Americans, get out your draft cards

[Pirog]

jeslange>

Although I appreciate the shrewdness in it I think it's very morally questionable to enlist people with video games that very young kids play.

And is that really the kind of people you want in the Army?
People who thinks war is about getting as many frags as possible and always aiming for the head because that's the only way they think they can kill with a single shot

[jeslange]

In the examples of games I mentioned, players are expected to click "yes" that they are at least 18 or that they are the parent of a player who is under 18 and are allowing their kid to play. That does not mean, of course, that kids don't just click "yes" as though they are of age

In general though, I don't think it's morally wrong for a government to use methods of propoganda that will be potentially viewed/heard/read by very young kids, unless the very young kids are the target audience, and the gov is pushing the kids to trust the gov more than their parents.

I'm confident that Basic Training, and any applicable subsequent training, would be sufficient to correct any misconceptions regarding where a soldier is expected to aim and how important various equipment is compared to the emphasis on teamwork, discipline, etc that is drilled into a soldier's head. I'm not much worried about what a person knows before they've been trained, and I doubt there's a soldier on the planet that did not need to learn something once he or she enlisted.

[Pirog]

jeslange>

I meant more that such games are probably not reflecting the life of a soldier very well. People drawn to the army because they enjoy shooting down enemies in a game is perhaps not the best pool to recruit from...

[ephiroll]

I dont' know much about the mercs being used currently, but I do know that it's common practice and most if not all governments have used them at one time or other in every war.

Actually, I think it is quite uncommon for western countries.
The good things with using mercs is that their losses doesn't show up in statistics and your government doesn't have to take responsibility for questionable actions made from them.

There is no need at all for mercs regarding to military power.

There is no draft, that is just an internet rumour, and we should be feeding the starving people in the US before we worry about starving people in other countries.

That sentence becomes very ironic when read with critical eyes...

If some research was done I'm sure the use of mercs by western powers would turn out to be more common then either of us think.

There's people starving everywhere, that's sorta my point about that, there's starving people in every country on the face of the earth, it's just the starving Africans that are paraded all over TV. The only reason people "care" so much starving Africans is because that's what they're told to do, something I call "selective morality", I guess it makes them feel better about themselves or something. Perssonally I think the world would be a better place if you helped those that you can perssonally, any orgainized charity is a sham anyway, by law only 30% of charitable collections in the US have to go to the cause they're collected in the name of, and that's only if that much is left after the cost of collecting it is taken out, administrative costs eatup sometimes as much as 90% of any orgainized charity collections, no one thinks all those commercials on TV are free do you? And just way are do the westerners in those commercials appear to be so well feed if they've "given their lives to help others"? If you really want to make a difference give that blind or crippled or deaf guy a couple bucks next time you run into him, charity starts at home no matter what country you're in, if you can't take care of those at home then you can't effectively help those thousands of miles away.

[Pirog]

The only reason people "care" so much starving Africans is because that's what they're told to do, something I call "selective morality", I guess it makes them feel better about themselves or something.

Wow...you stand out as a not so pleasant person.
Personally I have never understood the small minded idiots that cry over lost lives in their own country while turning a blind eye to what happens abroad.
And you can't compare starving people in USA or Europe to the ones in Africa...

[ephiroll]

It isnt' a comparison, but if someone is going to bring up helping starving people then they're morally obligated to express the same concern for <i>all</i> starving people, simply pointing out one group in one country is nothing more then lip service to sleep better at night. When's the last time you gave a begger a buck to get something to eat? I did yesterday.

[Pirog]

ephiroll>

You make it sound like noone cares for the poor in the western world.
Welfare systems, charity organisations, soup kitchens etc. is around for most homeless people...

Damn...I'm really getting irritated by how narrow-minded some people can be. You really don't give a shit about the Africans, do you?

[jeslange]

Name-calling isn't appropriate in this forum, even if it's as relatively benign as calling someone "narrow-minded."

Also, you've apparently implied that Jerry is narrow-minded erroneously, by way of linking such a trait with his not giving a shit about Africans, which he doesn't appeared to have even implied. I apologize if he has in fact said that and I simply overlooked it.

He's pointed out the presence of mismanagement/corruption in charity organizations, which severely limits the amount of the charity which actually reaches the intended recipients, and which has repeatedly been proven as a true condition. It isn't fair to link someone's concern for a group of people with that person's mistrust for organizations which relate with those people.

He has indicated that television gives a disproportionate coverage/exposure to starvation in Africa, while not covering starvation issues elsewhere. Hunger issues in South Asia are almost never given coverage, and starvation issues in South America are only given coverage by one organization that I've ever seen. I've not seen coverage of hunger issues for any other place in the world, save minor coverage of the poverty-ridden Appalachia Region on local stations, because that region is in the mountains just a bit to my north. There are areas up there where the standard of living is comparable to that of the third world. The difference with severe poverty in places like the U.S. and Europe is that it is on a smaller scale regarding population and land area than it is in 2nd and 3rd world countries. I got off track a bit, but it is unfair to link Jerry's displeasure regarding the comparative amounts of exposure to hunger issues with his amount of concern for Africans of his narrow-mindedness or broad-mindedness.

He attempted to clarify his point by saying,
"...if someone is going to bring up helping starving people then they're morally obligated to express the same concern for all starving people..." Whether someone agrees with that statement or not, it isn't fair to misconstrue a statement that blatantly indicates a desire for broadness as one that is exclusive.

To make a long story short, a forum which includes the key word "Discussion" is not the place to be calling names or launching personal attacks/accusatory campaigns.

[ephiroll]

Thank you, Jeslange, I couldn't have said it better myself.

@Pirog: You'll never hear me say I don't give a sh*t about the starving Africans, but I won't hide my contempt for the joke that is "organized charity", charity is "big business" whether anyone likes it or not and until the entire thing is reworked it will never accomplish any more then what it has right now. Did you know that we have the technology in bioengineered grains and greenhouses to do away with most of the hunger in Africa right now if we wanted? But no one is going to, because once it was done (which would take years in itself but could be done) the charity organizations would be out of a job.

[Pirog]

jeslange>

The only reason people "care" so much starving Africans is because that's what they're told to do, something I call "selective morality", I guess it makes them feel better about themselves or something. Perssonally I think the world would be a better place if you helped those that you can perssonally...

I think this is a horrible sentence, implying that for example I, who sees thousands of children starving to death as a slightly bigger problem than the average homeless drug addict in the western society, only feels that way because I'm manipulated by the media.

And he did in no way point out that the unfairness what that other groups (like asians or south americans) didn't get enough coverage...his point is "help ourselves before helping outsiders".

And where were you when I was called a supporter of terrorism and evil? That is a bit worse than calling someone narrow-minded...

ephiroll>

I agree that most organized charity is a sham...that is one of the reasons I don't support those organizations myself.
Regarding the other statement we have enough non-bioengineered food to remove poverty...we just don't.
But it's a bit naive to think that the resistance to bioengineered food is caused by the charity organisations because they want to continue the way as it is. Many of the bioengineered crops are very cynically altered, making the farmers very dependant on buying crops from the companies behind the crops. They also want to push crops they haven't tested properly on the third world nations, making the guinea pigs...

So while money disappears from the charity organisations by the hands of greedy individuals, the companies altering crops devices them to make the farmers in the third world dependant of them...and makes a killing.

Isn't capitalism beautiful?

[ephiroll]

www.csa.com/hottopics/gmfood/overview.html

It is possible it the correct steps were taken to put a huge dent in hunger problem if somone actually tried, right now 60-70% of all the foods on the consumer shelves are genetically engineered in one way or another for one reason or another, and that's not even pushing the technology to the max. Right now there are engineered grains that can grow in any type of soil available with little or no water and would be perfect for the harder hit areas. And despite all the noise being made about it, there isn't any known instance where engineered food harmed anyone in any way. Everyone of us probly eats food that is genetically engineered in some way every day. If someone decided to apply this tech to the hunger problem on the scale needed then it would be done, but no one wants too, people would rather sit and b*tch about the solution instead of actually doing something about the problem.

[10087]

1) Fritz Hollings, the author of this draft scare bill, is a Democrat. He is a late holdover, along with former Kleagle Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, from the days when the Democratic party ruled the "solid south" through segregation, lynching, the Klan, etc. Do you think his party affiliation might have something to do with his trying to create a draft scare in an election year?

2) If you think there is going to be a draft, you must think John Kerry will be the next president. Democrats love the draft. Of the nine Democratic presidents since the Civil War, only four have not used the draft (Andrew Johnson, Cleveland, Carter and Clinton). Of the seventeen Republican presidents after Lincoln, only two have used the draft (Eisenhower and Nixon) and Nixon abolished it! Throwing cannon fodder (young men) into the maw is the Democratic way of war. If you doubt it, just look at Lyndon Johnson's incredible (and useless) expansion of forces in Indochina, to take only the worst example.

3) If you think this war is to obtain cheap oil, you must have missed a little news item buried on the back pages, so let me clue ya. On September 11, 2001, foreign enemies attacked the United States, killing more people than died in the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941. But you say Michael Moore -high school dropout but Hollywood millionaire- told you so? Well, how about this quote from Lee Hamilton, the Democratic party co-chairman of the September 11 commision: "I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this (ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda). The Vice President's saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that..." So I guess it depends on whether you prefer to believe: the Hollywood millionaire club -who have their own financial reasons for their party affiliations-, or Mr. Hamilton and the mountains of proof that Saddam was conducting war on this country: Saddam's continuous targeting of U.S. aircraft (the reason Democrat Bill Clinton bombed Iraq virtually every day of the last two years of his presidency), his attempted assassination of a former U.S. president, the presence of fugitive terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion (including the mastermind of the Achille Lauro terrorist attack which killed American Leon Klinghoffer), and on and on and on... Well, as Susan Sarandon said: "What did Iraq do to us?"

[Pirog]

ephiroll>

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Sweden genetically altered food needs to be very properly labeled.
If proved harmless and with no drawbacks like tying the farmers up for their rest of their lives to the companies supplying the crops I would of course be all for aiding them with such crops...but until then I perfectly understand why some African countries refuse to accept those crops.

10087>

You show a very one sided view...

2) You can prove almost anything by statistics. In your case it doesn't mean much if you don't take under consideration the circumstances surrounding the presidents that used drafts.
There is for example little point in drafting people if the country isn't involved in any hostile situations...

3) Whatever your or others personal opinion is about links between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein no such links have been proved...so they can't in any way be used to justify a declaration of war.
And the "side" that doesn't see those connections is by no means lead by actors in Hollywood...(even if I think it is good that those actors express their view, considering the almost perverse influence they have over people.)
And I don't personally see how you can blame someone for trying to shoot down hostile airplanes bombing targets in your country...

If you consider the dirty fingers CIA and the American government has played in the almost countless conflitcs it has meddled in the rest of the world would have reason to wage war on you...so I don't really see your point. Of course Saddam was hostile towards you...as you were to him...but there was no risk for an offensive war from Iraqs part...at least none proved.

[Pirog]

Saddam's continuous targeting of U.S. aircraft (the reason Democrat Bill Clinton bombed Iraq virtually every day of the last two years of his presidency)

I saw an interesting documentary today, called "From the beginning to the end" (By Maj Wechselmann)...and in it is some interesting interviews with western journalists about those bombings.

Felicity Arbuthnot describes how American and British airplanes targeted and destroyed water plants as soon as 3 years ago.

I'm not sure if the documentary is available for Americans (It's Swedish...but the majority of the documentary is in English), but I urge you to try and find it.
Right now I feel disgusted by the ways we Westerners have behaved...

It describes how during the -91 war the civlian water and power plants were destroyed by multiple bombs...and because the engines and other parts of the plants were made in countries like Britain they couldn't repair them because of the sanctions.

I could describe with a whole essay the horrible things the documentary showed...but I know you wouldn't trust me. Therefore I urge you to try and find it yourself. Perhaps trusted journalists such a Robert Fisk, Peter Arnett, Felicity Arbuthnot and people like John Curtis (British Museum) could help open your eyes.

You could for example see the military talk about "the clinical warfare"...and then see residental areas totally destroyed from bombs from old B-52's.

[kroner]

That, I'm afraid, is the way of war. The bombing was never intended to destroy Iraqi military capabilities. For right or for wrong, it's purpose was to make things difficult for Iraq until they complied with UN inspections. In serving that purpose, it was very successful.