Bush destroying U.S. military

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1575 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 9:16 am:        Bush inherited a fine military from the Clinton years as evidenced by its performance in Afghanistan and Iraq. As evidenced by this article, however, it looks like Bush and his non-military spin-meisters are intent on destroying this fine military with a growing number of open-ended deployments. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-10-wives-usat_x.htm   FOUR STAR STRAW Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 911 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:12 pm:        "Destroying" a military is a little harsh. Declaring war and deploying is more like it. Clinton's military didn't declare war on terror. Big difference. "We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well." -Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1580 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:56 pm:        Nah, we're just rediscovering that going to war is a little bit hard. This is the most serious deployment we have had since Vietnam and we're doing it with married volunteers instead of single young men. Unlike the case during WW II, there isn't a huge societal network to support the mothers (mostly) and children left behind by the men (mostly) at war. Like the Romans during their decay, Republicans no longer serve in the military. Instead, they try to hire other people to do the heavy lifting.   lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 321 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 4:56 pm:        Those "other people" doing all that heavy lifting didn't vote for Gore.   Tommy Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 225 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 4:50 pm:        Nor did they vote for Bush. Young people don't vote, generally speaking. Tom Reingold   Redsox Citizen Username: Redsox Post Number: 286 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:54 am:        t john, you'd rather have draftees? any which way you'd have a problem, right.   malone Citizen Username: Malone Post Number: 240 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 1:17 pm:        Republican's don't serve in the military?   Pierce Butler Citizen Username: Pierce_butler Post Number: 14 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 1:32 pm:        Actually, an armed forces consisting primarily of conscripts fits hand-in-glove with the Constitution's grant of the war power to the most representative branch of the federal government, Congress. It appears that the framers contemplated that there would be no surer way of avoiding wars based on "light and transient causes" (to borrow from the Declaration) than to (1) put a fair cross-section of the population -- all men of a certain age, no matter how privileged -- in harm's way in the event of war and (2) repose the grave power to declare war in the branch of government most responsive to those young men and their families, and most easily voted out of office by them (at least with respect to one of its houses). Imagine, for example, a standing army consisting disproportionately of historically oppressed racial minorities and those who see military service as their only means of escaping a permanent underclass. Imagine, further, a Congress that, rather than itself declaring war, passes a resolution giving the President the power to decide when to begin an armed conflict in a particular country. Finally, imagine that that President, though elected according to the Constitution's design, was not even supported by a popular majority at the polls. The framers would be horrified.   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1591 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:06 pm:        Interesting point Redsox. It's one thing to perpetually deploy a few brigades of professional soldiers like the French Foreign Legion of legend. It is quite another to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen on extended deployment. I think this reality is weighing heavily on the Pentagon.