I obviously posted after you, but that comparison doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The political repression in Cuba is not nearly as bad as it is in many Middle-Eastern countries, and the obvious Sudan. And Castro really only seems threatened by America's aggression, 'escapees' are the least of Castro's concern. Its run as a communist state, his motives are not based on retribution. And if, for some ridiculous reason, Paul Martin passed a law that threatened the rights of Quebec citizens there would be logical discussion, rebellion, and many evil facial gestures from Gilles Duceppe, but it wouldn't last 30-some odd years without being solved.
I was referring to the political cost involved if a President made any serious moves towards rapproachment with Cuba and comparing it to the reaction of Quebec if Ottawa made any hint of starting to treat their province as more or less equal with all the other Canadian provinces and territories. This is just my observation, but it seems to me that any hint of treating Quebec with less than kid gloves with respect towards the way they run the province is met with immediate condemnation by the Bloc.